There appears to be an attempt to link Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) to a mandatory National Animal Identification System (NAIS). This is an immediate alert as there will be voting Thursday morning at 10 am in the House in Washington, DC. See Mary Zanoni’s comments below. Act now to prevent this abuse of small livestock owners!
Background
COOL is good. It lets you know where your food came from. Wouldn’t you like to know if your wheat or rice was from China? Big corporations have been fighting against COOL for years because they’re afraid they won’t be able to pass of cheap foreign imports as food. COOL benefits consumers and farmers by stopping big importers from substituting foreign imports as American products.
NAIS is bad. It makes you register your property with the government, tag every animal (unless you’re a big corporation who gets to use Group ID tags) and then track all animal movements reporting them to the government. NAIS is for the benefit of big corporations wanting to make more profits exporting the highest quality meats to foreign markets. NAIS burdens small farmers and livestock owners. Ultimately NAIS will result in higher prices for consumers and less food security & safety as more and more production falls into the hands of fewer and fewer large corporations.
We don’t need NAIS to have COOL. When food is imported it can be labeled as imported - same as any other import product. There is no need to burden livestock owners, homesteaders and small farmers with NAIS just so the big boys can pad their fat arses.
What is happening in Congress right now is that through some tricky wording they may be linking NAIS and COOL. Here’s what lawyer Mary Zanoni has to say:
Tomorrow, Thurs. 5/24/07 at 10:00 am, the U.S. House Agriculture Committee’s Livestock, Dairy and Poultry (LDP) Subcommittee will be considering some draft provisions of the Farm Bill, including a provision that would help pave the way for a mandatory NAIS. Specifically, the provision in question, section 121 of the LDP Subcommittee discussion draft, would repeal an existing law that prohibits the USDA from using a “mandatory identification system” to implement Country of Origin Labelling.
At tomorrow’s meeting, members of the LDP Subcommittee can offer amendments to the existing discussion draft. When the discussion draft was released earlier this afternoon, I wrote to NY’s Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to ask her to offer an amendment at tomorrow’s meeting to strike section 121 from the discussion draft — this would have the effect of preserving the prohibition against use of a “mandatory identification system” that is in the present COOL law.
Primary Action
Contact:
Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand
120 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5614
Fax: (202) 225-1168
If you are in her district (20th) in New York then you can email her. If you are outside her district then please contact her assistant Sean Gavin by email or fax them at the above fax number. Please keep your letters short, concise and polite. Congresswoman Gillibrand may be able to help American farmers and livestock owners oppose NAIS and support COOL by introducing an amendment. Here is the message:
Title:No NAIS — strike Section 121 from the Farm Bill discussion draft
2nd Action
Copy the same email to all other members of the Livestock/Dairy/Poultry Subcommittee. Their addresses are here. Scroll down to the “Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry” section and click “View Members”.
3rd Action - Bonus Points
Send a copy to your House and Senate representatives just so they hear the word of the common folk, consumers and livestock owners united against more corporate greed.
Hat tips to Irene & Mary
Don’t be afraid to call, e-mail, or fax them tonight. They are feeling pressure from both sides and this letter should help to overcome some of the underhanded tactics of our opponents. Here is the fax and emails I sent. (I posted the letter sent by corporate ag on most groups if you want to see it. They say they represent you and I)
Feel free to fax this letter as well, or write your own to tell each Subcommittee member that the packers and processors do not represent you! If you want, you can just copy and paste this letter but be sure and add your own signature and address.
May 23, 2007
The Honorable Leonard Boswell, Chairman
House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock Dairy and Poultry
United States House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Boswell and Members of the Committee,
Today you received a letter from the Meat and Poultry Promotion Coalition that purports to represent the interests of “a vast majority of the livestock, poultry, and meat producers in the U.S.” (Emphasis added.) The signatories are urging you, on behalf of producers, to vote against H.R. 2135. They also are trying to embed Country of Origin Label with National Animal Identification which is further destruction of competition and transparency so I want to go on record as wanting Section 121 struck from the Farm Bill discussion draft .
This letter is an attempt to mislead you. The letter’s signatories, specifically Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill, Swift & Co., and National Beef are the four largest U.S. meatpackers that now control over 80 percent of the steer and heifer slaughter in the U.S. The American Meat Institute and the National Meat Association are their trade associations. These entities are not producers, they are meat packers and meat processors - they do not represent the interests of the livestock farmers and ranchers that H.R. 2135 seeks to protect.
