Latest news with #SenateAgricultureandNaturalResourcesCommittee
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Telehealth visits for pets? Ohio Senate votes 33-0 to let veterinarians add service
Jun. 4—Ohio veterinarians are one step closer to being cleared to hold telehealth consultations under state law following the Senate's 33-0 vote this week. Senate Bill 60, joint sponsored by local Sen. Steve Huffman, R-Tipp City, will now head to the Ohio House for further consideration. Huffman, a physician, told this outlet in January that he wanted to modernize the state's guidelines on veterinary medicine after seeing the benefits of telehealth in the medical field. "You know, it became very rapid and very successful in medicine because of COVID," Huffman said. "And to me, it sped up (progress); what was going to happen within 10 years we did within one year." He noted that veterinary telehealth visits, which currently are not permitted under Ohio law, could benefit Ohioans, particularly the elderly, who might "find it hard to get your cat to the veterinarian." In committee testimony, the bill received both support and opposition from individual vets and clinics, with detractors like veterinarian Andrea Miller concerned that "virtual care cannot replicate in-person evaluations." "As a practicing veterinarian, I've encountered countless cases where verbal symptom descriptions pointed to one diagnosis, but physical examination revealed a different condition — or multiple concurrent problems," Miller told the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee in May. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Push to ban lab-grown meat fails in South Dakota Senate
The South Dakota Senate convenes during the 2024 legislative session. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) A legislative effort to ban lab-grown meat in South Dakota failed Thursday at the Capitol in Pierre, after the success of earlier bills to require labeling and prohibit state spending in support of the product. The ban's initial failure was Wednesday on a 17-17 vote in the Senate, with one member absent. That was Sen. Kevin Jensen, R-Canton, who had voted for the bill when it advanced out of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. A supporter of the legislation, Sen. Mykala Voita, R-Bonesteel, made a motion Thursday to reconsider it. 'As we had one member of the body absent yesterday, I believe that we should reconsider this vote, and I'd appreciate your support,' Voita said. Lab-grown meat labeling, fees for serving legal papers, stenography rule change signed into law Two senators who voted for the bill on Wednesday — Ernie Otten, R-Tea, and Amber Hulse, R-Hot Springs — voted against the reconsideration motion, which rendered Jensen's support moot. The 19-16 vote against reconsideration dealt the bill its final defeat. Hulse told South Dakota Searchlight afterward that she'd heard enough senators planned to change their vote that the bill was doomed, so she didn't think it was worth debating again. In other words, she said, even if the reconsideration motion had been approved, a later vote on the bill itself might have failed. Coming from a district with many ranchers, Hulse said her initial vote for the legislation was a vote for some of those constituents. But she doubted whether the bill would stand up to constitutional challenges regarding the freedom of interstate commerce. 'I think the constitutionality of the bill, if I'm being quite honest, is questionable,' Hulse said. Otten did not immediately return a message from South Dakota Searchlight. Barring further procedural maneuvering — such as amending the ban into another piece of legislation — the push to prevent the manufacture, sale and distribution of lab-grown meat in South Dakota is likely over for this legislative session, which ends next month. Meanwhile, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden has already signed a bill that will require lab-grown meat products to be labeled. Another bill that would prohibit state government spending in support of research, production, promotion, sale or distribution of lab-grown meat has passed both chambers and is awaiting Rhoden's consideration. That bill includes an exception for public universities, but would prevent scenarios such as the state awarding economic development grants to lab-grown meat companies. Republican Rep. John Sjaarda, a Valley Springs farmer, proposed the ban and said Thursday that he was disappointed. He said the labeling bill, which applies to carcasses, parts of carcasses and meat food products, may work in stores but will not effectively alert restaurant diners who might not know when their dish is prepared with lab-grown meat. 'It does help,' Sjaarda said. 'I don't knock it. It's better than nothing.' The proposed ban divided agricultural groups, with some alleging that lab-grown meat has not been proven safe and that a ban would protect consumers and the state's livestock industry. Others said the product has been cleared by federal safety regulators and should be available in the marketplace. They also said supporting a ban is a hypocritical stance for farmers and ranchers who've opposed restrictions imposed by other states and countries on livestock production practices and genetically modified crops. Lab-grown meat, also called cell-cultured or cultivated meat, starts from a sample of animal cells that are fed the sugars, water, proteins and vitamins needed to grow into muscle and fat. Although the product is approved for sale, it's not yet widely available. Some other states, including Florida and Alabama, have banned lab-grown meat, and the Florida ban has sparked litigation from the industry. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
