It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In direct defiance of fundamental recommendations ... the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) today released an early version of its proposed rule to implement a national animal identification system titled "Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate"
"The proposed rule, expected to be published in tomorrow's Federal Register, not only spurns the U.S. livestock industries key recommendations..., but also, it snubs the critical recommendation by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's own Advisory Committee on Animal Health, which urged the Secretary to provide at least a 120-day public comment period for the proposed rule. Instead, Vilsack is only providing a 90-day public comment period," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.
Bullard said the 90-day comment period will run at a time when tens of thousands of livestock producers are battling perhaps the nation's most widespread and devastating drought and coincides with the cattle industry's busy calf-weaning and calf-shipping season.
According to Bullard, USDA's rejection of its own advisory committee's recommendation to give producers more time to respond to the 114-page proposed rule suggests it already has decided to force this unacceptable mandate on U.S. livestock producers.
"USDA is running roughshod over the U.S. livestock industry …. "USDA officials have deceived livestock producers by pretending to seriously consider producer recommendations and then springing these unworkable and unacceptable mandates on us in its proposed rule."
"It's obvious that USDA did not listen to the multitude of U.S. livestock producers who participated in the agency's nationwide NAIS (National Animal Identification System) listening sessions in 2009 …
The public can submit comments on the proposed rule by either of the following methods:
-- Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov...#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0091-0001.
-- Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2009-
0091, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River
Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
www.r-calfusa.com...
....From May 14th thru June 30th, the USDA held “listening sessions” in fourteen cities across the nation. USDA asserted it wants “to engage stakeholders and producers to hear not only their concerns about [NAIS], but also potential or feasible solutions to those concerns.”
USDA hoped the listening sessions would provide a forum where stakeholders could help devise a NAIS that producers could live with. Instead, ranchers and farmers want the entire NAIS plan scrapped. Over 1600 people attended these sessions, with 500 testifying. Eighty-five percent of those who spoke condemned NAIS.
Listening Session Quotes
Darol Dickinson, longhorn cattleman from Ohio, believes the USDA plan is being forced on producers, despite objection.
“They've conveyed to us that we have no right to oppose them. They've told people, ”This is going to happen.” That doesn't sit well with independent thinking people, especially ranchers and farmers.”
Mike Callicrate, an independent cattle producer, is not at all happy with NAIS. He firmly believes that the best way to protect the food supply is to enforce existing laws and go back to unannounced inspections of factory farms, slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants.
“Today, USDA, in protecting the biggest and dirtiest meat plants, continues to block trace-back of pathogens to the source plant, a very easy and inexpensive measure that could improve food safety tomorrow.”
He blames the 2002 E. coli contamination of 20 million pounds of ConAgra beef on lack of inspections.
“USDA has done nothing to address the problems in the big packing plants where E. coli is systematically put into our meat daily while trusting these big profit-driven companies to self inspect under the HACCP hoax.”
….Barbara Steever called the USDA “disingenuous†for saying that NAIS will be used to control the spread of disease. To make her point, Steever then asked some hard-hitting questions:
“Why, then, are you lowering import restrictions to allow cattle in from Mexico that has bovine TB?
Why are you trying to bring in cattle from Argentina that is known to have a reservoir of FMD (foot-and-mouth disease)?
[Why are you allowing] cattle over 30 months of age from Canada, that have a higher risk of BSE, and disallowing private businesses from testing for BSE in response to their clients’ needs?
Why are you moving a high security disease containment facility into the middle of cattle country?”
…...Rhonda Perry, operates a livestock and grain operation. She spoke on behalf of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, representing 5,600 families. Reiterating above concerns, Perry adds:
We see industrial livestock operations all over this country that have created incredible environmental, health and food safety concerns.
Perry points out that none of today's food safety issues are caused by independent family farmers. She challenges the USDA to increase competition as a strategy to increase food safety. Bust the monopolies and decentralize food production, ”instead of looking at this unproven, ineffective, anti-farmer, corporate-driven program of NAIS.”
farmwars.info...
"Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ...have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...Aims to ensure THAT GOVERNMENTS DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as UNJUSTIFIED TRADE BARRIERS... It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability [NAIS] as an SPS measure."
...when USDA "officials initially described HACCP to the industry in the mid-90's, the agency made the following enticing promises:
* "Under HACCP, the agency will implement a ‘Hands Off' role in meat inspection.
* "Under HACCP, the agency will no longer police the industry, but the industry will police itself.
* "Under HACCP, the agency will disband its previous command and control authority.
* "Under HACCP, each plant will write its own HACCP Plan, and the agency cannot tell plants what must be in their HACCP Plans."
