On September 1, 2025, a new Texas law banning the sale of cultivated, or so-called "lab-grown," meat went into effect, igniting a fierce legal battle that’s now drawing national attention. The law, known as Senate Bill 261 (SB 261), prohibits the manufacture, processing, possession, distribution, and sale of cell-cultured protein products—meat grown from animal cells in laboratories—for at least two years. The penalties for violating the ban are nothing to sneeze at: fines of up to $25,000 per day and even possible jail time for those who dare to sell cultivated meat in the Lone Star State.
But Texas isn’t alone in cracking down on this food innovation. Over the last two years, a wave of similar bans has swept across several other states, including Florida, Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Nebraska. The trend is clear: as cultivated meat edges closer to mainstream acceptance, some of the nation’s most powerful agricultural regions are pushing back—hard.
The Texas law, signed by Governor Greg Abbott in June 2025, was hailed by supporters as a necessary measure to protect the traditional beef industry. Texas, after all, is the largest beef-producing state in the country, home to roughly 4 million beef cattle. Sid Miller, the state’s agriculture commissioner, didn’t mince words when he called the ban “a massive win for Texas ranchers, producers, and consumers.” He added, “It’s plain cowboy logic that we must safeguard our real, authentic meat industry from synthetic alternatives.” According to Bloomberg Law, the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association also cheered the move, saying it would "prevent Texas consumers from being a science experiment" and protect "the high standards of the beef industry and the livelihoods of the hardworking Texans who sustain it."
Yet not everyone in Texas—or across the country—sees things the same way. Just days after the law took effect, two California-based cultivated meat startups, Wildtype and Upside Foods, filed a federal lawsuit in Austin, backed by the nonprofit Institute for Justice. The plaintiffs argue that SB 261 unlawfully stifles competition, not for reasons of public health or safety, but to shield Texas’s powerful agriculture industry from innovative, out-of-state rivals.
“This law has nothing to do with protecting public health and safety and everything to do with protecting conventional agriculture from innovative out-of-state competition,” said Institute for Justice senior attorney Paul Sherman at a press conference, as reported by Fast Company. “How do we know that? Because the sponsors of the bill made absolutely no secret of it. Repeatedly in committee hearings and on the floor of the Texas House, they said that the purpose of this law is to protect Texas’s agricultural industry. But that is not a legitimate use of government power.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Austin in early September, challenges the Texas ban on two constitutional grounds. First, it claims the law violates the Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from discriminating against interstate commerce. Second, it alleges the ban conflicts with the Supremacy Clause by running afoul of federal food safety regulations, particularly those overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both agencies have already approved Wildtype’s cultivated salmon and Upside Foods’ cultivated chicken as safe for consumption and permitted their sale in other states.
“For the same reason California cannot ban Texas beef in California, Texas cannot ban salmon or chicken from California,” said Uma Valeti, CEO and founder of Upside Foods, in a statement cited by Fast Company. “Texans deserve the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat without politicians choosing for them.”
Cultivated meat, which is made by growing animal cells in vitro (outside the animal), has been touted as a game-changer for both consumers and the environment. By producing real meat without raising or slaughtering animals, these products promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, and open up new choices for people looking to cut down on conventional meat for ethical or environmental reasons. Wildtype CEO Justin Kolbeck compared the production process to brewing beer, noting that the company’s salmon was briefly served at Otoko, a sushi restaurant in Austin, before the ban forced the restaurant to pull the product from its menu.
The legal fight in Texas is not the first of its kind. In 2024, Florida became the first state to ban cultivated meat, a move quickly followed by Alabama and others. The Institute for Justice and Upside Foods have already filed a similar lawsuit in Florida, which is currently moving forward in the courts after a judge denied the state’s attempt to dismiss the case. In Indiana and Texas, the bans are set to last two years, though they could be extended if state legislatures act before their expiration dates—September 1, 2027, in Texas’s case.
Opposition to the Texas ban isn’t limited to out-of-state startups and advocacy groups. Texas Policy Research, a nonprofit that promotes limited government, has argued against SB 261, warning that it “undermines individual liberty, market freedom, and scientific advancement.” The lawsuit echoes these concerns, calling the law a “slippery slope” toward government overreach into personal consumer choices.
The stakes are high, and the courtroom arguments are likely to reverberate far beyond Texas’s borders. The cultivated meat industry, still in its infancy, has only recently begun to secure regulatory approval in the U.S. Upside Foods received the first green light for its cultivated chicken in 2023, and Wildtype followed with its salmon in 2025. For now, cultivated meat remains a rare sight in American grocery stores and restaurants, but the companies behind these products say they’re offering consumers a new, climate-friendly choice that doesn’t require giving up the taste and texture of real meat.
The Texas lawsuit asks the federal district court to issue a preliminary injunction that would block enforcement of the ban and allow Wildtype and Upside Foods to resume sales in the state while the case proceeds. If successful, the case could set a precedent for how far states can go in restricting food innovations that have already passed federal safety reviews.
As the legal battle heats up, Texans—and Americans everywhere—are left to wonder: Should politicians decide what’s on our plates, or should consumers have the final say? The answer could shape the future of food not just in Texas, but across the country.
