The Money Behind the National Animal ID System

[Liberty Belle]

These big government socialists never give up. Remember that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and unless we stay focused and alert we're going to get a mandaatory NAIS shoved down our throats.

NAIS: Simpler Technology Fuels Fire
by William Pape | Nov 14, 2009
No sooner have most people pronounced NAIS dead-on-arrival, than a number of recent events may have breathed life back into the U.S.A.'s National Animal Identification Scheme. A combination of market forces aligned with a simplified tracking technology, and some rare positive news may have reinvigorated USDA's moribund, voluntary animal traceability initiative.

First the news headlines. Even though the U.S. House of Representatives had voted to cut off funding for the NAIS as part of the Farm Bill, a joint House-Senate conference committee agreed a few weeks ago to continue funding the program to the tune of $5.3 million for fiscal year 2010-2011. This funding is a reduction from the $14.2 million authorized for last year and less than the $14.6 million the Senate approved, but the program will continue. However, a growing number of Congressional members have made it clear they want to see effective leadership from USDA to dispel some of the more egregious NAIS rumors running unchallenged in the countryside (e.g., backyard farmers with only a few chickens for home use or sale to friends will have to tag and track each animal). They also want to expand the number of farms and ranches that have registered with the NAIS premises database from the current anemic 35% to closer to the 90% needed for an effective national system.

The second piece of good news for NAIS supporters is that U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer in Washington, D.C., dismissed a civil suit filed by the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and a group of Michigan cattlemen against the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) over the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The group's suit, filed last September, sought to enjoin the implementation and enforcement of NAIS. The suit was dismissed primarily because Judge Collyer ruled the program was voluntarily adopted by state departments of agriculture and was not federally mandated.

Even with a bit of good news, the anti-NAIS forces continue to rally their troops by claiming that NAIS is overly burdensome, and is unnecessary because existing livestock records, such as brands, ear tags, veterinary logs and auction barn records do a good job of tracking cattle movements. Dr. George Teagarden, the Kansas state veterinarian, agrees that the current, fragmented record-keeping system can be used "to find the animals in question, but it can be months after the fact." According to Dr. Teagarden, this time lag isn't nearly fast enough and he cautions, "A highly contagious animal disease will devastate this country." He underscores this dire prediction by noting that in Kansas in a single month cattle from all 48 of the Continental U.S. states arrive at least once a month. The speed of commerce is way too fast to be handled by the fragmented, paper-based system. Dr. Teagarden advocates a mandatory ID and traceability program that is consistent across state lines, and notes, "What voluntary system do any of you know that ever worked?"

Apparently, a number of national governments agree with Dr. Teagarden, and recently several have made or are poised to move their systems from voluntary to mandatory. Within the last few months these key countries have made major moves towards mandatory traceability; moves that are likely to impact USA policy and USA producers.

I left out the middle of this long article but here is the closing paragraph and the link so you can read it all:
Even with all of these developments, make no mistake -- NAIS is still on life support, and it may still die. But when the marketplace speaks and producers begin to feel the pinch or bulge in their wallets, or, God forbid, we have the type of catastrophic event Dr. Teagarden prophesies, even the most hardened producer will either adapt to the new reality or leave the business. Simplified technological approaches may help tip the scales, and we have seen within our own animal tracking commercial activities over the last eleven years that our simplified technologies are the ones most often embraced. As is so often the case, technology can pave the way towards adoption or rejection.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/11/nais-simpler-technology-fuels-fire/

 

[Anonymous]

These big government socialists never give up. Remember that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and unless we stay focused and alert we're going to get a mandaatory NAIS shoved down our throats.

I just have to sit back and chuckle- as I remember how this NAIS ID idea was brought forward by the Bush Administration- and Vennaman and Johanns/etal tried to shove it down our throats- calling it voluntary, but making it mandatory...And many of the cult followers of the (R) brand- wouldn't speak out against it- or actually promoted it-- with some so called cattle organizations even trying to jump in on the profiteering off the cattlemen...
But now its a big government "socialist" conspiracy... :wink: :lol: :lol:


And all the Canadians were praising it as the answer to all their import/export problems- and going to make them money hand over fist...
Which in reality their markets have tumbled into the sewers-- and now that it goes into effect- and its found the technology is inadequate for the law- and being enforced- and penalties handed out for technological failures--the CFIA is being villified as "Tag Cops" for enforcing the law:

http://www.agri-ville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1258053549

(This was exactly what the Australians warned happened in Australia when they let NAIS get shoved down their throats)

I agree Liberty Belle- it is a big infringement on individual rights- and is an unworkable system- that will only build a huge new government bureacracy...But its funny so many of the (R's) and "good old boys" never saw that when the Bush Boys proposed it :???:
Well if calling it "socialist" now will help kill it-- GREAT!!...

 

[PORKER]

(This was exactly what the Australians warned happened in Australia when they let NAIS get shoved down their throats) They dont have traceback records or traceback documention either
and all the Canadians were praising it as the answer to all their import/export problems- and going to make them money hand over fist...

As Mike says, show me the money!

