Originally appeared in the Omaha World-Herald.
Gov. Jim Pillen has made banning lab-grown meat a policy priority for 2025 and the Nebraska legislature is following his lead. In January, Sen. Barry DeKay proposed LB246, which would prohibit the importation, distribution, promotion, or sale of the product in the state. The momentum behind the effort in Lincoln is understandable.
Elected leaders have food safety concerns—skepticism that policymakers in other states like Florida and Alabama share. When reporting on lab-grown meat in 2023, Bloomberg correctly observed “there just aren’t any long-term health studies…”
Lab-grown meat is like something out of a science fiction film. It is produced by taking animal cells and adding them to a bioreactor, similar to a brewing vat. At the next stage, a growth serum is added to stimulate cell multiplication and division. After a few weeks there is enough cellular mass to harvest and shape the goop into a patty or nugget.
Lab-grown meat advocates claim this process creates what is essentially animal protein. But there are stark differences that should raise eyebrows.
One is the use of “immortalized” cells. Normally, cells can divide and multiply a limited number of times. However, “immortalized” cells have been modified to grow in perpetuity similar to a tumor. These cells have been used for medical research, such as toxicology tests, where it is handy to have lots of cells to experiment with. But this science has never before been applied to a food product.
Two companies have been given the green light from regulators to sell lab-grown meat, but the approval process has been criticized—leaving many to question it.
Rather than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reaching an independent conclusion of its own, the agency relied on biased industry-submitted data. And after reviewing the materials, the FDA gave lab-grown meat a rubber stamp.
One whistleblower provided a blunt description. He called it, “the most embarrassing ‘scientific’ manuscript in the history of modern technological innovation.” Another FDA submission revealed that samples of lab-grown chicken contained 20-times higher lead levels and eight-times the amount of cholesterol compared to natural poultry.
When food safety is called into question, states have a responsibility to step in and call a timeout on the play. Many believe the lab-grown meat saga falls into this bucket. Banning the product would provide time for proper scientific studies to be conducted.
And it can be done with little economic or consumer disruption. Lab-grown meat is not currently being sold at grocery stores or other businesses in the state. Why? Because it is still too expensive to produce commercially.
Critics of efforts to ban lab-grown meat argue it sets a bad precedent. They claim it will embolden other states to, for example, pass laws against genetically improved crops. But that logic is like comparing apples to oranges. Genetically modified crops have decades of scientific research showing that it is just as safe for human consumption as non-GMO foods. In contrast, there are zero long-term studies of the safety of consuming lab-grown meat.
Others claim that cracking down on lab-grown meat will harm the environment. However, a study from the University of California Davis tells a different story. It found that at scale, the process to make lab-grown meat could produce up to 25-times more CO2 emissions than traditional meat. Why? Because manufacturing facilities use huge amounts of electricity to operate the bioreactors.
Lab-grown meat is a unique, new product that many believe the federal government has failed to adequately review and scrutinize. The Nebraska legislature and governor are well within reason to pump the brakes on the Frankenstein creation—at least until officials are confident it is safe.
Jack Hubbard is the executive director of the Center for the Environment and Welfare.