Hamsa Jayanathan, an LLM student at the University of Kent, analyzes the legal implications of Italy’s controversial ban on cell-grown meat. In 2020, Singapore made history by becoming the first nation to approve cultivated chicken for consumption, marking a significant step in food innovation. Unlike traditional meat, cellular meat is grown from animal cells in bioreactors, eliminating the need for slaughter.
This process, which takes place in laboratories, grows animal muscle tissue from small cell samples, making cellular meat biologically identical to conventional meat but without the farm-to-slaughterhouse process.Advocates of cellular meat, also known as cultivated meat, highlight its potential benefits for food security, sustainability, and ethical consumption, especially as global meat demand is projected to increase by 14% by 2030. Countries such as the US, the Netherlands, and Israel are at the forefront of incorporating this technology into their food markets.
However, Italy has taken a different stance, banning the production and marketing of cultivated meat, citing concerns about public health and agricultural heritage. In December 2023, Italy enacted Law 172/2023, which made it illegal to produce, sell, or distribute cultivated meat. Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida justified the ban as a measure to protect the country from the social and economic risks of synthetic food. The law also invokes the precautionary principle, a regulatory concept under International Trade Law, which permits bans on products if their safety is uncertain. Additionally, it restricts the labeling of plant-based products with meat-related terms like “burger” or “sausage. ”
Italy argues that the ban safeguards public health, prevents misleading labeling, and protects its traditional agricultural sector. Violations of the law can result in hefty fines up to €150,000 and potential business closures. However, this approach may not align with international trade regulations.
One major issue with Italy’s ban is that it may contravene EU trade laws. The Technical Regulations Information System (TRIS) Directive requires member states to notify the European Commission about laws that could impact the EU’s single market. Italy initially submitted its ban for review but later withdrew the notification, undermining the procedural framework for regulatory transparency. Furthermore, under Articles 114 and 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), member states must demonstrate that national restrictions do not impede the EU’s internal market unless justified by health, safety, or environmental concerns. Italy’s lack of scientific evidence for its ban could lead to violations of these provisions.
While Italy resists the trend, many of its trading partners are embracing cellular meat. The global acceptance of this technology is on the rise, with countries moving forward in integrating cellular meat into their food markets.
Singapore approved cultivated chicken in 2020. The US followed in 2023, with the FDA and USDA approving products from Good Meat and Upside Foods. China included cellular meat in its latest Five-Year Plan, signaling government support. South Korea updated its Food Sanitation Act to begin approving cellular meat in 2024. The Netherlands became the first EU country to allow pre-market tastings of cultivated meat.
As more countries adopt regulations for cellular meat, Italy’s rigid stance could isolate it from an evolving market. Does Italy’s ban violate WTO rules? Italy is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which prohibits countries from enacting trade barriers that unfairly favor domestic industries. Under GATT Article III, imported and domestic products must be treated equally in terms of regulations, taxation, and sale. While Italy’s ban affects both local and foreign producers, its potential to favor traditional Italian agriculture over cellular meat competitors could be seen as a violation.
A key legal question is whether cellular meat and traditional meat are “like products” under WTO law. If so, Italy’s ban could be challenged as unfairly restricting trade. The European Court of Justice’s recent ruling on plant-based labeling suggests that overly restrictive food laws can be struck down if they disrupt the EU’s internal market. Similarly, in the EC-Hormones case, the WTO ruled against an EU ban on hormone-treated beef, stating that health-based trade restrictions require strong scientific evidence. Italy’s reliance on the precautionary principle, without conclusive research showing cellular meat poses risks, could face similar scrutiny. Public health: Legitimate concern or market protectionism? Italy frames its ban as a public health measure, but this argument has legal flaws. Cellular meat falls under EU Novel Food Regulations, which require thorough safety testing before market approval. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is already assessing cellular meat’s risks. By enacting a blanket ban before EFSA completes its evaluation, Italy undermines the EU’s centralized approach to food safety. The SPS Agreement, which governs WTO members’ food safety measures, requires that trade restrictions be science-based. Since Italy’s ban lacks definitive scientific backing, it may be considered arbitrary and inconsistent with WTO obligations. Furthermore, GATT Article XX(b) allows trade restrictions to protect public health, but only if they are backed by evidence and applied fairly. Italy’s move could be interpreted as a form of disguised protectionism rather than a genuine health measure. A human rights issue? There’s also an emerging legal argument that Italy’s ban could violate European human rights laws. A recent Danish court ruling recognized individual dietary choices, such as veganism, as beliefs protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which safeguards freedom of thought. Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal? Find out more.Italy’s recent ban on cellular meat raises significant legal and ethical concerns. This prohibition prevents individuals from choosing harm-free meat alternatives, potentially infringing on consumer rights under Article 14 (anti-discrimination) in conjunction with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The path forward for Italy should involve regulation, not outright prohibition. The ban may seem like a stand for tradition, but it risks violating EU, WTO, and human rights laws. Italy should allow the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to complete its safety review and work towards harmonised regulations that balance innovation with consumer protection. The reality is that cellular meat is here to stay. As climate concerns, food security, and ethical considerations push global markets toward alternative proteins, Italy faces a choice: adapt to the future or risk being left behind. By embracing scientific evaluation over political rhetoric, Italy can protect both its rich culinary heritage and its role in shaping Europe’s food landscape. The future of meat doesn’t have to be a battleground; it can be a shared table where tradition and innovation coexist. Hamsa Jayanathan, an LLM student pursuing International Human Rights Law at the University of Kent, penned this article. She enjoys gardening and reading up on food security in her free time. The Legal Cheek Journal, which features this article, is sponsored by LPC Law.
