State Authority to Ban Food Products

• The first cell-cultured meat was sold in the United States in 2023, but conversations have been ongoing for years about the presence of these products in the marketplace.
• In 2019, USDA and FDA constructed a formal agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities for each agency related to the oversight of cell-cultured food products.
• While many states across the U.S. attempted to address this topic in different ways, two states – Alabama and Florida – successfully passed legislation banning the sale of cell-cultured protein in 2024.
• The debate about cell-cultured protein also made its way to the Tennessee General Assembly during the 2024 legislative session. The legislation, SB2870/HB2860, was similar to the bills passed in Florida and Alabama but ultimately did not pass and was sent to summer study by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee.
• Proponents of banning cell-cultured protein highlight the unknowns of the technology and its impact on the market for conventional protein products. Those who oppose a ban argue it stifles consumer choice, interstate commerce, innovation, and establishes novel precedence for the state to ban politically unpopular goods.
• Although Tennessee Farm Bureau policy opposes state-by-state labeling of food products, it does not clearly address the complete ban of a food product within the state.

1. Should the Tennessee General Assembly use its authority to ban politically unpopular food products?
2. Should the regulation of food products be a function of the federal or state government?
3. How should TFBF policy address state-level food bans?

In 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) constructed a formal agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities for each agency related to the oversight of cell-cultured food products. This agreement lays out 3 phases of oversight for the two agencies. First, USDA oversees any processes involving a living animal; second, FDA oversees the lab setting in which these products are cultured; and finally, USDA oversees the labeling of the end product. 

In May of 2024, the USDA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and FDA announced their plan for joint regulatory reform for biotechnology. This plan, titled “The Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology”, outlines the agencies’ plans to clarify and provide guidance on the regulation of cultured animal cell foods, with specific goals to address the consultation process and how to properly label these products. Click HERE to access the full report. 

While many states across the U.S. attempted to address this topic in different ways, two states – Alabama and Florida – successfully passed legislation banning the sale of cell-cultured protein in 2024. Florida’s legislation, which was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis on May 1, 2024, defines the term ‘cultivated meat’ as “any meat or food product produced from cultured animal cells” [FS 500.03(k)]. Upon taking effect, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, sell, hold or offer for sale, or distribute cultivated meat in the state of Florida, and anyone who does so commits a second-degree misdemeanor [FS 500.452(1) and (2)]. Food establishments who distribute, sell, or manufacture cultivated meat are subject to disciplinary action, can lose their license, and products found are subject to an immediate stop-order [FS 500.452(3) through (5)]. The legislation also gives the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services the authority to adopt rules to implement these laws. 

In Alabama, SB23, which was signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey and becomes effective on October 1, 2024, creates a Class C misdemeanor charge for any person who “manufactures, sells, holds or offers for sale, or distributes any cultivated food product in this state of Alabama”. Like Florida’s legislation, establishments who sell or distribute cultivated food products are subject to disciplinary action and can have their permits suspended or revoked. It also gives both the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries and Alabama Department of Public Health the authority to adopt rules for implementation. 

Additionally, the state of Iowa passed legislation prohibiting schools from purchasing cell-cultured protein for their cafeterias. In the U.S. Senate, Senators Jon Tester (D-MO) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) introduced the School Lunch Integrity Act of 2024, which would prohibit the use of cell-cultured protein under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). This legislation has been introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry but has not seen any movement. 

The debate about cell-cultured protein also made its way to the Tennessee General Assembly during the 2024 legislative session. The legislation, SB2870/HB2860, was similar to the bills passed in Florida and Alabama but ultimately did not pass and was sent to summer study by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee along with other bills addressing state labeling of emerging technologies in agriculture and food. 

Proponents of banning cell-cultured protein highlight the unknowns of the technology and its impact of the market for conventional protein products. Those who oppose a ban argue it stifles consumer choice, interstate commerce, innovation, and establishes novel precedence for the state to ban politically unpopular goods. Although Tennessee Farm Bureau policy opposes state-by-state labeling of food products, it does not clearly address the complete ban of a food product within the state. 

1. Tennessee Farm Bureau
   Food Safety (Partial) Integrity in food labeling is a vital element in maintaining food safety. Food labeling requirements should remain a function of the federal government. We oppose separate state level labeling requirements of foods sold through interstate commerce. We support consumer friendly, science-based labeling of agricultural products providing consumers with useful information concerning the ingredients, nutritional value and country of origin. Labels should not be required to contain information on production practices not affecting nutrition or safety of the product. Agricultural products produced using approved technologies should not be required to designate individual inputs or specific technologies on the product label. We oppose misleading labeling statements such as “bST Free Milk” implying food produced using certain production practices is superior and safer than food using other approved production practices. Foods manufactured to imitate conventional agricultural products should meet the same safety standards and have separate label requirements that signify the difference of the imitation food. With the increasing availability of lab-grown, cell-derived, and plant-based protein being introduced into the marketplace, we believe proteins designed to imitate conventionally raised meat should not use commonly known and industry recognized “meat” terms and be properly labeled and advertised to signify their differences. We oppose the use of environmental claims about lab-grown, cell-derived, and plant-based proteins in the marketing of the product which is not verified by USDA as a regulatory agency and based on peer-reviewed, sound science. We oppose the false labeling or “greenwashing” of non-meat products as having less impact on the environment. Jurisdiction over lab-grown, cell-derived, and plant-based protein should be assigned to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). We acknowledge FDA’s role in determining the product’s safety, but the day-to-day primary regulation and oversight for the product should reside with USDA FSIS.  American Farm Bureau
   345 / Labeling 
   15. Lab-Produced Protein and Synthetic Food Production 

