| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| brightmeadow |
Posted - Feb 19 2006 : 3:04:23 PM
I recently became aware of the USDA animal ID program. You can read about it here at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml
There was an article in Countryside magazine about this topic, and that article seemed like this program would be detrimental to small farmers. I found another web site about it http://www.stopanimalid.org. You can probably tell from their name what their position is.
I'm not sure what I think about this program yet. I know it is important to keep good records of your livestock for production reasons, but I'm not too sure about sharing those records with the public. Does anyone have any actual experience with registering their stock with the USDA?
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands - You shall be happy and it shall be well with you. -Psalm 128.2
Visit my web site store at http://www.watkinsonline.com/fish or my homepage at http://home.earthlink.net/~brightmeadow |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| brightmeadow |
Posted - Jan 31 2007 : 2:58:52 PM
Wow. Way more response that I expected! It will take me some time to digest this, I will try to do it tonight.
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands - You shall be happy and it shall be well with you. -Psalm 128.2
Visit my blog at http://brightmeadowfarms.blogspot.com ,web site store at http://www.watkinsonline.com/fish or my homepage at http://home.earthlink.net/~brightmeadow |
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 2:31:13 PM
Right now it's only a pipe dream but we're looking into it.
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| Tracey |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 12:57:57 PM
quote:
We're also looking into having a mobile state inspected poultry processing vehicle. Self contained. We drive to your farm to process your animals. Animals never leave the farm, no need to sign up for NAIS.
Um...can you come to my house, Cyn? But then...that would probably drive up the cost of my chickens, would it...
Visit Quiet Storm, our adopted Mustang! http://wildaboutquietstorm.com
http://carpentercreek.blogspot.com
|
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 12:49:51 PM
The OIE has authority over all member nations veterinary services. Most of the OIE rules are rather innocuous, however they have become increasingly involved in issues directly relating to trade since the advent of the WTO in 1994. OIE has also been increasingly involved with Codex and are working in concert on nearly everything at this time. Of particular importance to the subject of the NAIS (National Animal Identification System) is the issue of 'traceability/product tracing' and 'good farming practices'.
The OIE has a publication available on line called the "Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission" which is absolutely loaded with information regarding "traceability/product tracing" and Codex standards on the subject.
On page 41 of the TAHSC (Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission) it states that there is a critical relationship between animal identification and the traceability of animal products and that animal identification and traceability are "key tools for animal health, including zoonoses (diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans), and food safety", as well as "incidents, vaccination programmes, herd/flock management, zoning/compartmentalization, surveillance, early response and notification systems, animal movement controls, and health measures to facilitate trade."
Also worth noting from page 41 is the following paragraph:
"The Competent Authority in partnership with relevant government agencies and the private sector should establish a legal framework for the implementation and enforcement of animal identification and animal traceability in the country. In order to facilitate compatibility and consistency, relevant international standards and obligations should be taken into account. This legal framework should include elements such as the objectives, scope, organizational agreements including the choice of technologies used for identification and registration, obligation of the parties, confidentiality, accessibility issues and the efficient exchange of information."
In Appendix XXXIV of the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards document it states that VS (veterinary services) are the "Competent Authority" for animal identification and traceability in all member countries. It also does such fun things as role the words "animal identification system" into the word "animal identification" so that the smaller term may legally be referred to meaning an entire national or international system.
The European Union has made no real secret of the fact that their animal identification requirements are in line with both Codex and the OIE. It is my understanding that RFID will also be a mandatory requirement in the EU in January of 2008. There are a few catch phrases that have become fairly common stemming from the mandates of Codex, such as "farm to fork" traceability and "from stable to table", that leave no doubt of the identity of the progenitors of the US National Animal Identification System. The USDA and the OIE and Codex as well as the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) state that this is consumer driven.
While there may be a desire on the part of consumers to know the conditions under which their food was raised, the conditions which spark that desire are not conditions caused by small or medium sized agricultural endeavors, or even large privately owned operations. The corporate ag companies with their disregard for life and use of chemicals, antibiotics and hormones to improve their bottom line are responsible for the lack of confidence felt by those who cannot raise their own food. Yet the net effect of this program will be much higher cost for food and a loss of choice for the consumer as smaller farmers will be driven out of business by the costs of compliance and loss of production time because of the increase in paperwork and reporting needs as well as the many millions who will not be able to comply with the system because of deeply held religious convictions or aversions to the loss of freedom necessitated by the monitoring and surveillance implicit in this program.
