South Dakota House supports prohibition on lab grown protein

The South Dakota House of Representatives approved a bill to declare cultivated protein products or fake meat as “adulterated” and not fit for sale in South Dakota.

District 18 Representative Julie Auch of Yankton sponsored HB 1077, “An act to consider a cultivated-protein food product to be adulterated food.”

In a 45-22 vote the House approved the bill.

Yeas included: Andera, Auch, Aylward, Bahmuller, Baxter, Czmowski, Derby, Emery, Fitzgerald, Garcia,16 Goodwin, Gosch, Greenfield, Heinemann, Hughes, Hunt, Ismay, Jamison, Jensen (Phil), Jordan, Jorgenson, Kayser, Kolbeck (Jack), Kull, Ladner, Lems, Manhart, May, Moore, Mulally, Mulder, Nolz, Novstrup, Odenbach, Overweg, Pourier, Randolph, Rice, Schaefbauer, Schwans, Shubeck, Sjaarda, Soye, Walburg, and Speaker Hansen.

Nays included: Arlint, Duffy, Fosness, Halverson, Healy, Heermann, Kassin, Massie, Mortenson, Muckey, Peterson (Drew), Rehfeldt, Reimer, Reisch, Roby, Roe, Stevens, Uhre‑Balk, Van Diepen, Weems, Weisgram, and Wittman

“Cell cultivated protein is not only fake meat but it has not been properly studied or proven to be safe or healthy for human consumption,” said Auch on the House floor.

She also testified that states and countries have banned the product to protect not only the consumer but also the livestock industry.

She talked about the importance of the livestock industry, saying one out of every three people in South Dakota works in agriculture and pointed out that one-third of cattle operations has gone out of business in the last 30 years.

“I’m a fourth-generation cattle producer. Being a witness to my industry being beat down by a society and politics that are more concerned with climate change and sustainability is very disheartening,” she said.

“The World Ecomomic Forum’s destructive practices of cell cultured proteins will go behind meat and into milk, egg whites, fish products and gelatins in the next 10 years,” she said.

Auch called herself a business owner who believes the customer is king, and supports free markets but called on her fellow representatives to join Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, Texas and Montana who have passed similar legislation to protect consumers, farmers and ranchers.

TSLN has learned that Wyoming is considering a similar bill.

Representative Van Diepen of Huron spoke against the bill, saying technology isn’t something to be fearful of. “I’m not saying I would eat any of this stuff, but if it’s manufactured in a lab or a facility, I don’t think we should be afraid of that. Our corn grows faster because it is genetically modified. We’re looking at technology which is better for everyone. We shouldn’t hold back the free market. If someone wants to buy this stuff, let them buy it. I eat beef because I like beef,” he said.

“I just don’t understand why we are afraid of technology and advancements that can better our society and let people go into business if they want to,” he said.

The House Ag and Natural Resources approved the bill on Jan. 27 in a 9-3 vote.

Proponent who testified in committee included: Jasper Diegel, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Doris Lauing, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Lauren Nelson, Self, Brett Kenzy, Self, Josephine Garcia, Self, Trent Loos, Self, Jim Mundorf, Self, Dr. Jim Stangle, Self, Representative John Sjaarda, Jana Hunt, Self, Linda Montgomery, Self

Opponents were: Matthew Bogue, South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation, Taya Runyan, South Dakota Cattlemens Association and Nathan Sanderson, South Dakota Retailers Association.

The South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association lobbyist said in committee that her group had worked hard with legislators last year to approve legislation to ensure lab grown proteins are accurately labeled. “If any of these products every finds their way into our market place, consumers can see what they are and we have the opportunity to market our product as far superior as we all believe that they are,” she said.

Nathan Sanderson of the South Dakota Retailers Association testified in committee that proponents haven’t proven that the product is or is not adulterated. He said the Food and Drug Administration has ensured this food is safe and not adulterated.

Representative Garcia, District 5, said in committee cell cultured meat is a health concern mostly due to a lack of information.

“Genetic modification and mutations: To produce meat, there has to be a use of immortalized cells. Cell lines that can potentially divide indefinitely. These cell lines may involve targeted knockout genes. We have tumor suppressors in our body… they will suppress and keep you from getting cancer cells. When we start altering these cell lines, we have the potential to increase the growth which would produce cancer cells,” she said.

Many others testified about health concerns as well as the importance of the cattle industry in the state’s economy.

The bill was referred to the Senate Ag and Natural Resources committee on Feb. 3, 2026.