Lab-Grown Meat Protectionism \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Lab-Grown Meat Protectionism mises.org/power-market/lab-grown-meat-protectionism

487 sats \ 9 comments \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 5 Jun econ

The fight against lab-grown meat has picked up considerable steam over the past year, with multiple states now prohibiting its manufacture, sale, and distribution. Florida became the first state to prohibit cultivated meat when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed SB 1084 into law on May 1, 2024. Alabama quickly followed up with its own ban later that month.

With the precedent having been set, many other states are now moving forward with bans of their own. In March of this year, Mississippi became the third state to prohibit cultivated meat. And, in early May, Montana and Indiana took action—the former prohibiting its manufacture, sale, and distribution, and the latter issuing a two-year moratorium on the products.

The Florida law is facing legal action from the Institute for Justice (IJ), which is arguing that the law represents a form of economic protectionism that violates the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. “This law is not about safety; it’s about stifling innovation and protecting entrenched interests at the expense of consumer choice,” said IJ senior attorney Paul Sherman. More specifically, the purpose of the law seems to be protecting established agricultural interests from a budding new technology that has the potential to seriously disrupt their industry. …

To be sure, I take no pleasure in the prospect of farmers losing their livelihoods. That is a difficult situation to be in, and it is perfectly understandable that they would try to preserve the businesses they have built.

But what the farmers and their sympathizers need to understand is that no one is entitled to a successful business. It is not fair to your fellow citizens to take away their choices just so that you can stay profitable. People in every other sector of the economy constantly face the competition of new technologies, and they often don’t get special protection from the government to keep them from being outcompeted. Why should you be allowed to ban your competition and not everyone else? Why should you get to keep your livelihood in perpetuity when millions of others have to adapt to changing market conditions?

Banning people from buying your competitors’ products is not a just way to stay in business. It is disrespectful to consumers, it is devastating for innovative entrepreneurs, and it puts a major check on economic progress.

I understand you want to keep your livelihood. But in a capitalist society, you need to do that by winning a fair fight, not a rigged one.

There is an easy way out to this conundrum! Make the labeling laws so strict that they must divulge what is in the package, then let every consumer choose! Make sure they also label it as GMO or containing what amounts to vaccination product, the country of origin and the country of processing. Make sure that everything about all the products is listed, including GRAS ingredients. Then, everyone can make a fully informed consent to purchase these products. However, when do you think a regime like that would ever go into affect when all the politicians are paid off handsomely?

view all related items

100 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 5 Jun

I think that's the right kind of idea, but not the right direction. Particularly with GRAS, they're never going to require those be disclosed, since that's basically the point of the category. Also, the farm lobby will never allow requiring disclosures of all the unsavory standard practices.

Rather than labelling laws, 3rd party certifying agencies can attest to various production standards being met (organic, kosher, vegan, etc.) and they have the incentive to maintain their reputation for honesty. There's also just too much stuff for consumers to keep track of, especially with new shenanigans being developed constantly. The certifying agency approach outsources that difficult information work to another party that can do it well.

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 5 Jun

Ok, i can see your point. The state is just too vulnerable to being captured by the industry, whereas a private certified has to be very careful about reputation. I think that is more trustworthy, however, the state has to be cut out of the process completely. I still think making the labels explicit is a good remedy though. The problem with GRAS is that the state is just taking the company’s word for it being safe. Lately, how’s that been working out?

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 5 Jun

Labeling has to be driven by demand for it to matter. If no one cares, then no one cares and disclosure doesn’t matter.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 5 Jun

I think people who know are people who care. There are more and more people waking up into knowing and caring. Many people are tired of being poisoned and eating food that is cardboard and not much more. This may apply to chemtrails and 5G, too.

52 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 5 Jun

Love the concept. Who funds the certifying agencies? The consumer? Will they pay a buck more for an lb of certified meat?

I'd love to make this transparent though! Labels like MSC got a really bad rep because they basically just charge for membership and then laugh all their way to the bank.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 5 Jun

If consumers won't pay more, then they shouldn't have to pay for it (the difference between voluntaryism and state regulation).

Many consumers already do pay more for various certifications, though, so I think the answer is that some will.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 5 Jun

I was thinking more along the lines of UL or Consumer Reports, which, I think, are industry supported or consumer supported.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 5 Jun

Yeah. UL is producer funded - you pay for certification, but this is just priced in. In the past when I did large bespoke hardware deliveries, we'd simply price the certification costs (plus margin!!!) into the product price; i.e. the client would ultimately pay for it - so in this case, the consumer.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 14h

In this case, aren’t they receiving the certification because they wanted it? They might not have known that they were going to pay for it, but how many times have you looked for the ULtm markings on electric or electronic goods? I do all the time and am hesitant to buy those things without the marking. I just don’t want to burn my house down!!