As a matter of fact, corporate ag will be one of the few beneficiaries of this system because they will be allowed to tag their animals as groups or lots under only one tag per group/lot whereas those who practice more natural forms of animal rearing will need to tag each and every animal born at additional cost with additional reporting time. Reports may also be required on what is being fed to the stock as 'assurance' schemes are repeatedly referred to in both OIE and Codex guidelines.
On page 37 of theTAHSC (Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission document referred to above) there is a clear and indisputable tie to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 which passed into law and is enforced by the FDA in the United States. The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 is the Act which is requiring that hay producers in the US register their premises and report who drove the truck, which field it was from, who worked on the harvesting of the hay and to whom the hay was sold. A quote from the TAHSC document showing the clear link follows:
"…the Task Force on Animal Feeding (May 2004) agreed to add a footnote to the title of Section 4.3 "Traceability/Product Tracing and Record keeping of Feed and Feed Ingredients" to indicate the definition developed by the Codex committee on General Principles applied to the Code (Terrestrial Animal Health Code, of the OIE) as appropriate…..the prompt trace-back of feed and feed ingredients should be to the immediate previous source and trace forward should be to the next subsequent recipients."
Throughout these documents are references to harmonization of identification and traceability methods and standards. In one document by Perry, harmonization is defined as, "the establishment, recognition and application of common sanitary and phyto sanitary measures by different Members." The United States is a "Member" so the directions following harmonization apply to the US. For food safety, (feed included) we must refer to Codex, for animal health the authority goes to the OIE. In the World Trade Organization documents regarding the SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary agreement) and the TBT (technical barriers to trade agreement) it is recommended that any disputes be mediated by the OIE or Codex.
It is abundantly clear that through these international entanglements our officials are both legislating and regulating our God given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights away. In the name of international trade and globalization these officials have agreed to implement a plan that is destructive to our nation's existence, as well as our freedom to feed ourselves without intense surveillance.
As a nation we must ask ourselves, is our freedom for sale in the global market? Is selling beef to Japan important enough to throw our Constitution and our children's future into the trash can? Can we not support ourselves agriculturally with the excellent controls we already have in place? Is your freedom worth more than all the bananas you may eat? To quote Patrick Henry, "Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me,___________________________. I hope you can fill in the blank. **
** You may forward this or reprint it so long as you keep it in it's entirety and don't change anything. Thanks!
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 12:48:11 PM
NAIS Spawned by International Entanglements
by Doreen Hannes email:animalwaitress@yahoo.com
If you've been wondering where the insanity masquerading as our federal government 'food safety' and animal health protection regulations and laws are coming from, you can now say with certainty that they descend from the organizations within and tied to our international alliances.
Before you throw a conditioned response out that this is all just 'conspiracy theory' propagated by right wing nut cases, you had best be able to understand the impact on trade of the SPS and TBT agreements made through the WTO (World Trade Organization) and be able to relate the position of the United States in the OIE and Codex.
Should you be unfamiliar with the NAIS (National Animal Identification System) the shortest explanation that can be given of the proposed system is that anyone who has any type of livestock, say two chickens, will have to register their property, complete with global positioning satellite coordinates, microchip their chickens with an NAIS ISO11785 compliant chip, and report within 24 hours if said chickens ever leave the property, hatch out chicks (another chip required), go to the vet or die. No kidding. To learn more about that, you must read the "Draft Strategic Plan" and the "Draft Standards" which are available only on line. The USDA will not send you copies of these documents, but they will send you a nice glossy packet with a 'soft' description of the program.
This is not an easy subject to relate to people who, by design, have very limited knowledge of our government's involvement in these organizations, and even less understanding about the mechanisms employed in the organizations. It's extremely complicated, and at the very least veiled to public scrutiny, but if you are willing to dig and read hundreds of pages of mind numbing rules and agreements, it is there and it is proven.
An introduction to acronyms is necessary. The players involved in the proposed National Animal Identification System being pushed by the USDA, and to be managed by APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) are varied. First there is the WTO (World Trade Organization) which reached an agreement amongst participating countries several years ago in Uruguay called the SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) and TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) agreements.
In laymen's terms what the SPS agreement says is that each member country can make regulations that must be met by other member countries in order to trade in agricultural goods with each other. These regulations must be in the interest of protecting the country making the regulations from disease, pests, or perceived health dangers. Countries making regulations cannot impose more strict regulations on importer nations than they do on their own nation.
Then there was the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) agreement made at the same time in Uruguay. What that says is that developed countries must help less developed countries to advance technologically to be able to participate in trade with other member countries. Developed countries cannot require more than a country is able to achieve and the developed countries need to help the less developed countries to meet their own criteria through funding and other assistance.
Then there is the OIE (Office Internacional Epizooities) or World Animal Health Organization, which although it is independent of the UN in origin works very closely with both the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) and Codex Alimentarius which is a child of the UN and FAO. Codex can be best understood as being the global FDA and OIE as the global USDA. The Untied States of America has membership in both the OIE and the UN and therefore Codex.
---cont'd on next page....
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 12:46:44 PM
The User Guide is the third document to fail to make it's way into the Federal Register. Considering the statement in the document that this is to replace all previous documents and that this is the "comprehensive" document regarding NAIS, it is terrifically inadequate. The User Guide doesn't give info on technology specifics, reporting requirements, incentive particulars, FOIA exemption, liability issues, nor is there any impact analysis. There is an extremely understated cost estimate for the actual identification devices, but no cost estimate for program participation. It's akin to saying the diploma on a vet's office wall is the cost of an education in Veterinary Science. In laymen's terms, it is absolute bunk. There will more on the User Guide throughout the rest of this article.
The manner in which federal agencies get states to cooperate with their programs is predominately through funding. The funding is carried out through the appropriations bills of both state and federal governments. In the state of Missouri, more than half of the budget is comprised of federal monies for various and sundry programs. many other states are in similar or even worse positions than Missouri. Sticking with the NAIS and it's implementation, let's look at the mechanisms used to develop the system.
Each state and tribe as well as the territories of the United States Federal Government signed cooperative agreements with the Veterinary Services division of the USDA. These agreements are binding contracts. All of the criteria for a legal and binding contract are met within the cooperative agreements. There is a definitive overview of the purpose, roles and responsibilities of each party are clearly defined and there is an exchange of consideration in the form of federal funds making the state responsible for fulfilling their part of the contract in the specified amount of time the CA covers. There are numerous forms to fill out and lots of ancillary agreements contained in the cooperative agreements signed by the states in '05, 06, and the application for '07.
One aspect of the fraudulent practices being employed by not only the USDA, but virtually every Federally Funded program, is attested to by the required acceptance of terms outlined in two forms. The forms referenced as SF-424A and SF-424B must be agreed to in order to get the Federal Funding the states are so accustomed to receiving. These forms cause the applicant to agree to fulfill Executive Orders related to the Environmental Protection Agency and Clean Air and Water and Wild Rivers acts, which align agencies and states into co-enforcement agreements with no legislative oversight on behalf of elected officials. The Executive Orders are listed only numerically and not topically and people would actually have to chase down information to find out what they are really agreeing to do when they are ostensibly signing on for just one Federal program.
The Cooperative Agreement Announcement for '07 regarding NAIS is a tremendously convicting piece of work. Not only does it contain agreeance to SF-424A and B, it also shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the USDA's continual attempt at lying and deceiving the public regarding their intent with the NAIS program. Just one excerpt from the Cooperative Agreement Announcement for '07, puts the mantra of "voluntary at the federal level" replete in the User Guide, to rest.
On page 16 of the Cooperative Agreement Announcement for '07 regarding the goals and objectives the states are to achieve it states:
"Outline a Plan of Action"
Provide a brief overview of the work to be performed and how the plan builds on the 2005 or 2006 cooperative agreement plan. Also, explain how this plan will support the timelines for full implementation of NAIS as outlined in the draft strategic plan.
