In a landmark ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida upheld a state law banning the sale and distribution of lab-grown or “cultivated” meat.1 The law, enacted by the Florida Legislature, specifically prohibits companies from selling meat or food developed from cultured animal cells, such as those grown in bioreactors.
The case centered on Upside Foods, a leader in cultured meat technology, arguing that its lab-grown chicken should be treated like regular poultry under federal law. However, new regulations in Florida have banned these products from the statewide market.
For Upside Foods, this means that its continued efforts to distribute its products in Florida could result in criminal penalties, civil fines and injunctions to stop sales. The ruling signals that the court’s stance supports traditional meat production over cell culture alternatives in the Sunshine State.
Upside Foods’ Challenge to State Regulations
Upside Foods petitioned the court for an injunction to stop enforcement of the injunction, arguing that Florida’s restrictions violate federal law, namely the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). They argued that PPIA gives the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) exclusive authority over poultry inspection and labeling, which should be extended to include farmed chicken products.2
Upside Foods also argued that the Florida ban has hampered its business plans, including partnerships with chefs and local events, citing its history of marketing and distributing lab-grown chicken in key markets such as Miami.
But at a court hearing, the judge found that Upside Foods failed to demonstrate that its lab-grown chicken fell within the USDA’s definitions of “poultry” or “poultry products” as intended under federal law. The law takes precedence over state regulations.
Federal law defines poultry products as the carcasses or products of birds, but the judge ruled that this definition does not clearly include cultivated meat developed from cells rather than whole animals. The judge ruled that in the absence of precise federal standards for cultivated meat, Florida’s law is valid because it does not directly contradict federal law on poultry.3
Chief Judge Mark E. Walker ruled that because the USDA has not yet issued specific standards for cell-based meat, Florida has the authority to regulate these products as it sees fit. The ruling suggests that, for now, individual states have discretion to decide how or whether cultivated meat can enter the market.
Food safety, labeling and ingredient standards matter
Upside Foods also argued that Florida’s ban imposed inconsistent standards regarding ingredient labeling and food safety. Under PPIA, only the USDA sets requirements for labeling and composition of poultry products in the United States. But the judge ruled that the ban did not impose new ingredient standards that conflicted with federal law. Rather than imposing complex labeling requirements.
The court noted that without specific federal guidance on cultivated meat, there is no basis to conclude that Florida’s ban on sales of the product resulted in inconsistent or “additional” ingredient requirements. Therefore, the judge ruled that Florida law does not impose conditions that conflict with the PPIA’s testing and labeling requirements and allows the state to remove lab-grown products from shelves without violating federal regulations.
The incident highlights the ongoing debate over whether lab-grown meat will be regulated and accepted across U.S. markets, or whether states will continue to set their own standards for such products. The court’s decision sets a precedent that could encourage other states to pass similar laws restricting lab-grown foods.
“I am not surprised that the judge denied Upside’s motion for a preliminary injunction,” Florida Senator Jay Collins told Children’s Health Defense. “The risks of cultivated meat far outweigh misleading environmental claims. Floridians will not be lectured on how to raise their families by billionaires like Bill Gates.”4
High environmental costs of cultured meat production
While lab-grown meat is often hailed as a sustainable alternative, research shows that its environmental impact is significant. A recent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) at the University of California, Davis, examined the environmental impact of animal cell-based meat (ACBM) “from cradle to door.”5
Research shows that growing lab-grown meat is more resource-intensive than traditional beef production. In particular, cultured meat production requires significant energy and water for generating growth media, purifying cell culture components, and maintaining bioreactor systems.
This process also involves high greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel depletion. Factoring in purification of growth media, an essential element for safe production, the carbon footprint of cultivated meat increases dramatically, in some cases exceeding that of conventional beef.6 The environmental burden of fake meat may therefore be higher than previously estimated, challenging the assumption that lab-grown meat is inherently environmentally friendly.
Another major challenge in cultured meat production is the removal of endotoxins, toxic byproducts of bacterial contaminants. Endotoxins pose a risk to cellular health and their presence in animal cell cultures requires energy-intensive and costly purification methods.
This study highlights that removal of endotoxins from growth media can have environmental impacts up to 25 times greater than baseline levels.7 For example, purifying media for cultured meat production to meet food grade standards consumes significant energy, worsening the carbon footprint of production.
