• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

LMA has grave concerns over mandatory NAIS

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Location
northwestern South Dakota
The Source for Livestock News in the Alleys
April 21, 2009, high noon


WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Livestock Auction Markets have grave concern over the talk of "mandatory" NAIS that rumbled out of the nations capitol last week. Market operators are skeptical that the current National Animal Identification System plan will maintain the "speed of commerce" in livestock marketing – an absolute necessity in maintaining a viable marketing system that serves tens of thousands of producers every day. Because of those and other concerns, the policy of the Livestock Marketing Association is that NAIS should remain voluntary.

Nancy Robinson, the LMA's President for Government and Industry Affairs testified, "speed of commerce" means processing and marketing cattle on sale day within just a few hours, minimizing weight shrinkage, protecting the safety and welfare of market employees and the livestock they handle, and moving animals on to their next destination "with a minimum of delay."

That was part of the message brought by Nancy Robinson to an April 15 discussion on the future of NAIS. The discussion was called by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and held at USDA. Those invited included "a selected spectrum of views" on NAIS, with a heavy slanted testimony toward USDA funded and animal health providers.

A mandated ID program will likely require many markets to establish tagging services for their consignors who are unable to tag their animals on farm. That will lead to many other concerns for the markets, including added costs to the market, extra labor, worker safety, liability, and animal welfare.

In the industry thousands of cattle are sold in a single day. Most arrive the morning of the auction. Paper tags are glued to critter's backs at the speed they unload from a semi. These numbers are cataloged by auction personnel and easily visible by buyers from a normal distance. This system has historically worked well, and economical. No cattle are lost, or else the management would be responsible.

The impossibility of a mandatory NAIS would require several more hours for tagging and computer recording. Instead of livestock arriving the morning of the sale and leaving the same day it would require consignments arrive a day early. This would create an increase yardage and handling fee. Each time a pound is lost by stressing it reduces the health and value. Pounds and minutes are dollars.

The current system works well millions of times a year. It has been fine tuned by cattle handling professionals for centuries. The current system doesn't require trained computer technology, or electronic reading scanners. If there is an electrical failure the entire system, as currently used, can continue on schedule.

Market consignment fees include commission, brand inspection, health, and yardage. Currently these sale fees are $11 to $19 per animal. With a mandatory NAIS it is projected to go to $26 to $41. Not only would NAIS mandatory force markets to expand corrals to board cattle an extra day, purchase thousands of dollars in computer equipment, but also totally change the skill level of auction staff. If a computer error is made during the process, a hefty fine is proposed by NAIS planners.

LMA Information Director, John McBride says, "What it is going to do is make our people the policemen for NAIS, and of course they don't want to be that."

"So we don't end up with a system people resist, people resent and that people figure out ways to get around it," Sec. Vilsack told reporters, this is his goal. Vilsack acknowledged there are very passionate feelings concerning NAIS and he would like to sit down and discuss ways a mandatory program could be acceptable.

Most livestock and marketing organizations are being politically polite toward the Secretary—-but, unfortunately for NAIS—what they won't stand for at all is the one part—-MANDATORY!

http://brianallmerradionetwork.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/04-21-09-the-barns-listener-page-us-livestock-marketing-management/
 
"So we don't end up with a system people resist, people resent and that people figure out ways to get around it," Sec. Vilsack told reporters, this is his goal. Vilsack acknowledged there are very passionate feelings concerning NAIS and he would like to sit down and discuss ways a mandatory program could be acceptable.

Bush fought a mandatory system... but Zer0 will surely "get er' done". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Especially since money is no object now.

Just borrow a few $BILLION$ from our Grandkids!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
 
111th CONGRESS




1st Session




H. R. 814



To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act to improve the safety of food, meat, and poultry products through enhanced traceability, and for other purposes.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




February 3, 2009

Ms. DEGETTE (for herself, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. NADLER of New York, and Ms. DELAURO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

A BILL



To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act to improve the safety of food, meat, and poultry products through enhanced traceability, and for other purposes.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,




SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act of 2009' or 'TRACE Act of 2009'.




SEC. 2. TRACEABILITY OF FOOD.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended-



(1) in section 301, by inserting at the end the following:



'(oo) The failure to comply with any requirement of section 414A (relating to the traceability of food).'; and



(2) in chapter IV, by inserting after section 414 the following:




'SEC. 414A. TRACEABILITY OF FOOD.
'(a) Establishment of System- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system described in subsection (b) for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging, and distribution of food.



