Italy's minister of agriculture explains the decision: "With the law approved today, Italy is the first nation in the world to be safe from the social and economic risks of synthetic food." The OP adds that the new law "also prohibits the use of meat-related terms, like 'salami' or 'steak', for plant-based meat substitutes."
The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to lab-based meats. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. I hope Italy eventually comes to its senses and repeals it.
I think there are two things to consider here. One is a question: is Italy a player in this field and do they have research companies that have a vested interest in this? I don't know the answer to that question, but if they don't have much to lose in the short term it probably doesn't represent much of a lost opportunity.
Besides, it's Italy. It is about as politically stable as a jenga tower where all the easy pieces have already been removed. I'm not sure how robust such a ban might be if economic interests were to change.
The other is an observation: Italy has a lot of high value PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) products. Compare countries like Italy and France, which have many PDO products, to, for instance, the US, which has extremely few.
Of course, I haven't made a systematic study to map out how many PDO products countries have and cross-referenced that to how skeptical they are towards cultivated meat products, but it would surprise me if there was no correlation. This represents a guess on my part.
IMO Italy has lots of high value origin stuff because they value and care about tradition and realness and so on.
Go to Italy and you'll see real stonework. If you want to find a micrometer layer of gold on top of plastic, or not much more marble on top of concrete, then go do Saudi or UAE. Not Italy. The stone you find there is real, and so's the porchetta. So they get PDO designation for the stuff they care about, and abhor makebelieve alternatives for the same reason that they value the real porchetta.
The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food.
I'm glad I missed all the benefits of introduction of margarine because they couldn't use the word "butter" on packaging.
According to this article, this law bans "cultivated meat" which is cultured from animal-derived cells, and it bans labelling of plant-based products with names that use common meat products like "steak" or "salami".
The law does not ban plant-based meat-like alternatives. Italy will probably continue to increase its consumption of these products, and they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry in Italy.
they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry
and that's how it should be. because the alternative is confusing. as someone who also enjoys vegetarian food i really want to be clear if something is actually including meat or not without having to study the fine print.
I really wish we'd resist the trend to trying to create imitations of meat dishes hear and calling them "vegan" X. Vegetables, and even vegan meals, can be amazing on their own. They often become awful and disgusting when made to play dress-up as meat.
I mean, look at cuisine in India. The veg dishes, even the dairy-free dishes, are amazing without ever trying to turn them into meat-impostors. I say all of this as someone who loves a good steak. If you're going to serve me a veg dish, just serve me a veg dish. I can handle it.
If plant-based foods are so good then sell them as so. Don't sell them as $adjective meat. If your whole business idea is based on misleading customers, perhaps it's not that good.
I’m French so I’m extremely in favor of naming things correctly. For example I’m cringing hard when I see Americans not understanding what the big deal is with « Champagne » vs « sparkling wine ».
However I think it makes sense to name new things based on what they look or feel like, as long as an adjective is there to clear any ambiguity.
For example no one has an issue with coconut milk, although it’s not milk? In my opinion if an almond milk is labeled as just « milk », yeah that’s a problem, it’s deceptive. If it’s labeled as « almond milk », seems pretty clear to me? Same for « vegetal steak » or « chickpea sausage » or whatever. Or even « turkey bacon » to stay in the meat products.
Some of these rulings are just out of spite, and not to protect consumers, and it’s not really a good thing.
This industry is new and seemingly needs a little deception at first to get people to adopt their products faster. Time will solve this one, people will find an identifier that they like and in this case it won’t be Italian since they won’t be enjoying these for now.
The world doesn't have to be homogenous and probably shouldn't be. Nations have "brands" that mean something to their people and that have outsized economic value in trade. Further, heterogenous approaches to new technology is a powerful way for the human species to hedge its bets against unknowable long-term risks.
Italy can spend the next N decades branding themselves as the place to look for quality traditional meats that convey millennia of culinary heritage and husbandry practice and almost certainly come out far ahead economically vs rushing to void that implicit value in favor of factory-grown synthetic meats shipped in from some distant country.
And then, if the tides have turned after those N decades, they can consider hopping on the bandwagon then.
For a small nation with a strong and valuable brand for culinary goods, there's very very little to lose in this strategy. Excepting those peers that have a mature industrial stake in synthetic meats, you can expect to see similar discussions in France and elsewhere.
