Cultivated meat, made from animal cells without traditional farming, is gaining traction as a sustainable food source. But consumer trust hinges on clear labelling, and countries are taking varied approaches to regulate this emerging market. Here's a quick summary of how major regions handle cultivated meat labelling:
- United States: Dual regulation by FDA and USDA. Terms like "cell-cultivated" are approved, but no nationwide standard exists yet. Labels must pass USDA pre-approval.
- European Union: Cultivated meat is classified as a "novel food" requiring risk assessments. The term "cultivated meat" is preferred, but no products are approved for sale yet.
- Singapore: The first country to approve cultivated meat (2020). Labels must include terms like "cultured" or "cell-based" to avoid confusion.
- Australia/New Zealand: Regulated by FSANZ. Labels must reflect production methods, using terms like "cell-cultured". Recent approval for cell-cultured quail.
- United Kingdom: Post-Brexit, the UK follows a novel foods framework. Labels must clearly describe ingredients and methods, though no products are yet approved.
Each region balances consumer transparency, safety, and market readiness differently. While Singapore leads with early approvals, others like the EU and UK are slower due to lengthy assessments. These differences highlight the challenges of global consistency in labelling standards.
Quick Comparison
| Region | Approval Status | Labelling Terms | Regulatory Authority | Unique Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Approved (e.g., "cell-cultivated chicken") | Flexible: "cultivated", "cell-cultured" | FDA & USDA | Dual-agency complexity, state-level rules |
| European Union | No approvals yet | "Cultivated meat" | EFSA & European Commission | Long approval times, multi-state rules |
| Singapore | Approved (first in 2020) | "Cultured", "cell-based" | Singapore Food Agency (SFA) | Small market size |
| Australia/NZ | Approved (e.g., cell-cultured quail) | "Cell-cultured", "cell-cultivated" | FSANZ | Conservative adoption of new terms |
| United Kingdom | No approvals yet | Clear production descriptions | Food Standards Agency (FSA) | Regulatory uncertainty post-Brexit |
Clear labelling is essential to help consumers understand cultivated meat. The global market is evolving, but differences in regulation and terminology remain a hurdle for widespread acceptance.
1. United States
The United States has implemented a dual regulatory system to oversee cultivated meat, with two federal agencies sharing responsibilities. This collaborative setup is designed to ensure labelling is both thorough and consistent.
Regulatory Authorities
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) work together to regulate labelling standards for cultivated meat. The USDA oversees cultivated livestock, poultry, and catfish products, while the FDA is responsible for cultivated seafood (excluding catfish) and cultivated game meat [1]. Both agencies are collaborating on joint labelling principles to maintain consistency [1].
"Food made with cultured animal cells must meet the same stringent requirements, including safety requirements, as all other food regulated by the FDA." - FDA Press Statement, Nov. 16, 2022 [1]
This partnership also extends to the development of labelling language, which is evolving to balance industry needs and consumer expectations.
Terminology
The U.S. allows flexible labelling terminology. In June 2023, the USDA's FSIS approved the term "cell-cultivated chicken" for products from GOOD Meat and UPSIDE Foods, marking the first official terminology for cultivated meat in the U.S. market [4]. However, no nationwide federal requirement exists for specific labelling terms, though clearer guidelines are anticipated [5]. Studies show that consumers tend to favour terms like "cultivated" and "cultured" over "cell-cultivated" or "cell-cultured" [4].
Some states have introduced their own labelling rules. For instance, Iowa requires that "manufactured-protein food products", including cultivated proteins, use qualifying terms - such as "cell-cultured", "lab-grown", "plant-based", "vegan", or "imitation" - to accompany "identifying meat terms" on packaging [6]. These varied approaches underline the need for unified labelling standards across the industry.
Mandatory Label Elements
All cultivated meat product labels must be pre-approved by the USDA [1]. Additionally, every product must display the official USDA mark of inspection, ensuring it meets the same safety and quality standards as conventional meat. Federal law prohibits false, misleading, or misbranded labels [1]. Both agencies are committed to ensuring that labelling is accurate, clear, and compliant with regulations.
