The legal landscape surrounding alternative proteins is rapidly evolving, with state legislatures across the U.S. grappling with how to regulate this burgeoning industry. As consumers increasingly explore options beyond traditional animal products, lawmakers are crafting new laws that challenge long-held food standards and definitions. The world of food is rapidly innovating, especially in the alternative protein space. This includes plant-based proteins, insect-based proteins, and cell-cultured meat, each presenting unique regulatory challenges.
The development of these products has prompted lawmakers to consider how to regulate them, leading to a patchwork of new laws across the nation. While states are charting diverse paths, federal agencies are also preparing for the increased presence of alternative proteins. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) share the majority of responsibility for food safety and labeling, with USDA regulating meat, poultry, catfish, and unshelled egg products and FDA regulating the other 80% of the food supply. For cell-cultured protein products, however, USDA and FDA share the regulatory responsibilities. Following a memorandum of understanding (MOU) established in 2019, the FDA is responsible for the pre-harvest phase of production, including cell collection, banking, growth, and differentiation. Regulatory oversight then transitions to the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) at the harvesting stage.
Several alternative protein companies have already successfully navigated this two-part process. In 2022, UPSIDE Foods was the first alternative protein company to receive a “no questions” letter from the FDA for its cultivated chicken. Similarly, GOOD Meat received its “no questions” letter in March 2023 for its cultured chicken. Both companies subsequently obtained a grant of inspection from the USDA’s FSIS and completed a robust inspection process that verified their compliance with FSIS processing, packaging, and labeling requirements.
Before the significant wave of legislation in 2025, several states had already taken action regarding alternative proteins. In 2024, Florida and Alabama were the first states to enact statutory bans on their sale and manufacture. These early actions set a precedent for other states, with many following similar pathways in 2025. However, even before the bans in Florida and Alabama, several states had already enacted laws addressing the labeling of alternative proteins. The laws varied in scope, with some states only restricting the use of meat terms for cell-cultured “meat”, while other states included broader regulations that also covered alternatives such as plant- or insect-based products.
In 2025, several states enacted legislation to prohibit the manufacture, sale, processing, or distribution of cell-cultured meat. Indiana’s HB1425 implements a two-phase approach to regulating “cultivated meat products.” From July 1, 2025 until June 30, 2027, the act imposes a temporary ban on the sale, offering for sale, or manufacture of cultivated meat products in Indiana. Beginning July 1, 2027, the ban expires and is replaced by strict labeling requirements. Mississippi enacted HB1006, making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute any food product derived from cultured animal cells within the state. Montana’s recently enacted HB401 effectively bans the manufacture, sale, or distribution of “cell-cultured edible products” within the state.
The implications of these laws are significant. For alternative protein companies, navigating this patchwork of regulations presents a complex challenge. Companies must stay informed about the evolving legal landscape and ensure compliance with both federal and state regulations. For consumers, these laws aim to provide transparency and clarity in labeling, ensuring that they can make informed choices about the products they purchase. However, the varying approaches across states may also lead to confusion and inconsistency in the market.
As the alternative protein industry continues to grow, it is likely that more states will introduce legislation to regulate these products. The federal government may also take a more active role in establishing consistent standards and guidelines. The legal definition of “meat” is under fire, and the outcome of these regulatory battles will shape the future of the food industry.