Cultivated Meat and the Challenge of European Unity: Between Harmonization and National Identity

By Francesca Carantoni, Maastricht University.

1. Introduction

The regulation of cultivated meat in the EU reveals a deeper challenge to European integration: how to reconcile scientific and market-driven harmonization with the cultural, social, and economic diversity of its Member States. From Western to Eastern Europe, national sensitivities regarding food traditions, rural livelihoods, and societal identities increasingly resist innovations perceived as threats to these values. Cultivated meat, a novel food innovation, can only be commercialized in the EU once it is added to the EU Novel Foods List by the European Commission. As of September 2025, no cultivated meat products had yet been authorized, although the regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly^[1].

In November 2023, the Italian government adopted a law prohibiting the production and commercialization of cultivated meat. While some viewed this ban as premature^[2], given that no cultivated meat products had reached the EU authorisation stage, it amplified scepticism and distrust across the Union. Italy is not alone: Hungary notified a similar draft measure under the TRIS procedure^[3], Romania’s Senate voted to prohibit the sale of cultivated meat^[4], and Poland took the opposite course by granting public funding to its first cultivated-meat startup^[5]. In July 2024, the regulatory debate took a significant turn when Gourmey, a French startup, submitted the EU’s first application for novel food authorization for its cultivated foie gras. This product – controversial for ethical reasons – has become a test case for the EU’s regulatory framework in safeguarding the integrity of the internal market.

The emergence of cultivated meat thus underscores significant legal disruption and sparks political as well as regulatory debates. Article 26(2) TFEU’s mandate of harmonization in the face of disruptive innovation; Article 114(3) TFEU requires balancing evidence-based protection of non-economic interests (such as health, culture, and environmental protection). Can the EU’s harmonization framework for food innovations still accommodate national differentiation?

2. What is cultivated meat?

Cultivated meat, also known as cultured, cell-based, or lab-grown meat, refers to food produced from animal cell cultures grown in bioreactors under conditions that replicate natural growth^[6]. First demonstrated in 2013 with a synthetic hamburger, it has since attracted over a hundred companies worldwide. The European Commission has classified cultivated meat as a “food consisting of, isolated from, or produced from a cell culture or tissue culture from animals, plants, microorganisms, fungi, or algae.”^[7]

Cultivated meat offers potential advantages^[8]: reducing land and water use, lowering greenhouse gas emissions (particularly methane), and aligning with EU initiatives such as the Green Deal^[9] and the Farm to Fork Strategy^[10]. It also provides a humane alternative to conventional meat production, eliminating the need for animal slaughter. Despite this promise, significant challenges remain. A 2023 FAO/WHO report flagged potential hazards ranging from microbial contamination to the use of growth stimulants and genetic inconsistencies during cell replication, highlighting the centrality of food safety in the EU^[11]. Moreover, data on environmental performance at scale are limited, leaving long-term sustainability uncertain^[12]. Cultural resistance further complicates acceptance: traditional meat production is embedded in social practices and identities and cultivated meat risks being perceived as undermining culinary heritage and rural livelihoods, as noted in the EU’s Strategic Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture^[13].

In the EU, cultivated meat finds its framework in the General Food Law Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, GFL), which established the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) after crises such as BSE^[14]. Cultivated meat falls under the scope of the Novel Foods Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, NFR). Article 3(2)(a)(vi) defines a novel food as one “not used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Union before 15 May 1997.”^[15]

The regulatory pathway operates as a funnel: companies submit a safety dossier with scientific evidence on the product’s risks, nutritional adequacy, and hygiene; EFSA conducts a risk assessment; the Commission manages risk through the comitology procedure with the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food, and Feed (PAFF); and, once authorised, the product is placed on the Union List; generic authorisation can allow similar products to be placed on the market where they meet the specifications and conditions in the Union List entry^[16].

The system is guided by the precautionary principle (Art 7 GFL)^[17], which permits regulatory action in conditions of scientific uncertainty to protect health and consumer interests. While this principle underpins public trust, critics argue that the EU’s pathway is slow and costly, sometimes described as a “valley of death” for innovation, especially given the absence of direct financial incentives^[18].

Once a product is on the Union List^[19], harmonization and free-movement rules generally preclude unilateral national bans, save for narrow derogations. Separately, the TRIS Directive imposes a standstill period for draft technical regulations. Despite this, some governments have acted unilaterally. France prohibited the use of “meat” terms for such products and restricted their presence in public catering services^[20]. Italy adopted a blanket ban on production and sale. In July 2024, Hungary and Austria expressed support for these measures at the Agrifish Council^[21].