 

[Liberty Belle]

These big government socialists never give up. Remember that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and unless we stay focused and alert we're going to get a mandatory NAIS shoved down our throats.

I just have to sit back and chuckle- as I remember how this NAIS ID idea was brought forward by the Bush Administration- and Vennaman and Johanns/etal tried to shove it down our throats- calling it voluntary, but making it mandatory...And many of the cult followers of the (R) brand- wouldn't speak out against it- or actually promoted it-- with some so called cattle organizations even trying to jump in on the profiteering off the cattlemen...
But now its a big government "socialist" conspiracy... :wink: :lol: :lol:


And all the Canadians were praising it as the answer to all their import/export problems- and going to make them money hand over fist...
Which in reality their markets have tumbled into the sewers-- and now that it goes into effect- and its found the technology is inadequate for the law- and being enforced- and penalties handed out for technological failures--the CFIA is being villified as "Tag Cops" for enforcing the law:

http://www.agri-ville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1258053549

(This was exactly what the Australians warned happened in Australia when they let NAIS get shoved down their throats)

I agree Liberty Belle- it is a big infringement on individual rights- and is an unworkable system- that will only build a huge new government bureacracy...But its funny so many of the (R's) and "good old boys" never saw that when the Bush Boys proposed it :???:
Well if calling it "socialist" now will help kill it-- GREAT!!...

OT, I and a whole lot of other conservatives from both parties worked hard against NAIS when Bush was in office and we're just as opposed to it now. NAIS and several other big government programs were onerous and privacy-invading when Bush was in office, but they are "socialism-light" compared to what the Obama administration is trying to foist on to Americans now.

Although Bush was a nice guy, he was no conservative and I only voted for him when the choice was between him and that global warming alarmist idiot, Al Gore. I admired McCain for his military service, but he was even move left of center than Bush was and I'm darn sick of having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I may be wrong, but I think you chose the greater evil when you voted for Obama. How's that Hope and Change thing working for you? :???:

Bush is no longer president and hasn't been for almost a year. It's time for our present president to quit blaming Bush for all that's wrong in the world and take responsibility for the damage that Obama is doing to this country.

Make no mistake – I believe Obama is evil and what he and his administration are attempting to do to this country is criminal. I don't excuse the things Bush did that increased both the size of government and the national debt, but it's way past time for the voters who put Obama in office start to hold him accountable for the financial catastrophe that HE is creating.

 

[Liberty Belle]

These big government socialists never give up. Remember that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and unless we stay focused and alert we're going to get a mandatory NAIS shoved down our throats.

I just have to sit back and chuckle- as I remember how this NAIS ID idea was brought forward by the Bush Administration- and Vennaman and Johanns/etal tried to shove it down our throats- calling it voluntary, but making it mandatory...And many of the cult followers of the (R) brand- wouldn't speak out against it- or actually promoted it-- with some so called cattle organizations even trying to jump in on the profiteering off the cattlemen...
But now its a big government "socialist" conspiracy... :wink: :lol: :lol:


And all the Canadians were praising it as the answer to all their import/export problems- and going to make them money hand over fist...
Which in reality their markets have tumbled into the sewers-- and now that it goes into effect- and its found the technology is inadequate for the law- and being enforced- and penalties handed out for technological failures--the CFIA is being villified as "Tag Cops" for enforcing the law:

http://www.agri-ville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1258053549

(This was exactly what the Australians warned happened in Australia when they let NAIS get shoved down their throats)

I agree Liberty Belle- it is a big infringement on individual rights- and is an unworkable system- that will only build a huge new government bureacracy...But its funny so many of the (R's) and "good old boys" never saw that when the Bush Boys proposed it :???:
Well if calling it "socialist" now will help kill it-- GREAT!!...

OT, I and a whole lot of other conservatives from both parties worked hard against NAIS when Bush was in office and we're just as opposed to it now. NAIS and several other big government programs were onerous and privacy-invading when Bush was in office, but they are "socialism-light" compared to what the Obama administration is trying to foist on to Americans now.

Although Bush was a nice guy, he was no conservative and I only voted for him when the choice was between him and that global warming alarmist idiot, Al Gore. I admired McCain for his military service, but he was even move left of center than Bush was and I'm darn sick of having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I may be wrong, but I think you chose the greater evil when you voted for Obama. How's that Hope and Change thing working for you? :???:

Bush is no longer president and hasn't been for almost a year. It's time for our present president to quit blaming Bush for all that's wrong in the world and take responsibility for the damage that Obama is doing to this country.

Make no mistake – I believe Obama is evil and what he and his administration are attempting to do to this country is criminal. I don't excuse the things Bush did that increased both the size of government and the national debt, but it's way past time for the voters who put Obama in office start to hold him accountable for the financial catastrophe that HE is creating.

 

[Anonymous]

Well LB- I still think its comical that I can't remember you getting that worked up about it and vocal when the idea was packing the (R) brand...

Enough to even get you stuttering :wink: :lol: :lol:


But I agree with you to keep fighting it......

 

[Liberty Belle]

Sorry about that, OT. This darn thing wouldn't let me post until I wound up with two and now it won't let me delete the second one.

