AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39; Title 40; Title 44; Title 47 and Title 53, relative to cell-cultured food products.
HB1155 prohibits the sale, distribution, or importation for sale or distribution in Tennessee of “cell-cultured food products,” defined as human food produced without slaughter by growing harvested animal, shellfish, game, bird, or fish cells in a controlled environment. The bill covers both standalone products and ingredients or additives made in that manner and used in food. It directs the Department of Agriculture to adopt rules to implement the act, and it takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill also creates an enforcement process. If the commissioner of agriculture believes a person has violated the ban, the person must receive written notice and has 10 days to request a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. If a violation is confirmed, the commissioner must issue a stop-sale order and may impose a $1 million fine, revoke a food establishment permit, and seek forfeiture of the prohibited product under existing forfeiture law.
HB1155 would add a new state-level prohibition on the sale and distribution of cultivated or lab-grown meat and similar cell-cultured food products, affecting producers, distributors, importers, retailers, and food establishments operating in Tennessee. It would also expand the Department of Agriculture’s regulatory and enforcement responsibilities by requiring rulemaking, notice-and-hearing procedures, stop-sale authority, and coordination with existing forfeiture provisions. The bill amends Tennessee law in Titles 39, 40, 44, 47, and 53 as captioned, but the operative provisions primarily create new restrictions and penalties within Title 53 and related enforcement mechanisms.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly precautionary and restrictive toward cell-cultured food products, suggesting a policy preference for limiting these products in the state rather than regulating them as a new food category. The absence of recorded discussion prevents a reliable assessment of broader legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s clear prohibitory approach.
The main point of contention is likely the outright ban on cell-cultured food products, which would be opposed by companies, distributors, and advocates for alternative proteins who view these products as innovative food options. Supporters would likely argue the ban protects consumers, traditional agriculture, and food safety oversight, while opponents may argue it restricts market competition, innovation, and consumer choice. The bill’s severe penalties, including a $1 million fine and possible permit revocation, are also likely to be controversial because they create substantial enforcement risk for food businesses.