Katie Kraska is a law student in the HLS Food Law & Policy Clinic and a guest contributor to this blog.
Despite the potential that cultivated meat products hold for revolutionizing how food is produced, mention of this technology is nowhere to be found in House or Senate Farm Bill drafts or outlines. Given some recent state-level developments, that may be a good thing.
Cultivated meat is produced from a technology that grows animal tissue ex vivo, or without the need to raise and slaughter animals. Producers use animal stem cells to grow muscle, fat, and connective tissue in a medium of amino acids, glucose, vitamins, and inorganic salts, changing the composition on a scaffolding structure to provide texture. Proponents tout the technology’s potential for reducing the harms associated with industrial animal agriculture, ranging from climate impacts and environmental justice to animal welfare and public health.
Cultivated chicken first appeared on American menus in 2023, after FDA and USDA granted approval to two cultivated meat companies. At Congress’ direction, USDA and FDA developed a formal agreement giving FDA responsibility to ensure the cultured products are not adulterated (i.e. over cell collection, lines, and differentiation) and USDA responsibility to ensure that end products comply with the Food Safety Inspection Service’s laws and regulations when cells are harvested for human food. A new rule regulating cultivated meat is expected from USDA as soon as Fall 2024.
Though funding amounts pale in comparison to other agricultural industries, the federal government has supported cultivated meat research through the National Science Foundation and the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, totaling around $17 million over the last ten years. But until recently, Congress had left cultivated meat’s regulation to federal agencies, with no bills introduced on the topic in the 117th Congress.
However, 2024 has seen a flurry of stifling cultivated meat bills introduced. Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) introduced the School Lunch Integrity Act (S.3574) which would ban cultivated meat products in school lunch or breakfast programs under the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act. The FAIR Labels Act (H.R.7130/S.3693), introduced by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Rep. Mark Alfrod (R-MO), requires cultivated meat and poultry products to be labeled as “cell-cultured” or “lab-grown”. And the REAL Meat Act (H.R.8757), introduced by Warren Davidson (R-OH), would restrict any federal funding from supporting the cultivated meat industry.
The new interest might be born of state activity. Florida’s ban on the manufacture, distribution, or sale of cultivated meat took effect in July of this year, and Alabama’s is set to take effect in October. Iowa passed a bill prohibiting cultivated meat products from being labeled as “meat.” Lawmakers in many other states have introduced similar measures, such as Arizona, Tennessee, Illinois, and Kentucky. Nebraska’s Governor issued an Executive Order prohibiting the government or its contractors from spending any state funds on cultivated meat, with promise to foster a similar measure through the state’s legislature. Some other states, however, like California and Massachusetts, have recently allocated state funding for the research and development of cultivated meat products.
UPSIDE Foods, a cultivated meat company that federal regulators have approved to sell cultivated chicken products, is challenging the Florida state law in federal court. The plaintiffs argue that the Florida law is unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act expressly preempt state regulation of meat and poultry products meaning the law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, and (2) the law unfairly protects Florida’s agricultural industry from competition, violating the Constitution’s dormant commerce clause. A federal judge refused to grant an injunction preventing the state law from taking effect; plaintiffs seem poised to continue the suit.
The absence of cultivated meat from the Farm Bill could signal different messages from Congress. But states will likely continue to legislate in the space until more concrete guidance is provided.
The views and opinions expressed on the FBLE Blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FBLE. While we review posts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the reliability and completeness of any legal analysis presented; posts on this Blog do not constitute legal advice. If you discover an error, please reach out to contact@farmbilllaw.org.
