Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is expected to sign a bill banning cell-cultured proteins in the Lone Star State. Montana, Indiana, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska have enacted similar bans, reflecting an increasing pushback to what many see as a globalist effort to control food supplies, undermining traditional American farming. Advocates claim fake meat substitutes, including the lab-grown simulated varieties, are more healthful and save the climate from cows and farming. The dispute is headed to the courts but will likely be decided by consumer choice.
Controversial Technology
The United States is one of only three countries that permit the sale of cell-cultured meat. Approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pits federal regulators, as well as the two companies thus far approved to sell these products (Upside Food and Good Meats), against consumers, farmers, and state legislators, who weigh in through legislation such as SB 261 in Texas. Cell-cultured meat is created in laboratory bioreactors using harvested animal cells grown in a tightly controlled artificial environment, with nutrients and other factors that promote growth. The cells undertake characteristics of muscle, connective tissue, or fat cells before being “harvested” for food processing. The FDA oversees the novel technology in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.
The Lone Star State already requires labeling of cell-cultured meat products through previous laws. Analysis by the Texas Senate Research Center justifies the new legislation with the claim that:
“The introduction of lab-grown meat could disrupt traditional livestock markets, affecting rural economies and family farms. There are concerns over transparency in labeling, risk of contamination, and the long-term health impacts of consuming cell-cultured products.”
When enacted, the law will take effect on Sept. 1, 2025. It will not prohibit the development of laboratory meat in “a private or independent institution of higher education … provided that the research does not further or relate to the sale or distribution of cell-cultured protein for human consumption in this state.” This will protect the prominent Texas A&M agricultural research business.
Will Fake Meat Survive?
The controversy over cell-cultured meats will persist, but it will likely fade as the technology either succeeds or fails. Supporters of the bill include the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, which proclaimed in a press release:
“Ranchers across Texas work tirelessly to raise healthy cattle and produce high-quality beef,” said Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association President Carl Ray Polk Jr. “Our association is grateful for those legislators who voted in support of this legislation and understood the core of this bill, to protect our consumers, the beef industry and animal agriculture.”
On the opposite side of this political barbed-wire divide are venture capitalists heavily invested in the evolving technology and those who claim that meat substitutes, including plant-based facsimiles and cell-cultured proteins, mitigate climate change and are more humane. It is questionable whether these products will ever achieve profitability at scale, and the industry has suffered a precipitous decline following initial enthusiasm. However, the best argument against legal proscriptions is free market competition.
In a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle opposing the new Texas law, Barry Carpenter, a former deputy administrator of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, claimed it was un-American and unnecessary to prohibit artificially grown meat offerings:
“[T]hese bills represent a glaring case of government overreach into consumer choice and the free market. They grant one segment of the meat industry a government-backed advantage — not on the basis of science, public health or consumer safety concerns, but on political preference.
“[T]hese bills send the message that ranchers need the government to shield them from innovation. That’s not only wrong, but just plain insulting to the very people the legislation claims to support.”
Carpenter disclosed that he provides advisory services to Upside Foods. But he has a point – is Texas really justified in playing favorites in the market, even if it's necessary to protect an embattled US beef industry? The US beef herd has been declining steadily, largely due to the effects of free-market globalization. However, government favoritism is generally frowned upon by conservatives.
Florida on the Front Lines
This dispute is being publicly joined in Florida, the first state to ban cell-cultured meat proteins. When he signed Florida’s law, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) proclaimed on X:
“Global elites want to control our behavior and push a diet of petri dish meat and bugs on Americans. Florida is saying no. I was proud to sign SB 1084 to keep lab-grown meat out of Florida and prioritize our farmers and ranchers over the agenda of elites and the World Economic Forum.”
Upside Foods sued Florida in US District Court, where Judge Mark E. Walker ruled on April 25 that the company could proceed to trial under the dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, writing:
“Florida’s ban on cultivated meat, Plaintiff says, is a proxy for discriminating against out-of-state products since cultivated meat is entirely produced outside of Florida … Plaintiff alleges that the ban also confers a benefit to in-state conventional meat and agricultural businesses by shielding them from the potential decline in market share that they would face from competing with out-of-state cultivated meat.
“And according to Plaintiff, the ban’s protectionist effects were intentional. Plaintiff alleges that several Florida public officials, including Governor DeSantis and Defendant Simpson, publicly announced that the out-of-state cultivated meat industry threatened Florida’s in-state conventional meat and agricultural industries.”
The Florida suit may have implications for other states seeking to prohibit lab-grown meat products. Advocates for farmers and ranchers face off against climate activists and hedge fund capitalists in the courts and on supermarket shelves. In the end, most Americans will probably choose the real McCoy over the costly faux fillet. Meat substitutes have a long way to go to defeat Mother Nature.