'(b) Description of System- The traceability system required by subsection (a) shall require each article of food shipped in interstate commerce to be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to retrieve the history, use, and location of the article through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification.



'(c) Records-



'(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may require that each person, firm, and corporation required to identify an article of food pursuant to subsection (b) maintain accurate records, as prescribed by the Secretary, regarding the purchase, sale, and identification of the article.



'(2) ACCESS- Each person, firm, and corporation described in paragraph (1) shall, at all reasonable times, on notice by a duly authorized representative of the Secretary, allow the representative to access to each place of business of the person, firm, or corporation to examine and copy the records described in paragraph (1).



'(3) DURATION- Each person, firm, and corporation described in paragraph (1) shall maintain records required to be maintained under this subsection for such period of time as the Secretary prescribes.



'(d) False Information- No person, firm, or corporation shall falsify or misrepresent to any other person, firm, or corporation, or to the Secretary, any information as to any location at which any article of food was held.



'(e) Alteration or Destruction of Records- No person, firm, or corporation shall, without authorization from the Secretary, alter, detach, or destroy any records or other means of identification prescribed by the Secretary for use in determining the location at which any article of food was held.'.




SEC. 3. TRACEABILITY OF LIVESTOCK.
Title I of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:




'SEC. 26. TRACEABILITY OF LIVESTOCK, MEAT, AND MEAT PRODUCTS.
'(a) Definition of Traceability- In this section, the term 'traceability' means the ability to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification.



'(b) Requirements-



'(1) IN GENERAL- Cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses, mules, and other equines presented for slaughter for human food purposes, and the carcasses or parts of carcasses and the meat and meat food products of those animals, shipped in interstate commerce shall be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to trace-



'(A) each animal to any premises or other location at which the animal was held at any time before slaughter;



'(B) each carcass or part of a carcass and meat and meat food product of such animals forward from slaughter through processing and distribution to the ultimate consumer.



'(2) TRACEABILITY SYSTEM- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system for all stages of production, processing, and distribution of meat and meat food products that are produced through the slaughter of animals described in paragraph (1).



'(c) Prohibition or Restriction on Entry- The Secretary may prohibit or restrict entry into any slaughtering establishment inspected under this Act of any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses, mules, or other equines not identified as prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (b).



'(d) Records-



'(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may require that each person, firm, and corporation required to identify livestock pursuant to subsection (b) maintain accurate records, as prescribed by the Secretary, regarding the purchase, sale, and identification of the livestock.



'(2) ACCESS- Each person, firm, and corporation described in paragraph (1) shall, at all reasonable times, on notice by a duly authorized representative of the Secretary, allow the representative to access to each place of business of the person, firm, or corporation to examine and copy the records described in paragraph (1).



'(3) DURATION- Each person, firm, and corporation described in paragraph (1) shall maintain records required to be maintained under this subsection for such period of time as the Secretary prescribes.



'(e) False Information- No person, firm, or corporation shall falsify or misrepresent to any other person, firm, or corporation, or to the Secretary, any information as to any premises at which any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines, or carcasses thereof, were held.



'(f) Alteration or Destruction of Records- No person, firm, or corporation shall, without authorization from the Secretary, alter, detach, or destroy any records or other means of identification prescribed by the Secretary for use in determining the premises at which were held any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines, or the carcasses thereof.



'(g) Relation to Country of Origin Labeling- Nothing contained in this section prevents or interferes with implementation of the country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).'.




SEC. 4. TRACEABILITY OF POULTRY.
The Poultry Products Inspection Act is amended by inserting after section 23 (21 U.S.C. 467e) the following:




'SEC. 23A. TRACEABILITY OF POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS.
'(a) Definition of Traceability- In this section, the term 'traceability' means the ability to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification.



'(b) Requirements-



'(1) IN GENERAL- Poultry presented for slaughter for human food purposes and poultry products shipped in interstate commerce shall be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to trace-



'(A) each animal to any premises or other location at which the animal was held at any time before slaughter;



'(B) each poultry product forward from slaughter through processing and distribution to the ultimate consumer.



'(2) TRACEABILITY SYSTEM- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system for all stages of production, processing, and distribution of poultry and poultry food products that are produced through the slaughter of animals described in paragraph (1).



'(c) Prohibition or Restriction on Entry- The Secretary may prohibit or restrict entry into any slaughtering establishment inspected under this Act of any poultry not identified as prescribed by the Secretary.



'(d) Records-



'(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may require that each person, firm, and corporation required to identify poultry pursuant to subsection (b) maintain accurate records, as prescribed by the Secretary, regarding the purchase, sale, and identification of the poultry.



