Texas Sued Over Its Lab-Grown Meat Ban (texastribune.org) 111
An anonymous reader shares a report: Two cultivated meat companies have filed a lawsuit against officials in Texas over the law that bans the sales of lab-grown meat in the state for two years. California-based companies UPSIDE Foods, which makes cultivated chicken, and Wildtype, which makes cultivated salmon are suing Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas Department of State Health Services, Texas Health and Human Services, and Travis County, accusing them of government overreach.
"This law has nothing to do with protecting public health and safety and everything to do with protecting conventional agriculture from innovative out-of-state competition," said Paul Sherman, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that is representing UPSIDE Foods and Wildtype. "That is not a legitimate use of government power." In June, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 261, which bans the sale of lab-grown meat in Texas for two years. Lab-grown meat, also known as cell cultivated meat or cultured meat, is made from taking animal cells and growing them in an incubator or bioreactor until they form an edible product.
"This law has nothing to do with protecting public health and safety and everything to do with protecting conventional agriculture from innovative out-of-state competition," said Paul Sherman, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that is representing UPSIDE Foods and Wildtype. "That is not a legitimate use of government power." In June, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 261, which bans the sale of lab-grown meat in Texas for two years. Lab-grown meat, also known as cell cultivated meat or cultured meat, is made from taking animal cells and growing them in an incubator or bioreactor until they form an edible product.
Better (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know the answer, but how did the first cells come about?
From a chicken, which can be taken without killing it. What is better:
Re:Better (Score:4, Insightful)
Limited resources (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want cheap actual hot wings and I don't care where they come from.
Re: Better (Score:3)
Lab grown chicken, ideal conditions
So far, lab grown meat hasn't done particularly well in terms of flavor, so it's hard to say what is ideal outside of an actual chicken.
Factory farmed chicken, pumped full of antibiotics and hormones
Actually the interesting thing about that propaganda is nobody actually sells any meat like that. Antibiotics also aren't cheap and aren't used unnecessarily, rather, they're only used in the event that the animal is sick, and only slaughter it after there's no more indication of infection or antibiotics.
The "antibiotic free" meat comes in one of two varieties: Either it's
Re: (Score:2)
Imitation meat didn't kill me yet (Score:1)
So why did you [dbialac] feed the troll's sock puppet and propagate it's vacuous Subject?
But the story has low potential for Funny. It's not like Texas will ever overtake Florida for BIG STUPID.
As regards the topic, I've tried the imitation meat a couple of times and thought it was okay. It obviously hasn't killed me yet. No, I don't fully trust it, but the room for technology-driven improvements, especially as regards the cost, is quite large. I don't think the idiots of Texas can stop the technology from
Re: (Score:3)
As regards the topic, I've tried the imitation meat a couple of times and thought it was okay. It obviously hasn't killed me yet. No, I don't fully trust it, but the room for technology-driven improvements, especially as regards the cost, is quite large. I don't think the idiots of Texas can stop the technology from progressing and when it's cheap enough they'll come round.
What you've tried isn't what's being discussed as what's being discussed isn't a mature and marketable product yet. The imitation meat you see at the store right now is NOT lab grown meat. Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Read what I wrote, not what you imagine is most convenient for me to have written to set the stage for your "oh so clever" rebuttal. If you can't understand what I wrote, then I suggest you (1) Complain about how poorly I write, (2) Ask for clarification about what I wrote, or (3) Follow the advice about saying nothing when you have nothing to say.
I could clarify or even defend the relevance of my comment, but you didn't provide any motivation to do so.
For what little it is worth, I do think I agree with yo
Re: (Score:2)
In the larger picture...what the problem with the people of a state in the US, via their elected representatives....banning lab generat
Re: Imitation meat didn't kill me yet (Score:2)
Everything.
The ideologically captured troons that now make slashdot increasingly read like Reddit are uncomfortable anytime people d allowed to have choices "they don't understand as well as I do what is in their best interest".
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure I would go as broadly as "Everything", but I do concur with your negative sentiments.
My focus would have been on the "elected representatives" aspect of it. Looks to me like American elections have become quite shambolic. Mostly the toxic combination of money buying votes and gerrymandering picking voters before the voters get to pick anything. Or perhaps the deeper problem is the dimensional collapse thing? The voters have no direct influence on the specific issues, but are forced to make a single
Re:Better (Score:4, Funny)
and better than killing an animal.
