In the realm of agricultural innovation, the concept of cell-cultured meat, once a futuristic notion, has become a reality. This technological advancement, along with the rise of plant-based meats, has sparked a wave of regulatory responses from states across the U.S. As of September 2025, several states have implemented bans or restrictions on these emerging protein sources, leading to a series of legal challenges that could shape the future of the food industry.
The journey of cell-cultured meat from a speculative idea to a market-ready product has been swift. In 1931, Winston Churchill envisioned a future where meat could be grown separately from animals. Today, companies like Upside Foods are making this vision a reality. However, the path to widespread acceptance is fraught with regulatory hurdles. States such as Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas have enacted bans on the manufacturing, sale, or distribution of cell-cultured meat. Other states have taken a more nuanced approach, with Iowa prohibiting the purchase of lab-grown meat by public institutions and South Dakota restricting the use of state funds for research, production, or distribution of cell-cultured protein.
The legal landscape surrounding these regulations is complex and evolving. Stakeholders have challenged the constitutionality of these statutes, raising questions about federal preemption, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and First Amendment rights. The outcomes of these legal battles could have significant implications for the future of alternative proteins.
One of the most notable cases is the lawsuit filed by Upside Foods against Florida’s ban on cell-cultured meat. Upside Foods, the first company in the U.S. to receive federal approval to sell cell-cultured meat, argues that Florida’s ban violates the Supremacy Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The company contends that the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempts Florida’s ban, as Congress has claimed exclusive regulatory authority over poultry ingredient requirements. Additionally, Upside Foods asserts that the ban discriminates against interstate commerce, benefiting in-state agricultural interests at the expense of out-of-state competition.
The legal process has seen mixed results. Upside Foods’ request for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the District Court of the Northern District of Florida dismissed some of the company’s claims. However, the court ruled that Upside Foods had plausibly alleged that Florida’s ban violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. This decision allows the litigation to continue, with a bench trial scheduled for 2026.
In another significant case, Upside Foods, joined by Wildtype, filed a lawsuit against Texas’s SB 261, which temporarily bans the sale of cell-cultured meat until September 1, 2027. The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the Dormant Commerce Clause and is preempted by federal law, using similar logic to their lawsuit against Florida’s ban. The defendants have yet to file an answer to the complaint but have submitted a motion to dismiss, which the court is currently considering.
The outcomes of these lawsuits will not only determine the fate of cell-cultured meat in Florida and Texas but also set precedents that could influence regulations in other states. The legal battles highlight the tension between state and federal regulatory authority and the potential economic implications of state bans on interstate commerce.
As the agricultural industry continues to evolve, the legal and regulatory frameworks must adapt to accommodate innovative technologies. The current wave of litigation surrounding cell-cultured meat and plant-based proteins underscores the need for clear, consistent regulations that balance state interests with the broader goals of fostering innovation and ensuring a competitive market. The decisions rendered in these cases will shape the future of alternative proteins and have far-reaching implications for the food industry and consumers alike.