'(2) ACCESS- Each person, firm, and corporation described in paragraph (1) shall, at all reasonable times, on notice by a duly authorized representative of the Secretary, allow the representative to access to each place of business of the person, firm, or corporation to examine and copy the records described in paragraph (1).



'(3) DURATION- Each person, firm, and corporation described in paragraph (1) shall maintain records required to be maintained under this subsection for such period of time as the Secretary prescribes.



'(e) False Information- No person, firm, or corporation shall falsify or misrepresent to any other person, firm, or corporation, or to the Secretary, any information as to any premises at which any poultry, or carcasses thereof, were held.



'(f) Alteration or Destruction of Records- No person, firm, or corporation shall, without authorization from the Secretary, alter, detach, or destroy any records or other means of identification prescribed by the Secretary for use in determining the premises at which were held any poultry or the carcasses thereof.



'(g) Relation to Country of Origin Labeling- Nothing contained in this section prevents or interferes with implementation of the country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).'.




SEC. 5. TRACEABILITY OF EGG PRODUCTS.
The Egg Products Inspection Act is amended by inserting after section 18 (21 U.S.C. 1047) the following:




'SEC. 18A. TRACEABILITY OF EGGS AND EGG PRODUCTS.
'(a) Establishment of System- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system described in subsection (b) for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging, and distribution of eggs and egg products.



'(b) Description of System- The traceability system required by subsection (a) shall require each egg or egg product shipped in interstate commerce to be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to retrieve the history, use, and location of the egg or egg product through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification.



'(c) Records-



'(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may require that each person, firm, and corporation required to identify eggs or egg products pursuant to subsection (b) maintain accurate records, as prescribed by the Secretary, regarding the purchase, sale, and identification of the eggs or egg products.



'(2) ACCESS- Each person, firm, and corporation described in paragraph (1) shall, at all reasonable times, on notice by a duly authorized representative of the Secretary, allow the representative to access to each place of business of the person, firm, or corporation to examine and copy the records described in paragraph (1).



'(3) DURATION- Each person, firm, and corporation described in paragraph (1) shall maintain records required to be maintained under this subsection for such period of time as the Secretary prescribes.



'(d) False Information- No person, firm, or corporation shall falsify or misrepresent to any other person, firm, or corporation, or to the Secretary, any information as to any location at which any eggs or egg products were held.



'(e) Alteration or Destruction of Records- No person, firm, or corporation shall, without authorization from the Secretary, alter, detach, or destroy any records or other means of identification prescribed by the Secretary for use in determining the locations at which were held any eggs or egg products.'.
 
Here's another organization against mandatory NAIS. The spokesperson for NIFCFA makes some very good points:

Statement from the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association regarding NAIS, for the meeting with US Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, Washington DC, 15 April, 2009

My name is Liz Reitzig and I am Secretary of the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA).

The USDA claims that the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (AHPA) authorizes it to implement a National Animal Identification System (NAIS). However, nowhere in the AHPA is the USDA authorized to assign a federal, permanent 7-character number to private land. Neither is it authorized to require application to any animal of an '840' prefix tag indicating the animal is US born, and it is not authorized to require RFID devices, like implantable microchips, or RFID tags, on a privately owned animal. Further, the AHPA does not authorize the USDA to require reporting movements, vet visits, or any of the 23 'reportable' events listed in NAIS documents. The AHPA authorizes the USDA to track shipments of animals that have been imported. Any assertion beyond that is an extrapolation by the USDA.

If the USDA knew the AHPA authorized it to implement NAIS, why would it have supported and pushed for five bills to mandate NAIS in statute since 2003? If the AHPA is the authorizing act, why has the USDA been involved in developing an NAIS since at least 1994, as evidenced by the National Livestock Identification Symposium where both Dr. John Weimers of APHIS and Neil Hammerschmidt (at the time employed by the Holstein Association and since employed by USDA-APHIS as NAIS Coordinator) were participants? These men have been architects for NAIS in this country since at least 1994, and have drawn salaries from USDA for most of those years. Have these salaries and the funding of the Farm Animal Identification and Records program of the Holstein Association as well as the establishment of the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium been figured into the cost of NAIS thus far? Both of these groups were headed at their inception by Mr. Hammerschmidt before he became NAIS coordinator for USDA-APHIS.

