Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has vetoed a legislative bill, AB 554, that aimed to impose significant restrictions on the labeling and sale of cultivated meat within the state. In his veto message, Governor Evers articulated concerns that the bill was "vague and arbitrary" and would ultimately "create more questions than it would answer," potentially leading to customer confusion and unintended legal consequences. This decision marks a notable divergence from legislative trends in several other U.S. states that have moved to ban or heavily regulate the burgeoning cultivated meat industry.
The proposed AB 554, introduced in October 2025 by a bipartisan group of 14 state legislators, sought to mandate that cultivated meat products be explicitly labeled as "lab-grown meat." Beyond the labeling requirement, the bill contained several provisions that drew scrutiny from the governor. It stipulated that cultivated meat could only be sold if specifically ordered by a customer, a requirement Evers deemed redundant given the proposed prohibition on offering such products for sale. Furthermore, the bill aimed to prevent the sale of cultivated meat to students, patients in healthcare facilities, and inmates in government institutions, unless deemed medically necessary by a designated superintendent or physician. Violations of these provisions carried potential fines ranging from $100 to $500 for a first offense, with the possibility of up to three months imprisonment, escalating to more severe penalties for subsequent violations.
Governor Evers’ veto is a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding cultivated meat in the United States. While many states have leaned towards restrictive measures, Wisconsin’s governor has opted for a more pragmatic approach, prioritizing clarity and avoiding what he perceived as an ill-conceived legislative attempt.
The Rationale Behind Governor Evers’ Veto
Governor Evers’ veto message, released last week, clearly outlined the specific reasons for his decision. He stated, "I object to its vague and arbitrary drafting and the confusion it would create if enacted." His critique focused on several key areas of the bill:
-
Internal Contradictions and Practical Implementation: The governor highlighted a fundamental logical flaw within the bill. "By way of one absurd example," Evers wrote, "under the bill, lab-grown meat can only be sold to a customer if it is ordered by that customer. However, the bill also prohibits offering to sell lab-grown meat. It would appear the bill authors have not considered how a customer could know to order lab-grown meat if it is prohibited from being offered for sale to them." This inherent contradiction, he argued, would make the bill impossible to implement effectively.
-
Inconsistent Definitions and Scope: Another point of contention was the bill’s definition of "animal." The bill included mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and mollusks but explicitly excluded crustaceans. Evers questioned the rationale behind this distinction: "As a further example, the bill’s definition of animal includes a mammal, a bird, a reptile, an amphibian, a fish, or a mollusc, but excludes a crustacean. It is unclear why oysters, mussels, and scallops would be covered by the bill, but lobsters, shrimp, and crabs would not." This arbitrary exclusion created an inconsistent regulatory framework that lacked a clear scientific or practical basis.
-
Disproportionate Criminal Penalties: The governor expressed strong reservations about the criminal penalties proposed in AB 554. He argued that the bill placed an unfair burden on retailers and restaurateurs. "I object to the potential that a grocer or restaurateur could be held criminally liable and even face jail time under this bill due to product mislabeling, despite those entities having no role in the labelling process for products they offer," Evers stated. He emphasized his support for accurate labeling and consumer transparency but found the punitive measures excessive and misdirected, particularly for businesses that are not the direct manufacturers of the cultivated meat products.
Governor Evers concluded his message by reaffirming his commitment to transparency in food labeling, stating, "I support truthful labelling, and I believe consumers should know what is in the products they buy and consume. However, I cannot sign a bill into law that is likely to result in creating more questions than it would answer."
The Legislative Landscape of Cultivated Meat in the U.S.
AB 554 was introduced at a time when the cultivated meat industry is facing increasing legislative scrutiny across the United States. Following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approvals of cultivated chicken products from companies like Upside Foods and Good Meat in early 2023, a wave of state-level legislative actions ensued. These actions have largely aimed to either ban the sale of cultivated meat outright or impose stringent labeling requirements that critics argue are designed to mislead consumers and stifle the industry’s growth.
As of the veto of AB 554, eight states have enacted outright bans or placed moratoria on the sale of cultivated meat. These states include:
- Florida: Enacted legislation banning the sale of cultivated meat.
- Alabama: Also passed a bill prohibiting the sale of cultivated meat.
- Mississippi: Has banned the sale of cultivated meat products.
- Montana: Legislated restrictions on cultivated meat sales.
- Indiana: Implemented a ban on the sale of cultivated meat.
- Nebraska: Governor Jim Pillen signed a bill restricting cultivated meat.
- Texas: Has moved to ban cultivated meat sales within the state.
- South Dakota: Governor Larry Rhoden vetoed a bill that would have effectively banned cultivated meat, but later signed an amendment establishing a five-year moratorium.
Many other states have pursued less absolute measures, focusing on specific labeling regulations. The common thread among these legislative efforts appears to be a desire by some lawmakers and industry groups to differentiate cultivated meat from conventional meat and to ensure consumers are fully aware of its production methods.
The Broader Implications of Governor Evers’ Decision
Governor Evers’ veto in Wisconsin offers a counterpoint to the prevailing trend of restrictive legislation. His reasoned approach, focusing on the practical implications and potential for confusion, could influence future legislative debates. The veto means that AB 554 cannot become law unless it is passed again by a two-thirds majority in both the Wisconsin State Assembly and Senate, a high bar to clear.
The cultivated meat industry, still in its nascent stages of commercialization, relies on navigating a complex regulatory environment. Bans and moratoriums in key states can significantly impede market access and investment. Conversely, a governor’s veto, especially one based on logical inconsistencies and practical challenges, signals a potentially more open regulatory pathway.
Reactions and Future Outlook
The veto has drawn reactions from various stakeholders. The Wisconsin Farm Bureau, represented by Jason Mugnaini, expressed disappointment. Mugnaini stated, "This is something that’s looking to imitate with lab-cultured cells not connected to an animal. I mean, it’s just gross, but we need to make sure there are labelling standards around those before those products get to market." He anticipates that similar legislation will be reintroduced in the next legislative session, potentially including provisions for cultivated dairy products, and reiterated the desire for robust labeling standards to prevent consumer confusion.
The sentiment expressed by the Wisconsin Farm Bureau reflects a broader concern within traditional agriculture sectors regarding the introduction of novel food production technologies. The term "gross" and the emphasis on "not connected to an animal" highlight an underlying unease about the origin and nature of cultivated meat, often framed as a desire for clear, and perhaps more traditional, labeling.
The mention of cultivated dairy by Mugnaini is also significant. Mississippi recently became the first U.S. state to ban the sale of cell-cultured dairy products, with Governor Tate Reeves allowing the bill to pass without his signature. Violators in Mississippi face license revocation and daily fines. This suggests that the debate over novel food production is expanding beyond meat to encompass dairy and potentially other categories.
Governor Evers’ decision in Wisconsin, therefore, stands as a critical moment in the ongoing dialogue about the future of food. By rejecting a bill he deemed fundamentally flawed, he has prioritized a more measured and rational approach to regulation, emphasizing the need for clarity, practicality, and consumer understanding over outright prohibition. This stance may provide a much-needed space for innovation and market development in the cultivated meat sector, even as opposition continues to mount in other parts of the country. The future of cultivated meat in Wisconsin, and potentially beyond, will hinge on how these competing interests and regulatory philosophies evolve.