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

NAIS takes a blow

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Court Decision Suspends USDA’s Efforts to Establish

New Privacy Act System of Records for NAIS

Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA was pleased to learn that on June 4, 2008, the U.S. District Court – District of Columbia forced the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to suspend indefinitely its plan to establish a new Privacy Act system of records titled “National Animal Identification System (NAIS).” In April, USDA proposed to establish the NAIS system of records, which was to become effective June 9, 2008, and had published a notice soliciting public comments. R-CALF USA and other organizations submitted comments with the agency in opposition to USDA’s plan. The court-ordered suspension was a result of the Mary-Louise Zanoni v. United States Department of Agriculture case. The suspension was published in Tuesday’s Federal Register.

In its comments to USDA, R-CALF USA states: “R-CALF maintains that USDA has misrepresented the purpose, scope and nature of its proposed new system of records, and that USDA’s actual purposes of the proposed new system was simply to develop a national registry of real, personal and private property.”

“In fact, it is R-CALF’s position that the actual scope of this NAIS registry was anything but voluntary, as media reports indicate there likely are thousands of U.S. citizens whose property was added to the NAIS registry against their will or without their knowledge,” said R-CALF USA President Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee.

“It’s also important to note that USDA has provided no evidence to demonstrate that the NAIS registry is even feasible, as no cost/benefit analysis has been conducted to determine if the cost of NAIS to food-animal owners can be recovered in the marketplace, nor has USDA provided evidence to show that things like normal loss of ear tags, data entry errors and/or computer malfunctions would not effectively thwart any traceback efforts,” Thornsberry pointed out. “As a result of this lack of information, USDA cannot justify the need for its NAIS system or its related proposal for a new system of records.

“R-CALF USA will continue to request that Congress put a moratorium on any funding for NAIS, and we are grateful that the judicial system has blocked the agency’s misguided plan,” he concluded. “We believe the pending lawsuit will demonstrate that USDA has improperly acquired information about many U.S. citizens and has wrongfully included their information into its so-called ‘voluntary’ data base without their permission.”

Note: To view R-CALF USA’s comments filed May 30, 2008, on USDA’s proposed new system of records, please visit the “Animal Identification” link at www.r-calfusa.com.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Clip on Bloomberg.... "Tyson sues USDA to block chicken labeling" .......... anybody know what that's about?? Is it cool?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MoGal said:
Clip on Bloomberg.... "Tyson sues USDA to block chicken labeling" .......... anybody know what that's about?? Is it cool?

It was about Tyson labeling their chicken "antibiotic free" when they were not as advertised because Tyson was using ionophores in their feed, and ionophores are antibiotics.
 

Reggie

Active member
I'm curious about why this would be viewed as some sort of "win".

In my opinion it's a significant setback. Solid legal precedent is being established that makes information gathered under NAIS, or any other federal database program subject to public disclosure. Not long ago FSA was forced to deliver its database information through a court ruling and the information was delivered. That ruling coupled with this one practically assures us all that if we're in a CRP, bangs vaccination, crop subsidy, any sort of verified beef program - you name it - we're all at risk of having our information disclosed. This ruling isn't a blow to NAIS and it will do nothing to stop NAIS. It's a blow to all of us.
 

Cinch

Well-known member
Reggie said:
I'm curious about why this would be viewed as some sort of "win".

In my opinion it's a significant setback. Solid legal precedent is being established that makes information gathered under NAIS, or any other federal database program subject to public disclosure. Not long ago FSA was forced to deliver its database information through a court ruling and the information was delivered. That ruling coupled with this one practically assures us all that if we're in a CRP, bangs vaccination, crop subsidy, any sort of verified beef program - you name it - we're all at risk of having our information disclosed. This ruling isn't a blow to NAIS and it will do nothing to stop NAIS. It's a blow to all of us.

This adds to the argument of opponents that information in an NAIS system cannot be kept private. Few will want to register if they have no guarantee of privacy.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Cinch said:
Reggie said:
I'm curious about why this would be viewed as some sort of "win".

In my opinion it's a significant setback. Solid legal precedent is being established that makes information gathered under NAIS, or any other federal database program subject to public disclosure. Not long ago FSA was forced to deliver its database information through a court ruling and the information was delivered. That ruling coupled with this one practically assures us all that if we're in a CRP, bangs vaccination, crop subsidy, any sort of verified beef program - you name it - we're all at risk of having our information disclosed. This ruling isn't a blow to NAIS and it will do nothing to stop NAIS. It's a blow to all of us.