Back to the subject of mandatory animal ID. I doubt you'd remember because you probably don't keep up with the legislature in South Dakota, but I have been one of the very vocal co-sponsors of a bill to keep animal ID voluntary in SD each of the three years I've been in the legislature. In 2007 it was HB 1199, in 2008 it was HB 1305, and in 2009 we brought HB 1224.

In every instance we lost because of opposition from liberal politicians from both parties. We'll be bringing another bill this year and at least one of the legislators who voted against our bill last year is going to co-sponsor the next bill.

Wish us luck?

 

[Liberty Belle]

The funding for NAIS may have been reduced but it's a long way from being dead. Leftists have it on life support hoping to fully fund NAIS after it is made mandatory. Read the last sentence of this.

NAIS funding cut by two thirds for 2010 fiscal year

The national animal traceability program will receive about a third as much money in the 2010 fiscal year as in the preceding year.

Unspent money from the previous fiscal year will be available for the program, but the Department of Agriculture had not determined the amount left over by press time.

Despite the funding cut, the U.S. House and Senate members who crafted the agriculture appropriations bill, which President Obama signed Oct. 21, indicated in a conference committee report they expect the USDA to show "demonstrable progress" in implementing the National Animal Identification System.

"If significant progress is not made, the conferees will consider eliminating funding for the program," the report states.

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 includes $5.3 million for the NAIS. Ed C. Curlett, a spokesman for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said the system received $14.5 million in 2009, about $10 million in 2008, and about $33 million yearly in 2007 and 2006.

Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, AVMA CEO, said he shares the frustrations expressed by several members of Congress over the lack of progress in implementing the NAIS after six years of work and well more than $100 million invested.

"We've seen numerous comprehensive plans and time lines for implementation from the USDA, yet none of these plans or time lines has garnered sufficient political or public support to move forward in any substantive way," Dr. DeHaven said.

"Instead, under three different administrations, we have held three rounds of public listening sessions all across the country with no clear course forward emanating from this public discourse."

Dr. Harry O. Snelson, communications director for the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, said USDA officials indicated to him they expect about $5 million will be available from the previous fiscal year. That money will help the USDA keep cooperative agreements with states and fund premises registrations and data storage, but he does not think there will be funding to substantially expand registrations.

Curlett said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and USDA staff were reviewing information gathered during a national listening tour on the NAIS that took place in spring and summer 2009, and that information will be used to determine the direction for animal disease traceability efforts.

In public meetings and online comments, some food animal producers expressed opposition to a mandatory NAIS on the basis of their perceptions that the system will place a disproportionate financial burden on small producers, provide no benefits, endanger or invade their privacy, or violate their religious beliefs.
The AVMA has advocated for a mandatory NAIS rather than the current voluntary system. Dr. DeHaven said the position is well-founded given the money and time wasted on a voluntary system and the risks posed by disease.

Dr. M. Gatz Riddell, executive vice president of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, said it seems that substantial resistance to the NAIS among some producers is influencing their legislators' opinions on the system. But he thinks the government will eventually implement the mandatory electronic identification system needed to trace animal origins and movements quickly enough to avoid disasters caused by the introduction of foreign animal diseases.

"Until it becomes mandatory, you really can't expect the government to put much money behind it," Dr. Riddell said.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec09/091201n.asp

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "I'm PROUD to be on the opposite side of what you're on, regardless, SH!"

That's good to know Sandhusker! I always knew you were a follower. My views require the ability to think for yourself and base your decisions on facts rather than populist opinions. I have no problem standing alone if need be. The courts have proved my views.


~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

This looks like a good way to use the money remaining in the federal NAIS program. If you are a member of one or more of the ag groups signing this letter remember to thank them for looking out for your interests.

Use Reduced NAIS Funds to Dissolve Program Altogether

Billings, Mont.

A 100-group coalition – in a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and a separate letter to Congress – is urging that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) be dissolved completely and that all 100 organizations look forward to working with USDA "…to enhance our nation's animal disease preparedness in a manner that builds upon our past successes and respects the interests of U.S. livestock producers and consumers."

The letter to Congress asks members of the House and Senate to "…support the limited use of NAIS funding to shut down the program, and to refocus the agency on measures that truly improve animal health and that respect the interests of both livestock owners and consumers."

In the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, Congress reduced NAIS funding to $5.3 million, but did not specify how those funds were to be allocated.

"We respectfully request that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognize the fundamental flaws in NAIS and the public opposition to the program, and not use the $5.3 million appropriated for NAIS to further advance, in any way, this program," states the letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Instead, the 100 groups recommend that USDA expressly limit the use of the funds to:

1) Formally withdraw all pending rulemaking initiated by the agency to advance NAIS and pay the associated costs;

2) Pay all existing contractual obligations and NAIS-related costs that USDA incurred prior to Sept. 30, 2009;

3) Pay all costs associated with transferring the computer hardware acquired by USDA as part of NAIS to state animal health agencies, to enable state agencies to improve their ability to communicate among agencies in the event of a disease outbreak; and,

4) Pay all costs associated with providing the people of the United States and Congress with an official, comprehensive report on all of the testimony USDA received at each of the NAIS listening sessions held throughout the country in 2009.