Not a single one of these entities represents any of the 15,000 independent cattle-producer members of R-CALF USA. In fact these entities economic interests are in direct competition with the economic interests of the U.S. farmers and ranchers. U.S. cattle producers and these meat packers and meat processors compete against each other to maximize their respective profits, minimize their respective risks, and enhance their respective competitiveness.
We trust you will recognize the tremendous disparity in market power between the highly concentrated meat packers and processors and the U.S. farmers and ranchers who produce cattle. Also strike Section 121 from the Farm Bill discussion draft as this is an attempt to bury National Animal Identification into the Farm Bill which also destroys competition and transparency in competition. Country of Origin is good for transparency but NAIS is not good for anything but destruction of competition.
H.R. 2135 is an essential measure to level the economic playing field between producers and packers and processors. Your support of H.R. 2135, H.R. 2213, and a ban on packer ownership is needed to ensure that there will be robust competition in U.S. livestock markets. It is also essential to strike Section 121 from the Farm Bill discussion draft.
Sincerely,
Sue Karber Oklahoma Membership Chair R-Calf USA
MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, AND POULTRY
Democrats: Phone Fax
Leonard L. Boswell, Chair (IA) 202-225-3806 202-225-5608
Kirsten Gillibrand, Vice-chair (NY) 202-225-5614 202-225-1168
Steve Kagen (WI) 202-225-5665 202-225-5729
Tim Holden (PA) 202-225-5546 202-226-0996
Joe Baca (CA) 202-225-6161 202-225-8671
Dennis Cardoza (CA) 202-225-6131 202-225-0819
Nicholas Lampson (TX) 202-225-5951 202-225-5241
Joe Donnelly (IN) 202-225-3915 202-225-6798
Jim Costa (CA) 202-225-3341 202-225-9308
Timothy Mahoney (FL) 202-225-5792 202-225-3132
Republicans:
Robin Hayes, Ranking Member (NC) 202-225-3715 202-225-4036
Michael Rogers (AL) 202-225-3261 202-226-8485
Steve King (IA) 202-225-4426 202-225-3193
Virginia Foxx (NC) 202-225-2071 202-225-2995
Mike Conaway (TX) 202-225-3605 202-225-1783
Jean Schmidt (OH) 202-225-3164 202-225-1992
Adrian Smith (NE) 202-225-6435 202-225-0207
Tim Walberg (MI) 202-225-6276 202-225-6281
Comment Sue Karber — May 23, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Randy Kuhl is on Ag. Comm. NY’s 29 dist. Also can contact his aid at bob.van.wicklin@mail.house.gov
They are down to earth and will listen. Randy has a town meeting in EVERY town in his district EVERY year.
Comment gordon — May 23, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
NO NAIS, support our local farmers, do the right thing.
Comment Heather Tubbs — May 23, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
It is very interesting how this has all come into play since the Food Chain interview (Show #542) on COOL between R-Calf CEO and the CEO of the National Meat Association. In that discussion it appeared to me that a few “staged” callers phoned in to purport to be producers, yet they spoke more like processors. While the need for COOL and the Costs of it were downplayed the Spectre of NAIS raised its ugly head a few times. I just wish Micheal Olson were a bit more like Derry Brownfield and call BS BS when he hears it.
Comment Podchef — May 23, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Strike Section 121 from the discussion draft of the Farm Bill.
Stop subsidizing the LARGE meat producers. You won’t get to have a choice in the manner in which your food is produced if you continue to drive small farmers into the ground. NAIS benefits no one and does NOT do the job it was intended to do.
Please - No NAIS!
Comment P.J. Benet-Davis — May 24, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Podchef, here is the letter all R-Calf People are sending on this issue..along with the competitive letter. Everyone should keep hitting all their reps and the whole ag committee as well as the subcommittee.
May 23, 2007
The Honorable Leonard Boswell, Chairman
House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock Dairy and Poultry
United States House of Representatives
1427 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Boswell and Members of the Committee,
The 15,000 cattle ranchers and farmers that are members of R-CALF USA encourage you to oppose the language in the Chairman’s Mark of the 2007 Farm Bill at Title 1, Subtitle B, Section 121 that would repeal the prohibition against the USDA’s use of a mandatory identification system to verify country of origin of beef and other commodities.
The current prohibition provides important protections to U.S. livestock producers from the possibility that the Secretary of Agriculture would choose an overly expensive and overly cumbersome methodology, i.e., a mandatory animal identification system, for which to verify the origins of cattle and other livestock from which the commodities covered under the country of origin labeling (COOL) law are derived, i.e., beef, lamb, and pork.