Nature is red in tooth and claw. It looks like you really have your work cut out for you.
Re:Better (Score:4, Insightful)
and better than killing an animal.
Nature is red in tooth and claw. It looks like you really have your work cut out for you.
It has been a long time since human-precursor hominids grabbed prey with their bare hands and ate it on the spot. If they ever did.
Humanity has found many ways to overcome nature and survive. Lab-grown meat very well might become one of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Fortunately it is a free country with the gift of free will on what you wish to consume.
I don't myself mind if lab meat is for sale AS LONG as it is CLEARLY LABELED as such.
Myself?
I prefer real dead animal on my plate....along with fresh veggies...I try to cook as much from scratch as I can with basic ingredients.
That's me.
But, you be you.
Re:Better (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately it is a free country with the gift of free will on what you wish to consume.
Of course. I said nothing about making old-fashioned meat illegal. I'm just saying that humanity may no longer need to survive by killing animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately it is a free country with the gift of free will on what you wish to consume.
Unless you live in Texas, in which case you aren't free to consume what you want. Which is the point of the story.
Re: (Score:2)
"A free country" means that no one is allowed to do anything the majority doesn't want them to?
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately it is a free country with the gift of free will on what you wish to consume.
Except for Texas, apparently
Re: (Score:2)
It might be, eventually. Not sure that's true today. It also probably costs more than from-animal meat. Maybe that will change in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, this sure would qualify as processed food IMHO. We'd have to know how the whole process works, what substances are used to trigger things etc. I doubt that you put a cell in a reactor and that it starts growing by itself.
Anyway, wait and see seems like a nice strategy IMHO. Let the states who want to test it test it. Waiting at least a few decades to see the impacts on human health might be a good idea. How can they say that it's perfectly safe for human health without publishing their whole [most lik
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't be hard for independent labs to test the stuff on animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Pigs are about as smart as dogs, yet for some reason in the West, we don't kill and eat dogs.
And even though cattle, chickens and turkeys are stupid, they still feel pain. I don't have a problem with eating meat if the animals are raised and killed humanely, but that's not the case in most modern meat production supply chains.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's not true we don't eat carnivores. Plenty of people eat fish, many of which are carnivores or omnivores (like lobsters).
Re: (Score:2)
Most of their post is made up of what could more generously be called "misunderstandings". I don't think there's a paragraph in their post that doesnt contain something that's at least partially wrong.
Re: Better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I mean in North America. Canada's just as bad as the USA as far as how animals are treated in factory farms.
Re: (Score:1)
Pigs are about as smart as dogs, yet for some reason in the West, we don't kill and eat dogs.
Not all dogs are safe to eat, eating them without knowing something of their breed and/or diet can lead to vitamin-A poisoning. This could likely be avoided by not eating the liver but then that is protein that gets wasted. If hunting wild dogs that could be pests then avoiding the liver is not as wasteful as there was no effort in putting up fences or such as would be the case of pigs raised in captivity, it's kind of "free" protein and so not eating the entire animal would not seem so wasteful. Then is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing anyone trying to make beef taste like broccoli [...]
I mean, there was that time Arby's developed a "carrot" made out of meat, calling it a "megetable"
100% for marketing and trolling purposes, but still... give them time
Standing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
US has most food regulated by the national government. It has to do with interstate trade - the states cannot block x product from another state. Their argument will be that it is an excuse to block non-texan foods based on false statements about safety. They will use the federal approval to demonstrate that the food is safe. (Honestly I agree with them - the only currently marketable lab grown food is salmon and it is safer than regular salmon because of the absence of mercury)
State governments rarely
Re:Standing (Score:4, Informative)
The ban is on lab grown meat, not lab grown meat from outside Texas.
If the companies were to relocate to Texas, their product would still be banned in Texas.
Re: Standing (Score:3)
It may come down to judge's determination of intent to ban for health or to protect cattle industry. Courts generally boot the second.
Re: (Score:1)
If the companies were to relocate to Texas, their product would still be banned in Texas.
The federal government believes they can regulate much of the trade inside a state because of how fungible commodities produced inside a state, or even in the confines of private land, can impact interstate commerce. Growing your own grain to feed your own cattle is "interstate commerce" because that means being able to sell cattle without having to buy feed. It's bullshit but that's how a lot of courts have ruled.
