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

Yahoo29-05-2025

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

Live updates: Pritzker testifies before Congress on Illinois sanctuary laws
Live updates: Pritzker testifies before Congress on Illinois sanctuary laws

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Live updates: Pritzker testifies before Congress on Illinois sanctuary laws

The Brief Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is testifying Thursday morning in front of a House committee about the state's sanctuary laws. Pritzker has said some GOP committee members want to question him "for a dog-and-pony show." The hearing could serve as another opportunity for Pritzker to position himself as a top contender in the Democratic Party. WASHINGTON, D.C. - Gov. JB Pritzker is set to testify before a U.S. House committee on Thursday morning about the state's "sanctuary" laws aimed at limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Pritzker, along with fellow Democratic governors Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York, appeared in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The entire hearing is being streamed live in the media player at the top of this story. 9:34 a.m. - Pritzker addresses the busloads of migrants that Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas sent to Chicago starting in August 2022. "Illinois chose a different path. Faced with a humanitarian crisis, our state made sure children and families did not go hungry or freeze to death," Pritzker said. 9:30 a.m. - Pritzker begins opening remarks: "I have seen firsthand how states have had to shoulder the consequences of a broken immigration system. I'm proud of how we've and compassionate immigration policies I believe are vital." Pritzker then recounted his family history, the arrival of his great-grandfather escaping pogroms and coming to Chicago. It feels like Pritzker might utilize this moment to introduce himself to a national audience who might not be familiar with him. 9:24 a.m. - Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), similar to his role in the Brandon Johnson hearing, hyped up Pritzker's investments and leadership in Illinois. 9:21 a.m. - During Lynch's opening remarks, Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, who is running for Governor there, walks out and puts his finger to his head, mouthing the word "crazy." The political context of these hearings is inescapable: Chairman Comer is running as a Republican for Governor of Kentucky. Donald is running in Florida. Pritzker and Walz may be running for president. There will be fundraising pitches based upon the content today. 9:15 a.m. - Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) follows Chairman Comer, condemning the Trump administration's mass deportation policies. Lynch used his opening remarks to tie the hearing to the "militarization of American cities" under Trump and the administration's deportation of young U.S. citizens with undocumented parents. 9:07 a.m. - Hearing begins as House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer opens the meeting with opening statements on "dangerous sanctuary policies." "Let me clear, sanctuary policies don't protect Americans. They protect criminal illegals," Comer said. 8:56 a.m. - Pritzker has entered the building. 8:50 a.m. - Members of the Illinois House Freedom Caucus are in attendance for Pritzker's remarks. 8:40 a.m. 8:25 a.m. - Pritzker's office released his planned remarks hours ahead of the hearing. Among his talking points, Pritzker highlighted how Illinois mobilized quickly to offer shelter, food and services to over 50,000 migrants sent from the southern border without warning. Pritzker blamed both parties in Congress and the federal government for their failure to act. He also said that Illinois cooperates with federal authorities on criminal matters but won't misuse state resources for immigration enforcement that doesn't serve public safety. 8:12 a.m. - We are less than an hour away from the opening gavel. Pritzker, Walz and Hochul are expected to kick off the hearing with planned opening remarks. FOX 32's Paris Schutz laid out what he expects to hear from Pritzker's testimony. Hours ahead of the hearing, Pritzker released his planned opening remarks, which touched on how Illinois is handling the influx of immigrants and prioritizing public safety. Read his full remarks here. What we know The governor has said he believes some GOP members want to question him "for a dog-and-pony show" and who "simply want to grandstand in front of the cameras." He added, "I'm going there in a serious matter to give them my views about how we're managing through a problem that's been created for the state by the federal government." In a statement, Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Kentucky) said, "The governors of these states must explain why they are prioritizing the protection of criminal illegal aliens over the safety of U.S. citizens, and they must be held accountable." Back in March, the same committee hosted Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, along with the mayors of Boston, Denver, and New York, to testify about the city's sanctuary policies. The national spotlight could also serve as a chance for Pritzker to further cement his status as a top potential contender for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028. The 60-year-old has not yet said if he'll run for re-election to the governorship in 2026. Pritzker has been garnering national headlines from calling out "do nothing Democrats" during a speech in New Hampshire, a key primary state, to appearing on late night talk shows. The governor, who is worth $3.7 billion per Forbes, is seen as a top contender for his party's nomination in 2028. He boasts a long list of progressive accomplishments in Illinois since he first took office in 2019, including codifying abortion rights, banning assault weapons, a big infrastructure funding plan, the legalization of recreational marijuana, and stabilizing the state's notoriously shaky finances. Dig deeper In 2017, Illinois enacted the TRUST Act under Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner. The law bans local police from complying with federal requests to detain or arrest a person in the country illegally, unless ordered by a judge. Local law enforcement also cannot stop, search, or arrest anyone based solely on their immigration or citizenship status. In 2021, the state legislature passed laws expanding protections for immigrants in Illinois. The updated laws required local officials to end partnerships with ICE to detain immigrants. Lawmakers also prohibited officials from inquiring about the citizenship or immigration status of an individual in custody, unless they're presented with a federal criminal warrant. Among other measures, the state legislature also required state and local law enforcement agencies to report requests from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Despite the moves to protect migrants from potential arrests and deportations, Republicans have criticized the policies. U.S. Rep. Mary Miller, a Republican who represents much of the rural cental parts of the state, called on local sheriffs earlier this year to defy the state's sanctuary laws. She said such policies have turned Illinois into a "cesspool of crime and drugs."

