Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has banned lab-grown meat, saying he will “save our beef” from the “global elite” and its “authoritarian plans”.
“Florida is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs,” Mr DeSantis said in a statement.
The first-in-the-nation law prohibits anyone from selling or distributing lab-grown meat in Florida.
Similar efforts are under way in Alabama, Arizona and Tennessee.
Lab-grown or “cultivated” meat was first cleared for consumption in the US in 2022.
The process of making cultivated meat involves extracting cells from an animal, which are then fed with nutrients such as proteins, sugars and fats. The end product is genetically indistinguishable from traditionally produced meat.
Studies have suggested that eating cultivated meat can cut carbon emissions and water usage, and free up land for nature, compared to eating traditionally produced meat.
What a cool party of freedom and personal responsibility
“They’re gonna take your burgers away!” Is the new rallying cry of the weird Right.
Someone should, considering the obesity numbers.
https://www.floridabeef.org/raising-beef/cattle-in-florida
Nearly one-half of all Florida Agricultural land is involved in cattle production.
Someone’s probably worried about competition.
Someone’s probably worried about competition.
And when I pointed out that about the Tik Tok ban I was told that it was because the government really cares about us.
The question is, how much money is involved this that Ron is worried. Does he have a stake in it?
I mean, politicians don’t generally need to personally be involved in an industry for special interests to have an influence on policy.
I wonder if there’s room for a Dormant Commerce Clause case to SCOTUS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause
The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution.[1] The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.
Thus, in a dormant Commerce Clause case, a court is initially concerned with whether the law facially discriminates against out-of-state actors or has the effect of favoring in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests. Discriminatory laws motivated by “simple economic protectionism” are subject to a “virtually per se rule of invalidity”,[11] which can only be overcome by a showing that the State has no other means to advance a legitimate local purpose.[12]
On the other hand, when a law is “directed to legitimate local concerns, with effects upon interstate commerce that are only incidental”, that is, where other legislative objectives are credibly advanced and there is no patent discrimination against interstate trade, the Court has adopted a much more flexible approach, the general contours of which were outlined in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.[13] If the law is not outright or intentionally discriminatory or protectionist, but still has some impact on interstate commerce, the court will evaluate the law using a balancing test. The Court determines whether the interstate burden imposed by a law outweighs the local benefits. If such is the case, the law is usually deemed unconstitutional.[14] In Pike, the Court explained that a state regulation having only “incidental” effects on interstate commerce “will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits”.[15] When weighing burdens against benefits, a court should consider both “the nature of the local interest involved, and … whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities”.[citation needed] Thus regulation designed to implement public health and safety, or serve other legitimate state interests, but impact interstate commerce as an incident to that purpose, are subject to a test akin to the rational basis test, a minimum level of scrutiny.[16] In USA Recycling, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 66 F.3d 1272, 1281 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1995), the court explained:
If the state activity constitutes “regulation” of interstate commerce, then the court must proceed to a second inquiry: whether the activity regulates evenhandedly with only “incidental” effects on interstate commerce, or discriminates against interstate commerce. As we use the term here, “discrimination” simply means differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter. The party challenging the validity of a state statute or municipal ordinance bears the burden of showing that it discriminates against, or places some burden on, interstate commerce. Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 336, 99 S.Ct. 1727, 1736, 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979). If discrimination is established, the burden shifts to the state or local government to show that the local benefits of the statute outweigh its discriminatory effects, and that the state or municipality lacked a nondiscriminatory alternative that could have adequately protected the relevant local interests. If the challenging party cannot show that the statute is discriminatory, then it must demonstrate that the statute places a burden on interstate commerce that “is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.”[17]
Thank you for this. I was not aware. I would love to see a challenge like this, but I won’t hold my breath.
Conservative “Free Market Values” at play
Really tackling the major problems first there. As we all know I’ve grown meat is everywhere.
Here’s an interesting podcast on the topic of lab meat that shows just how much grandstanding this “fight” really is. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4yCKSioorfxTL6x7PaunOR?si=fCHOyvmgSXqITX9x7_6GxA
TLDR: they’re banning a product that isn’t even commercially available to the public yet.
It wouldn’t be a Republican ban if it wasn’t tackling a fictional “issue”.
they’re banning a product that isn’t even commercially available to the public yet.
