Cell-cultivated protein is not about taste or novelty but about long-term pressure on the livestock industry driven by environmental policy
PIERRE. S.D. — A debate over lab-grown meat has exposed a sharp and personal divide among cattle producers, ranchers and farmers who double as elected leaders in South Dakota.
The House voted 45–22 Tuesday to pass House Bill 1077, which would classify cell-cultivated protein — meat grown from animal cells in laboratories — as an “adulterated food” under state law, effectively banning its sale in South Dakota, even though the product is not currently sold in the state.
Supporters cast the bill as a preemptive defense of ranchers and the state’s livestock industry. Opponents, including some cattle producers, warned it undercuts free-market principles, could invite costly lawsuits, and legislates against a product not yet on store shelves.
Rep. Julie Auch, R-Yankton, the bill’s sponsor, framed the measure as a line in the sand.
“This is my industry. This is important,” Auch said in closing, urging lawmakers to act before lab-grown meat reaches consumers.
But some of the most forceful arguments came from ranchers on both sides of the vote, highlighting tensions between protecting a traditional industry and limiting future competition.
Rep. Spencer Gosch, R-Glenham, a cattle producer, said the issue is not about taste or novelty but about long-term pressure on the livestock industry driven by environmental policy.
“The gas that comes out of their mouth and their back end is the problem, and therefore we need an alternative — that’s the argument,” Gosch said, referring to criticism of cattle methane emissions. “And if you don’t think that’s exactly what this stuff is attempting to do, then we’re going to disagree. This is attempting to take us out as cattle producers. That’s the sole purpose.”
Gosch warned that what begins as a consumer option could become a government mandate.
“As we’ve seen with alternatives in other industries — energy, fuel — the mandate starts to come from the government,” he said. “First it’s 10 percent, then 20 percent, then 40 percent. Do you think it would be hard for the federal government to start regulating companies and say we need 10 percent cell-cultured protein? At the end of the day, that’s what this product is.”
Rep. Jana Hunt, R-Dupree, another cattle producer, delivered some of the most emotional remarks of the debate, tying the issue to the federal beef checkoff program, which requires producers to pay into a fund used for research and promotion.
“I am standing up here in frustration and anger,” Hunt said. “When we talk about freedom of choice and the free market, I am a producer who has to pay into the beef checkoff. I do not have a choice. That money is taken from me.”
Hunt argued major meatpacking companies are investing in cell-cultivated protein while traditional producers help fund industry promotion.
“I am being dictated to spend my money to fund this propaganda,” she said. “This is a direct attack on our industry. I’m asking everybody in this room to help defend my freedom, help defend my choice and protect my industry.”
Opposition came from lawmakers who said the bill overreaches and could expose the state to legal risk.
Rep. Drew Peterson, R-Salem, also a cattle producer, said he initially supported the measure before realizing state law already bars adulterated food.
“That’s a lot different,” Peterson said, pointing to court challenges in states such as Florida and Texas, and warned South Dakota should not spend millions defending a ban without clear evidence the products are unsafe.
Several lawmakers said they personally had no interest in eating lab-grown meat but questioned whether banning it aligns with the state’s long-standing support for consumer choice and open markets.
Despite repeated reminders during debate that lab-grown meat is not currently sold in South Dakota, supporters said waiting would allow federal policy and corporate investment to shape the market before the state could respond.
“This is real. This is my life,” Hunt said. “Our ranchers and our farmers are listening today.”
The bill now moves to the Senate.
Should it earn approval there, it’s unclear if Gov. Larry Rhoden would sign it. A lifelong cattle producer from Union Center, he told The Dakota Scout Thursday that while he also balks at the idea of eating a steak that was not cut off a cow, he has reservations about HB 1077.
“When it comes to fake meat, my views are pretty clear. That’s one side of the coin. But on the other side of the coin is our values,” he said. “If we start taking steps to ban products just because we don’t like them, and they’ve been approved by the FDA and are otherwise legal, then we start setting a precedence that violates our own principles.
“You let the marketplace, you let the people speak with their voice in not buying that product,” he added.
He noted that he has not made up his mind yet about whether he’d sign or veto. the legislation should it reach his desk.
