(Mercola)—In a landmark ruling, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida upheld a state law banning the sale and distribution of lab-grown or “cultivated” meat.¹ This law, enacted by the Florida Legislature, specifically prohibits companies from selling any meat or food product developed from cultured animal cells, like those grown in bioreactors.

The case centered on Upside Foods, a company at the forefront of cultivated meat technology, which argued that its lab-grown chicken should be treated like conventional poultry under federal law. However, under Florida’s new regulations, these products are barred from markets statewide.

For Upside Foods, this means any continued efforts to distribute their products in Florida could result in criminal penalties, civil fines and stop-sale orders. With this ruling, the court’s stance signals support for traditional meat production over cell-cultured alternatives in the Sunshine State.

Upside Foods’ Challenge to State Regulation

Upside Foods petitioned the court for an injunction to stop the ban’s enforcement, claiming that Florida’s restrictions contradicted federal law, namely the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). They argued that the PPIA gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) exclusive authority over poultry inspection and labeling, which should extend to their cultivated chicken products.²

Upside Foods also cited its history of marketing and distributing lab-grown chicken in major markets like Miami, claiming that the Florida ban has hampered its business plans, including partnerships with chefs and local events.

However, during the court hearing, the judge found that Upside Foods failed to show its lab-grown chicken fell under USDA definitions of “poultry” or “poultry products” as intended in federal law, making it unlikely to succeed in its argument that federal law overrides state regulations.

Federal law defines poultry products as any carcass or product made from a bird, but the judge found this definition did not clearly encompass cultivated meats developed from cells instead of whole animals. Without a precise federal standard for cultivated meats, the judge ruled that Florida’s law could stand because it does not directly contradict any federal law regarding poultry.³

In his judgment, Chief Judge Mark E. Walker observed that since the USDA has yet to issue specific standards for cell-based meats, Florida has the authority to regulate these products as it deems appropriate. This ruling suggests that, for now, individual states have discretion in deciding how or whether cultivated meats can enter their markets.

Food Safety, Labeling and Ingredient Standards at Issue

Upside Foods also argued that Florida’s ban imposed inconsistent standards regarding ingredient labeling and food safety. Under the PPIA, only the USDA sets requirements for the labeling and composition of poultry products in the U.S. However, the judge did not find the ban imposed any new ingredient standards that would conflict with federal law, as it outright prohibits lab-grown meat rather than imposing complex labeling requirements.

The court noted that without specific federal guidelines for cultivated meat, there was no basis to conclude that Florida’s ban on the product’s sale created an inconsistent or “additional” ingredient requirement. Therefore, the judge upheld that Florida’s law does not impose conditions in conflict with the PPIA’s inspection and labeling requirements, allowing the state to exclude lab-grown products from shelves without breaching federal regulations.

This case highlights the ongoing debate over whether lab-grown meat will be regulated and accepted across U.S. markets, or if states will continue setting their own standards for such products. The court’s decision sets a precedent that could embolden other states to pass similar laws restricting lab-grown foods.

“We are not surprised by the judge’s rejection of Upside’s preliminary injunction,” Florida Sen. Jay Collins told Children’s Health Defense. “The dangers of cultivated meat far outweigh any misleading environmental claims. Floridians will not be lectured by billionaires like Bill Gates on how to feed their families.”⁴

High Environmental Costs of Cultured Meat Production

While lab-grown meat is often hailed as a sustainable alternative, research reveals its significant environmental footprint. A recent life cycle assessment (LCA) from the University of California, Davis, examined the “cradle-to-gate” environmental impacts of animal cell-based meat (ACBM).⁵

The findings suggest that cultivating lab-grown meat is more resource-intensive than traditional beef production. Specifically, cultured meat production requires substantial energy and water for creating growth mediums, refining cell-culture components and managing bioreactor systems.

The process also involves high greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel depletion. When growth medium purification is factored in — a necessity for safe production — the carbon emissions for cultivated meat rise dramatically, in some cases exceeding conventional beef’s emissions.⁶ The environmental burden of fake meat, therefore, may be higher than previously estimated, challenging the assumption that lab-grown meat is inherently eco-friendly.

Another major challenge in cultured meat production is the removal of endotoxins, toxic byproducts from bacterial contaminants. Endotoxins pose risks to cell health, and their presence in animal cell cultures requires purification methods that are both energy-intensive and costly.

The study highlighted that removing endotoxins from growth media could add up to 25 times more environmental impact than baseline levels.⁷ For example, purifying the medium for cultured meat production to meet food-grade standards consumes significant energy, exacerbating the production’s carbon footprint.

Current methods for endotoxin removal rely on advanced chemical processes, which drive up both resource use and emissions. This means the environmental toll from cultured meat production offsets its perceived sustainability benefits.

Dependence on Highly Refined Growth Mediums

Lab-grown meat relies on specific nutrients, proteins and vitamins to grow cells effectively in bioreactors. These refined components are typically sourced from animal byproducts like fetal bovine serum (FBS), which poses ethical and environmental issues. While alternatives to FBS are being explored, they still require a high degree of refinement to ensure cell safety.

Purifying these materials introduces significant environmental and financial costs, given the energy and resources needed to prevent contamination. The Davis study modeled scenarios involving refined mediums, finding that production of 1 kilogram of ACBM could demand over 1,000 liters of growth medium, depending on purity needs.⁸

This substantial input places further strain on the environment, countering claims that cultured meat is a low-impact alternative to livestock. Further, for lab-grown meat to become a staple, the industry must scale production, which would require extensive new infrastructure and energy investment.

The Davis study estimates that an industrial-scale lab-grown meat facility would demand nearly 10 million liters of bioreactor capacity.⁹ This massive infrastructure expansion would require high energy inputs and specialized facilities, which further add to its environmental costs.

Meeting production demands would also necessitate scaling the supply of growth medium components, intensifying the environmental load. Additionally, maintaining clean rooms and running bioreactors on a continuous cycle for mass production would multiply these energy requirements.

Lab-Grown Meat Poses Health Risks from Cellular Dysregulation

Lab-grown meat faces health risks linked to the process of cell culture. Culturing cells for meat requires extensive replication and division, raising the possibility of cellular dysregulation, a condition observed in cancer cells. Such uncontrolled cellular changes could alter the structure or nutritional properties of the meat, with unknown implications for human health.¹⁰

While production facilities may eliminate abnormal cell lines, the rapid, repeated cell divisions needed to create lab-grown meat introduce variability and the risk of unexpected biological behaviors. These concerns remain largely unexplored, as studies have yet to fully examine the health impact of long-term consumption of lab-grown meat.

Cultured meat’s nutritional profile may also lack the diversity and quality found in conventional meat. Lab-grown meat production allows some control over fat content but fails to naturally provide essential micronutrients like vitamin B12 and iron, both vital for human health.

Attempts to artificially enrich cultured meat with these nutrients risk compromising the natural matrix that enhances nutrient bioavailability in traditional meat. Moreover, studies suggest that the growth medium’s composition could inadvertently inhibit the absorption of certain micronutrients.¹¹ In other words, lab-grown meat could end up offering a nutritionally inferior product, lacking in essential compounds typically provided through whole animal sources.

Additionally, ethical debates persist. While lab-grown meat may use fewer animals, it still relies on animal-derived cells, negating its “cruelty-free” narrative. For consumers who value real, whole foods, lab-grown meat’s engineered origins are far from natural.

Fake Meat Is an Ultraprocessed Food Product

Fake meats are not primarily about health or environmental benefits; instead, they’re a means to phase out traditional farming and replace it with ultraprocessed, patent-controlled food products. If government and corporate entities gain control over food production through lab-grown options, they ultimately gain more control over the people.

Further, lab-grown meat products are examples of highly processed foods that come with a range of significant health risks. These ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are a disaster for your health, even if they’re “animal-free” or “plant-based.”

A study using data from the UK Biobank analyzed the cardiovascular impacts of UPFs within plant-based diets, showing that a 10% increase in plant-based UPFs raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk by 5% and increased CVD mortality risk by 12%.¹²

Conversely, every 10% increase in consumption of minimally processed, plant-based foods was associated with a 7% reduction in CVD risk and a 13% reduction in CVD mortality. These findings suggest that the degree of food processing — rather than simply whether a food is plant-based — plays a key role in health outcomes.

Despite the growing popularity of plant-based meat alternatives, the evidence warns that their ultraprocessed nature undermines any perceived health benefits. These findings bring attention to the risks associated with other highly processed alternatives, such as lab-grown meat, which involves extensive processing methods similar to UPFs.

A Step Toward Consumer Protection Against Experimental, Ultraprocessed Foods

Florida’s ruling sets an important precedent in safeguarding consumers from the risks associated with lab-grown meats. From unknown health impacts to high environmental costs, these ultraprocessed products carry serious concerns that traditional food systems do not.

This decision stands as a critical move toward ensuring food safety, transparency and public health. By maintaining standards that favor traditional food sources, this ruling moves us closer to safeguarding the food supply against lab-grown products that remain more hype than health.

• ^1, 2, 3 Upside Foods V. Wilton Simpson October 11, 2024
• ⁴ Children’s Health Defense, The Defender October 23, 2024
• ^{5, 6, 7, 8, 9} bioRxiv April 21, 2023
• ^10, 11 Front. Nutr., February 6, 2020, Sec. Nutrition and Food Science Technology, Volume 7 – 2020
• ¹² The Lancet Regional Health Europe August 2024, Volume 43, 100948

“On the forecast track, the center of Milton will move across the eastern Gulf of Mexico today, make landfall along the west-central coast of Florida late tonight or early Thursday morning, and move off the east coast of Florida over the western Atlantic Ocean Thursday afternoon,” NHC wrote in an advisory note.

The latest forecast states Milton will make landfall near Sarasota between 0200 ET and 0600 ET Thursday morning as a Category 4 storm.

One of the main concerns across the Tampa to Sarasota region will be the storm’s dangerous eye and eyewall unleashing record storm surges. Warnings have already been posted for much of Florida’s western coast.

Storm surge plus wave heights. Not good pic.twitter.com/SPpSM0o4MY

— The American Storm (@BigJoeBastardi) October 9, 2024

Not good.

Wow! Watch this catastrophic simulation of Hurricane Milton

Milton is predicted to hit as a Category 5 hurricane with storm surges up to 15 feet in the Tampa area then will move across Florida

If you are in Milton’s path with evacuation orders, leave now

Do NOT wait pic.twitter.com/Nfv6LIQ8Bv

— Kylie Jane Kremer (@KylieJaneKremer) October 8, 2024

“Tampa is on a knife’s edge, but Sarasota, Siesta Key, Venice, Englewood, Port Charlotte, and Punta Gorda continue to look to experience the worst of the storm surge under this scenario,” Ben Noll, a meteorologist with New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, wrote on X.

The overnight ECMWF nudges slightly north with #Milton, with the eye forecast to pass near the southern end of Tampa Bay.

Tampa is on a knife's edge, but Sarasota, Siesta Key, Venice, Englewood, Port Charlotte, and Punta Gorda continue to look to experience the worst of the… pic.twitter.com/DAqnVxHJ4v

— Ben Noll (@BenNollWeather) October 9, 2024

Noll continued.

As of early Wednesday, #Milton remained a category 5 storm with a central pressure of 907 hPa, continuing to rank in the top-10 most intense Atlantic hurricanes on record from a pressure perspective.

Landfall in #Florida is only about 20 hours away from now. pic.twitter.com/wUO3TdJ3za

— Ben Noll (@BenNollWeather) October 9, 2024

Since Sunday, evacuations in the state have been the largest since 2017.

According to the Florida Division of Emergency Management, here are the areas under mandatory evacuation orders:

Charlotte County; Citrus County; Collier County; Hillsborough County; Hernando County; Lee County; Levy County; Manatee County; Pasco County; Pinellas County; Sarasota County; St. John’s County and Volusia County;

And voluntary evacuation orders:

Glades County; Okeechobee County; Dixie County; Hardee County; Miami-Dade County and Union County.

