A California-based company filed a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s new law banning cultivated meat, arguing the legislation is unconstitutional and aims to protect the state’s traditional agriculture industry from out-of-state competition rather than addressing public health concerns.

UPSIDE Foods, a California-based company specializing in cultivated meat, filed a federal lawsuit on Monday challenging Florida’s recently enacted law that bans the production, distribution, and sale of cultivated meat in the state. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, argues that the law is unconstitutional and seeks to overturn it.

The plaintiff contends that the law is preempted by federal regulations under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and asserts that federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) governs the safety, production, and labeling of meat and poultry products, including cultivated meat.

“UPSIDE doesn’t want to force anyone to eat cultivated meat. But it does want the opportunity to distribute its product to willing consumers, so that those consumers can decide for themselves whether UPSIDE’s product is worth eating. And UPSIDE has a right to do so, because SB 1084 is unconstitutional,” the complaint states. “SB 1084 violates the Supremacy Clause because it is expressly preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products.”

The company also argues that the Florida law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, which restricts states from passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. It subsequently contended that the law was enacted to protect Florida’s traditional agricultural industry from out-of-state competition posed by companies like UPSIDE Foods, rather than to address legitimate public health or safety concerns. The complaint states that SB 1084 “was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and operates with discriminatory effect to benefit in-state agricultural interests at the expense of out-of-state competition.”

The lawsuit additionally cites statements made by DeSantis and other state officials, which it claims reveal the law’s intent to shield local agriculture. At the bill’s signing, DeSantis described the law as a way to protect local farmers and ranchers from what he characterized as the influence of “global elites” who, he claimed, would push consumers to eat cultivated meat. The signing took place in a cattle ranching region, with representatives from the Florida Cattlemen’s Association present. The complaint points to the governor’s remarks, including his assertion that the ban was necessary to prevent cultivated meat from “wip[ing] the people sitting here today out of business,” as evidence of the law’s protectionist goals.

“Florida did not cite concerns that cultivated meat is less healthy or safe than conventional meat. Instead, Governor DeSantis announced that Florida was “fighting back” against the “authoritarian goals” of the “global elite,” who he alleged would force consumers to eat cultivated meat,” the complaint reads.

The company asserts that the law has caused financial losses and damaged its reputation by preventing it from participating in these events and from entering the Florida market. According to the complaint, UPSIDE Foods is “missing out on opportunities to continue working with local food establishments to distribute its products, because those food establishments would risk losing their licenses.”

Senate Bill 1084, signed into effect by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May, makes Florida the first state in the nation to prohibit the sale of cultivated meat, which is produced by growing animal cells in a controlled environment rather than through traditional animal farming.

The law imposes penalties for violations, including up to 60 days in jail and fines of up to $500 for individuals who manufacture, distribute, or sell cultivated meat in Florida. Food establishments that violate the law risk losing their operating permits and facing additional fines. Products found to be in violation are also subject to embargo and possible destruction.

The legislation was drafted following calls made in November by Rep. Tyler Sirois, who referred to lab-grown products as an “affront to nature.” Commission of Agriculture Wilton Simpson pledged support for the initiative, referencing potential health hazards due to a “largely unregulated market.”

However, the bill’s critics, including Rep. Christine Hunschofsky countered during this year’s Legislative Session that there’s no evidence to suggest that cultivated meat poses any greater safety risk than traditional meat. She further stated that stifling cultivated meat production could restrict consumer choices and slow the state’s adaptation to sustainable food solutions.

“Right now, the product isn’t even sold in the state of Florida and wouldn’t even become possible or viable as a market product until at least 2030 when we would have an increased population that would not have their protein needs met would with the current protein production we have,” Hunschofsky said during a House floor debate.