HB 1077: A solution in search of a problem

For more than 50 years, my family has raised cattle on the prairie outside Leola, S.D. Whether our beef entered the national food supply or went through the local locker, consumers bought it because beef has earned their confidence. That trust comes from the people who raise it and from the inspection system that guarantees every product is safe.

Cell‑cultured protein may be new on the market, but it’s not new to those of us in the cattle business who have been monitoring it for years. From the start our priorities were clear: honest labeling and strong food‑safety oversight. In 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration established a joint regulatory framework ensuring these products meet the same safety standards as beef before they can be sold. FSIS inspectors review records, verify sanitation, and approve labels just as they do for real meat. If a cell-cultured product is on the shelf, it has passed federal inspection just like when my cattle go through processing.

HB 1077 disregards that reality. By calling cell‑cultured protein “adulterated,” the bill essentially calls it filthy or poisonous or unsafe, even though it must follow the same federal safety standards as any other inspected food. That kind of language doesn’t protect consumers; it undermines the credibility of the inspection system that protects the integrity of real beef.

Last year, the Legislature passed HB 1022, which clearly defined cell‑cultured protein and required transparent labeling. That law protects consumers and protects the name of beef without creating legal risk. HB 1077 conflicts with that law and sets a dangerous precedent. If we start calling a product “adulterated” simply because we don’t like how it’s made, nothing stops other states from using the same tactic against beef production practices. Today, if South Dakota bans cell‑cultured protein, does California ban genetically modified grain or feed additives tomorrow?

Here in South Dakota, we stand on principle. We don’t want California or Massachusetts dictating how we raise cattle or run our operations. If we believe in a free market, then we shouldn’t turn around and dictate how others operate either. We can defend REAL beef without abandoning the values that make our state strong.

Other states that passed legislation banning these products are now tied up in expensive lawsuits that taxpayers are paying for. Meanwhile, cell‑cultured protein isn’t even on grocery shelves in South Dakota. There is no reason to invite that fight here.

As a conservative cattleman, I believe in the free market. I’m not afraid of competition, especially not from a product South Dakotans won’t choose once they see it for what it is. They know the difference between real beef and something grown in a bioreactor. They don’t need the government to make that choice for them.

HB 1077 goes too far. Let’s stick with the strong labeling laws already passed, trust consumers, and keep South Dakota cattlemen and women doing what we do best: raising the highest‑quality beef in the world.

— Craig Bieber, President, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, owner of Bieber Red Angus Ranch

Coloradans’ water concerns run deep

New polling shows that a solid majority of Colorado voters, across the political spectrum, say that our state doesn’t have enough water to meet future needs, and that the State of Colorado is doing too little to conserve and protect our water.

“Voters are clear-eyed,” said Brian Jackson of EDFAction. “They want strong leadership to ensure clean drinking water, adequate water supplies for families, cities, towns and ranches, and to make sure our rivers and streams remain healthy.”

The poll, conducted on the eve of a critical election year that will determine the next governor, attorney general and other officers, provides a roadmap for policymakers and candidates. Detailed results, including cross tabs and analysis, can be found at https://www.conserveandprotectourwater.com.

The research dug deep into voter attitudes about the status of negotiations among the eight states of the Colorado River Basin, working to come to an agreement on water management in the face of prolonged drought, population growth and a changing climate.

Support for a negotiated settlement on the Colorado River is nearly unanimous. Seventy-eight percent prefer to “negotiate an agreement where each state makes concessions” versus only 7 percent who want to “fight it out in court.”  Negotiation unites the electorate: 90 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Unaffiliated voters, 63 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of rural voters support a negotiated agreement.

“Coloradans want to control our own destiny when it comes to water,” Jackson said. “They understand, by overwhelming numbers, that it is better to lead on conservation in Colorado, negotiate an agreement acceptable to all upper and lower basin states, and avoid leaving these crucial decisions in the hands of federal officials in Washington, D.C., or the courts.”

These findings are based on a hybrid poll of 800 likely 2026 voters statewide, including an oversample of 446 likely Democratic primary voters, distributed to accurately represent likely voters based on party registration, gender, age, education, region and ethnicity. The poll was conducted from Dec. 1–7, 2025, by Keating Research, Inc. A coalition of conservation organizations, including EDFAction, Conservation Colorado, and WRA Action Fund sponsored the research.

— EDFAction