Evacuation order map:

GTFO.

Officials are urging residents along Florida's Gulf Coast to evacuate ahead of Hurricane Milton, with the Tampa mayor saying, "If you choose to stay in one of those evacuation areas, you're going to die."⁣ pic.twitter.com/NTg683IJRH

— AccuWeather (@accuweather) October 8, 2024

Massive evacuations in Florida due to Hurricane Milton. This is I-75 in Tampa. pic.twitter.com/owHfH8v8sj

— T_CAS videos (@tecas2000) October 8, 2024

A mass evacuation is in progress in Sarasota, Florida, following the upgrade of Hurricane Milton to a Category 5. Here’s a look at the northbound traffic on I-75 as residents make their escape.@MyRadarWX #flwx #hurricane #milton pic.twitter.com/vC2pEvxLR2

— Jordan Hall (@JordanHallWX) October 7, 2024

Meanwhile, Tampa-area Sheriff Chad Chronister of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office told residents anyone who has not evacuated is “on their own.”

Chances are pretty strong that this is all just one big coincidence, that two of the most powerful hurricanes to hit the United States in modern history happened less than two weeks apart a month before the most important presidential election of our lifetimes.

Then again, who believes in coincidences? We discussed on today’s episode of The JD Rucker Show.

The FBI has said in a statement it is investigating the matter as an assassination attempt, while law enforcement officials said on Sunday that Secret Service agents opened fire after discovering the barrel of a rifle at the Trump International Golf Course in West Palm Beach, Florida. The suspect was later arrested by sheriff’s officials in Marion County, the county’s sheriff’s department said.

“The State of Florida will be conducting its own investigation regarding the attempted assassination at Trump International Golf Club,” DeSantis said in a social media statement. “The people deserve the truth about the would-be assassin and how he was able to get within 500 yards of the former president and current GOP nominee.”

The Republican governor was referring to comments made by Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, who said the suspected gunman got between 400 and 500 yards of Trump and had an AK-47 with a scope pointed through a fence. The suspect was located by the agent around the fourth or fifth hole of the golf course, and Trump was set to approach the area, the sheriff said.

The investigation into the Florida incident at the Trump golf course is now being handled by federal law enforcement officials, the Marion County sheriff told reporters earlier Sunday.

Federal agents with the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were helping investigate.

Trump’s campaign and the former president himself issued statements saying that he was safe and unharmed. No injuries were reported.

In July, Trump was shot in the ear during a Pennsylvania campaign rally that also left one attendee dead and two injured. Questions were raised about the Secret Service agency and possible breakdowns in how the rally was secured, leading to the resignation of the agency’s director.

The suspected shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was killed nearly immediately after he opened fire at the rally. Few details about Crooks, including a motive, have been released since.

On Sunday, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas condemned violence against candidates and officials. His agency oversees the Secret Service and is currently overseeing an investigation into the Pennsylvania assassination attempt two months ago.

In a post on X, Mayorkas commended the Secret Service for “its quick action to preempt this apparent assassination attempt and protect the former President.”

“DHS and the Secret Service are closely working with federal, state and local law enforcement partners to learn all of the facts surrounding this incident. The safety and security of Presidential candidates and other protectees is the highest priority for the Secret Service, ” Mayorkas said.

Meanwhile, both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, have said they were briefed on the incident.

Biden released a statement on Sunday night saying he was “relieved” that Trump was not harmed in the incident, while also commending the Secret Service.

“I have been briefed by my team regarding what federal law enforcement is investigating as a possible assassination attempt of former President Trump today. A suspect is in custody, and I commend the work of the Secret Service and their law enforcement partners for their vigilance and their efforts to keep the former President and those around him safe,” he said.

The former president updated his fundraising website later Sunday with a message about his campaign efforts.
“FEAR NOT! I am safe and well, and no one was hurt. Thank God! But, there are people in this world who will do whatever it takes to stop us. I will not stop fighting for you. I will Never Surrender,” the website states.

DeSantis challenged Trump in the Republican primaries earlier this year before the Florida governor dropped out.