The use of a mandatory animal identification system for purposes of implementing COOL would be overkill, as the COOL law only requires the differentiation of countries, i.e., the U.S. and foreign countries, not the differentiation of U.S. regions, states, counties, or ranches and farms.
The COOL Act already provides the USDA with various models for which to verify the origins of covered commodities, including the model of the National School Lunch Act. This Act uses a “presumption of domestic origin” to verify the eligibility of commodities eligible to be fed to our school children. Under the school lunch act, the USDA identifies the ineligible commodities, i.e., imported meat and meat derived from animals imported for direct slaughter. All other meat that does not fall under these exclusions is presumed to be of domestic origin and is eligible for U.S. school lunch programs. This is how COOL was intended to be implemented, without imposing a costly mandatory animal identification system on U.S. cattle farmers and ranchers.
The problem today is that the USDA does not support COOL and, therefore, does not want to provide a simplified means of making COOL work. This is why the repeal of the prohibition against the use of an animal identification system would be harmful to livestock producers - it would provide the USDA a tool to make COOL implementation onerous.
Using the cattle industry as an example, all that is needed to implement COOL is the ability to identify the origins of the approximately 2.5 million cattle that are imported annually into the U.S. This ability already exists because USDA requires all cattle imported from Canada and Mexico to be permanently marked with their mark of origin (All Mexican cattle are either branded or affixed with a metal ear tag and all Canadian cattle are either branded or delivered to slaughterhouses in sealed trucks). It is not practical nor cost effective to require 100 percent of the 97 million cattle in the U.S. to be subject to an animal identification system just to identify the less than 3 percent of annually imported cattle that are ineligible for the USA label (During the peak import year of 2002, the U.S. imported 2.5 million head of cattle from Canada and Mexico, representing less than 3 percent of the 97 million cattle in the U.S.). Using permanent markings on all imported cattl
e (which marks could be required more permanently by removing livestock from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s J-list) and presuming all unmarked cattle to be born and raised in the U.S. is the most accurate, practical, and cost-effective means of implementing COOL.
Sincerely,
Bill Bullard
CEO
406-670-8157
billbullard@r-calfusa.com
Comment Sue Karber — May 24, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
This morning I was optimistic, having received a very nice and positive email from Mr. Gavin thanking me for expressing my views.
However this text from the latest AgPress Alert seems to say our efforts in the past 24 hours have been in vain:
”
Subtitle B - Miscellaneous Provisions: The discussion draft also repeals the prohibition on the use of a mandatory animal
identification system to implement country-of-origin labeling, recognizes the importance of eradicating pseudorabies in swine under
the Animal Health Protection Act, and prevents a State or locality from prohibiting the interstate shipment of USDA-inspected and
approved meat.”
Is there any way to turn this gargantuan behemoth around before the leviathan steamrollers over all of us? It seems like the 2007 Farm Bill is destined to place the hands of American Agriculture even further in the hands of the corporations than the 2002 Bill. If we don’t get another chance for 5 years to turn this train wreck around the agricultural and edible state of this nation is going to be even more at the mercy of Multinational Corporations who don’t care a whit about the rest of us.
Is it yet time to spill milk, spinach, dog food and ethanol in the streets in protest?
Comment Podchef — May 24, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
This is how the meeting went today with Bill Bullard CEO of
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America attending. We try to have him or several of our volunteer members present at every hearing. For the next few months we have to hit our reps and AG committee with everything and not let up. Fax and Calls are best and for the record always.
Get every human being you know to call, fax, email…we need to keep the pressure up and constant.
House Livestock Subcommittee Proceeds Cautiously on Livestock Competition Reforms
For Immediate Release:
Washington, D.C. – Today the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry (Subcommittee) took the first formal step, lasting less than two hours, in the arduous process of developing the House version of the 2007 Farm Bill.
In previous years, the House Agriculture Committee flatly rejected proposals by cattle farmers and ranchers to make competition-related reforms, which resulted in the notable absence of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meat and a limitation on packer ownership of livestock in the House version of the 2002 Farm Bill. Predictions of a similar fate for renewed competition reforms could not be read into this year’s outset of the House Farm Bill.
R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard attended the hearing and said when it came to amendments that his organization holds particular interest in, it appeared that Subcommittee Chairman Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, was carefully weighing the level of opposition among his other Subcommittee members.
