VIEWPOINT | What’s the real threat to rural America?

Guest column by Craig Bieber

It’s easy to reduce complex policy issues to slogans and soundbites, but real leadership is looking beyond the headlines and making principled decisions that serve the long-term good.

There were plenty of soundbites, slogans, and bad policy proposals during the 2026 South Dakota Legislative Session meant to grab the attention of constituents and voters. Some candidates and political groups now attempt to paint legislators who cast principled votes as “anti-ag” or unwilling to stand up for farmers and ranchers. The clearest example of this is the attack on legislators who voted NO on House Bill 1077, a bill that would have defined cell-cultured protein as adulterated food, effectively banning the product from being sold in the state of South Dakota.

Many cattle producers have serious concerns about cell-cultured protein products. Many consumers share those concerns. But disliking a product and banning it through bad public policy are two very different things.

The legislators who voted against HB 1077 do not oppose agriculture, instead they recognized something critically important for the future of farming and ranching: creating state-level bans on federally approved products sets a dangerous precedent that could be used against traditional agriculture.

Cell-cultured protein products are currently regulated at the federal level by both FDA and USDA. Whether people agree with that approval or not, these products are legal under federal law and subject to federal oversight and inspection. If changes need to be made to how these products are regulated, labeled, or marketed, those discussions must happen at the federal level, not through a patchwork of inconsistent state-by-state bans.

What happens when another state decides conventional beef production is undesirable? Or that cattle should be raised only under certain standards? Or that methane emissions, land practices, water use, transportation, or feed ingredients justify restricting South Dakota-raised beef from entering their markets?

For years, farmers and ranchers have pushed back against states attempting to impose their preferences and production standards beyond their own borders. California’s Proposition 12 is the clearest examples.

Passed by California voters in 2018, Prop 12 establishes minimum space requirements for livestock including breeding pigs, egg-laying hens, and veal. Prop 12 prohibits the sale of products to California that don’t meet restrictive standards. This means producers across the country must either comply with California’s rules or lose access to the nation’s largest market. Prop 12 allows voters from one state to influence ag practices nationwide.

Once states weaponize commerce against industries they dislike, agriculture will not come out ahead. Less than 1 percent of the population is directly involved in production agriculture. Yet, that small group is responsible for feeding not only the United States but much of the world.

When policy decisions are driven by populations far removed from the realities of ag, the risk of unintended consequences grows significantly. If you want to talk about an attack on rural America, start passing short-sighted policies like HB 1077 and watch how quickly other states respond in kind. The moment states begin restricting products based on political preference rather than sound policy, it opens the door for retaliatory actions that could directly target South Dakota producers and limit access to critical markets.

South Dakota ag has long depended on consistent interstate commerce and open markets. Producers cannot simultaneously argue for free and fair access to markets while supporting state-level bans that undermine those same principles.

The easy political position would have been to support a headline-grabbing ban and campaign on it later. The harder and more responsible position was to step back and consider the long-term consequences for agricultural policy nationwide. South Dakota legislators that voted no on HB 1077 deserve recognition, not political attacks.

Supporting agriculture does not mean supporting every bill with an agriculture talking point attached to it. Sometimes supporting agriculture means having the discipline to oppose bad policy, even when the headlines are easier the other way.

As you head to the polls on June 2, I encourage you to apply the same thoughtful analysis these legislators did. Resist political attacks designed to create outrage without context. Look beyond campaign mailers, social media posts, and one-line accusations. Ask whether a policy truly protects agriculture in the long term or simply creates a good talking point for an election season.

Craig Bieber, McPherson County rancher, is the president of the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association (SDCA). SDCA is an organization that represents cattle producers across the state with policy created by cattlemen, for cattlemen. To learn more, visit sdcattlemen.org.