logo
Why the right wants to ban this innovation before you get to try it

Why the right wants to ban this innovation before you get to try it

Vox29-05-2025

is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine.
Conservatives want the government to dictate what you can and cannot eat. Or so Republican policymaking increasingly suggests.
Earlier this month, Montana and Nebraska became the latest US states to ban lab-grown meat (also known as 'cellular meat' or 'cultivated meat'). Unlike plant-based meat substitutes like the Impossible Burger, lab-grown meat consists of actual animal tissue, but made without slaughtering animals. Instead, scientists take a sample of animal cells and feed them amino acids, salts, vitamins, and other nutrients until they grow into edible beef, pork, or poultry.
This technology isn't yet commercially viable. You can't buy cellular meat at a grocery store. And if you could, a serving might cost you the bulk of your savings.
Processing Meat
A newsletter analyzing how the meat and dairy industries impact everything around us. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Nevertheless, self-styled champions of free enterprise in Nebraska, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Wyoming have all sought to stymy the manufacture and sale of cellular meat within their borders.
Although these bans are of little immediate consequence, they're nevertheless alarming and unconscionable. Industrial agriculture as currently practiced entails the torture of billions of sentient beings. And when forced to choose between tolerating such cruelty and forfeiting cheap bacon, nearly everyone picks the former.
Lab-grown meat faces many scientific and economic hurdles to viability. But it is nevertheless our best hope for eliminating torture from our food system. And the right's push for prohibiting the technology is fueled by little more than paranoia, greed, and cultural grievance.
The moral necessity of lab-grown meat
Human beings generally love the taste of flesh, and not without reason. Meat is highly nutrient-dense, providing protein and essential amino acids, as well as vitamins and minerals that can be challenging to assemble from plant-based foods. The slaughter and consumption of animals has also been a central feature of human cultures, from the Paleolithic to the present day.
Of course, for much of our species' history, meat was scarce. Raising livestock requires more resources than cultivating wheat or rice, which has long rendered highly carnivorous diets unattainable for ordinary people. As soon as humans can afford to eat meat regularly, however, most do so: Around the world, meat consumption rises almost linearly with increases in national income.
Our World In Data
This relationship may break down some in the wealthiest nations. Past a certain level of affluence, people seem to give more weight to environmental and medical arguments against heavy meat consumption — Germany, for example, has managed to modestly decrease its per capita meat consumption over the last decade. But even in extremely rich societies, moral or environmental arguments against meat consumption haven't made a significant dent on people's dietary choices.
According to Gallup's polling, in 1999, 6 percent of Americans identified as vegetarians. By 2023, that figure had fallen to 4 percent (while an additional 1 percent of Americans identified as vegans). And other empirical research, such as studies of shoppers' grocery purchases, comports with Gallup's findings.
In other words, despite massive increases in the quantity and quality of plant-based meat alternatives — and enormous amounts of animal rights advocacy and activism — the carnivorous share of the US public has stayed more or less constant over the past quarter-century.
Gallup
It therefore seems implausible that moral suasion alone will ever drastically swell the ranks of America's vegetarians. Which is too bad, since the moral arguments against modern animal agriculture are incredibly strong. And it requires little philosophical sophistication to recognize as much.
Most Americans think that it is wrong to torture a dog for months and then kill it. Granted, I don't have hard data for that claim (for some reason, Gallup and Pew have not seen fit to poll that proposition). But it seems like a reasonable assumption, given the public's hostility to dog-fighting rings and other forms of canine abuse.
Yet the reasons why we typically consider dogs to be beings of moral worth — their capacity for bonding with humans and other members of their species, intelligence, distinct personalities, empathy, and vulnerability to suffering — also apply to pigs, among other animals raised for slaughter. Yet we tolerate the systematic torture of tens of millions of pigs each year. Male piglets are routinely castrated without anesthesia. Most sows, or female breeding pigs, meanwhile, spend their entire lives in cages so small that they cannot stretch their legs or turn around.
The scale of cruelty in meat cultivation is greater than it needs to be. But there is an inescapable trade-off between productivity and humanity in industrial agriculture. Pig farmers don't keep sows in tiny cages because they are sadists. Rather, they do so because the less space an individual sow takes up, the more you can breed in a given amount of square footage. Minimizing the resource-intensity of meat production — and therefore its cost to consumers — generally means deprioritizing the welfare of animals.
At present, there is just no getting around the conflict between our collective appetite for meat and our common moral intuition that torturing animals by the billions is wrong. Some people resolve this tension by irrationally denying the cognitive and emotional similarity of house pets and many farmed animals. Others simply choose to become vegetarians or vegans. Many, like myself, uneasily accept that we are not prepared to fully live up to our values in this domain (while seeking to mitigate our moral culpability by citing our difficulty digesting beans and soy, or the scarcity of vegan restaurants in our area, or our family traditions, or how good carnitas tacos taste).
Maybe, eventually, my vegan colleagues will persuade me to stop eating animals and start worshipping seitan. But such conversions are unlikely to ever happen at scale. Thus, the only way to reconcile humanity's taste for meat with its sympathy for intelligent life is to decouple animals' flesh from their sentience. And lab-grown meat is our best hope for doing that.
