((Texas Tribune-Two companies from planted meat filed a lawsuit against Texas officials on the law that prohibits sales of meat cultivated in the state for two years.
California budget companies, which make cultivated chicken and Wildtype, which make the cultivated salmon sue Public Prosecutor Ken Pakston, Ministry of Health in Texas, Texas Health and Humanitarian Services, and Travis Province, accused of defeating the government.
“This law has nothing to do with the protection of public health and safety and everything related to the protection of traditional agriculture from innovative competition outside the state,” said Paul Sherman, a senior lawyer at the Justice Institute, a non -profit law firm representing the difficult and land foods. “This is not a legitimate use of the governmental authority.”
Background
In June, legislators passed Senate Bill 261It is prohibited to sell the meat that the laboratory has grown in Texas for two years. The meat planted in the laboratory, also known as meat cultivated with cells or meat, is made from eating and developing animal cells in a nursery or a vital reactor to form an edible product.
The lawmakers expressed their concerns during the Senate Committee session on the draft law that educated meat will disrupt traditional family farms in Texas, as well as concerns about putting signs on products and safety.
The embargo came into effect on Monday.
Before the ban, there was only one restaurant in Texas that sells educated protein. Last and a half, Ootoko, an advanced sushi restaurant in Austin, included wild salmon in the omakase menu.
Why are the meat companies suggesting
The founders of the Imported Meat Company and their lawyers held a press conference on Wednesday morning to announce a suit on SB 261, saying that the ban was “unconstitutional” and “non -American”.
“We believe that the Americans should have freedom to choose what to eat,” said Justin Colbek, co -founder of Wildtype. “We think even if you hate the idea of cultivated seafood, we hope that we are on a slippery slope if we are extensively dominating personal options like what we feed ourselves and our families to the government.”
Sherman, the main lawyer in the case, added that the federal government had agreed to the cultivated meat as being safe for consumers. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approval For two companies, bullish foods and good meat, to sell chicken cultivated in cells and after a year, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) agreed to the “cell cultivated chicken” sign for products.
As of July, four companies have received an organizational statement to sell farmer meat in the United States, he said Good food institute.
Legitimates in Texas, Texas and South West Cows Association, who witnessed in favor of SB 261 before its approval, said they are concerned about the integrity of educated meat products.
Sherman said: “The US Department of Agriculture and FDA have agreed that these products are safe,” Sherman said. “If this is not good enough for some consumers, there is a simple solution, do not eat it.”
Kolbeck added that wild salmon does not contain pollutants that are usually found in traditional seafood, such as heavy metals, antibiotics, fine plastic and other pollutants.
“Make America healthy requires innovation,” said Colbek.
What he says
The Texas and South West Cows Association did not respond immediately to the request for comment, but previously, Karl Rai Junior, president of the association, said in interview SB 261 is not related to the prohibition of competition.
“We do not respond to these products because we are concerned about competition,” Polk said, adding that the livestock industry welcomed competition with poultry proteins, fish and vegetable proteins.
Senator Charles Perry“There are concerns about transparency and signs, the risk of pollution, and long-term health effects for consuming cell culture products” when the draft law was presented during the Senate Committee in March.
Senator Luis KolkohstHe asked R-Brenham, Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers if they saw the meat companies visiting the laboratory as part of or against Make America again or against it.
“I would like to see the laboratory growing meat against it,” said Dan Gates, a Georgetown farm and lawyer.
Wider effect
Texas is the seventh mandate that prohibits the meat that the laboratory has gripped, and this is the country’s second lawsuit for this ban. Last year, the Justice Institute filed a similar suit in Florida. If the Texas ban on the sales of the meat is lifted, Wildtype said in the lawsuit that it will immediately appeal the sale of salmon implanted in Autoko and communicate with the other chefs in Texas to follow the partnerships. However, the state may not immediately see an increase in sales of cultivated proteins. Meat scholars and Experts agree The industry is not ready to sell its products on a large scale.