These divergences reveal how Member States invoke cultural, social, or sovereignty-based concerns even before any product has completed the EU authorisation process. Such unilateral actions risk fragmenting the internal market, weakening the harmonization system, and intensifying political contestation around cultivated meat. This trend has become particularly visible across Central and Eastern Europe, where governments frame cultivated meat as both a sovereignty issue and an agricultural safeguard^[22].

3. The Italian ban and the limits of differentiation

Italy’s legislative intervention on cultivated meat cannot be understood outside its broader cultural and political frame. The philosophy of Carlo Petrini (Slow Food), remains deeply embedded in Italian food discourse, celebrating artisanal production, terroir, and a gastronomic heritage cast as part of national identity^[23]. Against this backdrop, scepticism towards food technologies is widespread and easily mobilised in political rhetoric.

This cultural mindset intersected with Italy’s current political climate: in November 2023, the right-wing coalition government adopted Law No. 172/2023, imposing a blanket ban on the production, marketing, advertising, and importation of cultivated meat^[24]. The law also prohibited the use of meat-related denominations for plant-based proteins, echoing French attempts (Décret No. 2022-947) to regulate terminology^[25]. Enforcement provisions were unusually severe, including fines of up to €150,000, product seizures, and withdrawal of public funding.

Yet, the Italian ban faces a procedural roadblock. Under the TRIS Directive (EU) (2015/1535), Member States must notify draft technical regulations to the European Commission (Art. 5) and respect a three-month standstill period before adoption (Art. 6)^[26]. Italy initially notified the draft law but then withdrew the notification and proceeded unilaterally^[27]. According to settled CJEU case law, notably CIA Security, failure to comply with TRIS obligations renders the national measure inapplicable against individuals^[28]. In January 2024, the Commission formally confirmed that Italy had breached the standstill obligation^[29], a conclusion echoed by the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (MASAF) communiqué.

Beyond its procedural flaws, the Italian ban is substantively at odds with EU law. Three issues arise: pre-emption, precaution, and proportionality.

First, it conflicts with the pre-emption principle. The Italian government justified its action by invoking a supposed “absence of EU legislation” on synthetic foods and by appealing to subsidiarity. Yet this claim ignores that the Novel Foods Regulation (Reg. 2015/2283) already governs cultivated meat under Article 3(2)(a)(vi). Second, Italy misapplied the precautionary principle. Under Articles 6-7 GFL, risk management must be grounded in scientific risk assessment: measures are only justified if there is a scientifically plausible risk, not on purely hypothetical grounds^[30]. CJEU jurisprudence has consistently underlined this threshold. In Monsanto Italia, the Court held that protective measures cannot be based on “mere assumptions not yet scientifically verified.”^[31] Similarly, in Commission v France, the Court struck down a GMO ban for lacking substantiated risk evidence^[32]. Italy’s reliance on FAO/WHO documents pointing to “potential hazards” may not suffice, as those reports explicitly left risk evaluation to national scientific authorities. In effect, the Italian law rests on hypothetical risk without a dossier, which does meet the EU Court’s evidentiary standard^[33]. Third, the Italian ban breaches the principle of proportionality. Even if non-economic interests such as health or cultural heritage fall within Article 36 TFEU, measures must be necessary and proportionate. The CJEU has stressed that protective measures must be tailored to specific risks and avoid blanket prohibitions when less restrictive alternatives exist (e.g. targeted labelling, interim measures)^[34]. Italy’s sweeping prohibition on all cultivated meat products, without differentiation or scientific assessment, is therefore disproportionate.

Even if procedurally and substantively flawed, could Italy have sought a lawful derogation? The TFEU offers only narrow and demanding pathways.

Under Articles 114(4)-(5) TFEU, Member States may either maintain pre-existing national measures (114(4)) or adopt new ones based on new scientific evidence (114(5)) ^[35]. Both provisions impose a high burden of proof: the measure must be strictly necessary, proportionate, and scientifically substantiated^[36]. Article 114(10) TFEU safeguard clauses usually allow temporary national restrictions, but the NFR contains none. This contrasts with the GMO regime, where safeguard clauses were central^[37]. The only remaining avenue lies in the General Food Law, Articles 53-54, which permit interim protective measures if a food poses a ‘serious risk.’ Yet even here, measures must be notified, scientifically substantiated, and reviewed by the Commission within ten days through comitology, leaving Member States little real discretion^[38]. Italy’s experience therefore illustrates the practical limits of Member-State differentiation within the EU’s harmonised food-law framework, a tension also mirrored across Central and Eastern Europe.

