Outcry as Indiana becomes fifth US state to ban cultivated meat in effort to protect farming profits
Indiana has imposed a two-year ban on the sale, production, and labeling of cultivated meat in the state to promote transparency, and prevent consumer confusion around novel foods, starting July 1, 2025. While supporters cite consumer safety and protecting traditional farmers, industry experts warn the ban could hinder innovation and economic growth despite strict regulatory oversight.
Indiana is now the fifth US state to ban cultivated meat, joining Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Montana. This comes amid ongoing restrictions on the production and sale of meat alternatives worldwide.
The moratorium is a part of House Bill 1425 and prohibits misbranding the alt-meat as regular meat. Once the ban ends, manufacturers must label lab-grown meat as an “imitation meat product.” Violations can result in civil penalties of up to US$100,000 per offense by the Indiana Board of Animal Health (BOAH).
Representative Beau Baird, who introduced the bill, believes Indiana needs time to understand the health and safety impacts of cultivated meat, and views the ban as a way to protect farmers, and ensure consumer transparency and safety.
The Association for Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Innovation (AMPS) has strongly opposed legislative efforts to restrict labeling guidelines on cultivated meat.
“These products undergo the most rigorous and detailed testing and scientific oversight of any food ever produced in the American food system. These foods are MAHA-worthy safe, clean, and high-quality proteins created by leaders in American agriculture,” Suzi Gerber, executive director of AMPS, tells Food Ingredients First.
“Cultivated meat is made without antibiotics, has no heavy metals, no microplastics or chemical additives, unlike many conventional meat foods. The cultivated meat industry is both a consumer of traditional agriculture, giving money to farmers and farms, and an active collaborator, offering many new and diverse revenue streams for American farmers.”
The bill has tasked The Indiana Department of Agriculture, BOAH, and Department of Health to study the safety of cultivated meat products for human consumption, and report the findings and recommendations by December 1, 2025.
Gerber says she does not anticipate the Indiana ban to impact the meat and poultry industry, but expects it to reduce opportunities for Indiana.
Impact on economic opportunities
The AMPS believes such bans will damage needed employment opportunities and reduce investments in the state.
“I would like Indianans to see that they are leaving money on the table, preventing thousands of jobs from coming into the state, preventing skilled workers from training into higher paying jobs, limiting tax revenue, and most importantly, limiting their access to more sources of safe and nutritious foods,” continues Gerber.
“The Trump Administration has made clear that technology solutions to American fish production is a priority, and this includes aquaculture and cultivated fish. Recently, the one major on-land aquaculture facility in Indiana left to go to Ohio, a more business-friendly state.”
“This move goes against Trump’s Administrative priorities, keeps Indiana out of the bioeconomy, and instead sends lucrative business opportunities to neighboring Ohio.”
Meanwhile, Pepin Andrew Tuma, GFI’s director of Policy and Government Relations adds that such bans stifle progress with “shortsighted government interventions that undermine free markets and consumer choice.”
“These restrictive laws do nothing to help farmers or ranchers and only serve to limit economic opportunity and take food choices away from the American people.”
NTU’s Prof. William Chen proposes the term “urban meat” to better reflect the way cultivated meat is produced.
“Urban Meat”
Dr. William Chen from Nanyang Technological University Singapore, and director of Singapore Future Ready Food Safety Hub (FRESH), tells Food Ingredients First the ban is “unfortunate” and reflects the critical importance of communication regarding novel foods globally.
In addition to urging better communication between cultivated meat innovators and consumers, he also emphasizes the need for stronger collaboration between innovators and regulators or lawmakers.
“I would like to propose a new term “Urban Meat” to better reflect the way cultivated meat is produced, and consumers/law makers should be able to tell that Urban Meat is not from the traditional animal farming.”
Chen also highlights the importance of “evidence-based data” in supporting novel food advancements, noting that FRESH is developing New Approach Methodologies in partnership with the Singapore Food Agency and the WHO.
“This integrated tech platform is an alternative to animal testing and allows us to evaluate not only the potential toxicity of novel foods, including CM, but also their nutritional benefits.”
Reverse engineering to innovate new food products that appeal to consumers using big data analytics could convince them to try novel foods.
Tapping scientific rigor
Chen believes early engagement in food innovations is more important than consumer education in the cultivated meat debate.
He encourages formulators to use big data to “reverse engineer” products that consumers already want, rather than creating products based on scientific ideas, and then trying to persuade people to buy them. He notes that with novel foods, “the convincing part is ineffective.”
For Gerber, scientific rigor should be a priority for novel foods. “We believe in hands-on, collaborative pre-market evaluations and an amply supported regulatory system to move efficiently but comprehensively through scientific review and safety evaluation.”
“Companies market products. Organizations like AMPS, GFI, and countries should play a role in communicating the potential and the value proposition of cultivated meat, which goes far beyond sustainability. To feed a growing population, we will need more, not fewer, options of where we source our food,” she concludes.
