Feb. 9, 2026:
Governor Larry Rhoden charted a compromise on the issue of cell-cultured protein. In pursuit of this compromise, the Governor VETOED House Bill 1077 and advocated for an amended version of Senate Bill 124. Rhoden outlined this path forward in a letter to the Legislature, which you can find here.
“While you won’t catch me eating these products, it is against our values to ban products just because we don’t like them. Fortunately, HB 1077 need not be the last word on this issue this Session,” wrote Rhoden before charting the compromise, bringing together ag groups, legislators, and stakeholders on both sides of the bill.
Rhoden offered support for an amended version of SB 124 that would:
- Impose a five-year temporary moratorium to permit further study within the existing regulatory framework and allow the pending litigation in other states to further unfold;
- Respect constitutional limits and reduce the risk of unnecessary litigation; and
- Preserve South Dakota’s long-standing commitment to our values.
“This approach respects constitutional limits, reduces the risk of unnecessary litigation, and preserves South Dakota’s long-standing commitment to free markets and agricultural leadership,” continued Rhoden. “Government is best when it is limited. We should respect the freedoms of our people, and we should not set precedent that violates our own values.”
The South Dakota Farm Bureau, the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, and South Dakota Retailers all sent letters of support for the Governor’s VETO. You can find the South Dakota Farm Bureau’s statement here, the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association’s statement here, and the South Dakota Retailers’ statement here. The South Dakota Stockgrowers Association also voiced support for the Governor’s compromise.
Rhoden has signed nine bills into law and VETOED one this legislative session.
Jan. 27, 2026:
By Todd Epp | South Dakota Broadcasters Association.
The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday (Jan. 27, 2026) advanced a bill that would ban the sale of lab-grown meat in South Dakota by defining it as “adulterated food,” setting up a broader debate over food safety, free markets, and the future of the state’s cattle industry.
House Bill 1077 passed on a 9–3 vote, sending the measure to the House floor with a do-pass recommendation.
The bill would classify “cultivated-protein food products” — meat grown from animal cells in a laboratory — as adulterated under state law, effectively prohibiting their sale in South Dakota.
Supporters framed the bill as a food-safety measure and a defense of traditional livestock production.
Dr. Jim Stangle, a western South Dakota veterinarian who testified remotely, told lawmakers lab-grown meat relies on artificial systems that lack the biological safeguards of live animals.
“A cell culture is not a cow. It does not have a liver. It does not have a kidney. It does not have an immune system,” Stangle said.
Opponents did not defend lab-grown meat itself, but argued the bill misuses food-safety law and could backfire on South Dakota producers.
Matthew Bogue, a registered lobbyist for the South Dakota Farm Bureau, said Farm Bureau supports clear labeling but opposes banning federally approved products.
“If a product is federally approved, as well as going through state channels for the implementation, that a consumer should have that ability to choose whether or not they would like to consume that product” Bogue told the committee.
Comments