Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech United States

Across the Nation, Lawmakers Aim To Ban Lab-Grown Meat (insideclimatenews.org) 428

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inside Climate News: Months in jail and thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees -- those are the consequences Alabamians and Arizonans could soon face for selling cell-cultured meat products that could cut into the profits of ranchers, farmers and meatpackers in each state. State legislators from Florida to Arizona are seeking to ban meat grown from animal cells in labs, citing a "war on our ranching" and a need to protect the agriculture industry from efforts to reduce the consumption of animal protein, thereby reducing the high volume of climate-warming methane emissions the sector emits. Agriculture accounts for about 11 percent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions, according to federal data, with livestock such as cattle making up a quarter of those emissions, predominantly from their burps, which release methane -- a potent greenhouse gas that's roughly 80 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 20 years. Globally, agriculture accounts for about 37 percent of methane emissions.

For years, climate activists have been calling for more scrutiny and regulation of emissions from the agricultural sector and for nations to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy products due to their climate impacts. Last year, over 150 countries pledged to voluntarily cut emissions from food and agriculture at the United Nations' annual climate summit. But the industry has avoided increased regulation and pushed back against efforts to decrease the consumption of meat, with help from local and state governments across the U.S.

Bills in Alabama, Arizona, Florida and Tennessee are just the latest legislation passed in statehouses across the U.S. that have targeted cell-cultured meat, which is produced by taking a sample of an animal's muscle cells and growing them into edible products in a lab. Sixteen states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming -- have passed laws addressing the use of the word "meat" in such products' packaging, according to the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas, with some prohibiting cell-cultured, plant-based or insect-based food products from being labeled as meat.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Across the Nation, Lawmakers Aim To Ban Lab-Grown Meat

Comments Filter:
  • More for me!

    Seriously - it's not here, yet. Well, a few pounds in a few places. But when the heck are they going to scale up?

    • Re:Woohoo! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @11:40PM (#64311193)

      But when the heck are they going to scale up?

      Vat-meat will scale up when they figure out how to make it affordable.

      It is currently heck-a expensive.

      Most vegans I know have no interest in vat-meat. They eat plant-based "meat" if they eat fake meat at all.

      For current meateaters, they will only switch en mass if the vat-meat is cheaper.

      • For current meateaters, they will only switch en mass if the vat-meat is cheaper.

        Do not forget the taste. Supermarket meat coming from real animals already is lacking in taste (compare it to farm meat), supermarket vat-meat... I really have doubts about its taste quality.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )

          For current meateaters, they will only switch en mass if the vat-meat is cheaper.

          Do not forget the taste.

          Despair? [youtube.com]

          (From Better Off Ted [wikipedia.org], (S1E2) Heroes [fandom.com].)

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      They must be getting pretty close if it's getting banned.

      • Re:Woohoo! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nsbfikwjuunkifjqhm ( 8274554 ) on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @12:46AM (#64311315)
        Yeah, because politicians would never do something stupid like rush to ban something - purely to appease industry lobbyists or keep their constituents placated with culture wars - despite the lack of any real threat.
        • Yeah, because politicians would never do something stupid like rush to ban something - purely to appease industry lobbyists or keep their constituents placated with culture wars - despite the lack of any real threat.

          Oh, they would be. Can't say how successful they will be, as this time of year is always filled with left and right media hyperventilating about proposed legislation that has little to no chance of passing. Virtua signaling proposals from both sides are a time honored tradition.

          I am more concerned about a variety of bills from the left I foresee coming to 'encourage' the masses. Similar to electric cars how about government subsidies for vat grown meat along with staged dates for mandatory percentages o

      • Either that or they want to ban it before they get close enough that people go "hmm... well, it tastes the same, costs the same but for this animals don't have to be raised and die, and that's better for the environment and less cruel..."

        Remember, people are very animal-loving and eco-friendly when it doesn't cut into their comfort or wallet.

  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @10:43PM (#64311109)

    If you want to sell sneakers, remember that Republicans buy sneakers too. So best not to try to attach a political valence to tour product.

    Similarly, there'd probably be a lot more liberals who have a gun in the house if the NRA hadn't attached itself to the Republicans so tightly.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      If you want to sell sneakers, remember that Republicans buy sneakers too. So best not to try to attach a political valence to tour product.

      Not sure why your post is rated a "0" (zero, when I replied to it) since it sounds like one of the most sensible and logical things I have read on /. lately.

      Oh wait ... now I know why it has been downvoted ... because it sounds sensible and logical ... and this is /. where reality is suspended into perpetuity.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @12:30AM (#64311293)

      Similarly, there'd probably be a lot more liberals who have a gun in the house if the NRA hadn't attached itself to the Republicans so tightly.

      Lots of liberals own guns. They just don't make gun ownership their entire personality. Let's not forget the last time a minority attempted to arm itself to deter crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      republicans cancelled open carry as soon as black people started doing it, by Ronald Reagan no less.

