Emily Whitest, Research Fellow 

The legal definition of “meat” is under fire. As alternative proteins flood the market, a new wave of state laws are challenging long-held food standards. The world of food is rapidly innovating, especially in the alternative protein space. As consumers increasingly explore options beyond traditional animal products, state legislatures across the U.S. have been busy crafting new laws. So far in 2025, we have seen significant movement, with some states banning the sale and manufacture of cell-cultured meat and others implementing strict labeling laws to ensure transparency.

Background on Alternative Proteins

Alternative proteins is a term typically referring to food products designed to mimic conventional meat, dairy, or egg products, but derived from different sources. This includes:

• Plant-based proteins: Foods made from ingredients like chickpeas, soy, or peas that replicate meat, dairy, or eggs. For example, a vegan burger made from black beans qualifies as a plant-based protein.
• Insect-based proteins: Products derived from insects, such as cricket flour, formulated to resemble traditional animal products.
• Cell-cultured meat (also called cultivated meat, lab-grown meat): This is a newer category, where protein is produced by growing animal stem cells outside of an animal. Think of it as “meat” grown in a controlled environment without the need to raise and slaughter livestock.

The development of these products has prompted lawmakers to consider how to regulate them, leading to a patchwork of new laws across the nation.

Federal Regulation: From Lab to Label

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. The FSIS is responsible for the inspection, processing, packaging, and labeling of cell-cultured meat from livestock and poultry. In a joint plan released in 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), FDA, and USDA reiterated this joint oversight and outlined the steps each agency intended to take to regulate cell-cultured meat.

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. A “no questions” letter indicates that the FDA has reviewed the company’s safety date and has no further questions about the product’s safety. The letter is not a formal “approval” of the product, rather an acknowledgement that the agency agrees with the basis for the company’s safety conclusion. 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.

It’s also worth noting the distinction for other types of animal products. While the USDA and FDA share jurisdiction over cell-cultured livestock and poultry, the FDA has sole regulatory authority over cell-cultured seafood (excluding catfish) and game meat. Thus, for a cell-cultured product solely under the jurisdiction of the FDA, such as Wildtype Inc.’s cultured salmon, the “post-harvest” regulatory process remains with FDA, and the product is not required to receive a grant of inspection or label approval from USDA.

Pre-2025 Legislative Actions

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. Typically, those laws typically fall into two categories: either banning the use of traditional “meaty” terms on alternative protein products or allowing their use with the addition of a clear, qualifying term. For example, Arkansas passed a law that banned the use of  “meaty” terms on labels for products that are not derived from slaughtered animals. An example of a labeling violation would be a company selling a “veggie burger” and labeling it simply as a “burger” on its packaging.  However, this law which included plant-based and cell-cultured products, was challenged and a federal judge found portions of it to be unconstitutional. On the other hand, Iowa enacted a law that allowed for the use of “meaty” terms on plant-based products, as long as the label included a prominent qualifying term such as “plant-based” or “veggie.” Unlike Arkansas’ law, in Iowa, a plant-based company selling a product would be in compliance with the law if its label read “veggie burger” or “plant-based sausage.”

2025 Bans on the Sale of Lab-Grown Meat

While the technology for cell-cultured meat is still developing, a number of states wasted no time introducing legislation to prohibit its manufacture, sale, processing, or distribution. In the three quarters of 2025 so far, we saw a clear trend of states enacting this type of legislation.

Indiana

Indiana’s HB1425, signed into law on May 6, 2025, implements a two-phase approach to regulating “cultivated meat products”—defined as animal protein grown from extracted animal stem cells in a facility. This legislation, codified at Ind. Code § 15-17-5-6.1, does not include an exception for research. 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: cultivated meat products will be considered “misbranded” if they are not clearly identified as such in advertising, labeling, or sale. Crucially, as of July 1, 2027, all packages of cultivated meat products will require the phrase “THIS IS AN IMITATION MEAT PRODUCT.”

