SOUTH DAKOTA (Joshua Haiar / South Dakota Searchlight ) – A comment this week by a rural Huron farmer who’s also a lawmaker told the story of two bills affecting the cattle business.

“If you have two ranchers, you’ve got four different opinions, and you can’t tell any of them what to think,” said Republican Sen. Brandon Wipf. “And I respect them for that.”

Wipf made the comments as South Dakota state senators who raise cattle were divided over a bill that would effectively bar the sale of lab-grown meat in the state by declaring it an “adulterated” food under state law.

The bill passed the Senate on an 18-16 vote Thursday and awaits a decision by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden — a rancher —to sign or veto it. Another bill causing a divide in the cattle industry that’s also on the governor’s desk would make it easier for South Dakotans to buy meat directly from cattle producers, if Congress changes a related federal law. That bill passed the Senate 28-6 on Friday after the House passed it earlier.

During the Senate floor debate, the bill’s supporters alleged that the technology is intended to replace traditional livestock production and could further consolidate control of the meat supply among large corporations, threatening South Dakota ranchers and rural communities. Sen. Mykala Voita, R-Bonesteel, noted that global meatpacking conglomerates are investing in lab-grown meat startups.

“And if you’ve been reading the writing on the wall that has been coming over the last 20 years, you’ll see that they’re trying to make the cattle industry go the way of the pigs, of the chickens, of everything else that has become vertically integrated,” Voita said.

Vertical integration refers to companies that own the production, processing and retail aspects of their business.

Sen. Sydney Davis, R-Burbank, is a cattle producer. She trusts consumers to choose ranch-raised meat products over lab-grown alternatives, she said. She warned the bill could invite costly litigation over interference in interstate commerce.

“They would make more money on litigation than they ever would selling their product here,” she said.

It is unclear whether Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden, a rancher, will sign the bill. Spokesperson Josie Harms told South Dakota Searchlight the governor “will reveal his decision at the appropriate time.”

“We can’t just pick and choose when we want to support people’s ability to bring a product, no matter how much you don’t like it,” he said. “And then you let the marketplace and people speak with their voice, and they’re not buying that product.”

Last year, South Dakota legislators and Rhoden adopted a law requiring lab-grown meat to be clearly labeled. They also passed a law prohibiting the use of state money for the research, production, promotion, sale or distribution of lab-grown meat. There’s an exception for public universities, which can still do research on lab-grown meat. But the law prevents, for example, the awarding of state economic development grants to companies that sell the product.

Currently, consumers can’t buy cuts of meat directly from cattle producers if that meat was not processed at a state or federally inspected facility. A common workaround is buying the animal from the producer and having it processed at a meat locker that has “custom-exempt” status. Those facilities are exempt from the Federal Meat Inspection Act requirements for carcass-by-carcass inspection, but are reviewed periodically for safety.

The bill had already passed the House by a vote of 48-18. Supporters described the measure as a “trigger bill,” meant to take effect only if federal legislation, such as the PRIME Act, is approved.

The South Dakota bill would apply to meat from cattle, sheep, swine or goats raised by the producer for at least 90 days, then slaughtered at a custom-exempt meat locker.

The bill would limit sales to direct, in-person transactions by the producer to a consumer at the producer’s primary residence, at a farmers market, or at another temporary sales venue.

“In that case, you’re saying, ‘Hey, I trust the farmer,’” he said. “In the other case, you’re saying, ‘I trust the inspector.’”

Proponents, including some cattle producers and the South Dakota Retailers Association, said the bill would expand consumer choice and create more direct-market opportunities, particularly in areas far from federal- or state-inspected slaughter facilities or those facing long processing backlogs.

Opponents included the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association and operators of federal- and state-inspected meat lockers. They said the bill could undercut local processors who have paid for the required inspections, labels and recordkeeping systems that support consumer safety and traceability. Inspected plants follow federal controls, pathogen testing and recall systems that can locate and recall products if contamination is detected. They said custom-exempt processors are not required to provide the same level of documentation.

“I don’t think food safety is red tape,” he said. “I think it is a system that is designed to protect us all.”

Opponents of the bill, including Sen. Davis, said putting a trigger law on the books “until Congress acts” can create false expectations, confusion that leads to accidental noncompliance, and pre-commit the state to a legal framework before any details of federal law are known.

Republican Sen. Mark Lapka, a farmer and rancher from rural Leola, said passing the bill is a way to pressure Congress to pass legislation.