I tried to tell everyone….NAIS Never Went Away-it simply had a name change

The NIAA and the infamous Neil Hammerschmidt are at it again. Having an expensive meeting to figure out how to subject livestock growers to “enforcement” measures for RFID tagging of livestock. They are after the cattle, as they always have been.

Maybe they should remember the nooses on the livestock trailer with their agency name on them the last time they tried this in Colorado. If you are interested, here is the release from the fascist group, NIAA:

Exceptional Agenda Set for Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability

The National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) announces an impressive agenda for the upcoming day and a half Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability which they will co–host with the US Animal Health Association (USAHA) in Denver, CO in September.

The Strategy Forum will kick off with an introduction from Dr. Tony Forshey, Board Chair, National Institute for Animal Agriculture and Dr. Boyd Parr, United States Animal Health Association.

Mr. Matt Deppe, Executive Director, Iowa Cattlemen’s Association (Invited) is scheduled to moderate the Strategy Forum as first day continues with updates on the USDA Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program and feedback on public meetings from USDA APHIS Veterinary Services Cattle Health Staff/Animal Disease Traceability Veterinarian Dr. Sunny Geiser–Novotny and Dr. Aaron Scott.

Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Animal Disease Traceability, Program Manager, will discuss “ADT Next Step Considerations.” After a networking lunch, a panel discussion with State Veterinarians from around the US, will examine “Enforcement Rules –Successes and Opportunities.” Dr. Nevil Speer and Dr. Justin Smith will moderate more panel discussions on “Implications for Livestock Markets ” and “Making Standards and Technology Work.”

Mr. Paul Laronde, Tag & Technology Manager, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency , will open the second day of the Strategy Forum with a review of the Canadian Traceability Forum. Mr. Randy Munger, Mobile Information & Animal Disease Traceability Veterinarian, USDA / APHIS / STAS will speak about “Using RFID to Advance Traceability.”

The final panel discussion will consider “Implications for Livestock Used for Rodeo, Fairs & Exhibitions.”

The Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability will be held September 26 –27, 2017 at the DoubleTree by Hilton, Denver–Stapleton North, Denver, Colorado. View the entire AGENDA HERE. Register HERE.

NAIS Is NOT Dead. Never was.

From my good friend Darol Dickinson:

NAIS – ADT enforcements still stink. Dr. Michael W. Radebaugh, state veterinarian for Maryland has been and continues to be a strong promoter of NAIS and ADT. Although there is less large animal disease in the USA than any time in history, certain paranoid state vets continue to increase ADT and costly enforcements onto livestock producers. The new Maryland enforcements stated below are a continuation of the NAIS plan of 10 years ago where the USDA paid special grants to states and tribes to enforce fees and laws that would increase government jobs and encumber livestock commerce, shows and reduce general profitability to producers. It is still not about animal disease.The ADT and NAIS enforcements were soundly rejected by livestock producers under the reign of Ag Sec Thomas James Vilsack (2008 – 2017) to the extent, he announced all such efforts on a national level would be permanently discontinued. The listening sessions and comment periods revealed that over 90% of livestock producers opposed this intrusion of property and unnecessary production costs. DD

There is a new requirement for RFID tags for all cattle at all Maryland shows
Annapolis, MD- The Maryland Department of Agriculture, Animal Health Program has issued a policy that all cattle and swine shown at Maryland exhibitions must have an official USDA approved Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) ear tag for 2017 and beyond.
Who needs RFID tags for 2017? All exhibitors of cattle and swine in Maryland including both open class and 4H exhibitors.
How do I get official RFID Tags? After obtaining a Premise Identification Number (PIN), a list of available official USDA approved RFID tags manufacturers can be obtained from this USDA website:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/ADT_device_ain.pdf
How do I get a premise identification number (PIN)? You may request a Premises Identification Number (PIN) with our Premises Registration Form. Your premises identification number will arrive on a card in the mail 7-10 days after we receive the Premises Registration Form. Call 410-841-5810 with any questions.
How do exhibitors get official RFID ear tags? Two ways: 1. Veterinarians can tag animals when they perform the required health inspection prior to exhibition. 2. Exhibitors wishing to obtain their own premises tags may do so by obtaining a Premises Identification Number (PIN) and then purchasing RFID tags from an approved USDA distributer.
Can producers give out their own tags to other producers? No… Because of animal disease traceability purposes, any official USDA RFID ear tags assigned to a specific PIN cannot be given to other producers. Producers are responsible to insert in their cattle and swine only the RFID ear tags designated for their PIN alone and no other.
Who should tag exhibition livestock? It is best that livestock be tagged at the farm of origin. Having an official RFID tag in place before exhibition is the exhibitor’s responsibility. A veterinarian may apply official tags to cattle and swine while performing a health inspection or the exhibitor may purchase official RFID tags and apply them. Be sure to keep records of tags applied.
What if an animal already has an official tag but not a RFID official tag? It is unlawful to remove an official identification tag. If an animal does not have an RFID ear tag, the animal can be “double” tagged with a RFID ear tag. This is an allowable upgrade.
What if tags fall out or get lost? If it becomes necessary to retag an animal with a new official RFID ear tag (assigned to that premise), every effort should be made to correlate the new official RFID number with the previous official number. A record of this change should be kept on file by the exhibitor. Also, the official RFID ear tag number must correlate to the official identification listed on the Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) as recorded by a veterinarian.
Will animals without RFID tags be rejected? The 2017 Maryland Fairs and Shows Policy require RFID ear tags for cattle and swine at Maryland exhibitions. 2017 will be a transitional year. Leniency may be afforded at the discretion of each of the exhibition. It is strongly recommended to avoid any inconvenience by having proper ID and paperwork. No exceptions will be made beyond the 2017 season.
From the UMD Extension service.