Why does that require a law? Why can't Italian companies that want to brand themselves as everything you're saying? Then if the tides have turned, Italian companies aren't prevented from swimming with them.
How do they miss out on the benefits? This reads as if you still can sell plant-based food, just not name it with typical meat-names. And considering how strong the food-culture (& and industry) in Italy is today, this is kinda understandable. For the loud voices, this is part of their identity at the moment.
Also, isn't Italian food already very focused on plants? So the benefit are probably far less than in the more unhealthy country anyway.
While the western world is getting angry about change, China is out eating our lunch by moving into all these emerging technologies. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a conscious effort to push conservative extremism in western countries for this exact reason.
If I just look around in my country, new electric cars are quickly becoming mostly Chinese and most solar panels are Chinese. Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market.
In the long term, our own bigotry and climate denialism is going to severely bite us in the ass. Especially since we're already barely above sea level.
> Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market.
So, Netherlands, then?
> barely above sea level
Sounds like it.
From an American (sigh) living in the UK (sigh), you have my deepest sympathies.
Yes, but Italy is a parliamentary republic, the president has only a ceremonial/ guarantee role. Governments/parliaments last much less, maximum 5 years, but often way less
As an Italian, I despise them as any other reasonable person.
But this decision is not unreasonable.
Let the World eat it so we can gather data. We are Italians, we've never been early adopters of anything coming from outside our borders.
Especially food wise and except mobile phones.
It is also not unreasonable to label things for what they really are.
Almond juice is not milk as in "the white liquid food produced by the mammary glands of mammals" and plant based meat substitutes are not a steak or a burger, they are vegetable patties.
I'll take the bait. It's not so surprising to see "reactionary" politics when social 'progress' continues to become more and more demented. But I'll admit, fake meat is not even present on my list of problems.
“Meat production accounts for 57 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire food production industry. It also results in widespread deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and each of these means that it significantly contributes to climate change.”
Not OP, but I think the effects of modern meat production are well known.
Especially when we apply higher standards on how to take care of farm animals, there's simply not enough room to fulfill "the meat needs" of an ever-growing population in the world.
On the other hand, plants are fine with being stacked and raised by artificial light sources and finely setup nutrient solutions and whatnot. So by changing our food (production) chains to more plant-based, industrialized systems we can reduce the space needed for food production and also the economical and ecological impact.
> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted.
Not sure how truthfully labelling products would mean all that. I think the consumer is smart enough to make choices for themselves, and the language of food labels only benefits, not harms, that.
Well, they appear to actually be banning the products. I personally have zero problem if they don't want the products to be labeled similarly to the "real" versions. There are already a ton of regulations in Europe about how food products are labeled.
Can you elaborate or is the first word just extra weight? Please no offense, it's an honest question: I find very interesting how most people, when they want to get a debatable point across, almost always throw exactly 3 profound and all-encompassing adjectives (rarely 2, 4 or 5).
Even ChatGPT has noticed the pattern and picks up this style. But if you break the sentences down, very often realize that 1 or even 2 of such adjectives are fillers.
>The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted.
Whatever they are doing with food laws in Italy, I am 100% ok with it. There's a reason why anything imported is strictly superior to the US made version. They are dead serious when it comes to quality and purity, and I appreciate that greatly.
It's not shortsighted. It's just a decision driven by some Italian lobbies (meat industry), scared about this innovation where they feel threatened. For the same reason they managed to forbid the use of some Italian meat-words applied to plant-based meat.
Or they don’t want to be a Guinea pig for something that (currently) has higher environmental impact than conventional meat[0].
I’ve less concern for the naming bans, however as someone allergic to soy, like when it’s stated up front. I’m not sure how forcing packaging of plant based goods to not use meaty words affects anyone negatively.
> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food.
Feel free to go ahead and test lab grown meat on yourself and report back in 30 years. Plastic was once considered safe, right? Smoking too?
Of course, we should all be drinking Soylent and eating pill-based food. Who cares about preserving a tradition of high-level cuisine that exists from time immemorial, when we can live like they did in bad science-fiction books from the 1960s or 1970s instead.