"We urge this course of action because, contrary to its stated purposes, NAIS will not address animal disease or food safety problems," the letter to Congress states. "Instead, NAIS imposes high costs and paperwork burdens on family farmers and creates incentives for corporate-controlled confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and vertically integrated systems. This ill-conceived and badly implemented program should be halted."

Here are just a few of the reasons that NAIS is fundamentally flawed: 1) no food safety benefits; 2) no analysis or quantification of the alleged benefits; 3) unfair burdens placed on family farms and sustainable livestock operations; and, 4) high costs.

The 100 signors to the two letters include: Acres USA; Adopt a Farm Family; American Goat Society; American Grassfed Assn.; American Indian Horse Registry; American Policy Center; American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Assn.; Arkansas Animal Producers Assn.; Bluebonnet Equine Human Society; California Farmers Union; Carolina Farm Stewardship Assn.; Cattlemen's Texas Longhorn Registry; Chez Panisse; Citizens for Private Property Rights (Mo.); Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Assn.; Community Farm Alliance (Ky.); Constitutional Alliance; The Cornucopia Institute; Dakota Resource Council; Dakota Rural Action; Davis Mountain Trans Pecos Heritage Assn. (Texas); Edible Austin; Edible San Marcos (Texas); Empire State Family Farm Alliance (N.Y.); Equus Survival Trust; Fair Food Matters (Mich.); Family Farm Defenders; Farm Aid; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; Farmers Union of Adams County (N.D.); Food & Water Watch; Food for Maine's Future; Freedom 21; Gun Owners of America; Idaho Rural Council; Independent Cattlemen of Iowa; Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Beef Assn. of North Dakota; Innovative Farmers of Ohio; International Texas Longhorn Assn.; Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement; Kansas Cattlemen's Assn.; Land Stewardship Project (Minn.); Local Harvest; Main Alternative Agriculture Assn.; Main Organic Farmers and Gardeners Assn.; Marshall County Citizens for Property Rights (Ala.); Massachusetts Smallholders Alliance; Michigan Farmers Union; Michigan Land Trustees; Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance; Mississippi Livestock Markets Assn.; Missouri Rural Crisis Center; Missourians for Local Control; Monroe/LaCrosse County Farmers Union (Wis.); Montana Cattlemen's Assn.; Montana Farmers Union; National Association of Farm Animal Welfare; National Family Farm Coalition; Nat'l. Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Assn.; Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society; North Carolina Contract Poultry Growers Assn.; Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (Conn.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (Mass.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (N.H.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (N.Y.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (Vt.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. Interstate Council; Northern Illinois Draft Horse and Mule Assn.; Northern New Mexico Stockman's Assn.; Northern Plains Resource Council (Mont.); Ohio Farmers Union; Oregon Livestock Producers Assn.; Oregon Rural Action; Organic Consumers Assn.; Organization for Competitive Markets; Ozarks Property Rights Congress (Mo.); Paso Fino Horse Assn.; Powder River Basin Resource Council (Wyo.); Progressive Agriculture Organization (Pa.); Property Rights Congress; R-CALF USA; Regional Farm and Food Project (N.Y.); Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Secure Arkansas; Small Farmer's Journal; Small Farms Conservancy; South Dakota Stockgrowers Assn.; Sovereignty International; Stop Real ID Coalition; Sustainable Food Center (Texas); Texas Landowners Council; Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Assn.; US Boer Goat Assn.; Virginia Independent Consumers & Farmers Assn.; Virginia Land Rights Coalition; Western Organization of Resource Councils; Weston A. Price Foundation; and, Wintergarden Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (Texas).

© 2008 The Nebraska Rural Radio Association

http://www.kneb.com/news/agricultural/38abec8b-81bc-4481-99f0-59d4117785e2

 

[Tex]

This looks like a good way to use the money remaining in the federal NAIS program. If you are a member of one or more of the ag groups signing this letter remember to thank them for looking out for your interests.

Use Reduced NAIS Funds to Dissolve Program Altogether

Billings, Mont.

A 100-group coalition – in a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and a separate letter to Congress – is urging that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) be dissolved completely and that all 100 organizations look forward to working with USDA "…to enhance our nation's animal disease preparedness in a manner that builds upon our past successes and respects the interests of U.S. livestock producers and consumers."

The letter to Congress asks members of the House and Senate to "…support the limited use of NAIS funding to shut down the program, and to refocus the agency on measures that truly improve animal health and that respect the interests of both livestock owners and consumers."

In the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, Congress reduced NAIS funding to $5.3 million, but did not specify how those funds were to be allocated.

"We respectfully request that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognize the fundamental flaws in NAIS and the public opposition to the program, and not use the $5.3 million appropriated for NAIS to further advance, in any way, this program," states the letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Instead, the 100 groups recommend that USDA expressly limit the use of the funds to:

1) Formally withdraw all pending rulemaking initiated by the agency to advance NAIS and pay the associated costs;

2) Pay all existing contractual obligations and NAIS-related costs that USDA incurred prior to Sept. 30, 2009;

3) Pay all costs associated with transferring the computer hardware acquired by USDA as part of NAIS to state animal health agencies, to enable state agencies to improve their ability to communicate among agencies in the event of a disease outbreak; and,

4) Pay all costs associated with providing the people of the United States and Congress with an official, comprehensive report on all of the testimony USDA received at each of the NAIS listening sessions held throughout the country in 2009.

