The debate between Della Vedova and Prandini on "synthetic meat," one year after the attack.

The protagonists are the same and the topic is the same, but the atmosphere is very different. Relaxed and open to dialogue. Benedetto della Vedova and Ettore Prandini meet again to discuss "synthetic meat" more than a year and a half after, on November 16, 2013, the day the Lollobrigida law banning cultured meat was passed, the president of Coldiretti , shouting "delinquent" and "buffoon," physically attacked the +Europa MP who was peacefully demonstrating in front of Montecitorio against the government law promoted by the farmers' association. This time, the two met not in front of the Chamber of Deputies but inside, in the Sala della Regina, for the conference "Cultivated Meat: Let's Discuss It."

Yesterday's meeting, however, is a product of the 2023 clash. Or rather, it was the resolution of what had become a legal dispute, as Della Vedova had filed a lawsuit against Prandini. The matter was resolved with a letter of apology from the president of Coldiretti: "I never intended to question the exercise of your parliamentary vote, or indeed your political and parliamentary action, which I recognize as fully legitimate, given the difference in our views on the merits of the cultured meat issue," Prandini wrote, offering his availability to participate in a debate on the topic, as requested by the +Europa MP. In his response to the Coldiretti leader, Della Vedova "acknowledged his explanation and, despite our differing views, the legitimacy it provided for my political and parliamentary commitment" and organized the event held in Montecitorio as "part of the agreement under which I withdraw my complaint." In short, Della Vedova's goal was to force Coldiretti into a debate that had never taken place, in exchange for withdrawing the complaint: as a radical of the Pannelli school , he renounced legal action to pursue political action, preferring debate to trial.

Indeed, the discussion was fruitful and high-level, also because the rules of engagement stipulated the participation of three experts appointed by Coldiretti ( Antonio Gasbarrini, Giuseppe Campanile, and Felice Adinolfi ) and three appointed by +Europa ( Alessandro Bertero, Luciana Rossi, and Michele Antonio Fino ). This indirectly affects some government decisions. Health Minister Orazio Schillaci and Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida , the two promoters of the Made in Coldiretti law, appointed an "Inter-Ministerial Technical Panel" on European legislation on novel foods , which produced comments on the new EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) guidelines , indicating much stricter criteria for the potential approval of cell-based foods. The panel, which expressed the same position as Coldiretti in its opinions, has a peculiarity: as revealed by Il Foglio , all the "independent scientists" chosen by the government are members of Aletheia, a Coldiretti foundation. The news caused such a stir in the scientific community that a group of experts in the field wrote a letter to Minister Lollobrigida asking for their involvement in a more inclusive approach. They never received a response.

In yesterday's debate in the Chamber of Deputies, the three experts nominated by Prandini are, again, all members of his Aletheia foundation (it's clear the government is fishing in the same watershed as Coldiretti ). Meanwhile, those chosen by Della Vedova were among the signatories of the appeal to Lollobrigida. The positive aspect of the meeting is that, despite their diverse perspectives, everyone found the discussion "stimulating," each recognized the other's expertise, there was no mutual delegitimization, and, ultimately, the experts concluded that, in reality, "there is no division," but rather a "single stream" of research with diverse perspectives on the various challenges facing cultured and farmed meat: economic scalability, environmental sustainability, and food security.

The debate between Della Vedova and Prandini demonstrates three things. The first is that on such complex issues , we don't need populist and pointless bans , but serious discussions between politicians and experts. The second is that Lollobrigida has nothing to fear if, every now and then, she steps outside the Coldiretti fence (Coldiretti does it too!): it's paradoxical that on such important issues, institutional discussions are dominated by monoculture, and that to find a bit of biodiversity, we have to resort to informal meetings. The third, perhaps banal but more important, is that with those who think differently, it's better to use words than hand gestures.

More on these topics: