Jinglebob
Well-known member
I posted this on the bull session also. Thought I'd post it here for those who don't go over there anymore.
This is why I belong to this organization.
Animal ID isn't answer
By Kenny Fox, chairman of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association Animal ID Committee.
BELVIDERE - Members of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association are ranchers who make a living raising cattle - true experts in cattle-raising. We are circulating a petition to determine how many people statewide and nationwide oppose a mandatory national animal ID program, as our members do.
Brand inspection areas such as western South Dakota are not only capable of tracking our cattle, we are doing it already. Every day. We record movement of cattle every time they change ownership or travel outside of western South Dakota.
In fact, when Canada discovered their very first case of BSE in May 2003, the Montana Department of Livestock contacted our chief brand inspector about some bulls that had been sold from Canada into Montana and subsequently into South Dakota. The bulls were half-brothers to the infected cow. Within about three hours, our chief brand inspector called the Montana department back with full details about the movements of each bull, all the way to slaughter. And Judy Martz, then the governor of Montana, commended him with a personal letter of thanks. Brand inspection works.
Tattoos are another nearly permanent and very low-cost method of identification. Several states still require brucellosis tags and tattoos on breeding stock, and while South Dakota is not one of those states, a good share of S.D. producers bangs vaccinate, tag and tattoo their breeding herd - yet another tracking system already in existence.
Producers from Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and all over South Dakota are now circulating petitions. Obviously they, too, believe the proposed ID program brings with it more costs than benefits. Ranchers aren't asking for more animal ID.
Sticking a tag in an animal's ear does not provide any sort of assurance of quality or animal health. Industry integrity and profitability all the way from the producer to the retailer, is the only thing that can provide that assurance. Contrary to the boasts made by supporters of the NAIS, tags can be cut out, lost and tampered with. A brand is forever.
I've yet to hear Japan request that the U.S. implement mandatory animal ID. Obviously, USDA has now tainted our credibility with Japan by allowing shipment of bone-in beef. This had absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of a tag, and everything to do with a lackadaisical agency that is a watchdog only when it's convenient and politically acceptable to the multinational food companies. Foreign countries aren't asking for animal ID, they want honest communication and respect.
Our organization has yet to talk to a U.S. consumer who would feel safer buying beef from a steer that lived its life with a computer chip in its ear. The proposed national animal ID program is not intended to provide one shred of information to consumers. No farm, state or country of origin labeling information. Nothing. Consumers would still be unable to identify whether the hamburger in their grocery cart bearing that same old USDA stamp is a product of Canada, Japan, Mexico, Ecuador or all of the above. Consumers aren't asking for animal ID.
Consumers have, however, teamed up with grassroots producers to lobby diligently for mandatory country of origin labeling, yet have been out-dollared and out-maneuvered by the meat-packing giants and their pocket politicians.
The only supporters of an unnecessary mandatory animal identification program are the companies who stand to sell billions of dollars worth of equipment, USDA who wants a feather in their cap by deceptively claiming that they are somehow "managing disease" and the large meatpacking and retailing companies who want ever more information about the location, age and number of livestock worldwide to give them more control over the market and to further integrate the cattle and beef industries.
The meat and grocery industries, while lobbying for free trade agreements with developing countries who grow food in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, favor a burdensome mandatory animal ID program for U.S. producers, but do not acknowledge the need to differentiate or even track imported food or livestock. It's not only a backward approach, it gives consumers a false sense of security while masking the real potential for disease problems - foreign food and animals raised in substandard conditions.
Until about three years ago, our federal government's policy was to prevent the introduction of foreign animal diseases. A very good policy with a remarkable record of success. Now USDA has done a 180 and decided that borders can be eliminated, if we can just "track animals" and "manage disease." If the USDA would protect our borders from unsafe imports of beef and cattle, the threat of a disease outbreak would substantially decline and we could once again prevent disease instead of managing it.
This is why I belong to this organization.
Animal ID isn't answer
By Kenny Fox, chairman of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association Animal ID Committee.
BELVIDERE - Members of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association are ranchers who make a living raising cattle - true experts in cattle-raising. We are circulating a petition to determine how many people statewide and nationwide oppose a mandatory national animal ID program, as our members do.
Brand inspection areas such as western South Dakota are not only capable of tracking our cattle, we are doing it already. Every day. We record movement of cattle every time they change ownership or travel outside of western South Dakota.
In fact, when Canada discovered their very first case of BSE in May 2003, the Montana Department of Livestock contacted our chief brand inspector about some bulls that had been sold from Canada into Montana and subsequently into South Dakota. The bulls were half-brothers to the infected cow. Within about three hours, our chief brand inspector called the Montana department back with full details about the movements of each bull, all the way to slaughter. And Judy Martz, then the governor of Montana, commended him with a personal letter of thanks. Brand inspection works.
Tattoos are another nearly permanent and very low-cost method of identification. Several states still require brucellosis tags and tattoos on breeding stock, and while South Dakota is not one of those states, a good share of S.D. producers bangs vaccinate, tag and tattoo their breeding herd - yet another tracking system already in existence.
Producers from Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and all over South Dakota are now circulating petitions. Obviously they, too, believe the proposed ID program brings with it more costs than benefits. Ranchers aren't asking for more animal ID.
Sticking a tag in an animal's ear does not provide any sort of assurance of quality or animal health. Industry integrity and profitability all the way from the producer to the retailer, is the only thing that can provide that assurance. Contrary to the boasts made by supporters of the NAIS, tags can be cut out, lost and tampered with. A brand is forever.
I've yet to hear Japan request that the U.S. implement mandatory animal ID. Obviously, USDA has now tainted our credibility with Japan by allowing shipment of bone-in beef. This had absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of a tag, and everything to do with a lackadaisical agency that is a watchdog only when it's convenient and politically acceptable to the multinational food companies. Foreign countries aren't asking for animal ID, they want honest communication and respect.
Our organization has yet to talk to a U.S. consumer who would feel safer buying beef from a steer that lived its life with a computer chip in its ear. The proposed national animal ID program is not intended to provide one shred of information to consumers. No farm, state or country of origin labeling information. Nothing. Consumers would still be unable to identify whether the hamburger in their grocery cart bearing that same old USDA stamp is a product of Canada, Japan, Mexico, Ecuador or all of the above. Consumers aren't asking for animal ID.
Consumers have, however, teamed up with grassroots producers to lobby diligently for mandatory country of origin labeling, yet have been out-dollared and out-maneuvered by the meat-packing giants and their pocket politicians.
The only supporters of an unnecessary mandatory animal identification program are the companies who stand to sell billions of dollars worth of equipment, USDA who wants a feather in their cap by deceptively claiming that they are somehow "managing disease" and the large meatpacking and retailing companies who want ever more information about the location, age and number of livestock worldwide to give them more control over the market and to further integrate the cattle and beef industries.
The meat and grocery industries, while lobbying for free trade agreements with developing countries who grow food in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, favor a burdensome mandatory animal ID program for U.S. producers, but do not acknowledge the need to differentiate or even track imported food or livestock. It's not only a backward approach, it gives consumers a false sense of security while masking the real potential for disease problems - foreign food and animals raised in substandard conditions.
Until about three years ago, our federal government's policy was to prevent the introduction of foreign animal diseases. A very good policy with a remarkable record of success. Now USDA has done a 180 and decided that borders can be eliminated, if we can just "track animals" and "manage disease." If the USDA would protect our borders from unsafe imports of beef and cattle, the threat of a disease outbreak would substantially decline and we could once again prevent disease instead of managing it.
:wink: 
