Arizona State Representative David Cook, a Republican from a predominantly rural district southeast of Phoenix, is determined to protect consumers from potential deception while grocery shopping. As a cattle rancher, Cook cited this concern as the main reason he introduced a bill this legislative session aimed at defining “meat” strictly as products derived from harvested livestock. This legislation would prevent cell-based products from being marketed as “meat.” Cook emphasized that consumers currently have confidence at the meat counter, and they should maintain that same assurance when cell-based meat becomes available in stores. He expressed his belief that labeling something grown in a petri dish as meat is misleading, stating, “Meat comes from an animal carcass, whether it’s pork, chicken, or beef. Consumers deserve clarity about what they are purchasing and consuming.”
The development of cell-based meat products is ongoing in various startups both in the United States and internationally. While prototypes are being created in fermenters akin to those used in brewing beer, these products are not yet ready for retail. Companies are currently establishing pilot plants and refining the nutrient solutions needed to nurture growing cells, while also collaborating with global regulators to gain approval for their products.
Cook’s proposal is similar to a bill he introduced last year, which was rejected by the state House of Representatives. This year’s bill, however, focuses solely on meat, leaving out the dairy provisions. He believes this legislation will not affect existing grocery store products and feels he has backing from both his constituents and colleagues. While the bill addresses a concern that may seem premature, it reflects a broader trend in state legislatures. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 17 laws concerning meat labeling were enacted across 14 states in 2019, many of which restrict the labeling of plant-based and cell-based products.
As legislative sessions commence this year, more bills akin to Cook’s are being introduced and considered. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has prioritized the issue of “fake meat” in its agenda, which has led to state-level legislation. According to Scott Weathers from the Good Food Institute, these bills are largely about protectionism, and he describes them as “label censorship,” stating that legislators often introduce these measures to safeguard the cattle industry.
Doug Farquhar from the National Conference of State Legislatures noted that state legislatures wish to establish regulations before cell-based meat enters the market, distinguishing this from legislation governing plant-based products. The FDA and USDA formalized a joint agreement last March to regulate cell-based meat, but many details remain unresolved as the two agencies have never collaborated on regulating a single product before.
Although there have been no significant developments in the regulatory framework for cell-based meat since the agreement, the absence of federal guidelines allows for state legislation to dictate labeling. There is bipartisan support for a federal bill that would require all non-cow meat-like products to be labeled as “imitation,” but it has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.
Weathers believes that state legislation on meat labeling may be preempted by federal law, specifically the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Poultry Inspection Act, which prevent additional labeling restrictions. However, he also argues that such laws can create barriers to market entry, increasing compliance costs and creating uncertainty for businesses.
The situation is further complicated by a lawsuit from Tofurky against Arkansas, which passed a law imposing fines for products labeled as “meat” that do not come from animals. This reflects the broader tension between state laws and federal regulations, as many in the industry believe that cell-based meat falls under the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
While some state-level bills aim to restrict the use of the term “meat” for plant-based products, advocates for these alternatives are actively fighting back. Groups such as the Plant Based Foods Association and the Good Food Institute are opposing these labeling laws. However, the advocacy for cell-based meat at the state level appears limited, with companies focusing primarily on federal regulatory efforts.
In Arizona, Representative Cook believes it is crucial to establish these regulations before products reach the market to ensure transparency regarding food safety and consumption. Farquhar opined that diverse state laws may compel Congress to establish a unified standard for cell-based meat, drawing parallels to the GMO labeling debate that prompted federal action after Vermont passed its own law.
While companies continue to develop cell-based meat products, many are still years away from market readiness. Cook’s bill aims to set clear guidelines for the industry, allowing ample time for producers to design compliant packaging and labeling. As the conversation around cell-based meat evolves, the challenge remains to balance innovation in the food sector with consumer safety and accurate labeling.
In the meantime, the potential benefits of incorporating supplements, such as gsk calcium citrate malate vitamin d3 and folic acid tablets, into the diet could be considered as a complementary measure for those navigating the transition to alternative protein sources. As the industry moves forward, establishing clear regulatory frameworks will be essential in addressing consumer concerns and ensuring a level playing field for all protein products.