As a result, the plant operator was required to identify potential hazards and the critical points in the process where those hazards could come into play. The plan would then identify procedures that would be used to minimize the hazard risk at those control points. The plant would be responsible for the implementation of the plan.
As a result, the inspector was no longer responsible for what was happening on the plant floor: that was left to company personnel. The new role of the inspector was to make sure that plant personnel were carrying out their duties in a manner consistent with the HACCP plan. In many cases this amounted to making sure that all of the paper work was in the proper order.
As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working out for you?"
To understand the numbers, one has to understand the nature of E. coli bacteria. Munsell writes, "E. coli and Salmonella are ‘enteric' bacteria, which by definition means they originate within animals' intestines, and by extension, on manure-covered hides. Slaughter facilities have intestines and manure-covered hides on their premises, which is where enteric bacteria are inadvertently transferred onto carcasses. The vast majority of destination facilities where meat is shipped do not have intestines or hides on their premises. They include retail meat markets, USDA and state-inspected further processing plants, and HRI accounts such as restaurants, nursing homes, hospitals, and schools."
When a downline processor who has no slaughter facility discovers E. coli bacteria in its beef trimmings or ground beef, it is because the cuts provided by the slaughter house were contaminated.... mfu.org...
.... "The major reason for Foreman's renewed interest in food safety, however, is contained in her explanation for returning to CFA, i.e., she will seek to develop policies `that assure food safety in a global economy.'HACCP [was] the keystone of President Clinton's globalization strategy to restrict the ability of Congress and of citizens at risk of health to make food safety a political, or policy issue.
" Under HACCP, governments withdraw from inspection for food safety as a public responsibility in favor of company-based inspection. Food products in global trade would be certified for safety by governments as equivalent, i.e., a government license would be granted pro forma to move products across national borders since food safety is a company decision. Countries that balk would be charged with a violation of their obligation to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and threatened with higher tariffs or financial penalties.
"An unlikely scenario?" Leonard asks. "In fact, the U.S. already is threatening the European Union with trade retaliations for rejecting U.S. beef treated with growth hormones and genetically modified foods created by Monsanto and other biotechnology firms. If the U.S. does not adopt HACCP for meat and poultry, among the most high volume products in global trade, then Clinton's globalization strategy to put food safety beyond the reach of citizens will collapse." ... yupfarming.blogspot.com...
“One of the big goals of NAIS is to shift liability to the farmers and off of the packers and retail chains. This is despite the fact that virtually all food contamination happens at the slaughterhouse and beyond.” nonais.org...
“You [the farmer] will be required to cover ALL expenses in the event of contamination...The bottom line is that after 10 years [note the date] of below normal prices here in Wis because the state allowed Equity Livestock Coop to create a monopoly, our savior has now arrived to burden us with contracts shifting all liability to feeder cattle producers if they can’t prove they are innocent. “ nonais.org...-1395096
www.meatingplace.com...
“The conference will cover topics such as aligning damage assessments/expectations with the outcomes from recent resolved litigation; managing an outbreak effectively to minimize shareholder and reputational risk afterwards as quickly as possible; and how to measure and prove actual control of various players in the movement of contaminated food to accurately assess apportionment of liability....
The why they would push to hard for such control is obvious, total control of the food supply. Secondly they will then put in place the tracking of the populace in similar fashion. Not that they can't do that now with our credit cards and cell phones. They will put the law in place then implement it at a time when it will be readily accepted....
It's th subtle, behind-the-scenes stuff that really hurts us....
The range wars have mutated into the digital age and are the spearhead of an industrial scientific dictatorship designed to gain absolute control over all food production.
I'm sure they will extend this to all animals, pets or otherwise.
Once food is monopolized it's game over.
Allowing corporate control over everything is not a real future for mankind, maybe for mindless worker drones but not for free, creative, loving people.
This is outrageous and we don't know half the evil provisions in it.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
The range wars have mutated into the digital age and are the spearhead of an industrial scientific dictatorship designed to gain absolute control over all food production.
I'm sure they will extend this to all animals, pets or otherwise.
Once food is monopolized it's game over.
Allowing corporate control over everything is not a real future for mankind, maybe for mindless worker drones but not for free, creative, loving people.
This is outrageous and we don't know half the evil provisions in it.
Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by crimvelvet
It does seem to me like there is a war on the farmer. From the GM crops of Monsanto, the lawsuits associated, and now this!!
I read about this a while back and never thought it could actually be implemented without some kind of uproar. Out of all the people in the world to start a war on............it saddens me. War on drugs, war on terror, war on farmers, what's bloody next?
Cheers for the thread!