As Mississippi becomes the third US state to ban the production and sale of cultivated meat, the debate over its future intensifies. While supporters champion it as a sustainable and ethical alternative to traditional livestock farming, opponents argue it threatens agriculture and food heritage. Will cultivated meat find its place on consumers’ plates, or is the industry facing an uphill battle? The Cell base explores.

As Mississippi becomes the third state in the US to introduce a ban on the manufacturing, sale or distribution of lab-grown meat, the sector's future becomes even more uncertain.

State governor Tate Reeves, while declining to sign House Bill 1006, did not veto it, meaning the bill will automatically become law. The bill, which passed unanimously through both the Mississippi House of Representatives and Senate, is now set to take effect on July 1 2025.

Suzi Gerber, executive director of the Association for Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Innovation (AMPS), a trade group representing the cultivated meat sector, dismissed the legislative action as "political theatre," arguing that it would have minimal practical impact.

In recent years, the emergence of cultivated meat has sparked both enthusiasm and controversy across the globe. While some hail it as a sustainable and ethical alternative to traditional livestock farming, helping in areas where affordability and famine are issues, others have a more skeptical approach.

This divide has led to several legislative actions, particularly across the US in states like Florida, Alabama and now Mississippi, as well as in Europe, where movements are underway to restrict or ban the production and sale of cultivated meat in Italy and France.

While some places have taken a hard stance on cultivated meat with outright bans, others, like California and New York, seem to be ok with the concept of cultivated meat being in stores; the debate is how to market it.

To ban or not to ban?

In Florida, a legal battle is being waged between the state, which has made it illegal to manufacture and sell cultivated meat and Upside Foods, which is just one of the US’ cultivated meat producers.

Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, signed the bill, making it a criminal offense to manufacture and sell cultivated meat anywhere in the state, using the phrase “we will save our beef” and highlighting issues that lab-grown meat causes to farmers. Upside Foods, however, claims that the ban is unconstitutional and violates the Supremacy and Commerce clauses of the US Constitution. Cult Food Science also penned an open letter to the Florida government opposing its ban on the sales of cultivated meat.

Currently, when it comes to food regulations in the US, the FDA and the US Department for Agriculture are the main regulators for the approval and oversight of new food and drink products, including cultivated meat. However, individual states retain the authority to regulate food that is produced and sold within their own jurisdictions. If Upside Foods is successful, its lawsuit could set a precedent, not only for the cultivated meat industry, but for food regulations across the nation.

Meanwhile, the state of Alabama has also criminalised the sale of cultivated meat, citing concerns about protecting local agriculture and in March 2025, Mississippi became the third state to pass an outright ban on cultivated meats.

Andy Gipson, Mississippi’s agriculture commissioner previously supported a bill that prevented cultivated meat being labelled ‘meat’ and last year, published a post on his own website that commended the bans in place in Florida and Alabama, claiming: “I want my steak to come from farm-raised beef, not a petri dish from a lab”.

Nebraska is currently grappling with a proposed ban on cultivated meat, but the legislation has encountered significant pushback from ranchers and farm groups – the very stakeholders lawmakers claim to protect.

In an interesting twist, the North American Meat Institute has opposed such bans, most recently challenging the Florida ban in February 2024. Its argument? Not only do the bans violate the Federal Meat Inspection Act, but they also restrict consumer choice. The Institute believes cultivated meat should be held to the same food safety and labelling standards as traditional meat but opposes outright bans. In an open letter to the USDA, alongside AMPS, the Institute called for a focus on cultivated meat labelling rather than a ban.

In Nebraska, supporters of a state-wide ban include senator Barry DeKay, who is also a rancher, but other farmers and rangers in the state and others, including those in Wyoming and South Dakota, have voted against proposals to ban cultivated meat. Legislators argue the bans would protect the already struggling meat industry, however, critics argue that bans restrict trade and threaten food safety benefits.

Despite support coming from some of the farmers in South Dakota, legislators there, along with those in Texas, have raised concerns about the creation of cultivated meat and the significance of labelling, though no official bans have been passed. The debate also continues in Georgia.

A threat to food heritage?

For many states with strong cattle ranching and poultry acttivites, the rise of cultivated meat presents a potential threat to their livelihoods. In states where bans on cultivated meat have been successfully passed, the legislation is largely supported by local cattle ranchers and farmers who fear losing market share to this emerging technology.

This apprehension is not limited to the US; similar concerns have surfaced globally. In Europe, both Italy and France are pursuing bans on cultivated meat, while Spain has engaged in debates about how the introduction of lab-grown meat might affect their heritage food industry.

In this sense, the traditional meat industry’s apprehension is not entirely unfounded; substantial investments have been funnelled into the development of lab-grown meat, which does have the potential to disrupt traditional meat markets. 

Though farmers and those working in the traditional meat industry have legitimate concerns about the economic impact of using cultivated meat, as AMP's Gerber mentioned, the opposition appears to be political rather than out of any significant value placed on the farmers and livestock.

In more conservative circles, cultivated meat is viewed with suspicion. It is, like many things conservative America dislikes, perceived as being unnatural or threatening the traditional way of life. However, are all these fears completely unfounded? One of the biggest arguments against cultivated meat revolves around health and safety concerns – the long-term effects of consuming meat grown in a lab are not fully understood and won’t be for many years. Approvals from the US Department of Agriculture and the FDA for certain products have done little to assuage this. Florida’s ban for instance, also stated health and safety concerns.

The Good Food Institute, a non-profit think tank, refutes this, saying: “Alternative proteins are safe and create new markets and side streams for corn and soybean farmers, with potential to develop new jobs and investment opportunities, but only if the legislature keeps the free market free”.