"We urge this course of action because, contrary to its stated purposes, NAIS will not address animal disease or food safety problems," the letter to Congress states. "Instead, NAIS imposes high costs and paperwork burdens on family farmers and creates incentives for corporate-controlled confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and vertically integrated systems. This ill-conceived and badly implemented program should be halted."

Here are just a few of the reasons that NAIS is fundamentally flawed: 1) no food safety benefits; 2) no analysis or quantification of the alleged benefits; 3) unfair burdens placed on family farms and sustainable livestock operations; and, 4) high costs.

The 100 signors to the two letters include: Acres USA; Adopt a Farm Family; American Goat Society; American Grassfed Assn.; American Indian Horse Registry; American Policy Center; American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Assn.; Arkansas Animal Producers Assn.; Bluebonnet Equine Human Society; California Farmers Union; Carolina Farm Stewardship Assn.; Cattlemen's Texas Longhorn Registry; Chez Panisse; Citizens for Private Property Rights (Mo.); Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Assn.; Community Farm Alliance (Ky.); Constitutional Alliance; The Cornucopia Institute; Dakota Resource Council; Dakota Rural Action; Davis Mountain Trans Pecos Heritage Assn. (Texas); Edible Austin; Edible San Marcos (Texas); Empire State Family Farm Alliance (N.Y.); Equus Survival Trust; Fair Food Matters (Mich.); Family Farm Defenders; Farm Aid; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; Farmers Union of Adams County (N.D.); Food & Water Watch; Food for Maine's Future; Freedom 21; Gun Owners of America; Idaho Rural Council; Independent Cattlemen of Iowa; Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Beef Assn. of North Dakota; Innovative Farmers of Ohio; International Texas Longhorn Assn.; Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement; Kansas Cattlemen's Assn.; Land Stewardship Project (Minn.); Local Harvest; Main Alternative Agriculture Assn.; Main Organic Farmers and Gardeners Assn.; Marshall County Citizens for Property Rights (Ala.); Massachusetts Smallholders Alliance; Michigan Farmers Union; Michigan Land Trustees; Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance; Mississippi Livestock Markets Assn.; Missouri Rural Crisis Center; Missourians for Local Control; Monroe/LaCrosse County Farmers Union (Wis.); Montana Cattlemen's Assn.; Montana Farmers Union; National Association of Farm Animal Welfare; National Family Farm Coalition; Nat'l. Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Assn.; Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society; North Carolina Contract Poultry Growers Assn.; Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (Conn.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (Mass.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (N.H.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (N.Y.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. (Vt.); Northeast Organic Farming Assn. Interstate Council; Northern Illinois Draft Horse and Mule Assn.; Northern New Mexico Stockman's Assn.; Northern Plains Resource Council (Mont.); Ohio Farmers Union; Oregon Livestock Producers Assn.; Oregon Rural Action; Organic Consumers Assn.; Organization for Competitive Markets; Ozarks Property Rights Congress (Mo.); Paso Fino Horse Assn.; Powder River Basin Resource Council (Wyo.); Progressive Agriculture Organization (Pa.); Property Rights Congress; R-CALF USA; Regional Farm and Food Project (N.Y.); Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Secure Arkansas; Small Farmer's Journal; Small Farms Conservancy; South Dakota Stockgrowers Assn.; Sovereignty International; Stop Real ID Coalition; Sustainable Food Center (Texas); Texas Landowners Council; Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Assn.; US Boer Goat Assn.; Virginia Independent Consumers & Farmers Assn.; Virginia Land Rights Coalition; Western Organization of Resource Councils; Weston A. Price Foundation; and, Wintergarden Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (Texas).

© 2008 The Nebraska Rural Radio Association

http://www.kneb.com/news/agricultural/38abec8b-81bc-4481-99f0-59d4117785e2

I think we should go further than this in dissolving this corporate plan to give themselves economic benefits at the expense of every one else:

MAKE THE SUPPORTERS OF NAIS REIMBURSE ALL OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH NAIS BACK TO THE TAXPAYER!!!!


Tex

 

[Frisco]

Quote by ~SH~ "Brand inspection east of the river would basically force everyone east of the river into added expense and the hassle of having cattle brand inspected prior to shipping for the benefit of a few that have experienced problems."

A radio chip and the needed equipment would force us who hot brand an added expense and hassle that would be hard to stand.

For my operation, one that sells home grown calves to feeders, why should I put a chip in for a feeder that buys many calves from many producers? Why shouldn't the feeder stand the expense? When some steer or heifer is found to have a problem later down the road, the chip could send it back to the right feeder and the feeder, if he's any kind of record keeper, will know "Oh, that was a flying V calf, that came from the John Smith outfit."

