This is good, although the artificial meat industry needs stricter legislation, because companies should not be allowed to patent solutions intended to replace traditional methods of mass food production.
I'm not following your reasoning. Your only objection is that this technology has the potential to meaningfully replace meat production? And therefore, because it is so amazing, no one should be allowed to profit off of it after they do a big chunk of initial R&D?
This legislation is not doing anything at all to help the research go further. It's a bare-naked stifling of a technology that threatens to thin the wallets of a few rich, loud constituents with lobbyists in the building, and probably a healthy dose of emotional whining about some kind of values or tradition being under attack.
Make sure no one is cutting corners in a way that will poison people when food is involved, but otherwise, just let the free market do its thing. I thought that was meant to be the American way.
Yep, innovation shouldn't be blocked just to protect old interests. What happens if labgrown meat replaces traditional farming?
Right now, anyone can raise animals—even a few chickens or cows—with little money or tech. That's how small farmers, rural families, and backyard producers have fed themselves for centuries. It's about independence, not just food. It's about control over your own livelihood.
Lab-grown meat is different. It needs expensive tech, sterile labs, patents, and big investors. If it becomes the main source of meat, only a few corporations will control the whole system.
Worse, future laws could ban personal animal farming—citing environment or health reasons—and make lab meat the only legal option. Suddenly, you can't raise your own food anymore. You can only buy it from a company.
That's not progress. That's a takeover. We're trading decentralized, accessible food production for a centralized, corporate-controlled model most people can't join.
We shouldn't stop innovation. But we should make sure it doesn't erase the ability of ordinary people to grow their own food. Regulation isn't about protecting tradition; it's about protecting choice, fairness, and food sovereignty.
Let innovation thrive, but not at the cost of our freedom to feed ourselves.
This is good, although the artificial meat industry needs stricter legislation, because companies should not be allowed to patent solutions intended to replace traditional methods of mass food production.
I'm not following your reasoning. Your only objection is that this technology has the potential to meaningfully replace meat production? And therefore, because it is so amazing, no one should be allowed to profit off of it after they do a big chunk of initial R&D?
This legislation is not doing anything at all to help the research go further. It's a bare-naked stifling of a technology that threatens to thin the wallets of a few rich, loud constituents with lobbyists in the building, and probably a healthy dose of emotional whining about some kind of values or tradition being under attack.
Make sure no one is cutting corners in a way that will poison people when food is involved, but otherwise, just let the free market do its thing. I thought that was meant to be the American way.
Yep, innovation shouldn't be blocked just to protect old interests. What happens if labgrown meat replaces traditional farming?
Right now, anyone can raise animals—even a few chickens or cows—with little money or tech. That's how small farmers, rural families, and backyard producers have fed themselves for centuries. It's about independence, not just food. It's about control over your own livelihood.
Lab-grown meat is different. It needs expensive tech, sterile labs, patents, and big investors. If it becomes the main source of meat, only a few corporations will control the whole system.
Worse, future laws could ban personal animal farming—citing environment or health reasons—and make lab meat the only legal option. Suddenly, you can't raise your own food anymore. You can only buy it from a company.
That's not progress. That's a takeover. We're trading decentralized, accessible food production for a centralized, corporate-controlled model most people can't join.
We shouldn't stop innovation. But we should make sure it doesn't erase the ability of ordinary people to grow their own food. Regulation isn't about protecting tradition; it's about protecting choice, fairness, and food sovereignty.
Let innovation thrive, but not at the cost of our freedom to feed ourselves.
The second part, prohibition of farming, was never on the table
[dead]