The vast majority of Italian culinary tradition stems from the late 19th century or after that. Dishes like carbonara are from the 50s. Pizza as we know it is from the US and was reintroduced to italy by American soldiers. Italians ate rice and beans, same as everyone else, before the
You're a not forced to eat or do anything. That's the same argument religious people have against abortions, even though no one is forcing you to have one.
Like our current food supply isn't highly processed already [0]... This law has nothing to do with preserving tradition. It has to do with populist right wing politics that ban anything new. High level cuisine will always exist, even when affordable alternatives arise.
The Italians have largely voted for a party that vowed to protect their culture. Perhaps the resulting laws are shitty for you, but likely not for the majority of Italians.
Hilarious to me how proponents of synthetic/plant-based food always seem to gloss over the cultural aspects of food. It's such a spreadsheet-brain way of looking at the world.
> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. I hope Italy eventually comes to its senses and repeals it.
They seem to be avoiding the "unintended consequences" of consuming synthetic food. Perhaps they are thinking on the timeline of lifetimes & generations?
I'm Italian, and unfortunately, we currently have shortsighted politicians. They seem clueless about their actions, and rather than promoting progress and research in various fields, they are attempting to halt time or, in some areas, even regress. They are a group of illiterate fascists who don't even understand how they attained their positions. The advent of cultivated meat doesn't mean that our Italian traditions will be eradicated in its favor. Both can coexist, allowing people to decide what's best for themselves and the planet. For instance, Italy has a ban on GMOs, yet our intensive farming practices involve feeding chickens and other animals imported GMOs daily. So, what's the point of this ban? It's mere propaganda with no scientific basis, and it's ruining our country.
Extra fun fact: Lollobrigida (Italy's minister of agriculture) holds his position as a Minister, solely because he is the husband of the Prime Minister's sister, and that's the extent of his qualifications.
I am Italian as well and this law is bullcrap to divert the public attention from real problems. But I am happy to let other, "more innovative" countries be the lab rat on this.
Or the Tom Scott equivalent of the 2300's will post a funny video about the weird historical reason why you can't buy your favourite rhino patty in Italy.
Eat exactly these seven plants in just the right ratios to get roughly the amino acids your body needs before crossing 2400 calories. No room for error.
I'll join you when we've bred twice the protein quality & quantity we currently have in our plants.
Until then, I'll save money with my factory supplements,thanks.
Economies of scale will be a significant hurdle. Id imagine that there would have to be countries producing at a massive scale for your hypothetical to become reality.
Is there any reason to believe this will happen or is it just pure hopium? Like what are the odds the new thing will be the same, cheaper, less cruel, and better for the environment?
We can't even make non-meat meat that's as cheap as meat and you didn't even have to grow or feed the cow.
As for the same and less cruel, going by the marketing material on Upside Foods it looks like its probably about same and unless you consider growing cells in a vat torture its less cruel.
Have no idea about cost. I don't have much of an ethical problem with killing and eating humanely and sustainably raised and cared for animals for a reasonable degree of those things, factory farming and assembly line slaughterhouses are not that. Better for the environment seems a no brainer given the ecological costs of the amount of meat we eat. I can't imagine it will be the same as in no difference at all, or undetectable, maybe it will even always be more delicious, but I think it's reasonable to think that for lots and lots of dishes with meat in it, it would pass a blind taste test.
Raw steak, maybe not. Beef stew or chicken curry or a burger - def...
the same reason that coke is cheaper than water sometimes: Because in the long run it's better for a company to sell and addict you to cheaply made processed food
I don't think so, at least not if that timeframe overlaps with the current regime. This is something like an ID pol issue for the conservatives in power in Italy (and FL).
yeah sorry, just because some university researchers and VC backed silicon valley startups are into synthetic meat because they've crunched the numbers and think it'll make them billions and also tug at the collective guilt because of climate change, will not throw away thousands of years of human tradition.
Way to cap a nascent industry before it even finishes being born.
We have no idea what cultivated meat can taste like, how healthy it can be, and how cheap it can become. Right now there is a handful of research-based companies trying to make the thing, and none really succeeded at anything.
Factory farmed meat is cancer too. I'd say, save the animals, and give a little toxicity to all the proles who haven't gone unprocessed plant-based yet.
> Once cultivated meat is significantly cheaper [than real meat]?
