"M" COOL enforcement

[PORKER]

COOL Statutory Requirement

The COOL legislation regulates private-actor conduct through an information requirement and a verification requirement. The information requirement mandates that retailers inform consumers as to country of origin of a covered commodity. The method by which consumers are to be notified is through a "label, stamp, mark, placard," or other type of signage that is "clear and visible" at the point of sale. Retailers are exempt if they purchase for sale at retail less than $230,000 per year of fruits and vegetables or of all covered commodities. Food service establishments, such as restaurants and cafeterias, are exempted from the information requirement.

The statute also contains a verification requirement specifying that "any person in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer shall provide information to the retailer indicating the country of origin of the covered commodity." Thus, the statutory language clearly imposes a duty only on direct suppliers to retailers rather than on all upstream suppliers.
Importantly, the verification requirement merely vests discretionary authority in the Secretary of Agriculture to require handlers, processors or distributors of covered commodities( Beef,Pork,Mutton or Lamb,Goat, Chicken) to maintain a verifiable recordkeeping audit trail. The Secretary is statutorily prohibited from imposing a mandatory identification system to verify country of origin. However, it appears from the USDA guidelines that the Secretary fully intends to require such an audit trail.

 

[PORKER]

COOL IS COMING FAST

Order Business Records for C.O.O.L. Law, ID Tags and Readers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Chain-Traceability and Archiving System
for Country of Orgin, BMP, GAP, Bio-Terrorism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Start Date for the C.O.O.L. Law: September 30, 2008
77 days left as of July 15, 2008
C.O.O.L Law recordkeeping requirements
www.ams.usda.gov/cool/records.htm

 

[PORKER]

Lastest News about COOL

Getting Ready for COOL
Jason Vance [email protected]
July 16, 2008


Technically mandatory Country of Origin Labeling is slated to go into effect on Sept. 30, 2008. However because there is not time to complete final implementation rules with time for public comments, USDA will publish an interim final rule that the program will operate under but is subject to future revisions. Although COOL is still a few months away, according to Dr. Brad Lubben of the University of Nebraska, producers need to start keeping records of livestock movement and births immediately.

"Animals in the United States as of July 15 will be considered U.S. animals for purposes of records and documentation of origin," Lubben says. "That means we've got to start documenting those animals now and documenting movements of those animals in order to be ready for regulations that still aren't officially published."

The interim final rule on mandatory COOL could be released in the next couple of weeks. Ag Secretary Ed Schafer says retailers and packagers will have a sixth-month grace period to attain compliance with mandatory country of origin labeling.
"We're not going to be the labeling police in the first six month," Schafer says. "We're going to be working with those retailers and packagers to make sure it is phased in and by the end of the six months we'll have full compliance."



There's always a lot of bellyaching when new systems are put in place until people get used to them," Pearlman said. "But I imagine the retailers will be affected most, definitely more than us."

Chuck C. Anderson, vice president of procurement for Giant Food, said the record-keeping requirements could cost his chain $900,000 for software in the first year alone, not including labor. Anderson said Giant, with its 199 stores, is not opposed to labeling but finds the paperwork onerous.

"If they want us to keep the invoice and billing documents, and match the paperwork at all our stores with paperwork at the corporate level, and keep all that for a year, that creates a lot of opportunity for mistakes," Anderson said.

Chris Waldrop of the Consumer Federation of America, agrees that the record-keeping part of the rule is cumbersome. He says the government could have written far simpler rules, especially since polls show that 80 percent to 85 percent of consumers favor labeling laws.

 

[PORKER]

tit bits on COOL

The COOL law requires firms or individuals that supply covered commodities to retailers to provide information indicating the product's country of origin with a verified audit trail. This information must address the production steps included in the origin claim (i.e.,born, raised, and slaughtered or produced). Self-certification documents or affidavits may play a role in assuring that auditable records are available throughout the chain of custody, but the auditable records must themselves also be available to ensure credibility of country of origin labeling claims.

Swift & Company's requirements state that: "If Swift & Company is issued a fine or penalty resulting from producer noncompliance, that fine will be assessed to the party responsible." Tyson Fresh Meats requires that producers "ndemnify us for liability we incur that is a result of producer noncompliance.

 

[Anonymous]

July 29, 20008

At First Glance, Cattle Producers Pleased with Interim COOL Rule

Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA was pleased to see in the new Interim Final Rule for mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL), that, at a glance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) presented, for the most part, a simplified and workable rule for independent U.S. cattle producers.

"USDA did a rather straightforward job in writing these rules," said R-CALF USA COOL Committee Chair Mike Schultz. "The agency accepted R-CALF USA's and other groups' recommendation to simplify the implementation process by adopting the steps it originally incorporated in the fish and shellfish rules.

