| Author |
Barnyard Buddies:  Thoughts on Animal ID?  |
|
MullersLaneFarm
True Blue Farmgirl
596 Posts
Rock Falls
IL
596 Posts |
 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
True Blue Farmgirl
596 Posts
Rock Falls
IL
596 Posts |
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
True Blue Farmgirl
596 Posts
Rock Falls
IL
596 Posts |
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
|
|
|
|
Tracey
True Blue Farmgirl
766 Posts
Tracey
State of Confusion
USA
766 Posts |
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
True Blue Farmgirl
596 Posts
Rock Falls
IL
596 Posts |
|
|
brightmeadow
True Blue Farmgirl
2045 Posts
Brenda
Lucas
Ohio
USA
2045 Posts |
|
|
Barnyard Buddies: Thoughts on Animal ID? |
|
|
|
Thoughts on Animal ID?
