Livestock identification Big Brother watching your cow

[Tommy]

Livestock identification system
Big Brother watching your cow

JILL 'J.R.' LABBE










FORT WORTH, Texas — Howard Garrett isn't just passionate about organic gardening and how to rid Texas yards of the fire ant scourge.

The Dirt Doctor of Dallas-Fort Worth radio fame is hopping mad about a federal animal registration program he calls a "bureaucratic boondoggle" that's an "insane invasion of private property."

Under the guise of public health and national security — what new federal program isn't couched this way these days? — the U.S. Agriculture Department has initiated the National Animal Identification System. The program applies to anyone who owns or handles food animals and livestock, veterinarians included.

Any property owner who has livestock is being encouraged — for now it's just an invitation, but by January 2008 it could be mandatory unless the program is derailed — to register the physical location with the government and to electronically tag the on-site animals so their movements can be tracked through global positioning satellites.

Once in place, the identification system is supposed to help keep terrorists from contaminating or infecting the country's food stocks with very bad things and help the nation curtail the spread of nastiness such as avian flu or mad cow disease.

If this program were solely about corporate agribusinesses that produce tons of pork loin, ground beef and hot wings headed for America's kitchens, perhaps national security and public health concerns make sense.

In fact, big commercial hog, chicken and cattle operators are in favor of this program because they think it will improve their export business by calming the fears of those pesky Japanese and Europeans who worry about bad U.S. meat.

The big guys, of course, will pass the costs of implementing such a program onto their customers. But anyone who raises a couple of chickens in the back yard for the eggs or has a family cow for the milk it provides — yes, they would have to register their premises and tag the animals — would have to absorb the program costs themselves.

The ID system's price tag is troublesome enough, but the very idea that the comings and goings of someone's pet pig will be monitored should stagger every red-blooded American who believes in personal privacy and freedom.

"Four-H students would have to leave a paper trail of the movement of their animals," Garrett told the audience at a recent meeting of the Rotary Club of Fort Worth. "If you own a horse and take it out for a ride, it will be tracked."

It's beyond me how forcing a family to register their three acres in Johnson County, Texas, and to tag the kids' horse and the couple of goats that they keep on the back-40 will protect the food chain.

Mary Zanoni, the executive director of Farm for Life, doesn't get it either. Zanoni, a lawyer, filed official comments that decried the lunacy of the registration standards with the Agriculture Department's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service.

"Indeed, the only general systems of permanent registration of personal property in the United States are systems administered by the individual states for two items that are highly dangerous if misused: motor vehicles and guns," Zanoni wrote. "It is difficult to imagine any acceptable basis for the department to subject the owner of a chicken to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun.

"For example, whereas the owner of a long gun generally can take the gun and go hunting beyond the confines of his or her own property without notifying the government, the department proposes that the chicken owner, under pain of unspecified enforcement, must report within 24 hours any instance of a chicken leaving or returning to the registered property."

I'd never heard of the National Animal Identification System before Garrett was a guest speaker at my Rotary Club. While researching the system, I discovered that many states — including Texas (and Kansas and Missouri) — have started to implement their own versions of the program.

When Congress passed the Animal Health Protection Act as part of the 2002 farm bill, federal lawmakers gave the Agriculture Department the authority to develop a national ID system. Surely placing a chip into Flicka was not what they had in mind.

Be very clear on one thing: The average citizen is not crying for this bloated bureaucracy on a state or national level.

It is the brainchild of big agribusiness that will make additional dollars off of a governmental mandate and the high-tech companies with the government contracts to produce the various software and ID systems needed to make this program work.

 

[Econ101]

We should have a manditory ID and tracking system in the U.S.

It should be on USDA employees and their cohorts in state governments.

To get the program running, it should be tried on the upper echelon of the USDA management who are the decision makers for such policies.

 

[rjk]

I doubt Garrett makes his living in the livestock industry. I do. We have to have a traceability system. If when/fmd is in US, tell me how to isolate it without having to destroy large numbers of animals. Believe me, the government will not allow discussion, they will destroy any animal suspected of having come into contact with fmd, or any other such disease. Then we'll sorely wish there was an effective traceability so the number of affected animals will be minimized. Garrett and others who say it is an invasion of privacy or the brainchild of big business often won't have much to lose in event of disease outbreak....they'll just fade into the background while those that make their living in the livestock industry could see their liveliehood destroyed.