Mississippi

Mississippi enacted HB1006, making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute any food product derived from cultured animal cells within the state. This landmark legislation, codified at Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-15, became law on March 21, 2025. The law does not contain a specific exemption for research. Any person found manufacturing, selling, holding for sale, offering for sale, or distributing these products will be charged with a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, faces a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment in a county jail for not more than three months, or both. For retail food establishments, potential consequences include disciplinary action and loss of licensure. This Mississippi law went into effect July 1, 2025.

Montana

Montana’s recently enacted HB401, signed into law on May 1, 2025, effectively bans the manufacture, sale, or distribution of “cell-cultured edible products” within the state. “Cell-cultured edible products” are defined as meat and its components (muscle, fat, connective tissue, blood) produced via cell culture rather than from a whole slaughtered animal. The bill also establishes penalties for violating the law: individuals face misdemeanor charges and a potential stop sale order, and retail food establishments can have their licenses or permits suspended or face other disciplinary action. Further, the bill removes portions of the Montana code that previously created labeling requirements for cell-cultured products. The law does not include a specific research exception. This law went into effect October 1, 2025, and is codified at Mont. Code Ann. § 50-31-501.

Nebraska

On May 20, 2025, Nebraska’s Governor approved LB246, amending the Nebraska Pure Food Act to explicitly address “cultivated-protein food products.” The new law, codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-2,282, defines cultivated-protein food products as food items that resemble animal tissue but are created by growing cells in a lab rather than through traditional meat processing. The law does not specify a research exception. The bill now classifies such cultivated-protein food products as adulterated food, making their manufacture, production, import, distribution, promotion, display, offer for sale, attempt to sell, or sale unlawful. Furthermore, any violation committed in a business context will also constitute a deceptive trade practice and subject to enforcement under Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This legislative action builds upon earlier state efforts to restrict cell-cultured meat, including Executive Order No. 24-09, issued on August 29, 2024, which prohibited state agencies from procuring such products.

Texas

Texas HB401 primarily prohibits the offering for sale and sale of “cell-cultured protein” for human consumption within the state, though this prohibition is temporary and set to expire on September 1, 2027. The bill defines “cell-cultured protein” as food derived from harvesting and artificially replicating animal cells in a growth medium. This legislation does not contain an exception for research. Violations can lead to civil and criminal penalties. The executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission is tasked with adopting rules to implement these changes. The bill took effect on September 1, 2025, and is codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 433.057. This law is currently being challenged in court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. To learn more about that case, and other litigation related to alternative proteins, click here to read NALC article “Alternative Proteins: 2025 Litigation Update.”

Labeling Legislation

While some states opted for bans against the sale or manufacture of cell-cultured protein, others focused on passing laws with the goals of ensuring consumers have clear information about what they are purchasing. This is achieved in one of two ways: either by outright banning the use of traditional “meaty terms” on alternative protein products, or by allowing these terms but requiring the use of a qualifying word or disclaimer. Legislators have stated that the goal of this legislation is to prevent misrepresentation and allow individuals to make informed dietary choices.

Bans Against the Use of “Meaty” Terms

Florida

Florida’s SB700, , codified at Fla. Stat. § 500.93, mandates the state’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services adopt rules enforcing existing FDA standards of identity for milk, meat, poultry, and eggs.[1] This means plant-based products cannot be sold using terms that mislead consumers into thinking they are animal-derived. An example of this is a product like a plant-based burger being marketed as “meat.” While this law was signed by Florida’s Governor DeSantis in late May, there is a unique trigger for it to take full effect. The specific prohibitions for milk, meat, poultry, and eggs will only become effective if at least 11 of 14 listed states pass similar mandatory labeling requirements. So far, seven of the listed states have enacted mandatory labeling requirements for plant-based protein products – Arkansas[2], Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia.