Approval Status
The U.S. has approved cultivated meat for consumer sale, making it one of only two countries, alongside Singapore, to do so [4]. The USDA is also preparing to release new labelling regulations specifically for cultivated meat and poultry, signalling ongoing refinements to the regulatory framework [7].
Industry groups are advocating for transparency in labelling. As the National Cattlemen's Beef Association emphasises:
"Our priority is ensuring that consumers accurately know the difference between real beef and cell-cultured products through transparent and accurate labeling." - National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) [4]
2. European Union
The European Union regards cultivated meat as a novel food, meaning it must undergo stringent safety checks before it can be sold. This regulatory framework highlights the EU's focus on thorough and detailed evaluations.
Regulatory Authorities
The EU employs a structured system to regulate cultivated meat, including its labelling standards. The process is centrally managed by the European Commission, which oversees the authorisation procedure for novel foods. This procedure involves two key phases: risk assessment and risk management [8]. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for conducting scientific risk assessments based on applications submitted to the Commission [8]. Following EFSA's evaluation, the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee), which includes representatives from all EU Member States, reviews these assessments in line with the Novel Foods Regulation and broader EU food laws [8]. However, in October 2023, the European Parliament passed a resolution criticising the Novel Food regulation, stating it is not suitable for current needs [8].
Terminology
The EU has adopted the term "cultivated meat" to describe this emerging product. Back in 2019, the Good Food Institute (GFI) introduced the term "cultivated" as a neutral and consumer-friendly alternative. This choice was supported by a 2022 study conducted by GFI Europe, which confirmed that "cultivated meat" resonated well in languages like German, French, Italian, and Spanish [11]. The EU avoids using terms like "lab-grown meat", as they can create confusion; unlike plant-based products made from protein-rich plants, cultivated meat is genuine animal meat grown from animal cells [10]. These carefully chosen terms pave the way for precise labelling rules across the region.
Mandatory Labelling Elements
According to the Novel Foods Regulation (Reg. EU, 2015/2283), any food not commonly consumed in the EU before 15 May 1997 requires pre-market approval [9]. Cultivated meat products must adhere to specific labelling guidelines. Once EFSA completes its risk assessment, the European Commission determines marketing conditions, which include details about the product's origin and production method. Discussions continue around whether these products should simply be labelled as "meat" or if more detailed information about their cellular origins is necessary. GFI Europe supports clear labelling practices to help consumers make informed, eco-conscious choices.
Approval Status
As of now, no cultivated meat products have been approved for sale in the EU, but several companies are actively navigating the regulatory process. In September 2023, The Cultivated B (TCB) began discussions with EFSA regarding a cultivated meat sausage, while Aleph Farms submitted an application in July 2023 for its Aleph Cuts in partnership with Migros [3]. Approval decisions depend on a mix of political, ethical, and scientific considerations. As Sollee aptly noted:
"The manner in which cellular meat is regulated will be a determining factor in the success of the product" [9].
Once approved, the Novel Foods Regulation ensures consistent enforcement across all EU Member States, creating a unified approach to these products [9].
3. Singapore
Singapore made history as the first country to approve the commercial sale of cultivated meat. In December 2020, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) authorised the sale of cultivated chicken developed by the US company Eat Just, marking a major milestone for the industry [15].
Regulatory Authorities
The SFA oversees food regulations in Singapore, including setting and enforcing labelling standards for novel foods like cultivated meat. Any novel food must undergo pre-market approval before it can be sold to consumers. This process is supported by the SFA Novel Food Safety Expert Working Group, which conducts detailed scientific evaluations. These stringent measures are especially important for a country like Singapore, which imports more than 90% of its food from nearly 180 countries while maintaining impressively low rates of food-borne illnesses [12][14]. This robust regulatory framework ensures clear labelling and food safety.
