logo
Saying Oklahomans can eat ‘real meat,' lawmakers move to ban lab-grown alternatives

Saying Oklahomans can eat ‘real meat,' lawmakers move to ban lab-grown alternatives

Yahoo25-03-2025

Rep. Ty Burns, R-Morrison, attends the final day of the 2024 legislative session. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY — Citing safety concerns and Oklahomans' ability to eat 'real meat from real animals,' House lawmakers advanced a measure Tuesday that would ban lab-grown meat alternatives.
Critics, though, said House Bill 2829, which targets the science of using animal cells to grow meat in laboratories, is based in fear, is protectionist, and impedes Oklahomans' freedom to choose what they want to eat and how to practice their religions.
Rep. Ty Burns, R-Morrison, said the measure is necessary to protect Oklahomans and their culture as well as the agriculture industry, which is one of the state's biggest economic drivers. He said cell-cultivated meat is popular in Israel. While it may not be in Oklahoma yet, the bill aims to ban it before it arrives, he said.
Burns, the bill's author, said the government's top job is to protect and promote general welfare and health, and this bill does that.
'I don't think it's about being afraid of competition, obviously,' Burns said. 'We start talking about protecting Oklahomans and consumption of a product that we have naturally done healthier and better for you. I think it's an easy protective measure to put ahead of before we get it here.'
Last year, Florida and Alabama both passed laws banning lab-grown meats.
Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, said the product should be considered dangerous until it's known to be safe.
'It's not about free market. It's about really making sense,' he said. 'We have plenty of opportunity to eat real meat from real animals, and the fact that this stuff is being developed is nothing more than it is just acquiescing to the climate change agenda, the animal rights agenda, and everything green. And it's an attack on our growers who produce our food.'
Oklahomans need to 'play it safe' by banning the product, he said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'Let somebody else experiment and keep the people of the state of Oklahoma safe,' Gann said.
But Rep. Jared Deck, D-Norman, said when there are so many other health concerns in the state, he wonders why his colleagues are so afraid of this option.
'We put Twinkies in our body. Heck we deep fat fry them even,' he said. 'These are the things that we eat on a daily basis, that we feed our children, that we stock our grocery shelves with, and we're going to ban something that we don't even know about supposedly, but a lot of religions and cultures use such products in order to help abide by their own faith.'
Deck said the state's agricultural industry isn't afraid of anything that's cultivated, including this product. He said genetic cultivation is also being used to develop seeds and vegetation, but that's not being targeted.
'We ought to be afraid of this stuff because it's not meat,' said Rep. Rick West, R-Heavener. 'It's cells that have been modified to grow forever and ever and ever. It's closer to a science experiment than it is to a steak. The cells used to grow it act like cancer cells, and the legal ground it stands on is shaky at best.'
He said nobody knows the long-term health effects of eating lab-grown meats. Consumers need to ask if these are safe to eat because it's not just about biology, but about what's legal, he said.
West said the Federal Meat Inspection Act overseas meat products. Lab grown meat is 'a blob of cells cooked up in a tank.' He said federal law also bans food labels that mislead people.
'If you buy chicken expecting a drumstick and you get a pile of lab cells instead, have you been duped?' he said. 'My answer to that is yes, you have.'
Forrest Bennett, D-Oklahoma City, said he's 'caught a lot of grief' for liking boneless chicken wings and suggesting that the people who developed the technology to remove the bones from the wing be honored. And even though critics argue that it's not 'real chicken,' it's still his prerogative to eat it, he said.
If lawmakers are so certain lab-grown meat is bad, he looks forward to watching them reject a bread roll because it's also made of duplicating cells, Bennett said.
'I just wish my colleagues would call this what it is,' Bennett said. 'We want to pick winners and losers in this building, and in this case, the winner is the beef industry, and the loser is an innovative new science that's trying to create non-meat alternatives for people who need that for their diets.'
The bill, which passed 72-18, now heads to the Senate for consideration.SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump administration faces growing bipartisan pressure over Job Corps
Trump administration faces growing bipartisan pressure over Job Corps