Is there any real chance of that in the next, say, 100 years?
I would imagine the bio engineering that evolution arrived at for converting nutrients to meat+organs+bone is quite close to optimal for its purpose. If so, getting anywhere near, even if you get rid of the organs + bones*, would need a looooong time. Especially since you'd be converting cheap workers taking care of animals with bio-engineers tending meat vats in pretty good sterility.
*which anyway is probably not fully desirable if you expect the full taste of real meat
100 years is a very very long time. 100 years ago, a little over half of all homes in the US still didn’t have electricity. 100 years ago, around 2/3 of homes didn’t have a telephone.
I would absolutely take the bet that we would have cheaper cultivated meat within 100 years, barring an extinction level event…
When you look at steak in m-w, you might be surprised to learn that one of the definitions for steak is: a thick slice or piece of a non-meat food especially when prepared or served in the manner of a beef steak.
When was this entry added? Pretty sure they added this definition because they were pressured by vegan groups to include a non-meat definition. Steak is historically meat based, nothing will change that. A plant-based steak is not a steak.
I'm not sure looking at the dictionary helps your argument since The OED, Collins and the Etymology dictionaries state the meat definition as the primary and some don't even have the more modern variations.
Also, shouldn't you be looking at the Italian dictionary. I think there is a very heavy cultural slant to this that you're ignoring that is informed by the inflexibility of non-english languages.
> Im actually ok with this. Vegetarian food should stop pretending to be something its not and be willing to stand on its own feet as what it is.
I concur -- food labels should be accurate, not deceptive. Food industry does not have a lot of credibility at the moment, and deceptive labelling wont help with that.
“Meat-related” is the kicker for me. It’s not like they’re saying, “this is steak”. They’re saying, “this is intended to imitate the texture and flavor you may expect from steak”. As a person making efforts to become vegetarian, this is very useful information for me. I’m not becoming vegetarian because I think meat tastes bad. Steaks are absolutely delicious. The problem is I feel guilt when I eat it now because I can’t shut out the process by which it arrived on my plate. Having hints about what a vegetarian option is attempting to emulate (since I would eat those things if there was a humane way to do so) should not be considered malicious behavior.
This... basically doesn't matter. Italy is known for its food culture and they take it very seriously. If you don't believe me, try ordering a latte after noon.
Cultivated meat is now in the realm of semi-feasible science fiction. In theory there's a Jose Andres restaurant where I could try it, in practice its very expensive and there's so little supply that very few people can even get that tasting menu.
If it works out and winds up taking off, bans are reversible. Italy will never give up its red cows but who knows.
On the other hand, everything I've read about cultivation is its an incredibly interesting science project. The texture is still weird, the price is still astronomical, despite an astounding quantity of resources poured into this you're just not going to be grilling lab-burgers any time in the foreseeable future.
If the goal is to make meat sustainable, the fastest way to cut percentage points are to roll back American burger portions to what they were in the 1980s, and start a falafel craze.
Another poor decision from my governament, pushing Italy further beyond the curve of innovation and scientific research, banning an entire industry sector before it's even born.
Lucky for us, it's an useless law: if Europe choose to allow those products to be sold (which is currently not allowed), Italy must oblige.
The only actual consequence of this law, aside from prohibiting some names for meatless foods, is denying the birth of a whole industry sector.
I didn't care much about it, but now that it's going to be banned, I feel like I should try it while I can. Where can I get some of this cultured meat in France?
There's a pretty good episode from recent (4 years-ish) South Park: “Let Them Eat Goo”(1), where Cartman only desired to "eat the same garbage" he always has, and since the “goo” is definitely garbage, he does not care that it is more sustainable or ethical.
Readit News
The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to lab-based meats. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. I hope Italy eventually comes to its senses and repeals it.
Sigh.
Besides, it's Italy. It is about as politically stable as a jenga tower where all the easy pieces have already been removed. I'm not sure how robust such a ban might be if economic interests were to change.
The other is an observation: Italy has a lot of high value PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) products. Compare countries like Italy and France, which have many PDO products, to, for instance, the US, which has extremely few.
Of course, I haven't made a systematic study to map out how many PDO products countries have and cross-referenced that to how skeptical they are towards cultivated meat products, but it would surprise me if there was no correlation. This represents a guess on my part.