Terminology
To build trust and avoid confusion, the SFA requires that labels for cultivated meat products include terms like "cultured" or "cell-based". Any labels that might mislead consumers into thinking the product is traditional meat are strictly prohibited [13].
Mandatory Label Elements
Singapore's labelling rules for cultivated meat demand detailed information, including a list of ingredients, nutritional data, instructions for use, and storage guidelines. Additionally, traceability information must be provided as part of the pre-market safety assessment, ensuring transparency across the entire supply chain [12][13].
Approval Status
Singapore's regulatory journey began with the approval of Eat Just's cultivated chicken.
"Proud to share that Eat Just is the first company in history to receive approval to sell cultured meat (safe meat from animal cells instead of slaughtered animals)" [15].
This initial approval was followed by the launch of Good Meat 3 at Huber's Butchery in May 2024, which further cemented the position of cultivated meat in Singapore's food landscape. Singapore’s approach, combining scientific thoroughness with procedural adaptability, has set a benchmark for other countries as they work on their own regulations for cultivated meat [13].
4. Australia and New Zealand
Australia and New Zealand have adopted a unified approach to regulating cultivated meat, setting themselves apart from the systems in the US, EU, and Singapore. Their framework is overseen by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), which handles all aspects of cultivated meat labelling and regulation.
Regulatory Authorities
FSANZ is responsible for establishing standards covering the composition, production, handling, promotion, sale, and transport of food. Enforcement of these standards falls to local authorities in both countries.
In New Zealand, food businesses must register and adhere to a risk management plan to comply with either the Food Act 2014 or the Animal Products Act 1999 [17]. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) plays a supportive role in this process and has expressed optimism about the diversification of protein sources, including cell-derived products [17].
Cultivated meat is classified as a novel food by FSANZ, with safety assessments typically taking around 14 months to complete [19].
Terminology
FSANZ has proposed that cultivated meat products include clear labelling to reflect their production method. Acceptable terms such as "cell-cultured" or "cell-cultivated" must be included on product labels [20][22]. However, this has sparked opposition from traditional meat industry groups. For instance, the Cattle Council of Australia is exploring reforms to restrict the use of the term "meat" to products derived from slaughtered animals [21].
Mandatory Label Elements
Labelling requirements set by FSANZ emphasise transparency, mandating the inclusion of terms like "cell-cultured" or "cell-cultivated" to inform consumers about the production process. The regulatory framework prioritises the outcome - how the product differs from traditional meat - rather than focusing solely on the production method.
Dr Sandra Cuthbert, Chief Executive of FSANZ, elaborated on this approach:
"The updated definitions are outcome-based, focusing on the change that has been made rather than the process used to make the change" [23].
This labelling framework forms the foundation for regulatory approvals, ensuring clarity for both consumers and producers.
Approval Status
FSANZ has recently approved the sale of cell-cultured quail, marking a significant step forward in the regulatory landscape. This decision not only introduces new standards into the Food Standards Code but also provides a clear pathway for future applications of cell-cultured foods.
"The Australia and New Zealand-first approval allows the sale of cell-cultured quail and establishes new standards in the Code to provide a clear regulatory framework for future cell-cultured food applications." – FSANZ Spokesperson [18].
Despite this progress, the approval has met resistance from traditional livestock groups, who remain critical of the regulatory process. Dr Chris Parker, CEO of Cattle Australia, voiced concerns:
"It is very disappointing that industry concerns regarding food safety, product transparency and truth in labelling requirements have largely been ignored by FSANZ. These concerns were clearly communicated to FSANZ during the public consultation process but there has been very little change in the regulatory requirements it is placing upon these laboratories." [18].
FSANZ continues to keep a close eye on global regulatory developments, monitoring frameworks in regions such as the US, EU, Israel, China, Japan, the Netherlands, and Singapore [16].
sbb-itb-c323ed3
5. United Kingdom
Since Brexit, the UK has carved out its own regulatory approach to cultivated meat, one that largely mirrors the EU's risk assessment processes but leaves the final decision in the hands of government ministers. This shift reflects the UK's move towards a more independent framework for regulating cultivated meat.