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump administration faces growing bipartisan pressure over Job Corps

Nearly 200 House members signed onto a bipartisan letter this week to express support for Job Corps after the Department of Labor recently announced it would soon be pausing operations at centers nationwide. In the letter to Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the lawmakers express support 'for the continuation of the Job Corps program,' while noting it remains funded through government funding legislation that passed earlier this year. 'Nearly 20,000 young people utilize Job Corps to learn skills for in-demand vocational and technical job training,' the letter said. 'Job Corps is one of the few national programs that specifically targets the 16-24-year-old population that is neither working, nor in school, and provides them with a direct pathway into employment openings in industries such as manufacturing and shipbuilding.' Job Corps, established as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, is a free residential education and job training program for low-income people between 16 and 24 years of age. In an announcement explaining the Labor Department's decision to suspend operations at Job Corps centers, Chavez-DeRemer said the program was found to no longer achieve 'the intended outcomes that students deserve,' citing what she described as 'a startling number of serious incident reports and our in-depth fiscal analysis.' 'We remain committed to ensuring all participants are supported through this transition and connected with the resources they need to succeed as we evaluate the program's possibilities.' The department said it will begin a 'phased pause' initiating 'an orderly transition for students, staff, and local communities.' The pause will occur by June 30, the office said. The move was met with swift backlash from lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who defended the program in a statement expressing strong opposition to the department's move to pause operations. 'Serving nearly 500 students in Maine, the Loring Job Corps Center and the Penobscot Job Corps Center have become important pillars of support for some of our most disadvantaged young adults,' Collins said at the time. In the new letter sent to the secretary Thursday, the group of lawmakers said by 'filling job openings, Job Corps ensures that young people become productive members of the American workforce.' 'No other program takes homeless youth and turns them into the welders, electricians, shipbuilders, carpenters, nurses, mechanics, and vocational workers of the future,' the letter said. The letter came a day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from suspending operations at Job Corps centers as critics argue the move is illegal. 'The Department of Labor is working closely with the Department of Justice to evaluate and comply with the temporary restraining order,' the agency said in a statement to The Hill on Friday. 'We remain confident that our actions are consistent with the law.' Updated: 12:51 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump
Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is keeping his distance from Elon Musk even after the billionaire's extraordinary public rebuke of President Trump and the GOP's domestic agenda. Asked Friday if Musk's bitter break from Trump presents Democrats with an opportunity to form a strange-bedfellows alliance with the tech titan, Jeffries shifted the conversation immediately to the Democrats' efforts to kill Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'The opportunity that exists right now is to kill the GOP tax scam,' Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. 'It's legislation that we have been strongly opposed to, and uniformly opposed to, from the very beginning. … It rips health care away from millions of people. It snatches food out of the mouths of hungry children. And it rewards billionaires and [GOP] donors in ways that are fiscally irresponsible.' Pressed on whether Musk should be 'welcomed back' to the Democratic Party after the high-profile split from Trump, Jeffries punted again. 'Same answer,' he said. Jeffries's cautious remarks demonstrate the limits of the old adage that the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend. They also highlight the potential difficulties Democrats would face if they embraced a polarizing and nationally unpopular figure in Musk — one they've spent most of the last year bashing for heavy spending on Trump's campaign and, more recently, for his role in heading Trump's efforts to gut the federal government. Still, some Democrats say Musk's influence is significant enough that Democrats should make the effort to try to court him to their side amid the Trump feud. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Silicon Valley, is leading the charge. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' Khanna posted Thursday on social platform X, which is owned by Musk. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority,' referring to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Jeffries isn't going nearly so far. But he has welcomed Musk's attacks on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the Republicans who voted for it. And he aligned Democrats with Musk's sentiments that the package piles too much money onto the federal debt, a figure the Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $2.4 trillion. 'To the extent that Elon Musk has made the same point that everyone who has voted for this bill up until this moment should be ashamed of themselves, we agree,' Jeffries said. 'And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the point that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination,' we agree. And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the observation about the GOP tax scam — that it is reckless and irresponsible to explode the deficit by more than $3 trillion, and that potentially could set our country on a path toward bankruptcy — we agree.' 'These are arguments that Democrats have been making now for months.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?
Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?