I understand that some airlines and utilities can avoid a lot of federal interference by not
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government believes they can regulate much of the trade inside a state because of how fungible commodities produced inside a state, or even in the confines of private land, can impact interstate commerce. Growing your own grain to feed your own cattle is "interstate commerce" because that means being able to sell cattle without having to buy feed. It's bullshit but that's how a lot of courts have ruled.
I understand that some airlines and utilities can avoid a lot of federal interference by not having trade cross state lines. I'd guess because if I'm to take a direct flight between two cities within Texas I'm hardly impacting any trade in other states, as an example.
If Texas prohibits a company in Texas from selling lab grown meat then it could be considered as impacting interstate commerce as it could increase imports of turkey dinners from out of state, or something.
I'm not defending the courts on allowing this level of federal involvement in intrastate trade, only that I expect the courts to argue how it is under their jurisdiction because reasons.
I didn't express any opinion on the federal govt.'s position on the matter. I merely pointed out the previous poster's apparent position that someone was banning a product because it wasn't produced in Texas is in correct, since the ban applies to the product, regardless of its source location.
It's certainly possible the feds could overturn that ban, for any number of reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe Texas is still working on a lawsuit through the court system, trying to use the Made in State/Used in State type rulings you mentioned to get around the sale and registration of gun Suppressors/Silencers Federal NFA laws....to argue
Re: Standing (Score:3)
If the companies were to relocate to Texas, their product would still be banned in Texas.
If these companies were in Texas, Pen Kaxton would have a brand new set of countertops. They'd be bragging about how great Texas is for biotech and providing discrete Ubers so the mistress could hit some of that fake fish meat.
That's how shit rolls in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations you have correctly stated the argument that Texas will use. Whether the court believes the crap you stated is up to the courts.
The courts have repeatedly found that state governments usually come up with a lie to cover their actions when they do something unconstitutional. In particular the ban of products made in other states always make that exact claim you just made.
As such, the courts have ruled they must have a legitimate and valid excuse to ban the import of products from other states
Re: (Score:2)
They're trying to misapply the interstate commerce clause to help their business. Wouldn't expect anything else really.
Re: (Score:2)
In most sane legal jurisdictions the government can't just ban stuff for no good reason. There has to be some evidence based reasoning behind a ban.
Re: (Score:2)
In most sane legal jurisdictions the government can't just ban stuff for no good reason.
As in this case it is often with the excuse of being for your safety. As in this case it is often bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
As in this case it is often bullshit.
In this case it is, usually it's not. Sure there's a few standouts, such as Kinder Surprise eggs, but the reality is not only are the overwhelming majority of bans for legitimate safety reasons, but actually the USA is massively laggard in this regard in general trailing some other places by many years when it comes to bans.
Re: (Score:2)
And no "if it saves just one life" it is probably not worth it. That is right up there with "we must do it for the children".
Re: Standing (Score:2)
Constitution has been interpreted to limit state bans merely intended to keep out competition.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Standing (Score:2)
I don't know that the producers have a case. I'm betting that state governments have every right to ban food products. I'm guessing that California already bans food products.
Can they ban beef from Texas or avocados from California? The Texas ban doesn't seem to be based on anything but some cattle rancher's opinion on lab grown fish protein. If these businesses were located in Texas they'd be owed an explanation at least. Labeling.. then require it to be labeled! CA does that to a bunch of stuff, and those fruitcakes do lab work to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
The companies certainly do have standing. Their businesses are directly harmed by these bans. Demonstrating harm, is a key part of proving standing.
no standing (Score:2)
The end game will be dismissal of the case for lack of standing.
It is well established that cows lack standing to sue, even if they can be in chk-a-fil ads! :)
hawk
Protectionism (Score:2)
The law is a silly, symbolic, political statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Lab grown meat is expensive and still very early in its development
It faces many serious technical problems
Even without laws, it's unlikely to succeed any time soon
It is a great idea, but way harder than the supporters believe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If lab grown meat can be allowed to develope, I'd take it over the hyper processed alternatives that exist now that's for sure.