Bacon Prices Rising….

As I have been saying, food prices are going to skyrocket. We don’t even eat pork here, but this is going to affect a lot of households, and it isn’t factored into the inflation index. Please, please, please get all the food you can and store it properly and well and plant whatever you can as a hedge against food chaos. No more living “high on the hog” for many.

You might recall that “traceability” is supposed to stop this kind of thing from happening. As those of us who opposed NAIS and ADTF have said, no tracking, tracing, RFID tag or premises number will halt disease! Commercial hogs are pretty close to 100% traceable…Sometimes it sucks being right.

US bacon prices rise after virus kills baby pigs

 

 

Photo -

Scientists think porcine epidemic diarrhea, which does not infect humans or other animals, came from China, but they don’t know how it got into the country or spread to 27 states since last May. The federal government is looking into how such viruses might spread, while the pork industry, wary of future outbreaks, has committed $1.7 million to research the disease.

The U.S. is both a top producer and exporter of pork, but production could decline about 7 percent this year compared to last — the biggest drop in more than 30 years, according to a recent report from Rabobank, which focuses on the food, beverage and agribusiness industries.

Already, prices have shot up: A pound of bacon averaged $5.46 in February, 13 percent more than a year ago, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ham and chops have gone up too, although not as much.

Farmer and longtime veterinarian Craig Rowles did all he could to prevent PED from spreading to his farm in Iowa, the nation’s top pork producer and the state hardest hit by the disease. He trained workers to spot symptoms, had them shower and change clothing before entering barns and limited deliveries and visitors.

Despite his best efforts, the deadly diarrhea attacked in November, killing 13,000 animals in a matter of weeks, most of them less than 2 weeks old. The farm produces about 150,000 pigs each year.

Estimates of how many pigs have died in the past year vary, ranging from at least 2.7 million to more than 6 million. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the die-off has had a hand in shrinking the nation’s pig herd by 3 percent to about 63 million pigs.

Diarrhea affects pigs like people: Symptoms that are uncomfortable in adults become life-threatening in newborns that dehydrate quickly. The best chance at saving young pigs is to wean them and then pump them with clear fluids that hydrate them without taxing their intestines. But nothing could be done for the youngest ones except euthanasia.

“It’s very difficult for the people who are working the barns at that point,” Rowles said. “… No one wants to go to work today and think about making the decision of baby pigs that need to be humanely euthanized because they can’t get up anymore. Those are very hard days.”

PED thrives in cold weather, so the death toll in the U.S. has soared since December.

The first reports came from the Midwest, and the states most affected are those with the largest share of the nation’s pigs: Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Illinois. The disease also has spread to Canada and Mexico.

Some states now require a veterinarian to certify that pigs coming in are virus-free, while China, which has seen repeated outbreaks since the 1980s, has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to similarly vouch for animals shipped overseas.

Companies are racing to develop a vaccine, but the federal government has yet to approve one. While the mass deaths have been a blow for farmers, the financial impact to them may be limited because pork prices are rising to make up for the loss of animals.

It takes about six months for a hog to reach market weight so the supply will be short for a while. Smithfield Foods, one of the nation’s largest pork processors, has cut some plant shifts to four days per week in North Carolina, and those in the Midwest are likely to do so later this spring, said Steve Meyer, an Iowa-based economist and pork industry consultant.

Smithfield Foods declined to comment.

In the end, consumers will be most affected, Meyer said, with pork prices likely to be 10 percent higher overall this summer than a year ago.

“We’re all used to: ‘We’ve got plenty of food, it’s cheap. We’ll eat what we want to,'” Meyer said. “We Americans are very spoiled by that, but this is one of those times that we’re going to find out that when one of these things hits, it costs us a lot of money.”

 

ADT-NAIS….Alive and Well Masquerading As Different Programs

From Darol Dickinson of Ohio….just as received:

EYE WITNESS REPORT  October 29, Sugar Creek, Ohio
 ANIMAL DISEASE TRACEABILITY final USDA rules for livestock moving interstate.

The Ohio State Veterinarian, Tony M. Forshey, officiated an ADT rule — cattle requirements overview meeting with producers on Oct 29.  This was one of about a dozen in Ohio and similar to a few hundred held in most states.

My appreciation of Dr. Forshey was increased as I watched him carefully articulate the maze of complicated and difficult federal rules for state veterinarians and animal producers.  The tight rope he had to walk being forced to enforce federal rules and yet having “state rights” to tweak certain parts of the rule making process — his assistant called it “ability to relax” federal ADT rules.

If the Affordable Care Act is confusing, the facial expressions of Ohio farmers attending told the story. One major veal producer, RC Farms, said “I am not going to do it!” No reply was offered by Dr. Forshey as to the enforcements, fines or penalties for future non-compliance. (I sensed he did not want to go there in this crowd.)