 

[flounder]

tommy wrote;

> Livestock identification Big Brother watching your cow


:lol: :lol: :lol:


hcll, just drive in houston texas and YOU are on camera, so what's the big deal unless you got something to hide :shock:




Feb. 23, 2006, 1:29AM
SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
Someone is watching
Police wouldn't be the first to monitor the city

By ALEXIS GRANT
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Feel like you're being watched?

That's probably because you are.

Police Chief Harold Hurtt sparked debate with his recent proposal to install surveillance cameras downtown, at apartment complexes and even at some private homes to combat crime. But cameras already are rolling all over the city: at rail stations, schools, malls, highways, banks and convenience stores.

"In a big city, it's increasingly hard to go throughout the day without being captured on many surveillance cameras," Daniel Solove, a law professor at George Washington University who specializes in privacy issues, wrote via e-mail.

Indeed, the Metropolitan Transit Authority has a video camera on top of the Binz Building downtown to monitor Main Street — the same strip where the Houston Police Department hopes to install surveillance cameras.

Shoppers at the Galleria are monitored by camera both inside and outside the mall. Drivers on freeways managed by the Texas Department of Transportation are caught on tape. Commuters at Metro's rail and transfer stations and inside trains, and also soon at Park & Ride lots, are watched on screen from miles away. And if you're cheering at Toyota Center, you can bet you'll be watched on video.

Schools, too, use camera technology to monitor students. A man who police say sexually assaulted a student in a Westbury High School restroom Feb. 9 was caught on one of the school's 128 cameras as he entered the school, though authorities have not arrested a suspect. And officials at Westfield High School used images from a surveillance tape to identify students in a fight.

Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based privacy-advocate group, said most of those people don't know they're on camera.

"Oftentimes they are concealed purposefully, even in public places, so people don't know or aren't aware that they're being surveilled," Rotenberg said. "They often don't know who's watching them."

Pedestrians on Main Street had mixed feelings this week about the potential for cameras keeping an eye on them.

"I think it's a great idea to cut down on the crime," said a man who identified himself as S. Walter and said he has been mugged three times in the past two years. "I don't mind them watching me at all."

Others said downtown isn't the best place to use police surveillance.

"What crime? This is businesspeople out here," said Tiffany King, who works in the area. She suggested cameras might be more appropriate in higher-crime areas.

Though some cameras, such as those on Houston's freeways, aren't intended for law enforcement purposes, police across the country, including Chicago, Los Angeles and Minneapolis, use surveillance technology to keep an eye on the public.

"They've been very effective for our needs," said Metro police Capt. Tim Kelly. "We get that big picture of what's happening on the sidewalks and the streets adjacent to the light rail system."

The City Council's Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security is scheduled to consider Hurtt's proposal Tuesday.

So where can Houstonians trust that they're truly alone?

Most states, including Texas, do not have laws specifically regulating the use of surveillance cameras, nor is there a federal statute.

Privacy laws vary from state to state and are evolving with the development of new technology.

Several states have laws banning cameras in public restrooms, but not Texas. State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, told KHOU (Channel 11) that he would introduce such a bill next session after a reporter found cameras in the restrooms at a north Houston bar.

Rob Wiley, a Houston attorney who has experience in privacy law, said the rules for public places are fairly clear.

"On a public street, you have almost no expectation of privacy, and the government pretty much has a carte blanche to surveil people," he said.

In other situations, the line blurs.

"It's difficult to draw bright lines about an issue like this because the interests of both sides have merit. The government does have an interest in preventing crime and protecting against terrorism," Wiley said. "On the other hand, the individual citizen does have a constitutional right to privacy."

In 2003, the University of Texas at Austin filed a lawsuit to prohibit a reporter from obtaining information about where cameras were located on campus and when they were monitored. The suit was thrown out by a Travis County district judge.

A year earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled employees of a trucking company could pursue an invasion-of-privacy suit against the company, which installed surveillance cameras in bathrooms to watch for illegal drug use. But most cases involving cameras in the workplace have concluded there's no problem, Solove said.

