Italy’s ban on cellular meat: Protecting tradition or blocking innovation? 

Uni of Kent LLM student, Hamsa Jayanathan, analyses the law around cell-grown meat in the face of Italy’s controversial ban

In 2020, Singapore became the first country to approve cultivated chicken for consumption, a milestone in food innovation. Unlike traditional meat, cellular meat is grown from animal cells in bioreactors, eliminating the need for slaughter. Cellular meat, also known as cultivated meat, is produced in laboratories using a process that grows animal muscle tissue from small cell samples. Unlike plant-based meat substitutes, which rely on soy or peas, cellular meat is biologically identical to conventional meat, it just skips the farm-to-slaughterhouse process.

Advocates praise it as a breakthrough for food security, sustainability, and ethical consumption, particularly as global meat demand is expected to rise by 14% by 2030. Countries like the US, the Netherlands, and Israel are leading the way in integrating this technology into their food markets.

However, not everyone is on board. Italy, for instance, has outright banned the production and marketing of cultivated meat, citing concerns about public health and agricultural heritage. But does this ban hold up legally?

Justified or overreaching?

In December 2023, Italy passed Law 172/2023, making it illegal to produce, sell, or distribute cultivated meat. Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida positioned this as a step to protect the country from “the social and economic risks of synthetic food.” The law invokes the precautionary principle, a regulatory concept under International Trade Law that allows bans on products if there’s uncertainty about their safety. It also restricts the labelling of plant-based products using meat-related terms like “burger” or “sausage.”

Italy argues that the ban safeguards public health, prevents misleading labelling, and protects its traditional agricultural sector. Violations come with steep penalties, including fines up to €150,000 and potential business closures. But does this approach align with international trade regulations?

EU regulations: A legal mismatch?

One major issue with Italy’s ban is that it may violate 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. While Italy initially submitted its ban for review, it later withdrew the notification — a move that undermines the procedural framework for regulatory transparency.

Additionally, 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 hinder the EU’s internal market unless justified by health, safety, or environmental concerns. Italy’s failure to provide scientific backing for its ban puts it at risk of violating these provisions.

Global trends: A rising tide of acceptance

While Italy resists, many of its trading partners are moving forward with cellular meat.

• 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, signalling 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 favour 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 favour 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 centralised 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 recognised 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. Italy’s ban prevents individuals from choosing harm-free meat alternatives, potentially infringing on consumer rights under Article 14 (anti-discrimination) in conjunction with Article 9.

The path forward: Regulation, not prohibition

Italy’s ban on cellular meat may seem like a stand for tradition, but it risks violating EU, WTO, and human rights laws. Instead of outright prohibition, Italy should allow 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 is an LLM student pursing International Human Rights Law at the University of Kent. She enjoys gardening and reading up on food security in her free time.

The Legal Cheek Journal is sponsored by LPC Law.