They're right (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know what the legal situation is with this but the claims made in this lawsuit are obviously completely correct. No one is being protected from anything with this ban. It's just protecting already existing industry by denying future innovation and is being supported by twits who thinks they need to ban something just because they don't like the sound of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the legal situation is with this but the claims made in this lawsuit are obviously completely correct. No one is being protected from anything with this ban. It's just protecting already existing industry by denying future innovation and is being supported by twits who thinks they need to ban something just because they don't like the sound of it.
I think the strongest angle is about hipocrisy. The Trump administration is basically anti-regulation. Anything that hinders a business from raking in money - regardless of environmental or health risks - is to be permitted. Doesn't matter if it's causing climate change, cancer, or kills animals... it's allowed.
Unless it's a vaccine.
That said, this is an interesting one because it's business vs business. So... highest bidder wins.
Re: (Score:2)
[...] this is an interesting one because it's business vs state government defending an incumbent business.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
[...] this is an interesting one because it's business vs state government banning woke-ass shit.
FTFY.
The lab-grown meat bans are primarily about culture wars, "sticking it to the libs", who are presumably all queer vegan cucks who want to force everyone to eat lab-grown meat laced with estrogen. Not that protecting the cattle industry hasn't been used in arguments, but they're not the real reason. The states with law-grown meat bans and their cattle-production rankings are: Alabama (#26), Florida (#18), Indiana (#32), Mississippi (#33), Montana (#12), Nebraska (#2) and Texas (#1). Texas and Nebraska
Re: (Score:2)
[...] banning another state's products only for the purpose of protecting your state's industry is unconstitutional.
As another poster in this discussion pointed out, Texas is banning lab-grown meat regardless of where it's manufactured. A meat-growing company could locate in Texas and its products would still be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
[...] banning another state's products only for the purpose of protecting your state's industry is unconstitutional.
As another poster in this discussion pointed out, Texas is banning lab-grown meat regardless of where it's manufactured. A meat-growing company could locate in Texas and its products would still be banned.
Doesn't matter. The ban still affects interstate commerce, and still serves (ostensibly) to protect Texas cattle.
Nothing new under the sun here (Score:4, Insightful)
When margarine first came onto the market, the dairy industry lobbied hard to make sure it looked disgusting by requiring it to be dyed pink, blue, or anything other than yellow [atlasobscura.com]. Protectionism from innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're still not allowed to print the word "butter" on the product labeling, if it's made from vegetable oils instead of dairy. Maybe there's an exception if you use a qualifier, e.g., "plant-based butter"? Not sure.
Not that generic words on the product label matter very much to most consumers. You're allowed to put a picture of the product on there, in context with other foods (e.g., spread all over a muffin), and your bran
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Nothing new under the sun here (Score:4, Interesting)
Standing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the companies need to have sold anything in Texas to have standing. Rather, they need to show that the Texas law harms their interest, which clearly it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not overreach (Score:2)
Government protection of economic interests is part of its role in working for the common good. I think you'd have to show that there is corruption between the agricultural industry and political offices to establish that such favoritism violates the law. Simply exercising existing government authority to regulate industry hardly "overreach".
disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. And an actual lawyer wouldn't weigh into this thread without adding a ton of disclaimers.
Re: (Score:3)
Government protection of economic interests is part of its role in working for the common good.
But state protectionism is unconstitutional [wikipedia.org]. It is a legitimate role, but it's a role the Constitution gave to Congress, not state legislatures.
Also, the lab-grown meat bans really aren't about protecting economic interests or consumer health, they're about culture warring. The state legislatures who banned lab-grown meat were almost certainly warned by their legal counsel about the unconstitutionality, but they didn't care because (a) passing the bans was primarily about signalling, not doing anything,
Re: (Score:2)
The strongest cases involving the Dormant Commerce Clause have to do with movement-of-goods cases, which wouldn't apply in this instance.
Otherwise, the Supreme Court has in the past focused on preventing states from engaging in purposeful economic protectionism. Generally this means that States cannot prefer in-state producers, sellers, or buyers over out-of-state ones, or regulate conduct outside the state. But currently many states regulate some categories of goods, regardless if in-state or out-of-state,
Oprah enters the chat (Score:1)
In reality, living animal-derived meat needs to be banned because it's pandemic, antibiotic resistance, air-water-soil pollution, and resource inefficiency risk including grain and fresh water consumption.
