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

Moratorium on NAIS

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Senate Asked to Place Moratorium on Further Premise Registration Efforts, Defund NAIS

Billings, Mont. – In a letter to the Senate Agriculture Committee, R-CALF USA has requested a moratorium on any further premise registration efforts, and also has requested that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), or any other similar systems under any other name, be defunded at once.

“There are just so many questions and issues that must be addressed before reasonable consideration could be given as to whether funding of NAIS should continue at all,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee.

“Does USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) truly have the authority to mandate NAIS under the Animal Health Protection Act,” Thornsberry asked. “We want a thorough study on the legitimate authority and legal ramifications of the program, as well as a complete financial audit of NAIS thus far.”

R-CALF USA believes that USDA has used improper and questionable tactics to garner NAIS premise registration numbers. It is our opinion that the methodology used is less than ethical, and that the potential ramifications of a program of this scope and complexity must be assessed and completely understood by all Members of Congress to adequately represent their constituents.

USDA published, in the July 17, 2007, Federal Register, its final rule on Animal Identification Numbers (AINs), which repeatedly refers to rolling in all disease-control programs to reach “full implementation” of NAIS. Livestock producers are being rolled into NAIS with, or without, their knowledge or consent. This “full implementation” also is referenced in several NAIS documents and means “mandatory with enforcement.”

“To increase participation in premise registration, USDA has used Cooperative Agreements to contract with various state departments of agriculture, and other parties, such as FFA, 4-H, state fairs, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Angus Association,” said Thornsberry. “Many of these tactics, we believe, have been underhanded, deceptive and unethical.”

For example:

1) Roll-ins to NAIS through existing state disease-control programs, such as scrapies, calfhood vaccinations and brand registrations, which are mandatory in many Western states. Idaho achieved a 96 percent participation level by rolling into NAIS more than 13,000 registered brands. New York achieved a 58 percent level by rolling into NAIS those who vaccinate their calves. Interestingly, in Wisconsin, which requires mandatory premise registration, USDA reported a 114 percent participation level. How so?

2) Some fairs in some states, especially Colorado, require premise registration numbers, especially from FFA and 4-H kids, before these students are allowed to participate in the fairs. These minors do not own property, but, nonetheless, are required to have a Premise Identification Number (PIN) to participate.

3) Most states give away some sort of premium or financial incentive to encourage people to register their premises. Items vary from coffee cups, to vise grips, and even cash. Producers in Tennessee were required to register their premises if they wanted to participate in the hay-share relief program there.

4) In many states, cattle producers, in particular, were told they would have to participate in NAIS to continue to engage in commerce. In Missouri during the summer of 2005, NAIS Committee Member Dr. Taylor Woods visited livestock auctions across the state and told producers they would be required to electronically identify their cattle by January 2006, or they would be unable to sell cattle in their state. Approximately 8,000 premises were registered as a result.

5) USDA also has awarded grants to many non-profit breed and farm organizations, as mentioned earlier, as well as the U.S. Animal Identification Organization (USAIO) for the tracking database. Many pork producers have been required to register their property with PINs or lose their ability to market their hogs, all while USDA continues to state that NAIS “is voluntary with a capital V”.

There are approximately 100 million head of cattle in the U.S., and the NAIS-compliant RFID (radio frequency identification) tags for these animals would cost approximately $300 million. The approved device for horses is an implantable microchip with an average cost of $25 each. In 2006, the USAIO predicted a charge of 30-cents per entry into its database. There is an awful lot of money to be made on the backs of livestock producers that obviously will have an impact on Rural America.

“Historically, the United States has had the most efficient and effective disease control programs in the world,” Thornsberry asserted. “Our programs have worked because they were disease-specific and species-specific, and also had good science behind them without being overly burdensome on farmers and ranchers.

“The U.S. has existing emergency animal disease protocols in place in each and every state, and NAIS will not change the protocols for disease control and eradication,” he emphasized. “NAIS implementation is both redundant and a waste of taxpayer money. Was it truly the intent of the Congress and Senate to require citizens engaging in the commonplace activity of owning animals to be under such onerous regulations and penalties?”
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Many countries already have manditory ID programs, What are the problems r-calf has with being able to track an animal to herd of origin when a contageous disease situation occurs? Just look at the CCIA and how it works, a progam like this doesn't allow 3rd parties to track animals for their own reasons. Would this system work for the r-calfers who don't want anyone to know where cattle come from. Or are there other legal concerns that r-calf has with being able to trace diseased animal ? It seem hypcritical for r-calf to want manditory animal ID for foreign animals but not for US animals. If you want one you should want the other it is just logical if this ID is used to track sick animals.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Many countries already have manditory ID programs, What are the problems r-calf has with being able to track an animal to herd of origin when a contageous disease situation occurs? Just look at the CCIA and how it works, a progam like this doesn't allow 3rd parties to track animals for their own reasons. Would this system work for the r-calfers who don't want anyone to know where cattle come from. Or are there other legal concerns that r-calf has with being able to trace diseased animal ? It seem hypcritical for r-calf to want manditory animal ID for foreign animals but not for US animals. If you want one you should want the other it is just logical if this ID is used to track sick animals.

