South Dakota House passes two measures restricting lab-grown meat, including 10-year ban and prohibition on state funding
February 07, 2025 | 2025 Legislative SD, South Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Pierre — The South Dakota House of Representatives on Thursday approved two bills that restrict cell‑cultured (lab‑grown) meat: House Bill 11‑09, which prohibits the manufacture, sale or distribution of cell‑cultured meat in the state and includes a 10‑year sunset, and House Bill 11‑18, which bars the award or use of state money for research, production, promotion, sale or distribution of cell‑cultured protein.
Supporters said the measures pause market entry and state investment until longer‑term safety data are available, while opponents warned of unintended consequences for consumers, commerce and legal exposure under the interstate commerce clause.
Representative Sharada, the prime sponsor of HB 11‑09, framed the bill as a consumer‑safety pause. “Is it safe for human consumption?” she asked on the House floor, saying federal review was limited and that only a small number of jurisdictions have authorized sales. Sharada noted the bill is temporary: “This is not permanent ban. It's just a hold off until we can make sure it's safe.”
Representative Hunt, the prime sponsor of HB 11‑18, told colleagues the funding ban would not block academic research under the Board of Regents and would allow state labeling and inspection to continue. “This bill will leave provisions for students under the board of regents to continue to research cell cultivated protein,” Hunt said, adding that the agriculture department consulted on the text.
Debate included questions about whether FDA review of initial products amounted to sufficient safety vetting, and whether a state ban could expose South Dakota to litigation. Representative Vasquez warned of possible interstate commerce challenges, noting litigation over similar Florida restrictions. Representative Whitman and others argued the public should retain choice and that recently passed state labeling requirements already inform consumers.
Representatives who emphasized protecting school meal programs and children’s nutrition supported restrictions. Representative Rice said school‑meal participation makes a precautionary approach appropriate because “those little kids don't have a choice.” Others urged deference to federal regulators.
Votes: House Bill 11‑09 passed final passage on a 42–26 vote with 1 excused. House Bill 11‑18 passed earlier on a 68–0 voice/rollcall with 1 excused. Both are now set to move in the legislative process consistent with standard transmittal steps.
The legislation’s supporters described the measures as temporary safeguards; the chief sponsor of HB 11‑09 repeatedly cited the bill’s 10‑year sunset as a mechanism to revisit the policy as more evidence becomes available. Opponents said the bills send a signal discouraging innovation and could limit consumer choice and future economic activity in the state.
If enacted, HB 11‑09 would criminalize manufacture, sale or distribution of cell‑cultured meat in South Dakota for the length of the sunset. HB 11‑18 would prevent state agencies and state funds from being used to support the sector while preserving limited research authority for Regents institutions.
—
Supporters said the measures pause market entry and state investment until longer‑term safety data are available, while opponents warned of unintended consequences for consumers, commerce and legal exposure under the interstate commerce clause.
Representative Sharada, the prime sponsor of HB 11‑09, framed the bill as a consumer‑safety pause. “Is it safe for human consumption?” she asked on the House floor, saying federal review was limited and that only a small number of jurisdictions have authorized sales. Sharada noted the bill is temporary: “This is not permanent ban. It's just a hold off until we can make sure it's safe.”
Representative Hunt, the prime sponsor of HB 11‑18, told colleagues the funding ban would not block academic research under the Board of Regents and would allow state labeling and inspection to continue. “This bill will leave provisions for students under the board of regents to continue to research cell cultivated protein,” Hunt said, adding that the agriculture department consulted on the text.
Debate included questions about whether FDA review of initial products amounted to sufficient safety vetting, and whether a state ban could expose South Dakota to litigation. Representative Vasquez warned of possible interstate commerce challenges, noting litigation over similar Florida restrictions. Representative Whitman and others argued the public should retain choice and that recently passed state labeling requirements already inform consumers.
Representatives who emphasized protecting school meal programs and children’s nutrition supported restrictions. Representative Rice said school‑meal participation makes a precautionary approach appropriate because “those little kids don't have a choice.” Others urged deference to federal regulators.
Votes: House Bill 11‑09 passed final passage on a 42–26 vote with 1 excused. House Bill 11‑18 passed earlier on a 68–0 voice/rollcall with 1 excused. Both are now set to move in the legislative process consistent with standard transmittal steps.
The legislation’s supporters described the measures as temporary safeguards; the chief sponsor of HB 11‑09 repeatedly cited the bill’s 10‑year sunset as a mechanism to revisit the policy as more evidence becomes available. Opponents said the bills send a signal discouraging innovation and could limit consumer choice and future economic activity in the state.
If enacted, HB 11‑09 would criminalize manufacture, sale or distribution of cell‑cultured meat in South Dakota for the length of the sunset. HB 11‑18 would prevent state agencies and state funds from being used to support the sector while preserving limited research authority for Regents institutions.
—
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting