Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Lifestyle

Ron DeSantis Is Attacking the Greatest Food Innovation Since the Corndog

What Florida Republicans have against cultivated meat

•
Ron DeSantis and a very large hamburger.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the Free State of Florida, Republicans have banned woke public investments, woke racial education, and woke books in school libraries. Now they’re trying to ban woke meat.

Legislation that would criminalize the sale of cultivated meat grown from animal cells is wending its way through the state House and Senate, even though cultivated meat is not currently for sale anywhere in Florida — or, for that matter, anywhere else. Governor Ron DeSantis, eager to start owning libs again after his fiasco of a presidential campaign, has said he’s on board with banning the new technology, even though the federal government has already signed off on meat grown in fermenters rather than feedlots as safe.

So what’s the beef?

The cattle industry has always had outsized clout in Florida politics — the term “cracker” originated with whip-wielding Florida cattlemen — and some Republicans hope to curry favor with the state’s ranchers by strangling potential competition in the cradle. But the crusade against cultivated meat is mostly just the latest skirmish in the DeSantis culture war against what he considers a progressive plot to make Americans feel guilty about the status quo.

In his only public comments about cultivated meat — sometimes described as “lab-grown meat,” although the ultimate goal is to grow it in breweries — DeSantis made it clear that his main objection to the nascent industry is that its leaders hope to limit animal agriculture’s damage to the climate and the environment. To the governor, growing meat outside an animal is just like taking “environment-social-governance” considerations into account in investment decisions or teaching “critical race theory” in the classroom, a left-wing assault on tradition.

“They really want to go after agriculture because they blame agriculture for global warming,” DeSantis said. “You need meat, OK? Like, we’re gonna have fake meat? That doesn’t work. There’s a whole ideological agenda that’s coming after a lot of our society.”

Setting aside the merits of the governor’s anti-woke crusade against “ESG,” “CRT,” and gay-themed books in public libraries, the cultivated meat and seafood entrepreneurs trying to harness capitalism and technology to disrupt a trillion-dollar industry notorious for government influence-peddling don’t see what’s left-wing about innovation or competition. They don’t want to be part of any culture war, and as the legislative ban has been moving through Tallahassee on party-line votes, they’re trying to remind Republicans that they’re supposed to be against the nanny state.

Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson, for instance, a key supporter of the ban, actually boasts on his website that he’s “stood up to politicians who treat Floridians like children incapable of making their own choices.”

“How does banning our products promote consumer choice?” Blue Nalu CEO Lou Cooperhouse, whose San Diego startup is cultivating bluefin tuna toro, told me. “It’s un-American and un-Floridian to stifle innovation and attack free-market principles.”

It is true that cultivated meat has extraordinary potential to limit the impacts of animal agriculture, which now uses one quarter of the land on Earth and is by far the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss. But even if you don’t care about the climate or the environment — or the looming public health crisis created by the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, or the tens of billions of animals who get slaughtered every year — there’s a compelling business proposition behind cultivated meat: Animal meat is inefficient. Why waste feed, land, water, energy and other resources helping livestock stay warm, poop, burp methane, have babies and do other things that don’t produce meat?

That’s why a part-time futurist named Winston Churchill, not usually considered a wokester, predicted in a 1931 essay titled “50 Years Hence” that “we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing.” But it’s now 93 years hence, and while more than 150 startups around the world have begun growing chicken cutlets, burgers, pork meatballs, salmon nigiri and even woolly mammoth meat from cells, they’re not yet doing it inexpensively enough to compete with conventional meat and seafood.

Last year, the Bay Area startups Upside Foods and Good Meat served America’s first cultivated chicken to restaurant patrons in San Francisco and Washington, but only for a limited time to a very limited number of diners. (Some journalists have tried it, too, and I can report that both companies make chicken that tastes like chicken.) For now, you can’t buy cultivated meat anywhere on Earth, and while its costs have plunged more than 99% in a decade, many skeptics doubt that it will ever get cheap enough to make a dent in the 350 million tons of animal meat that the world consumes every year. In the past few months, Wired, Bloomberg, and The New York Times have all published quasi-obituaries for the industry.

Plant-based meat, hailed five years ago as the next big thing in food, is also struggling mightily. Global sales have stopped soaring and are actually declining, and industry darling Beyond Meat’s stock price is down more than 95% from its peak. Meat substitutes have faced a flurry of attacks — some from meat-industry water-carriers, some from natural-food ideologues, and some reflecting genuine discomfort with the idea of eating so much technology — as “ultra-processed foods” with long ingredient lists.

