The fight against lab-grown meat has picked up considerable steam over the past year, with multiple states now prohibiting its manufacture, sale, and distribution. Florida became the first state to prohibit cultivated meat when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed SB 1084 into law on May 1, 2024. Alabama quickly followed up with its own ban later that month.
With the precedent having been set, many other states are now moving forward with bans of their own. In March of this year, Mississippi became the third state to prohibit cultivated meat. And, in early May, Montana and Indiana took action—the former prohibiting its manufacture, sale, and distribution, and the latter issuing a two-year moratorium on the products.
The Florida law is facing legal action from the Institute for Justice (IJ), which is arguing that the law represents a form of economic protectionism that violates the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. “This law is not about safety; it’s about stifling innovation and protecting entrenched interests at the expense of consumer choice,” said IJ senior attorney Paul Sherman. More specifically, the purpose of the law seems to be protecting established agricultural interests from a budding new technology that has the potential to seriously disrupt their industry.
The politicians, somewhat surprisingly, aren’t even trying very hard to hide the protectionist purpose of the legislation. In the press release about signing the Florida bill into law, DeSantis made a vague statement about fighting global elites, and then proceeded to speak very candidly about protecting farmers.
“Today, Florida is 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 said. “Our administration will continue to focus on investing in our local farmers and ranchers, and we will save our beef.”
“We must protect our incredible farmers and the integrity of American agriculture,” added Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Wilton Simpson. “….Together, we will keep Florida’s agricultural industry strong and thriving.”
In case that wasn’t clear enough, consider what DeSantis had to say in his spoken remarks on signing day:
I think it’s really important that we stand by our agriculture industry. I think it’s important that we stand by our cattle ranchers, and that’s what we’re doing here today. So I commend the legislature for being forward-thinking on this. This is not just being done willy-nilly; they want to do this stuff in the lab to be able to wipe the people sitting here today out of business. We will not let that happen in the great state of Florida.
He was speaking, unsurprisingly, to a room full of farmers.
Economic Dynamism and Vested Interests
Whether lab-grown meat will be the next big thing is hard to say, but it’s easy to see why many are drawn to the technology. Animal welfare is a significant concern for many people, and advocates say there are also environmental and food safety benefits to consider.
Unfortunately, by prohibiting these products outright, states like Florida are depriving consumers of their right to experiment with new kinds of food. Rather than allowing new technologies to flourish in a dynamic economy, legislators have chosen to side with the special interests who find this competition inconvenient.
Mises was adamant that the law should never come to the defense of established industries. “A characteristic feature of the unhampered market society is that it is no respecter of vested interests,” he wrote in Human Action. “In an unhampered market economy the absence of security, i.e., the absence of protection for vested interests, is the principle that makes for a steady improvement in material well-being.”
Imagine if cars had been banned in the early 20th century because they were seen as a threat to the horse-and-buggy industry. Technological development would have been held back. People would have been worse off. The economy would have grown at a slower pace. Consumers would have been robbed of their choice.
To be sure, I take no pleasure in the prospect of farmers losing their livelihoods. That is a difficult situation to be in, and it is perfectly understandable that they would try to preserve the businesses they have built.
But what the farmers and their sympathizers need to understand is that no one is entitled to a successful business. It is not fair to your fellow citizens to take away their choices just so that you can stay profitable. People in every other sector of the economy constantly face the competition of new technologies, and they often don’t get special protection from the government to keep them from being outcompeted. Why should you be allowed to ban your competition and not everyone else? Why should you get to keep your livelihood in perpetuity when millions of others have to adapt to changing market conditions?
Banning people from buying your competitors’ products is not a just way to stay in business. It is disrespectful to consumers, it is devastating for innovative entrepreneurs, and it puts a major check on economic progress.
I understand you want to keep your livelihood. But in a capitalist society, you need to do that by winning a fair fight, not a rigged one.