The House proposed tax on college endowments has drawn considerable attention. Critics have rightly noted that it would effectively tax student scholarships as well as undermine donor intent, and lacks a clear public policy rationale. While this tax targets only the wealthiest institutions, every college and university in the country is paying a different kind of price — what I call a 'chaos tax.' This refers to the unfunded time, energy and expense required to respond to the administration's attacks on higher education, along with its onslaught of confusing policy proposals and demands. That the federal government would so recklessly jeopardize the future of American colleges and universities is mind-boggling. When my organization surveyed and interviewed hundreds of college presidents two years ago, they reported that the issues that mattered the most to them were tied to improving the education offered to students. Among their top priorities: fostering a climate for free expression, strengthening the college-to-career pipeline, and integrating new technologies. This year, college presidents tell us that the bulk of their time is taken up with responding to executive orders, protecting the rights of students, and responding to negative perceptions of higher ed. In both the near past and the present, many were also focused on the financial stability of their institutions. But the current policy climate has made this an even more pressing worry. College presidents now express concern that their institutions face an existential threat. Each time the federal government issues a threat or demand, institutions must pause to parse and interpret it. Each time funding is withheld or a grant is cancelled, institutions have to realign their already stressed budgets and make difficult decisions. Many executive orders have been paused by judges due to their lack of clarity or their lack of alignment with federal law or the Constitution. But whether they stand or fall, the toll on campus leaders — and the students they serve — is intense. If our largest universities are struggling to respond, imagine what this season of attack is doing to the many smaller and leaner institutions. To give just one example, the recent threat to disenroll Harvard's international students — a threat currently on hold thanks to a judicial ruling — has sent shock waves throughout all of higher education. Nationally, more than a million college and university students are from countries outside the U.S. For decades, American colleges and universities have welcomed them, seeing opportunities for enhanced peer-to-peer global learning, a way to keep tuition down for domestic students, and a chance to share the good news about American democracy and freedom to learn. In the wake of unprecedented arrests, sudden cancelling of visas and now the threat of disenrollment, international student applications have dropped dramatically across the board. Current international students are panicked about their future and unsure if they will be able to return after the summer. For many years, American higher education has been the envy of the world and one of our most successful exports. The international students who flock here pay top dollar to receive a world-class education, globally lauded credentials, and a deeper appreciation for the American way of life. In this case, the balance of trade is widely in our favor. The loss of international students means a less effective and robust education for all American students. Without revenue from international students, American students will have to pay more. And international enrollment is but a single target of chaotic orders and policy. With more of their college leadership investing time in navigating the many unforced errors of the current administration, American students will see less time spent on meeting their educational needs and fewer opportunities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other important fields. That the federal government would recklessly endanger the future of so many American colleges and universities is vexing. What are our goals as a nation? Are we looking to create well-paying jobs and enhance American prosperity? Preserve the blessings of a free society? Improve health and life expectancy for more Americans? No country has been able to achieve these aims without significant investment. It is not just the elites that are bearing the burden of this chaos. The local religious college, the small comprehensive university that educates nurses and teachers, community colleges, the land grant public institution, the state branch campus — all of them are vulnerable to the same threatened withdrawal of federal support. Collectively, American higher education is being weakened and hollowed out. Our capacity for scientific innovation is being hobbled. Our pathways out of poverty are being pruned. Our future is being mortgaged. We need to insist on a sensible policy agenda for higher education — one that is preparing the country for the impact of AI and positioning our graduates to serve their communities and lead in their professions. Students, alumni and families who hope for a bright future for their children must join higher ed leaders and insist on an end to the chaos tax. Marjorie Hass, Ph.D., is president of the Council of Independent Colleges, an organization serving more than 600 independent colleges and universities, based in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store