The Short-Sightedness of State Bans on Cultivated Meat
Jordan Barpal
In May of 2024, Florida and Alabama became the first states in the U.S. to ban the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cell-cultured (i.e. “lab grown” or “cultivated”) meat.[1] Lab grown meat takes cells from animals and cultivates them in a lab, simulating the feeding process of animals.[2] The product is meat, the same as if it came from the animal itself; the only missing steps being the raising and killing of the animal.
Florida and Alabama’s announcements caught many off-guard, a decision seemingly more calculated to combat the culture war than to assert serious policy. But both states have substantial—and reasonable—interests in protecting their livestock and meat industry. In Florida, nearly 50% of its agricultural land involves cattle production, injecting more than $670 million dollars into its economy annually.[3] In Alabama, cattle production represents a $2.5 billion industry, ranking 17th among states in beef production.[4] In both states, livestock is big business. So, a preemptive ban—preemptive because lab grown meat is yet to prove a financially viable business at scale—is a justifiable economic decision at the state level.
The problem is, the livestock and meat industries pose several significant problems not only in the United States, but also globally. As it concerns climate impacts, 1.5 billion cattle are raised annually for meat production worldwide, emitting 231 billion pounds of methane into the atmosphere.[5] Methane traps heat 27 to 30 times more effectively than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.[6] Livestock and agricultural practices, which includes cattle methane emissions, account for 37% of humanity’s total methane emissions.[7] Regarding land use, half of the planet’s habitable land is used for agriculture, and of that, two-thirds is used for grazing of livestock.[8] If grazing land is combined with the land used to grow crops that feed the livestock, the percentage of habitable land used to support livestock jumps to 80%.[9] 41% of deforestation meanwhile can be attributed to beef production—for grazing and feed production.[10] That amounts to 2.1 million hectares, or 16.4 million trees, or roughly half the size of the Netherlands[11], removed annually. Whichever framing one chooses, the conclusion seems obvious: all the land used to support livestock could be put towards more productive ends. You do not need to be an ardent conservationist to realize that these numbers reflect practices that are not sustainable, in the U.S. or internationally. And this says nothing of the immeasurable cruelty inflicted on billions upon billions of animals.
Cultivated meat has the potential to alleviate many present and impending societal challenges associated with the above figures. Implications span the economic to the altruistic. Land used for grazing could be converted to more profitable and sustainable uses. Massive reductions in the number of thirsty livestock and thirsty plants feeding thirsty livestock could in turn lead to water conservation on an immense scale. The availability and transportability of cultivated meat to regions where raising livestock is either not possible or not profitable could viably address food and nutrient scarcity on a global scale. So, while Florida and Alabama (and any states following suit) may simply be proactively protecting valuable industries, the possibilities associated with lab grown meat make the decisions to preemptively regulate the technology appear short-sighted. For whatever the setbacks may be to the meat industry, the economic possibilities for the states seem truly limitless.[12]
How then to address these competing interests? What courses of action are available to those not beholden to the meat industry who wish to see what this technology can truly do? Trying to influence public opinion is always a good start. To be sure, the American public loves its meat. But Americans are also fond of animals. If cultivated meat is proven safe and the public sees (and tastes) the similarity, convincing the masses to make the switch seems feasible. Include some smart and targeted advertising, a concerted campaign of informing the public of the vast benefits, and a healthy dose of reasonably priced products and there’s no reason to think the public would not get behind a technology with so much to offer. After all, there is a reason there are so called “ag-gag” laws on the books in some states.[13] Ag-gag laws make it a criminal offense to film or photograph the on-goings of factory farms and slaughterhouses.[14] Recognizing that Americans both love their meat and their animals, such laws serve as an enforcement mechanism to ensure the veil remains in place between the two.
While the constitutionality of ag-gag laws is often contested—generally on First Amendment grounds[15]—it is their mere existence that suggests the public could be persuaded to turn to an alternative source of meat. Studies have shown that people (particularly younger people) are receptive to trying lab-grown meat.[16] When lab grown meat comes to the market, and consumers see they are not required to sacrifice anything in the way of taste, quality, or experience, it seems reasonable to expect many would turn to this new source of real meat. Consumers will also enjoy the added bonus that countless creatures need not suffer to satisfy their palate. Of course, changing public opinion takes time. But the real challenge is that to change public opinion, the products must be available to the masses. This will not happen if states take it upon themselves to ban cultivated meat products outright.
A solution might therefore require a dual-pronged approach: winning the hearts and minds of the public and taking the legal fight to the states. While Florida and Alabama have taken it upon themselves to ban cultivated meat, the federal government is well within its purview to regulate the industry, which could include preempting such statutes. Indeed, in 2019 Congress directed the FDA and USDA to formalize an arrangement in which the two agencies would oversee the burgeoning industry.[17] Under the agreement that was put in place, the FDA regulates and inspects companies involved in the cell development process and ensures those companies follow current Good Manufacturing Practices.[18] Once the cells are harvested, the FDA transfers oversight to the USDA.[19] The Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 is a (somewhat ironic) example of a statute that further demonstrates the federal government’s authority over the industry.[20] While cultivated meat could potentially make the Act obsolete, it illustrates a long history of the federal government’s regulation of such matters.
