What is COOL?
     
MEMBERSHIP FORM and PETITION

USDA HANDBOOK addresses Farmers as Uneducated

What is DEPOPULATION?

Points For Opposing Animal ID

Export Myths and Fairytales

NASS Survey Information

ARAPA Statement to the Senate Ag Committee

Codex Alimentarius

FORCED NAIS

Sound Science Killing Us

What Can I Do?

2006 ARKANSAS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH USDA

What are the vets saying?

BREAKING NEWS

Congressmen Speak Out

International Entanglements

What is COOL?

Mad Cow Madness

CONTACT US

By-Laws

2007 ARKANSAS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH USDA

Important Links

ARKANSAS ANIMAL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

Photos From Conway Meeting

FREEDOM TO FARM ACT UPDATES

ALERTS

Corporate Hostile Takeover

What About The Amish?

CONSTITUTION RULES

How do Packers fit in?

The Real Reason for Animal ID

AUSSIE ANIMAL ID IMPACT STUDY

Endangered Property Rights

Organic & Grassfed Growers Also Affected

DATABASES - How Safe Are They?

Wake Up, Farmers!

USDA/APHIS NAIS DOCUMENTS

CAPTIVE ANIMAL FACTORY FARMING

Technology Behind NAIS

AUSSIE RANCHER SPEAKS OUT

NIAA Conference Reports

Pushing Us Off Our Farms

Ag Lawyer Responds to the NAIS

NAIS SUMMARY

INDUSTRIALIZED FARMING

Uncle Sam Wants YOUR Animals!

HORSE TIMELINE FOR NAIS INCLUSION

NAIS DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN

What is REAL ID?

"CREATIVE" SIGN-UPS BY THE GOVERNMENT

Animal ID Problems in Other Countries

Farm Bureau Connection

NAIS Threatens Rare Breeds

RFID Tags - Good, Bad & Ugly

R-CALF USA Fights NAIS

Retired Army Colonel Rebuts NAIS

Equine Species Working Group Contacts

BRUCE KNIGHT'S SPEECH

INFO ON USDA'S NEW "USER'S GUIDE"

SCRAPIE ID for Goats/Sheep & the NAIS

NAIS ID Terminology

GETTING OUT OF THE NAIS

The PLUM ISLAND CONNECTION

The Plan is AGENDA 21

4-H, FFA Targeted at Fairs

MICROCHIPS Cause CANCER

Leon's Story - Chipped Dog Died From Cancer

TRACKING ROGUE CHICKENS

Protection From Terrorist Livestock

NAIS NEWS in OTHER STATES

Truth about FOOD CONTAMINATION

TRUTH about Foot & Mouth Vaccines

MICROCHIP PROBLEMS IN DUTCH HORSES

What is DELPHI TECHNIQUE

NEW INFORMATION ON EQUINES

2005 ARKANSAS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH USDA/APHIS

CONTACT GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS FOR ARKANSAS

Bird Flu Fowl Play

USDA, INCORPORATED

ECONOMIC IMPACT ON HORSE OWNERS

 
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING

Concerned consumers have been demanding Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) as they want to know what country the food they are buying has come from. Legislation was passed to require this labeling, but the mega-agribusinesses have used the USDA to get around it. Here are the ones who oppose COOL:  

List of mega-agribusinesses who oppose COOL

National Cattleman's Beef Assoc (NCBA)
National Food Processors  Association
WAL-MART
National Fisheries
CARGILL, INC.
TYSON FOODS
American Meats Institute
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU
Grocery Manufactures of America
National Grocers Association
Food Marketing Institute http://www.fmi.org/media/mediatext.cfm?id=774
http://www.fmi.org/media/mediatext.cfm?id=584

Sam Kane Beef Processors
Safeway
American Meat Association
National Pork Producers Council      (for Nais)
http://www.pork.org/NewsAndInformation/News/News%20Releases/NewsEdit.aspx?NewsID
=535
National Oilseed processors Association
American Frozen Food Institute
CON-AGRA FOODS
Altria/Kraft Foods
Swift
Smithfield Food
 
http://www.agribusinesscenter.org/docs/Tyson_Foods_7.pdf

Voluntary COOL Bill Introduced in House
ICON: Don't confuse COOL with animal ID Tell North Platte what you think
 

Putting a label on a package of meat that says where it originated and putting electronic tags in the ears of U.S cattle are not the same program, according to the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska.

NebraskaLand National BankCheck out our new FREE online Bill Pay?

“Nothing could be farther from the truth,” said John O’Dea of McCook, an ICON director.

The two programs -- “country of origin” and “national animal ID” -- are still under development after years of being in the process. Congress is expected to require country of origin labeling, or COOL, by the end of the year in a new Farm Bill.

Meanwhile in another program, the USDA is strongly encouraging ranchers to register their lands under the animal ID program.

The animal ID program stems from agri- and pharmaceutical companies, according to Iowa State University law professor Roger McEowen. It has the purported intent of quickly identifying, quarantining and destroying diseased herds.

COOL stems from independent cattle producers who seek to tell consumers which meats are imported.

O’Dea said large agri-businesses don’t want COOL to take full effect, but do want the national animal ID program.

He said they are trying to confuse the issue.

“What we are seeing is a last gasp attempt by COOL opponents to derail the program by linking it to a wildly unpopular national ID program,” O’Dea said. “In fact, the COOL law prohibits using a national ID program for purposes of establishing origin.”

“Don’t let anyone mislead you into believing you have to sign up, pay for and use their electronic ear tag and database program in order to sell cattle that will qualify as U.S. born and raised (under the COOL program),” said rancher Jim Hanna of Brownlee. “If the compromise amendments to the COOL law hold up, something as simple as a calving record book or verification of a first and last calving date and location will suffice.”

The U.S. House version of the Farm Bill says records already used in normal business practices would verify the country of origin, Hanna said.

ICON asks any producer who receives communication from a sale barn, veterinarian, tag vendor, “industry” organization or anyone else making claims about COOL and mandatory ID to let the organization know by contacting Terry Rothwell at the ICON office, 308-458-2758.

“The threat of reduced return for un-tagged cattle is a hollow one as well,” Hanna said “Tagged and un-tagged cattle have been selling this summer side by side with no observed premiums or discounts either way.”

 


 

The North Platte Bulletin - Published 9/11/2007
Copyright © 2007 northplattebulletin.com - All rights reserved.
Flatrock Publishing, Inc. - 1300 E 4th St., Suite F - North Platte, NE 69101

http://www.northplattebulletin.com/index.asp?show=news&action=readStory&storyID=12958&pageID=29

 *********************************************************************************************

Meatingplace.com, 5/5/05
A bipartisan group of legislators introduced a bill in the US House of Representatives called the "Meat Promotion Act of 2005" (HR 2068). The bill is strongly supported by several meat industry groups because it would overrule a mandatory labeling program currently planned to go into effect in September 2006 and viewed as too expensive by producers.


http://www.farmedanimal.net/faw/faw5-18.htm

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ansi/cool/

The USDA is required by law to issue regulations that become mandatory on September 30, 2004. It is assumed that the USDA will then provide the information needed for producers, packers, suppliers and retailers to establish recordkeeping systems to verify country of origin. Until then, the website has also included suggestions by USDA and others regarding the documentation and verification of country of origin.

The collection of documents on this website is hardly complete and will be updated as needed. News items will also be added as they occur. If you know of information that needs to be added please let us know.
 

A COOL Review - Country of Origin Labeling - Kansas State University's review of the COOL law and voluntary guidelines.

 

Voluntary COOL

The Meat Promotion Act of 2005, H. R. 2068 - House Agriculture Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and 33 co-sponsors introduced a bill on May 4, 2005 that would create a voluntary COOL program for meat only.

H. R. 2068 Sponsors - Sponsor list.

Goodlatte Introduces Voluntary Country-of-Origin Labeling (V-COOL) Legislation - House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte today introduced voluntary country-of-origin labeling (V-COOL) legislation, H.R. 2068, for the domestic meat industry. Goodlatte introduced the legislation with 33 cosponsors and comes in response to mandatory provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill requiring retailers to inform consumers of the country-of-origin at the final point of sale for covered commodities. News from the House Agricultural Committee, May 4, 2005.

 

 Proposed Mandatory Rules

Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Fish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, and Peanuts; Proposed Rule (Text format) - USDA's proposed mandatory COOL rules published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2003. It includes explanations for the proposed rules and specific requests for public comment.

Laws

2002 Farm Bill - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (PDF) - This is the entire 2002 Farm Bill.  The Country of Origin is three pages long and is listed below.

Subtitle D-Country of Origin Labeling (PDF) - The section from the 2002 Farm Bill (listed above) that contains the COOL law.

Farm Bill COOL provision amended by Sec. 208 of the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act - This ammendment specifically with wild fish.

The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (PDF) - The Country of Origin Labeling Law in the Farm Bill was an amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

Guidelines

Establishment of Guidelines for the Interim Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Fish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, and Peanuts - The voluntary guidelines for COOL, currently in effect, which will be used in the development of the mandatory regulations.

