FAO maps the legal maze for cell-based foods and precision fermentation as Codex work stays formative

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has published a new legal paper that set out how governments could regulate cell-based foods and precision fermentation-derived food products using largely existing food laws, while warning that legal uncertainty remained a barrier as international standards continued to take shape.

• FAO publishes Legal Paper 114 (2026) assessing how international and national laws applied to cell-based foods and precision fermentation-derived products, and where regulators face gaps and ambiguity.

• The paper reports that Codex discussions on new food sources and production systems remain early-stage, with work focusing on definitions, risk assessment principles, and hygiene guidance.

• It recommends five priority actions for countries, including clarifying existing rules, reviewing pre-market authorization needs, updating regulatory elements, supporting harmonization, and widening stakeholder engagement.

Authored by Maarten van der Heijden, Research & Policy Consultant at World Organisation for Animal Health, the paper focuses on the legal questions raised as these products moved from R&D into markets that were built around conventional agriculture and legacy definitions of food. It described cell-based food as “the in vitro cultivation of animal cells” and outlined how precision fermentation had already been used for proteins such as casein or whey, enzymes such as chymosin, and lipids such as omega-3 fatty acids.

A central theme is that regulators did not necessarily need to build entirely new systems from scratch. The paper stated that “existing national and regional regulatory frameworks already cover many aspects” relevant to these products, often through rules on novel foods or genetically modified foods, but argued that authorities still needed to clarify how those rules applied in practice to ensure legal certainty for companies and protection for consumers.

At the international level, the paper describes the Codex Alimentarius as influential even when its standards were not legally binding, because they shaped national legislation and could become reference points in trade disputes. It reported that cell-based and precision fermentation-derived foods had largely been handled within Codex work on “new food sources and production systems”, and notes that concrete international standards for these products remained “at a formative stage”, with discussions centering on definitions, risk assessment principles, and hygienic practices.

The paper also points to practical work ideas discussed by Codex Members and observers, including developing a definition for new food sources and production systems, work on “cell-based meat and seafood and precision fermentation”, and drafting hygiene guidance and codes of practice. It notes that Singapore had indicated plans to submit proposals to Codex on safety assessment of cell culture media and on hygienic practice for the production of cell-based food.

Trade law featured as another pressure point. The paper reports that there had been limited trade to date in cell-based food and limited trade in precision fermentation-derived food and ingredients, but it argued that legal questions would likely arise as countries considered import requirements, labeling rules, or more restrictive measures such as bans. It highlights the requirement under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures that food safety measures were science-based and not arbitrarily discriminatory, while noting that governments could, in certain circumstances, adopt provisional measures where evidence was insufficient, provided they sought more information and reviewed measures within a reasonable timeframe.

The paper also examines biosafety law through the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, describing uncertainty around how it could apply to these technologies. It notes that most precision fermentation relied on living modified organisms, while not all cell-based foods did, and emphasized that modified organisms were typically used in closed systems and were generally not present in the final product.

Across national and regional case studies, the paper describes how jurisdictions have adapted existing structures rather than building standalone regimes. In the USA, it pointed to the 2019 formal agreement that divided oversight between the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture for foods produced using animal cell technology derived from USDA-amenable species, with FDA oversight covering the 'pre-harvest' phase and USDA taking over for post-harvest processing and labeling for cultivated livestock and poultry.

In the EU, the paper notes that Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 categorized cell-based foods as “food consisting of, isolated from or produced from cell culture or tissue culture”, and covered many precision fermentation-derived products under a category for foods produced from microorganisms, fungi, or algae. It contrasted this with the EU’s separate pathway for genetically modified food and feed under Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003.

The paper also highlights emerging policy flashpoints around tastings and prohibitions. It cited the Netherlands’ Code of Practice for Safely Conducting Tastings of Cultivated Foods Prior to EU Approval, which allows limited tastings under controlled conditions, and noted Italy’s 2023 ban on cell-based food and feed, described as the first such ban within the EU.

Labeling and consumer information ran throughout the analysis. The paper described the need for “accurate and transparent labelling”, including clarity about production methods, species naming, allergens, and whether genetically modified organisms were involved. It reported that Singapore allowed terms such as 'cultivated meat', 'cell-based meat' or 'cultured meat', and that the USDA had permitted two cultivated chicken companies to use the term 'cell-cultivated chicken'.

In its conclusion, the paper returns to the same core message: the legal toolkit already existed in many places, but regulators needed to remove ambiguity. It called for authorities to clarify how rules applied “from ‘lab to fork’”, while updating additive, enzyme, and processing aid lists and supporting harmonization to enable trade.

You can download the paper here