I would radio chip my calves if the buyer paid for it. For an operation that sells home grown calves with one brand in West River SD, I am not convinced that the NAIS is fair to impose on me.

Question: If I did radio chip my calves, would I still have to hot brand?

This is my opinion and is not meant to be argumentative. I respect and learn from all the posts. And if I'm missing something, I'd like to learn.

Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

Quote by ~SH~ "Brand inspection east of the river would basically force everyone east of the river into added expense and the hassle of having cattle brand inspected prior to shipping for the benefit of a few that have experienced problems."

A radio chip and the needed equipment would force us who hot brand an added expense and hassle that would be hard to stand.

For my operation, one that sells home grown calves to feeders, why should I put a chip in for a feeder that buys many calves from many producers? Why shouldn't the feeder stand the expense? When some steer or heifer is found to have a problem later down the road, the chip could send it back to the right feeder and the feeder, if he's any kind of record keeper, will know "Oh, that was a flying V calf, that came from the John Smith outfit."

I would radio chip my calves if the buyer paid for it. For an operation that sells home grown calves with one brand in West River SD, I am not convinced that the NAIS is fair to impose on me.

Question: If I did radio chip my calves, would I still have to hot brand?

This is my opinion and is not meant to be argumentative. I respect and learn from all the posts. And if I'm missing something, I'd like to learn.

Thanks.

Frisco- thing is- some of the feeders already have their own system- some much better than what the Bush Boys USDA came up with- and tried to mandate with NAIS- like the eye readers- that they file the paperwork/ranch signed affidavits and state brand inpections against and then already have signed affidavits/3rd party proof of origins to give to the packers/buyers/exporters if they want them.....
They've used these for years in the Asian market- and were using it long before I ever heard of Government mandate ID.....

 

[Liberty Belle]

Veterinarians in many states, including South Dakota, sold out to NAIS for big bucks. I and a lot of other cattle producers were very disappointed with the actions of Dr. Sam Holland, South Dakota's chief vet, who retired last year when the issue of mandatory NAIS started to heat up. We wish he would've retired much, much sooner... like before he took the fed's money!

AVMA Resolution Reveals US Herd Plan
December 9th, 2009

American Veterinarians became government contractors when they signed on to support the National Animal Identification System, NAIS. A few brief years ago the government claimed that NAIS would not result in any animal becoming part of the "US Animal Herd". Well, that was a few years ago, and with incrementation comes memory-lapse. The Winter Session of the AVAMA House of Delegates will consider resolutions relevant to animal well-being and Association matters during its regular winter session, Jan. 9, 2010.

Resolution 5, submitted by the American Association of Swine Veterinarians

Swine Disease Surveillance

"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) supports the development of comprehensive and integrated disease surveillance of the U.S. Swine Herd."

Here it is in black and white, the US Swine Herd…..but there is more…..

Public and animal health issues stemming from the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus have made the swine industry realize how important it is to develop a comprehensive plan to surveil the U.S. swine herd, according to Dr. Tom Burkgren, executive director of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians. In Resolution 5, the AASV seeks the AVMA's support for efforts to develop an integrated system.

Survel or surveillance is Phase III of NAIS, surveillance & tracking or tracing.

Currently the government monitors for diseases such as pseudorabies and swine brucellosis, and often, producers surveil their own herds for swine pathogens such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome.

"But there's not been a comprehensive plan to look not only at what exists but also what may be emerging in the swine herd. That's what the industry wants to move toward," Dr. Burkgren said. "We'd like to get something hashed out and in place in 2010."

The program would be designed to monitor for H1N1 and other influenza viruses, emerging and endemic diseases, and foreign animal diseases in an efficient, cost-effective manner.

"The effort is under way, and we're trying to sort out issues such as funding, responsibilities, and structure, because what we want is a database-type system that is flexible enough to respond to ongoing and future needs," he added.

Now the only question is not if but when you become part of the "US Herd". Remember, once you sign up and get the electronic 840 Country Code you are considered a national asset.

10 Minute Citizen: Call or write the AVMA and tell them we are saying "No, we refuse" to become reduced to animal caretakers for US government assets.

http://www.nonaiswa.org/?p=3936

 

[PORKER]

Rules related to National Animal Identification System put on hold
Friday December 11 2009

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service declined to forecast publication of a final rule on National Animal Identification System; Use of 840 Animal Identification Numbers for U.S.-Born Animals Only, in the agency's semi-annual regulatory agenda published Dec. 7. APHIS spokeswoman Joelle Hayden tells Food Traceability Report that rules related to the NAIS have been placed on hold "until [Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack] has determined what the future direction of animal disease traceability will be. At that time, they will be reviewed and appropriate actions taken."

APHIS says the rulemaking would amend the regulations concerning the interstate movement of animals to limit the use of the animal number (AIN) with the 840 prefix to animals born in the United States. It also would require that if such a device is lost following importation into the United States, the animal may only be retagged with an official identification device using a numbering system other than an AIN beginning with an 840 prefix.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I wish I could feel confident that the government is listening to the resounding message of NO mandatory NAIS from livestock organizations and producers across the nation.

