- On June 22, 2026, U.S. Representative Tony Wied [R-WI] introduced H.R. 9387. If passed this bill would amend 21 U.S.C. 343, the section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which covers misbranded foods. The label for a synthesized butter product or product containing synthesized butter would need to be contain the phrase “lab-created butter” or “contains lab-created butter” immediately before the product name.
- The bill defines “synthesized butter product” as a product that (i) is “marketed as butter, but utilizes sources of milkfat that are synthesized through non-agricultural processes” and (ii) does not fit the FFDCA’s definition of “butter.” Since 1923, the Congress has defined “butter” as food “which is made exclusively from milk or cream,” and contains at least 80% milk fat by weight.
- This bill takes a targeted approach by specifically addressing synthetic butter products, but another bill, the Dairy Pride Act, takes a broader approach. Introduced on April 21, 2026, this bill would prevent companies from using standardized dairy product names (e.g., milk, ice cream, etc.) on food products unless the food is, contains as a primary ingredient, or is derived from, lacteal secretion, and is obtained by milking a hooved animal. The bill has not moved past committee since it was introduced.
- As we have previously blogged, several state legislatures have already taken action to regulate, or even ban, cultured dairy products, with some states targeting all cell-cultured food products.
- While cell cultured food alternatives are fairly new technologies, butter substitutes have been controversial since the inception of margarine in the late 1800s. To make margarine less appealing to buyers, some states enacted “pink laws” requiring margarine producers to make their margarine pink. These laws were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Collins v. New Hampshire.
- Keller & Heckman will continue to monitor cell cultured food law developments.