Regulatory Authorities
In the UK, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the sole authority overseeing cultivated meat, unlike the US system, which involves multiple agencies. The UK still follows an EU-style risk assessment process, but the ultimate approval is decided by government ministers rather than a collective EU body. Post-Brexit, the UK has gained the flexibility to diverge from the EU's novel foods framework. The government is actively working with the FSA to refine this process, and there are indications that a tailored regulatory system for cultivated meat may emerge [25][24].
Terminology
Before entering the market, cultivated meat producers must obtain 'novel food' approval. The FSA requires labels to clearly and accurately describe a product’s identity, ingredients, and production methods to avoid misleading consumers. Discussions are ongoing about whether additional descriptors, such as 'animal-free' or 'meat-free', should be allowed. While technically accurate, these terms could potentially cause confusion among consumers [25].
Mandatory Label Elements
Cultivated meat products must comply with the Food Information to Consumers Regulations, which require details like ingredients, allergens, and durability information to be displayed. The FSA also has the authority to introduce extra labelling rules. If a product falls under the GMO regime, it must be labelled as 'genetically modified'. Under current regulations, cultivated meat is classified as a product of animal origin but does not fall under the traditional meat category as defined in Annex 1 of the assimilated Regulation (EU) 853/2004 [26].
Approval Status
Despite the first private tastings of cultivated meat in 2013, the UK has not yet approved any products for commercial sale [27]. The FSA’s novel food authorisation process can take up to 17 months and may extend further if additional data is required. The agency is currently drafting specific guidance for alternative protein products and reviewing existing novel food regulations. As part of the approval process, producers must prove that their products are safe for human consumption - a critical step in securing pre-market authorisation [25][27].
Advantages and Disadvantages
Different regions have adopted varying approaches to labelling cultivated meat, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. These differences impact consumer trust, regulatory processes, and market growth. For companies navigating the global market, understanding these trade-offs is key. Here's a closer look at how these approaches compare.
Singapore's proactive stance is notable for its efficiency and encouragement of innovation. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) engages with companies right from the early R&D stages, significantly cutting down compliance costs and approval times. This early collaboration creates a clear and predictable path for companies. However, Singapore’s small market size limits the broader commercial impact of its regulatory approvals.
In the United States, the dual-agency system involving the FDA and USDA provides clear regulatory guidelines. Responsibilities are well-defined, and the mandatory pre-approval of all labels ensures consistency. The FDA also requires cultivated meat to meet the same rigorous safety standards as conventional food, which helps build consumer trust [1]. On the downside, this dual oversight can lead to bureaucratic delays and higher compliance costs.
The European Union’s precautionary approach focuses on consumer safety through detailed risk assessments conducted by EFSA. This comprehensive evaluation process strengthens trust by maintaining high safety standards. However, the lengthy approval timelines and the complexity of navigating varying national requirements can delay market entry and increase costs for companies.
Australia and New Zealand benefit from a joint regulatory system managed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). This shared framework ensures consistent rules across both countries, reducing regulatory hurdles for businesses. Standardised labelling requirements also improve consumer understanding. That said, the region’s conservative regulatory culture can slow the adoption of innovative labelling practices.
The United Kingdom, now operating with regulatory independence post-Brexit, has the potential to develop more tailored rules for cultivated meat. With the Food Standards Agency (FSA) as the sole authority, the UK avoids the multi-agency confusion seen in other regions. However, the reliance on novel food regulations introduces uncertainty, making market entry less predictable.