Re: (Score:1)
No, you're not an Eskimo or a lion. If you're reading this page, you're eating meat out of habit, taste or convenience, none of which are good reasons to kill another animal for your titillation.
smeat? eww gross (Score:2)
People's lack of vision is so disappointing.
Re: (Score:1)
Wake me when I can get tattooed with chloroplasts like some sort of mutant bipedal sea slug.
Aren't there some turtle species that incorporate chloroplasts into their skin, from the plants they eat, so as to add to their energy intake? It's not much, or so the biologists wrote in their studies, but enough to have this adaptation become dominate in the gene pool.
People's lack of vision is so disappointing.
Depending on the kind of people that seek chloroplast tattoos having a lack of vision might not be a bad thing. I can imagine what this might look like with people walking about in the sun with little to no clothes on to soak up the most s
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Right, because meat production consumes so much grain how are we to have enough croplands for producing ethanol fuel or covering up land with solar panels?
Oh, wait, sorry there, I had a moment of insanity for a bit.
If people are so concerned about grain and freshwater consumption then maybe we should stop burning food as fuel. I live in the Midwest USA and I have family that live in the Appalachian hills. I see that corn is a staple food for much of the USA so it might be best for food security to not bur
This has nothing to do with protecting big meat (Score:3)
Like 80% of what goes on in legislatures nowadays, this has everything to do with generating photo ops, sound bites and short-form videos for whichever media dominates the state. In Texas, that would be right-wing media, where any criticism of an all-American god-fearing porterhouse steak is probably punishable by death.
The amount of actual substantive legislation happening nowadays is actually pretty small.
Land of the free (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Something like, " You can take my veggie burger when you pry it from my cold dead hand? "
wrt guns in Texas, the GOP politicians are against all regulation whatsoever. Even though its specifically called out in the Constitution, albeit the militia versus the devices.
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But still, I really don't know how the uber-2A folks interpret the phrasing of the second amendmen
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But still, I really don't know how the uber-2A folks interpret the phrasing of the second amendment, other than to causally disregard it.
Here's how they interpret it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
There's a lot more to the argument than that paragraph but I'm not about to quote the entire SCOTUS majority opinion.
The founders of the USA didn't want to see state militias disarmed by the federal government simply deciding they can define what is the state militia and who is a member of it. There may have been other solutions to keep the federal government from disarming state police and state defense forces but this is certainly the simpl
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Informative)
Texas has such a weird big brother government stopping people from enjoying meat, herbs, media - and yet Texans will complain about West coast regulations like they are destroying America. Funny stuff.
Texas is run by Republicans and CA by Democrats. Some people complain the Democrats want to micro-manage individual's lives, but it actually seems to be Republicans, at least more recently. I'm sure some good arguments can be made either way, but it seems like Democrats are focused on ensuring everyone has more rights while Republicans are more focused on ensuring only some people have more rights and others have fewer -- I'll leave the "who" of that as an exercise for the reader. /SweepingGeneralization
And tariffs? (Score:2)
The biggest threat to capitalism... (Score:3)
...is not communism, it's successful capitalists. Especially when it's so easy to buy political influence.
Should all be in the name (Score:1)
I am not against lab grown meat in the sense that I would refuse to eat it, what I am against is calling it meat. The definition of meat is the flesh of an animal. If it is grown in a lab, it is protein approximating meat, but is NOT meat. They should not be allowed to call it that. In the same vein, frozen dinners and restaurant food should not be able to call beef, chicken or fish or any other thing those things unless the things are 100% those minus spices. If there are any substitutes or fillers or meat
Simple solution (Score:2)
Alternative argument. (Score:3)
Texas bans lab-grown meat, but not synthetic oil for vehicles.
Re: (Score:1)
Texas bans lab-grown meat, but not synthetic oil for vehicles.
If you mean lubricating oils then Texas should be all for that because the raw material for synthesizing the oil is still crude petroleum. The distinction is that conventional lubricating oils are simply refined or separated from crude, such as by distillation, but with synthesized oils they go further with running crude or distilled oils through chemical processes. With so much of petroleum products run through some chemical process to reach the strict standards on fuel and lubricants there might not be
Re: (Score:3)
Meat is expensive. Production can't realistically expand to meet demand. It costs too much in terms of land and water for the United States to produce enough to bring down prices. Cultured meat should be able to (at least) supplement the market for affordable animal protein with a product that is better than your typical soy garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as? It's extremely difficult to get anything good out of plant protein, and it isnt complete except with rare exceptions. Potatoes have all the amino acids, but you get a ton of starch to go with it so..