But the problems meat substitutes are designed to address are not going away. Cattle burps (and, to a lesser extent, farts) produce methane, while manure is a major source of nitrous oxide and water pollution, and the world is on track to deforest another two Indias worth of land by 2050 to satiate humanity’s meat tooth. DeSantis may think it’s silly to blame agriculture for global warming, but overall, it generates a fourth of global greenhouse gas emissions, most of them from livestock. It’s not yet as big a problem as fossil fuels, but it is a big problem. And since meat consumption is expected to rise at least 50% by 2050, the problem is getting worse.

Meat alternatives made from plants, fungi, or animal cells can use far less land and generate far fewer emissions than meat made from slaughtered animals, which is why supporters see them as the agricultural equivalent of solar, wind, and other clean-energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Cleaner meat should receive the kind of public support that governments have long provided to cleaner energy, they argue — which has started to happen in the European Union, China and even the United States, which provided $10 million for a cultivated meat research center at Tufts University early in the Biden Administration.

Obviously, it isn’t happening in Florida. Cultivated meat lobbyists have been passing around a clip from a Chinese newspaper gloating about the Sunshine State’s restrictions, saying they will help ensure Chinese domination of the new industry. Rini Greenfield, who runs an ag-tech venture fund called Rethink Food in Miami, told me the ban would send “a clear message to technology companies to take their operations elsewhere.” In fact, every venture that testified against the bill was based in California, the state DeSantis constantly cites as the epitome of woke.

But culture wars are bad for business, no matter where you’re headquartered. The industry doesn’t want to be making Bidenburgers any more than the electric vehicle industry wanted to manufacture Obamamobiles. Today, they’re not selling to anyone, but someday, they want to sell to everyone.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap's exclusive climate and energy polling, award-winning journalism, and subscriber-only events. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Daily Briefing

Think Congress Is Slow? Meet the Power Sector.

BAAJA would likely help speed up the U.S. transmission buildout, but there’s a chance we’re undercounting the benefits.

Power lines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.

As you may have seen, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo and I got the first look at the Rhodium Group’s analysis of what the bipartisan permitting bill will do to emissions.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
AM Briefing

Neutral, at Worst

On Chinese hydrogen, Fermi upheaval, and British offshore wind

Smokestacks.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: The Pineapple Express, an atmospheric river originating in the Pacific near Hawaii, is arriving in the Southwest laden with heavy rain that’s set to flood the region • Indonesia has the worst air quality in the world as forest fires rage along Sumatra’s southern coast • A cross-country storm will soak much of the United States on Tuesday’s Election Day.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Permitting bill’s worst-case climate scenario is still carbon neutral

The Senate’s grand compromise to simplify federal permitting on energy projects would likely drop emissions slightly as the benefits to accelerating deployments of clean energy infrastructure outweigh the boost the legislation could give to fossil fuels. Even under the worst-case scenario, emissions remain on the same trajectory as today. That’s according to a hotly anticipated new analysis by the Rhodium Group, the consultancy whose U.S. emissions estimates are among the most widely cited in American politics. The report, shared first with my colleague Emily Pontecorvo, found that provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act largely counteract each other on climate. The bill makes building transmission lines much easier, a key step to patching more renewables onto the grid. But it also makes new gas pipelines simpler to permit, clearing the way for a buildout of the infrastructure for the fossil fuel already dominating U.S. electricity and heating systems. Still, under the best-case scenario, the legislation could cut U.S. economy-wide emissions by 5% below where they would otherwise go in 2040. The bill could also slash energy bills by $78 per year and support construction of more than 200 gigawatts of clean energy capacity, as compared to a world where it didn’t pass. The Rhodium report is at least the second analysis yet to find that the bill could modestly lower emissions. The first, as I reported last week, came from the think tank Resources for the Future, which saw a slight drop in power-sector emissions relative to a world without BAAJA.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Energy

Exclusive: New Modeling Finds Permitting Bill Would Likely Cut Emissions

Even in the worst-case scenario, BAAJA wouldn’t increase emissions, an analysis by the Rhodium Group concludes.

Pollution and the Capitol.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The bipartisan permitting reform bill is likely to slightly cut greenhouse gas emissions and lower electricity bills by 2040 — or at worst leave emissions on the same trajectory that they are on today — as compared to the status quo, according to a new analysis of many of its provisions by the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm.

The analysis examines the policies in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, that would have the most-clear cut effects on climate pollution and the energy system. It is the most comprehensive account of the bill’s effects on emissions so far, although it does not examine all of its provisions.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue