by Staff Reporter | Feb 28, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona House passed a bill, HB 2762, requiring food labels to disclose cultivated cell use with near-unanimous consent.
Cultivated cells are animal-derived stem cells grown within a lab into a meat alternative substance, or “lab-grown meat.” Unlike real meat, lab-grown meat doesn’t contain components like blood vessels, connective tissue, fat, or muscle fibers and therefore lacks naturally occurring essential nutrients that exist in real meat like iron, collagen, and taurine.
HB 2762, or the Andy Groseta Act, would require lab-grown meat to have the phrases “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured” on their packaging. Groseta was the former president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, and the Yavapai Cattle Growers Association.
State Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) declared in a press release that Arizona families have a right to transparency when it comes to their food.
“Arizona families should not have to decode fine print or marketing claims to know what they are buying,” said Nguyen. “If a food product is derived from cultivated cells, the label should say so plainly and directly. HB 2762 protects consumers from confusion at the grocery store and supports our ranchers and farmers who raise and grow real food under clear standards.”
Three Democratic lawmakers voted against the bill: Minority Whip Quanta Crews (D-LD26) and Reps. Brian Garcia (D-LD8) and Consuelo Hernandez (D-LD21). None explained their vote.
Five consumer products containing cultivated cells have completed premarket consultations with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the first of which was completed in November 2022. Premarket consultations evaluate food safety prior to their release on the market. Three of these products within that stage of premarket consultations are made with chicken cells, one from pork fat cells, and one from salmon cells.
The FDA and Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) established a formal agreement on their regulatory approach to lab-grown meat in 2019. The FDA oversees the collection, banking, and growth and differentiation stages of cells used to create lab-grown meat. FSIS oversees the cell harvesting, production, and labeling stages.
A similar bill that passed the House last year was held in the Senate.
Chairman Lupe Diaz (R-LD19) advised in the bill’s committee hearing last month that Republican leadership is also looking at banning cultivated cell products.
Democrats who voted against the bill in committee ended up voting for the bill on the House floor: Reps. Mae Peshlakai (D-LD6), Mariana Sandoval (D-LD23), and Stephanie Stahl Hamilton (D-LD21).
Sandoval said the bill was “a solution looking for a problem.” Sandoval said Arizona should leave food labeling decisions up to the federal government.
“State-specific mandates risk confusion, federal preemption, and unnecessary barriers to innovation,” said Sandoval.
Not only did Sandoval end up voting for the bill, she introduced the adopted amendment to clarify its language. Originally the bill would have required lab-grown meat to have the following disclosure on labels: “This food product is derived from cultivated cells.” Sandoval’s amendment provided two alternative shortened disclosures: “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured.”
Stakeholders against the bill include Sprouts, the Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, Arizona Retailers Association, and Good Food Institute. Those for the bill included the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association and Arizona Farm and Ranch Group.
Good Food Institute’s lobbyist Sam Richard said during the committee hearing that they support transparency and labeling for consumers, but argued the current bill limits companies’ access to the Arizona market since the legislation is Arizona-specific and not a national requirement.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Feb 19, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A legislative committee advanced a bill to take away some of Attorney General Kris Mayes’ authority over the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) on Monday.
House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) said in his committee explanation of the bill that Mayes’ recent “political theatrics” had “endangered” law enforcement officers, therefore justifying the existence of this legislation. Mayes said in a January interview that individuals had legal justification for shooting ICE and other law enforcement agents based on Arizona’s “Stand Your Ground” law.
In a press release, Montenegro said Mayes no longer deserved the responsibility of providing legal protection to DPS.
“Attorney General Mayes does not get to put officers at risk with reckless talk and then expect DPS to trust her office for legal protection,” said Montenegro. “The House censured her, and we are taking the next step. HB 2993 gives DPS the authority to hire counsel it trusts, without political strings attached. It also moves $5 million out of the Attorney General’s control and into GIITEM, the mission that targets gangs, cartels, and transnational criminals. Arizona is choosing officer safety and enforcement over Mayes’ political games.”
Nick Debus with the attorney general’s office wrote down their office’s opposition to the bill during the committee hearing on Monday, but did not appear to testify against the bill.
The bill passed along party lines, with Democrats against and Republicans for the proposed legislation. Those Democrats who explained their vote did not address the “why” behind the bill — Mayes’ provision of a legal defense for shooting law enforcement — but rather the taking of CPCF Funds from the attorney general’s office.
State Rep. Lorena Austin (D-LD9) said Montenegro’s bill was also political posturing by impeding the administration of another democratically elected official.
“I don’t think this is a way to instill trust in our public entities, I think when someone is doing a good job regarding consumer protections we should continue to let them do those things,” said Austin.
Likewise, Minority Whip Quanta Crews (D-LD26) expressed concerns that depleting the CPCF Fund would result in further harm to consumers. State Rep. Kevin Volk (D-LD17) said the current economic climate made this “tit for tat” legislation more harmful than helpful.
Republicans argued the legislation killed two birds with one stone: mitigating wasteful spending as illustrated by recent consumer fraud actions while freeing law enforcement of their reliance on an individual who had jeopardized their safety.
State Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30) said Mayes was guilty of “frivolous spending” related to consumer fraud actions. As an example, Gillette cited the consumer protection lawsuit filed last year against the Reynolds Corporation for its labeling on bags intended to collect recycling because they’re not suitable for recycling. Mayes’ press release on the lawsuit did acknowledge the bags came with a warning that they were not suitable for recycling but intended as temporary containers for sorting and collecting recyclable materials.
