Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen — one of the largest pork producers in the country — is behind the push to ban cultivated meat, saying he wants to protect ranchers and meat producers. The Republican governor signed an executive order last August to keep state agencies and contractors from procuring lab-created meat, even though it could be years before such products are on store shelves.

A number of ranchers and meat industry groups are pushing back on the governor’s plan.

Dan Morgan is a fourth-generation cattle rancher from central Nebraska who supplies high-end beef to all 50 states and six countries. He welcomes companies seeking to produce lab-grown meat to “jump into the pool” and try to compete with his Waygu beef. Stifling competition in a free market should be anathema in a Republican-dominated state like Nebraska, he said.

“It sounds like a bunch of right-wing Republicans echoing a bunch of left-wing Democrats,” he said, adding that the government should be limited to regulating the new product’s labels and inspecting its facilities to ensure food safety.

“After that, it’s up to the consumer to make the decision about what they buy and eat.”

Nebraska is among about a dozen states that have introduced measures to ban the manufacture, sale or distribution of lab-grown products, according to . Two states — Florida and Alabama — have already enacted such bans.

The target of the bills is “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured” meat, which is grown from the cells of animals in bioreactor steel tanks. The cells are bathed for weeks in nutrients, prompting them to grow and divide, turning them into skeletal muscle, fat and connective tissues.

The push to ban cultivated meat comes well before the innovation could be considered an industry. While more than two dozen companies are working to develop such meat products, only two — Upside Foods and Good Meat, both based in California — have been approved by the federal government to sell cultivated chicken in the U.S. Even then, none of the companies are close to mass producing and selling the products on store shelves.

In recent weeks, supporters of the Nebraska bill have shifted their arguments from industry protection to questions of safety surrounding cell-cultured meat. That includes its sponsor, state Sen. Barry DeKay, a Nebraska rancher, and Sherry Vinton, the director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Both testified in support of the bill at a committee hearing earlier this week, calling cultured meat “synthetic food” and voicing concern about possible health implications from eating it.

But it’s been no secret that the push for a ban is rooted in shielding Nebraska’s traditional meat industry. Nebraska tops all other states for beef production and beef exports, according to the Nebraska Department of Agriculture.

Pillen named the ban among his top priorities during his State of the State address last month.

“The backers of these products are cut from the same cloth as the anti-farmer activists who want to put our agriculture producers out of business, and we need to recognize them as such,” he said.

The Association for Meat, Poultry and Seafood Innovation, the lobbying group for the emerging cultured meat industry, disputes Pillen’s insistence that it’s a threat to the traditional meat industry, noting studies that show global demand for meat-based protein will double by 2050.

“We’re really a complementary component here,” said Suzi Gerber, executive director of the association. “So it’s a little bit mystifying to me why any individual stakeholder would see this as a threat.”

Several farm organizations, including Nebraska Farm Bureau, Nebraska Cattlemen and the Nebraska Pork Producers, agree they’re not worried about competition from the emerging industry. Those groups prefer a sister bill that would only require they be clearly labeled as lab-grown products to separate them from traditional meat. More than a dozen states have also issued similar labeling bills, and some — like Colorado — have seen ban efforts abandoned in favor of labeling measures.

Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which is representing Upside Foods in its lawsuit challenging the Florida ban. He said it’s no surprise most of the proposed bans are being pushed by those with connections to traditional agriculture.

“I think it certainly shows that the purpose of these laws isn’t about protecting public health and safety,” he said. “It’s about protecting traditional agriculture from economic competition. And that is not a legitimate use of government power.”