"For the most part, USDA properly adopted the legislative language that minimizes requirements on producers and other suppliers by allowing them to use their own affidavits to prove an animal's origin, and the rule allows meatpackers to use foreign import markings to verify animals of foreign origin, such as ear tags and brands on cattle from Mexico and Canada," he continued.

Schultz also said that USDA requires every person in the supply chain to maintain COOL records for one year, for one step forward and one step back in the supply chain.

"For instance, a cow/calf producer would need to maintain records of who they sold their cattle to, and that person would need to keep records about who he or she purchased the cattle from and then who he or she sold them to," Schultz explained. "That way, if needed, origins can be traced throughout the supply chain."

The rule is expected to be published in the Aug. 1 Federal Register, and the public will have 60 days from the date of publication to submit comments to the agency.

"R-CALF USA continues to review the 233-page rule and will make recommendations to the agency if it finds areas within the rule that require additional clarification or modification in order to ensure the orderly implementation of COOL," Schultz concluded.

 

[PORKER]

COOL-Producers and other suppliers are allowing them to use their own affidavits to prove an animal's origin.

Not sure how a salesmarket handles a producer bringing in 45 head of calves with one affidavit to a salebarn? Maybe they will buy a big copier so that the five different buyers get copys or they will use the glued on backtags for numbers out in the feedlot.

I see a big wreck coming on storing the required 1 year of records ,but of course brood cows need records alot longer and any supplier can ask to see your last ten years of records.

 

[Anonymous]

COOL-Producers and other suppliers are allowing them to use their own affidavits to prove an animal's origin.

Not sure how a salesmarket handles a producer bringing in 45 head of calves with one affidavit to a salebarn? Maybe they will buy a big copier so that the five different buyers get copys or they will use the glued on backtags for numbers out in the feedlot.

I see a big wreck coming on storing the required 1 year of records ,but of course brood cows need records alot longer and any supplier can ask to see your last ten years of records.

Here the buyer gets a state certificate with each purchase which includes 3rd party official verification-- a Montana State brand inspection signed by the Inspector that shows buyer, seller, date of purchase, and location.....

 

[PORKER]

There are going to be many ways of doing traceback as the law calls for, but as yards increase in the amount of animals handled and rehandled, my believe is that only computers will work. The paper trail and amount of paper to prove that something happened 15 months or 7 years ago will need boxcars to hold it. You can go to www.ScoringAg.com where the rule is posted in full text of 244 pages at C.O.O.L Law recordkeeping requirements and check on pages 42 and 44 about the paper part.

It reads that the animal will still need a number that is unique to the affidavit transaction for USDA to check. I just don't see how a stocker or backgrounder can keep track of tagless animals let alone feeders. What stockyards will do is anybodys guess! 3000 head going thru a sales barn on one day will be a nightmare with paper. The office will have to make copys and save their own copys for every buyer and trucker that takes cattle home .

 

[PORKER]

Idaho News Capital Press ; You have to label your produce and animals so the grocery store can label the meat from your animal along with fruits and vegetables to verify origin.
Packers need RFID animal ID's and or a affidavit to maintain traceback on to wholesale and retail. USDA has already entered into formal partnerships with states and law enforcement to conduct retail compliance reviews.

Routine inspections will be conducted at retail establishments, the published rule said. Violators can face civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Link to Livestock Producer COOL rules; http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfiledDocName=STELPRDC5071200
Livestock Producer Compliance with Interim Final Rule – PDF –Aug. 7 2008

http://www.ams.usda.gov/COOL/records.htm

 

[PORKER]

Gleaned from the above Rules,
Presumption of origin by packers and other enities such as sales markets, stockyards, livestock buyers, in the marketing chain is not permitted.

A producer affidavit is ok , but the animal needs a unique ID as per RFID tags or from a unique ID tag system that can be verified and is not duplicated, such as all black cattle with a similar brand that is the same from another state.

Affidavits from truck drivers will not be allowed for animal ID in the COOL law.

Affidavits must be passed along to the next owner and indentify the animal unique to the transaction.

Talked to a auction owner and he feels that a notary signed affidavit for each head of animal with a unique code will need to be required in a court of law to prove origin to the packer when USDA does a audit to stay legal.

Oldtimer, could this be true ?

 

[Anonymous]

Gleaned from the above Rules,
Presumption of origin by packers and other enities such as sales markets, stockyards, livestock buyers, in the marketing chain is not permitted.