4. Central and Eastern Europe between sovereignty and innovation: Romania, Hungary, Poland, and Czechia in the EU Harmonization Funnel

In CEE, however, the contest over cultivated meat has unfolded along more heterogeneous lines: some governments have pursued pre-emptive restrictions couched in sovereignty or rural-livelihood narratives, while others have opted to invest in domestic R&D and to operate within the EU’s authorisation framework.

4.1 Hungary – procedural compliance, substantive barrier

Hungary provides the most complete example of this dilemma. On 10 July 2024, the Hungarian government notified the European Commission of a “Draft Act prohibiting the production and placing on the market of laboratory-grown meat” pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 (the TRIS Directive)^[39]. The notification (No 2024/0400/HU) triggered a standstill period until 11 October 2024, later administratively extended to 12 January 2025^[40].

The explanatory memorandum to the draft invoked public-health concerns, environmental protection, safeguarding of traditional agriculture and rural livelihoods, and defence of national sovereignty^[41]. Several Member States and the Commission submitted observations through the TRIS system. In a detailed opinion of September 2024, the Commission warned that the measure risked fragmenting the internal market and conflicted with harmonised EU food law in the absence of a scientifically substantiated risk assessment^[42]. The opinion stressed that purely cultural or sovereignty-based justifications could not support a general prohibition within a harmonised regime centred on evidence, proportionality, and EU-level risk management. Without new scientific evidence meeting EFSA standards, a blanket prohibition still violates Articles 114(1) and 114(3) TFEU^[43].

4.2 Romania – symbolic ban, legal fragility

Romania’s cultivated-meat debate illustrates how political signalling can outpace legal feasibility. In October 2023, the Romanian Senate adopted a draft law prohibiting “the sale of synthetic or cultivated meat on the domestic market,” introducing fines ranging from RON 200,000 to 300,000 (≈ €40,000–€60,000)^[44]. The legislative initiative, tabled by deputies from the Social Democratic Party (PSD – Socialists) and the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR – Right wing), was justified as a measure to protect public health, consumer information, and the country’s agri-food heritage^[45].

Debate in the Senate drew on familiar tropes of “unnatural” food technologies and national identity. The accompanying explanatory note referred to cultivated meat as a “threat to the Romanian culinary tradition and rural economy,” echoing the cultural framing that informed Italy’s Law No 172/2023^[46]. Parliamentary minutes reveal no reference to the EU law, therefore lacks the procedural safeguards that the Court of Justice has deemed indispensable for compatibility with internal-market law. At the time of the reading, the draft law has not yet completed Romania’s bicameral process: the Chamber of Deputies, acting as decisional chamber, has not voted on the proposal as of September 2025^[47]. This legal limbo highlights the symbolic rather than regulatory nature of the initiative. Romanian media and legal commentary have noted that the bill was tabled amid protests by livestock associations and may serve more as political messaging than enforceable law^[48]. Should the ban be adopted in its current form, it would face the same structural headwinds as Italy’s and Hungary’s measures.

5.3 Poland – innovation within the harmonisation funnel

In contrast to Italy’s prohibitionist posture and Hungary’s sovereignty-driven draft, Poland has positioned itself as a regulatory innovator within the EU harmonisation framework.
In July 2024, the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR), a government agency under the Ministry of Science, awarded PLN 9 million (≈ €2 million) to LabFarm Sp. z o.o., Poland’s first cultivated-meat start-up, to scale research and pilot-production capacity^[49]. The grant, financed through the Path for Mazovia 2023 competition, supports technological development of cellular agriculture using animal stem-cell lines and bioreactor processes^[50]. This marks the first instance of direct public investment by a CEE government in cultivated-meat R&D.

The initiative was endorsed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, which highlighted the potential to “strengthen Poland’s food-innovation sector while ensuring compliance with EU safety and authorisation procedures.”^[51] This explicit reference to compliance situates Poland’s strategy within the EU’s risk-assessment logic under Articles 6–10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, rather than as an act of defiance against harmonised law.

5.4 Czechia – public acceptance and regulatory moderation

Czechia presents a more moderate grounded stance on cultivated meat, empirical data point to a relatively favourable public climate. A YouGov survey commissioned by the Good Food Institute (GFI) Europe in April 2024 found that 59 % of Czech respondents would be willing to try cultivated meat, with 42 % supporting domestic production once authorised at the EU level^[52].

