Search results for: cultivate

  • While several states are taking legislative action to restrict or ban the sale of cultivated meat, with legislators arguing that the bans would protect the meat industry, there is a different message coming from many groups in the industry itself. Critics of the bans argue that they would “restrict free trade and threaten food safety benefits.”
  • Nebraska, a state that ranks among the top 10 producers of beef and pork, is among many of the states that has proposed a cultivated meat ban, and the state’s governor issued an executive order in August 2024 barring state agencies from buying cultivated meat. However, ranchers and meat industry groups are pushing back on the ban, saying that “it’s up to the consumer to make the decision about what they buy and eat.” Industry groups say that they are “not worried about competition” from cultivated meat but prefer a different approach that would require the products to be clearly labeled as lab-grown.
  • The North American Meat Institute has similarly opposed cultivated meat bans, writing a letter in opposition to the Florida ban in February 2024. In its letter, the organization says that the bills would be preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which regulates the processing and distribution of meat products in interstate commerce. Further, the Meat Institute argued that the bans are “bad public policy that would restrict consumer choice and stifle innovation” and that USDA oversight of cell cultivated meat products places the products on a level playing field in terms of food safety and labeling requirements.
  • In addition, legislators in Wyoming and South Dakota have voted against cultivated meat bans in their states, citing free trade manipulation and urging instead for more packaging and labeling regulations to support informed decisions.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor cultivated meat legislation.
  • As we’ve previously blogged, the regulatory landscape for cultivated meat is rapidly evolving with states like Nebraska, Florida, and Alabama taking significant steps to restrict or ban these products.  The recent legislative actions in Georgia and South Dakota are the latest in various states’ efforts to regulate or restrict these products more stringently.
  • Georgia General Assembly- HB 163:
    • On February 27, 2025, the Georgia House of Representatives passed House Bill 163, which, if passed by the Senate, would require restaurants and other food vendors to disclose whether their menu items contain cultivated meat, plant-based meat alternatives, or both.  The bill defines “cell-cultured meat” as any food product artificially grown from cell cultures of animal muscle or organ tissues, designed to mimic conventional meat products.
    • Similarly, “plant-based meat alternatives” are defined as products derived from plants that share sensory characteristics with traditional meat.  The bill has passed the Georgia House of Representatives and is currently under review by the Senate Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee.
  • South Dakota- HB 1118
    • Meanwhile, South Dakota has taken a different stance with House Bill 1118, which has already passed into law.  This legislation prohibits the use of state funds for the research, production, promotion, sale, or distribution of cell-cultured protein.  
    • The bill defines “cell-cultured protein” as any product made wholly or in part from cell cultures or the DNA of a host animal, grown outside a live animal.
  • These bills represent the latest developments of state-level challenges being presented to the cultivated meat industry.  Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor for any further legislative developments.
  • As we blogged about earlier in the month, a district court judge rejected Upside Foods’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Florida’s ban on cultivated meat. As we noted, the decision was not a final decision on the merits and since the decision Upside has filed an amended complaint and, most recently, Florida has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • The motion to dismiss covers much of the same ground that was briefed during the motion for a preliminary injunction, including the question of whether Florida’s ban is preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (unsurprisingly, Florida has maintained its position that it is not).
  • The motion to dismiss also responds to Upside’s argument that the law violates the dormant commerce clause. Under dormant commerce clause precedent a facially neutral law effectuating a legitimate local interest is not invalid unless it imposes a substantial burden on interstate commerce which clearly outweighs the local benefits. Florida argues that Upside has alleged only speculative harm to potential sales in Florida and has not alleged any burden on interstate commerce.
  • We will continue to monitor and report on updates to this case (Upside Foods, Inc. v. Simpson, C.A. No. 4:24-cv-316). 
  • We have previously blogged about a lawsuit filed by Upside Foods challenging Florida’s cultivated meat ban. Last month, a district court judge rejected Upside’s request for a preliminary injunction and held that the company had failed to meet its burden to establish that it was substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its express preemption claims.
