EDITOR:

I just read “McBroom Leaves Out Key Details” (Jan 15) and I have a few thoughts on the subject.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that Nancy Warren states “Michigan’s egg law is needed”. Later she makes a claim that the market is already going in the free direction. If the market is already taking care of the issue, why put another government mandate in place?

As a consumer, I feel very strongly that the governments job is limited to making sure an egg is safe for human consumption, not limiting the type of egg I may purchase or mandating what kind of egg I can put on my plate or in my meatloaf.

Until now, shoppers have had a large selection of cage and cage free eggs to choose from. As a shopper, I couldn’t help but notice that cage free meant “more money”. Was it because cage free eggs taste better, have more nutrition, are they larger, super? No, no, no and when it comes to safety, I prefer an egg produced in a wire cage (chicken poop falls through the wire) as opposed to an egg laid on a warehouse floor where thousands of birds defecate. Ms Warren stated that producers have spent a lot of money on “cage free” and that the new law is “farmer friendly”. Personally I have never met a farmer who considered a government mandate that increases costs as “farmer friendly”.

I view this whole subject as just one more step toward central planning and the inevitable higher prices, fewer choices and empty shelves that come with it.

Charles Smouthers, Jr.

Rapid River