I tried meat grown in a lab.
It tastes like ... well ... meat.
I guess it is meat, but it's not grown the normal way.
Scientists extract meat cells from an animal and then grow them in a bioreactor, much like ones you see in a brewery. There, the cells divide again and again until you get ... meat.
If you want to try some, you'll soon be able to.
But not in Florida or Alabama.
There, politicians banned it. Other states now may ban it, too.
"We appreciate that ban," says Bill Bullard. He lobbies for cattlemen. In my video, he argues, "If not for Alabama and Florida (banning) it, then the meat packers would have the ability to pass it off to unsuspecting consumers as if it were indeed a meat product, which it is not!"
I push back. "But they don't conceal it! They say (on the label), this is 'cultivated' meat."
"It's not produced in the same manner!" He replies.
So, what?
But cattle lobbyists won over narrow-minded politicians.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen says, "Fake-meat, petri-dish-meat folks, they're not going to have a place in Nebraska. "
Why should politicians get to decide for everyone? If I want to try something, it should be my choice.
An artificial chicken company sauteed some chicken for me. After I tried some, I took the rest outside and offered it to people. It was my unscientific blind taste test: lab-grown versus "farm-raised" chicken from Whole Foods.
Everyone liked both. A few preferred the lab-grown. They said it was "juicier."
So why can't consumers in Florida and Alabama (and, if short-sighted politicians get their way, Nebraska, Arizona, Michigan and Tennessee) try it?
Florida's Agriculture Commissioner wrote me, "If other states want to allow their citizens to be used as guinea pigs for lab meat, they have the freedom to do so. Our consumers will be protected until there is more evidence that this 'frankenmeat' is safe."
Why does he get to decide? Artificial meat is safe enough that the USDA and FDA both approved it. Don't we own our own bodies? It should be my choice!
I ask lobbyist Bullard, "Why bribe politicians to ban it?"
"It will threaten the viability of our food production," he responds. "Government has a legitimate role ensuring that we have an abundant, affordable and safe food supply."
Wow, another silly argument.
Lab-grown beef would make our food supply more secure because there'd be more sources of meat!
By his logic, cars should have been banned to protect the horse and carriage industry. Computers ... to protect typewriter makers. And so on.
Melissa Musiker of Upside Foods, which makes lab-grown chicken, points out that they can "make the equivalent of millions of chickens." With less waste: "No beaks, no feet, no feathers."
And no animals are killed.
"A lot of people (have an) issue eating animal protein," Musiker continues, "This is a way for them to literally vote with their plate."
Exactly. We should be able to use our money to "vote with our plate." We should get to decide for ourselves if lab-grown meat (or anything) is something we want.
Maybe we won't like it. Then we won't buy it.
But it's wrong for politicians to forbid us to try things.
Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member