Americans love meat, but increasingly some people have ethical or environmental concerns about factory farming. Entrepreneurs and innovators like UPSIDE Foods have responded to these concerns by developing “cultivated” meat.  

Unlike conventional meat, cultivated meat is grown directly from animal cells, without the need to slaughter animals. Cells are first isolated and then fed the same sorts of nutrients they would receive in an animal’s body. After the cells are harvested, they can be formulated into products that replicate the taste and texture of meat. UPSIDE, for example, has received the green light from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell a cultivated chicken product that looks, cooks, and tastes just like a boneless chicken cutlet. 

But not everyone is a fan of these innovative products, and Florida recently became the first state in the country to ban the manufacture, distribution, or sale of cultivated meat. The law, SB 1084, went into effect on July 1. 

Florida’s law has nothing to do with protecting public health and safety. Instead, the law was enacted after intense lobbying by cattle interests who see cultivated meat as a future threat to their industry. And this protectionist purpose is no secret. At the signing ceremony for the law, Florida’s governor stood behind a podium bearing a sign that read “Save Our Beef” and openly praised the law for protecting in-state agricultural interests from out-of-state competition. 

But protecting favored in-state interests from competition is not a legitimate use of government power. Indeed, a major reason for the enactment of the U.S. Constitution was to create a national common market—in the words of Alexander Hamilton, “a unity of commercial, as well as political, interests.” 

This principle is reflected in multiple clauses of the Constitution, most notably the Commerce Clause. From our nation’s earliest rulings interpreting that clause, it has been understood to prohibit states from enacting laws with the purpose and effect of restricting the free flow of goods in interstate trade. But that’s exactly what Florida has done. 

That is why UPSIDE Foods has joined with IJ to file a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s ban on cultivated meat. Our lawsuit is the latest in IJ’s National Food Freedom Initiative, which seeks to defend the right of entrepreneurs and consumers to buy, sell, grow, and advertise food free from unreasonable government regulations. 

UPSIDE isn’t looking to replace conventional meat, which it believes will always have a place at our tables. But it does want the opportunity to share its innovative product with consumers so that they can taste and decide for themselves how they feel about cultivated meat.

The Constitution gives UPSIDE that right. And if some Florida consumers don’t like the idea of cultivated meat, there’s a simple solution: They don’t have to eat it. What they and the state government cannot do is make that decision for everyone else.

Paul Sherman is an IJ senior attorney.