By Jessica Van Woerkom.
Introduction
On June 19, 2026, the Groseta Act (the “Act”) was signed into law by Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs. The Act requires that “the manufacturer, packager or retailer of a food product that is derived from cultivated cells shall place a label on the food product’s packaging that states: ‘cell-cultivated’ or ‘cell-cultured.’” Although not explicitly defined in the Act, the broader Arizona legislative framework suggests that cell-cultivated or cell-cultured food refers primarily to meat (and other animal by-products) grown in a lab.
The Act was named after late Arizona cattle rancher Andy Groseta, which is fitting as cattle farmers and ranchers are at the heart of the debate regarding regulation of lab-grown meat in Arizona. Although lab-grown meat may provide a solution to pressing ethical and environmental concerns surrounding the livestock industry, it also presents new competition for the traditional livestock producers. The Act’s original sponsor, Representative Nguyen, reasoned “Arizona consumers deserve honesty at the grocery store, and Arizona ranchers deserve a fair market.”
What is Lab Grown Meat?
In an over-simplification of the cell-cultivated/cell-cultured meat production process, meat and other animal by-products are grown in a lab using animal stem cells sourced directly via biopsy, or from a “pluripotent cell source” like embryonic stem cells. The cells are then isolated for the particular tissue desired, fed nutrient-rich solutions, supplemented with edible “scaffolds” to support tissue structure (for certain products), and provided growth “signals” to encourage development of the correct tissue.
The FDA and USDA agreed in 2019 to jointly regulate the production of lab-grown meat intended for human consumption in the U.S. Under the agreement: the FDA ensures “food is not adulterated or misbranded, including regulating food ingredients used during the production of meat, poultry, and egg products,” and largely regulates the cell/tissue cultivation process; and the USDA ensures the safety and compliance of animal and poultry slaughtering or processing plants where animal stem cells are harvested. Although cell-cultivated meat is not a new concept—as early as 1894, a French chemist theorized that “meat, milk and eggs could be synthesized in factories”—the first USDA approval “for the sale of cell-cultivated chicken in the United States” was issued in June, 2023. But, despite some companies earning FDA approval of lab grown meat products (which requires scientific evidence demonstrating that lab-grown meats are safe for human consumption before producers can go to market) a growing number of states have enacted heightened regulations or total bans of lab-grown meat products.
In addition to unease about the admittedly sci-fi nature of lab-grown meat, consumers are also likely to be deterred by high prices. When the first lab-grown burger debuted on television, it cost a whopping $330,000 USD. Since then, lab-grown meat prices have become more affordable, but are still high relative to traditional animal meat products.
State, National, and International Regulation of Lab-Grown Meat
Despite high costs, issues with production scale, and other barriers to commercial viability, proponents of lab-grown meat champion the product as an eco-friendly alternative to the traditional livestock industry (though the large, energy-intensive bioreactors required to scale production present environmental concerns themselves unless they use renewable sources). An ever-growing global population continues to increase demand for sources of animal protein, and the environmental costs associated with cultivating livestock—particularly cattle—may not be sustainable. However, state legislative pushback could be devastating for the industry as it attempts to secure a position in the market.
The U.S. is not the only country to impose bans on lab-grown meat. Italy, which considers itself a global leader in food safety and quality regulation, was the first to ban lab-grown meat in 2023. Italy’s primary motivation was a state-identified need to protect traditional livestock farmers, but leaders also expressed apprehension towards the safety and nutritional value of “synthetic” foods. Hungary followed Italy’s lead and banned cell-cultivated meat in 2025. As of 2026, several state legislatures (including Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Montana) have passed complete bars on the “sale or distribution of meat produced from lab-grown animal cells, often accompanied by civil or criminal penalties.” Other state legislatures (including Iowa, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah) have taken a similar approach to Arizona by imposing labeling and disclosure requirements for lab-grown meat. Some states’ laws provide for mandatory facility inspections and formal investigations of suspected mislabeling. Remaining states have not yet addressed the issue, or have taken a step back pending state regulatory review and approval of lab-grown meat.
Opponents of cell-cultured and cell-cultivated meat tend to lead with concerns for traditional livestock-farming practices and farmers, and bolster their position with concerns about food safety, nutritional value, disagreements about environmental impact claims, and a desire to protect consumers. These are real and relevant concerns. But where total bans are enacted they invite disagreement from proponents of lab-grown meat that believe regulation restricting unsafe production (in a similar manner to traditional livestock farming) can sufficiently protect these interests without stifling innovation and preventing consumers from accessing foods that have been approved by federal food safety agencies.
Total state bans have also resulted in constitutional challenges from lab-grown meat producers and sellers. In Texas, a pending suit challenging its ban under the dormant commerce clause survived a motion to dismiss earlier this year. The plaintiffs argue that “Texas is trying to use government power to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, favoring in-state agriculture to the detriment of innovative, out-of-state competitors.” In Florida, the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld the state’s lab-grown meat ban, dismissing the plaintiff’s supremacy clause federal preemption claims.
Impact of the Groseta Act on Arizona Markets
Arizona’s Groseta Act is an example of a facially reasonable middle-ground regulation. It offers protection to the traditional livestock industry and transparency to consumers, but still allows consumers to choose traditional meat alternatives in line with their values.
However, public perception of lab-grown meat is still hesitant at best. Requiring the labeling of certain lab-grown meat as “cell-cultured” or “cell-cultivated,” though informative to consumers, will likely discourage purchase of such products in a way that unfairly disadvantages manufacturers and sellers of lab-grown meat. The Act also levies labeling requirements on lab-grown foods beyond what it requires of the traditional livestock industry. Farmers and ranchers are not required to disclose the manner in which they cultivate livestock beyond typical USDA standards—which also apply to cell-cultured meats. If producers choose to include any additional information on packaging labels, they are able to reap the benefits of “free-range” or “organic” designations. Debates about the balance between consumer transparency and market fairness are also playing-out at the national level, where a bill with strict labeling requirements for lab-grown meat was introduced to Congress earlier this year.
A True Middle-Ground
If Arizona wants to protect consumers from any danger posed by cell-cultivated or cell-cultured foods, it would do well to center regulation on food-safety and production. Lab-grown meat already faces barriers to commercial viability that prevent it from directly rivaling traditional meat sellers. Labeling requirements like those in the Act do not simply ensure consumer transparency and a “fair market,” they are state-mandated economic protectionism for the benefit of traditional livestock producers. To fairly regulate its meat and animal by-product markets, Arizona should enact regulations on lab-grown meat no more restrictive than those governing the traditional livestock industry. Regulating the safe production of lab-grown meat is sufficient to protect consumers. Any additional restrictions risk stifling innovation that may lead to more sustainable food sources.
Jessica Van Woerkom is a J.D. candidate at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law, class of 2028. She serves as a staff writer for the Arizona State Law Journal.
