The reason for the repeal of COOL was that our northern and southern neighbors complained that the labeling was hurting their exports of beef and pork to the US. Not so much at the consumer level but at the packing houses. The large packers didn't want to buy foreign livestock because they didn't want the cost and burden of separating the Canadian animals from domestic animals. So the Canadians and Mexicans were not making as much money selling livestock into US markets.
This past Wednesday, Congress voted to repeal the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirement for imported meat. This was used to identify where the animals were born, raised, and slaughtered. The meat from those animals was then labeled with the country of origin label.
The reason for the repeal of COOL was that our northern and southern neighbors complained that the labeling was hurting their exports of beef and pork to the US. Not so much at the consumer level but at the packing houses. The large packers didn't want to buy foreign livestock because they didn't want the cost and burden of separating the Canadian animals from domestic animals. So the Canadians and Mexicans were not making as much money selling livestock into US markets.
0 Comments
It was a frigid morning, and the sun had not yet poked over the ridge. The girls, about half of our twenty-four ewe herd, stood staring at me waiting for me to fill their bunk with feed. They were eager to get started this morning. Maybe the cold air had made them hungry or maybe they were finally getting use to the routine of milking, either way they were ready for the milk to flow.
This has been a familiar scene around the world for multiple millennia. The dairy farmer, the herder, the milch maid whatever the name given there has been a person tending to cattle, sheep, or goats for milk. Our farm at one point was a dairy. And we have toyed with the idea of going back to keeping some dairy animals on the farm for milk production. This year we gave a short go at it with our sheep just to get a feel for the routine and how it might fit with what we already do. But an article I read this week may push us to really consider becoming a raw milk dairy. The article told about two bioengineers that are planning to start production next year on milk that was made without cows. They call it Muufri (pronounced Moo Free). That's not a typo, cow free milk. For the past two years, I have been working to help pass the Virginia Food Freedom Act. The goal of the legislation is to make it easier for home cooks and small farmers to produce the food you want.
Last year's bill, HB 135, would have made it legal to process more than just chickens on our farm. We could have butchered our hogs, lambs, and beeves as well. But the cry from the detractors was that small farmers like myself were going to kill everybody. They were making the same claims this year over the raw milk. But what is rarely thought of by those in government that consider bills like the Virginia Food Freedom Act, is that regulations rarely improve the safety of food. I thought that feudalism died with the middle ages, but I learned otherwise this week.
On Monday, there were two bills before the Agricultural Subcommittee. One was the Virginia Food Freedom Act and the other was a three cow raw milk bill. In spite of the common sense and data filled arguments for the bills, the feudal lords of the agricultural subcommittee voted both down. They will not have their serfs producing and selling food on their fiefs. (We have video coming soon) The agricultural industrial complex (Farm Bureau, Virginia Dairyman's Association, Virginia Agribusiness Council, et. al.) gave very weak rebuttals to the arguments we made. One even went as far as to say that milk was not milk until it was pasteurized. What is bad is the guy who said this, Dr. Thomas Massie, is a vet (don't let him work on your animals). In January many farmers, including myself, tried to get a piece of legislation through the Virginia House of Delegates. As I wrote here our attempt was shot down. The Agriculture Subcommittee tabled the bill. But just because they shot it down, that does not mean that we are throwing in the towel. Some of the farmers that made the trip to Richmond have been asked to be part of a work group to try and make the bill better. I am optimistic that good will come out of this work group and the legislation and move forward to free farmers and consumers alike. In the mean time we are also working to have the political parties in each county to put pressure on our delegates to pass the legislation. Last week I was able to attend the Republican party meeting in my county. They passed a resolution to support the Food Freedom Act and to also inform our representatives that they support the legislation. That may seem small but can you imagine what Richmond would think if every political unit, in each county across the state, did likewise? Food Freedom is not just a Republican or Democrat, left or right, conservative