Regulatory behaviour has mirrored this moderation. In January 2025, the Czech Ministry of Agriculture withdrew a proposed decree that would have restricted plant-based products from using “meat”-related terms (similar to the current French law) following criticism from industry and civil-society groups^[53]. Although the proposal concerned plant-based foods rather than cultivated meat, the Ministry’s retreat reveals institutional awareness of EU free-movement and labelling jurisprudence, notably TofuTown (C-422/16), and a reluctance to adopt cultural-identity arguments that risk market fragmentation^[54].

Czech policymakers have instead emphasised the need to “observe European harmonisation rules and scientific assessment before taking any legislative steps on cultivated meat”, a statement issued by the Ministry in May 2024 during the AGRIFISH Council discussions^[55]. This contrasts sharply with the prohibitive rhetoric in Hungary and Romania, situating Czechia as a pragmatic actor within the CEE group.

In political fora, Czechia has nevertheless joined coordinated calls for greater transparency: during the AGRIFISH Council meeting of January 2024, Prague, alongside Austria, France, Italy, Poland, and Romania, supported a joint request for a public EU-level debate on the implications of cultivated meat for agriculture and food safety^[56]. This dual posture, support for scrutiny but avoidance of unilateral restriction, typifies the “moderating” CEE response that reinforces the internal-market logic of the Novel Foods Regulation rather than challenging it.

6. Conclusion – lessons from GMOs: flexibility or precedent of blockage?

Can EU food law accommodate national differentiation on cultural or sovereignty grounds? The experience with GMOs suggests both a precedent and a caution.

In the 2000s, Member States repeatedly used safeguard clauses under the Deliberate Release Directive (2001/18/EC, Art 23) to block GMO cultivation, invoking environmental and socio-economic concerns. This led to regulatory paralysis and political deadlock. In response, the EU amended the framework in 2015 by introducing an opt-out clause (Art 26b of the Directive), allowing Member States to prohibit GMO cultivation on non-scientific grounds, while preserving harmonization for circulation and trade^[57].

The GMO experience thus institutionalised a form of differentiation: it separated market circulation (kept harmonised) from cultivation (left partly to national discretion). However, this analogy is limited for cultivated meat. Unlike GMOs, which are released into the environment, cultivated meat is produced in controlled facilities, and the NFR contains no safeguard or opt-out clauses. Derogation would therefore require a legislative reform that the Commission shows no sign of supporting.

The debate over cultivated meat reveals more than a regulatory puzzle: it exposes a deeper fault line in the EU’s internal market. Italy’s blanket ban and Hungary’s sovereignty-framed notification, joined by Romania’s proposed prohibition, Poland’s ambivalent state support, and Czechia’s contested public and regulatory signals, show how cultural identity and agrarian concerns in CEE increasingly contest harmonisation^[58]. These cases illustrate that resistance is not confined to one region: while Italy invokes culinary heritage, Hungary reflects the agrarian-sovereignty narrative of Central and Eastern Europe. The political drivers differ, but the legal constraints converge.

Looking ahead, the Gourmey foie gras application will be decisive. EFSA has published guidance for cultivated meat dossiers, clarifying the evidentiary requirements for authorisation, and a risk management decision is unlikely before 2026^[59]. Until then, uncertainty persists: will the EU allow cultural opt-outs, or will it enforce uniformity? In parallel, global regulatory competition (Singapore, the UK, the US, Switzerland) offers a comparative benchmark, pressuring the EU to prove that its precautionary approach does not amount to paralysis.

For Member States, the path forward lies not in unilateral bans but in working through derogation systems and comitology, where “other legitimate factors” can be raised. Used responsibly, these channels allow concerns about rural livelihoods and cultural heritage to be voiced without undermining the internal market. Used opportunistically, they risk entrenching protectionism.

The cultivated meat debate is therefore emblematic of the EU’s broader constitutional challenge: how to foster innovation while respecting diversity. The internal market has always been a compromise between integration and national autonomy. With cultivated meat, that compromise is once again tested. For the Union, success will depend on finding a balanced path that secures trust in innovation, addresses legitimate cultural anxieties, and keeps the single market coherent.

In the Draghi Competitiveness Strategy, which calls for a unified and innovation-friendly internal market, reducing fragmentation is key to sustaining Europe’s competitiveness^[60]. This does not only mean managing Italy’s high-profile ban but also addressing the growing CEE fault line, where sovereignty rhetoric and agrarian protectionism risk deepening East–West divides. Cultivated meat, as a potential game-changer in food production, will be an early test of whether the EU can match innovation with cohesion, or whether national resistance will once again expose the fragility of European integration.

