You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

September 28, 2026

The Emerging Regulatory Framework for Cultivated Meat in Thailand

On September 15, 2026, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) opened a public consultation period on the principles of a proposed Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) notification establishing specific Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells. The proposal would build on Thailand’s existing safety assessment framework by proposing GMP requirements specifically tailored to the production of cultivated meat.

As cultivated meat advances toward commercial production, its unique manufacturing processes present food safety challenges involving aseptic conditions, starting cell quality, culture media, and specialized equipment. Thailand’s Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides the legal basis for regulating food manufacturing, but no GMP requirements specifically tailored to cultivated meat have been issued under it. The proposed framework aims to address this gap.

The Thai FDA has not yet released a complete draft notification, so the proposed requirements outlined below may change before adoption. However, they indicate the direction the regulator intends to take, and companies preparing to enter the Thai market can use them now to anticipate their compliance obligations.

What Is Cultivated Meat?

Cultivated meat, also known as cell-based food or cell-cultured meat (and referred to in the proposed notification as food derived from cultured animal cells), is produced by cultivating animal cells rather than raising and slaughtering animals through conventional meat production.

The process generally begins with the selection of animal cells or stem cells, which are cultivated in an appropriate culture medium within a bioreactor to promote cell growth and proliferation. Scaffolding materials or other techniques may subsequently be used to develop cells into tissue or other forms suitable for consumption.

Unlike conventional meat production, this process introduces specific food safety considerations relating to starting cells, culture media, production substances, contamination controls, and potential residues in the final product.

Thailand’s Safety Assessment Framework

Companies intending to introduce cultivated meat into the Thai market should first consider the applicable novel food requirements under MOPH Notification No. 376 B.E. 2559 (2016), as amended, together with the relevant safety assessment and authorization procedures.

The safety assessment process involves submitting a technical safety dossier to the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) for evaluation. Once the assessment is completed, the resulting safety assessment report must be submitted to the Thai FDA for its consideration and final regulatory decision. BIOTEC’s assessment therefore forms part of the regulatory process but does not, by itself, constitute authorization to market the product in Thailand.

In April 2024, BIOTEC published its Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Cultured Animal Cells, establishing a technical framework specifically addressing the safety of these products.

The guidelines cover several key areas:

  • Cell lines: Identity, origin, selection, development, and cell banking, including infectious agent controls and cell stability.
  • Culture media and production substances: Composition, purity, and safety of growth promoters, antimicrobial substances, scaffolding materials, and processing aids.
  • Manufacturing processes: Cell cultivation, aseptic processing, contamination prevention, and food safety management systems, including GMP and Good Cell Culture Practices (GCCP).
  • Final-product safety: Product specifications, contaminants, residues, nutritional composition, genetic stability, toxicology, and allergenicity.

Under the proposed guidelines, safety assessment reports prepared by foreign food safety authorities may be submitted as supporting information—but not as a substitution for the Thai process. Companies should therefore not assume that authorization in another jurisdiction would satisfy Thailand’s regulatory requirements.

Proposed GMP Requirements for Cultivated Meat

Although BIOTEC’s guidelines already address manufacturing information as part of the safety assessment, the Thai FDA is now considering dedicated manufacturing requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells.

The principles released for public consultation would establish specific GMP requirements covering facility design, manufacturing equipment, production controls, sanitation, and personnel.

The proposed requirements would also address controls specific to animal cell cultivation, including starting cells and cell banks, bioreactors, aseptic conditions, and residue monitoring.

Manufacturing facilities would also need to appoint qualified production supervisors who meet specified educational and training requirements.

For imported products, the proposed principles could have significant consequences, as importers would be required to provide documentation demonstrating that overseas manufacturing systems meet standards equivalent to, or no less stringent than, the proposed Thai requirements.

The precise requirements and procedures for demonstrating manufacturing equivalence will need to be assessed once a complete draft notification and any accompanying implementation guidance become available.

Key Considerations for Market Entry

Manufacturers and importers planning to commercialize cultivated meat in Thailand should consider three key regulatory areas.

  1. Product safety assessment

Companies should determine the regulatory status of their products and assess the completeness of their scientific documentation before submitting a safety dossier to BIOTEC.

Particular attention should be given to cell-line information, culture-media composition, manufacturing processes, and final-product safety data. Following BIOTEC’s assessment, the resulting report must be submitted to the Thai FDA for its final consideration.

  1. Manufacturing readiness

Manufacturers should review their existing production controls and monitor the development of Thailand’s proposed GMP requirements.

Foreign manufacturers should pay particular attention to the potential need to demonstrate that their manufacturing systems meet standards equivalent to, or no less stringent than, Thailand’s requirements if the proposed principles are adopted.

  1. Finished-product compliance

A favorable safety assessment covers the cultivated meat or cultivated ingredient itself, not the food product that contains it. Companies should not assume that a positive assessment clears the finished food product to be marketed in Thailand.

Companies must also consider the applicable food category, product authorization requirements, quality standards, and labeling requirements.

BIOTEC’s guidelines recognize that cultivated meat does not necessarily need to have the same nutritional composition as conventional meat. Nevertheless, the resulting food product must comply with the applicable Thai FDA quality or product standards for its particular food category.

Looking Ahead

The proposed GMP framework would be a notable development in its regulatory approach to cultivated meat, extending the focus beyond product safety assessment to manufacturing controls specifically tailored to animal cell cultivation.

Companies considering Thailand as a manufacturing base or export market should begin regulatory planning early and should consider taking three interconnected actions: preparing a comprehensive safety dossier for BIOTEC’s assessment and the Thai FDA’s subsequent consideration, reviewing manufacturing systems against the proposed GMP principles, and ensuring that finished products meet applicable Thai food regulatory requirements. Companies with an interest in the Thai market should also monitor the Thai FDA’s consultation and consider submitting comments on the proposed principles before the consultation period closes on October 9, 2026.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of