Federal lawsuit against Florida ban on "lab-grown" meat still alive after judge's ruling
A lawsuit against Florida's ban on "lab-grown" meat is still alive after a federal judge tossed four parts of the suit on Friday but kept a fifth.
Northern District of Florida Chief Judge Mark Walker declined to dismiss a part of the lawsuit that argued Florida's restrictions give an unconstitutional advantage to Florida farmers over out-of-state competitors. Meanwhile, the judge sided with state attorneys seeking to dismiss the lawsuit and their argument that federal approval of cultivated chicken doesn't mean individual states can't ban it.
U.S. regulators first signed off on the sale of what's known as "cell-cultured" or "cell-cultivated" meat in June 2023. The lawsuit had argued that Florida's law is preempted under federal laws that regulate the interstate market for meat and poultry products. Sellers say the product is a more ethical and sustainable alternative to conventionally raised chicken, beef and pork.
But lawmakers in Florida, Alabama and Mississippi have called cultivated meat a threat to their states' agriculture industries and banned the sale of the product, which is made of animal cells that are fed a mix of proteins, vitamins and water and then formed into nuggets, sausages and steaks.
The lawsuit was filed last year by Upside Foods, represented by the nonprofit law firm the Institute for Justice.
"Upside is not looking to replace conventional meat, which will always have a place at the table," Upside CEO Uma Valeti said in a statement. "All we are asking for is the right to compete, so that Floridians can try our product and see that it is possible to have delicious meat without the need for slaughtering animals. Today's ruling is an important step toward securing that right."
The governor's office and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services didn't immediately respond to emails seeking comment about the lawsuit.
Gov. Ron DeSantis was flanked by cattle farmers last May when he signed the state's cultivated meat ban into law.
"We stand with agriculture, we stand with the cattle ranchers, we stand with our farmers because we understand it's important for the backbone of the state," DeSantis said. "Take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Ron DeSantis Says Floridians Have Right to Hit Protesters With Cars
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has said Floridians have a right to hit protesters with their car if they need to "flee for your safety." Ron DeSantis speaks during a news conference in Miami, Tuesday, May 9, 2023. Ron DeSantis speaks during a news conference in Miami, Tuesday, May 9, 2023. Rebecca Blackwell, File/AP Photo DeSantis was speaking on The Rubin Report on Wednesday, when he said: "We also have a policy that if you're driving on one of those streets and a mob comes and surrounds your vehicle, and threatens you, you have a right to flee for your safety. "And so if you drive off and you hit one of these people, that's their fault for impinging on you. You don't have to just sit there and be a sitting duck and let the mob grab you out of your car and drag you through the streets." Gov. Ron DeSantis says that Floridians are ALLOWED to drive over protesters in the street, if they feel like their life is in danger.. LOVE this! 👏👏 — American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) June 12, 2025 Civil rights activist Heather Heyer was killed after James Alex Fields Jr., drove his car into counter protesters at the Unite the Right Rally in 2017. Fields argued self-defense but was found guilty of first degree murder. DeSantis' comments come ahead of the 'No Kings' protests which are planned for June 14. Protest organizers have said the demonstrations are non-violent, and are providing de-escalation training to people taking part. This is a developing story and will be updated.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maxwell: Floridians forced onto Slide Insurance while CEO gets $21 million
Let's start today with a flashback look at a trio of headlines. The first comes from a column I penned last year: 'Florida homeowners become Slide customers — whether they want to or not.' That piece detailed Florida's policy of forcing customers off the state-run Citizens Insurance program onto a relatively new, Tampa-based company called Slide Insurance, usually at higher rates. I had a lot of questions about this, as it struck me as a shady and extremely consumer-unfriendly practice. Other consumer advocates and even some insurance executives had questions as well. Florida homeowners become Slide customers — whether they want to or not | Commentary Now let's look at our second headline, one the South Florida Sun Sentinel produced just last week: '$50 million pay package for Florida insurance company's leading execs draws criticism.' It probably won't surprise you to learn that company here is, once again, Slide. Another industry publication reported that CEOs of other Florida companies that benefited from the state's 'depopulation' practice are also now enjoying compensation packages worth as much as $20 million. And finally, here's the third headline from a column I penned earlier this year: 'You got conned. Home insurance costs still rising in Florida.' That piece noted that, on the heels of Florida lawmakers passing what they billed as insurance 'reform' — which mainly consisted of shielding the industry from lawsuits — consumer costs were still rising. As the Sun Sentinel had reported, the average insurance premium in Florida increased for nine consecutive quarters