Walz, Hochul, Pritzker face off with Congress as Newsom battles Trump
Walz, Hochul, Pritzker face off with Congress as Newsom battles Trump

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Walz, Hochul, Pritzker face off with Congress as Newsom battles Trump

Democratic "sanctuary governors" will face a barrage of tough questions at a highly anticipated congressional hearing Thursday morning, as California Gov. Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump continue to throw jabs over immigration policy. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker will testify before the House Oversight Committee and sources tell Fox that Los Angeles riots over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and Newsom's battle with Trump will likely be prominent topics of discussion. Gop Leadership Unleashes Fury On Dem Governor Ahead Of Blockbuster Congressional Hearing Fox News Digital obtained opening remarks to be delivered by Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., which will set the tone for the fiery hearing. "These Governors handcuff law enforcement from doing their jobs, harbor predators, and call it 'compassion,'" Comer's opening remarks explain. "It is NOT compassion, and it is costing lives, hurting Americans, and draining taxpayer money. Congress must consider whether to defund every single penny of federal dollars going to cities and states that prioritize criminal aliens over the American people." Gavin Newsom Mocked For Tech Issues During Anti-trump Address To Californians: 'Absolute Fail' Read On The Fox News App "Americans want a return to common sense. The Trump Administration and this Republican Congress aims to restore our safety and sovereignty. It is past time for these governors to put Americans first." All three Democratic governors testifying at the hearing sided with Newsom in a statement Sunday addressing Trump's use of the National Guard to dispel riots that have been raging over the past few days in Los Angeles. Rioters set cars on fire, looted businesses, and clashed with law enforcement. "We stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation," the statement signed by Walz, Pritzker and Hochul reads. Los Angeles Business Owners 'Sick And Tired' Of 'Stupid' Anti-ice Rioters Looting Their Stores Since LA's riots, protests over President Trump's immigration policies have since spread to Pritzker and Hochul's states on Tuesday with large gatherings in Lower Manhattan in New York and Federal Plaza in Chicago, blocking off streets and causing disruptions. Fox News Digital also received J.B. Pritzker's opening remarks, where the governor and potential 2028 presidential candidate said his state "could not simply ignore the suffering" illegal migrants faced in Illionis. "The crisis at the southern border in recent years has been devastating; the response from some of our political leaders even more so," Prtizker's statement reads. "As individuals fleeing poverty, violence, and persecution arrived at our border, our nation's leaders were confronted with a choice: would we do everything possible to make the promise of America the practice of America?" Jb Pritzker Rips Trump As 'Authoritarian,' Responds To President Calling Out His Weight "Some border state governors and mayors abandoned our nation's highest ideals – instead of choosing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to treat people as pawns, busing them to states like ours in a dehumanizing attempt to leverage the crisis for political gain. The State of Illinois chose a different path." Republican members on the Oversight Committee spoke to Fox News Digital ahead of Thursday's action, saying the three governors testifying "are willing to trade public safety for left-wing virtue signaling." "Democrat-run sanctuary states shield criminal aliens from federal immigration enforcement, put law enforcement in unnecessary danger, and disregard the safety of millions of Americans," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan told Fox News Digital. "Seventy-seven million people gave President Trump a mandate last November to put an end to the Democrats' prioritization of illegal aliens over American citizens. And he's doing just that." National Guard Troops Detain Anti-ice Protesters In Los Angeles Under Trump's Orders "To folks like Walz, Hochul and Pritzker, sanctuary state policies are a badge of honor. They are willing to trade public safety for left-wing virtue signaling," said Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. "Perhaps Governor Gavin Newsom will take a break from defying federal authority to tune in and see why Americans are fleeing California in droves to escape his failed policies that invite illegal migrant crime and anarchist thugs," Fallon added. The stage is set for the hearing, which will take place on Thursday at 10 a.m. Eastern time. Fox News Digital reached out to Hochul and Walz but did not receive a article source: Walz, Hochul, Pritzker face off with Congress as Newsom battles Trump