Interim Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling - Questions and Answers - Answers to specific questions on information contained in the COOL voluntary guidelines.

2002 FARM BILL PROVISIONS ON USDA WEBSITE: 

On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, more commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill. One of its many initiatives requires country of origin labeling for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts. On January 27, 2004, President Bush signed Public Law 108-199 which delays the implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006.  On November 10, 2005, President Bush signed Public Law 109-97, which delays the implementation for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised and shellfish until September 30, 2008. As described in the legislation, program implementation is the responsibility of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. 

Federal Register Rulemaking

  • Notice to the Trade--Clarification of documentation and recordkeeping requirements - [Text] [PDF]
  • Proposed Rule -extension of comment period; correction- Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Fish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, and Peanuts  [PDF] [Text]
  • Proposed Rule - Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Fish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, and Peanuts - [PDF] [Text]
  • January 22, 2003 - Notice of Request for Emergency Approval of a New Information Collection - [Text] [PDF]

  • November 21 - Notice of Request for Emergency Approval of a New Information Collection - [Text]  [PDF]
  • October 11 - Guidelines for Interim Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling - [Text]  [PDF]

News Releases

Farm Bill Language

Federal Register Rulemaking

  • Notice to the Trade--Clarification of documentation and recordkeeping requirements - [Text] [PDF]
  • Proposed Rule -extension of comment period; correction- Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Fish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, and Peanuts  [PDF] [Text]
  • Proposed Rule - Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Fish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, and Peanuts - [PDF] [Text]
  • January 22, 2003 - Notice of Request for Emergency Approval of a New Information Collection - [Text] [PDF]

  • November 21 - Notice of Request for Emergency Approval of a New Information Collection - [Text]  [PDF]
  • October 11 - Guidelines for Interim Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling - [Text]  [PDF]

News Releases

Farm Bill Language

 

In 2004, COOL became mandatory - it hasn't happened. Why? Isn't it interesting how the mega-agribusinesses don't want consumers to have the COOL, and they cite the expense as a reason they shouldn't have to do it...but when it comes to MILLIONS of American animal owners/producers objecting to the costs of the NAIS, those same agri-businesses think it's just FINE for us to bear that undue financial burden.

 WE WANT COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING ON OUR MEAT/FOOD, NOT TAGS ON OUR COWS!

SEE HOW THE *BIG GUYS* ARE TRYING TO GET AROUND COOL? THEIR LATEST TACTIC - PUT NAIS *WITH* COOL!!