"The problem is that there are few rules and regulations over how the video obtained by the cameras may be used," he wrote. "There's little, if any, oversight or limitation."

That's why the American Civil Liberties Union opposes cameras on public streets.

"The real issue is there's just lots of potential for misuse," said Scott Henson, director of the group's Police Accountability Project in Texas. "You open up opportunity for problems that doesn't exist right now with almost no public safety benefit."

Henson cited a study in London, where surveillance cameras are prevalent, that showed they were ineffective at deterring crime.

Cameras in London's subway system, however, are credited with helping police arrest suspects in last year's transit bombings.

There have been several documented cases of abuse by camera operators.

In August, New York police recorded a couple's intimate moment on a rooftop at night using an infrared camera from a helicopter, the New York Times reported. In San Francisco, a police officer was suspended in April for using airport surveillance cameras to ogle women, Bay City News reported.

[email protected].

 

[Econ101]

I doubt Garrett makes his living in the livestock industry. I do. We have to have a traceability system. If when/fmd is in US, tell me how to isolate it without having to destroy large numbers of animals. Believe me, the government will not allow discussion, they will destroy any animal suspected of having come into contact with fmd, or any other such disease. Then we'll sorely wish there was an effective traceability so the number of affected animals will be minimized. Garrett and others who say it is an invasion of privacy or the brainchild of big business often won't have much to lose in event of disease outbreak....they'll just fade into the background while those that make their living in the livestock industry could see their liveliehood destroyed.

rjk, these traceback systems are great for your use on the ranch an up until the cattle are fed out and killed. Anyone who personally wants to trace their cattle and how they do in the feed yard should be encouraged to do so. That data should remain the property of that rancher. The problem gets to be in the national ID databases and how they can be used against the rancher. Don't let a lot of things scare you on traceability issues. It is funny how the following article shows contaminated meat in the system traceback did not effectively get the contaminated meat off of the shelves.

The packer or processor the article was talking about was not even mentioned by the USDA. I am not saying that they needed to be, but continued problems at the same plant should be noticed. As a consumer, I would have wanted to know more about the recall to make sure my family was protected, especially if the USDA is not going to take food safety over industry profitabilty. Maybe packers need to pay for this type of risk with some kind of pooled insurance where rates go up the more you fail to pass certain food safety tests. Then poor management could take the hit instead of consumers. After the Hudson recall and it being parlayed into a takeover by Tyson, the politics of food safety should be a concern to all of us. Same with bse in Canada.

After reading the below article, what makes you think traceback will not be used for political/market manipulation schemes instead of the possible good use you advocate? Are you going to trust GIPSA or similar agancies not to be influenced for private purposes?

Government didn't recall meat or notify public in salmonella outbreak

KTIC 840 Rural Radio

March 8, 2006



WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Agriculture Department stands by its decision not to alert the public about suspect ground beef after a 2004 salmonella outbreak that sickened at least 31 people nationwide.



A report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that was made public Wednesday by food safety advocates said the meat was traced to a single meat processing plant.



Agriculture Department spokesman Steven Cohen said Wednesday that officials did a full investigation and were prepared to act on any problems at the plant. ``We didn't find problems,'' Cohen said.



Unlike E. coli and listeria, salmonella in raw meat is not an ``adulterant'' under federal guidelines because people are expected to cook raw meat before they eat it and cooking kills salmonella.



Many of those who fell ill said they ate undercooked ground beef or tasted the beef while cooking it.



The CDC report, which did not identify the plant or supermarket chain involved, said the Agriculture Department traced illnesses in nine states _ Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Tennessee and Wisconsin _ and Washington, D.C.



The department concluded the plant was following federal guidelines.



That's not much comfort for people who got sick, said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy for Consumer Federation of America.



``Nobody died, but 31 people ... got sick from eating this product, and I can tell you, not one of them thought that it was their best day on earth,'' Foreman said. ``This is not just a bellyache.''



Salmonella is a bacteria that causes diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps and in some cases requires hospitalization.



It can be deadly unless infected people are treated right away with antibiotics. Of the estimated 1.4 million cases of salmonella each year in the United States, about 400 people die, according to CDC.