   15.1. We support prohibiting the use of commonly known and industry recognized “meat” terms in the labeling and advertising of all lab-grown and plant-based alternatives. We also support the following:  

   15.1.1. The regulatory body with primary jurisdiction over lab-grown or cell cultured or plant-based protein being designated as USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). We acknowledge that FDA may play a role in determining the product’s safety, but the day-to-day primary regulation and oversight for the product should reside with USDA;  

   15.1.2. If any lab-grown protein product is comingled with traditionally produced meat products, this fact and at what percentage shall be clearly disclosed to the consumer on the product label;  

   15.1.3. Lab-produced protein products adhering to some level of antibiotic regulations, similar to livestock producers; and  

   15.1.4. Lab-produced protein products sold commercially must be labeled with a complete list of ingredients used in their manufacturing process.  

   15.2. We oppose:  

   15.2.1. The use of any nomenclature used to refer to this product in the marketplace, and on the labeling of this product, other than cell-based food product derived from meat and poultry;  

   15.2.2. The use of commonly used nomenclature or specific “meat” terms such as beef, chicken, pork, turkey, lamb, mutton, chevon, goat, veal and fish or specific cuts of meat such as roast, steak, ground, breast, chop, filet, etc. on a lab-grown product label;  

   15.2.3. The use of environmental claims about lab-grown protein in the marketing of the product that is not verified by USDA as a regulatory agency and based on sound science;  

   15.2.4. The false labeling or “greenwashing” of non-meat products as having less impact on the environment; and  

   15.2.5. The use of the term “honey” for any product not produced by honeybees.  

    

   348 / Synthetic Food Production 

   1. We acknowledge that processes to synthesize production of food through the use of complex scientific technology (such as by means of lab-grown protein) will likely continue to develop and yield products that are introduced into the marketplace. Given the many unknowns surrounding their reliability as a safe food source, we believe that science has an important role to properly evaluate these products for any potential adverse health consequences to humans and animals. We believe that the USDA should oversee this role.  

   2. It is recommended that: 

   2.1. The regulation of SFP not lead to additional regulations for producers of agricultural products or commodities that do not partake in these synthetic processes; and  

   2.2. The processes by which they are created must have an all-encompassing name to which they all may be referred. This name must be a term that takes into account not only synthetic animal products but also synthetic plant products that seek to replicate those produced by agriculture. Therefore, for use throughout our policies, we support defining this term as “synthetic food production” so that it means the portion of any food production process in which:  

   2.2.1.Food is cultured or grown from cells derived from or synthesizing an edible animal (such as meat, seafood, or poultry), dairy, eggs, the edible part of a plant, or the edible reproductive body of a plant (such as a fruit, nut, vegetable, grain or fungus) through the use of technology in a controlled scientific setting (including a laboratory or factory); or  

   2.2.2. Food is created at least in part by foods in paragraph 2.2.1. of this definition.  

   3. We support: 

   3.1. Mandatory, thorough and routine in-depth scientific studies, testing and monitoring of foods created through synthetic food production to ensure that they are safe;  

   3.2. Rules and regulations that guide and oversee the process of scientific studies, testing and monitoring of foods created through synthetic food production, including both creation and distribution. The level of complexity and frequency of required participation by government and members of the supply chain should be as stringent as that which has been historically imposed on the food safety of both naturally grown meat, poultry, dairy, egg, seafood and juice;  

   3.3. Not affording synthetic food production additional regulatory or administrative benefits over other naturally grown meat, poultry, dairy, egg, seafood and juice. We support rules and regulations on synthetic production of food;  

   3.4. Requiring each party in the supply chain of food created through synthetic food production to maintain documentation of both how that food was made at each step of its production at the point of, and prior to, that party’s possession of the food and which parties were involved in each such step, subject to inspection by any subsequent party in that chain, including the government;  

   3.5. Food created through synthetic food production adhering to antibiotic regulations, as required in livestock production; and  

   3.6. The regulatory body with primary jurisdiction over foods created through synthetic food production being designated as USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) or in the event that a government reorganization occurs with respect to food safety, the applicable food safety agency within USDA. We acknowledge that FDA may play a role in determining the safety of these products, but the day-to-day primary regulation and oversight for the products should reside with USDA.  

   4. We oppose federal funding to support research and development of cultured protein products.