New ADT changes and procedures defined include:

~ There are federal rules of ADT that are enforced federally and there are ways a state veterinarian can increase enforcements or “relax” these rules. Although the feds have a solid rule process, states can and may or may not relax or add to these rules. The state veterinarian has that authority.
~ The federal written rule leaves a clever option –“Other movements as approved.” Of which the layman will find out what these “other movements” are in years to come.
~ More clamp-down enforcements affect cattle than all other animal species.
~ The new acronym for vet certificate or health certificate is ICVI, Interstate Certificate of Veterinary Inspection.  No other term will be used in the future.
~ At first blush approved animal ID methods seem broader than ever before which includes official back tags, NUES (free silver ear clips), USDA shield yellow plastic AIN, 840 pens, tattoos, brand inspections, normal ICVI, breed registration certificates and the new OSS (Owner-Shipper Statement federal form) which, believe it or not allows the owner-shipper to fill out the basic info of a ICVI, except does not require any health evaluation by a veterinarian. (attached)
~ The approval of a breed registration certificate is new. Most breed association certificates contain more information than the ICVI or any other USDA method of ID. The Texas Longhorn registration  certificate (attached) requires a color photo, OCV on females, a permanent hot iron herd holding brand and individual ID number brand, which is far more documentation than any USDA requirement.
~ A federal category called “commuter herds” is created to accommodate transient herds that cross tribes or herds in joining or different states.
~ New ADT rules recommend to USDA tag day old calves in the USA the same as required in Europe.
~ All auction facilities will be politically forced to become a USDA approved official “tag site.”
~ The 840 pen is required to attach to a premises ID site number.
~ The NUES clip does not require a premises ID.

With careful reading, the above do not include all the intricate demands of the new ADT. The same master minds of NAIS (most hated USDA program in history) are still Neil Hammerschmidt and John Wiemers controlling and expanding federal rule books.

To add layers of confusion to ADT consider Obama’s “57 states” all have state veterinarians who can apply their own personal “tweaking” to add and remove rules. Take the dozens of different federal flavors of rules, add the state veterinarian’s tweak factors, the tribes and the commuter compromise rules and you have a recipe to equal or excel the enforcement confusion of Obamacare.

The NAIS was about identification — that didn’t sell.  The new ADT includes the word disease, which all animal owners have a healthy respect for — disease prevention is important. However, with the new OSS federal form it takes the veterinarian out of the picture who was licensed to do a “health inspection.” Now, disease has proven to not be the central issue.

Australia was 6 years ahead of the USA with their National Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS), which has become the night mare of all night mares for ranchers there. They are recording a 32% lost tag record.

Many thought NAIS and ADT was totally about adding government jobs, because all rules, regulations, paper piles, and enforcements cause the feds to hire more staff. They require more veterinarian inspections and fees — then when it appeared to make sense, here comes the OSS form that eliminated the veterinarian’s job.

Have no fear of simplicity or minimal paper/computer work. On the APHIS factsheet it says, “Additional traceability requirements for this group (cattle & bison) will be addressed in separate rulemaking in the future, allowing more time for APHIS to work closely with industry to ensure the requirements are effective and can be implemented.”

Hammerschmidt and Wiemers still have a paying job ever creating “additional requirements.”  Is there just a chance of, perhaps — “less requirements” in the future, to allow the American cattle producer to spend more time just simply making a living?

Caption DZ 0660: Tony M. Forshey, DVM, Ohio State Veterinarian, labors to explain the federal ADT rules as two of his support associates assist with the power point presentation.  Sugar Creek, Ohio Livestock Auction Barn, Oct 29, 2013.

Caption DZ 0663: Listeners at the ADT power point presentation, Sugar Creek Auction Arena, Sugar Creek, Ohio. RC Farms owner, Roy Yoder, Apple Creek, Ohio, on the left. Veterinarians, state staff and ranchers were in attendance.

Darol Dickinson, Eye Witness

Name Games with the USDA (again)

©Doreen Hannes

On May 11th, the USDA held the first of three public meetings on their “New NAIS” program “Animal Disease Traceability”. The meeting began at 8am with three power point presentations. California State Veterinarian, Dr. Richard Breitmeyer gave the first presentation. This was the same presentation he gave at the mid-March NIAA (National Institute of Animal Agriculture) meeting, also held in Kansas City.

A little history is in order to understand the progression of this idea for animal traceability. In the US, the first notable plan for identifying animals was the NFAIP, along with FAIR, those being the National Farm Animal Identification Program and Farm Animal Identification and Records. Then under the Bush Administration there was the United States Animal Identification Plan, with the NAIS, National Animal Identification System hot on it’s heels. Now, they have “killed” NAIS, but are moving forward with the Animal Disease Traceability plan, the ADT. The main difference here is that the USDA is going to make a rule on the ADT to prescribe the “performance standards” for traceability that the states MUST meet to engage in interstate commerce with the ADT.

Breitmeyer’s presentation focused on the difficulties around tracing the contacts of tubercular (and suspect) cattle in the state of California and other states without the aid of an interoperable database covering all animals and all movements. According to his presentation, the state of California has approximately 57,500 known live cattle imports from Mexico per year. This is significant in that more than 75% of all tuberculosis in cattle is of Mexican origin. Breitmeyer lamented that when he began as a vet 25 years ago, the US had nearly eliminated TB except for in small areas of northern Michigan and northern Minnesota where the soil make up continues to keep TB in the wildlife and therefore occasionally in cattle. Breitmeyer’s presentation was actually quite a good illustration of many of the failed policies of the USDA in disease control, the lack of quarantine at the borders chief among them. Of course, he is a proponent of a NAIS style system because having all that data available would make his job easier…At least on paper.