This adds to the argument of opponents that information in an NAIS system cannot be kept private. Few will want to register if they have no guarantee of privacy.

Yep. It proves R-CALF right on one of their talking points and further advances their credibility on the topic.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Court Order Halt to Animal ID
Court Orders USDA to Halt Animal ID Program


A federal district court judge ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to indefinitely halt its controversial national plan to track livestock electronically.

Critics of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) - a livestock identification and tracking program - said the government's plan to implant devices in all U.S. livestock to track potential cases of animal diseases, such as avian flu and mad cow disease, would be ineffectual and cost prohibitive.

The USDA said the program would remain voluntary at the federal level while providing state departments of agriculture with funds to implement the tracking program. But many felt that the government's program would jeopardize sustainable livestock farms. Plaintiff Mary-Louise Zanoni sued in U.S. District Court District of Columbia to have the program's effective date of June 9 suspended pending further orders by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. A full text of the Federal Register Notice on the court order can be accessed at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-13065.htm
News release brought to you by the National Bison Association
www.bisoncentral.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
Court Order Halt to Animal ID
Court Orders USDA to Halt Animal ID Program


A federal district court judge ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to indefinitely halt its controversial national plan to track livestock electronically.

Critics of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) - a livestock identification and tracking program - said the government's plan to implant devices in all U.S. livestock to track potential cases of animal diseases, such as avian flu and mad cow disease, would be ineffectual and cost prohibitive.

The USDA said the program would remain voluntary at the federal level while providing state departments of agriculture with funds to implement the tracking program. But many felt that the government's program would jeopardize sustainable livestock farms. Plaintiff Mary-Louise Zanoni sued in U.S. District Court District of Columbia to have the program's effective date of June 9 suspended pending further orders by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. A full text of the Federal Register Notice on the court order can be accessed at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-13065.htm
News release brought to you by the National Bison Association
www.bisoncentral.com

Now to get all the other unconstituional laws stuck in the Patriot Act (or all of it) repealed and we'll be back to a country of the people, by the people, for the people--and States Rights--- and not everything for Big Government and Big Business.... :D
 

mrj

Well-known member
Are you very sure it was antibiotics or ionophores in the FEED, Sandhusker?

Or was it something with which the EGGS were inoculated before HATCHING into CHICKS?

The latter was the case in a news story I read.

And, isn't it wonderful that government files on virtually any program in which farmers participate, voluntary or mandatory, is now available to the press and the public????

There is such a thing as carrying 'freedom' of information TOO FAR.

Which brings up a related point: why is it that all the newspapers which suport/demand freedom resulting in reams of pages being published in their papers each year fail to inform us of the income they receive from such 'freedom'????

mrj
 

Mike

Well-known member
mrj said:
Are you very sure it was antibiotics or ionophores in the FEED, Sandhusker?

Or was it something with which the EGGS were inoculated before HATCHING into CHICKS?

The latter was the case in a news story I read.

And, isn't it wonderful that government files on virtually any program in which farmers participate, voluntary or mandatory, is now available to the press and the public????

There is such a thing as carrying 'freedom' of information TOO FAR.

Which brings up a related point: why is it that all the newspapers which suport/demand freedom resulting in reams of pages being published in their papers each year fail to inform us of the income they receive from such 'freedom'????

mrj

Wednesday, June 04, 2008Print This Page
Tyson Rips Off Antibiotic Free Chicken Label
US - Tyson has backed down this week after having its antibiotic free chicken claims rejected over the course of the last year. Instead the company has asked the United States Department of Agriculture to consider initiating a public process to bring more clarity and consistency to labeling and advertising rules involving antibiotic-related product claims and all raising claims in general.



“We still support the idea of marketing chicken raised without antibiotics because we know it’s what most consumers want,” said Dave Hogberg, senior vice president of Consumer Products for Tyson Foods. “However, in order to preserve the integrity of our label and our reputation as a premier company in the food industry, we believe there needs to be more specific labeling and advertising protocols developed to ensure the rules are clear and application of the rules is equitable."


Background
In May 2007, the USDA approved Tyson’s Raised Without Antibiotic chicken label application, which noted Tyson's chicken feed ingredients include commonly-used antimicrobials known as ionophores. However, by fall USDA officials reversed their position saying they made a mistake since some organizations have narrowly classified ionophores as antibiotics, though they are not used in human medicine. In December 2007, the USDA approved a new label and subsequently issued industry guidelines for the claim "Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics That Impact Antibiotic Resistance in Humans.” Tyson then moved forward with a change to this "qualified" claim on its packaging and in advertising.

The initial label, the revised or "qualified" label, as well as all supporting advertising and marketing materials, have become the subject of a lawsuit by two competitors, a petition to USDA by three competitors and a purported class action lawsuit allegedly on behalf of consumers.


Transition
The transition away from Tyson’s qualified Raised Without Antibiotics product label to a new label with no antibiotic claim will be implemented. The company has already begun designing and ordering new labeling and packaging materials and will start using them as soon as they arrive. Packages with the new labels, which will not make any reference to antibiotics, should start arriving at stores within the next six weeks. Some products with the original and qualified labels will continue to be in the marketplace for several months since they are in frozen inventory and have not yet been placed in a retail meat case.

Assuming the USDA will conduct public hearings or establish some type of rulemaking process, Tyson and other poultry companies would make future antibiotic claims only when consistent with the new rules or protocols adopted by the USDA, if any.

Tyson's voluntary withdrawal of the qualified Raised Without Antibiotics chicken label is not expected to result in any major changes in the way Tyson protects the health of its birds. The company does not use antibiotics for the purpose of growth promotion. On those rare occasions when antibiotics are used to treat illness, it is on a prescription basis only to protect bird health and administered under the direction of a veterinarian and according to FDA guidelines.



ThePoultrySite News Desk
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Are you very sure it was antibiotics or ionophores in the FEED, Sandhusker?

Regardless of where they were/are used, ionophores ARE antibiotics.

And, isn't it wonderful that government files on virtually any program in which farmers participate, voluntary or mandatory, is now available to the press and the public????

Yes, it's called transparency in government. I think taxpayers have the right to know where their dollars are being spent, don't you?

Which brings up a related point: why is it that all the newspapers which suport/demand freedom resulting in reams of pages being published in their papers each year fail to inform us of the income they receive from such 'freedom'????

You ask that question here, but yet you support the "Agribusiness FREEDOM Foundation" which won't disclose the income they (actually "he") receives, where it comes from, or even who is on the board that he claims to follow the direction of! Why don't you ask Dittmer and then you will have the answer to your question. Let us know what he says.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Delusional Sandhusker, do you want your name and level of support of every group to which you belong released to the public? How about your church? Your favorite political group or individual?

I am a member of various groups such as, and including, Agribusiness Freedom Foundation, and no, I do not care to have that information given to anyone requesting it. My family has been threatened with harm to our businesses for not joining at least one organization, as have other business people I know. That is why I believe you are off base in your latter assertion.

It is one thing to know WHAT government dollars are spent for (such as Conservation, Hail Damage, etc), and quite another to know individual farmers and businesses who receive government money for services they perform, such as participating in conservation projects, CRP, etc. under the Farm Program.

Your premise in that regard would require name of all who are on Welfare, or work for construction companies under gov't contract to be named in public lists.......oh great! More money for the newspapers!

mrj
 

Reggie

Active member
The fuss over transparency in this thread is interesting.

Each and every year NCBA publishes a complete audit of its financial transactions. The audit is published in a three-ring binder and is made available to any member, or anyone, in attendance including the media. Every NCBA member has full disclosure of every dime spent by the organization. Any question is answered by accountants present if there are any questions and typically there are not because an indepedent auditing firm handles the process.

In addition, NCBA publishes in the same three-ring binder a full report on its membership levels. These are broken down by state and by level.

In this same three-ring binder are copies of meeting minutes along with committee reports.

R-CALF does not release accountant-generated and audited financial positions. R-CALF does not release meeting minutes. If a member wants to review meeting minutes, one must travel to the headquarters office to see those and copies are not permitted nor is note-taking. R-CALF's board of directors are operating subject to confidentiality agreements which preclude them from speaking to most any of the organization's significant business. R-CALF does not release specific membership reports that correlate with membership revenue for any given year. This isn't transparency for members or taxpayers (R-CALF is a non-profit, tax exempt organization responsible not only to its members but to the taxpayers as well). This secrecy and lack of transparency is not good business.

Ionophores aren't necessarily antibiotics. Ionophores are molecules that transport ions across the lipid bilayer of a cell's membrane. Our bodies and those of all warm blooded creatures are comprised of cations and anions, which have positive and negative charges that can, and do, resist allowing certain properties and substances from entering cells. Ionophores allow certain substances and properties to enter cells which is why they are often used in tandem with antibiotics and other drugs for effectiveness.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Delusional Sandhusker, do you want your name and level of support of every group to which you belong released to the public? How about your church? Your favorite political group or individual?

Delusional MRJ, we were talking about government programs, not churches and "every group", and your donations to politicians are already open to the public.