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you, maybe? The market wants meat and lab grown meat companies are there to meet the demand. It isn't hard to look at commodity meat prices and see how much you're paying now vs 10-20 years ago.
Re:It's only okay to protect your cuisine.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The 'protect' cusine laws in Europe are about naming. That is you can make a sparkling wine anywhere=, you just cannot call it Champagne. (except certain grandfathered California vineyards for weird reasons).
The rest of the laws all claim to be food safety, which is not an issue here as the Federal government already declared the Wildtype Salmon to be safe (and it is the only lab grown food legal in the US).
As for you idea that food is made in the kitchen, not a factory, that is poorly defined personal philosophy, nothing more. Almost all food not sold at a farmers market (and much that is sold there), has at one point been in something resembling a factory. Slaughterhouses are factories. Butter is factory made. Milk is pasteurized in factories. Flour, most sugar (not just white), baking soda, baking powder, yeast, are all very much made in a factory.
Factories are efficient. They can be an efficient way to safely prepare food ingredients safely - or they can be a risky way to massively alter natural products to make them cheap (i.e. preserve them, hide their natural colors, and add cheaper ingredients to bulk them up.)
Their is a good reason why salmon is the only legally sold lab grown meat. We have poisoned our oceans to the point that natural salmon has mercury and other toxins in it. Lab grown salmon avoids this issue entirely and should (no guarantee) be significantly healthier than wild caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Their is a good reason why salmon is the only legally sold lab grown meat. We have poisoned our oceans to the point that natural salmon has mercury and other toxins in it. Lab grown salmon avoids this issue entirely and should (no guarantee) be significantly healthier than wild caught.
Your comment is non-sequitur. The second and third sentence do not describe the good reason you claim in the first sentence. You got your subjects backwards. There's no good reason why salmon is the only legally sold lab grown meat. But you did describe why there is a good reason why legally only lab grown salmon is sold for meat.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's only okay to protect you cuisine if you're European.
I'm kind of curious as to what this even means. Do you mean health and safety shouldn't be a concern? Or are you talking about trademark protection and labelling? Those are the only two areas I'm aware of where there is significant regulation of what you can buy at a European supermarket. You can buy anything as long as it's safe (or at least, not provably unsafe) and is correctly labelled.
> And on a related note, if food is supposed to be ma
Re: (Score:2)
And on a related note, if food is supposed to be made in a kitchen rather than a factory (and it is).
A kitchen is a factory. A chemical factory, to be precise.
Re: (Score:2)
No cuisine is protected in Europe. The *name* of a cuisine is protected, either as a protected designation of origin with geographical indication (e.g. Champagne can only be called Champagne if it comes from Champagne), or traditional speciality guaranteed having to meet the requirements for the thing to actually be the authentic recipe (e.g. Jamon Serrano needs to be dry cured and cut from the correct part of the meat to be called that).
At no point are you restricted from making anything, just stop calling
Re: (Score:2)
No cuisine is protected in Europe. The *name* of a cuisine is protected, either as a protected designation of origin with geographical indication (e.g. Champagne can only be called Champagne if it comes from Champagne), or traditional speciality guaranteed having to meet the requirements for the thing to actually be the authentic recipe (e.g. Jamon Serrano needs to be dry cured and cut from the correct part of the meat to be called that).
At no point are you restricted from making anything, just stop calling it something it's not. Your post has zero relevance to this ban.
if food is supposed to be made in a kitchen
Kitchen? Man I didn't know people existed who don't own a BBQ. Or do you not consider that food? Do you run through the park and stamp on peoples picnic telling them not to eat it because it's not food unless it comes from a kitchen?
Gmo restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
None of that is about protecting cuisine and everything about approving "new food" from a safety point of view. To be clear that applies to everything new. If you create a new chemical it also needs to be proven safe before it may be included as a food additive.
Read your link, specifically scroll down they even point out that a percentage of food in Europe is already GMO.
Re: (Score:2)