|Ranchers And Consumers Want This|
Why Aren't Our Reps Fighting For It?
(photo from foodsafetynews.com)
My take? Pubs got so much heat for shutting down the government two years ago that they just didn't have the political nerve to fight this budget proposal again by repeating that blunder of 2013. In the meantime, though, I'm a little steamed about how the COOL repudiation got stuck into this thing, as I believe our Congressional delegation owes it to their ranching community's voters to put this out as a separate item, worthy of consideration on its own merits. Slipping it inside a budget bill is chicken manure, and I'm surprised and perplexed as to why Noem, Rounds and Thune seem to have let it slide. Where was the vigorous defense of COOL, a cornerstone of ranching industry economics that also just happens to be favored by 93% of American consumers?
As a former cattle feeder and trader I've never been that much of a fan of COOL, considering its labeling requirements to be burdensome and unnecessary. Carcasses leaving meat packing plants in this country are inspected and graded to standards that apply to final products
|Kowgirl Kristi, Defiance Personified|
Why So Meek When It Comes To COOL?
(photo from sddp.org)
The problem that South Dakotans should be having with this is clear. Why did our U.S. reps roll over so easily and let COOL repeal slip through the process with nary a whimper? They've been quite supportive up to now, much to the delight of South Dakota's ranchers. Now all of a sudden they've clammed up and pretty much acquiesced to the extermination of one their pet issues. Fear of retaliatory trade measures is certainly a matter to be considered here, but the categorical rejection of a program that means much to South Dakota livestock producers, as well as consumers throughout the country, merits more than a mere yea or nay vote on a surrounding bill that has nothing to do with COOL, per se. Sans pushback or explanation, it doesn't say much for our congressional delegation.