Animal ID system approaches crossroads
Protests heard at listening sessions; funding slashed
By Tim Hearden
Capital Press

Cattle groups are hoping that actions by Congress and input from producers will put an end to talk of making participation in the National Animal Identification System mandatory.

As the U.S. Department of Agriculture considers comments it received in more than a dozen listening sessions in May and June, many producers hope that what emerges from the discussions is simply an improved voluntary program.

A coalition of groups -- including the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America -- is urging the federal government to divert funds and equipment to state animal health organizations, which they believe can more effectively control and eradicate animal diseases.

"The industry is still working hard to put a final end to NAIS, but we are at the same time waiting for USDA to make a decision," said Bill Bullard, R-CALF USA's chief executive officer.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and his staff are considering feedback from the listening sessions and haven't decided about "the future direction of animal disease traceability," said Joelle Hayden, spokeswoman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

NAIS was created on a voluntary basis five years ago to increase the nation's disease-response capabilities and to limit the spread of animal diseases.

The program involves several components, including premises registration, animal identification through use of radio frequency identification eartags and other devices, and the tracing of animal movement to quickly find at-risk animals.

As of this summer, only 36 percent of about 1.4 million premises had been registered under NAIS. The lack of voluntary participation is one reason that Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., chairwoman of the House of Representatives ag appropriations subcommittee, favors a mandatory ID system.

DeLauro believes a mandatory system would pay for itself by improving consumer confidence in American beef and would protect U.S. producers' market share abroad, a spokeswoman has said.

On its Web site, APHIS has praised efforts in Wisconsin, where premises identification is required and where electronic ID tags have become commonplace.

However, the U.S. Cattlemen's Association asserts that a recent economic analysis of NAIS showed that the cattle industry would bear significant costs as a result of a mandatory program, putting the beef industry at a disadvantage with competing protein sources.

Producers have long argued that a mandatory program would be unnecessary, expensive and duplicative of other programs, and they also believe it would be tailored toward large producers at the expense of smaller ones.

Many of those sentiments were voiced at the USDA's listening sessions, including one held May 18 in Pasco, Wash., where most of the 75 producers in attendance expressed opposition to a national ID system.

Attempts to expand NAIS suffered a blow in October when a congressional conference committee on ag appropriations slashed its funding from the $14.67 million requested by the USDA to $5.3 million.

"This USDA has to go from here (and decide) what to do with the program," said Mary Kay Thatcher, director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

A mandatory program's potential costs aren't lost on Jennifer Wiersma, who manages the Shasta College farm in Redding, Calif. A strong ID program is a good idea for tracking diseases, she said, but it would also be more costly for producers.

"We already keep track of our animals by regular ear tags," Wiersma said. "We don't have a big herd, and they don't go very far from here. ... It's just one more thing that we'll have to manage into our slim budget."

Columbus, Mont., rancher and feedlot owner Leo McDonnell, a board member for the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, said there might be some value in the government compiling information from existing source verification programs and building a national database.

"I think we've got about all the government we can stand in our businesses right now," he said. "But I think all of the businesses also realize the value of coordinating some of the systems that are out there so we can improve our animal trace-back or the ability to trace it back."

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association favors a voluntary program. In written comments to the USDA in August, the NCBA expressed concern that a mandatory program would expose producers' confidential information to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The organization also wants to make sure NAIS doesn't add unreasonable costs to producers or interfere with their operations, and that it will be used strictly for emergencies and not as a food-safety tool.

However, R-CALF USA wants NAIS scrapped entirely. It has asked that none of the recent $5.3 million appropriation be used to further promote NAIS, but that it instead be used to pay outstanding bills, Bullard said.

Computer hardware should be transferred from the federal government to state animal health officials, and Congress should receive a full report of all the testimony received at the listening sessions, R-CALF asserts.

"We believe that testimony really captures the sentiment of all the citizens in the country about the USDA's failed effort to impose such an onerous ... program on the livestock industry," Bullard said.

December 5, 2009

http://www.capitalpress.info/newest/TH-nais-photo-livestock-p-6

 

[flounder]

NAIS, COOL, FROM FARM TO FORK, MAD COW DISEASE AND OTHER DEADLY PATHOGENS



Greetings,


I do not understand the logic behind the fear to NAIS and COOL ?

I really don't.

Everything about us is traceable by the Government. Birth certificate, driver's license, social security number, your deed to your house, property, house number, car title, all the parts of your car are traceable, even each owner of the car since it rolled off the assembly line, boat, motor, etc. etc.

SO why all the concern on traceability of the food we eat ?

WHY does most folks in the industry fear this so much $$$

The fear of the NAIS and or COOL seems to be that no one wants their product to be traceable, because of fear of litigation from contaminated food, rather than the excuse of not wanting the Government messing in your business. Just my opinion.