“Though it was anticipated that Chairman Boswell would introduce the entirety of his previously introduced H.R. 2135, a bill to prohibit unfair practices and strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act, only excerpts from the bill were offered as amendments, and only the provision dealing with arbitration clauses was brought to a vote,” said Bullard. “All others, including an amendment to improve price transparency in forward contracts, were withdrawn.”
In two roll-call votes, both 8-6 along party line votes that favored the sponsors, two amendments to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson’s, D-Minn., first draft of the 2007 Farm Bill were passed. The first, introduced by Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis., provides relief to domestic veal farmers that suffered market-depressing prices as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The second, introduced by Boswell, reforms current livestock contract language dealing with arbitration clauses. The amendment allows the use of arbitration after a dispute arises between the producer and the integrator and provided both parties to the dispute agree to arbitration.
“The fact that both votes cut along party lines without all the members voting, and the fact that Ranking Member Robin Hayes, R-N.C., had attempted to persuade Chairman Boswell to ignore the favorable vote on the arbitration amendment and, instead, lump all the competition reforms into a single package for full Agriculture Committee consideration, suggests the outcome of any further votes would have been unpredictable,” he commented.
Bullard said R-CALF USA is disappointed that the Subcommittee did not immediately amend the Farm Bill to eliminate language that would allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to tie animal identification to COOL. Also disappointing, he said, was the fact there were no amendments to include the entirety of Chairman Boswell’s competition bill (H.R. 2135), the captive supply reform act (H.R. 2213), or a ban on packer ownership.
“On the positive side, no adverse votes were cast that would slow R-CALF’s efforts to include its reforms into the 2007 Farm Bill,” he noted.
Another amendment offered by Kagen would have allowed the interstate shipment of state-inspected meat, provided the state-inspected meat plants matched or exceeded federal standards. Though the amendment received favorable comments from both sides of the aisle, and an Administration official testified that 27 of the 28 states that operate state meat inspection programs already are certified as equal to, or greater than, the federal program, the amendment was not voted on. Instead, the sponsor agreed to work to further simplify the amendment’s language and bring it to a vote before the full House Agriculture Committee at a later date.
“The fact that all of our issues are still alive shows that our cattle-producing members from all across the country demonstrated significant, initial strength through their calls, faxes, and e-mails to each member of the Subcommittee,” Bullard said. “Their efforts prevented any attempt to cause an early death to our reforms. Our challenge now is to continually build momentum for each of our reforms over the next couple of months so they become a reality in the 2007 Farm Bill.”
# # #
R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization and is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on both domestic and international trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA has more than 60 affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
Comment Sue Karber — May 24, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Thanks for the updates Sue. I admit I have been slow to join R-Calf.
Narrowly escaped livestock disaster today as the in-calf milk cow I was trying to purchase, but opted out a few weeks ago because she was too wild, bore a dead heifer calf (luck for me, not the cow or the owner). It and the vet bill for removing the upside-down, backwards breech could have been mine. . . At any rate if and when I get my earnest money back I’ll join R-Calf with it.
Comment Podchef — May 24, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Podchef, R-Calf is the only way I have found to put numbers with real legislative change. If every individual be they self use raisers, independents, consumer would just help promote the policies and legislation we can overwhelm the ag committees, send real constitutionalist to representative status and turn things around. Sometimes we only have hours to hit the issues due to all the Washington sneaky, hidden, underhanded measures to get things in without anyone but a handful knowing about the attack. Those with at least one cow most of the year can vote if they join R-Calf but others can join as associates or consumers can ask for legislative updates and notices and make a difference. Even if one does not own a cow it is worth working with R-Calf for property rights work alone plus nonais, competitive issues and most of all groups like organic groups can join as associates to help keep their members informed and taking actions that matter fast enough to get ahead of the curve. R-Calf is the bane of USDA which refers to us in very nasty terms so we must be on the right side if FB, USDA and the rest have to attack us so hard. Women are really active in R-Calf as leaders. I work on Legislative, Property Rights and Membership so I am telling it first hand R-Calf fights for it’s members and is member driven.
Comment Sue Karber — May 25, 2007 @ 11:41 am
sue,you are rite on target with your comments#10.if every one that has visted walters site(a great one i might add,thank you walter)this last year had given r-calf a try we might not be in the shape we are in now.but they didnt so here we are.if we are to beat this thing,we need to come together ,find a leader that has the will,power and guts to carry the torch.r-calf is the one,15000 strong and growing.investing in them will be the best investment you will make this year.dont wait too long ,time is not on our side.call them 406-252-2516.
Comment nick — May 25, 2007 @ 9:14 pm