after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the first 'reform' measure into law. So now let's put all these stories together: Lawmakers forced more than 100,000 Floridians to become customers of private insurers and made it harder for homeowners to sue insurance companies. Neither of those things brought rates down. To the contrary, they continued to rise. But there is at least one group of people who seem to be thriving in Florida's newly 'reformed' insurance market — the CEOs. That is Florida's version of 'reform.' $50 million pay package for Florida insurance company's leading execs draws criticism It's worth noting that it's not just Florida journalists and consumer advocates who are taken aback by Florida's new enrich-the-CEOs marketplace. The nationally respected Insurance Journal reported last week that the industry's own insiders were aghast. The piece — entitled 'Size of Florida's Slide Insurance Exec Compensation Has Tongues Wagging' — quoted one insurance executive as saying: 'Capitalism is a great system, but this is out of control.' When even the insurance execs think the system is grossly tilted in favor of the profiteers, there are serious problems. You can read all these pieces for full details. But here's a quick summary: A) Slide reported a $21 million compensation package for CEO Bruce Lucas last year and $50.3 million over the last two years for Lucas and his COO wife. B) Slide declined to comment on its executives' pay, but the Journal reported that this start-up Florida company was paying its CEO about as much as some national insurers paid their CEOs. C) State regulators say that they can't control salaries; that homeowners forced onto private companies can choose another company (if they can find one) and that the state's market is healthier since there are now more companies doing business here. Still, the bottom line is that virtually none of what lawmakers have done has reduced costs for homeowners. Your rates were sky-high three years ago, and most have only gone up since. That's because the primary plank in the Republican-drafted-and-approved version of insurance 'reform' was to make it harder for homeowners to sue their insurer — even if an insurer improperly denies you of benefits to which you're entitled. The theory was that, if the state saved the companies legal costs, the savings would trickle down to consumers. Except what fails to trickle down to the politicians who espouse this chamber-of-commerce talking point is reality. Companies don't have to give you a nickel's worth of savings unless they want to or unless it's required. As I've said for years, this state is geographically designed to be an expensive place to live; a hurricane-prone peninsula surrounded by rising floodwaters. So if lawmakers really want to make this state more affordable, they're going to have to make serious investments in subsidies, either for the state's Citizens program or for private companies. But any financial gifts to the industry have to be accompanied by legislative demands that the companies also lower rates. Trickle-down theories are often just a bunch of baloney — as evidenced by the nine consecutive quarters of increased costs Floridians faced after they were promised relief. You got conned. Home insurance costs still rising in Florida | Commentary If you want to see something different, you need to elect different people — lawmakers who won't pass any kind of 'reform' unless it is accompanied by lock-solid guarantees that your rates will drop. And if you feel like letting your lawmakers know that's your plan, you can find their contact info at smaxwell@
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
SWAT Raid Fallout: McKinney Ordered To Compensate Homeowner
A ruling years in the making affirms property rights in a case previously reported by The Dallas Express. A federal judge has ordered the City of McKinney to pay nearly $60,000 in damages to a woman whose home was destroyed during a 2020 SWAT standoff—despite her having no connection to the fugitive inside. Vicki Baker, a cancer patient and retired grandmother, was preparing to relocate to Montana when police descended on her property. The SWAT team was pursuing her former handyman, who had barricaded himself inside her McKinney home. 'I told them, 'Please don't destroy my house,'' Baker recalled to NBC 5. They did anyway. What followed was a five-year legal battle in which the city refused to pay for the $60,000-plus in property damage, forcing Baker to dip into her retirement savings just to make the home livable again. With the help of the Institute for Justice, Baker took the city to court, arguing that government agents who destroy private property—regardless of motive—should be held financially accountable. 'We're trying to establish that even if the government is acting for a legitimate reason, they must compensate property owners for what they destroy,' said attorney Jeffrey Redfern. The city previously offered a partial settlement, but Baker refused, pushing for full compensation and a broader legal precedent. Last week, a federal judge agreed and ordered McKinney to pay $59,656.69. City officials told NBC 5 they are 'evaluating options for appealing the ruling.' Baker, now retired and living on Social Security, says she fought not just for herself but for others who might one day find themselves in her position. 'It was disastrous for me, but what if it were a single mom with no savings? Someone has to stand up,' she said. The ruling could signal a growing trend of courts reining in unchecked government immunity when innocent citizens bear the cost of public safety operations.