Below is a summary of the regulatory characteristics and challenges across regions:
| Region | Regulatory Efficiency | Consumer Clarity | Innovation Support | Key Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore | High – early engagement, fast approvals | Moderate – limited consumer testing | High – proactive approach | Small market size |
| United States | Moderate – dual agency complexity | High – mandatory pre-approval | Moderate – clear but rigid framework | Bureaucratic delays |
| European Union | Low – lengthy assessment process | High – comprehensive safety focus | Low – precautionary approach | Multi-jurisdictional complexity |
| Australia/NZ | Moderate – unified framework | Moderate – conservative approach | Low – slow regulatory adaptation | Conservative regulatory culture |
| United Kingdom | Low – regulatory uncertainty | Moderate – flexible but unclear | High – post-Brexit flexibility | Reliance on novel food regulations |
Studies suggest that regulatory approval in one country can influence decisions in other markets [2]. For instance, Singapore’s early approvals may pave the way for faster acceptance elsewhere. Consumer research also highlights the importance of clear labelling for novel foods. Transparency in labelling helps consumers feel more confident about the product and its origins [2]. While permissive regions like Singapore can act as catalysts for broader adoption, stricter regimes may slow development, creating both opportunities and challenges for companies entering this emerging market.
Conclusion
The global approach to labelling cultivated meat reflects a patchwork of regional priorities, with each jurisdiction striving to provide clear consumer information but employing different methods and timelines. These variations highlight both shared challenges and distinct regional approaches.
A common thread across regions is the emphasis on transparency, achieved through mandatory qualifying terms and clear descriptions of production methods. In the post-Brexit era, the UK has adopted a novel foods framework similar to the EU's, while other regions implement specific labelling rules through their own regulatory systems [24].
Regulatory frameworks also differ significantly. In the US, oversight is divided between the FDA and USDA, whereas in the UK, final approval rests with government ministers. Meanwhile, Australia and New Zealand utilise a unified system under FSANZ, ensuring consistent standards across both countries [24].
Global coordination on labelling remains a challenge. Regulatory frameworks often lag behind consumer interest, and standardised practices are still lacking. For example, the US is still in the process of defining specific labelling requirements [24].
This lack of harmonisation means consumers are exposed to varying levels of information, highlighting the importance of science-based educational initiatives. Organisations like Cultivated Meat Shop play a key role in building trust and addressing knowledge gaps. As the UK moves towards potentially developing its own distinct regulatory framework for cultivated meat, ensuring robust consumer education will be critical to fostering acceptance [24].
FAQs
How do labelling standards for cultivated meat differ between the United States and the European Union?
In the United States, labels for cultivated meat must include terms like 'cell-cultivated' or 'cell-cultured' in the product name. While the regulations are still being finalised, the primary goal is to provide clear and transparent information to consumers.
Meanwhile, the European Union has taken a more cautious stance. Only a small number of cultivated meat products have received approval so far, and discussions about labelling are still ongoing. The EU places a strong emphasis on safety and clear communication to ensure consumers can make informed choices about these products. These differences highlight how regulatory priorities vary between regions, with both focusing on maintaining transparency and building public trust.
How has Singapore's labelling approach shaped global standards for cultivated meat?
Singapore's Leadership in Cultivated Meat Labelling
Singapore has stepped up as a leader in setting clear, transparent labelling standards for cultivated meat. By aligning its definitions with international norms and focusing on making labels easy for consumers to understand, the country has created a framework that others are beginning to follow.
This forward-thinking strategy does more than just streamline regulations across borders - it also helps foster public confidence in this emerging food sector. As more countries take cues from Singapore, the global approach to cultivated meat labelling is becoming more consistent, paving the way for wider acceptance and readiness in the market.
Why isn’t there a universal standard for labelling cultivated meat, and how does this affect consumer confidence?
The lack of a universal standard for labelling cultivated meat stems from variations in national regulations, cultural perspectives, and priorities regarding safety, transparency, and terminology. Some countries prioritise scientific precision in their labelling, while others lean towards terms that resonate more with consumer familiarity or marketing strategies.
This inconsistency can leave consumers puzzled, making it harder for them to trust or clearly grasp what cultivated meat actually is. Having clear and consistent labelling is crucial to instil confidence, helping consumers feel informed and assured about the safety, quality, and origins of these new products.