That is all to say Congress would be within its authority to step in and not only preempt state bans of cultivated meat with federal law but could—indeed should—take it upon themselves to regulate and promote the technology. Congress need not throw the livestock and farming industry under the bus entirely. It will likely be some time still until cultivated meat is economically viable at scale to even challenge traditional meat products. Analysis by the Boston Consulting Group suggests cultivated meat won’t reach price parity with traditional meat until the 2030’s.[21] Even then, it need not be a completely binary choice. Like any other market competition, it merely becomes another option. The hope is that one day it will become the dominant option, but Congress and its many members loyal to the meat industry needn’t completely betray their constituent interests. The promise of the technology, the opportunities for new economic ventures and outgrowths, new subsectors, and myriad new jobs should provide ample incentive to even the most recalcitrant politician that cultivated meat technology is worth investing in.
Of course, there is the promise and then there is the reality. That reality includes a functionally inoperative Congress and a new administration vehemently opposed to anything that might invoke terms like sustainability, conservation, or animal welfare. With such hostility permeating from the White House and virtually no opposition coming from Congress, there is little chance lab grown meat will get any assistance at the federal level. In fact, the opposite is more likely. Several efforts have been made at the federal level just in the last year to further curtail lab-grown meat, such as Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota introducing federal legislation to ban lab-grown meat from school cafeterias in January 2024.[22] More states are likely to follow Florida and Alabama’s lead in the coming few years and will perhaps even be accompanied by attempts to ban the tech at the federal level[23].
Hopefully, in time, the upside of the technology and its potential impacts will become too apparent to dismiss or subvert. In short order, cultivated meat products will come to market, and when that time comes, even the most short-sighted will see that the benefits of cultivated meat vastly outweigh any drawbacks. Until then, hopefully those of more acute vision will continue to resist efforts to curtail the growth of cultivated meat, in the court system and in the court of public opinion.
[1] Emily Stone, Cell-Cultured Meat Updates: State Bans, Labeling Requirements, and Regulatory Clarifications, Nat’l Agric. L. Ctr. (June 6, 2024), https://nationalaglawcenter.org/cell-cultured-meat-updates-state-bans-labeling-requirements-and-regulatory-clarifications/.
[2] Innovation, Upside Foods, https://upsidefoods.com/innovation (last visited Feb 22, 2025).
[3] Beef Cattle and Forage Economics, Univ. of Fla. Inst. of Food & Agric. Sciences., https://rcrec-ona.ifas.ufl.edu/programs/beef-cattle-and-forage-economics/ (last visited Mar. 26, 2025).
[4] Alabama Beef Facts, Ala. Cattlemen’s Ass’n, https://www.bamabeef.org/p/about/alabama-beef-cattle-facts (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[5] Agriculture and Aquaculture: Food for Thought, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency (Jan. 15, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/snep/agriculture-and-aquaculture-food-thought.
[6] Understanding Global Warming Potentials, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials (last visited Mar. 27, 2025).
[7] Id.
[8] Hannah Ritchie & Max Roser, Half of the World’s Habitable Land Is Used for Agriculture, Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[9] Id.
[10] Jesse Peterson, How Animal Agriculture Is Accelerating Global Deforestation, Earth.Org, https://earth.org/how-animal-agriculture-is-accelerating-global-deforestation/ (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[11] Id.
[12] See,The Rich Roll Podcast, Episode #843: Uma Valeti, MD – Engineering Ethical Cultivated Meat, Rich Roll,at 1:17 (Jul. 8, 2024), https://www.richroll.com/podcast/uma-valeti-843/.
[13] Seth Millstein, Ag-Gag Laws, and the Fight Over Them, Explained, Sentient Media, https://sentientmedia.org/ag-gag-laws/ (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[14] Id.
[15] See, e.g., Fourth Circuit Enjoins North Carolina Ag-Gag Law, Animal Legal Def. Fund (Feb. 15, 2023), https://aldf.org/article/fourth-circuit-enjoins-north-carolina-ag-gag-law/.
[16] Christopher Bryan and Julie Barnett, Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: A Systematic Review, 143 Meat Sci. 8 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008.
[17] Lisa S. Benson & Joel L. Greene, Regulation of Cultivated Meat, Cong. Rsch. Serv., (Mar. 25, 2024), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47697.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] See generally Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 451–471 (1957).
[21] Andrea Tolu, Will Lab-Grown Meat Ever Be Tasty and Profitable?, Sifted (Oct. 19, 2021), https://sifted.eu/articles/lab-grown-meat-economics.
[22] Public Opinion on Lab-Grown Meat by Political Affiliation, Ctr. for the Env’t & Welfare (2024), https://environmentandwelfare.com/public-opinion-on-lab-grown-meat-by-political-affiliation/.
[23] Helen Li, Republicans Are on a Quest to Ban Lab-Grown Meat, Semafor (Apr. 1, 2024), https://www.semafor.com/article/04/01/2024/republicans-ban-lab-grown-meat.