Suzannah (Suzi) Gerber is the Executive Director of AMPS Innovation and is a senior food, nutrition, and behavior research scientist and a well-known chef.
In this Q&A, Ms Gerber explains how the legal challenge to Florida’s ban on cultivated meat hinges on the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and obstructs the FDA and USDA’s jurisdiction over food safety. Furthermore, a ruling overturning the ban could set a legal precedent supporting a unified national framework for cultivated meat, blocking future state-level bans.
Could you give us a brief overview of the legal case challenging Florida’s ban on cultivated meat and why it’s considered unconstitutional?
The legal challenge against Florida’s ban on cultivated meat centers on two key constitutional principles: the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. The Commerce Clause is designed to protect free trade and interstate commerce, which Florida’s ban violates by preventing not only the sale but also the distribution of cultivated meat – a product that is made outside of Florida and would likely cross many state lines now and in the future. This restriction directly contradicts the constitutional protection of the free flow of goods across the US.
The Supremacy Clause is also invoked because the federal government, through the FDA and USDA, holds authority over food safety and inspection, and federal decisions should supersede state laws– states attempting to legislate around federal decisions are problematic for a number of reasons. Florida’s ban conflicts with federal regulations and authority, making it unconstitutional, and should send a chill through every American business– we want to be a united economy, not 50 separate competing economies.
What is the most significant long-term impact of this case on the cultivated meat industry and food innovation in the US?
A victory in this case would set a precedent, likely leading to the invalidation of other state bans on cultivated meat and preventing new ones from being introduced. It would reinforce the FDA’s authority over food product approvals and the USDA’s role in inspections, allowing companies like UPSIDE Foods and GOOD Meat, Inc. to resume normal operations. This outcome would promote a more unified and innovation-friendly regulatory environment for food technologies across the US.
“Cultivated meat presents numerous economic opportunities”
While the court has denied UPSIDE’s motion for a preliminary injunction at this early phase of the case, we anticipate a thorough and thoughtful legal exploration of the law and we are confident that the courts will make the choice to overturn the ban because ultimately that is consistent with the law and in the best interest of the American people.
How does this ban affect the global landscape of food security and innovation? Could it set a precedent for other states or countries?
Florida’s ban comes at a time when global food innovation is advancing rapidly, with very recent and major developments in the UK and China. The USDA has already substantially invested in cultivated meat, recognizing its potential to provide resilient food sources that could mitigate climate impacts and reduce the dependency of our food system on traditional agriculture, something that every society has always done as technology evolves.
While the US is currently lagging, winning this case could be the push this country needs to reclaim leadership in food biotechnology, influencing global trends. A favorable ruling would encourage other states and possibly nations to embrace cultivated meat as a solution to food insecurity and environmental challenges.
How does cultivated meat contribute to global food security, particularly in light of growing concerns around pandemics, extreme weather, and food shortages?
As a complement to traditional practices, cultivated meat can help meet the growing global demand for protein while addressing the inefficiencies and challenges of conventional meat production. It supports global food security by providing a consistent and reliable source of meat, produced in controlled environments that would be markedly less impacted by extreme weather conditions, political crises, or any geological limitations in agricultural capacity. As soon as 2050, models predict that we will not be able to meet the growing demand for protein foods– cultivated meat is a promising solution to this looming challenge, and needs to exist among all the others because it will take that much to feed the world.
Livestock farming is resource-intensive and vulnerable to external shocks, as well as exacerbating them. Cultivated meat can be produced with greater efficiency, using less water and land, and delivering yields in nearly half the time. Not only that, but livestock farming results in a very poor return on investment for nutrients- less than 25% of the amount of nutrients and resources put in is usually retained in the final foods. Producing food faster and more resource-efficient food is an important buffer against food shortages during times of crisis, and can help to slow down the terrifying nutrient depletion we are seeing in the food system now.
“Cultivated meat uses significantly fewer resources than traditional animal farming”
Importantly, 60% of major infectious diseases stem from animal-human transmission with livestock farming as a primary source. Cultivated meat could mitigate this risk by reducing the global reliance on high-density livestock farming (factory farming). By addressing these challenges– more food, faster and greater food system resilience– we can enable more sustainable agricultural practices. Ultimately, cultivated meat could benefit individual health, society, and the planet which is why pursuing it as a critical tool is crucial for building a more secure and resilient global food system.
How does cultivated meat ensure environmental sustainability compared to conventional meat production?
Cultivated meat uses significantly fewer resources than traditional animal farming. It requires less water, and land, and eliminates the need for deforestation, pesticides, and practices on land and sea that require devastating ecosystems. While it does use energy, ongoing technological advancements and the integration of renewable energy sources are improving its efficiency.
The industry’s commitment to sustainability aligns with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimizing the environmental impact of food production. A lot of the information I see in the press reports old information and inflammatory talking points that are just not accurate. Several breakthrough advancements that are already in use in the industry are very under-represented in the media– like the use of animal-free growth media, and data that clearly show scalability and lower energy use from scaled production. Most companies have already moved on from earlier methods and the industry has already made strides towards sustainability goals. The speed at which this technology advances is often even faster than our rapid media cycle– Check in with AMPS directly for the latest and reliable facts on the industry.