A producer affidavit is ok , but the animal needs a unique ID as per RFID tags or from a unique ID tag system that can be verified and is not duplicated, such as all black cattle with a similar brand that is the same from another state.

Affidavits from truck drivers will not be allowed for animal ID in the COOL law.

Affidavits must be passed along to the next owner and indentify the animal unique to the transaction.

Talked to a auction owner and he feels that a notary signed affidavit for each head of animal with a unique code will need to be required in a court of law to prove origin to the packer when USDA does a audit to stay legal.

Oldtimer, could this be true ?

I'm not sure-- but I don't know anywhere that an eartag number alone is accepted as proof of ownership- definitely isn't in Montana....Only the hot iron brand...They ever go to a tag as the only thing needed as proof of ownership- there might be quite a few longropes come out of storage.... :wink:

The Montana system should more than suffice- since you have not only the owner signing an affidavit certifying they are his cattle, and that they are being sold to Joe Blow buyer (bill of sale)- and then the brand inspection is a third party verifier- and the new owner gets a state government document- with state seal and all - to show all the details of the trasnaction...
The new bill of sale forms are supposed to have right on them a spot to put origin. That signed document is then taken up by the inspector when he issues the inspection certificate- and is sent to the Dept of Livestock and kept on file and available if they need further review....

 

[Mike]

What happens when you have 200 cattle going in 200 different directions with nothing but a herd brand on the hip?

A brand alone is fine for declaring original ownership (as long as ALL herd brands are deemed unique) but tracing them in all different directions is another chore.

Either the producer will have to uniquely identify each individual animal, or the buyer of each will have to immediately, and that cost will come from the producers' check.

Have been in several meetings with the local sale barn owners lately, discussing exactly how this is gonna work...........

In order to prove where an animal IS NOT from, you must first prove where he IS from.

 

[Anonymous]

What happens when you have 200 cattle going in 200 different directions with nothing but a herd brand on the hip?

.

You have 200 inspection certificates....Cattle going thru the sales yard are accompanied with a bill of sale which certifies origin that is taken up and sent to Helena- then inspected in to verify the brands match the bill of sale- then they are again inspected out with each buyer getting a list of the previous owner and the brand on the clearance inspection.....

 

[PORKER]

Affidavits must be passed along to the next owner and indentify the animal unique to the transaction.

Talked to a auction owner and he feels that a notary signed affidavit for each head of animal with a unique code will need to be required in a court of law to prove origin to the packer when USDA does a audit to stay legal.

I have to agree, one affitdavit per animal with one brand and RFID number whether the animal stays in a brand state or not or be in a database like ScoringAg which doesn't need a affidavit as it goes all the way to the retailer.

 

[PORKER]

Question Oldtimer,how can a none brand state find the source of a hot iron brand in a 30.000 head feedlot that source buys from everywhere ?

One more question, are affidavits legal in a federal court whether notary stamped or not ?

 

[Mike]

What happens when you have 200 cattle going in 200 different directions with nothing but a herd brand on the hip?

.

You have 200 inspection certificates....Cattle going thru the sales yard are accompanied with a bill of sale which certifies origin that is taken up and sent to Helena- then inspected in to verify the brands match the bill of sale- then they are again inspected out with each buyer getting a list of the previous owner and the brand on the clearance inspection.....

What about privately transferred cattle? Do those transactions get sent to Helena along with a record of the sale?

Around here there are probably more private transactions than there are at sale barns and there would be no way all those will get recorded and/or exchanged.

 

[ranch hand]

Yes, they are called Change of Ownership brand inspections.

What happens when you have 200 cattle going in 200 different directions with nothing but a herd brand on the hip?

.

You have 200 inspection certificates....Cattle going thru the sales yard are accompanied with a bill of sale which certifies origin that is taken up and sent to Helena- then inspected in to verify the brands match the bill of sale- then they are again inspected out with each buyer getting a list of the previous owner and the brand on the clearance inspection.....

What about privately transferred cattle? Do those transactions get sent to Helena along with a record of the sale?

Around here there are probably more private transactions than there are at sale barns and there would be no way all those will get recorded and/or exchanged.

 

[ranch hand]

Question Oldtimer,how can a none brand state find the source of a hot iron brand in a 30.000 head feedlot that source buys from everywhere ?

One more question, are affidavits legal in a federal court whether notary stamped or not ?

Most feedlots tag when they recieve cattle. The tags are entered with the person they were bought from, brands, tags etc. Back tags at sale barns here have to stay on to the feedlot, or packer, tags are entered with who sold them along with the brand inspection.

