Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) signed SB 1084 into law in May, which made Florida the first state to effectively ban cultivated meat products from development and consumption. Alabama was quick to follow with its own copycat legislation outlawing “the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food products made from cultured animal cells.” 

But other states thinking about similar bans, including Tennessee and Arizona, might want to reconsider.

As of Tuesday, Florida is being sued by UPSIDE Foods in a case filed by the Institute for Justice, a national nonprofit law firm based in Arlington, Virginia, focused on civil liberties and constitutional rights. DeSantis’ culture war against cultured meat is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. 

UPSIDE Foods, a cultivated meat company in California that produces poultry, duck, meatballs, and seafood using animal cells, has been out front on challenging DeSantis’s “lab-grown meat” ban. What skeptics tend to get wrong about these products is that they aren’t vegan or vegetarian but instead offer consumers concerned about animal welfare a means to enjoy real meat without harm befalling animals. 

Institute for Justice Attorney Suranjan Sen sounded off on the lawsuit, saying, “For the same reason that California cannot ban orange juice made from oranges grown in Florida, Florida cannot ban UPSIDE’s meat.”

Sen is absolutely right in reference to the dormant commerce clause that prohibits the government from impairing interstate commerce and engaging in state industry protectionism. 

Cultivated meat products are being made outside of Florida and shipped in. When DeSantis said on the record, “What we’re protecting here is the industry against acts of man, against an ideological agenda that wants to finger agriculture as the problem, that views things like raising cattle as destroying our climate,” he revealed a protectionist intent behind the ban.

Making matters worse for the Florida law, the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 preempts any attempts by states to create unique standards for chicken production and distribution. Cultivated meat is genuine meat, made differently. 

Florida would need to present a clear public interest for a ban. Unfortunately for DeSantis, shielding cattle ranchers and the agriculture lobby from future competition will not qualify.

A ban on cultivated meat would have to guard public health and safety or address some kind of urgent environmental concern. The state would also need to prove that a ban was the only way to accomplish this goal, rather than consumer education or market competition. 

Lab-grown meat haters don’t earnestly challenge the evidence that these products are safe. UPSIDE’s chicken products have the USDA and FDA seal of approval, so if that means nothing, then why are any products whatsoever on store shelves thanks to the same approval? 

Crushing the hopes and dreams of environmental activists who believe reducing cattle farming will lower emissions is not a compelling public interest. “Owning the libs” may be funny for flame warriors on X, but if it takes the form of legislation that undermines consumer choice, it’s most likely illegal and not humorous. These consumer bans in Florida and Alabama are serious. Florida can jail violators of the law for up to 60 days, and in Alabama, it’s 90 days in jail plus a $500 fine.

The states advancing these bans are not wrong to think fringe activists want to rid the world of farm fresh meat and limit your right as a consumer to have a hamburger. Such people exist. However, their commitment to violating individual consumer choice isn’t a tactic that skeptics of lab-grown meat should adopt. 

The strangest thing about these bans is that the cultivated meat products being restricted aren’t even widely available on store shelves. While venture capital firms have invested a combined $3 billion into at least 150 startups working on cell-cultivated meat products, you could only find them at a San Francisco and a Washington, D.C., restaurant on a very limited basis (and now they’re no longer available even at those locations). 

The products are not even that popular with the public yet. Conventional meat is viewed as more healthy and flavorful, but the red flag for agriculture insiders must be the high degree of willingness consumers have to try alternative products. 

As a consumer myself, all of this sounds about right. Conventional meat is better tasting, it’s currently more economical, and I trust it more for its pure nutritional value. That being said, I’ve enjoyed whole plates of cultivated chicken, meatballs, and sliders, and these products are delicious. Innovation in this sector will bring costs down, bring flavor up, and eventually offer more choices on grocery shopping lists and restaurant menus. 

Producers of meat may not like it, but the Institute for Justice will almost certainly prove in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida that producing and consuming cultivated meat is fair game.

Originally published here