South Dakota Signs 5-Year Moratorium On Lab-Grown, Cell-Cultivated Meat Products

South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden signed a 5-year moratorium on the sale of lab-grown meat, also known as cell-cultivated meat. This comes about a month after the governor vetoed a full ban but expressed his willingness to sign a moratorium.

“As a lifelong rancher, I understand agricultural producers take pride in raising our food, and we’ve never been afraid of competition in that regard,” Governor Rhoden wrote in his veto statement last month. “South Dakota’s values allow our ag producers to thrive in a competitive national and global economy. House Bill 1077 departs from those values by imposing a permanent ban on a category of lawful, federally regulated food products. While you won’t catch me eating these products, it is against our values to ban products just because we don’t like them. Therefore, I return House Bill 1077 with my VETO.

“A temporary moratorium to allow for further study, data collection, and coordination with federal regulators is a more appropriate course of action,” he added.

Governor Rhoden said the 5-year moratorium respects constitutional limits, avoids unnecessary litigation, preserves free markets, and respects the freedoms of the people. Congress promptly responded by drafting the moratorium bill, and Rhoden signed it into law, which prohibits the manufacture or sale of cultivated proteins in the state until 2031.

Florida, Alabama, Texas, Nebraska, Mississippi, Montana, and Indiana have all passed bans, with some states facing lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the laws. The lawsuits have been brought by two major players in the cell-cultivated, lab-grown meat industry: Upside Foods and WildType.

Several lab-grown meat products have received the green light from federal regulators, but novel foods like cell-cultivated protein do not require independent safety testing of the products themselves. Rather, the process involves voluntary submissions by the manufacturers to the FDA regarding production processes, cell lines, growth media, and potential hazards. The FDA reviews the information submitted by manufacturers.

Food products do not receive “approvals” like drugs do when reviewed by the FDA. Rather, the agency issues a “no questions” letter, which gives the manufacturer the green light to begin selling the product. For a novel food like cell-cultivated meat, the USDA is responsible for ongoing inspections, but these inspections do not include independent testing of the products themselves.

There is no place where this novel food is widely available yet, despite the FDA issuing the first “no questions” letters in 2023 to Good Meat and Upside Foods for their cell-cultivated chicken products. The industry faces issues with scaling, cost, and state-level restrictions. Currently, there is one known restaurant serving Upside Foods’ lab-grown chicken in San Francisco and one serving Good Meat’s chicken product in Washington, D.C. Last July, an Austin restaurant was serving Wildtype’s lab-grown salmon for about two months until the state of Texas officially passed a ban on the sale, distribution, and production of the products in the state.

Good Meat and Upside Foods allege in their lawsuit against the state of Texas that the law violates the dormant commerce clause and the Supremacy Clause. The lawsuit states, “The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states cannot circumvent express preemption clauses like the PPIA’s ‘just by framing [a law] as a ban on the sale of meat produced in whatever way the State disapproved.’”

There are two primary reasons the cell-cultivated meat industry is seeking to emerge as a competitor to meat produced by traditional agriculture. One reason is to provide meat products without the need to slaughter animals, and the other reason is to produce something that is more sustainable in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The industry is having a difficult time with both terms because intensive production processes may actually emit more GHG than traditional agriculture, and the majority of vegetarians are unwilling to try the product because the process still involves the use of animal cells.

Italy became the first country to ban the production, sale, and import of lab-grown meat in 2023, and Hungary became the second country last fall with a parliamentary vote of 140-10. Officials in Italy, France, and Austria wrote a letter to European Union officials last year calling for restrictions on lab-grown meat as it threatens traditional agriculture.

The Good Food Institute issued a statement condemning Hungary’s ban last fall. “The government has presented no risk assessments or safety data showing cultivated meat threatens human or planetary health – relying instead on unfounded fears and protectionist arguments,” the company said. “This decision sets a dangerous precedent where fear and politics override objective debate, science, and innovation. It drives needless polarisation and undermines urgent progress towards a more sustainable food system.”

The Washington Post published an op-ed last week criticizing state-level bans and restrictions for failing to allow consumers to choose. The writer suggested that the industry does not pose a real threat to traditional agriculture, and the industry would need to create products that are safe, economical, and enjoyable to reasonably compete against meat produced from traditional agriculture.

Last fall, a leaked recording from a Campbell’s soup executive included statements alleging the company uses bioengineered meat from a 3d printer. The company has denied using any products, but leaked statements prompted the state of Florida to announce an investigation. The European Union is considering label restrictions on cell-cultivated products to prevent them from using the word “meat” on the labels so that consumers don’t unknowingly purchase the products.