Current methods for endotoxin removal rely on advanced chemical processes that increase both resource use and emissions. This means that the environmental damage caused by cultured meat production offsets any perceived sustainability benefits.
Dependence on highly purified growth media
Lab-grown meat relies on specific nutrients, proteins, and vitamins to effectively grow cells in bioreactors. These purified ingredients are typically sourced from animal by-products, such as fetal bovine serum (FBS), which raises ethical and environmental concerns. Alternatives to FBS are being explored, but a high level of improvement is still needed to ensure cell safety.
Considering the energy and resources required to prevent pollution, refining these materials carries significant environmental and financial costs. Davis’ research modeled scenarios involving purified media and found that producing 1 kg of ACBM could require more than 1,000 liters of growth media, depending on purity requirements.8
These significant inputs place an additional burden on the environment, countering the argument that cultured meat is a low-impact alternative to livestock. Additionally, if lab-grown meat is to become a staple food, the industry will need to scale up production, which will require extensive new infrastructure and energy investments.
The Davis study estimates that an industrial-scale laboratory cultured meat facility would require a bioreactor capacity of nearly 10 million liters.9 These large-scale infrastructure expansions require high energy inputs and specialized facilities, which further increase environmental costs.
Meeting production demands requires expanding the supply of growth medium components, which adds to the environmental burden. Additionally, maintaining clean rooms and running bioreactors in continuous cycles for mass production increases these energy requirements.
Lab-grown meat poses health risks due to cellular dysregulation
Lab-grown meat faces health risks associated with the cell culture process. Cultivating cells for meat requires extensive replication and division, which increases the likelihood of cellular dysregulation, a condition observed in cancer cells. These uncontrolled cellular changes can alter the structure or nutritional properties of the meat and their impact on human health is unknown.10
Although production facilities can eliminate abnormal cell lines, the rapid and repetitive cell divisions required to create lab-grown meat introduce the risk of diversity and unexpected biological behavior. These concerns remain largely unexplored because research has not yet fully investigated the health effects of long-term consumption of lab-grown meat.
The nutritional properties of cultured meat may lack the variety and quality found in conventional meat. Although laboratory-grown meat production allows for some control of fat content, it fails to naturally provide essential micronutrients such as vitamin B12 and iron, which are essential for human health.
Attempts to artificially fortify cultured meat with these nutrients risk damaging the natural matrix that enhances nutrient bioavailability in traditional meat. Moreover, studies have shown that the composition of the growth medium may unintentionally inhibit the absorption of certain micronutrients.11 This means that lab-grown meat may lack essential compounds typically provided by the whole animal, resulting in a nutritionally inferior product.
Moreover, ethical debates continue. Lab-grown meat may use fewer animals, but it still relies on animal-derived cells, negating the “cruelty-free” narrative. For consumers who value real, natural foods, the processing origins of lab-grown meat are far from natural.
Fake meat is an ultra-processed food
Fake meat isn’t primarily about health or environmental benefits. Instead, it is a means of phasing out traditional agriculture and replacing it with ultra-processed, patent-controlled foods. As government and corporate entities gain control over food production through lab-grown options, they ultimately gain more control over people.
Additionally, lab-grown meat products are examples of highly processed foods that carry a variety of health risks. These ultra-processed foods (UPF) are a disaster for your health, even if they are “animal-free” or “plant-based.”
A study using data from the UK Biobank analyzed the cardiovascular effects of UPF in a plant-based diet, finding that a 10% increase in plant-based UPF was associated with a 5% increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease death. It was found that there was a % increase.12
Conversely, each 10% increase in minimally processed plant food intake was associated with a 7% reduction in cardiovascular disease risk and a 13% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality. These findings suggest that the degree of food processing, not simply whether the food is plant-based, plays a role in health outcomes.
Despite the growing popularity of plant-based meat alternatives, evidence warns that their ultra-processed nature undermines their perceived health benefits. These findings call attention to the risks associated with other highly processed alternatives, such as lab-grown meat, which uses a wide range of processing methods similar to UPF.
Measures to protect consumers from experimental and ultra-processed foods
Florida’s ruling sets an important precedent protecting consumers from risks associated with lab-grown meat. From unknown health effects to high environmental costs, these ultra-processed products pose serious challenges that are not present in traditional food systems.
This decision is an important step to ensure food safety, transparency and public health. By maintaining standards that favor traditional food sources, this ruling brings us closer to protecting our food supply from lab-grown products that are overhyped with health.
