U.S. State Bans on Lab-Grown Meats Challenged in Court (austinchronicle.com) 49
Last June Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said in a statement that Texans "have a God-given right to know what's on their plate, and for millions of Texans, it better come from a pasture, not a lab. It's plain cowboy logic that we must safeguard our real, authentic meat industry from synthetic alternatives."
But California company Wildtype sells lab-grown salmon — and is suing Texas over its ban on cell-cultivated meat, the Austin Chronicle reported this week. The company's founder says lab-grown salmon eliminates the mercury, microplastic, and antibiotic contamination commonly found in seafood. And one chef in Austin, Texas says lab-grown salmon is "awesome" and "something new"-- at the only Texas restaurant that was serving it last summer: Just two months after the salmon hit the menu, Texas banned the sale of cell-cultivated meat... A lawsuit from Wildtype and one other FDA-approved cultivated meat company [argues] it's anti-capitalism and unconstitutional... This law "was not enacted to protect the health and safety of Texas consumers — indeed, it allows the continued distribution of cultivated meat to consumers so long as it is not sold. Instead, SB 261 was enacted to stifle the growth of the cultivated meat industry to protect Texas' conventional agricultural industry from innovative competition that is exclusively based outside of Texas...." [according to the lawsuit]. It was filed in September, immediately after the ban took effect, and cell-cultivated companies are awaiting judgment.
That Texas ban would last two years, notes U.S. News and World Reports, adding that Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Nebraska have also passed bans, some temporary "on the manufacturing, sale or distribution of cell-cultured meat." Meanwhile, a new five-year moratorium on lab-grown meat was signed this week by the governor of South Dakota "after rejecting a permanent ban last month," reports South Dakota Searchlight: The new law bars the sale, manufacture or distribution of "cell-cultured protein" products from July 1 this year through June 30, 2031. Violations are punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a fine of up to $500, or both.
"But supporters of lab-grown meat are not going down without a fight," adds U.S. News and World Reports, with another lawsuit also filed challenging a ban in Florida: When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the ban in Florida, he described it as "fighting back against the global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals." He added that his administration "will save our beef."
But California company Wildtype sells lab-grown salmon — and is suing Texas over its ban on cell-cultivated meat, the Austin Chronicle reported this week. The company's founder says lab-grown salmon eliminates the mercury, microplastic, and antibiotic contamination commonly found in seafood. And one chef in Austin, Texas says lab-grown salmon is "awesome" and "something new"-- at the only Texas restaurant that was serving it last summer: Just two months after the salmon hit the menu, Texas banned the sale of cell-cultivated meat... A lawsuit from Wildtype and one other FDA-approved cultivated meat company [argues] it's anti-capitalism and unconstitutional... This law "was not enacted to protect the health and safety of Texas consumers — indeed, it allows the continued distribution of cultivated meat to consumers so long as it is not sold. Instead, SB 261 was enacted to stifle the growth of the cultivated meat industry to protect Texas' conventional agricultural industry from innovative competition that is exclusively based outside of Texas...." [according to the lawsuit]. It was filed in September, immediately after the ban took effect, and cell-cultivated companies are awaiting judgment.
That Texas ban would last two years, notes U.S. News and World Reports, adding that Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Nebraska have also passed bans, some temporary "on the manufacturing, sale or distribution of cell-cultured meat." Meanwhile, a new five-year moratorium on lab-grown meat was signed this week by the governor of South Dakota "after rejecting a permanent ban last month," reports South Dakota Searchlight: The new law bars the sale, manufacture or distribution of "cell-cultured protein" products from July 1 this year through June 30, 2031. Violations are punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a fine of up to $500, or both.
"But supporters of lab-grown meat are not going down without a fight," adds U.S. News and World Reports, with another lawsuit also filed challenging a ban in Florida: When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the ban in Florida, he described it as "fighting back against the global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals." He added that his administration "will save our beef."
The free market party (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The free market party (Score:4, Insightful)
The Land of the Free is really becoming the Land of the Constrained. Pretty soon it will also be the Land of the Non-voter.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty soon it will also be the Land of the Non-voter.
TBF in a very real way it already is
Re: (Score:1)
and for the most part, the people are satisfied with the results
And if not, more bread and circuses will remedy that.
Re: (Score:1)
Poster, you were well to do this anonymously. You clearly did not know to whom you were responding.
Re:The free market party (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. The plan is to disenfranchise anyone without the means to own a passport, a hunting license, or enhanced drivers license. Notice that this is asymmetrical in that other types of identification such as student ID's are not acceptable forms of identification.
This will continue until only the rich and powerful are able to vote, just like it was when you had to own an appreciable amount of property to vote in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
When we reach that point, we will essentially become a one party state. And then as you mentioned the land of the constrained. Social programs will be gutted, and the funds directed to the military, and to controlling dissent in the population. A northern border wall will be built to imprison everyone in the country. Statues of the "leader" will with his right arm and hand outstretched will be placed everywhere. The Internet, radio, and TV will be heavily censored. Guns will be collected under penalty of death. Concentration camps will be established for Transgender and Gay people. To preserve the oligarchy, the country will threaten other countries with nuclear retaliation for trivial things. Project Sundial will be resurrected.