It’s an age-old story, though. Scientific advancements have long been seen as interfering with natural processes. The politicisation of food technology has led to cultivated meat becoming a focal point in cultural debates, with some framing their opposition as a stand against elitist or globalist agendas.

Florida isn’t the only place facing legal opposition; state-level bans have prompted legal challenges from several advocacy groups. For these groups, cultivated meat is a great way to feed the population, helping to reduce global instances of famine and making meat more affordable to lower-income consumers.

The GFI continued: “Globally, meat consumption is the highest it has ever been. According to the FAO, global meat production is projected to increase by as much as 50% by 2050. With plant-based meat, cultivated meat and fermentation, we can mitigate the environmental impact of our food system, decrease the risk of zoonotic disease and ultimately, feed more people with fewer resources. By making meat from plants and cultivating meat from cells, we can modernise meat production.”

What's in a name?

For many lawmakers across the world and America’s Meat Institute, it is less about the issue of growing meat in a lab and more about making people aware that the meat is lab-grown.

The state of Indianapolis, for instance, recently voted for labelling legislation headed by Republican Baird. His bill requires manufacturers to label their products with the phrase ‘this is an imitation meat product’ and would outlaw any product that doesn’t indicate that it is lab-grown.

The labelling of any new food and drink presents a unique challenge – how do you market something in a way that allows the consumer to make an informed decision without negatively impacting the producer or manufacturer?

This is not a problem that is unique to the US – governments around the world are debating how best to label cultivated meat. In the US, the FDA and USDA share oversight of cultivated meat products. The FDA regulates the initial cultivation process, while the USDA oversees the marketing and labelling of products when they are ready for human consumption. In 2023, the two approved using the term 'cell cultivated' in labelling, which does help assuage the concerns raised by the bill presented in Indianapolis.

In the EU, cultivated meat falls under the Novel Food Regulation, which requires rigorous safety assessments before it can be sold. EU regulation requires that labelling is not misleading and has to supply sufficient information for consumers. Part of  Italy’s attempted ban was not only about the production of cultivated meat but also the marketing of it. Interestingly, their legislation also bans using the word ‘meaty’ when labelling plant-based food.

Other countries, such as Singapore, home to the first government-approved cultivated meat product, have adopted more flexible approaches, allowing terms like “cultivated chicken” to be used in commercial sales.

Whatever is decided in the way of labelling will be crucial in shaping the public’s perception of cultivated meat. For instance, using the term ‘lab grown’ has been found to elicit a negative response, while ‘cultivated’ or ‘cell based’ meat has been received more favourably. Whatever the outcome, when it comes to labelling legislation, it seems that transparency is the crucial factor. Producers want consumers to understand that cultivated meat is derived from animal cells without traditional slaughter, while lawmakers feel that using the word ‘meat’ may mislead consumers who may not understand the difference between traditionally produced meat items and cultivated ones.

Cultivated meat producers argue that their products are real meat at a cellular level, though how consumers and lawmakers approach this need for transparency will continue to cause debates. In recent years, there has been a trend in consumers wanting to know not just what is in their food but also whether it is sustainable and ethically produced. Clear, standardised labelling that provides insights into cultivated meat production can help smooth over the issues between legislators in the US and elsewhere and producers and will help shape the future for other food innovations.

Getting into the meat of the debate

While there is a lot of debate, both in and out of lawmakers’ offices, when it comes to cultivated meat, it does have its supporters. The state of Massachusetts, for instance, is home to a biotech hub with start-ups focusing on cultivated meat, and lawmakers there have said that they support lab-grown meat research as part of its innovative economy.

You will also find cultivated meat producers in California, where Upside Food, which is engaged in a legal battle with the state of Florida, has its headquarters, along with Good Meat. Currently, these are the only two producers with FDA approval to create and retail cultivated meat, though neither has products available to consumers.

Yet. Historically, the state of California has supported biotech innovation in this field and continues to do so. Mission Barns, another cultivated meat company, based in San Fransisco, recently announced that they were one step closer to selling their cultivated pork fat product after it passed FDA safety checks. So, even with the debate raging, plenty of funding and support are being given at a federal level.

New York has a similar story to that of California. The state has shown interest in promoting alternative proteins to its residents as part of a sustainable food policy – something that advocates of cultivated meat say is the whole reason why we should be approving more lab-grown products.

Proponents of cultivated meat argue that it offers significant environmental benefits by reducing the need for livestock farming, which is associated with greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and high water usage. Additionally, lab-grown meat addresses ethical concerns related to animal welfare by eliminating the need for animal slaughter. However, opponents question these purported benefits, arguing that the environmental impact of large-scale lab-grown meat production is not yet fully understood.

They also express skepticism about the ethical implications, suggesting that reliance on synthetic foods could further disconnect people from natural food sources and traditional farming practices. Overall, support for cultivated meat tends to align with more urban, biotech-friendly states, while opposition comes from more conservative states with larger farming communities.

Raising the steaks

The movement to ban cultivated meat in certain US states and other parts of the world is a complex interplay of economic protectionism, cultural values, political ideologies and regulatory challenges. As the cultivated meat industry continues to evolve, it faces the dual challenge of navigating legal obstacles and addressing public skepticism.

The resolution of these issues will significantly influence the future landscape of food production and consumption globally, but the future is here. As of 2024, there have been four cultivated meat products that have been cleared for sale across multiple countries, and additional products are under review in at least nine others.

According to the BBC, meat, dairy and sugar grown in a lab could be on sale for human consumption for the first time in the UK in less than two years, with the FSA looking at how it can speed up the approval process for foods of this nature.

However you feel about lab-grown food, it certainly looks like the future is cultivated.