“We spent millions of dollars for this lawsuit to go absolutely nowhere. I can think of no better use of that money than to give it to law enforcement,” said Gillette. “Let’s get the drugs, the criminals, the bad people off the streets so we can live freely.”
State Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-LD3) said Mayes had created a “permission structure” for committing violence against law enforcement.
“When you’re telling people how to kill me and you’re going to let me get away with it, that’s not going to create that trust and confidence that’s necessary for effective representation,” said Kolodin.
The Arizona House passed a resolution censuring Mayes over her remarks on justified shootings earlier this month.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 17, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona House Ethics Chair Lupe Diaz (R-LD19) blasted Democrats Friday for “weaponizing” complaints against Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30). Democrat Reps. Oscar De Los Santos, Nancy Gutierrez, Quanta Crews, and Stacey Travers filed a complaint on September 10, citing an interview from Gillette and social media posts. They called his remarks “offensive” and “unbecoming of an elected official,” noting his criticism of radical Islamists and Sharia law.
In a string of posts to X referred to in the Democrats’ complaint, Rep. Gillette wrote, “Islamophobia is a construct of the Marxist left I reject. I hear them state that they stand with Hamas and Iran, they want to bring Sharia Law to the US. They chant death to US. I have years of direct experience with these savages. [Their] own religion preached convert or die. F**K EM. If they want here to become the s**t hole they left… they can go home. The democrats support them. DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA!”
Responding to subsequent comments, he clarified his position, stating, “I was critical of their policies. “Shiria(sic) Law and convert or die” are policy positions of Islam. Democrats want to install Socialism as a policy. I criticize both as they are repugnant to the Constitution. My reply is based on experience in the Middle East and Soviet Union. Not some leftist theory cooked up in a liberal college classroom with the same professors and systems that say there are 32 genders.. grow up and see reality…. remember Covid when you were told to wear a face covering, not work. The left forced this on us, not people like me.”
In their complaint, the Democrat lawmakers claimed, “Rep. Gillette referred to Muslims as ‘f***ing savages’ who don’t properly ‘assimilate’ into American culture. By referring to Muslims as ‘savages’ and ‘terrorists,’ Rep. Gillette dehumanized them and demonstrates his bigotry against an entire religious group, which constitutes about 1% of the population in this state.”
In a letter responding to the Democrat representatives, Chairman Diaz wrote that “remarks, statements, or opinions by a member, alone, are not traditionally the subject of an ethics inquiry. Subject to our House Rules regarding debate, members—like any other citizen—have a First Amendment right to the freedom of speech, as well as a right to freely speak under Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution.”
Citing the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Diaz added, “Moreover, particularly in light of recent events, it is imperative that government institutions protect the freedom of speech, rather than take actions to silence, punish, or censor speech simply because someone might find it offensive or disagreeable. The inquiry you request this Committee to make would result in no more than an inquiry into the sincerity of Representative Gillette’s beliefs or a debate into the merits of those beliefs— neither for which an Ethics Committee hearing is the proper venue.”
Diaz concluded, “It would be inconsistent with constitutional principles—and unprecedented, based on past practices of previous House Ethics Committee Chairmen presented with similar complaints to undertake any further review or investigation of your complaint. Accordingly, I will not take further action on this matter.”
He further added an admonishment to the Democratic representatives, urging them to review Rep. Gillette’s response to their press release announcing the complaint, entitled “Defending America Against Radical Ideologies and Political Hypocrisy,” and added, “To the extent that you have any lingering concerns about his statements, it would be prudent to engage in civil discourse rather than weaponizing the House Ethics Complaint process.”
In the statement, Gillette explained in part, “Immigrants are welcomed here as guests who can become fellow citizens, and gratitude, respect, and loyalty to our nation are the minimum expectations. Yet too often, what we see instead is a demand that Americans change our culture, our speech, or our religion so as not to ‘offend’ those who chose to come here. That is not assimilation—it is subversion. I will treat every human being with dignity and respect. But I will not, and Americans must not bow to the demands of those who place their foreign ideologies above our Constitution.”
Gillette defined the group he opposes as “radical Islamists,” who seek “the establishment of a worldwide caliphate,” adding, “While some [in] the Muslim world may practice their faith peacefully, many more have weaponized the concept of jihad to justify terrorism, mass murder, and political conquest.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 17, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona House Democrats will settle into a new term of office with fewer members in their caucus and a revised leadership team.
On Tuesday, Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives elected a team of members to lead their caucus over the next two years. They selected Representative De Los Santos as the House Minority Leader, Representative Nancy Gutierrez as House Minority Assistant Leader, and Representatives Quantá Crews and Stacey Travers as House Minority co-Whips.
“It’s an honor to be chosen to lead this outstanding caucus,” De Los Santos said. “This is a strong, smart and experienced team who will fight for you, for your public schools, for your rights, for our state’s precious resources, for your bottom line and for your neighborhood. We have tremendous challenges ahead as state, and as a country, but we will not back down from extremism, and we will face them together.”
Travers acknowledged her election as one of the Minority Whips, writing, “Thank you to everyone at AZ LD 12 Democrats who worked so hard, and above and beyond to help us get re-elected!”
The four Democrats are some of the most liberal in the Arizona House of Representatives. De Los Santos, Gutierrez, and Crews have a 0% Lifetime score according to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. Travers has a 2% score.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Page 1 of 11
