Not necessarily. The EV ban bills proposed in those US states are purely there just to irritate liberals.
The EU is extremely skeptic of any genetically-modified food, for a whole load of various reasons, and banning lab-grown meat is entirely in line with that. If you can't tolerate one extra disease-resistance gene in your food, you're not going to be happy with lab-grown meat either.
Furthermore, the EU has a very long list of foods that are only allowed to be grown in specific areas or in certain ways. While this is nominally because a lot of those foods are named after specific towns, in practice many of them do not have "generic" names, so these are ultimately de-facto trade bans on other people making those foods. Labs being able to grow "perfect" versions of those foods (as opposed to the generic competition being demonstrably worse) would upend this system.
Which is fine. The canonical example: Parma ham has to be from Parma, and that makes good sense to me.
It gets more muddy with cheese, lots of cheese named 'Gouda' isn't Gouda, traditionally Gouda (and Alkmaar) were the big cheese trading markets and the stamp 'Gouda' originally meant traded in Gouda, not produced in Gouda (which doesn't really make Cheese). But Edammer cheese really is made in Edam (or Volendam!). And 'Old Amsterdam' is just a tradename for factory produced Gouda like cheese which has nothing whatsoever to do with Amsterdam and isn't really all that old (artificial high speed ripening). Tourists love it though and pay ridiculous amounts of money for it and now you can get it in regular stores as well.
So food named after towns isn't always historically - or even at all - connected to the town. But in cases where that is so it makes good sense to respect that history.
Those name protections also tend to protect established players and regions even if they ultimately may produce utter garbage.
I come from a small wine-producing country of Moldova. It produces or produced anything from wine to classical champagne to port to cognacs to...
Now it's only wine that can be called wine (thankfully it's been around for longer than most civilizations). And for the rest they had to come up with their own rather awkward names. And now it doesn't matter if a Moldovan "divin" is superior to a French Cognac. Because branding.
Cognac is literally the name of a region. As is Champagne. It misleads the public when Moldovan Cognac is being sold as Cognac. Cognac is a subset of brandy anyway. Champagne is a subset of sparkling wine. And Port is named for the town in Portugal Oporto and is a subset of fortified wine. If the Moldovan spirits industry has a superior product, why can’t they call it a relevant name that protects the integrity of their creation?
I a definitely interested in trying Moldovan beverages now though!
Ok, so... are you buying the wine or are you buying the place it came from?
Like, there's nothing magical about the towns of Champagne or Cognac that makes the wine they produce different. It's all in the process and expertise used to produce the wine. If you brought the brewers and growers to another part of the world with the same soil and climate, and told them to make the same thing they make in Champagne and Cognac, they would produce identical[0] wine.
And the current regime of "terroir makes the trademark" leads to suitably absurd results. Like, if a Champagne producer wants to expand their operations, they can't, because there's only 75,000 acres of land you can legally make Champagne on. France has been trying to add new villages to Champagne's terroir since 2008 and the process still isn't done, even though the villages being added are literally just in between other Champagne villages. People still clutched their pearls about France diluting the brand purely by just allowing more of it to be made.
Ok, so maybe it's silly, but it shouldn't matter, because Champagne is a luxury product and I'm a [1]smelly American neoliberal that thinks you shouldn't be able to trademark a whole town. Fine. What about a staple food like rice? You see, India saw the EU PDO system and realized they could use it as a weapon to beat Pakistan with. So they're going to the EU and crying bloody murder about how poor Indian rice farmers are being crushed by evil Pakistani rice counterfeits[2]. Defining any sort of terroir here is a political statement not backed up by reality: both countries are either perfectly capable of making basmati rice, or we need to look at micro-climates and other things that would probably exclude a large portion of both countries' rice farms.
>If the Moldovan spirits industry has a superior product, why can’t they call it a relevant name that protects the integrity of their creation?
So, the thing is, often times there isn't really a generic equivalent name. We have "sparkling wine" for Champagne, but that seems to be rare. For example, I've no idea what you'd call non-terroir - but still otherwise well-made - Parmesan or Mozzarella cheese.
[0] As determined by a double-blind taste test with a suitably experienced sommelier.
[1] Two of the following words are true while the other one is trash. Can you spot the fake?
The EU is extremely skeptic of any genetically-modified food, for a whole load of various reasons, and banning lab-grown meat is entirely in line with that. If you can't tolerate one extra disease-resistance gene in your food, you're not going to be happy with lab-grown meat either.
Furthermore, the EU has a very long list of foods that are only allowed to be grown in specific areas or in certain ways. While this is nominally because a lot of those foods are named after specific towns, in practice many of them do not have "generic" names, so these are ultimately de-facto trade bans on other people making those foods. Labs being able to grow "perfect" versions of those foods (as opposed to the generic competition being demonstrably worse) would upend this system.