The User Guide is loaded with references to interstate commerce and induced participation in the program to continue to engage in normal agricultural business activities like buying and selling stock. It is already illegal to remove an official USDA identification device from an animal, so if you should buy a cow with the 15 digit NAIS animal identification number you will automatically be engaged in that program whether you "volunteer" or not. The individual selling the cow is required to report to whom the cow was sold and what date the sale took place. This will enroll you in premise and animal identification regardless of your desire, or lack of desire, to participate in the program. You can find this juicy little tidbit on page 38 of the printed version of the User Guide:
"the animal should have identification attached according to the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the device before leaving its current premises when the movement is reportable (see the section on animal movement). Animals are identified only once, not every time the animal is moved. The animal identification number(AIN) device is to be maintained on the animal, and the AIN on the device is associated with the animal for the animal’s entire life."
On the very next page is a wonderful example of the truly compulsory force NAIS will be:
"USDA has no plans to make participation in any component of NAIS mandatory. However, as mentioned previously, there are existing regulations for certain diseases such as brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that require identification for interstate movement for some animals and, in some cases, define the devices that can be used. Under § 71.22, intentional removal of or tampering with official identification devices is prohibited. Specifically, it is unlawful to remove an official identification device or cause the removal of one unless the animal is terminated, except in cases when a device has become illegible or the device malfunctions."
"A User Guide" shows on page 47 that it is the activity of commerce that the NAIS truly wishes to control by categorizing private sale as a high risk reportable activity. This is where they will get everyone eventually through trickle down NAIS.
It is abundantly clear that NAIS is being shoved upon a strongly opposed public via executive branch fiat and the manipulation of State governments through the use of Federal Funds. This methodology will help the USDA to shift the blame for the draconian program to the States and their agriculture departments or individual state legislatures.
The Cooperative Agreement Announcement for '07 also asks the state agriculture departments how far they have progressed in getting legislation to help legitimize both the existence of the program and the deceitful manner in which they have garnered the number of premises they have registered. Here is an excerpt from page 12 discussing that very point:
USDA will provide funding for:
"The Integration of existing State systems with the SPRS or a CPRS. This "pulling" of
data from existing databases that already contain premises related information seems to be a prudent and cost effective method in many cases. States must carefully consider whether this type of data integration to register livestock premises under NAIS would be interpreted as "voluntary" and if this would create any problems for premises registration in the long term."
Yet there is hope. As referenced several times in the original documents of the Draft Strategic Plan there will need to be state level enabling legislation to get the program to work. If the individual states will stand up and preclude participation in the NAIS from their state and allow people to be removed from the database of premise registration when they desire to be removed the system will fall on it's face.
Since the only real need for the system's existence is to fulfill World Trade Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreements, it is entirely possible to allow those who wish to export the opportunity to participate in this type of program, otherwise known as QSA and Export Verification Services, and allow them to pay for the system and reap whatever "premiums" they believe they may earn through their participation. Those who have no desire to sell internationally would then have no need to participate in the program. This would require that the USDA give up their false "disease control" premise and allow people to decide for themselves whether or not they desire to participate in international trade. Of course, this would also require that multinational corporate agribusinesses actually contract with people who want to deal with them instead of using the government agencies and legislatures as their contract providers.
The States must individually stand for their private citizens and pass legislation that disables or destroys the NAIS. Our representatives must be educated on the program as well its effects on both our liberty and our livelihoods and held to their oaths by those who have put them in office. If we don't have the resolve to inform them of our objections and refusal to allow this to happen in our state or nation, then we don't deserve the freedoms our forefathers died to endow us with. +++
Feel free to distribute this but only in it's entirety and with my contact info. Thank you!
by Doreen Hannes (animalwaitress@yahoo.com)
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 12:45:09 PM
Worth the read
NAIS Useless Guide and the Fine Art of Gerrymandering
A Primer in Agency law and Federal Monetary Manipulation
by Doreen Hannes (animalwaitress@yahoo.com)
The new USDA "User Guide" for NAIS is an attempt by the USDA to deflect criticism and responsibility for the program to the State Departments of Agriculture and to State legislatures. The definition of gerrymandering is unfair manipulation in a political sense. The USDA does that with real finesse in the User Guide.
