Lawsuit against Florida's ban on cultured meat raises questions

Photo credit: @upsidefoods / Facebook

This week, it was announced that the US-based Institute for Justice (IJ) – a nonprofit law firm that advocates for the public interest – has partnered with cell-based meat company Upside Foods to file a lawsuit challenging Florida's ban on cultured meat.

They claim the ban, announced by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in May, is “economic protectionism,” and lead attorney Paul Sherman points out that it undermines the principles of a “national common market.”

Whether he is right or wrong will, of course, be up to a judge to decide, and the Florida government will have the opportunity to defend and justify its actions.

However, there is a more general aspect that requires further consideration: the use of prohibitions to exclude or restrict certain types of food from the market.

Florida is not the only U.S. state to use this tactic. In January, senators from Alabama introduced a similar bill, while in Europe, the Italian government supported a bill banning lab-grown meat and other synthetic foods, highlighting Italy's food heritage and health protections.

Florida also spoke of protection in its measures. DeSantis said his administration would continue to support “local farmers and ranchers” to “save our beef.”

Access the most comprehensive company profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain a competitive advantage.

Company profile – free sample

Your download email will arrive shortly

We are confident in the unique quality of our company profiles, but we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by filling out the form below.

By GlobalData

Opt out here to stop receiving curated industry news, reports and event updates from Just Food.

For more information about our Services, how we use, process and share your personal data, including information about your rights in relation to your personal data and how to unsubscribe from future marketing communications, please see our Privacy Policy. Our Services are aimed at corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address provided is your corporate email address.

Another attempt by the regions to protect their existing products is through the labelling scheme.

Last year, Texas passed a law requiring that cultured meat products include a label on the front stating that the meat is “cell-cultured” or “lab-grown.”

This reflects what has happened with plant-based milk alternatives in Europe.

The EU has for several years banned the marketing of plant-based products under names such as “milk”, “cream”, “butter”, “cheese” or “yoghurt”, which are reserved for animal products under EU law. France has unilaterally done the same for plant-based products under “meaty” names, while South Africa took a similar step, but this was ultimately overturned by a judge.

Britain, which is no longer an EU member, was considering even stricter rules on the branding and labelling of plant-based milk alternatives earlier this year. Terms such as “mylk”, “yogs” and “sheeze” could be banned.

It remains to be seen whether the newly elected Labour government will maintain this approach. It is unlikely to be at the top of its agenda.

The interpretation of what is going on here probably depends on your point of view. One point of view would be to protect consumers from false claims and to ensure they are fully informed about what they eat and drink.

Another goal would be to protect the interests of powerful dairy and meat lobbies.

I see merit in both views, although I believe that assuming that something labelled “oat milk” could be confused with a product that comes from a cow is an insult to the intelligence of consumers.

Two questions remain. First, are bans on cell-based meat like those in some US states and European countries likely to become more common, especially as the day – however distant it may seem – draws ever closer when lab-grown meat is produced in large enough quantities to enter the retail and foodservice markets in significant quantities and pose real competition to traditional meat packers?

Second, are brand restrictions and product labelling regulations increasingly being used to control the description of products, particularly in the area of alternative proteins, even though most supermarkets now have separate and clearly labelled plant-based sections?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then the legislators and regulators in question are either representing consumers’ interests or disproportionately protecting well-established and lucrative industries that want to maintain their market share.

You decide which one.

Sign up for our daily news digest!