What health benefits could cultivated meat bring to mainstream diets?
Cultivated meat could provide high-quality animal proteins without the risks associated with traditional meats, such as bioaccumulation of toxins like mercury, parasites, or microplastics in conventional seafood. This could especially benefit vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women.
“Cultivated meat addresses current challenges like climate change, food insecurity, and the rising prevalence of nutrition-related diseases”
Moreover, as the technology develops, cultivated meat may even be able to optimize nutritional profiles, including healthier fatty acid ratios, and could be blended with plant-based ingredients to create nutritionally superior, fiber-rich products. In global regions with limited access to protein, cultivated meat could make affordable, nutritious options more widely available.
Why is it important for lawmakers to support food innovation, particularly cultivated meat and other alternative proteins?
The US has a long history of supporting food innovation to bolster national security and public health. Cultivated meat addresses current challenges like climate change, food insecurity, and the rising prevalence of nutrition-related diseases, particularly in the US where 71% of young adults suffer from such conditions.
Supporting food innovation not only improves public health but also strengthens national security by ensuring stable food sources. Moreover, global leadership in biotechnology, as identified by the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology and the Biden-Harris Executive Order, is critical for maintaining U.S. competitiveness and economic growth.
Why is consumer choice critical in this debate, and how might Florida’s ban infringe on consumers’ rights?
Consumers should have the right to choose what they eat, including delicious, safe, and sustainable food products like cultivated meat. Florida’s ban infringes on this right by preventing access to federally approved foods. While governments have historically supported the availability of animal products through subsidies, banning alternatives altogether forces consumers into a limited diet, regardless of personal or health preferences. Cultivated meat has already been deemed safe by federal agencies, and consumers deserve the freedom to make informed decisions based on rigorous scientific evaluation.
How do bans like Florida’s impact small businesses, and what challenges do they face in competing with larger companies?
Cultivated meat companies are typically small, independent startups driven by innovation. Bans like Florida’s effectively hand market dominance to larger, established companies, stifling competition and innovation. Small businesses, despite obtaining regulatory approval, are being unfairly restricted from selling their products, limiting their potential to succeed in the marketplace. Florida also stands to lose economically by missing out on trade, local processing jobs, and the opportunity for innovation in its own agricultural sector.
What are the potential economic opportunities of cultivated meat for small and mid-sized businesses?
Cultivated meat presents numerous economic opportunities. Anytime a commodity moves around it requires processing and holding facilities, but these products would be sold in restaurants, and grocery stores, move through ports, and require the building of special equipment and sourcing of food ingredients from multiple companies– cultivated meat is part of a larger ecosystem of the food industry and every stakeholder within it is strengthened when there is a new category.
“Supporting cultivated meat and other food innovations ensures that the US continues to modernize its food systems”
In regions prone to agricultural disruptions, as frequently seen in Florida’s hurricanes, cultivated meat offers a more resilient food supply chain. Cultivated meat could create jobs and foster collaboration with local growers, supply chains, and scientific communities, driving economic growth.
What are the next steps for AMPS and companies like UPSIDE Foods if the Florida ban is upheld?
The court has already recognized the significance of this case by refusing to dismiss it outright. A ruling in favor of Florida could slow the progress of cultivated meat in the state, but the broader national debate on federal versus state regulatory authority would intensify. These companies would continue to advocate for the FDA and USDA oversight of food safety and the benefits of open interstate commerce for innovative food products. Our entire commerce system would fall apart if every company had to adhere to 50 sets of rules just to sell to Americans. New mechanisms to help bolster the federal agencies to approve and regulate these goods would be needed if states continue to attempt to supersede them.
What advancements in cultivated meat technology are expected in the next 5 to 10 years?
In the coming years, cultivated meat is expected to achieve price parity with conventional meat and continue to optimize taste, texture, sustainability, and nutritional profiles, making these products more appealing and accessible to consumers. Cultivated meat could also play a critical role in addressing food shortages and feeding vulnerable populations in conflict zones or areas facing extreme climate conditions.
What message would you like to send to policymakers about supporting cultivated meat and food innovation to address global crises?
Policymakers should embrace more solutions, not fewer, in addressing global crises like climate change and hunger. Supporting cultivated meat and other food innovations ensures that the US continues to modernize its food systems, improving environmental sustainability, public health, and economic resilience. A small redirection of subsidies from traditional agriculture to alternative protein research would empower consumers with more food choices that are free from the typical environmental and health challenges associated with conventional farming.
Suzi is a researcher focusing on novel food development, health impacts, and consumer behavior working with Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine and as a USDA-NIFA Research Fellow at Tufts University, and is a thought leader in food and ingredient trends, nutrition, and alternative proteins and is an experienced media personality featured on platforms including NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and The Wall Street Journal. Her critically acclaimed book Plant-Based Gourmet is featured in Rolling Stone, CNN, Reader’s Digest, VegNews, Living Well, and others.