Prohibit the award or use of state moneys for the research, production, promotion, sale, or distribution of cell-cultured protein.
Summary
House Bill 1118 prohibits the use of South Dakota state moneys, whether awarded directly or indirectly, for the research, production, promotion, sale, or distribution of cell-cultured protein. The bill defines cell-cultured protein as a food product made wholly or partly from cell culture or the DNA of a host animal and grown or cultivated outside a live animal.
The prohibition is broad, but it includes explicit exceptions. It does not apply to the Board of Regents, institutions under its control, or state agencies performing regulatory functions under chapter 39-5. In effect, the bill creates a state funding restriction aimed at keeping public dollars out of the development and commercialization of lab-grown or cultivated meat products, while preserving higher education and regulatory activities.
Impact
HB1118 amends state law in chapter 39-5 by adding a new section that bars the use of state funds for cell-cultured protein-related activities. The practical effect is to limit state financial support for companies, researchers, or promotional efforts connected to cultivated meat, while leaving universities under the Board of Regents and regulatory agencies unaffected. The bill does not ban the product itself; it restricts state spending and state-backed support.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong and largely unanimous support for the bill. It received favorable committee and floor votes in both chambers with no recorded opposition in the provided vote summaries. With no committee transcript available, the overall sentiment appears to have been broadly aligned around restricting public funding for cell-cultured protein.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials, and the recorded votes show no nays. Based on the bill’s structure, any potential debate would likely center on whether the state should support emerging food technologies with public funds, and whether the exceptions for the Board of Regents and regulatory agencies are sufficiently narrow or broad. However, the available record does not show any active opposition or disputed amendments.