Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Meat Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wyoming Senate rejects cultivated-meat prohibition bill after hours of debate
Summary
On Feb. 20, 2025, the Wyoming Senate defeated House Bill 168, a measure that would have banned "cultivated meat," following extended debate about economic impacts, interstate commerce and free-market principles. The final roll call was 12 yeas and 19 nays.
CHEYENNE — The Wyoming Senate on Feb. 20, 2025 rejected House Bill 168, a proposed prohibition on cultivated meat, after an extended floor debate that centered on agriculture, commerce and potential legal challenges. The roll call on third reading was 12 yeas and 19 nays, and the bill failed to receive a majority of the elected senators.
The bill, sponsored in the House by Representative Eklund and presented to the Senate as “House Bill 168, engrossed, cultivated meat prohibition,” would have prohibited the sale or labeling of products described in the bill as cultivated meat. Supporters framed the measure as a statement in defense of Wyoming’s livestock industry; opponents raised constitutional and economic objections and warned of litigation.
Senator Case argued against the bill’s rationale and the policy approach toward it, saying, “What we’re really doing is just expressing our anger about this.” He urged colleagues to avoid enacting a law that he described as vulnerable to interstate-commerce challenges and likely to prompt lawsuits. Several senators echoed that concern, warning the state could face legal defeats and mounting defense costs.
Senator Larson referenced existing labeling law and urged reliance on current statutory protections, saying the Legislature already has provisions governing product labeling and that adding a categorical ban may be unnecessary. Larson specifically mentioned a statute by number during remarks about labeling requirements.
Other senators opposing the bill characterized it as government overreach into consumer choice and warned it could conflict with free-market principles. Senator Nethercott said the measure could run afoul of the interstate-commerce clause and argued that consumer preference and labeling — rather than prohibition — should determine market outcomes. Senator Hyde similarly described the proposal as a slippery slope toward legislating consumption.
Proponents said the bill would protect traditional livestock producers and send a policy signal in favor of Wyoming’s agricultural economy. But the majority of senators concluded the bill either duplicated existing labeling law or presented legal risks. After the roll call, the chair announced the measure had failed.
House Bill 168 failed on third reading, 12 yeas to 19 nays. No committee or follow-up action was recorded on the floor after the vote.
Next steps: The House-origin bill failed in the Senate and therefore will not proceed to enrollment from this chamber; the transcript records no additional committee referrals or instructions to staff recorded on the floor for this bill.