The second presentation was given by a very soft-spoken APHIS/VS (Veternary Services) representative, Dr. TJ Mayer. He stressed that the “theme” for the development of the “new” program is “collaboration”. Those to be affected must be involved in the process of developing the solution for the lack of traceability that now exists— particularly in cattle. Cattle are the primary focus for this new plan, and the methodology for bringing cattle to 95% traceability back to the point of identification in 2 business days is dependent on “collaboration” in developing the processes in our states. (Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?) Mayer also illustrated that the desired traceability would be implemented gradually through partnerships of stakeholders and building upon the requirements outlined in the rule that is to be developed for criteria that states must meet for interstate commerce.

The third presentation was by Becky Brewer (Oklahoma State Vet) and the apparent lead member of the newly established “Regulatory Working Group”. Dr. Brewer related the thinking of the Regulatory Working Group on the measurable outcomes of the ‘traceability’ standards to arrive at 95% of “all” animals traced back to the ‘traceability unit’ within 2 business days. Sounds just like the NAIS Business Plan, doesn’t it? Brewer stated, “In government speak, “all” doesn’t mean all.” This may explain why the USDA kept insisting that when opponents of NAIS cited documents verbatim, we were “spreading misinformation”. Evidently the English language is a linguistic and statistical anomaly in the hands and mouths of bureaucrats.

There were no question and answer sessions after the presentations. Instead every table was given a USDA facilitator and three segments of questions to answer regarding how we might achieve the desired outcome of getting animals id’d back to the ‘traceability unit’ within their timeframes. The tables were marked with species placards and there were at least five cattle tables, three swine, two poultry, one sheep and goat, and one “other species”.

When I entered the room I noticed that Kenny Fox of R CALF USA was at a cattle table and I failed to notice the “other species” table so I sat at the sheep and goat table. There were no people at the poultry tables. The cattle tables were quite full, and all of the reporters were sitting at the ‘other species’ table, so I thought I would just sit at the empty sheep and goat table.

When the facilitating began, I was blessed with three USDA representatives at my table, where all the other tables only had one. I shared the table with one sheep broker from New Mexico. He deals in 20 to 30,000 head of sheep annually mostly exported to Mexico and was quite content with the Scrapie program. This program identifies breeding animals back to the flock of origin with a number assigned to the flock manager and not the land the animals are held on. It also allows for tattoos as an alternate form of official id for interstate commerce, and does not use RFID tags, although it could in the future.

The USDA representatives at my table were not particularly interested in hearing about how the failed agricultural policies have created a problem that the USDA would now like all of us to ‘partner’ with them to solve. They did take copious notes, and were quite proficient in ‘mirroring’ my statements while slightly adjusting them to fit their desired outcome more handily.

At the end of each of the three segments, a representative from each table stood and gave the ‘report’ from the table on that segment. The consensus of the cattle groups were that only breeders should be identified, RFID tags should be avoided, back tags should continue to be used for feeders and slaughter cows, and a NAIS styled system would not work at all.

The USDA is currently promoting the use of ‘bright’ tags for cattle. These are very similar to brucellosis tags in numbering and appearance. However, when the only question and answer segment of the day took place and Neil Hammerschmidt (one of the main authors of NAIS) gave most of the answers, he made it clear that the USDA still wants to ‘aggressively’ pursue the use of 840 tags.

The bottom line about the entire meeting is that the USDA will try to have a draft rule ready in June from the “Regulatory Working Group”. This rule will define the “performance standards” that are to be met by the states to engage in interstate commerce. The USDA plans to publish this proposed rule in November or December of 2010, allow a 90-day comment period, and finalize the rule (make it law) from 8-10 months after the comment period is complete. There may be different requirements under these performance standards by species, and some potentially exempted sectors or movements. There is admitted concern from the USDA and their friends that incentives and disincentives for states must be expressed clearly and not be too “heavy handed”. In other words, if a state meets compliance levels in hogs and not cattle, the hogs should not be refused access to interstate commerce.

It appears to me that we must proactively engage our state legislators to statutorily define requirements for interstate livestock movement and not allow the Departments of Agriculture the leeway to cooperate with the USDA to achieve the goals of the USDA as those goals are still NAIS oriented. The USDA will not dismantle the National Premises Repository although Hammerschmidt stated that if a state were to want to withdraw all of their participants, they could do so. Also, according to Hammerschmidt, they still want to move ‘aggressively’ to 840 tags as official identification along with electronic Certificates of Veterinary Inspection.

The onus of implementing the graduated Animal Disease Traceability program rests squarely on the individual states. Either the states will define those standards statutorily or the USDA will bring about their final desires incrementally through the regulatory process.==========

ARAPA—Global Food Safety Initiative and S510

Arkansas Animal Producers Association

ANNUAL MEETING

Date: April 18, 2010

Time: 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Site: Atkins High School Auditorium

403 Ave. 3 Northwest

Atkins, Arkansas

Keynote Speaker: Mrs. Doreen Hannes

ARAPA member Doreen Hannes has thoroughly researched the origins &
impacts of “Free Trade” agreements and the National Animal
Identification System in particular & has been a major force in the
anti-NAIS movement both nationally & in Missouri. Her mission is to
expose the procedures & methods being employed to destroy the God given
rights of this once great republic. Doreen has her own talk radio
program & has written extensively on the NAIS. She will be doing a power
point presentation on the GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE and why these
food safety bills in Congress right now will not only implement NAIS,
but more than that – this will be complete food control right down to
your garden & kitchen. Bring every person you can to HEAR THIS. This
isn’t just about our animals anymore.

http://truth- farmer.blogspot. com/

Other Scheduled Speakers:

Mrs. Jeannie Burlsworth: Chairwoman of Secure Arkansas

Mr. Warren Phillips of Arkansas Animal Producers Association

Mr. Michael Steenbergen of the Arkansas Horse Council

Mr. Harvey Howington of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association

We will have an ARAPA business meeting to decide new board members. We
will also discuss what our next step is for the 2011 legislative
session.