The USDA has stated in various NAIS documents that the 'goal of NAIS is 48-hour traceback to the premises of origin' of an animal disease outbreak. Foot and Mouth Disease, or FMD, is the nightmare scenario used to scare everyone into believing that we must have 48-hour traceback through NAIS. Yet with FMD, forty-eight hours is not fast enough.

FMD is highly contagious and spreads through airborne contamination, cross contamination from non-affected species or wildlife, or by direct contact. Symptoms may take up to three weeks to manifest, yet viral transmission can occur within a week of contamination. FMD does not kill the infected animal unless the animal is already stressed. A cow will lose her next calf and dairy animals will produce less on the next freshening, but they will not die. It also does not infect people nor make an infected animal's meat unsafe for human consumption. An infected animal traveling from Oklahoma to Washington on an open livestock trailer has the potential to spread the virus anywhere in between. Passing another livestock trailer means any of those animals could contract and spread the disease. Should that occur, in order to keep the FMD-free status for World Trade Organization members, as required by the OIE (World Animal Health Organization), Americans would have to kill every susceptible livestock animal within the 6.2 kilometer radius of where the infected animal has been. However, according to Dr. Steve Van Wie, Homeland Security Veterinarian, in wildlife, such as deer, the disease is self-limiting. While no one wants this disease, and we should control our borders and refuse to import raw meat from affected nations, the truth is that FMD is really a WTO disease of concern, and the nightmare of FMD would be in following the OIE stamp out measures--that would not eliminate the disease--rather than the disease itself.

Recognizing that the only real justification for NAIS is to meet World Trade Organization OIE guidelines, the only acceptable application for a program of this magnitude and Constitutional repugnance would be that Export Verification services offer it as a 'pay to play' program for exports to WTO member countries that might desire to require this type of system. There are two livestock markets in the nation, export and domestic, and those who believe they can benefit from this program should be allowed to attempt to do so at their own expense.

Our country is unique among the nations of the world. The United States Constitution is designed to limit the powers of centralized federal government, and our forefathers carefully crafted the document to ensure liberty for their posterity. In Article 1 section 8, the powers of the federal government are delineated. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to require registering of private property. George Washington's men did not follow him barefooted and starving through the snows of Valley Forge so that the USDA could require birth certificates for goats.

In closing, you must be aware that there is no 'consensus' to be reached on a mandatory or voluntary federally managed and funded NAIS. The opponents of this program stand upon their God-given, inalienable, constitutionally guaranteed rights to engage in agriculture and their ability and duty to feed themselves and their countrymen. We farmers are too few to win this fight alone, but we will not dishonor those who have gone before, as our freedom was bought with their blood. We are not too few to die; and such is our resolve. The question is how firm is the resolve of the USDA?

4-12-09

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Statement-to-Vilsack-again-by-Liz-Reitzig-090415-99.html
 
APHIS Adds More Public Meeting Dates to Discuss NAIS
by: Press Release
May 27 2009, Article # 14235

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has added six dates to their public meeting schedule to discuss stakeholder concerns related to the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

The meetings will be held in Jefferson City, Mo. (June 9), Rapid City, S.D. (June 11), Albuquerque, N.M. (June 16), Riverside, Calif. (June 18), Raleigh, N.C. (June 25), and Jasper, Fla. (June 27) from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day.

For more information contact Dr. Adam Grow, director, Surveillance and Identification Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, at 301/734-3752 APHIS adds additional public meeting dates to discuss NAIS

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has added six dates to their public meeting schedule to discuss stakeholder concerns related to the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

The meetings will be held in Jefferson City, Mo. (June 9), Rapid City, S.D. (June 11), Albuquerque, N.M. (June 16), Riverside, Calif. (June 18), Raleigh, N.C. (June 25), and Jasper, Fla. (June 27) from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day.

For more information contact Dr. Adam Grow, director, Surveillance and Identification Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, at 301/734-3752, or visit NAIS.

From LMA

Ag economist sees more ag regulations down the road

The globalization of ag production and food is likely to spur more regulations on ag producers and suppliers, said Robert G.F. Spitze, professor emeritus of ag and consumer economics at the University of Illinois. While national boundaries and oceans "once separated us, we are now a world-wide market," he said recently. "This means our food supply can originate from any field or processor on our planet."

The result, he said, is that "we may well see increasing public control by human decision-makers over almost every detail of food marketing, production and distribution. Why? Because mistakes in any of these systems can have a devastating impact on health and safety." While some farmers and distributors are resisting increased controls, "What happens," Spitzer asked, when a whole crop of apples or a herd of prized livestock is wiped out because they didn't have these protections?"
 

Latest posts

Back
Top