The right's hostility to lab-grown meat is irrational
Yet some conservatives see less promise than peril in cellular meat. The movement to ban the technology partly reflects crass material interests. Already alarmed by competition from plant-based milks, which now make up more than 10 percent of overall milk sales, some livestock interests have sought to nip lab-grown meat in the bud. When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed his state's ban into law last year, he was flanked by cattle ranchers.
But the GOP's push to ban cellular meat isn't merely about deference to moneyed interests. If conservatives' position were solely dictated by Big Ag, they might actually support the technology. Although some farmers oppose the technology, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Meat Institute have both objected to prohibitions on its sale. Meanwhile, JBS Foods, the world's largest meat processor, has itself invested in lab-grown beef.
Some Republican politicians say they're motivated by safety concerns. But such objections are either ill-informed or disingenuous. To make it to market, lab-grown meat must withstand the same FDA scrutiny as the factory-farmed variety.
Ironically, what some Republicans seem to fear about lab-grown meat is precisely that it could render mass animal torture unnecessary, and therefore, verboten. As DeSantis explained when he announced his cellular meat ban last May, 'Florida is fighting back against the global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals.'
The idea here is that an international cabal of billionaire progressives wants to outlaw traditional meat and make Americans eat insects and poor simulacrums of beef instead (in arguing this, DeSantis was riffing on a popular right-wing conspiracy theory about the World Economic Forum's tyrannical machinations).
Other Republican opponents of cellular meat express similar concerns. Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, himself a major pork producer, described his state's prohibition as an effort to 'battle fringe ideas and groups to defend our way of life.'
DeSantis's conspiratorial version of this argument is patently irrational. The World Economic Forum is not trying to make you eat bugs, so as to establish a global dictatorship. But the notion that lab-grown meat could eventually lead to bans on factory-farmed animal products is less unhinged.
After all, progressives in some states and cities have banned plastic straws, despite the objective inferiority of paper ones. And the moral case for infinitesimally reducing plastic production isn't anywhere near as strong as that for ending the mass torture of animals. So, you might reason, why wouldn't the left forbid real hamburgers the second that a petri dish produces a pale facsimile of a quarter-pounder?
While not entirely groundless, this fear is nevertheless misguided.
Plastic straws are not as integral to American life as tasty meats. As noted above, roughly 95 percent of Americans eat meat. No municipal, state or federal government could ever end access to high-quality hot dogs, ribs, or chicken fingers and survive the next election.
The only scenario in which lab-grown meats could fully displace farmed ones is if the former comprehensively outcompetes the latter in the marketplace. If cellular meat ever becomes both tastier and cheaper than conventional alternatives — across every cut and kind of animal protein — then it could plausibly drive factory farmers into ruin. And in a world where almost no one eats pork derived from tortured sows, it's conceivable that the government could ban such torture. In so doing, however, it would only be ratifying the market's verdict.
Lab-grown meat isn't going to imperil factory farms anytime soon
It's worth emphasizing how far-fetched that scenario is. Labs are making some progress on approximating ground beef and chicken nuggets. But manufacturing a rack of ribs or chicken wings remains wholly the stuff of science fiction. In any case, creating one serving of chicken nuggets at gargantuan cost in a lab and producing such nuggets at a global scale and competitive price are radically different propositions. And many scientists contend that cellular meat will never achieve such viability, due to the inherent constraints of thermodynamics and cell metabolism. If they are right, then conservatives have nothing to worry about.
But if those skeptical scientists are underestimating humanity's capacity for agricultural innovation (as some have done in the past), then the consequences could be downright utopian.
Right now, the process for converting energy into animal tissue is riddled with inefficiency, environmental harms, and cruelty. We grow corn and soybeans to capture energy from the sun, then convert those crops into feed, then fatten animals on that feed for weeks, months, or years before slaughtering them. If labs found a commercially viable way to directly convert electricity into chicken wings, steaks, and bacon, we could radically reduce the resource intensity and cost of meat production. At the same time, we would free up the roughly 660 million acres of American land currently devoted to pasture and grazing — a third of the continental US — for housing, parks, or commerce, while eliminating a large share of global carbon emissions. And of course, such a technological revolution would allow carnivorous animal lovers to live our values, without forfeiting our favorite dishes.
Biology or economics may ultimately block the path to such a utopian food system. But we must not let cultural grievance prevent us from finding out if that world is possible.
A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump Says 'Bring in the Troops' as LA Riots Escalate
Donald Trump Says 'Bring in the Troops' as LA Riots Escalate

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump Says 'Bring in the Troops' as LA Riots Escalate

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. President Donald Trump called for troops to enter Los Angeles amid rioting in the Californian city that stemmed from protests against immigration enforcement. The Republican president is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to L.A. to quell the intense violence, despite opposition from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. "Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!" Trump posted to his Truth Social platform in the early hours of Monday morning. This is a developing story. Updates to follow.