 Pork Producers United in Concern Over Mandatory COOL

 
Farmscape Staff
Farmscape Article 2444  March 31, 2007 Pork producers on both sides of the Canada U.S. border are voicing concerns in the wake of the resurgence of efforts to implement mandatory Country of Origin Labeling in the United States. A product t of the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill, Mandatory COOL has been twice delayed, first to 2006 and then to 2008 by U.S. Congressional legislation which denied the U.S. Agriculture Department the necessary funding for its implementation. Many observers no longer expect the mandatory labeling provisions scheduled to go into effect at the end of September 2008 to be delayed. Mandatory Cool Offers More Cost than Benefit“We’ve always said that we felt country of origin labeling, as it is, is more cost than benefit back to the producer,” says Joy Philippi, the immediate past president of the U.S. based National Pork Producers Council. She estimates the rules, as written for the program, could result in, “… Around a ten dollar per head cost” and adds that right now is a very bad time to add anything to the cost of production. COOL a Cause for Concern on Both Sides of the BorderMartin Rice, the Executive Director of the Canadian Pork Council agrees. “This is a problem for the whole North American hog and beef industries,” he says. “This is going to add significant costs to the value chain for delivering hogs and pigs because it will require a great deal of record keeping and systems for auditing and so on. Those are costs that are not on the backs of the chicken sector or the turkey sector. It's going to create cost disadvantages for pork and beef vis-à-vis chicken.” Philippi points out, “As it was originally written, we would have to identify every pig for the born, raised and slaughtered provision. That would mean a pig that was born in Canada would then be a Canadian pig that was born and then raised and slaughtered in the United States. All of those things would have to be noted on the label.” “We believe in voluntary country of origin labeling,” she adds. “We have producers that use that kind of program today, not many, but there are some and they do receive better proceeds back. However, if all product is labeled according to country of origin labeling then some of those that have the specialty markets will not get the benefits back that they had been receiving.” Mandatory COOL Could Cause Negative Reaction at RetailRice also fears it may cause some people in the value chain, the retailers for example, to be less interested in dealing with those products because it does involve costs that they don’t have for chicken. It could even deny consumers some of the current choices they have. “We would fear that all these costs are going to be imposed on the supply chain and not passed along to consumers because consumers frankly didn't ask for this and are not likely to want to pay anything more for the products to accommodate it,” he says. Philippi adds, “If it’s going to cost the retailers more to do all this labeling and segregation we understand that those costs would be passed back to the producers of the product itself.” The Canadian Pork Council has been following the experience with Country of Origin labeling for fish and shell fish, which has been in effect now for two or three years. “What we have heard and learned,” observes Rice, “is that it has not been something that consumers have expressed satisfaction over and has not increased the price of fish and shellfish or increased the consumption of it. It has simply been an additional burden that the sector has had to carry.” COOL Could Piggyback Animal IdentificationPhilippi observes, “The desire that we hear from congress is that they would like to look at putting M-COOL and ID (livestock identification) together.” “We’re willing to work with them on that, but the one thing we stress to them is though that what ever we put together has to be a low cost solution for this. We believe there would have to be quite a bit of change in the rule itself.” She adds, “We think that would be one way we could get an ID program running but it would have to be done right so it wasn't very costly back to producers. We looked very closely at the response from the shell fish industry and we just can't see that the program, as it is, would work for us.” September 2008 Implementation Most LikelyM-COOL is currently expected to be put into effect by the end of September of 2008 but there efforts to move up that time table. Rice observes, “There seem to be so many challenges to implement COOL, to set up the record keeping systems, to set up the auditing systems, that many believe it's simply impossible to implement it any sooner than late 08.” However he admits, “Right now the fear is that it will be coming sooner than later.” Philippi insists, “If the ID program is worked in it would absolutely have to be rewritten as well. We question the necessity of having a born provision in there. That adds a lot of cost to the record keeping and segregation of everything in the plants and that would be passed back to us. We just can’t see that there’s any benefit in having to keep track of where a pig is born, when it’s more important where it’s raised and slaughtered.” CPC to Support U.S. Producer Based Efforts to Address the ProblemsRice notes, “We are looking for opportunities to strengthen messages that are already being delivered by U.S. interests. We would look at the U.S. interests and the U.S. opposition to mandatory COOL as being what the U.S. congress will listen to. Frankly they're not going to be persuaded by people who don't vote.” However he points out, “We have, in the past, had a recognition of the points we submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture whenever it asked for comments on COOL. Indeed we did put in comments on the fish and shellfish rule where we raised a number of issues with mandatory country of origin labeling.” “And we have asked that the U.S. open the comment period for the final COOL rule because we think there still is opportunities to change the elements of the rule to make it less onerous for the industry. But we’ve also said that it is a question whether it adds any value for consumers or whether it just represents an additional cost for the industry.”

http://www.farmscape.ca/f2ShowScript.aspx?i=22341&q=Pork+Producers+United+in+Concern+Over+Mandatory+COOL

"COOL is law now and not implemented. If implemented, COOL would eliminate the need for NAIS if present trace backs which work were kept in place and every import labeled. LACK of COOL is the sneaking in of disease and unfair competition under the guise of USDA treaty enforcement for the Multi National Corporations which do not want any transparency on how they and USDA and Multi National Corporations Congressional Representative are working.  The bought and paid for Representatives block the funding for COOL which is law on the books but promote funding for NAIS which is a USDA Homeland Security "rule" snuck in a WTO treaty MANDATE, not voted on by any citizen or legislator.  COOL means transparency,  NAIS means more hidden unfair competition." 

Sue Karber, Oklahoma cattle producer

**********************************************************************************************

Linking COOL With NAIS Means Trouble For Consumers and Small Farmers & Ranchers  

By Col. Randy Givens (retired) - April 09, 2007

          For years, consumers, farmers and ranchers have pushed for the adoption and implementation of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for agricultural products. COOL will simply require that all agricultural products sold in the U.S. be labeled as to what country they originated from. That way, the consumer can tell if the products they are considering buying are grown and processed under the U.S. food safety laws, or if they were grown and processed in a country which has far less stringent laws and procedures for food safety.

Additionally, COOL allows American consumers to decide if they want to support American farmers and ranchers under the “Buy American” concept, or if they want to support global corporate agriculture giants. Those Industrial Agriculture companies are responsible for importing much of the food we currently buy. Unfortunately, when evaluating food to buy, we have no idea where it was grown, by whom, and under what conditions it was harvested, processed, and shipped.