Resources

Legislation:

Décret n° 2022-947 du 29 juin 2022 relatif à l’utilisation de certaines dénominations employées pour désigner des denrées comportant des protéines végétales [2022] (2022-947).

Legge 1 dicembre 2023, n. 172, Disposizioni in materia di divieto di produzione e di immissione sul mercato di alimenti e mangimi costituiti, isolati o prodotti a partire da colture cellulari o di tessuti derivanti da animali vertebrati nonché di divieto della denominazione di carne per prodotti trasformati contenenti proteine vegetali, Law No. 172/2023, available at https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2023/12/01/23G00188/sg.

Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods [2015] OJ L 327/1.

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [2002] OJ L31/1.

Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation [2012] OJ L316/12, art 3(6).

Code rural et de la pêche maritime, LOI n° 2021-1104 du 22 août 2021 portant lutte contre le dérèglement climatique et renforcement de la résilience face à ses effets, 2021.

Case law:

Case C-194/94 CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL (Judgment of 30 April 1996) European Court Reports 1996 I-02201, ECLI:EU:C:1996:172.

Case C-438/23 Association Protéines France and Others v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique [2023] CJ C/2023/744.

Case C-58/08 Monsanto, Judgment of 18 December 2008, European Court of Justice.

Commission v France (Case C-333/08) [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:32.

Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Case C-200/18) EU:C:2019:744.

Case C-3/00 Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities (Denmark v Commission) [2003] ECLI:EU:C:2003:167, para 64.

Case C-333/08 Commission v France [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:44, paras 86–89.

Case T-481/06 Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. v European Commission [2008] ECR II-1761.

Case C-157/12 European Commission v Republic of Poland [2013] ECR I-0000.

Articles:

Alessandra Guida, ‘The Precautionary Principle and Genetically Modified Organisms: A Bone of Contention between European Institutions and Member States’ (2021) 8 JL & Biosciences 1.

D Lanzoni, R Rebucci, G Formici, F Cheli, G Ragone, A Baldi, L Violini, TS Sundaram and C Giromini, ‘Cultured Meat in the European Union: Legislative Context and Food Safety Issues’ (2024) 8 Current Research in Food Science 100722 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2024.100722 accessed 19 December 2024.

Ellen Vos and Maria Weimer, Differentiated Integration or Uniform Regime? National Derogations from EU Internal Market Measures, in Between Flexibility and Disintegration (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017).

E Vos and K De Smedt, ‘Taking Stock as a Basis for the Effect of the Precautionary Principle since 2000’ (RECIPES report, 2020) ch 4 https://recipesproject.eu/sites/default/files/2021-01/Report_Taking%20stock%20as%20a%20basis%20for%20the%20effect%20of%20the%20precautionary%20principle%20since%202000_Final.pdf accessed 19 December 2024.

Francesco Planchenstainer, ‘“Meat Me in Italy”: The Italian Ban on Meat-Sounding Names and Cell-Cultured Meat’ (2024) 19 European Food and Feed Law Review 66.

Guido Bellenghi and Luca Knuth, ‘Food Culture and the Far-Right: Making Sense of the Italian Ban on Cultivated Meat’ (VerfBlog, 13 October 2023) https://verfassungsblog.de/food-culture-and-the-far-right/.

Guido Bellenghi and Luca Knuth, ‘EU Food Law and the Politics of the Internal Market: The Challenge of Cultivated Meat’ (Review of European Administrative Law, 2024, Vol. 17, No. 3/4, 39–62) https://doi.org/10.7590/187479824X17326230137663.

Jessica Vapnek, Kai P Purnhagen, and Ben Hillel, Regulatory and Legislative Framework for Novel Foods (Universität Bayreuth, Faculty of Life Sciences: Food, Nutrition and Health, Chair of Food Law, Campus Kulmbach, Legal Working Papers No 3/20, 16 September 2020) 7-14.

Mosa Meat, ‘Dutch Government Invests €60M in Cellular Agriculture’ (Mosa Meat Blog, 18 December 2023) https://mosameat.com/blog/dutch-government-invests-60m-in-cellular-agriculture accessed 19 December 2024.

Reynolds, John, ‘European Cultivated Meat Startups in “Valley of Death”, Amid Funding Challenges’ (22 August 2024) TechEU https://www.techeu.com accessed 19 December 2024.