Re: The free market party (Score:1)
Notice that this is asymmetrical in that other types of identification such as student ID's are not acceptable forms of identification.
I don't know which schools you've attended, but every one I've attended doesn't really do a whole lot to verify whether you're a resident, or much of anything really, because they're not intended for that. All they're intended for is to give you access to school facilities. And none of the ones I've had have an expiration date. They're also not state issued. You may as well argue that your employee ID should be an acceptable form of ID anywhere.
A hunting license is state issued, and often states issue diffe
Re: Social Security # was my Student ID (Score:1)
Citizenship alone isn't sufficient to vote, you need to be a resident where you're voting as well, or at the very least, it needs to be your home of record if you're in the military or overseas.
And again, a student ID doesn't show that. Furthermore, simply providing your social security number isn't proof of citizenship, or proof of anything really.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct. The plan is to disenfranchise anyone without the means to own a passport, a hunting license, or enhanced drivers license. Notice that this is asymmetrical in that other types of identification such as student ID's are not acceptable forms of identification. This will continue until only the rich and powerful are able to vote, just like it was when you had to own an appreciable amount of property to vote in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
If you actually believe any of that, then you really are insane. Not just internet "insane", but really and truly detached from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't read the news, do you?
Re: (Score:1)
Correct. The plan is to disenfranchise anyone without the means to own a passport, a hunting license, or enhanced drivers license. Notice that this is asymmetrical in that other types of identification such as student ID's are not acceptable forms of identification.
This will continue until only the rich and powerful are able to vote, just like it was when you had to own an appreciable amount of property to vote in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
If you actually believe any of that, then you really are insane. Not just internet "insane", but really and truly detached from reality.
As opposed to the republican conspiracy theories that the election was "stolen"? Or the conspiracy theory that individual voter fraud ever amounted to anything? Sorry, you must be gullible as crap if you think of the proposed measures are anything other than an attempt to have less people voting.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Once again, this seems to require a mass conspiracy among poll workers, and even if it were true, it would have to actually amount to anything. The things proposed to address this, like requiring a passport are blatantly obvious in their intent.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a story about a clerical error, it's a story about how the security and verification mechanisms were ignored. That means ballots could have been replaced by the boxload. There would be no way to know. Fulton county has a bad reputation for cheating, and here they are ignoring the only mechanisms to prevent it and calling it a clerical error.
Re: (Score:1)
That would be election fraud, that's entirely different than voter fraud. The case you linked isn't about ballots, it's the tabulated printouts. Replacing the printer output isn't enough. If it didn't match what the machine recorded, that's an obvious red flag. The ballots themselves would be recounted if demanded. It's not a realistic concern and is unrelated to the original topic of republicans wanting a new poll tax because they're too unpopular to win an election.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The free market party (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I particularly want lab grown meat. I'm a vegetarian because I don't particularly like the taste of the meat. Not because of health or saving animals.
I do like to think that a properly advanced civilization wouldn't need to kill intelligent beings to eat. But I mean if it's one thing the last two years have shown me is that we are not a properly advanced civilization... So I can't exactly blame us.
Re: (Score:2)
I do like to think that a properly advanced civilization wouldn't need to kill intelligent beings to eat.
We're eating cows and chickens not dolphins. But really the basis of your comment disregards why people eat the way they do. We do so because we are hungry and like to eat. We have evolved to be omnivores. And there's plenty among us who would eat human meat too (many tribes did to the point where we even have a word for it, cannibalism) if it didn't result in prion disease.
But hey we have met your criteria. We don't *need* to kill intelligent beings to eat. We've managed to distil the few key vitamins that
Re: (Score:2)
I think competition has little to do with it. I think it has more to do with the beef industry being given leeway so they can get into the lab grown beef business themselves.
And by "get into" I mean buying up an already established company so there's no research and development involved. Buy your competition before they're competition.
Re: (Score:2)
will save you from yourself.
I get that this is about protecting the beef industry, but it's so much hypocrisy from Republicans you'd think Democrats were in charge and the latter is simply advocating healthier choices. Hey Texas, how about just requiring accurate labeling and let consumers choose? Unless you're afraid people will choose lab-over farm- grown.
Fox News goes ballistic whenever a Democrat tries this stuff claiming it's an "attack on consumer choice" so can't wait to hear them slam Republicans on this ... [*crickets*].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is nobody is being forced to buy sugary foods at Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. You can't argue that poverty is at play here because these are not cheap places to eat.
Good point, though I don't remember saying anything about poverty. And I imagine that no one was being forced to buy this lab-grown salmon or eat at the (probably not inexpensive) restaurant serving it. Texas is just trying to preserve it market presence.
Re:The free market party (Score:5, Insightful)
Republican thinking:
Conservative Issue = "State's rights!"
Liberal Issue = "Federal Oversight!"
A good example: A Conservative's dog keeps coming into your yard.
Conservative: "You can't make me build a fence on my land!"