South Carolina

South Carolina’s S0103, codified at S.C. Code Ann. § 47-17-510, specifically targets the labeling and advertising of “artificial or cell-cultivated food products.” This law amends existing legislation to define “artificial or cell-cultivated food product” as any food product developed in a lab or facility from a biopsy of living animal cells including livestock, poultry, fish, crustaceans, or other animal protein. The law makes it unlawful to label these cell-cultivated products as “beef,” “poultry,” “fish,” “crustacean,” or any other animal protein they might resemble for advertising, manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale in the state. Furthermore, it prohibits any misleading or deceptive practices regarding these products, requiring that all artificial or cell-cultivated food product packaging must conspicuously indicate on the front that it is NOT beef, poultry, fish, crustacean, or any other animal protein it resembles. For instance, a package of cell-cultivated salmon would have to clearly and conspicuously state on the front that it is “NOT fish.” This law went into effect May 8, 2025.

Tennessee

Tennessee’s SB931/HB0804, signed into law on May 9, 2025 and codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-1-102; 53-1-119, defines “cell-cultured food products” as those grown from harvested cells without slaughter, and prohibits them from being labeled as “meat” or “meat food product.” While specific species sourcing (e.g., “beef cells”) or substitute descriptions are allowed, this means that a product can be described as being made from “beef cells” but cannot be labeled as “beef” itself. For example, the product could be labeled as “cell-cultured food product from chicken cells” or “cultivated food product from poultry.” Mislabeling the food product may result in a $2,000 fine per product for manufacturers. Furthermore, the act requires the Tennessee Department of Agriculture to implement a licensing program for cell-cultured food product manufacturers, requiring a $1,000 annual fee and approval criteria that align with existing federal FDA or USDA standards. This legislation took effect on July 1, 2025.

Disclosure Labeling Laws

Colorado

Colorado’s HB25-1203, signed into law on April 17, 2025 and codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-5-411; 25-5-428, focuses on labeling and preventing the misbranding of “cell-cultivated meat.” The core of the new law prohibits food processing plants from misbranding cell-cultivated meat as a meat product (e.g., using terms like “beef” or “chicken” without clarification) unless a conspicuous “qualifying term” (such as “cell-cultivated” or “lab-grown”) is clearly displayed in close proximity. For example, a food product made from cultivated meat could be sold as a “Cell-Cultivated Burger” or a “Lab-Grown Burger.” This law took effect August 6, 2025.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma HB1126, set to go into effect on November 1, 2025 and codified at Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-1150, broadly aims to prevent the misbranding and false advertising of food, particularly focusing on “manufactured-protein food products.” This new law defines manufactured-protein food products to include cultivated-protein food, insect-protein food, and plant-protein food that resemble traditional animal tissue but are not derived from meat processing. The bill mandates that if a manufactured-protein product uses an “identifying meat term” (e.g., “burger,” “sausage,” “chicken”), it must also display a “conspicuous and prominent qualifying term” (such as “cell-cultivated,” “lab-grown,” “plant-based,” or “insect-based”) in close proximity. For example, to use the term “burger” under this law, a plant-based burger substitute would be required to bear a term like “vegan” in front of the word “burger.” Furthermore, in food establishments, these products must be clearly separated from traditional animal products and identified with distinctive shelf tags, such as a tag that says “Plant-Based” or “Cultivated Meat.”

South Dakota

South Dakota’s HB1022, signed into law on February 11, 2025, amends the state’s existing “misbranded” food definitions to specifically address cell-cultured protein products. The bill went into effect on July 1, 2025, and is codified at S.D. Codified Laws §§ 39-4-26; 39-5-26. Previously, South Dakota law addressed misbranding in a general sense, including false or misleading labeling for traditional meat, but did not have specific provisions for cell-cultured. HB1022 is an expansion of this preexisting law to explicitly include cell-cultured protein in its misbranding criteria. The law now dictates that a food product is considered “misbranded” if it contains or is entirely cell-cultured protein and does not clearly and conspicuously state “cell-cultured” or “lab-grown” on its label, immediately adjacent to the food’s name, in prominent and uniform type. A food product that is entirely or partially made from cell-cultured protein, such as a cultivated beef patty, could not be sold in the state unless its label states “CELL-CULTURED BEEF PATTY” or “LAB-GROWN BEEF PATTY.” For the purpose of this act, “cell-cultured protein” is defined as any human food product made wholly or in part from cell culture or host animal DNA, grown or cultivated outside a living animal, excluding embryo transfer in livestock.