Sinke P, Swartz E, Sanctorum H, van der Giesen C, and Odegard I, ‘Ex-Ante Life Cycle Assessment of Commercial-Scale Cultivated Meat Production in 2030’ (2023) 28 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 234 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8 accessed 19 December 2024.

Tilman Reinhardt, Alessandro Monaco, and Kai Purnhagen, ‘Cultivated Foie Gras Flies into Europe – Prepare for Legal Disruption’ (European Law Blog, September 2024) https://doi.org/10.21428/9885764c.cff9f420 accessed 19 December 2024.

Vito Rubino, ‘Rivista di Diritto Alimentare’ (2024) XVIII Anno 1 Gennaio-Marzo http://www.rivistadirittoalimentare.it accessed 19 December 2024.

Books:

Carlo Petrini, Slow Food. Storia di un’utopia possibile (Giunti Editore 2017).

Reports:

European Commission, ‘Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture – Executive Summary’ (2024) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c9fdbb7b-10c9-405f-9be8-427ef6ad7614_en?filename=strategic-dialogue-report-executive-summary2024_en.pdf accessed 19 December 2024.

European Commission, The Future of European Competitiveness: A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe, Part A (September 2024) https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness%20_%20A%20competitiveness%20strategy%20for%20Europe.pdf accessed 19 December 2024.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Administrative guidance for the preparation of novel food applications in the context of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (23 September 2024) https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9041 accessed 19 December 2024.

European Commission, ‘Detailed Opinion on the Hungarian Draft Act on the Prohibition of Cultivated Meat’ (TRIS/2024/0400/HU) 12 September 2024.

Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary, ‘Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Act on the Prohibition of Cultivated Meat’ (2024) available via TRIS database.

The following are part of the general background of the sustainability of cultivated meat:

United Nations, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (adopted 25 September 2015) A/RES/70/1 https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/sustainable-development accessed 19 December 2024.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ accessed 19 December 2024.

European Commission, The European Green Deal (Communication) COM (2019) 640 final.

European Commission, Farm to Fork Strategy: For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-friendly Food System (Communication) COM (2020) 381 final.

Concerning the violation of Italy’s obligation to notify its ban:

European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission – TRIS/(2023) 0244’ (29 January 2024) https://europa.eu/webtools/rest/html2m/output/html2m-1718382364-ywath.pdf accessed 19 December 2024.

Notification 2023/0675/IT, Technical Regulation Information System (EU), https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/25152 accessed 19 December 2024.

Notification 2024/0400/HU, Technical Regulation Information System (EU) https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/25312 accessed 15 March 2025.

Sites:

Comprehensively used for the global regulatory framework of cultivated meat:

Singapore Food Agency, Regulations on Novel Foods (2019) https://www.sfa.gov.sg accessed 19 December 2024.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Oversight of Cellular Agriculture Products (2023) https://www.fda.gov accessed 19 December 2024.

Health Canada, Pre-market Safety Evaluations of Novel Foods (2024) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada accessed 19 December 2024.

Ministry of Health, Regulations on Good Manufacturing Practices (2023) https://www.health.gov.il accessed 19 December 2024.

