EU Commission & Member States Call Hungary’s Proposed Cultivated Meat Ban ‘Unjustified’

In a detailed opinion, the EU Commission has rejected the evidence provided by Hungary to justify banning cultivated meat, alongside a number of other member states.

At the EU’s Agriculture and Fisheries (Agrifish) Council meeting in July, the Hungarian presidency called for efforts to “protect” Europe’s culinary traditions from novel foods like cultivated meat. It was a move welcomed by Italy and Austria, which (along with France) led a similar effort at the council’s January meeting.

Essentially, what Hungary was proposing was a ban on cultivated meat, which Italy had become the first country to introduce last year. France and Romania have floated similar proposals in their parliament too.

But in a detailed opinion published by the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm has opposed these legislative attempts, throwing doubt on Hungary and other countries’ proposed restrictions, as well as Italy’s ban.

Commenting specifically on the Hungarian proposal, the EU Commission noted that all novel foods are subject to the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) pre-market authorisation process. If approved, the product is placed on the EU-wide novel food list. But since no cultivated meat company has received the greenlight in the region so far – the first application was filed in July by France’s Gourmey – a ban is “unnecessary”.

“The prohibition to market it results from Union law and applies to all the Union territory,” the Commission stated.

“The scientific assessment to be performed by EFSA within the procedure for the authorisation of novel foods is aimed to ensure that foods to be placed on the EU market are safe and do not present risk for human health,” it added.

“A ban is therefore unjustified, since it could pre-empt the harmonised authorisation procedure for novel foods at EU level, which includes a scientific assessment by EFSA.”

EU Commission opinion puts cultivated meat bans in jeopardy

The EU Commission’s comment was in response to a Technical Regulations Information System (TRIS) notification submitted by Hungary – this is a procedure aimed at preventing the creation of barriers to the free movement of goods among member states.

“In addition to the protection of human health and the environment, the sustainable production of agriculture and the preservation of the traditional rural way of life justify the introduction of regulation,” the TRIS notification read, suggesting that it is unclear how the safety of cellular agriculture can be guaranteed (although that is exactly what the EFSA does).

“Traditional livestock-based meat production is of paramount importance for the future of the domestic food economy, in particular the sustainability of food production and the retaining power of the countryside,” it continued. “Increased production of laboratory-grown meat can have an adverse impact on the agricultural sector and rural living conditions as a whole.”

Italy had already sparked some controversy with its TRIS notifications earlier. The process allows fellow member states to give their opinion on bills that can hinder the EU free market, before it is approved by the country. Italy withdrew its first note attempting to ban cultivated meat, knowing it would have been rejected by the bloc.

But it still went ahead and banned cultivated meat anyway – potentially unlawfully – before presenting a second TRIS notification, which the EU closed because the law was already in place.

To avoid this mess, Hungary did not implement the ban before the Commission and member states got a chance to voice their opinions.

“The Hungarian proposal clashes with the principles of European law, just as would have happened with the Italian law if it had complied with the TRIS procedure,” explained Francesca Gallelli, public affairs consultant at the Good Food Institute Europe. “Both bans are unfounded, as they are not based on scientific evidence, especially considering that cultivated meat is not yet available to European consumers.”

She added: “The Italian law is also potentially unenforceable since it was notified to the European Union after being approved, in violation of the TRIS procedure.”

Across the Atlantic, a host of states in the US are attempting to restrict cultivated meat too, including Arizona, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Two states – Florida and Alabama – have already banned it.

Member states step up in favour of cultivated meat

Hungary’s explanation for the attempted ban wasn’t just rejected by the EU Commission’s assessment of the TRIS notification, but also by several member states.

Sweden noted that the reasons justifying the move to ban cultivated meat because it’s harmful to human health were “unacceptable”, highlighting that Hungary hasn’t provided any risk evaluations or demonstrated that these products might threaten human or planetary health.

The Czech Republic also disagreed with the proposal, citing the obstacles to the EU free market and outlining its support for the “development of innovations in food technologies, including laboratory-grown meat”. It stressed the need to “respect the existing EU legal framework”.

Another country against the ban was Lithuania, which posted a detailed opinion that also underscored the potential of alternative proteins. The country pointed out how the global population will peak by 2080 and demand much higher amounts of protein. “The development of the alternative protein industry will generate new, high value-added jobs and promote the integration of businesses into international value chains and the export of high value-added food products,” it said.

Lithuania’s response added: “Given that countries such as the US, Israel, and Singapore already allow the sale of these products, it is important that the EU remains competitive in the development of these technologies and dictates the conditions for regulation and standards globally.”

Finally, the Netherlands – a cultivated meat leader in Europe – expressed doubt that an “absolute ban” is proportionate to any issues presented by these proteins, and believed that the policy objective can be achieved in “an alternative, less far-reaching way, without introducing a ban on a product that has not yet been placed on the market”.

It presented another case against the ban: cultivated meat can economically benefit farmers. “The possibility of in-vitro meat production on a farm has been investigated and found feasible, and in the Netherlands, livestock farmers have already come forward who want to investigate how this production can be achieved on their farm,” it said.

“Stimulating this development can therefore also ensure the preservation of the agricultural sector and make it futureproof, thus providing an alternative way to achieve the Hungarian goals.”

Hungary now has until mid-January 2025 to respond to the issues raised. The EU Commission has also warned that if the country doesn’t comply with the obligations or goes ahead with the ban without taking these objections into account, it could take the matter to the European Court of Justice.