  • The court addressed the merits of the preemption argument with respect to both the “ingredient requirements” and the “premises, facilities, and operations” provisions in the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 467e). As to the ingredient requirements provision, the Court found that Plaintiff had identified no statute or regulation which required that cultivated poultry products be permitted and noted that “just because Plaintiff’s product arguably falls within the scope of the PPIA . . . this does not mean that a state is expressly preempted from banning the sale of that particular kind of poultry product.”
  • With respect to the “premises, facilities, and operations” provision, the Court held that (1) Plaintiff did not manufacture cultivated chicken in Florida and so its operations were not directly impacted and (2) that a sales ban did not impose additional or different facilities requirements as compared to federal law.
  • Notably the case is not a final decision on the merits and we will continue to monitor and report on the case.
  • Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed an executive order at the end of August restricting sales of cultivated meat and said he will press state lawmakers to make Nebraska the third state to ban sale of the food products.  Gorvernor Pillen stated at a press conference that the order is the start of a “full blown attack on lab-grown meat and fake meat.”
  • The order bars Nebraska state agencies from buying cultivated meat and requires businesses to contract with the state to attest that they will not discriminate against “natural-meat producers” in favor of cultivated meat producers.  Additionally, Governor Pillen directed the Nebraska Department of Agriculture to develop regulations to make sure any “lab-grown meat products” sold in stores are properly labeled and are not marketed next to natural meat on the same shelves.  A draft hearing on those regulations has been scheduled for October 8, 2024.
  • As we have previously reported, Florida and Alabama have also enacted laws to completely ban the sale of cultivated meat products, adopting frameworks that lay out stiff financial penalties and possible jail time for anyone found in violation.  Iowa approved a law that mandates specific labeling requirements for cultivated meat and bars the sale of such products in public schools and food assistance programs.  Texas has also adopted an aggressive labeling law for cultivated meat products and lawmakers in several other states, including Arizona and Tennessee, have proposed complete bans.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and relay the legislative developments addressing cultivated meat.
  • As we previously blogged about, UPSIDE, a manufacturer of cultivated chicken, has sued Florida regarding its ban (SB 1084) on the sale and manufacturing of cultivated meat. The complaint included a request for an injunction (i.e., to block enforcement of the law pending resolution of the case) which the parties finished briefing last month.
  • One of the issues which was briefed was whether SB 1084 is preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). The PPIA’s preemption provision (21 USC 467e) states in part that “[r]equirements within the scope of this chapter with respect to premises, facilities and operations of any official establishment which are in addition to, or different than those made under this chapter may not be imposed . . . Marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements (or storage or handling requirements found by the Secretary to unduly interfere with the free flow of poultry products in commerce) in addition to, or different than, those made under this chapter may not be imposed . . .”
  • As a threshold matter, Florida has argued that the PPIA, including its preemption provision, does not apply because cultivated meat cannot be considered a “poultry product” as that term is defined in the PPIA (“any poultry carcass, or part thereof; or any product which is made wholly or in part from any poultry carcass or part thereof, excepting …[ingredients with small proportions of meat exempted by USDA]. 21 USC 453(f). In contrast, UPSIDE argues that it’s product “easily falls within the PPIA’s broad definition of ‘poultry product,’ since it is composed almost entirely of chicken cells.”
  • Florida also argues that the PPIA “contemplates state laws that complement and supplement its regulatory scope” and that it does not violate the preemption provision because that provision does “not set requirements for the particular ingredient in UPSIDE’s quasi-chicken products” nor “require UPSIDE to change its plants, laboratories, production methods, or other operations.” Stated differently, Florida argues that “SB 1084 does not ban anything that PPIA mandates.” In contrast, UPSIDE counters that SB 1084 is preempted “because it imposes ingredient and operational requirements that are not identical to those imposed under federal law.” USDA permits the ingredient that UPSIDE sells while Florida does not.  
  • We will continue to monitor and report on the outcome of this litigation. The case number is 4:24-cv-00316 and was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
  • Last week Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 1084 into law, making it “unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, sell, hold, or offer for sale, or distribute cultivated meat in this state [Florida].” “Cultivated meat” is defined as “any meat or food product produced from cultured animal cells.” We note that this ban does not extend to plant-based meat imitation products.