Endnotes

1. Vito Rubino, ‘Il quadro regolatorio attuale. La carne coltivata nel diritto U.E.: profili di sicurezza alimentare e procedure autorizzative per la commercializzazione’ (2024) XVIII Anno 1 Gennaio-Marzo Rivista di Diritto Alimentare 4 http://www.rivistadirittoalimentare.it accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
2. Guido Bellenghi and Luca Knuth, ‘Food Culture and the Far-Right: Making Sense of the Italian Ban on Cultivated Meat’ (VerfBlog, 13 October 2023) https://verfassungsblog.de/food-culture-and-the-far-right/. ↑
3. European Commission, Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS), Notification 2024/0400/HU, “Draft Act on the prohibition of the production and marketing of cultivated meat” (26 June 2024). ↑
4. Romania Insider, “Romanian Senate votes to ban the sale of lab-grown synthetic meat” (12 June 2023), available at https://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-senate-votes-ban-sale-lab-grown-synthetic-meat-2023. ↑
5. Notes from Poland, “Poland’s first lab-grown meat firm gets state grant” (7 August 2024), available at https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/08/07/polands-first-lab-grown-meat-firm-gets-state-grant/. ↑
6. D Lanzoni, R Rebucci, G Formici, F Cheli, G Ragone, A Baldi, L Violini, TS Sundaram and C Giromini, ‘Cultured Meat in the European Union: Legislative Context and Food Safety Issues’ (2024) 8 Current Research in Food Science 100722 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2024.100722 accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
7. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods [2015] OJ L 327/1, Art 3(2)(a)(vi). ↑
8. Sinke P, Swartz E, Sanctorum H, van der Giesen C, and Odegard I, ‘Ex-Ante Life Cycle Assessment of Commercial-Scale Cultivated Meat Production in 2030’ (2023) 28 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 234, 242 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8 accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
9. European Commission, The European Green Deal (Communication) COM (2019) 640 final. ↑
10. European Commission, Farm to Fork Strategy: For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-friendly Food System (Communication) COM (2020) 381 final. ↑
11. Jessica Vapnek, Kai P Purnhagen, and Ben Hillel, Regulatory and Legislative Framework for Novel Foods (Universität Bayreuth, Faculty of Life Sciences: Food, Nutrition and Health, Chair of Food Law, Campus Kulmbach, Legal Working Papers No 3/20, 16 September 2020) 7–14. ↑
12. Sinke P, Swartz E, Sanctorum H, van der Giesen C, and Odegard I, ‘Ex-Ante Life Cycle Assessment of Commercial-Scale Cultivated Meat Production in 2030’ (2023) 28 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 234 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8 accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
13. European Commission, ‘Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture – Executive Summary’ (2024) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c9fdbb7b-10c9-405f-9be8-427ef6ad7614_en?filename=strategic-dialogue-report-executive-summary2024_en.pdf accessed 19 December 2024, 4. ↑
14. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [2002] OJ L31/1. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [2002] OJ L31/1. ↑
15. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods [2015] OJ L 327/1, Art 3(2)(a)(vi). ↑
16. Vapnek, Purnhagen, and Hillel. ↑
17. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Art 191(2); see also E Vos and K De Smedt, ‘Taking Stock as a Basis for the Effect of the Precautionary Principle since 2000’ (RECIPES report, 2020) 48 https://recipesproject.eu/sites/default/files/2021-01/Report_Taking%20stock%20as%20a%20basis%20for%20the%20effect%20of%20the%20precautionary%20principle%20since%202000_Final.pdf accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
18. John Reynolds, ‘European Cultivated Meat Startups in “Valley of Death”, Amid Funding Challenges’ (TechEU, 22 August 2024) https://www.techeu.com accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
19. Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation [2012] OJ L316/12, Art 3(6); see also CJEU Case C-613/14 James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited (ECLI:EU:C:2016:821). ↑
20. Décret n° 2022-947 du 29 juin 2022 relatif à l’utilisation de certaines dénominations employées pour désigner des denrées comportant des protéines végétales [2022]; Case C-438/23 Association Protéines France and Others v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique [2023] CJ C/2023/744; Code rural et de la pêche maritime, LOI n° 2021-1104 du 22 août 2021. ↑
21. European Council, ‘Agriculture and Fisheries Council: 15 July 2024’ (European Council, 15 July 2024) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/agrifish/2024/07/15/ accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
22. Guido Bellenghi and Luca Knuth, ‘EU Food Law and the Politics of the Internal Market: The Challenge of Cultivated Meat’ (2024) 17(3/4) Review of European Administrative Law 39. ↑
23. Carlo Petrini, Slow Food. Storia di un’utopia possibile (Giunti Editore 2017). ↑
24. Guido Bellenghi and Luca Knuth, ‘Food Culture and the Far-Right: Making Sense of the Italian Ban on Cultivated Meat’ (VerfBlog, 13 October 2023) https://verfassungsblog.de/food-culture-and-the-far-right/. ↑