The most important thing to understand is the process by which agencies make law or "regulations". As of this writing, the USDA has not followed the procedure necessary for the User Guide to meet requirements of an official document with any real moderating effects on the previous documents.
The User's Guide was not entered into the Federal Register and the previous documents, the Draft Strategic Plan, Standards and Tech Supplement as well as Implementation Plan, have not been withdrawn from the Federal Register. Thus the USDA's opening statement, "The 2006 User Guide is the most current plan for NAIS and replaces all previously published program documents, including the 2005 Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards and the 2006 Implementation Strategies" is what we in the Midwest call a bald faced lie. Since people are generally kept in the dark about how Federal agency rules and regulations are made, here is an attempt to explain it in its most simplistic form.
First and foremost, the agency must have the authority to enact the rules they are proposing. Then they must enter their proposed rule into the Federal Register serving as public notice of their intent. Typically, there will be a period of time for the public to comment on any proposed rules, and the public's comments are available in the reading room in DC or electronically online. After the public comment period the agency must then enter notice of their final rulemaking regarding the regulation. Then the regulation they have made will be codified (put into the proper titles and chapters amending existent regulations where
applicable) and entered into the body of law called the "Code of Federal Regulations", or CFR.
To date, the USDA has not followed this procedure on three documents they have released regarding NAIS. Oddly enough, the documents that haven't followed proper procedure are all the documents that supposedly moderate the National Animal Identification System into something slightly less than pure evil.
The first document that was designed to calm the concerns of the public is "The Guide for Small Scale and Non-Commercial Producers". This document was released in June and was sent to several thousand Missouri residents by Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson to assure them that the NAIS was actually nothing to be concerned about. However, Linda Campbell, the chair of the Goat Species Working Group told me personally that she believed the Guide for Small Scale and Non Commercial Producers was actually written by a PR firm. She was aware that I was both with a small paper and an opponent of the NAIS. The "Guide for Small Scale and Non Commercial Producers" also fails to allow people who choose not to participate in the NAIS to engage in established avenues of commerce. In other words, if you don't want to buy or sell any stock, the NAIS will remain voluntary.
The second document the USDA failed to enter into the Federal Register was a slightly amended version of the April '06 Implementation Strategies. In the amended version the USDA deleted one paragraph (headed as "Contingency Plan" in the original document) regarding following the rule making process, should they fail to achieve their benchmark participation goals, including 100% compliance. They also removed the term "meta data" in two sentences and supplanting it with ATPS (Animal Trace Processing System) in one of those sentences. The last change was removing the word February '07 and replacing it with Spring '07 in a timeline.
---too long to fit in one post....cont'd
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 12:28:57 PM
We've been beating our heads with this for the past 18 months. Heck, Paul was invited to sit on the IL board for NAIS. Turns out all it is, is a group of academea & gooberment officials patting themselves on the back trying to figure out how to make all the small farmers comply.
We're gearing up to be able to keep all our livestock on the farm to raise for ourselves, even if that means keeping a boar that we only need once a year to service our sow. The cow is AI'd
We're also looking into having a mobile state inspected poultry processing vehicle. Self contained. We drive to your farm to process your animals. Animals never leave the farm, no need to sign up for NAIS.
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| Tracey |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 10:36:52 AM
Here's the scoop from Washington State:
Senator Marilyn Rassmussen has written a bill to make NAIS MANDATORY!
There is also a bill opposing it, stating that it remain voluntary. Anyone here in WA should let their representatives know that we need to stop Sen. Rasmussen and keep the NAIS voluntary only here.
I think the reason people have been forgetting is because the USDA has done such a great job of making us look like we're a bunch of chicken littles, telling everyone it's purely voluntary and that certain things won't count. But it's all a sham...it's like The Great Oz...
Visit Quiet Storm, our adopted Mustang! http://wildaboutquietstorm.com
http://carpentercreek.blogspot.com
|
| babs |
Posted - Jan 30 2007 : 08:28:49 AM
Brenda,
Have you looked at nonais.org?
They have flyers and brochures you can print out and post up at feedmills and everywhere, post them everywhere. It is essential not to give up and keep getting the word out.