or liberal issue. Food freedom is an issue that effects everyone. We all have to eat and no one wants to be told what they can or cannot eat. Just ask what a New Yorker thinks of Mayor Bloomberg's limits on salt and soda. People will only take so much of someone telling them what they can and cannot do. Especially when it come to food and drink. If you are interested in trying to get the parties in your county to take up the cause of food freedom please let me know. You can contact me through the contact form at this link. I would gladly pass the information along to you and give you instructions on how to present it to your local parties. There is also a petition you can sign to show your support for this legislation by going here. Read more about the Food Freedom Act - One Food Bill That Could Revolutionize Virginia Farms
Read my response to objections to the Food Freedom Act - Four Reasons Why Critics Are Wrong About Small Farm Food Safety For a generation now industrial agriculture has been demonizing small farms and independent operations like ours. We have been referred to as dangerous, not really farmers, and incapable of feeding the world. Small farmers, like ourselves, have been fighting against the picture agribusiness groups paint of us. Slowly we are changing the public's view that small farmers are unsafe and are reliable sources of high quality food. The biggest hurdle we have is a lack of funding. The agribusiness groups (In our state these are Virginia Cattlemen's Association, Virginia Poultry Grower's Association, Virginia Dairyman's Association, Virginia Farm Bureau, Virginia Food and Beverage Association, et al.) have deep pockets to both fund propaganda and to buy off legislators in-order to reduce the choices of consumers. Extra money for large scale advertising isn't something a radical fringe farmer like myself has lying around. But over the last couple of decades or so some companies and restaurants have taken a position that they will support small direct sales farms with high ethical standards and quality. One such restaurant is the fast food chain Chipotle. Chipotle made it part of their business model to purchase as much of their ingredients as possible from producers that meet their high standards. They found that folks were willing to pay a little extra to have their chicken burrito with antibiotic free chicken on it and with pork that was raised outdoors. Chipotle is now a 3.3 billion dollar business that purchases primarily from farmers not packing houses like Tyson and Smithfield. The Agribusiness community was cool with this arrangement until Chipotle started making waves. In 2011 Chipotle, which had not made much use of traditional advertising, made a short ad called "Back To The Start" that primarily ran on YouTube. It featured a farmer who questioned the changes that had come to agriculture in his life time and made a change on his own farm. Then came the "Scarecrow" ad. This one questioned the idea of marketing food as "Farm Fresh" when most supermarket food is hardly that at all. This one caused a stir. But their most recent media release has many in the Agribusiness world furious. Monday was the premier of their new series on Hulu, "Farmed And Dangerous". This time Chipotle put $1 million on the line to take a satirical look at food production and manipulation of public perception of our current system. The show's antagonist is Buck Marshall who runs a company, I.F.I.B.(get it? I fib), that does damage control for Animoil, an industrial food producer. The show is complete fiction but that hasn't occurred to many in the agribusiness world. I personally find all the cries of foul as funny. As I pointed out earlier, farmers like myself have not had a voice for a long time. Now there is someone out there firing shots over the bow of industrial Agriculture, and they don't like it. One farmer and representative for the Montana Stock Growers, Ryan Goodman, said that Chipotle should have talked to real farmers if they had concerns about production practices and not just those producing food the way Chipotle and their customers want. Goodman tweeted that he found no humor in the Chipotle series: He wasn't the only representative from the Agribusiness world to express outrage. The problem I have with all of this "outrage" is that groups like Stock Growers, Cattlemen, and Poultry Growers Associations et al. have been selling fear for generations now. I experienced it first hand when I went to Richmond a few weeks ago.
I will agree with Goodman in one area, it isn't fun to be thrown under the bus. Maybe some of these Agribusiness Associations will realize that now and take steps to represent farmers like myself and quit their own selling of fear. But I won't hold my breath on that one. What do you think? Did Chipotle go too far or not far enough? I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. |
AuthorI'm a thirty something who is married with kids that gets to farm somewhere in between. Categories
All
Archives
June 2015
|