 

[PORKER]

Doing some research ,I have found out that the only legal affidavit is ones that have a notary stamp and signature. If USDA thinks that every animal sold with a unique number for COOL has to use a affidavit , I got a brige in INDIA to sell you.
Legal in Michigan
State of Michigan
County of ________________


BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary, ___________________________________________________ [name of Notary before whom affidavit is sworn], on this _________________ [day of month] day of _________________ [month], 20____, personally appeared ___________________________________________________ [name of affiant], known to me to be a credible person and of lawful age, who being by me first duly sworn, on ________ [his or her] oath, deposes and says:

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
[set forth affiant's statement of facts]


__________________________________
[signature of affiant]

__________________________________
[typed name of affiant]

__________________________________
[address of affiant, line 1]

__________________________________
[address of affiant, line 2]


Subscribed and sworn to before me, this _________________ [day of month] day of _________________ [month], 20____.

[Notary Seal:]



__________________________________
[signature of Notary]

__________________________________
[typed name of Notary]

NOTARY PUBLIC

My commission expires: ________________, 20____.

Are we going back to Paper and forget Computers
AMS affidavit clarification paper includes:



* USDA will consider a producer affidavit as acceptable evidence on which a packer may rely upon to initiate an origin claim, as long as the affidavit is made by someone having firsthand knowledge of the origin of the animals(s) and identifies the animal(s) unique to the transaction.



* A subsequent producer/buyer such as a backgrounder or feeder that commingles animals from several sources is authorized to rely on previous producer affidavits as a basis for formulating their own affidavit for the origin of the new lot. These affidavits must also identify the animals unique to the transaction.



* Affidavits by persons such as truck drivers are unacceptable, as the knowledge of the origin of the animals would be limited to where he or she picked up the load. The driver would not have sufficient information about the chain of custody and other information to provide the origin declaration. The party responsible for commingling the animals would be the attester to the origin of the newly formed group of animals and would retain the original affidavits or other appropriate records to substantiate claims made about the newly formed group.



* Other records that may be used to assist in a COOL verification audit include: birth records, receiving records, purchase records, animal health papers, sales receipts, animal inventory documents, feeding records, APHIS VS (USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection System, Veterinary Services) forms, segregation plans, State Brand requirements, breeding stock information and (other similar documents such as www.ScoringAg.com . )Also acceptable evidence to substantiate COOL claims is participation in USDA Quality System Verification Programs (QSVP) such as USDA's Process Verified Program (PVP) and the Quality Systems Assessment (QSA) program. Participation in USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS) also would be considered acceptable evidence to substantiate COOL claims.

 

[Anonymous]

I sign numerous FSA-USDA affidavits and forms yearly- and none are ever notarized...I even sign for my son since we have a POA on file...

August 11, 2008 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



USDA Clarifies Livestock Producer Compliance

with New COOL Interim Final Rule



Billings, Mont. – The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has issued some livestock producer clarifications regarding the use of affidavits in the implementation of the agency's new Interim Final Rule on country-of-origin labeling (COOL).



"We appreciate USDA making these clarifications in favor of cattle producers, which allows producers to use affidavits when they are buying and selling cattle, and to allow the use of affidavits to provide origin information to packers," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.



Some highlights from the one-page AMS clarification paper include:



* USDA will consider a producer affidavit as acceptable evidence on which a packer may rely upon to initiate an origin claim, as long as the affidavit is made by someone having firsthand knowledge of the origin of the animals(s) and identifies the animal(s) unique to the transaction.



* A subsequent producer/buyer such as a backgrounder or feeder that commingles animals from several sources is authorized to rely on previous producer affidavits as a basis for formulating their own affidavit for the origin of the new lot. These affidavits must also identify the animals unique to the transaction.



* Affidavits by persons such as truck drivers are unacceptable, as the knowledge of the origin of the animals would be limited to where he or she picked up the load. The driver would not have sufficient information about the chain of custody and other information to provide the origin declaration. The party responsible for commingling the animals would be the attester to the origin of the newly formed group of animals and would retain the original affidavits or other appropriate records to substantiate claims made about the newly formed group.



* Other records that may be used to assist in a COOL verification audit include: birth records, receiving records, purchase records, animal health papers, sales receipts, animal inventory documents, feeding records, APHIS VS (USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection System, Veterinary Services) forms, segregation plans, State Brand requirements, breeding stock information and other similar documents. Also acceptable evidence to substantiate COOL claims is participation in USDA Quality System Verification Programs (QSVP) such as USDA's Process Verified Program (PVP) and the Quality Systems Assessment (QSA) program. Participation in USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS) also would be considered acceptable evidence to substantiate COOL claims.



Note: To view USDA's clarification, please visit the "Country of Origin Labeling" link at www.r-calfusa.com.