Correcting you on what R-CALF's positions are and aren't is getting to be a common occurance here. Where did you come up with the notion that R-CALF wants MID on foreign animals?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Are you kidding a thing called COOL that r-calf wants implemented ASAP. Every live animal from canada has to have a CAN brand and EID tag to fulfill the US import regs. Are you saying r-calf is opposed to these identification systems , if so why hasn't r-calf and associates been sceaming to get rid of these regulations if it doesn't want foreign animal ID or is it that r-calf only wants to have a manditory ID program for imported beef. A few extra dollars seems worth it to me to make sure you can find out where a diseased animal originally can from then do a trace out thru manifests,brand inspection. How about answering my other questions in the previous post or is it not in the r-calf handbook to have reasons and just make broad generalizations. Just what are the questions and issues that have to be adressed before NAIS is accepted by r-calf ? Why does the group not want NAIS what are they trying to hide and avoid? What are they so scared of ? :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Are you kidding a thing called COOL that r-calf wants implemented ASAP. Every live animal from canada has to have a CAN brand and EID tag to fulfill the US import regs. Are you saying r-calf is opposed to these identification systems , if so why hasn't r-calf and associates been sceaming to get rid of these regulations if it doesn't want foreign animal ID or is it that r-calf only wants to have a manditory ID program for imported beef. A few extra dollars seems worth it to me to make sure you can find out where a diseased animal originally can from then do a trace out thru manifests,brand inspection. How about answering my other questions in the previous post or is it not in the r-calf handbook to have reasons and just make broad generalizations. Just what are the questions and issues that have to be adressed before NAIS is accepted by r-calf ? Why does the group not want NAIS what are they trying to hide and avoid? What are they so scared of ? :roll:

COOL and MID are two totally different things. You've got to quit smoking that tall weed you find in the bottom....
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said "COOL and MID are two different things"......and he's right!

COOL is simply a marketing ploy that does absolutely NOTHING to improve the safety of beef or enhance it in any way, actually affects only the small portion of imported beef sold at retail, and simply fools consumers into believing the beef so labeled is superior to unlabeled beef.

M-ID will allow quick discovery and recall of beef with which a problem is found, providing food safety and cattle herd health and safety benefits to consumers and cattle producers alike.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
M-ID will allow quick discovery and recall of beef with which a problem is found, providing food safety and cattle herd health and safety benefits to consumers and cattle producers alike.

mrj

Maxine-- The NAIS ID tracks the live cattle only to slaughter- not the beef..When the head comes off-- so does the ID....USDA has said many times over that its for herd health ONLY....Are they lying to us.... :???:

Its a farce...
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandhusker said "COOL and MID are two different things"......and he's right!

COOL is simply a marketing ploy that does absolutely NOTHING to improve the safety of beef or enhance it in any way, actually affects only the small portion of imported beef sold at retail, and simply fools consumers into believing the beef so labeled is superior to unlabeled beef.

M-ID will allow quick discovery and recall of beef with which a problem is found, providing food safety and cattle herd health and safety benefits to consumers and cattle producers alike.

mrj

COOL gives the consumer the choice as to whether they think another country's product is as safe and as good as that from the domestic country. Consumers should have that knowledge and it will not hurt a country with a good record.

Right now all they have to go on is an insufficient rubber stamp from the USDA.

mrj, if you are so interested in promoting beef worldwide, how much have you personally given to this effort? Have you personally given funds to increase beef consumption in China, for instance? Have you given money to promote Australian beef to Japan? If you espouse these "virtues", you should just put your money where your mouth is. Instead, it seems you have supported USDA policies that have left U.S. beef out of other countries who have higher standards than we seem to have.

