Lab grown meat still getting mixed reactions

South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden recently surprised many of his state’s constituents by vetoing a bill which would ban the sale of cell-cultured meat in his state. The governor, a lifelong Meade County, S.D. rancher, in turn supported a five-year moratorium on “lab-grown” meat products in his state, allowing time for its safety and wholesomeness to be studied.

The South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association urged the governor to veto the ban. 

Eric Jennings of Spearfish, S.D., past president of the association, said he did not like the bill’s mechanism of placing lab-grown meat on the list of adulterated foods.

“The cell-cultured product is not a dangerous product,” said Jennings in an interview with KOTA Territory News. “It’s inspected by the same process our traditionally-raised meat is, so it’s not unsafe.”

Jennings added he’s confident traditional beef grown in South Dakota will outcompete any lab-grown product.

How it’s made

Decades of accumulated knowledge in cell culture, stem cell biology, tissue engineering, fermentation and chemical and bioprocess engineering preceded the field of cultivated meat.

The process begins with acquiring and banking stem cells from an animal. These cells are then grown in bioreactors at high densities and volumes. The cells are fed an oxygen-rich cell culture medium containing basic nutrients such as amino acids, glucose, vitamins and inorganic salts, then typically supplemented with growth factors and other proteins.

Changes in the medium composition trigger immature cells to differentiate into the skeletal muscle, fat and connective tissues that make up meat. The differentiated cells are then harvested, prepared and packaged into final products.  

This process typically takes two to eight weeks, depending on the kind of meat being cultivated. Some companies are pursuing a similar strategy to create milk and other animal products. Most liken the process to making yogurt or beer.

Bucking the headwinds

Even as the world continues to increase its meat consumption, positive consumer attitudes towards cell-cultured meat have been slow in developing. Numerous studies show a food’s perceived “naturalness” may influence consumer acceptance.

For example, consumers are more likely to reject cultured meat if they believe these products are overly processed or inherently unnatural. Studies show protein alternatives need to look, feel and taste like conventional meat to gain consumer acceptance.

Research on emerging food technologies – like cultivated meat and plant-based meat alternatives – has found consumers may be skeptical of novel products. 

This neophobia – or the fear of new foods – is one of the main factors influencing people’s willingness – or unwillingness – to pay for meat alternatives, according to Kendall Profitt of Atlanta, Ga., a food researcher for Faunalytics, an animal protection think tank.

Profitt recently conducted a literature review of 43 articles addressing the factors influencing cultured meat acceptance.

“Concerns for animal welfare, the environment and other ethical considerations play a big role in people’s willingness to embrace cultured meat,” Profitt said. “But the ethical advantages of these products may not be strong enough to encourage acceptance, as even ethically driven people still tend to focus on things like naturalness, health and taste.”

Investments

into innovations

Dutch Scientist Mark Post unveiled the first cultivated meat burger in 2013. Two years later, the first four companies were founded. 

As of 2024, the industry had grown to over 175 companies on six continents, backed by over $3.1 billion in investments.

Cultivated meat pioneer Upside Foods of Berkeley, Calif. has struggled to engage consumers and pay back the $608 million it’s borrowed from investors since 2015. 

Last spring, Upside Foods announced a second round of layoffs as it downsized its operations. The firm also paused plans to build a large-scale production facility in Glenview, Ill.

AgFunder data shows global funding for cultivated meat startups peaked at $989 million in 2021, dipped to $807 million in 2022 and then fell to $177 million in 2023. Startups in the sector did not pick up in 2024 and into 2025.

But it would be naïve for cattlemen to write off the cultivated meat sector or hope it simply rides off into the sunset. Most of the innovation and investment into cultivated meat though is in Europe where it began.

Notable investments in cultured meat technology include Mosa Meats in the Netherlands, which raised $43 million last year, and Israel’s Ever After Foods which raised $10 million. London, England-based Hoxton Farms announced an undisclosed infusion of capital late last year.  

Owen Ensor, chief executive officer of United Kingdom-based Meatly, said pet food, rather than human food, is the place to start in developing a market for cultured meat. Meatly is scaling up production of pet food ingredients using chicken egg cells.

And, Germany’s Meatosys is attempting to sell its “easy-to-use hardware,” including stem cells enabling cattle and dairy producers to culture meat from their own livestock. Meatosys promises to ensure efficient cultured meat operations through remote control and automation of its patented growth pods.

With private funding almost drying up in the U.S., key players warn that in North America the cultivated meat sector could struggle to survive without a massive influx of public money.

For now, public investment into cultured meat development is facing a minefield of opposition. 

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has made it clear, while he’s a big fan of conventional beef, he’s not a fan of cultured meat.

Like South Dakota, state legislatures across the U.S. are considering banning cultivated meat or have already done so. 

As of late 2025, seven U.S. states including Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska and Texas have passed laws banning the sale, production or distribution of cultivated meat.

But back in the Mount Rushmore State, Rhoden said a five-year moratorium on cultivated meat – as opposed to an outright ban – respects constitutional limits, reduces the risk of unnecessary litigation and preserves South Dakota’s longstanding commitment to free markets.

The governor said in a press release, “While you won’t catch me eating these products, it is against our values to ban products just because we don’t like them.” 

Clint Peck is an author for BEEF Magazine. This article was originally published by BEEF Magazine on Feb. 19.