Liberal builds a fence on their land.
Conservative: "It blocks my view! You have to tear it down!"
"Cowboy logic" (Score:3, Insightful)
What the heck does "Cowboy logic" even mean and is it supposed to be conveying something positive here?
If Texans "have a God-given right to know what's on their plate" then just label the food. Simple.
Or do they specifically only want food with "mercury, microplastic, and antibiotic contamination" because cowboys like that shit or something? I guess if it's cowboys then add "lead poisoning" from whatever shot they used?
Re:"Cowboy logic" (Score:4)
What the heck does "Cowboy logic" even mean and is it supposed to be conveying something positive here?
From TFS: "It's plain cowboy logic that we must safeguard our real, authentic meat industry from synthetic alternatives." [emphasis mine] And that tells you everything you need to know.
If Texans "have a God-given right to know what's on their plate" then just label the food. Simple.
This, in spades.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth in labeling laws. If one does NOT want all those microplastics, then one must have some means of differentiating synthetic (uncontaminated) product from that which grazes on the mid-Pacific garbage gyre.
On the other hand, labeling everything as "fish" (or beef) with no distinction will allow us to comply with the Boldt decision by delivering the tribes their allocation of salmon in 55 gallon drums. And quit screwing with all the culverts and hydroelectric dams.
It's a republic (Score:1)
The people's elected representatives passed the ban.
I understand the Texas beef lobby is powerful, but our laws get made by convincing people. So get convincing; don't sue.
You can't argue that there's some fundamental civil right being infringed here. The legislature has the power to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
The people's elected representatives passed the ban.
I understand the Texas beef lobby is powerful, but our laws get made by convincing people. So get convincing; don't sue.
The people's elected representatives can do good things, and silly things.
If they do silly things, there are more ways to address it than trying to unconvince them of what they did. One of those ways is in court, which is where the synthetic-protein lobby is now. Another is to mount a political campaign to promote candidates for the next election who will repeal the ban.
You can't argue that there's some fundamental civil right being infringed here. The legislature has the power to do this.
There are more arguments to make in court besides a violation of civil rights. And the legislature may -- or may not -- have the power to d
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Thanks for the improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't argue that there's some fundamental civil right being infringed here. The legislature has the power to do this.
That's exactly what they're disputing. The constitution takes precedence over state laws, and the constitution says only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. If the goal of this law is to favor in-state companies over out-of-state ones (and their own statements make it pretty clear that's the goal), then the legislature does not have the power to do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: It's a republic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They know their interests better than you do. They voted accordingly.
Who doesn't want this? (Score:3)
Isn't it the desired outcome? The rich sociopaths rile up the ignorant to help the rich sociopaths maintain control and prevent other rich sociopaths from horning in on their business.
We've seen the elections, this is what the public in those states voted for: "Rule me with an iron fist, daddy!"
If Toby Seba's prediction pans out (Score:5, Interesting)
He predicted in 2024 that by 2035 large scale raising of animals is going to go away. Small & medium boutique operations will remain for those wanting to enjoy eating meat at luxury prices.
Lab grown meat is already at parity with the cost of a regular burger patty. If they can get it down to 1/2 or even 1/3 we'll see if those bans hold up.
The Strait of Hormuz is currently closed indefinitely and it's not just oil and natural gas which flows through there but a significant percentage of inputs for farms. If these labs are less affected by these skyrocketing prices they may not even need to make the process more efficient.
Beef prices are currently high because the number of cattle is low. One reason is Texas may not be able to supply enough water to supply homes, datacenters, ranches AND growing animal feed. Most food in the USA is grown to feed animals. "To raise a steer takes enough water to float a destroyer."
California is finally out of drought but California has long-term water issues as well. Central Valley farmers are draining ground water at such a fast rate that land is sinking and threatening the California Aqueduct, which farms, businesses and 27 million people depend on.
Re: (Score:2)
Lab grown meat is already at parity with the cost of a regular burger patty.
No it's not. Lab grown meat while it has dropped in cost by more than 99.99% over the past decade still costs 2-3x the amount of regular meat.
But focusing on the burger patty is really yadda yaddaing the whole meat industry away. Lab grown meat still has a texture problem. It may have no problem replacing burger patties, pate, sausages, or other ultra processed meat, but it has a long LONG LOOOOOOONG way to go before it's going to replace a nice ribeye or tenderloin. Two companies came close 2 years ago. On
Re: (Score:1)
Lessons on economics (Score:1)
1) Plutocracy = rich rule (Out competed by all below) ...)
2) Mercantilism = Balance of trade, controlled by Tariffs. (Out competed by Capitalism)
3) Capitalism = Free market (no government control except for areas where non-market forces affect the market: law enforcement, military,
4) Communism = Government controls ALL markets and owns everything (out competed by Capitalism and Mercantilism)
5) Socialism = Unclear word. Originally meaning communism plus private ownership of non-economics assets but co-opte
It's bacon and ozempic kind of summer (Score:1)
Oh, does Texas have Salmon? (Score:2)
No? Hmm.