Did you hear that “NAIS is dead”? NO, it is NOT! Come find out what
really happened!

Do you want to find out what happened with your Freedom to Farm Act last
spring in the Arkansas Senate Ag committee hearing? COME TO THIS
MEETING!

Are you wondering why a guy from the Ark. Rice Growers (3,000 members!)
is speaking at our meeting? COME FIND OUT—this is BIG news for ARAPA
and for Arkansas!

Do you have lots of questions & want answers? COME TO THIS MEETING!

THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC – ANYONE IS WELCOME TO ATTEND!

IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN ARKANSAS, WHETHER
THEY OWN ANIMALS OR NOT, PLEASE LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THIS MEETING.

Please bring friends and family!!!!

— NAIS is Contagious—-

Interestingly enough, it’s Pearl Harbor Day—and so it is for Cattle

12/7/09
©Doreen Hannes

Last week I heard from someone who works at several sale barns in the area that one was currently tagging all breeding cows with 840 NAIS tags if they did not have the metal brucellosis tag in their ears. As of January 1st, 2010, they would tag all breeding stock going through the chute with 840 tags regardless of metal bruce tags that were already in the cow’s ear. The word was that this was ‘some sale barns’ and ‘some veterinarians’.

I’ve spent several days trying to get information and documentation on this, and this morning, our Missouri State veterinarian, Dr. Taylor Woods, was kind enough to call me and explain what is happening in fair detail.

According to Dr. Woods, in March or April of 2009, he received a notice from the USDA stating that in two weeks all federal funding for Brucellosis was to be cut off. This was rather a shock to him and he called and went all the way up to Dr. John Clifford. Clifford told him he should have received a notice regarding this in December of 2008. Dr. Woods told him that this was the first he had heard of it, and went on to ascertain that the reason for failure of notification was because Missouri has been 5 years brucellosis free. Dr. Clifford stated that he would allow funding to continue for Missouri until December 31st, 2009. At that time, all blood testing for brucellosis would cease and all breeding cattle would be identified at the market by the market veterinarian with the 840 tag. The 840 tags are currently provided by the USDA free to the state of Missouri, and will supplant testing and the metal Brucellosis tags at market.

Also, Doctor Woods said that as far as he is aware, this is what is going to happen in every single state. Also, that only Texas and Missouri have been collecting blood and actually testing for Brucellosis. He said that these 840 tags are NOT NAIS tags. Also, notably, that he is rather irritated to see a successful program of Brucellosis eradication going away and relying instead upon a tag that will not detect the disease. It is confirmed via a myriad of sources that there will be no more pulling of blood to check for brucellosis in several states. The USDA Veterinary Services (VS) is doing away with the brucellosis program to bring in the OIE (World Animal Health Organization) standards for trade on Animal Identification, which at the very least, according to the Guidelines of the OIE, will identify an animal back to the farm of origin or ‘premise’. These are the first two prongs of NAIS: premises registration, and animal identification. You cannot have 840 identification without going back to the ‘premises’. Doctor Woods told me that they would be using the sale barns (markets) as the premises. This is NOT supported by any documentation that is available anywhere.

Now, I am completely unable to find any other designation for the 840 tags other than one which links the identified animal back to the NAIS premises of the owner selling the cattle. For cattle, all 840 tags are radio frequency identification, the USDA is allowing 840 non RFID identification for hogs, otherwise all 840 is RFID and all 840 is linked back to the farm of origin or premises.

Again, this is to go into effect in all states beginning on January the 1st, 2010. Doctor Woods was kind enough to assure me that he would be happy to give me whatever correspondence and documentation he could find regarding this. The issue as I see it is that there is not much time at all before January 1st, and I certainly cannot wait the six weeks it took for my last request from the Missouri Department of Agriculture to be fulfilled. The USDA never gives out any information unless you possess the capacity to actually sue them for the information…at least not to the likes of me.

There are several States with statute constraining the implementation of NAIS and premises registration. Missouri is one of those States, and there appears to be a definite conflict here unless the documents can indeed support something other than premises registration under NAIS standards (you can call it what you like, NFAIP, USAIP, NAIS, NLIS, or whatever), this would indeed be construed as mandating or otherwise forcing participation in NAIS or any similar program by the State Veterinarians office and a case of the USDA forcing a State Department to violate statute to continue to participate in interstate commerce. The USDA is in violation of the APA at the very least.

At any rate, I wanted to get this information out despite the lack of paperwork to support this as there are many sources confirming the generalities of this and no one saying that 840 tags will not be used on cattle going through the chutes in the state of Missouri after January 1st, 2010.