No Nais.org also has a listing of email lists by state that you can join and be kept up to date on whats going on.
Another site to look into is http://www.libertyark.net/ Look up your state coordinator and ask what you can do to help!
HTH
Babs
|
| brightmeadow |
Posted - Jan 29 2007 : 7:05:56 PM
Gals, we haven't talked about this topic for a while. Have we lost interest, decided it's inevitable, going to comply?
A few weeks ago there was a letter to the editor from an 80-year-old local farmer in our local paper. It was very well written, but I missed the on-line edition to copy it. He warned that our freedom isn't going to be lost in Iraq, it will be lost right here, through the implementation of programs like this one, designed to "protect" us.
I've had chats with people I know, and unless they're directly involved in farming, it's hard to get them interested. Some even went so far as to say, "Yawn. It's more efficient to raise food on factory farms, how are we going to feed everyone in the world cheaply through inefficient family farms? So what if family farms are eliminated?"
Any suggestions for making this more well-known to the general public?
I just read the wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Animal_Identification_System and while it is slightly biased (towards the "against" stance) it does seem to cover the bulk of the arguments for and against.
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands - You shall be happy and it shall be well with you. -Psalm 128.2
Visit my blog at http://brightmeadowfarms.blogspot.com ,web site store at http://www.watkinsonline.com/fish or my homepage at http://home.earthlink.net/~brightmeadow |
| santa_gertrudis_gal |
Posted - Aug 02 2006 : 09:02:12 AM
LOL, that's just too funny! I think I would be asking....since the steak probably made a round trip.
Kim
Heaven is a day at the ranch with my Santa Gertrudis! |
| brightmeadow |
Posted - Aug 01 2006 : 4:06:26 PM
LOL!!
My husband works on big heavy equipment/trucks for our neighbor the electrical contractor, in his spare time. In return the contractor takes us out to dinner occasionally at the best restaurant in town. The most expensive steak on the menu is prime beef, you guessed it, imported from Japan! I haven't asked why on earth they would do that- yet!
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands - You shall be happy and it shall be well with you. -Psalm 128.2
Visit my web site store at http://www.watkinsonline.com/fish or my homepage at http://home.earthlink.net/~brightmeadow |
| santa_gertrudis_gal |
Posted - Aug 01 2006 : 08:07:15 AM
Interesting article. Japan has always been our biggest importer of beef. In Japan, a prime steak is considered a delicacy and they pay huge money for it. Of interesting note, we can't buy prime beef unless you have a meat market that will either order it or sells it routinely. The only other place to get a prime beef steak is at specialty restraunts. Prime beef that is not exported or sold to the markets above goes to Taco Bell, and is ground for their use. So next time you want prime beef, visit a Taco Bell.
The opening helps, but live cattle are still under export ban, only semen and embryos can be exported, except for Canada.
Kim
Heaven is a day at the ranch with my Santa Gertrudis! |
| brightmeadow |
Posted - Jul 31 2006 : 4:39:34 PM
I just saw an article that the Japanese have lifted an import ban on US beef. I wonder if that will relieve the pressure to go to NAIS? http://webstar.agrinews.com/agrinews/286664731396571.bsp Sometimes these projects seem to take on a life of their own even after their original purpose is no longer needed.
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands - You shall be happy and it shall be well with you. -Psalm 128.2
Visit my web site store at http://www.watkinsonline.com/fish or my homepage at http://home.earthlink.net/~brightmeadow |
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - Jun 01 2006 : 1:18:12 PM
Very well thought out, Kim. The USDA is justifying having the small producer who raises our own food comply with the NAIS because of disease control. (and the possibililty we *may* sell/trade/give away our meat)
We won't willingly comply to any of this - The state knows us and where we live - when it becomes a LAW, then we may comply or quit raising our own food.
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| santa_gertrudis_gal |
Posted - May 31 2006 : 10:14:09 AM
I thought I would comment on this issue. More from the economic and govermental side as it is what my degrees are in (Agriculture Economics). I've read each post with great interest and agree with both sides each of you have presented.
