EDITORIAL: There’s no good reason to ban lab-grown meat
Tucking into a steak that’s been whipped up in a laboratory sounds like something out of one of those dystopian sci-fi films from the 1970s that would have once been relegated to late-night TV or the dustier corners of the video store.
But the possibility that a steak could come from a lab is no longer some far-fetched fantasy. The Food and Drug Administration declared two years ago that lab-grown meat, generated by animal cells and cultivated in a petri dish or a bioreactor, is safe to consume, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture signed off on its sale last year. Lab-grown meat is not yet widely available. For now, it’s just being served at a couple of restaurants in the whole country and is confined to chicken products.
But, if lawmakers in some states have their way, the lab-grown meat industry could soon be put out to pasture. Florida and Alabama have banned it, and other states are considering following suit. Here in Pennsylvania, state Rep. Tina Pickett, a Republican from Bradford and Wyoming counties, has introduced a bill that would prohibit lab-grown meat from being manufactured or sold in the commonwealth. Not because it would endanger the health of consumers. Pickett has introduced the bill “to protect the livelihood of farmers,” according to a news release.
In the same release, Pickett wonders “what would happen should a billion-dollar movement be successful in bringing lab-grown meat to our tables instead of the high-quality products we now enjoy?” Well, if it is successful, it would be the result of a free marketplace and consumers choosing to purchase it. That’s something that Republicans like Pickett once seemed to champion. We should probably be glad that they were not around in the early days of flight – they might have told the Wright Brothers to smash their rudimentary planes to pieces in order to protect the railroad industry.
And the meat industry itself is not taking to the ramparts to stop lab-grown meat. The trade group the Meat Institute has said banning lab-grown meat “is bad public policy that would restrict consumer choice and stifle innovation.” The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is also not too bothered by it. A spokesman told The Washington Post that “at the national level, we’re not afraid to have these products come to market.”
Proponents of lab-grown meat see it as an avenue to satisfy the public demand for meat, which is expected to grow in the decades to come. They also say it would lessen the chances of animal diseases infecting humans and, if nothing else, would be a valuable backup for the country’s meat supply should it be threatened by a deadly virus.
Catherine Rampell, a Washington Post columnist, recently tried some lab-grown chicken and found that it was “just a basic, normal, chicken-y chicken, not so different from the thousands of conventionally produced chickens I’ve eaten over my lifetime.”
That’s how the fate of lab-grown meat should be decided – not by meddling lawmakers, but by grocery store shoppers and restaurant visitors exercising their own judgment and taste.
There’s no good reason to ban lab-grown meat
Tucking into a steak that’s been whipped up in a laboratory sounds like something out of one of those dystopian sci-fi films from the 1970s that would have once been relegated to late-night TV or the dustier corners of the video store.
But the possibility that a steak could come from a lab is no longer some far-fetched fantasy. The Food and Drug Administration declared two years ago that lab-grown meat, generated by animal cells and cultivated in a petri dish or a bioreactor, is safe to consume, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture signed off on its sale last year. Lab-grown meat is not yet widely available. For now, it’s just being served at a couple of restaurants in the whole country and is confined to chicken products.
But, if lawmakers in some states have their way, the lab-grown meat industry could soon be put out to pasture. Florida and Alabama have banned it, and other states are considering following suit. Here in Pennsylvania, state Rep. Tina Pickett, a Republican from Bradford and Wyoming counties, has introduced a bill that would prohibit lab-grown meat from being manufactured or sold in the commonwealth. Not because it would endanger the health of consumers. Pickett has introduced the bill “to protect the livelihood of farmers,” according to a news release.
In the same release, Pickett wonders “what would happen should a billion-dollar movement be successful in bringing lab-grown meat to our tables instead of the high-quality products we now enjoy?” Well, if it is successful, it would be the result of a free marketplace and consumers choosing to purchase it. That’s something that Republicans like Pickett once seemed to champion. We should probably be glad that they were not around in the early days of flight – they might have told the Wright Brothers to smash their rudimentary planes to pieces in order to protect the railroad industry.
And the meat industry itself is not taking to the ramparts to stop lab-grown meat. The trade group the Meat Institute has said banning lab-grown meat “is bad public policy that would restrict consumer choice and stifle innovation.” The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is also not too bothered by it. A spokesman told The Washington Post that “at the national level, we’re not afraid to have these products come to market.”
Proponents of lab-grown meat see it as an avenue to satisfy the public demand for meat, which is expected to grow in the decades to come. They also say it would lessen the chances of animal diseases infecting humans and, if nothing else, would be a valuable backup for the country’s meat supply should it be threatened by a deadly virus.
Catherine Rampell, a Washington Post columnist, recently tried some lab-grown chicken and found that it was “just a basic, normal, chicken-y chicken, not so different from the thousands of conventionally produced chickens I’ve eaten over my lifetime.”
That’s how the fate of lab-grown meat should be decided – not by meddling lawmakers, but by grocery store shoppers and restaurant visitors exercising their own judgment and taste.