To discourage investment and protect
the people who bribe themlobbyists.
What a dumb pos.
It’s not enough to be cast aside for veganism now I can’t even have a choice of what to eat? WTF!
For someone’s who’s a big capitalist, it seems like he’s never heard of a free market economy. Just let the market decide which meat is best. Or better yet, let the people!
This is not an endorsement of our late-stage capitalist economy, rather a critic of Ronny’s hypocrisy.
Quoted as saying “What would life be if we weren’t a cruel as possible”.
The thing I love about the lab grown beef thing is that steaks will be really cheap when it scales I guess Desantis wants to use expense taxpayer dollars when he eats a steak That is the kinda fiscal responsibility you can expect from the right
At this point, this guy is a just a troll. This loser needs to go.
Floridian boomers, xenophobes and christofascists keep putting him back in
It’s really crazy. It’s hard to imagine how shitty of a human you have to be to vote for that.
Lemmy: Tik Tok should be banned. Your freedom means nothing!
Also lemmy: woah there, what happened to consumer choice in Florida?
Don’t know where you got that from, a good part of the Lemmists? Lemmings? know the quote by heart:
The net views censorship as damage and routes around it.
Every comment on Tik Tok
Apples and (lab-grown) oranges.
Pretty much all of the comments I’ve seen on Lemmy about a TikTok ban have been about how it’s political theater and would ultimately be pointless in preventing data harvesting.
Pretty much all the comments I’ve seen here were people praising it
Pretty much all the comments I’ve seen here were people praising it
I don’t know how to explain this to you, but Lemmy users are made up of different people.
It’s entirely possible you’ve encountered a bunch of people praising the TikTok ban. That doesn’t mean any of those people are in this thread.
This take is as absurd as seeing some Pro-Palestine protesters and saying “oh, so now everyone’s Pro-Palestine? I was just across the street at the counter protest and everyone was Pro-Israel!”
Condemn the US Congressional decision and admit it was made due to lobbying by Alphabet and Meta.
Okay: the TikTok ban was fucking dumb. Satisfied? That has nothing to do with this post.
and admit it was made due to lobbying by Alphabet and Meta.
No it was the lizard people! I have proof! Someone wrote it on the back of their car.
For your convenience:
The company who’s product they are banning.
Along the same vein, there was another company recently who made plant based blue cheese that was disqualified from a blue cheese contest after they were going to take first.
The cheese was disqualified because it used an ingredient that hadn’t been approved for human consumption.
How is that different from nacho cheese?!??!
Or pop tarts
Do you have a source? This is the first I’ve heard that claim. Seems a legit reason to disqualify something from a “food” competition, but I’d like to verify before judging.
It’s in the Boing Boing article linked in the comment I first responded to.
After initially being named a finalist, Climax Blue cheese was later disqualified by the Good Food Foundation, reportedly due to issues around one of the ingredients (kokum butter) not having GRAS certification.
Thank you!
I did some digging and found this follow up article about the whole ordeal:
Takeaway: the rules got changed a week earlier, and the fake cheese company didn’t switch to their coco butter version of the blue cheese. (Coco butter is GRAS).
The rule change also shouldn’t have been necessary. ‘Food must be edible’ isn’t something that should have to be explicitely written down. Sure, it’s probably safe, but ‘probably’ isn’t really good enough for a food competition.
Eh. I get your sentiment, but there’s a pretty big difference between “edible” and having a certification from the FDA claiming “generally regarded as safe”
The better question is: why is kokum butter not GRAS? It’s sold everywhere. Has no one filed with the FDA?
I have never heard of kokum butter before, and certainly never seen it for sale, so ‘sold everywhere’ is a very regional thing. A quick search makes it look like it’s mostly applied topically rather than eaten?
Yeah, the ingredient is called Kokum butter, from the kokum fruit which seems like it has been consumed in various forms, mostly by people in India and south east Asia for a long time. (Including butter from the seeds) I hadn’t heard of it before.
The cheese is Climax Blue. Going to their site I’d honestly never have thought their cheese was good, it’s basically a buzzword dumping ground. Doesn’t sound like they have much product available currently but if it’s really that good hopefully they can scale up quickly
Idiocracy gave us too much credit
Seriously, the movie took 500 years for them to reach that point. We’ll be there in less than 100.
Republicunts are pathetic.