I would agree with you that there is still a big problem with the wholesalers when it comes to COOL. I would like to know if my retailer thinks cheaper foreign beef should take shelf space or restaurant space up from domestic beef. I wonder how many school children are fed cheaper foreign beef just because it is cheaper.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex, I wouldn't attempt to figure out how much my family has paid into the beef checkoff. We contributed long before it was mandatory, and believe it is used well to promote beef in many places.

I would have no problem with a COOL type law IF it had little to no cost to proucers, wasn't misleading consumers, and was market driven. In fact that exists already. It is private label, producer marketed beef!

What is it going to do for US beef when consumers find imported beef they buy in the supermarket is indistinguishable from the US beef of the same grade, but at a lower price due to perception it is substandard somehow?

There has been considerable publicity which consumers have access to telling the world that imported beef is "junk", "diseased" or "has BSE" in order to promote purchase of "USA Bred, Born, Raised, and Processed" beef. I do NOT believe that is in the best interests of the US cattle producer!

I believe school lunch requires US produced beef, if not all foods. One way to assure high quality beef in local schools is to solicit donations from local cattle producers. It has been done in some areas, maybe not exclusively, but enough to get some superior quality in the kids. Maybe the foreign imported beef (inspections being proper) would give better results than the domestic soy proteins some schools use, and which turns some kids against the resulting blended 'beef'.

mrj
 

PORKER

Well-known member
COOL law.

This approach will:

1) allow packers to indicate beef has come from imported animals without having to specify each further production step that may have occurred in the United States;

2) allow packers to label blended products with a list of the countries of origin that may be contained in the product, rather than a definitive list of each country;

3) allow retailers to rely on pre-labeled products for origin claims;

4) allow packers to rely on country markings that already are applied to cattle imports in order to determine origin;

5) eliminate unnecessary and duplicative record-keeping requirements regarding chain of custody and separate tracking during the production process to allow packers and retailers to rely on documents they already keep in the ordinary course of business; and,

6) reduce the record retention requirement from two years to one year.

"Furthermore, under the current law, a new rule could specify that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third-party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims," Gill pointed out.

"These changes would address any legitimate concerns about the costs of the labeling program, while preserving the full benefits of mandatory COOL and ensuring that consumers are informed of the origins of their beef purchases," he emphasized. "Moving toward simplified implementation as quickly as possible under the current law will have enormous benefits for U.S. cattle producers and their customers."
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
SandH i am still waiting for answers, or is r-calf keeping secrets as to what the problems are. RFID are manditory in canada and for trace back ONLY in cases of disease problems. The CAN brand ID's cattle as canadian and the export permits, livestock manifests, brand inspection and CCIA tags allows the animal to be traced back in case of disease.
SANDH I find it extemely insulting i do not smoke anything, what weeds are you growing? But making personal insults is par for the couse when people do not have the answers. So i guess you have not been told what to say by r-calf yet.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
SandH i am still waiting for answers, or is r-calf keeping secrets as to what the problems are. RFID are manditory in canada and for trace back ONLY in cases of disease problems. The CAN brand ID's cattle as canadian and the export permits, livestock manifests, brand inspection and CCIA tags allows the animal to be traced back in case of disease.
SANDH I find it extemely insulting i do not smoke anything, what weeds are you growing? But making personal insults is par for the couse when people do not have the answers. So i guess you have not been told what to say by r-calf yet.

Did you read the article, Q? I can't believe somebody who read it would be asking the questions you're asking. Read it.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I'm glad Rcalf has said something. I would like to see the word, "premise" taken out and replaced with the word "property" so that it is covered under the constitution.

I realize many of you may not believe it, but the United Nations is wanting a one world currency. (they want to be in charge of the printing press for free but charge us interest). This means that a country would have to put up its property as collateral in order to get money and if they could not repay it then the United Nations would own it. According to what I read and I think it was word net daily website, with the NAIS wording using "premise" means that you become a shareholder of your property and no longer owner. IF this is correct, your property could be used as collateral for the US to use and they could take it. I realize many people can't see 25 years down the road, in fact, it won't even take them 25 years. But just changing the word from premise to "property" would give constitutional rights (that is until they completely do away with the constitution).

MRJ - if NCBA was for the American beef producers, why don't they help the producer obtain maximum profit? For instance in the October issue (pg 9) of the The Cattleman's Advocate it says packer owner livestock cost producers $5.7 billion in 2006.
Captive livestock supplies - livestock owned by packers - cost producers over $5.7 billion according to a study done by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) Their analysis was based on a study released in Jan. by USDA. The USDA study found that only 9 percent of hogs and 62 percent of cattle were sold on the open market from 2002 - 2005.

