By RACHEL LANE

D.C. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — What is “meat?” A request for new guidelines would limit marketing of meat to only products harvested from an animal.

The U.S. Cattlemen's Assoc. recently submitted a petition to the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) requesting an accurate beef labeling requirement.

For decades, plant-based meat replacements have been on the market. Every year, the companies making these products try to make texture and taste closer to the original animal-based meat. Recently, Impossible Foods has marketed a plant-based burger that appears to bleed – the Impossible Burger.

Now, laboratories across the country are starting to grow meat in labs. Using a few animal cells, scientists can grow muscles, cook the product and eat meat that was never alive.

The USCA wants FSIS to clearly define what beef products were derived from cattle, and what was grown in a laboratory.

“Consumers depend upon the USDA FSIS to ensure that the products they purchase at the grocery store match their label descriptions. We look forward to working with the agency to rectify the misleading labeling of ‘beef’ products that are made with plant or insect protein or grown in a Petri dish," said USCA President Kenny Graner.

"U.S. cattle producers take pride in developing the highest-quality and safest beef in the world, and labels must clearly distinguish that difference."

The USCA's membership initiated the effort to label and identify alternative beef products after several U.S. and international companies invested in research into alternative products. Most recently, in January Tyson Foods invested in "clean meat" startup Memphis Meats.

Memphis Meats reported the funding will go toward research and development and expanding its team.

"Our members brought forth their concern with the labeling of products as ‘meat’ that are not in fact derived from bovine animals, and USCA leadership and staff moved ahead with this petition to address that concern," Graner said.

The petition asserts that synthetic and laboratory-grown products should not be permitted to be marketed as beef or as meat. It is not a distinction limited to U.S. beef and meat, but to all beef and meat regardless of country of origin.

"The ‘beef’ and ‘meat’ labels should inform consumers that the products are from animals harvested in the traditional manner, as opposed to derived from alternative(s)," the petition reads. "The definitions of ‘beef’ and ‘meat’ should be limited to animals born, raised and processed in the traditional manner."

Farm World’s requests for comment to Tyson and Memphis Meats were not returned by press deadline.

The Good Food Institute (GFI) is a nonprofit focused on what it calls clean meat – meat grown in a lab – and plant-based alternative products.

"If the USCA really believed that their products were superior to plant-based and clean meat, they'd welcome a little healthy competition. Or, like Tyson and Cargill, they could invest in this future. But instead, they are asking the government to protect them from competition," said Jessica Almy, GFI director of operations.

She said if the USDA moves forward with the petition, it will lose in court as a violation of the First Amendment. "The government only has the authority to regulate free speech – like telling plant-based and clean meat companies how to label their products – if it's necessary to ensure that consumers aren't misled," she said. "’Beefless' and 'Beyond Meat' are not terms meant to deceive."

Consumers are purchasing plant-based meats because they enjoy them and sometimes because they do not want to involve slaughtered animals.

"Manufacturers have the First Amendment right to honestly label their products, and consumers have the right to make choices in a fair marketplace," Almy said.

According to Memphis Meats’ website, clean meat, the lab-grown muscles, is said to be better for the environment because it uses less resources and better for consumption because it didn't require antibiotics that animals might receive.

"The Impossible Burger uses a fraction of the Earth’s natural resources. Compared to cows, the Impossible Burger uses 95 percent less land, 74 percent less water and creates 87 percent less greenhouse gas emissions," the Impossible Foods website claims.