When I do get the actual documentation, I will be sending it on to all interested parties. This is trickle down and up NAIS in full effect. 2010 is the year for OIE compliance on animal identification for the USDA. And first they came for the cows……

The Food Fight Continues!….and more

In just a little while I will be doing a show with Darol Dickinson of Ohio the proprietor of http://www.head2tail.com and http://www.texaslonghorn.com as well as the one he has become notorious for, naisstinks.com. You can listen to the show at http://www.libertynewsradio.com live from 5-6pm Central time every Saturday and go to the archives to get other shows.

Darol and I will be discussing imports, and the insanity of the US chasing export markets for our beef, the NLIS and what is happening there in Australia because of this program (NAIS is the US version with the same requirements….because it isn’t a US program, ahem) and also a good deal on direct marketing if we can fit it in. I really enjoy Darol and believe you will find him entertaining AND informative!

In other issues, the raw milk war rages on. In Georgia, it is illegal to sell raw milk, so those who want to drink it and haven’t got their own dairy animals generally go to South Carolina and buy it there. Well, the FDA and the Georgiacrats have decided to put the kaibosh on that. They pulled over a van of a fellow bringing milk back for several people who had purchased it for themselves and made him dump it on the ground. It’s like asking your neighbor to pick up sugar and then having the cops make him dump it. Ludicrous, but this is the land of the free and all that jazz. You can go to this website to learn more about the Georgia battle:

http://juicymaters.com/blog1/?page_id=302

In South Dakota, heavy handed state officials are also beefing up their anti raw milk squads and in Missouri, they are doing the same.

I will be posting more on the SD and Missouri issues tomorrow. Next week, I will be blessed to have Richard Boyden on my show, and we will be on a tear about this and other issues.

As you know, http://www.libertynewsradio.com is the place to get Truth Farmer radio shows. They have a number of other excellent shows and hosts, and are doing a tremendous service for the cause of freedom and getting knowledge out there so that we can tell what time it really is. This station does NOT charge it’s hosts or affiliates for the programs they air. They rely on advertising and listener support. If you can, please go to their new donations page and make contribution. Little amounts add up and truly do matter, so please, go to http://www.libertynewsradio.com/donate.php and give a little bit if you can. They will put it to good use and have been wonderful to work with and a real blessing to me personally.

Thanks so much for caring about freedom and for actively opposing complete control!

NAIS Enforcement Begins….

The first court case with a verdict regarding NAIS in the United States has come out on the side of those who wish to mandate this ridiculous system. The article below is the only thing available on the net at this time, and the person in Wisconsin with the most information isn’t sharing it yet, so…..the best I can do is tell you that this is a bad, bad thing. Unfortunately, because of the defense he used, it was also rather predictable. Sad day for freedom…..


Polk County judge orders beef rancher to register premises

By Heidi Clausen
Regional Editor
BALSAM LAKE – A Polk County judge has ruled in favor of the state of Wisconsin in the state’s second case of a farmer refusing to register a livestock premises.
Cumberland cattle rancher Patrick Monchilovich, 39, faced trial Oct. 21 in Balsam Lake for not registering his premises as required by the state’s livestock premises registration law.
It took Judge Molly GaleWyrick less than a half-hour to decide that the state of Wisconsin had met its burden of proof in the case, and she granted the motion for a directed verdict.
Assistant District Attorney Moria Ludvigson told the judge that the state was requesting Monchilovich’ s compliance plus a civil forfeiture fee.
GaleWyrick ordered Monchilovich to pay $389.50 within 60 days.
About 25 farmers and others showed up in the courtroom to support Monchilovich and his wife, Melissa.
A few people snickered when GaleWyrick told Monchilovich, “You can do whatever you want to; this is a free country.”
After admonishing the crowd, she said Monchilovich’ s disobedience of the law meant he would have to pay a penalty.
“They’re taking away freedoms,” Monchilovich told The Country Today after the hearing was adjourned.
He said he will consult with his wife before deciding whether to appeal the decision.
Monchilovich refused to register his farm, and received multiple visits from state officials in 2008.
District Attorney Dan Steffen filed a complaint against Monchilovich on Feb. 25. Monchilovich entered a not guilty plea in March, arguing that the costs incurred by farmers far outweigh the rewards of premises ID and the National Animal Identification System.
He said he keeps his Simmental herd on property that’s separate from his McKinley area home. He said he owns the land, having inherited it after his mother’s death.
Monchilovich argued in court that he doesn’t have an official “premises,” so is not required to comply with the law.
“The only way you can get a premises is to apply for one,” he said. “We don’t have one so, therefore, we’re not required to register one.”
GaleWyrick argued that a person can’t avoid regulations simply by not doing something.
She said that, by admitting that he owns the property, has livestock there and has not registered his premises, Monchilovich has admitted his violation of the statute.
She said her court isn’t the proper venue in which to argue against administrative code.
“(The state has) proven the elements of a violation of the statute, so I don’t believe you have any defense to that,” she told Monchilovich.
She said that Monchilovich incorrectly interpreted the language of the law and manipulated it to his own advantage.
“You don’t get to pick and choose. You have to look at it in its totality,” she said. “You’re doing what first-year law students do. You pull out a part of the statute that you want to apply and take it out of context.”
GaleWyrick said Monchilovich presented no reason that would exempt him from having to register.
“This applies to you,” she said. “There’s absolutely no logic I can think of that would exempt a single person.”
Melissa Monchilovich said she fears that compliance with the premises registration law will lead to more problems.
“They’re looking for compliance so that, down the line, they can make more rules and do things that we object to,” she said.
The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection in 2003 became the first agricultural agency in the U.S. to implement mandatory livestock premises registration.
Anyone who keeps livestock must register that location with the state.
The program is designed to protect animal health and food-chain security by facilitating a more rapid response to animal disease outbreaks.
Each premises is assigned a registration number. There is no fee to register a premises, and registration must be renewed every three years.
The Monchilovich case is the second time DATCP has taken action against a farmer for refusing to register their premises.
Amish dairy farmer Emanuel Miller Jr. of Loyal appeared in a Clark County courtroom Sept. 23 regarding his refusal to register his premises. He opposes the program because it violates his religious beliefs.
A decision in the Miller case is expected later this year.
Heidi Clausen can be reached at clausen@amerytel. net.