  • Knowing violation of the law is a second-degree misdemeanor and the law provides for other punishments for businesses, including license suspension. The governor’s webpage indicates that the law represents Florida “fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goal.” The governor’s webpage links to another webpage by the World Economic Forum which touts the potential benefits of insect protein, but the law doesn’t ban insect protein, so it’s not clear why insect protein is mentioned.
  • The law is the first of its sort, but Alabama, Arizona, and Tennessee have considered similar laws. Like California’s recent food additive ban (AB-418), the law raises interesting questions about the authority of states to pass such bans, including questions  related to preemption and the (dormant) commerce clause.
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis expressed his support of two bills in the Florida Legislature that would ban the cultivation and sale of lab-grown (cultivated) meat products. He said in a public statement that the bills will “protect our meat . . . We are going to have meat in Florida. We are not going to do that fake meat.”
  • House Bill 435 and Senate Bill 586  would prohibit the manufacture and distribution of cultivated meat in the state and establish criminal penalties for doing so. The bills define “cultivated meat” as “any meat or food product produced from cultured animal cells.” Violating the ban results in a second-degree misdemeanor, and a restaurant, store, or other business could have its license suspended for selling cultivated meat products. In addition, food establishments that distribute or sell cultivated meat would be subject to fines and revocation or suspension of the establishment’s permit. Products in violation of the ban would be subject to an immediate stop-sale order.
  • Both bills were filed in November 2023. The House bill was found favorable by the Agriculture, Conservation & Resiliency Subcommittee and is now in the Agriculture & Natural Resource Appropriations Subcommittee. The Senate bill has been introduced in the Agriculture, Commerce and Tourism, and Fiscal Policy committees.
  • With these bills, Florida joins several other states, including Arizona and Texas, in moving toward banning lab-grown (cultivated) meat products. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on legislation related to cultivated meat.
  • Although some consider the Netherlands to be the birthplace of cultivated meat, cultivated meat has not yet received pre-market approval in the European Union (EU).  Nevertheless, the Netherlands has forged ahead and announced that cultivated meat and seafood can be taste tested subject to the conditions set forth in the Code of Practice for Safely Conducting Tastings of Cultivated Foods Prior to EU Approval (Code of Practice). The Code of Practice is modeled after the principles used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), although the review process is less extensive.  The proposed tastings will be evaluated by a panel of four experts who will conclude the tasting is either is “safe under the proposed conditions of tasting” and can proceed or “not safe under the proposed conditions of tasting” and cannot proceed. Information that must be submitted includes a description of the cultured cells, a description of the production process including all constituents of the growth media, safety information for all constituents, and an exposure assessment for all constituents. 
  • The Code of Practice also includes requirements regarding participants, procedures for the tasting, and limits testing to those conducting business in the Netherlands.
  • The United States and Singapore are currently the only countries where cell-cultivated meat products have received clearance for marketing.  For recent developments in the United States, see our previous articles on GOOD Meat’s label approval and USDA’s Directive to Inspection Program Personnel as Cell-Cultured Meats Begin to Enter the U.S. Market.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on regulatory developments of cell-cultivated meat.
  • On June 8, 2023, GOOD Meat, the cultivated meat division of food technology company Eat Just Inc., became the first company to receive label approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its cultivated meat.
  • The label will use the term “cell-cultivated” although GOOD Meat and others in the industry prefer the term “cultivated” which we have previously discussed.
  • FDA and USDA share regulatory jurisdiction over cell-cultivated meats as detailed in a 2019 memorandum of understanding between the agencies. Following a voluntary pre-market consultation evaluating GOOD Meat’s production process, FDA issued GOOD Meat a “No Questions Letter.”
  • The next and final step in the regulatory review process before GOOD Meat’s cultivated chicken can go to market in the United States is for the company to receive grants of inspection from the USDA for the firm’s plant in Alameda, California, and its contract manufacturing partner, JOINN Biologics in Richmond, California.
  • GOOD Meat had previously obtained regulatory approvals for its cell-cultivated chicken in Singapore.
  • On June 14, 2023, Upside Foods became the second company to receive regulatory approval from the USDA for its label on cell-cultivated chicken. In November 2022, FDA completed the first pre-market consultation for human food made from cultured animal cells for Upside Foods, which was the first company to receive a “No Question Letter” from FDA.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on regulatory developments of cell-cultivated meat.