Is it no wonder herds aren't expanding in the USA? Higher costs for feed, fertilizer and seed but lower prices paid for the producers beef? Are they trying to work it so we'll end up being like poultry farms?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandhusker said "COOL and MID are two different things"......and he's right!

COOL is simply a marketing ploy that does absolutely NOTHING to improve the safety of beef or enhance it in any way, actually affects only the small portion of imported beef sold at retail, and simply fools consumers into believing the beef so labeled is superior to unlabeled beef.

M-ID will allow quick discovery and recall of beef with which a problem is found, providing food safety and cattle herd health and safety benefits to consumers and cattle producers alike.

mrj

Have you ever realized that the folks who told you this are the same ones who told you that we shouldn't cave in to the Japanese' demands for testing, that they would never replace our grain-fed beef, that other countries would treat us as we treat Canada, etc.... How many times do they have to be proven fools before you stop parroting them?

You're right, it does nothing to improve the safety of beef. However, it allows the consumer to differentiate product they want and don't want. Otherwise, they buy chicken.

It only affects the portion at retail thanks to the efforts of your organization and the AMI who tried their best to make it as unworkable as they could. You also had better not forget to plan for the future - or maybe you haven't noticed the trend of higher imports and crappy trade deals.

It can't make anybody believe labeled beef is superior to unlabeled because there will be no such thing as unlabeled.

If COOL is a marketing deal, is that such a terrible thing? Your product is being touted in the best market in the world and you're upset? Excuse me?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
SAND H one last request for the many questions and issues r-calf feel must be adressed before endorsing NAIS. In fact yes i did read the initial article Max said r-calf had many questions and issues and then only talked about 2 problem areas and 1 was the methodology employed to implement it. Last time i looked many wasn't 2. I got a chuckle when Max stated the US has one of the most efficient and effective disease control system in the world. The reason for that is most of the rest of the world has disease elimination programs rather than just controling diseases. Kinda like bragging about having polluted water that people can drink and not taste it. But i'll leave it to you, if you will not fulfill my request it is because you cannot think of reasons for opposing NAIS and you have not been told by r-calf's current leadership what to say or think regaurding this issue.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Q, "The reason for that is most of the rest of the world has disease elimination programs rather than just controling diseases."

Funny that you would make that comment while at the same time ridiculing those who say we shouldn't be importing diseased cattle. Would that fall under elimination?

I also find it funny that a foreigner is challenging the questions a US organization has on policies of the US government that affects only US citizens. To put it bluntly; What business is it of yours?

You want more reasons to oppose NAIS? How about cost? How about the legal wording? How about the fact that many states can already do what they want done? What about the questions of administration?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
I know you just don't get it but in Canada and in many other countries animal disease management is elimination. I don't think you should be importing diseased you should be importing from Canada. Where there is a trace out system and animal health standards greater than yours in the US. But do what you want import beef from some 3rd world country full of FaM, Rinderpest and blue tongue.
As for what business of it is of mine i want my neighbor to have to follow the rules i do and have standards at least close to mine. Sorry you can't tell me what to think like r-calf tells you.
As i have said cost at least up here is manageable, the tags are made in the US so they are getting cheaper with your american peso falling daily :lol: . Legal wording - nit picking. Already imlpemented in some states-the govenmnet has control (OOh no) Who should administrate it? - if you would take the lead and set up something like the CCIA system not applicable but it seems r-calf wants to complain than rather take the lead. It is easier to stand behind the fence and take pot shots. Many is more than 3 or 4. Or is it accurate to say the US has found many native cases of BSE :roll:
Keep trying maybe some day you'll acutally hit something even a broken watch is right twice a day :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Q, " I don't think you should be importing diseased you should be importing from Canada."

You make that comment yet you can't deny the fact that the new rule opens us up to Canadian BSE. :roll: You want to tell me how we won't be importing Canadian BSE?

Q, "As for what business of it is of mine i want my neighbor to have to follow the rules i do and have standards at least close to mine."

Well, in this case your neighbor is in a different country and your wishes don't matter.

Q, " Legal wording - nit picking."

You've got to be kidding me. I'm sorry, Q, but that statement is beyond niave and foolish. That's just plain stupid.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Question ,can a US purchaser of Canadian BEEF get a traceback with your RFID tag???

Porker I didn't see where your question was answered.

The trace back is is case of a reportable disease. Not for ownership. A reportable disease would also involve USDA. The packers buying Canadian cattle do have access to the age verification.
 
Top