    • Why do you think liberals don't own guns? Just because we don't wield them as if we have to prove we have some right to them doesn't mean we don't have them.

      We just don't turn them into some weird kind of fetish. It's merely a tool to us.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        There are more guns than people in this country, guns are everywhere, so who is running around brandishing guns?

        I live in a constitutional carry state with -very- lax gun ownership laws. I've -never- seen a single gun outside a store or shooting range. Ever.

        • A note on changing times: at age 11 I lived in orange grove California. My 13 year old friend and I openly carried .22 rifles (his, I have never owned guns) to walk to the foothills and plink at cans and rabbits, sometimes pretending that they were Soviets. Fortunately my aim was too poor to hit a rabbit. I did, however, mow the lawn into an effigy of Khrushchev then finish the job by mowing off the head.

          The local liquor store carried ammunition. I bought some as a birthday present, cleared with no more

  • by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @10:46PM (#64311113)

    Well, throw the free market on top of the list of freedom-related virtues Americans claim to love but actively work against.

    From the article:

    “Lab-grown meat or whatever you want to call it—we’re not sure all of the long-term problems with that,” he said.

    Except that we already know much of the long-term problems associated with the farming and meat industries, and they aren't good.

    “And it does compete with our farming industry.”

    Well, at least that's an honest objection. "Don't take my money." I respect that.

  • by jaywee ( 542660 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @10:46PM (#64311115)
    Are they actually banning lab-grown meat or just not allowing it to be called meat? ie, a "Meat" vs "Cultured beef protein" thing?
    • by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @10:51PM (#64311125)

      It's both. It's convoluted, but it seems some states have labeling rules, and some are proposing the complete bans.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      A state can't just ban a product without a good reason. Then again, it's easy to invent stupid reasons that take courts a decade or more to clean up.

      If it is just a labeling issue, then call it "maet" or "meet" or "beaf" or "prok" or "chickin" etc. Most consumers won't notice, if the packaging features a hunk or floozy.

      • A state can't just ban a product without a good reason. Then again, it's easy to invent stupid reasons that take courts a decade or more to clean up.

        If it is just a labeling issue, then call it "maet" or "meet" or "beaf" or "prok" or "chickin" etc. Most consumers won't notice, if the packaging features a hunk or floozy.

        Well to be fair it is Alabama we're talking about.

      • They can ban it by claiming it's unhealthy. All they have to do is inject a mouse with like 10 gallons of it and say "oh look it got Myocarditis!!"

      • A state can't just ban a product without a good reason.

        The purpose of having a "reason" is to get something past legislators. That is all. The reason does not need to be good for something to be a law.

        • by gtall ( 79522 )

          More to the point, the Rs think they have found a molehill they can jack up to a Campaign Issue of Mythic Proportions: See people, those naughty "woke" liberals are now coming for your MEAT...so FIGHT like hell to preserve your way of life...it is what Jesus would do.

  • by MikeDataLink ( 536925 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @10:57PM (#64311131) Homepage Journal

    Like a republican.

    • by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @11:03PM (#64311143)

      I was worried, because there were not enough government bureaucrats between me and my grocer. Fortunately, Republicans will fix the glitch!

    • or maybe in this case they're right to ban frankenmeat that tastes bad. That's right, honest people say it tastes bad.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by swillden ( 191260 )

        or maybe in this case they're right to ban frankenmeat that tastes bad. That's right, honest people say it tastes bad.

        Or, you know, you could let people decide for themselves what they want to buy. If it tastes bad, they won't buy it. Or if they want to buy it anyway, why should government tell them not to?

        I have no problem with requiring cultured meat to be labeled as such. Actually, it would be good if normal meat had better labeling, too, so when we buy it we can know if it was free-range, factory-farmed, hormone-boosted, or what. Letting people know exactly what they're buying is good. Telling them what they're allow

        • Or, you know, you could let people decide for themselves what they want to buy. If it tastes bad, they won't buy it. Or if they want to buy it anyway, why should government tell them not to?

          This is, of course, not how elected governments work. The defining characteristic of politicians is an ability to get elected. To get elected, it helps to be visible (like creating news by drafting ineffective legislation). It also helps to present the proper tribal signifiers ("Vote for me! I'm on your side, ranchers and other reactionaries!").

          World leaders actually managed to get together and do something about acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer. Other than those examples, as far as I can te

      • by Calydor ( 739835 )

        Well I think fish tastes bad, so let's ban fish.

      • by pezpunk ( 205653 )

        what a wildly hypocritical post.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, yes. The problem is these are the not republicans. Republicans would have integrity and honor and would have welcomed a free market. These people are the imposters that took over the republican party but have none of its values.

  • by dasgoober ( 2882045 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @11:00PM (#64311135)

    ... wouldn't it be easier to just breed cows that belched less? Or altered their diets to cause less gas or an additive to reduce gas?
    To me, that sounds a lot less difficult that culturing meat, especially marbled meat, or meat with ribs.
    Cuz I love me sum ribs.