Utah

Utah’s HB138, which took effect May 7, 2025 and is codified at Utah Code §§ 4-5-102; 4-5-201, primarily focuses on labeling requirements for “cultivated meat products” and “plant or insect based meat substitutes.” Specifically, it requires that any food containing a cultivated meat product or a plant/insect-based meat substitute must bear a clear and prominent label notifying consumers of its alternative composition. For example, a product like a plant-based beef patty could not be simply labeled “patty.” Instead, its label would be required to prominently state something like “PLANT-BASED PATTY” or “PLANT-BASED MEAT SUBSTITUTE” to ensure consumers are fully aware of its ingredients. Similarly, a food product containing a cultivated meat substitute would need to be clearly labeled as such. Additionally, food establishments selling these products must notify the department during registration or renewal, allow inspections for labeling compliance, and pay an associated fee. The law permits the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food to make rules related to the registration of food establishments who wish to sell plant based or cultivated meat, but must wait to enforce the law’s labeling requirements until October 31, 2025.

Wyoming

Wyoming’s SF0084, signed into law on March 3, 2025, and effective July 1, 2025, primarily focuses on beef and alternative protein labeling. The act, codified at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-119, restricts the use of the term “meat” or synonymous terms to products consistent with its updated definition of “meat.” This definition specifies edible muscle parts from animals. For cell-cultured or plant-based products, the law requires clear labeling as “containing cell cultured product” or “vegetarian,” “veggie,” “vegan,” or “plant based,” respectively, if they do not meet the definition of traditional meat. For example, a product like a patty made from plant-based ingredients could not be sold simply as a “burger.” Instead, the law would require it to be labeled as a “plant-based burger,” a “veggie burger,” or a “vegan burger.” Similarly, a product derived from cell-cultured cells would need to be labeled as a “cell-cultured product.”

Exploring Other Regulatory Avenues

Beyond bans and specific labeling mandates, some states are taking different approaches to address the emerging cell-cultured protein industry. Nebraska’s governor signed an executive order in 2024 prohibiting state agencies from purchasing cell-cultured products. Additionally, Iowa passed similar legislation in 2024 that prohibited certain state actors from purchasing cell-cultured meat (Senate File 2391). For more information about Nebraska and Iowa’s action, see the National Agricultural Law Center articles linked at the bottom of this post.

South Dakota

Following in the footsteps of Iowa and Nebraska, South Dakota passed similar prohibitory legislation this year. South Dakota’s HB1118, codified at S.D. Codified Laws §§ 39-4-26; 39-5-26, prohibits the direct or indirect use of state moneys for the research, production, promotion, sale, or distribution of cell-cultured protein. This measure, however, carves out key exceptions, allowing the Board of Regents, institutions under its control, and state agencies performing regulatory functions related to cell-cultured protein research to continue their activities. HB1118 went into effect on July 1, 2025.

Conclusion

In 2025, state legislatures engaged in the alternative protein debate. By passing laws that ban their sale or manufacture, creating labeling requirements, or restricting specific state agencies from purchasing the products, the trend indicates an interest in regulating the alternative proteins industry. As new products emerge and consumer interest grows, it is likely that more state legislatures will address this issue in their 2026 sessions.

To learn more about state laws related to alternative proteins, click here to view NALC’s Alternative Proteins Law state compilation.

To learn more about Nebraska’s approach to lab grown meat, click here

To learn more about Alabama, Florida, and Iowa’s approach to lab grown meat, click here

If interested in a country in the European Union’s (“EU”) approach to lab grown meat, click here

[1] The FDA does not have Standards of Identity for meat or poultry, but the language of Florida’s SB700 states that “the department shall adopt rules to enforce the FDA’s standards of identity for meat, poultry, and poultry products.”

[2] Portions of Arkansas’ law have been deemed unconstitutional, and a permanent injunction has been issued. It remains unclear as to whether it would apply in this situation. To learn more about the Arkansas case, click here to read NALC article “Truth in Labeling Laws(uits) – Update on Arkansas.”