On Coggins in horses, Texas requires should a horse upon entering a trailer, the owner must have a health certificate and a negative coggins within the past six months, even on intrastate moves. Last October I was one of those individuals you saw on TV evacuating from Hurricane Rita. I loaded two horse that neither had a Negative Coggins or current health certificate and really didn't care. I went from my home which sustained no effects of the Hurricane to a place in East Texas with 60 mph sustained winds. Would I eveacuate again, not on your life. The 189 miles with two special needs animals (one horse and one dog) in 16 hours was awlful and I was so thankful to have a diesal pickup. I prefer to lash myself to a tree. I've already been through a catagory 3 hurricane in my life and now I'd do it again.
Looking at the international economics of our agriculture industry in this country, one must understand we feed the rest of the world. I too, feel we would be much better off as a society if we could all eat organic products, but then we couldn't even feed our country. I took a graduate class in International Agriculture Economics. We had a visiting professor who just completed his dissertation and had done work in the Peace Corp in Jamaica. I was dissappointed when the course became his opinion on world hunger. The paper I had to write backed up by research received a C because he disagreed with my opinion. What I do know is in the third world with much greater government corruption the masses suffer from lack of basic services such as food. When there are no full stomaches there is rebellion, and education becomes the lowest priority. Without food and no education you have what we saw in Afganistan and the Sudan. Food and Education are the link to any country moving forward. Un-educated masses are easier for a dictitorial regume to control, and they do this mostly by limiting food and producing a climit of fear. Please remember when it comes to animal genetics we lead the world and the world looks to us to import those genetics into their countries.
To be more politically incorrect, I hate the term genetic engineering. We have been genetically engineering our domestic animals forever. We are now genetically engineering our deer population on a grand scale since the early 70's. Just to meet the needs of that big buck with the big rack for hunters. We aren't doing this on the DNA level. It is being done through man made selection. Many of our big south Texas Bucks have made their way to the northern states. Now on hunting shows I see Illinois bucks with racks to compete with the south Texas bucks. Will the deer be included in this since they are ruminants and have the capability to pass on burcellois. I think not.
I've also thought much about the WW1 outbreak of a world wide flu that actually killed more people then those who died in WW1. No one has mentioned the impact of contamination of beef in the early 1900's because of no regulation in slaughter houses. I've not seen anyone mention this when talking in generalities about disease. I think the NAIS is driven mostly out of fear, and not really given a good overall analysis. I think for the small producer who's animals are meant to sustain the family should not have to tag the animals. Only those actually sold off the farm/ranch to enter the food supply.
As for bureaucratic nightmare, it will occur without a doubt, but then again what isn't mired in it when it comes to our government. This bureaucratic mess will actually be what protects the producer. I too, believe the program to be just another tax on the producer, producing more money for the government to waste.
Over the years I have become every cynical about our government. Even more so at our state level. Three years ago our Texas legislature got into such an argument that the Democrats walked out and went to Oklahoma. Our stupid Republicans sent the Texas Rangers after them. Our legislature looked like a bunch of kindergarten kids fighting on the playground. This was all over school finance. Gee and we actually have a surplus in our state treasury. Finally, the dummies have decided to fix the problem by putting in a state flat tax on business, what someone terms a francise tax, but the business I own is not a francise and I'll still be taxed. This impending tax has caused us to already layoff an employee and forced me back to work for a minumum of ten hours a week. The tax will be one percent of my gross revenue. Remember I said gross and not net. As both a social and economic conservative I find myself enacting my own term limits. I don't vote for anyone currently in office. How does this relate to NAIS, more government control.
With sadness I fill out my Premise ID today to comply with the regulation, not from the standpoint of safety of our food supply but with the knowledge that it is one more tax. This true free market economist doesn't like the whole mess. It would be nice if it was really meant to protect our food supply.
Just so you don't slam me, we as a family have moved away from eating foods with preservatives and moved to organics where possible. Don't tell me to grow a garden, where I live as a cottage community to Houston I live in a subdivision where the lots are 1-10 acres. I live on the north side of the street, our county sprays for mosquitos and sometimes it is aerial spraying. Our prevailing winds are from the south 90% of the year so our garden is not truly organic, sniff  . Can't wait to move to Groesbeck.