Go to Italy and you'll see real stonework. If you want to find a micrometer layer of gold on top of plastic, or not much more marble on top of concrete, then go do Saudi or UAE. Not Italy. The stone you find there is real, and so's the porchetta. So they get PDO designation for the stuff they care about, and abhor makebelieve alternatives for the same reason that they value the real porchetta.
I'm glad I missed all the benefits of introduction of margarine because they couldn't use the word "butter" on packaging.
The law does not ban plant-based meat-like alternatives. Italy will probably continue to increase its consumption of these products, and they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry in Italy.
and that's how it should be. because the alternative is confusing. as someone who also enjoys vegetarian food i really want to be clear if something is actually including meat or not without having to study the fine print.
I mean, look at cuisine in India. The veg dishes, even the dairy-free dishes, are amazing without ever trying to turn them into meat-impostors. I say all of this as someone who loves a good steak. If you're going to serve me a veg dish, just serve me a veg dish. I can handle it.
However I think it makes sense to name new things based on what they look or feel like, as long as an adjective is there to clear any ambiguity.
For example no one has an issue with coconut milk, although it’s not milk? In my opinion if an almond milk is labeled as just « milk », yeah that’s a problem, it’s deceptive. If it’s labeled as « almond milk », seems pretty clear to me? Same for « vegetal steak » or « chickpea sausage » or whatever. Or even « turkey bacon » to stay in the meat products.
Some of these rulings are just out of spite, and not to protect consumers, and it’s not really a good thing.
The world doesn't have to be homogenous and probably shouldn't be. Nations have "brands" that mean something to their people and that have outsized economic value in trade. Further, heterogenous approaches to new technology is a powerful way for the human species to hedge its bets against unknowable long-term risks.
Italy can spend the next N decades branding themselves as the place to look for quality traditional meats that convey millennia of culinary heritage and husbandry practice and almost certainly come out far ahead economically vs rushing to void that implicit value in favor of factory-grown synthetic meats shipped in from some distant country.
And then, if the tides have turned after those N decades, they can consider hopping on the bandwagon then.
For a small nation with a strong and valuable brand for culinary goods, there's very very little to lose in this strategy. Excepting those peers that have a mature industrial stake in synthetic meats, you can expect to see similar discussions in France and elsewhere.
Also, isn't Italian food already very focused on plants? So the benefit are probably far less than in the more unhealthy country anyway.
Deleted Comment
While the western world is getting angry about change, China is out eating our lunch by moving into all these emerging technologies. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a conscious effort to push conservative extremism in western countries for this exact reason.
If I just look around in my country, new electric cars are quickly becoming mostly Chinese and most solar panels are Chinese. Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market.
In the long term, our own bigotry and climate denialism is going to severely bite us in the ass. Especially since we're already barely above sea level.
So, Netherlands, then?
> barely above sea level
Sounds like it.
From an American (sigh) living in the UK (sigh), you have my deepest sympathies.
But this decision is not unreasonable.
Let the World eat it so we can gather data. We are Italians, we've never been early adopters of anything coming from outside our borders.
Especially food wise and except mobile phones.
It is also not unreasonable to label things for what they really are.
Almond juice is not milk as in "the white liquid food produced by the mammary glands of mammals" and plant based meat substitutes are not a steak or a burger, they are vegetable patties.
Deleted Comment
Can you elaborate on that?
https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-env...
Especially when we apply higher standards on how to take care of farm animals, there's simply not enough room to fulfill "the meat needs" of an ever-growing population in the world.
On the other hand, plants are fine with being stacked and raised by artificial light sources and finely setup nutrient solutions and whatnot. So by changing our food (production) chains to more plant-based, industrialized systems we can reduce the space needed for food production and also the economical and ecological impact.
Not sure how truthfully labelling products would mean all that. I think the consumer is smart enough to make choices for themselves, and the language of food labels only benefits, not harms, that.
Can you elaborate or is the first word just extra weight? Please no offense, it's an honest question: I find very interesting how most people, when they want to get a debatable point across, almost always throw exactly 3 profound and all-encompassing adjectives (rarely 2, 4 or 5).
Even ChatGPT has noticed the pattern and picks up this style. But if you break the sentences down, very often realize that 1 or even 2 of such adjectives are fillers.
