In 2026, alternative proteins remains one of the most talked about areas of food law. For example, the year is not even at its halfway point, and there have already been multiple court rulings and numerous legislative enactments related to alternative proteins. This article will further explore those updates.
Background on Alternative Proteins Legislation
Alternative proteins is a term that is used to describe lab-grown protein products or meat substitutes, such as plant or insect-based proteins. Over the past several years, the regulation of alternative proteins has received a lot of attention at the state level. Specifically, states have passed laws requiring these products to bear certain labeling disclosures or prohibiting them from using terms that have historically been associated with “traditional” meat food products. For instance, in Alabama, cell-cultured meat is prohibited from being labeled as “meat.” However, in Oklahoma, a cell-cultured meat product may be labeled as “meat” if it also contains the disclosure “lab-grown.” There are currently 23 states with laws creating specific labeling requirements for alternative proteins.
Additionally, over the past few years, eight states have passed legislation that restricts the sale or manufacture of cell-cultured proteins. Three of these prohibitions are temporary, while the other 5 are permanent. Another recent trend involves prohibitions on the expenditure of state money on cell-cultured meat. To learn more about the specifics of these state laws, click here to visit NALC’s Alternative Proteins Laws State Compilation.
2026 Updates
So far, five states have passed legislation related to alternative proteins. South Dakota passed legislation that would ban the “sell[ing], offer[ing] for sale, hold[ing] for sale, or distribut[ing] . . . any product containing cell-cultured protein from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2030. Mississippi became the first state in the nation to ban cultivated dairy. Defined as a product that “intend[s] to replicate or to substitute for milk and that is derived from animal cells cultured outside of a live animal,” a cell-cultured dairy product is prohibited from being sold or offered for sale in the state of Mississippi.
Further, three states passed legislation that creates labeling requirements for alternative proteins. Ohio now requires that cultivated-protein food products, plant-protein food products, insect-protein food products, and fabricated-egg products must bear a “qualifying term,” such as “vegan” or “fake,” if the product’s label includes terms or language suggesting or describing it as a meat or egg product. Ohio’s bill directs state education providers to adopt a policy preventing their purchase of cell-cultured protein food products. Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.8110.
Similar to Ohio’s labeling law, Virginia passed legislation that classifies plant-based, insect-based, fungus-based, and cultivated protein food products to be misbranded if it uses a term which “identifies the food as a meat food product or poultry product” unless it bears a “qualifying term” in close proximity. The Virginia law includes terms like “imitation,” “meatless,” “plant-based,” or “veggie” as qualifying terms.
Last, Idaho passed legislation that required cell-cultivated animal proteins to be labeled with the phrases “lab-grown,” “cell-cultivated,” or “cell-cultured.” Further, while the Idaho law does not exclude cell-cultivated animal proteins from being labeled with traditional meat terms like “beef” or “chicken,” it does prohibit the use of specific meat cut terms like “steak” or “brisket” on cultivated meat “not derived from traditional livestock production or wild game harvest.”
2026 Litigation Updates
A number of the alternative protein laws that have been enacted in previous years have faced challenges in the courts, and so far in 2026, three notable decisions have been made.
Texas Cell-Cultured Protein Ban
First, in January, a federal court in Texas ruled that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) does not preempt Texas’ ban on cell-cultured proteins. The PPIA is the federal law that “regulates the processing, inspection, distribution, labeling, and sale of poultry products sold in interstate commerce,” and it includes an express preemption clause that prohibits states from imposing additional requirements “with respect to premises, facilities, and operations of any official establishments.” Here, the court found that Texas’ ban on cell-cultured proteins does not fall within the scope of the PPIA’s preemption clause because it is a “complete sales ban” and has no impact on food safety or behaviors that could lead to an adulterated chicken product. Thus, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s preemption claim. However, because only one of the plaintiff’s claims was dismissed, the litigation remains ongoing. To read more details about this case, click herefor the NALC article “Texas Food Law Litigation Updates: Part 2.”
Texas Alternative Protein Labeling Law
Additionally, in January, a Texas federal court struck down the Texas law that created labeling requirements for “analogue products.” These products are defined as “a food product derived by combining processed plant products, insects, or fungus with food additives to approximate the texture, flavor, appearance, or other aesthetic qualities or the chemical characteristics of any specific type of egg, egg product, fish, meat, meat food product, poultry, or poultry product.” Here, the court found that the Texas law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Because the “speech” at issue here was the labels used on food products, it was considered “commercial speech.” Here the court determined that this commercial speech was improperly restricted by Texas because 1) the labels were not misleading, 2) the law did not target a substantial government interest, 3) Texas did not directly advance the government interest asserted, and 4) the law did not achieve the desired goal in the least restrictive way.
Because the Texas law was found to violate the First Amendment, it was struck down. However, because it was determined earlier in the case that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the cell-cultured product labeling laws, those are still enforceable. To learn more about this case, click here to read NALC article “Texas Food Law Litigation Updates: Part 1.”
Florida Cell-Cultured Meat Ban
Last, in March 2026, the Eleventh Circuit published an opinion that upheld Florida’s ban on the production and sale of cell-cultured meat. This ruling is noteworthy because it was one of the first times an appellate court has weighed in on the regulation of the sale of alternative proteins. However, this was not a ruling on the merits. The Eleventh Circuit determined here that the distinct court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was proper and agreed that the Florida ban was likely not preempted by the PPIA. Nevertheless, while the preliminary injunction question was at the Eleventh Circuit, the lower district court did rule to dismiss the preemption claims and that ruling is final. The litigation remains ongoing though as the district court considers a separate claim – whether Florida’s law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. For more detail about the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, click here to read NALC article “Eleventh Circuit takes up Florida’s Ban on Cell-Cultured Meat.”
To stay up to date on emerging news stories related to alternative proteins, click here to subscribe to NALC’s bi-weekly newsletter, “The Feed.”
Stone, Emily. “Alternative Proteins: Litigation and Legislation Updates.” Southern Ag Today 6(21.5). May 22, 2026. Permalink
