Critics say designating cultivated protein as ‘adulterated food’ undermines free market and makes livestock producers vulnerable to retaliatory measures
PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota lawmakers are gunning to ban lab-grown meat.
A panel of state House legislators has advanced legislation that would ban artificial meat in the state, setting up a pointed debate over food safety, consumer choice and whether lawmakers should block products that aren’t yet on grocery shelves.
Earning support from the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee with a 9–3 vote Tuesday morning, House Bill 1077 would classify cultivated-protein products — meat grown from animal cells in laboratories — as “adulterated food” under state law, effectively prohibiting their sale in South Dakota.
Supporters described the bill as a preemptive food-safety measure and a defense of the state’s livestock industry.
“This is more about a philosophy,” bill sponsor Rep. Julie Auch, R-Yankton, told the committee. She argued the state should draw a firm line against products she said are manufactured in laboratories using undisclosed processes and proprietary ingredients.
Auch also questioned federal oversight of cultivated protein, noting that companies developing the products provided their own research to regulators. “We don’t even know what’s in it,” she said, referring to growth serums used in production.
Several lawmakers pressed Auch on why the Legislature should ban a product that is not currently sold in South Dakota.
“I’m having a hard time understanding how us banning a product that isn’t on our shelves currently will help our cattle producers compete,” said Rep. Kadyn Wittman, D-Sioux Falls, during committee questions.
Wittman later said some producers are not worried about competition from lab-grown meat. She told the committee that they’d spoken with a cattle producer who said, “I am confident that my beef will speak for itself in the future.”
Opponents warned it repurposes food-safety statutes to block a product on principle and could invite retaliation against South Dakota agricultural products in other states. Apprehensions about consumer choice and the precedent set by labeling a product adulterated based on how it is made rather than measurable health risk also generated committee debate.
Rep. Kevin Van Diepen, R-Huron, said South Dakota is home to increasingly diverse communities with different food traditions.
“If someone else wants to eat that, why are we going to stop them?” Van Diepen asked. “That should be their choice.”
Worries about interstate retaliation were also cited, with critics contending HB 1077 could spur more politically progressive states to restrict the sale of conventionally raised livestock products.
“We all collectively can say that is bad policy,” said Rep. Drew Peterson, a cattle producer who cited California’s Proposition 12 and similar laws in Massachusetts that restrict some pork products from being sold in their jurisdictions. “If we don’t want them to do that in those states, how can we do it to them in this state?”
Supporters countered that cultivated protein represents an unresolved health experiment and a long-term threat to rural economies.
Rep. Kaley Nolz, R-Mitchell, said she views the issue through a food-safety lens and does not want another generation to serve as a test case.
“I really don’t want to see another generation of Americans be an experiment for a health product,” Nolz said.
HB 1077 will next be considered on the House floor.
