The lawsuit, filed in August, contests Florida’s SB 1084 which prohibits the production, sale and distribution of cultivated meat in the state, making it the first state to do so. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law into effect on May 1. Additionally, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed the similar SB 23 into law nearly a week later, further compounding the controversy over state vs federal food safety standards.
UPSIDE Foods’ cultivated chicken was approved for manufacturing, sale and distribution by FDA and USDA in the US in 2022 and 2023, respectively, marking a significant milestone in the progression of the US cultivated meat market. UPSIDE’s cultivated chicken “will bear the same USDA seal” products and subject to the same inspection processes as conventional meat, according to the company.
Florida’s law is “unconstitutional,” infringes on free market and future R&D
AMPS’ support of UPSIDE and Institute for Justice’s lawsuit cites Florida’s law as “unconstitutional,” the organization wrote in a statement earlier this week.
Banning cultivated meat sets precedent for similar legislation on food production, distribution and retail in the future, Suzi Gerber, executive director, AMPS, told FoodNavigator-USA.
“For the food industry, this could mean anytime a state has an interest in some commerce over others, a state could effectively prohibit any of a number of aspects of the trade of that food,” Gerber said.
Infringement on the principles of the free market could also impact R&D, she added.
“Some bans seek broader restrictions, not just impacting the sale of cultivated products but also inhibiting research and development – this could go as far as to limit what we are allowed to know about this science and technology. Surely, we do not want that,” Gerber said.
Ultimately, the decision about which businesses can operate, what products are safe and available for sale and what products consumers prefer “should be out of the scope of state power,” she said, adding that federal agencies are “better equipped and specifically empowered to do this review and regulation.
Prior to Florida’s ban, UPSIDE Foods planned to sell its cultivated chicken at select locations and events in Florida and other states, according to Gerber.
Critics view state-level cultivated meat bans as political fodder, rather than legislation that propels the industry forward. On a similar vein, California’s Food Safety Act, which banned four additives in food and beverage products, highlights the widening gap between state and federal food safety laws. While the implications of California’s laws on food manufacturers are different than cultivated meat, patchwork legislation puts food safety and consumer trust at risk.
With FDA’s Human Foods Program in effect, the food industry can expect a more unified, efficient food inspection and regulation process geared towards nutrition access and security, and that includes cultivated meat, Gerber noted.
“The new Human Foods Program will communicate to the federal government, the states and consumers that an even greater level of scrutiny and assurance is applied to these foods that prioritize safety and nutritional impacts,” she said.
Gerber continued, “Given the extremely high quality standards utilized to make cultivated meat, the efforts of this new program will no doubt conclude what the consensus is among scientists: that cultivated meats are an important step forward in reducing many food safety-related concerns for conventional foods, enabling reliable and robust means of addressing primary policy concerns like food access and nutrition security, and can help reduce food systems’ impact on communities, climate change and the spread of foodborne and zoonotic diseases.”
Investments in the alternative protein sector are critical to international competition
Alternative proteins, including cultivated meat, contribute significantly to countries’ economic and social growth, according to Good Food Institute’s (GFI) State of Policy report.
GFI estimates that global public funding for the sector reached $1.67 billion since 2023, with governments contributing $190 million for R&D, $162 million for commercialization and $170 million for enterprises that combined both – highlighting the importance of a multi-tiered approach involving government, public and private support are critical to expand and diversify the sector. Overcoming some of these economic barriers also involve embracing AI and alternative equipment options (e.g. building food-grade bioreactors over the cost prohibitive medical-grade bioreactors), according to GFI.
The report also notes that the US, Israel and Singapore lead the way in regulation. However, these countries could learn from government investments in R&D and commercialization made by Canada, Singapore and EU.
Florida and other states implementing similar bans risk missing economic opportunity, which could lead “companies to shift overseas, leaving Americans behind and helping other countries thrive instead,” Gerber emphasized.