http://www.thecount rytoday.com/ story-news. asp?id=BLH90P4H0 0I

Welcome to the Global Plantation

Welcome to the Global Plantation
HR 2749 Authorizes International Take-Over of Domestic Food Production

© Doreen Hannes 2009

HR 2749 AUTHORIZES NAIS and OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
Congressional staffers have been telling people that HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, does not authorize the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Many organic groups have agreed with them. However, this is misleading. Though HR 2749 does not name “the” National Animal Identification System, it still authorizes the program. It also does not state that it legally authorizes Good Agricultural Practices, or GAP, partially comprising Codex guidelines on traceability and food safety, and the OIE’s Guide to Good Farming Practices including auditing, certification and inspections, disincentives for not participating in the form of fines, penalties, and loss of access to market, but it does. Is it possible that Congress was not aware of what it voted on? The bill was changed three times in a 24-hour period before passing the House 283-142 on July 30, 2009.

Are these assertions about HR 2749 wild and unsubstantiated? Proving them is fairly easy—just understand “Good Agricultural Practices” (GAP), how the agencies of the World Trade Organization operate within member countries to achieve them and what comprises the actual jurisdiction of the FDA and USDA. A brief explanation follows, along with substantiating quotes from HR 2749.

First we look to jurisdiction in HR2749….

“Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to alter the jurisdiction between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, under applicable statutes and regulations…” (p.3&4)

Then, tossing our preconceived notions to the wind and looking to law instead, we find that congressional testimony of the FDA on establishing a single food safety agency and a myriad of other sources including the FAO (Food and Ag Organization of the UN), the FDA statements on the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, and many books on food law affirm that FDA has jurisdiction over live food animals:

“FDA is the Federal agency that regulates 80 percent of the nation’s food supply-everything we eat except for meat, poultry, and certain egg products, which are regulated by our partners at USDA. FDA’s responsibility extends to live food animals…”

So then what is the authority of the USDA? It is over agricultural disease, animals in the slaughter channel or transport, marketing (like grading of eggs and certification of processes) and the end product of many (but not all) food animals; meat. This is why NAIS always had to be “about disease” because the USDA couldn’t run it otherwise! The exemption section on USDA regulated products is a dust up. Most people think the USDA has authority over live food animals, but it is the FDA after all. They surrender “cow, sheep or goat for milk production”, but the FDA retains authority of the fluid milk and when the animal is no longer productive for milking, it’s into the slaughter channel (under USDA) or out to pasture (back to FDA) anyway!

“Livestock and poultry that are intended to be presented for slaughter pursuant to the regulations by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act are exempt from the requirements of this Act. A cow, sheep, or goat that is used for the production of milk is exempt from the requirements of this Act.” (p.5 of HR2749)

HR 2749 is 160 pages (July 29 version) and contains the following references to international standards and guidelines (emphasis added for clarity) (all page numbers refer to the PDF file):

“(B) INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS.—In issuing guidance or regulations… the Secretary shall review international hazard analysis and preventive control standards that are in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act and relevant to such guidelines or regulations to ensure that the programs…..are consistent……with such standards.” (p. 35)

“CONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.—The Secretary shall apply this paragraph consistently with United States obligations under international agreements.” (p. 81)

“The Secretary shall issue regulations to ensure that any qualified certifying entity and its auditors are free from conflicts of interest. In issuing these regulations, the Secretary may rely on or incorporate international certification standards.” (p. 82)

This means that there will be a layer of auditors, certifiers and inspectors over every aspect of food production in this country and that these inspectors and certifiers will be trained in ISO (International Standards Organization) management program certification. The ISO has been working with Codex Alimentarius on Food Safety Standards and, in particular, a technical standard for Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) which is a consortium of the seven largest food retailers in the world, and that is ISO22000:2005. All traceability (read NAIS) falls under the purview of Codex, the OIE (World Animal Health Organization) and the IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) for global trade agreements.

The following excerpt from HR 2749 shows the fully interoperable global network already in existence regarding food and its production:

“Development of such guidelines shall take into account the utilization of existing unique identification schemes and compatibility with customs automated systems, such as integration with the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the International Trade Data System (ITDS), and any successor systems.” (p. 142)

So it is clear that international standards and guidelines are implicit in this legislation. Note the usage of the command form SHALL. This isn’t a ‘might’, ‘may’ or in anyway a voluntary issue on the part of the Secretary. Then there is the section on Traceability. This is a code word in the National Animal Identification System and when one reads Sec.107 of this bill, it describes specific components of NAIS down to 48-hour trace-back, which cannot even be fantasized about with out individual animal identification.