``They never announced this outbreak,'' said Donna Rosenbaum of Safe Tables Our Priority. ``I would guess there are a number of cases of this that could have been avoided. It ran from August to October, so this was in people's refrigerators and in their freezers.''



While the department lacks legal authority to recall meat, it can ask companies to do recalls. No company has ever refused a recall request.



The department has issued alerts involving salmonella before. For example, a news release last year said that several salmonella infections in the Midwest were linked to stuffed and breaded frozen chicken entrees. The announcement pointed out the food needed to be fully cooked to be safe.



Alerts have also been issued about drug-resistant forms of the salmonella bacteria.



``Although salmonella is not considered an adulterant in raw ground beef, we do a great deal of outreach to help consumers understand how to handle and cook their meat and poultry to avoid chances of becoming ill,'' Cohen said.



___



On the Net:



Food Safety and Inspection Service: http://www.fsis.usda.gov

___



kticam.com

 

[flounder]

bottom line, if consumer is left out of the loop, its a loose, loose situation.
the consumer should be the first to know, not the last, like in the past where potentially Contaminated Meat WAS Sold to California Consumers

On Dec. 9, 2003, one cow in Washington State (along with 19 of its herdmates) was slaughtered and later tested positive for BSE. Over 10,000 pounds of this meat and bones, later recalled by the USDA, was shipped to retailers and restaurants in 7 states, including California. Because of DHS's agreement with the USDA to keep secret the California retail outlets that received the meat, consumers were not informed that they might be buying and consuming tainted meat. The USDA shares information only with those states that agree not to publicly identify the locations where potentially tainted meat has been distributed and sold. Consumers Union has called on USDA Secretary Ann Veneman to immediately disclose the names and locations of all outlets that received any BSE-positive meat and to revoke agreements with states to keep this type of information confidential. Consumers Reports' survey of Americans showed that 8 in 10 people agreed strongly that in the event of a recall, the USDA should make public the names of stores and restaurants that sold contaminated meat. ......


http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/000879.html




FSIS Rule Would Make Retail Lists Available During Recalls



Congressional and Public Affairs
(202) 720-9113
Steven Cohen

WASHINGTON, March 6, 2006 - The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today announced a proposed rule (PDF Only) which would make public lists of retail outlets that have received products that have been recalled.

"We believe that publishing a list of retail establishments that have received products subject to recall will help consumers more easily determine if they purchased recalled product," said USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Richard Raymond. "FSIS currently posts detailed information about recalled products, including pictures when possible, on its Web site to help consumers identify products subject to recall."

In 2005, there were 53 recalls involving meat and poultry products, compared with 113 in 2002. When a recall is conducted, FSIS posts a recall press release on its Web site to help consumers identify the product. The Agency also distributes the press release to national wire services and newspapers, television and radio stations in those states where the product has been distributed as well as electronically to mailing lists maintained by FSIS. Federal, state and local health and agricultural officials are also alerted to the fact that a recall is taking place. The recall release includes the name of the recalling establishment, the reason for the recall, a description of the food being recalled, any identifying codes, the recall classification and the appropriate contact persons for FSIS and the company involved.

During the recall process, FSIS receives lists of consignees from the recalling firm. FSIS contacts consignees at all levels of distribution to ensure that proper notification is taking place and that products subject to recall are being removed from commerce and properly disposed of or returned to the recalling firm. If a product has been distributed to the retail level, under the proposed rule, FSIS will post a complete list of retail outlets on its Web site once that list has been verified for accuracy.

Beginning in 2002, FSIS entered into a series of Memoranda of Understanding to allow states to participate in the recall verification process. While consignee identities and distribution lists have in the past been considered confidential business information, FSIS has concluded that it has the authority to release the names of retail consignees of recalled meat and poultry products and that doing so will enhance the effectiveness of the recall process.

FSIS invites the public to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2006. Comments can be sent to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, S.W., Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, D.C. 20250; or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

For further information on the proposed rule, contact the Regulations and Petitions Policy Staff, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee Development, at (202) 720-2709 or by fax at (202) 690-0486.
#




http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/NR_030606_01/index.asp



tss