An example would be the California mad cow beef recall (see history below), that eventually humans were exposed to suspect mad cow beef. A lot of folks. Same as with the Dead Stock Downer Cow School Lunch Program. These kids all across our Nation, for four years and probably longer, were fed the most high risk cattle for BSE aka mad cow disease from dead stock downer cows, where the largest beef recall (at the time) took place, of which, a great deal were already consumed by our children. With an incubation period of 50+ years in some cases, in others much shorter, who will watch our children for CJD for the next 5+ decades ?


see full text ;




Tuesday, December 15, 2009

NAIS, COOL, FROM FARM TO FORK, MAD COW DISEASE

http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2009/12/nais-cool-from-farm-to-fork-mad-cow.html

 

[schnurrbart]

This article shows where the money to fund NAIS is coming from and I'm upset with organizations that my family has been a part of for generations, like Farm Bureau, that were funding this gigantic government intrusion into OUR business behind our backs.

Check the numbers and refer to the footnotes to see the documentation:
http://naissucks.com/wordpress/?p=366

IM damned mad about it too Liberty Belle,and happy to partner with a pretty girl like you to fight the SOB's
good luck

Yep-- and the "socalled" cattlemens groups (like NCBA) wet their pants when you mention "pasture to plate" price encentivized/promoted ID--and full- not only truth in country (COOL) labeling-- but truth in ranch origin-- because the Big Multinational Packers they crawled into bed with years ago- along with the USDA- in a "nasty" menage a trois want nothing to do with traceback after it hits the slaughter house doors and the head comes off....

They'd rather allow passing off goat and burro meat from Mexico as US beef product under the USDA inspected label.... :wink:

Wouldn't need all the mandates- if the USDA was/would be honest with the USDA inspected label-- and instead of passing everything off as USDA inspected (which only .05% of imports are)- instead honestly said it was inspected by the Mexican Dept of Ag- or the Uruguayan Dept of Ag or even CFIA...........

I'm interested that "...goat and burro meat from Mexico..." remark. Could you tell us more about that or did you just make it up??

 

[Anonymous]

IM damned mad about it too Liberty Belle,and happy to partner with a pretty girl like you to fight the SOB's
good luck

Yep-- and the "socalled" cattlemens groups (like NCBA) wet their pants when you mention "pasture to plate" price encentivized/promoted ID--and full- not only truth in country (COOL) labeling-- but truth in ranch origin-- because the Big Multinational Packers they crawled into bed with years ago- along with the USDA- in a "nasty" menage a trois want nothing to do with traceback after it hits the slaughter house doors and the head comes off....

They'd rather allow passing off goat and burro meat from Mexico as US beef product under the USDA inspected label.... :wink:

Wouldn't need all the mandates- if the USDA was/would be honest with the USDA inspected label-- and instead of passing everything off as USDA inspected (which only .05% of imports are)- instead honestly said it was inspected by the Mexican Dept of Ag- or the Uruguayan Dept of Ag or even CFIA...........

I'm interested that "...goat and burro meat from Mexico..." remark. Could you tell us more about that or did you just make it up??

When one of the major US news organizations did an undercover investigation of USDA certified Mexican packing plants a few years ago- they filmed folks wheeling up/dragging up dead or dying burros and goats thru the back door of the packing plant- while the "government inspector" (A Mexican government employee which is poorly paid by the government- and who it is expected will get much of his wage thru payoffs and kickbacks) convieniently took a taco break...
And since only a small amount of imported food- .05% -is actually looked at by US inspectors/employees- they could be shipping in anything marked as beef...

 

[flounder]

Yep-- and the "socalled" cattlemens groups (like NCBA) wet their pants when you mention "pasture to plate" price encentivized/promoted ID--and full- not only truth in country (COOL) labeling-- but truth in ranch origin-- because the Big Multinational Packers they crawled into bed with years ago- along with the USDA- in a "nasty" menage a trois want nothing to do with traceback after it hits the slaughter house doors and the head comes off....

They'd rather allow passing off goat and burro meat from Mexico as US beef product under the USDA inspected label.... :wink:

Wouldn't need all the mandates- if the USDA was/would be honest with the USDA inspected label-- and instead of passing everything off as USDA inspected (which only .05% of imports are)- instead honestly said it was inspected by the Mexican Dept of Ag- or the Uruguayan Dept of Ag or even CFIA...........

I'm interested that "...goat and burro meat from Mexico..." remark. Could you tell us more about that or did you just make it up??

When one of the major US news organizations did an undercover investigation of USDA certified Mexican packing plants a few years ago- they filmed folks wheeling up/dragging up dead or dying burros and goats thru the back door of the packing plant- while the "government inspector" (A Mexican government employee which is poorly paid by the government- and who it is expected will get much of his wage thru payoffs and kickbacks) convieniently took a taco break...
And since only a small amount of imported food- .05% -is actually looked at by US inspectors/employees- they could be shipping in anything marked as beef...

The most recent assessments (and reassessments) were published in June 2005 (Table I; 18), and included the categorisation of Canada, the USA, and Mexico as GBR III. Although only Canada and the USA have reported cases, the historically open system of trade in North America suggests that it is likely that BSE is present also in Mexico.


http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/06heim937950.pdf



Monday, November 23, 2009

BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS UPDATE NOVEMBER 23, 2009 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND O.I.E.


http://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/2009/11/bse-gbr-risk-assessments-update.html


TSS