Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB554

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/15/25
• Refer: 10/15/25
• Report Pass: 12/23/25
• Refer: 12/23/25
• Engrossed: 1/20/26
• Refer: 1/23/26
• Refer: 2/9/26
• Enrolled: 2/20/26
• Vetoed: 3/27/26

Caption

The sale, service, and labeling of food products containing lab-grown animal cells and providing a penalty. (FE)

Impact

The bill introduces specific penalties for non-compliance, with fines ranging from $100 to $1,000 and potential imprisonment for up to one year for repeat offenders. Moreover, the legislation prohibits the sale of lab-grown meat products in public eating places unless explicitly ordered by a customer. In state institutions, lab-grown meat can only be provided to patients or inmates upon the directive of the institution's superintendent based on health needs. This provision indicates a clear stance on the limitations imposed on the distribution of lab-grown products in public health environments.

Summary

Assembly Bill 554 seeks to regulate the sale, service, and labeling of food products derived from lab-grown animal cells. This legislation mandates that any food product containing cultured animal cells must be labeled prominently with the phrase 'lab-grown meat.' Furthermore, it requires that all ingredients in such products be disclosed on the label, ensuring transparency for consumers. The bill aims to clarify the distinction between traditional meat and lab-grown meat, as well as to enhance consumer awareness regarding the contents of the food they consume.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the implications of such labeling requirements on the lab-grown meat industry's development and market viability. Proponents argue that these regulations are necessary for consumer protection and to promote informed choices about food. However, critics assert that excessive regulation could stifle innovation within the burgeoning lab-grown industry, potentially leading to economic and competitive disadvantages for producers of lab-grown meat. The dichotomy reflects the broader debate surrounding the adoption of new agricultural technologies versus traditional practices.