Chad announces suspension of visas to US citizens in response to Trump travel ban
Chad announces suspension of visas to US citizens in response to Trump travel ban

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Chad announces suspension of visas to US citizens in response to Trump travel ban

N'DJAMENA, Chad (AP) — Chad's President Mahamat Idriss Deby has announced that his country will suspend the issuing of visas to U.S. citizens in response to the Trump administration's decision to ban Chadians from visiting the United States. President Donald Trump on Wednesday resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term when he announced the visa ban on 12 countries including Chad, accusing them of having 'deficient' screening and vetting, and historically refusing to take back their own citizens who overstay in the United States. The new ban targets Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will also be heightened restrictions on visitors from seven others in the new travel policy, which takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. In a Facebook post, Chad's president on Thursday said he is directing his government to suspend visas to U.S. citizens 'in accordance with the principles of reciprocity.' 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give but Chad has his dignity and pride,' Deby said, referring to the $400 million luxury plane offered to his administration as a gift by the ruling family of Qatar. Republic of Congo calls the ban a mistake The new travel policy has triggered varied reactions from Africa, whose countries make up seven of the 12 countries affected by Trump's outright visa ban with some exemptions. In the Republic of Congo, government spokesperson Thierry Moungalla said he believes the country was among those affected because of a 'misunderstanding' over an armed attack in the U.S. with the perpetrators 'mistaken' to be from the Republic of Congo. 'Obviously, Congo is not a terrorist country, is not home to any terrorist, is not known to have a terrorist vocation. So we think that this is a misunderstanding and I believe that in the coming hours, the competent diplomatic services of the government will contact the American authorities here,' he said in the capital of Brazzaville. In Sierra Leone, among countries with heightened travel restrictions, Information Minister Chernor Bah said the country is committed to addressing the concerns that prompted the ban.

‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns a CBS settlement with Trump would be ‘very damaging'
‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns a CBS settlement with Trump would be ‘very damaging'

New York Post

time2 hours ago

  • New York Post

‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns a CBS settlement with Trump would be ‘very damaging'

'60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley spoke out about President Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS and its parent company on Saturday, arguing that a settlement would be 'very damaging.' 'Well, it'd be very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies,' Pelley said during a conversation with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Saturday, who asked how harmful a settlement and potential apology would be to the network. Trump filed a lawsuit against Paramount Global, CBS News' parent company, over a '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in October 2024. Fox News Digital confirmed that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to a source familiar with the matter, as the president's legal team is also demanding at least $25 million and an apology from CBS News. Cooper, who is also a correspondent on '60 Minutes,' also asked Pelley about former show producer Bill Owens resigning from the program in April. 'Bill's decision to resign may not have been much of a decision for him because he was always the first person to defend the independence of '60 minutes.' Bill didn't work for Paramount. Bill worked for our viewers, and he felt very keenly about that. And so I'm not sure Bill had any choice, once the corporation began to meddle in Bill's decisions about the editorial content, or just place pressure in that area, Bill felt that he didn't have the independence that honest journalism requires,' Pelley said. 4 Scott Pelley warned that a settlement between President Trump and CBS would be 'very damaging.' 4 President Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to Fox News Digital. AP Pelley also said he wished he had the public backing of CBS News, but added that his work was still making it onto the program. 'You really wish the company was behind you 100%, right? You really wish the top echelons of the company would come out publicly and say '60 Minutes', for example, is a crown jewel of American journalism, and we stand behind it 100%. I haven't heard that. On the other hand, my work is getting on the air, and I have not had anyone outside '60 Minutes' put their thumb on the scale and say, 'you can't say that. You should say this. You have to edit the story in this way. You should interview this person.' None of that has happened. So while I would like to have that public backing, maybe the more important thing is the work is still getting on the air,' Pelley said. 4 The Federal Communications Commission accused '60 Minutes' of heavily editing an interview with Kamala Harris in 2024. 60 Minutes / CBS 4 Former show producer Bill Owens resigned from the program in April. The '60 Minutes' correspondent recently went viral for calling out Trump during a commencement address. 'In this moment, this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack,' Pelley said during his commencement speech at Wake Forest University. 'And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts, the fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln's phrase, 'Of the people, by the people, for the people,' then why are we afraid to speak?' Pelley addressed the remarks during the CNN interview and told Cooper that he felt 'strongly' it needed to be said. 'I don't refer to him or the president or the White House or the administration. But I was talking about actions that have been taken by the government over these last many months. But, there was a little bit of hysteria among some about this speech, and I simply ask you, what does it say about our country when there's hysteria about a speech that's about freedom of speech?' the CBS correspondent added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store