Whatever they are doing with food laws in Italy, I am 100% ok with it. There's a reason why anything imported is strictly superior to the US made version. They are dead serious when it comes to quality and purity, and I appreciate that greatly.
I’ve less concern for the naming bans, however as someone allergic to soy, like when it’s stated up front. I’m not sure how forcing packaging of plant based goods to not use meaty words affects anyone negatively.
0 - https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/lab-grown-meat-carbon-foot...
Feel free to go ahead and test lab grown meat on yourself and report back in 30 years. Plastic was once considered safe, right? Smoking too?
On the other hand, the law in question rather limits the freedom to chose cultivated meat products.
0: https://foodtank.com/news/2022/11/database-indicates-u-s-foo...
They seem to be avoiding the "unintended consequences" of consuming synthetic food. Perhaps they are thinking on the timeline of lifetimes & generations?
Extra fun fact: Lollobrigida (Italy's minister of agriculture) holds his position as a Minister, solely because he is the husband of the Prime Minister's sister, and that's the extent of his qualifications.
Once cultivated meat is significantly cheaper and tastes as good as real meat, the world will move to it, and Italy will eventually follow suit.
Unfortunately, that probably doesn’t mean you are wrong.
Body builders substituting meat based proteins for plant based proteins will find themselves falling behind quite rapidly.
I'll join you when we've bred twice the protein quality & quantity we currently have in our plants.
Until then, I'll save money with my factory supplements,thanks.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Still, Italy is in many cases on premium products so they would be last ones to die anyway...
We can't even make non-meat meat that's as cheap as meat and you didn't even have to grow or feed the cow.
In the US if you remove the government subsidies from meat production the price of a pound of ground beef jumps ~500%.
https://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/CopyofFINALSavi...
https://upsidefoods.com/food
Pricing and environmental impact at scale is definitely still yet to be proven.
Raw steak, maybe not. Beef stew or chicken curry or a burger - def...
Science is not done in TikTok videos.
Further context focused on the US: https://newrepublic.com/article/171781/meat-culture-war-cric...
We have no idea what cultivated meat can taste like, how healthy it can be, and how cheap it can become. Right now there is a handful of research-based companies trying to make the thing, and none really succeeded at anything.
It is just as likely that the idea will peter out slowly.
Is there any real chance of that in the next, say, 100 years?
I would imagine the bio engineering that evolution arrived at for converting nutrients to meat+organs+bone is quite close to optimal for its purpose. If so, getting anywhere near, even if you get rid of the organs + bones*, would need a looooong time. Especially since you'd be converting cheap workers taking care of animals with bio-engineers tending meat vats in pretty good sterility.
*which anyway is probably not fully desirable if you expect the full taste of real meat
I would absolutely take the bet that we would have cheaper cultivated meat within 100 years, barring an extinction level event…
> The measure also prohibits the use of meat-related terms, like ‘salami’ or ‘steak’, for plant-based meat substitutes
Im actually ok with this. Vegetarian food should stop pretending to be something its not and be willing to stand on its own feet as what it is.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steak
Also, shouldn't you be looking at the Italian dictionary. I think there is a very heavy cultural slant to this that you're ignoring that is informed by the inflexibility of non-english languages.
I concur -- food labels should be accurate, not deceptive. Food industry does not have a lot of credibility at the moment, and deceptive labelling wont help with that.
Cultivated meat is now in the realm of semi-feasible science fiction. In theory there's a Jose Andres restaurant where I could try it, in practice its very expensive and there's so little supply that very few people can even get that tasting menu.
If it works out and winds up taking off, bans are reversible. Italy will never give up its red cows but who knows.
On the other hand, everything I've read about cultivation is its an incredibly interesting science project. The texture is still weird, the price is still astronomical, despite an astounding quantity of resources poured into this you're just not going to be grilling lab-burgers any time in the foreseeable future.
If the goal is to make meat sustainable, the fastest way to cut percentage points are to roll back American burger portions to what they were in the 1980s, and start a falafel craze.
Lucky for us, it's an useless law: if Europe choose to allow those products to be sold (which is currently not allowed), Italy must oblige.
The only actual consequence of this law, aside from prohibiting some names for meatless foods, is denying the birth of a whole industry sector.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Them_Eat_Goo