25. Francesco Planchenstainer, ‘“Meat Me in Italy”: The Italian Ban on Meat-Sounding Names and Cell-Cultured Meat’ (2024) 19 European Food and Feed Law Review 66, 67. ↑
26. Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 [2015] OJ L 241/1. ↑
27. Notification 2023/0675/IT, Technical Regulation Information System (EU) https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/25152 accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
28. Case C-194/94 CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL EU:C:1996:172. ↑
29. European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission – TRIS/(2023) 0244’ (29 January 2024) https://europa.eu/webtools/rest/html2m/output/html2m-1718382364-ywath.pdf accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
30. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (GFL), Arts 6–7. ↑
31. Case C-58/08 Monsanto Italia EU:C:2008:806, para 106. ↑
32. Case C-333/08 Commission v France EU:C:2010:32. ↑
33. Alessandra Guida, ‘The Precautionary Principle and Genetically Modified Organisms: A Bone of Contention between European Institutions and Member States’ (2021) 8 JL & Biosciences 1. ↑
34. Case C-3/00 Denmark v Commission EU:C:2003:167, para 64. ↑
35. TFEU, Art 114(4). ↑
36. TFEU, Art 114(5). ↑
37. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, [2001] OJ L106/1, Art 23. ↑
38. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, OJ L31/1, Arts 53–54. ↑
39. European Commission, Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS), Notification 2024/0400/HU, “Draft Act prohibiting the production and placing on the market of laboratory-grown meat” (10 July 2024). Available at: https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/26066. ↑
40. Ibid.; Commission acknowledgement extending the standstill to 12 Jan 2025. ↑
41. Government of Hungary, Explanatory Memorandum to Draft Act No T/6643 (2024), unofficial translation reported in Index.hu, “Kormány betiltaná a laborban előállított húst” (10 July 2024). ↑
42. European Commission, Detailed Opinion under Art 6 Directive 2015/1535 concerning Notification 2024/0400/HU (Sept 2024), reported in Cultivated-X, “EU Commission: Hungary’s Proposed Cultivated-Meat Ban ‘Unjustified’” (24 Sept 2024). ↑
43. See also Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council (T-13/99) [2002] ECR II-3305, paras 139–142; Commission v France (C-333/08) EU:C:2010:44, para 93 (scientific substantiation requirement). ↑
44. Romanian Senate, Proiect de lege privind interzicerea comercializării cărnii sintetice în România (L584/2023), adopted 18 Oct 2023, Senate decision published in Monitorul Oficial No 953/2023. ↑
45. Senate Explanatory Memorandum to Draft L584/2023, § 3 (health, consumer information, agri-food heritage). ↑
46. Euractiv Romania, “Senatul votează interzicerea vânzării cărnii sintetice” (18 Oct 2023). ↑
47. Romanian Chamber of Deputies, Legislative File PL-x 583/2023 (status: pending, last procedural entry 12 Apr 2024). ↑
48. Plant Based News, “Romanian Meat Industry Faces Backlash over Proposed Cultivated-Meat Ban” (20 Oct 2023); HotNews Romania, “Industria cărnii sprijină interzicerea cărnii de laborator” (21 Oct 2023). ↑
49. Notes from Poland, “Poland’s First Lab-Grown Meat Firm Gets State Grant” (7 Aug 2024), https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/08/07/polands-first-lab-grown-meat-firm-gets-state-grant/. ↑
50. National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR), Path for Mazovia 2023 Funding Decisions, Project No POIR.01.01.01-00-LABF/24 (Warsaw, 2024). ↑
51. Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Press Statement on Food-Tech Innovation Support (10 Aug 2024). ↑
52. Good Food Institute (GFI) Europe, “Public Opinion on Cultivated Meat in the EU – YouGov Survey Results (April 2024)”, country breakdown, Czech Republic, available via https://gfi.org/resource/yougov-survey-europe-2024; see also Green Queen, “59% of Czechs Would Try Cultivated Meat, Survey Shows” (22 Apr 2024). ↑
53. Czech Ministry of Agriculture, Press Release, “Ministerstvo zemědělství stáhlo návrh omezující používání názvů masných výrobků pro rostlinné produkty” (17 Jan 2025). ↑
54. TofuTown GmbH (C-422/16) EU:C:2017:458, para 42; the decision restricts dairy designations but leaves room for context-specific proportionality under labelling law. ↑
55. Statement by the Czech Minister of Agriculture, Council of the EU – AGRIFISH minutes, 13 May 2024, Item 5 “Exchange of Views on Cultivated Meat”. ↑
56. Written Question E-000247/2024 to the Commission by MEP Anne Sander (EPP) citing AGRIFISH debate (OJ C 89, 11 Mar 2024, p. 101). ↑
57. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001, Art 23; amended by Directive (EU) 2015/412 inserting Art 26b. ↑
58. European Commission, Communication from the Commission – TRIS/(2024) 1869 (2024) https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/26066 accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
59. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Administrative guidance for the preparation of novel food applications in the context of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (23 September 2024) https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9041 accessed 19 December 2024. ↑
60. European Commission, The Future of European Competitiveness: A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe, Part A (September 2024) https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness%20_%20A%20competitiveness%20strategy%20for%20Europe.pdf accessed 19 December 2024. ↑