I am a member of various groups such as, and including, Agribusiness Freedom Foundation, and no, I do not care to have that information given to anyone requesting it.

You were the one wanting to know the incomes. I guess your opinion changes when it concerns you?

It is one thing to know WHAT government dollars are spent for (such as Conservation, Hail Damage, etc), and quite another to know individual farmers and businesses who receive government money for services they perform, such as participating in conservation projects, CRP, etc. under the Farm Program.

It is already public information on what farmers receive from programs
 

Reggie

Active member
Sure, information is already available on what producers receive from federally subsidized programs. Tell us something we don't already know instead of stating the obvious repeatedly.

The difference being NOW because of this ruling that you're so proud of that if you're enrolled in a bangs vaccination program, and many of us vaccinate for bangs, or if you're in a Johne's Disease eradication program; or if you're part of a federal herd surveillance or treatment program for any disease your information is now fair game for the public. Until now, those databases were assumed to be protected.

I'll say it again - this ruling was no win for any of us and any outfit bragging about it needs to think beyond furthering its own credbility and more about the constitutional rights of its members.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'm not "proud" of this ruling, I'm vindicated by it. This is one of the predictions that R-CALF has been making all along.

There's also no bragging going on, just a bit of "I told you so".
 

Reggie

Active member
Vindicate: to support or maintain as true or correct; to sustain; to lay claim to.

If you are vindicated by this abhorrent ruling, then you lay claim to it and support it. "I told you so's" pale dramatically in their importance when one views just how destructive this ruling is to the industry.

Producers all over this country who belong to many different organizations made clear that exposure under disclosure laws was their number one concern about NAIS. No one group, no one person can claim the high moral ground with that concern and if they do, the question becomes "so what"? In fact, the original NAIS working group's fundamental concern was FOIA and disclosure for all producers.

So now all the folks enrolled whether they wanted to or not and there are plenty of the latter, are being bent over. You take comfort in that thought and you feel vindicated about it? You're pathetic.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Another case of King George and his Fools mistakenly thinking they can make law just by edict from the Throne- and it comes back to bite everyone else in the butt.... I think you'll see many of these edicts and powers bureaucrats grabbed under the Patriot Act authority- and possibly the whole Patriot Act thrown out the door in the future....

But if this stops the building of the massive Federal bureaucracy of NAIS-- then it is a win for cattlemen....Give it back to the states where it belongs...
 

Reggie

Active member
The federal bureaucracy of NAIS has already been built. Here's a reality check for you. USDA won't make it mandatory...Congress will. House agriculture leadership has already made clear the intent to make the system mandatory. The Senate leadership is murmuring the same thing. With the ongoing food safety emergencies, it's a steep hill to climb to try to defeat the program.

You mentioned sending it "back to the states where it belongs". Nice rhetoric but what about the poor folks in Michigan, Illinois and Colorado where it's being made mandatory for certain segments of the industry - NOT BY WASHINGTON, BUT BY THE STATE GOVERNMENTS. Send it back to the states and you're witnessing in those states what will happen.

With the impending relocation of the biosafety lab from Plum Island to the mainland, we'd better wake up and think about an FMD outbreak in this country and what our state vets will need when that catastrophe hits the livestock industry. I've said all along and I'll keep saying it - the state veterinarians should have been the ones who put a plan on the table and we and Washington DC should've listened to them. We have terrific, qualified state vets like Susan Keller in North Dakota who knows what she needs without burdening producers and exposing them to all this nasty disclosure. But, lost in the debate fervor were their voices - mostly smothered by the nutcase radicals who resist anything other than their brand in their corner of the country as the instrument for traceback. Sometimes I thnk we get exactly what we deserve because we can't seem to unify on one single thing when the heat gets turned up. The NCBA-haters and the R-CALF-haters can't find common ground to work from. And, now at least one of them feels "vindicated" by a ruling that harms every producer in the country. I didn't see NCBA praising this ruling. I don't see NCBA members crowing "I told you so." I'm beginning to understand why NCBA has 31,000 members and I can see why major industry-related companies stay hitched to the organization. If Leo McDonnell was still at the helm of R-CALF there would have been some forethought given to this and R-CALF's response would've been a reasoned, logical approach instead of this moronic, smug short-sighted, self-serving response.

I have a question for MRJ. At its lowest point during the worst times, didn't NCBA's membership numbers stay above 25,000? What do you attribute the current growth in membership to? Is it R-CALF's failures and collapse or is it the change in NCBA that's driving this?
 
Top