Robert F. Kennedy met with the CIA after a trip to the Soviet Union, newly declassified files show
Robert F. Kennedy met with the CIA after a trip to the Soviet Union, newly declassified files show

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Robert F. Kennedy met with the CIA after a trip to the Soviet Union, newly declassified files show

WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA released nearly 1,500 pages of previously classified documents relating to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and his 1968 assassination Thursday, detailing the agency's work to investigate his killing, as well as previously unknown contacts between him and the spy agency. Kennedy met with the CIA following a 1955 tour of the Soviet Union, relaying his observations to the spy agency as a voluntary informant, the documents show. The newly available material comprises 54 documents, including memos about the agency's work to investigate whether RFK's killer had any foreign ties, as well as the response to his killing by foreign powers. President Donald Trump had ordered the release of documents relating to the assassinations of RFK, President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. More than 10,000 pages of records pertaining to RFK's assassination were released in April. 'Today's release delivers on President Trump's commitment to maximum transparency, enabling the CIA to shine light on information that serves the public interest,' CIA Director John Ratcliffe said in a statement. 'I am proud to share our work on this incredibly important topic with the American people.' Kennedy was fatally shot on June 5, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles moments after giving a speech celebrating his victory in California's presidential primary. His assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, was convicted of first-degree murder and is serving life in prison. Kennedy's contacts with the CIA following his visit to the Soviet Union reflected the tensions of the time, and the high value put on personal observations of Americans who traveled to Russia and other former Soviet regions. Prominent elected officials and business leaders visiting the USSR were often asked to share their observations following their return. The documents show that RFK was a voluntary informant. In a statement Thursday, the CIA showed the meetings reflected RFK's 'patriotic commitment' to serving his country. Many of his observations reflected granular observations about daily life. 'On 29 Aug 55, while in Novosibirsk, USSR, a friend and I visited a State machine factory. The factory has 3,500 employees, of whom one third are women. The wage scale is between 840 and 2,500 rubles,' Kennedy told the CIA interviewer, according to the documents. "The Director of the plant whose name I do not recall was frosty, although the engineer was friendly." The CIA used artificial intelligence to scan its library for documents related to RFK's assassination that could be declassified. The search turned up many documents that had little to do with his killing, such as the records of RFK's meeting with the CIA. Kennedy's son, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said he was gratified to see the documents' release. 'Lifting the veil on the RFK papers is a necessary step toward restoring trust in American government,' Kennedy said. ___ The documents can be found online at and

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