Here's one more thought not having to do with Agriculture but our government stupidity. We know of the deplorable conditions of Home Land Security. We are involved in the trucking industry. Without getting winded we actually lost contact with a truck for 16 hours. As a result we went to satellite tracking of our trailers. It was not to spy on our owner/operators but to protect them. The end result was a stupid lazy underpaid Georgia DOT official at a scale house that wouldn't get off their backside to check the trucks at the scale. The wife of this owner/operater was beside herself. To protect this nation it is not the truck that is the danger but the trailer whether a flatbed, van, or container which will cause the destruction. All trailers need the satellite tracking device not the truck. There is no bureaucracy in this addition to our trucks. Believe me if a trucking company looses contact with a truck they are very proactive in trying to find the truck quickly. Their concern for the health of the driver is the priority. Highway Watch is a good program but Federal DOT regulations just need the update.
IMHO just my thoughts! I'll get off my soapbox!
Kim
Heaven is a day at the ranch with my Santa Gertrudis! |
| brightmeadow |
Posted - May 22 2006 : 03:31:54 AM
Thanks for posting this,Cyndi, it sounds like a voice of reason! It is a good article to have handy to share with others who don't get real excited about NAIS if they think it's a choice between NAIS and bird flu...
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands - You shall be happy and it shall be well with you. -Psalm 128.2
Visit my web site store at http://www.watkinsonline.com/fish or my homepage at http://home.earthlink.net/~brightmeadow |
| LJRphoto |
Posted - May 19 2006 : 09:18:05 AM
I'm glad to see this becoming more known. I've seen other information regarding this and was having a hard time finding it again. The articles I found before were scholarly and I couldn't get to them without paying to join the sites. Thanks Cyndi.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority." -E. B. White
http://www.betweenthecities.com/blog/ljr/
|
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - May 19 2006 : 09:11:54 AM
Bird Flu is being linked to factory bird farms
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-27-01.asp
Before, the agri-biz wanted to place blame on wild birds & back yard flocks.
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - May 15 2006 : 10:45:23 AM
Follow the $$$$, NAIS will open the foreign markets. As a plus, there are many small livestock owners that will not want the government (or the Beef Cattlemen Assoc) to hold their information about what livestock they own and will quit producing. Or the small direct-market chicken producers that will not be able to cost justify the additional cost and will quit raising chickens.
The ones that control the food supply, control all
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| LJRphoto |
Posted - May 11 2006 : 6:53:05 PM
They feel differently because the nais opens up more foreign markets to them.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority." -E. B. White
http://www.betweenthecities.com/blog/ljr/
|
| Libbie |
Posted - May 11 2006 : 6:50:59 PM
Isn't that interesting. It's always good to get all of the information on any given subject that you can before making a decision, I think. I'm surprised that the larger "agri-businesses" feel differently.
Still learning...
XOXO, Libbie
"Nothing is worth more than this day." - Goethe |
| MullersLaneFarm |
Posted - May 11 2006 : 05:43:30 AM
This issue is tearing apart our Farmer's Market. It isn't a traditional marekt because it is indoors and offers electricity to vendors so we do have 2 (count them 2) large agri-businesses in the market. We also have 11 small farms as vendors.
When my husband & I wanted to host a meeting on NAIS using the FM building, it was blocked by the large agri-business. There's far more to the story, let's suffice it to say despite their efforts to stop the meeting, we held it at another place and the agri-business guys were outraged.
I have NAIS information at my booth. They want me to not display it. One of the agri-business vendors said last night at the FM board meeting that unless we pull it from our booth, they will quit the market.
Cyndi
Muller's Lane Farm http://www.mullerslanefarm.com
|
| BamaSuzy |
Posted - May 10 2006 : 3:22:01 PM
I am an investigative reporter and continue to talk to governmental folks on this....and the more I learn the more I don't like it....and the more it sounds like it is the really smaller homesteader or farmgirl who will be hurt the worst....
for instance the big chicken growers would likely be assigned just one number for the whole house while us smaller folks with 90 free range chickens would have to identify EVERY chick!
contact your Congressmen and Seneators with your concerns! And contact your State Senators and House members as well!
You can bury a lot of troubles digging in the dirt! |
|
|