Many Americans want to be able to choose between locally/regionally grown American food products and the unknowns associated with imported food products. Accordingly, they were able to mount a grass roots campaign and got COOL legislation passed by the U.S. Congress. Since then, those globalist corporations who seek to make their profits from selling us imported food have managed to block the implementation of the laws mandating COOL in the U.S. Grassroots efforts are gaining momentum to finally get COOL implemented and give consumers the choice they need and want.

Now, the globalist corporations have come up with a strategy to turn a grassroots victory for consumers and small farmers and ranchers into a disaster for non-corporate food production in the U.S. They are proposing to link the implementation of COOL with mandating the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). According to their plan, if COOL is implemented, NAIS must be implemented. As Americans have been pushing the implementation of COOL from the grassroots, they have also been battling NAIS as a threat to pet ownership, and the existence of small farmers and ranchers. Big agriculture sees their loss on the ultimate implementation of COOL as a way to win by forcing NAIS down our throats.

NAIS is an industry-government plan to identify and track every single livestock animal in the U.S., from birth to death. NAIS would use microchips or Radio Frequency Identification Devices for most animals, and the information would be stored in massive privatized databases, creating huge profits for both the companies making and selling electronic devices, and those that manage databases. NAIS does not track meat from the slaughterhouse and processing plants, where most contaminations occur, to the grocery store. Therefore, it has nothing to do with food safety. NAIS was invented by and for the corporate agriculture companies and their high tech allies. NAIS is simply a way for big companies to force small farmers and ranchers out of business, so that the international giant agricultural corporations can comply with foreign requirements, and sell more U.S. grown meat in foreign countries.

In order to do that, the businesses pushing NAIS want everyone who owns just ONE, (or more), chicken, pig, sheep, goat, cow, or horse to have their animals electronically tagged when they leave the place (premises) where they are born, and report (within 24 hours) into centralized databases all movements of those animals off those premises, or the sale or death of those animals. The animal owners – including pet owners and small farmers and ranchers – will bear the high costs in both time and money. Many people, who keep one horse as a pet, or a few chickens for eggs, will be forced to get rid of their animals. Small farmers and ranchers will find the costs of these tagging, monitoring, and reporting systems simply unaffordable, driving them out of business.

As these pet owners are forced to get rid of their animals, and the small farmers and ranchers are driven out of business, the businesses that sell to them will lose their customer base, and also be driven out of business. NAIS spells economic ruin for rural communities. The only agricultural operations that will be able to stay in business are the giant farms, ranches, and meat processing companies which will be able to afford the NAIS electronic requirements because of the huge scale at which they operate.

For instance, NAIS will require people with backyard flocks of, say, 20 chickens, who produce eggs for themselves and maybe a neighbor or two, to tag each of their chickens, because they were born on different “premises”. The small flock owners will have to maintain records on each chicken, and report each sale or death of a chicken to the centralized database, within 24 hours. That will require them to own a computer and internet connection to do the reporting, or file reports through overnight mail. If one chicken is killed and hauled off by a coyote, they will have to round up the remaining 19 chickens just so they can report which one got hauled off by the coyote! People who own animals such as horses, sheep, goats, or cows will have to use electronic identification, which means also owning an electronic tag reader, or paying people to perform that service for them.

Meanwhile, down the road, the corporation which operates a giant chicken farm, with 10,000 chickens at one place, will have to pay only one premises registration fee and can manage its huge flocks with only one tag per flock. This is because they produce and maintain flocks as a single unit as they move through their production chain, without mixing flocks from different sources. Therefore, their cost per chicken being tagged, tracked, and reported, is very small compared to the small farmer. As the costs for the small farmer increase, the costs for the giant corporation decrease. This will drive the small farmer out of business and allow the giant corporation to gain more control over the market. As the giant corporations gain more control over the market, eliminating competition from small farmers, they will be able to set the (their) price for the food we buy. The corporate giant wins, and the consumer and small farmer lose.

Even if we “win” by finally getting COOL implemented, it will be a hollow victory if globalist agricultural giants force us to implement NAIS. NAIS will destroy small farmers and ranchers, eliminating any competition with their food products at the grocery store. If we let corporate agricultural giants win on forcing the implementation of NAIS with COOL, Americans will end up with LESS choice at the supermarket, and higher prices for their food, as the agricultural giants will have eliminated competition.

We must not let those corporate giants force NAIS on us. Please contact your members of Congress and let them know that NAIS is bad for American agriculture, bad for American business, and bad for American consumers … who are America’s voters. To find out how to contact your Congressmen, go to VoteSmart. For more information about NAIS and what you can do to stop it, go to Liberty Ark Coalition. If you would like to help, please sign the support pledge. There's power in numbers.

 From eco-logic at http://freedom.org