    • ... wouldn't it be easier to just breed cows that belched less?

      Even better, they're breeding gut bacteria that generate less methane for the cows to burp.

      Or altered their diets to cause less gas or an additive to reduce gas?

      Adding seaweed to the cattle feed seems to work.

      To me, that sounds a lot less difficult than culturing meat

      We can do both—cultured meat for those who want it and less belching for everyone else.

    • ... altered their diets ...

      They did that but then competing economies of scale happened: Why buy climate-friendly feed when the hay down the road is 20% cheaper?

      The world's politicians worked on the whaling industry, leaded fuel, ozone depletion and acid rain. But everything produces CO2 or CH4 (methane), so everyone has something to lose and politicians aren't going anywhere near that fight.

      As always, wait long enough and these problems solve themselves: The cows will die of heat-exhaustion, or climate change will bring a new

    • ... wouldn't it be easier to just breed cows that belched less? Or altered their diets to cause less gas or an additive to reduce gas?

      Sounds easy. Yet biologists have been working on that problem now for decades with only minor marginal improvements.

  • I suspect that this is being driven by the farm lobby, who are afraid of the competition. The beef and chicken farmers could find themselves out of business. Also, potentially lab grown meat could use almost any organic material as a raw material source. This would be a threat to the corn and soybean farmers, who produce animal feed. In the end it will come down to economics. In the lab grown meat tastes the same and is cheaper, it will become a major product. If it does not, it will be a niche for th
    • I suspect that this is being driven by the farm lobby, who are afraid of the competition. The beef and chicken farmers could find themselves out of business.

      More likely one day people will be forced to eat the gruel rather than the animals.

  • republicans hate the free market? If this stuff tastes bad then why would ranchers need to be propped up via the heavy hand of government?

    • Re:Why do (Score:4, Informative)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @12:06AM (#64311263)

      Modern republicans want to sic the government on everything. Imagine Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were having a big gay orgy at a farm and a fat pig jumped in the bed with them. OK, now hold that mental image and imagine that through some weird genetic quirk a baby got made .. that's what the republican party is.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Modern Republicans have stopped being republicans. They are just imposters that claim to be conservatives but have none of their values. Honor, integrity, free market? No, they do not want those.

  • by jaa101 ( 627731 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @11:28PM (#64311185)

    I could understand banning selling this stuff for deceptive labelling. Or banning it until any health concerns had been addressed. But banning it explicitly because it competes with the old way of doing business seems ridiculous and un-American. It's like banning cars, not because they're dangerous, but because they're going to put horses and buggies out of business.

    And, this is state-based legislation; aren't they just begging to have the lab-grown meat producers go elsewhere?

    • by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @03:29AM (#64311451) Homepage Journal

      But banning it explicitly because it competes with the old way of doing business seems ridiculous and un-American.

      It's very American. The movie industry tried that with VHS, for example. The music industry with mp3s and streaming. And with Trump and MAGA, it's now a theme.

    • But banning it explicitly because it competes with the old way of doing business seems ridiculous and un-American.

      I'm sorry what? How is this un-American? America is a country internationally known for laws and policy passed in favour of corporate interests. It's virtually a meme at this point.

      It's like banning cars, not because they're dangerous

      Good example let's run with it. The car industry's influence has led to laws and city design practices which effectively killed off public transport. The car industry prevented the banning of tetraethyllead some 60 years after it was found to be dangerous to people.

      Governments involved in defending industry against the interests

  • 1. In order to live, we would no longer have to tell ourselves that our own suffering is more important than another sentient beings.
    2. Did God ordain that the flesh of a murdered creature is somehow more healthy than synthetic? Of course not. Nowhere in the Bible, or Koran, or Bagavid Gita, or whatever book Buddha wrote does it say not to eat synthetic. With synthetic we can control the contents and ensure the essential molecules -- protein, minerals, vitamins, whatever, are there.
    3. If we can make synthe

  • They couldn't do this with milk?

  • Interesting. The first thought that comes to mind is whether such bans/rules will be challenged under the Commerce Clause. Labelling requirements are probably fine, and outright banning them would probably pass muster (at least with the current judicial landscape).

    Bit disappointing, though. While there are sectors and industries that are likely valuable enough to warrant domestic protection/incentives, is ranching really one of those?

  • Eat Mor Chikin

    That, or just relabel it Soylent-Meat

  • It's not meat. Don't call it meat. Come up with a different name so that people who do not wish to put that crap in their bodies can avoid it.

  • Lab grown meat is the future and should not be banned, it's actually lifestock farming that should be banned. These lawmakers should be pushed out of their office and be jailed for endangering humankind.
  • by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak&yahoo,com> on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @08:28AM (#64311905) Homepage Journal

    The Republicans have no issue with unsafe food (chlorination chicken doesn't kill ecoli except on the surface, it merely stops ecoli being detected).

    But the miniscule risk of an insignificant drop in profits amongst Republican voters... That calls for instant action.

The wages of sin are unreported.

Working...