“…..the Secretary shall issue regulations establishing a tracing system that enables the Secretary to identify each person who grows, produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, holds, or sells such food in as short a timeframe as practicable but no longer than 2 business days.” [note that it says “grows”] (p. 70)

and…

“……use a unique identifier for each facility owned or operated by such person for such purpose…” (p. 69)

So we have PIN (Premises Identification Number) and 48-hour traceback harmonizing with international standards and guidelines along with this:

“….‘‘(C) COORDINATION REGARDING FARM IMPACT.—In issuing regulations under this paragraph that will impact farms, the Secretary ‘‘(i) shall coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture; and ‘‘(ii) take into account the nature of the impact of the regulations on farms.” (p. 71)

Now that I’ve killed you with legalese, it’s time to let you find out just what these international standards and guidelines mean to those engaged in agriculture in this country.

“GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES”
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) are not a standard in and of themselves. They are a combination of standards and guidelines set forth by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. (FAO), through both the OIE (World Animal Health Organization) and Codex Alimentarius (Food Code) and IPPC to meet the certification and auditing side of the international trade aspects of the standards set forth. The OIE and Codex are charged with setting global standards and guidelines for the member countries of the WTO to meet and satisfy the SPS (Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary), TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) and Equivalency agreements of the WTO for participation in international trade. Both the OIE and CODEX have guidelines for traceability that, with the passage of HR2749 into law, would be written into regulations governing all interstate commerce within the boundaries of the United States. The components of traceability are the pillars of NAIS that many of us have become so familiar with in the course of the battle over the past several years. Those being 1) Premises Identification 2) Animal Identification and 3) Animal Tracking. You can’t have traceability under international standards without having those three components.

One of the main issues in the implementation of these standards and guidelines within a member nation of the WTO is that they must have a legal framework through which to regulate and enforce these guidelines and standards. HR 2749 would meet the criteria for that legal framework by way of the excerpts from the bill above.

In the OIE’s “Guide to Good Farming Practices” the management of a livestock facility are clearly spelled out. Some of these recommendations that would become defacto law in the US under agency rule-making on passage of HR2749 (GGFP delineates international guidelines for food safety at the farm level) are:

– For each animal…Require and keep all commercial and health documents enabling their exact itinerary to be traced from their farm or establishment to their final destination…

-Keep a record of all persons entering the farm…..

-Keep medical certificates of persons working with the animals……

-Keep documents proving the water you give to the animals meets specific criteria

-Keep samples of all feed given to the animals

-Keep all documents from official inspections

-Keep records of treatment and procedures on all animals (castration, disbudding, calving, medications, etc.)

-Prevent domestic animals (cats and dogs) from roaming in and around livestock buildings

-Place all these documents at the disposal of the competent authority (Veterinary Services) when it conducts farm visits.

Some of the other guidelines and standards that would come into play after the implementation of traceability for all agricultural products would be : (from FAO COAG/17 “Development of a Framework for Good Agricultural Practices”) “the adoption and implementation of international standards and codes for which Codex food safety standards and guidelines have been designed, and the associated capacity building, training, development and field implementation in the context of the different production systems and agro-ecozones. These include: Enhancing Food Quality and Safety by Strengthening Handling, Processing and Marketing in the Food Chain (214A9); Capacity Building and Risk Analysis Methodologies for Compliance with Food Safety Standards and Pesticide Control (215P1); Food Quality Control and Consumer Protection (221P5); Food Safety Assessment and Rapid Alert System (221P6); and Food Quality and Safety Throughout the Food Chain (221P8).”*

To be certified as meeting the requirements of “GAP”, which is synonymous with being in compliance with international standards and guidelines, we can check out GlobalGAP.org. This is “the” certifying methodology for international trade in ag products. Here are a few excerpts from their 122-page general regulations booklet that has links to checklists for those who would be certifiers and auditors under the principles of GAP. This is an organization, not a governing body under WTO agreements, but working with nations and businesses to meet the criteria regarding these GAP practices for international trade. Here is a bare minimum of excerpts from their regulation document:

-(ii) Developing a Good Agricultural Practice (G.A.P.) framework for benchmarking existing assurance schemes and standards including traceability. (iii) Providing guidance for continuous improvement and the development and understanding of best practice. (iv) Establish a single, recognised framework for independent verification.

-Production Location: A production unit or group of production units, covered by the same ownership, operational procedures, farm management, and GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) decision-making activities.

-Within the context of GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) Integrated Farm Assurance this means tracing product from the producer’s immediate customer back to the producer and certified farm.

-Within the context of GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) Integrated Farm Assurance this means tracking product from the producer to his immediate customer.

In simple English, which appears to be highly lacking in all these guidelines, it means NAIS for everything, and for anyone who wishes to be engaged in agriculture….Remember the “grows” phrase from the earlier excerpt from HR2749. Now let’s look at some of the ‘exception’ clauses in HR2749. This bill is a terrifically crafty piece of legislation that is designed to cloud the reader’s understanding of the impact of the law being proposed in it. All of the exception clauses give the exception under this Act so long as you are ready to be regulated under a different Act. We’ll just look at a couple of these clauses to allow you to get the gist of the lack of exception available through the exceptions….

“EXCEPTIONS”
Farms- A farm is exempt from the requirements of this Act to the extent such farm raises animals from which food is derived that is regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act.

‘‘(I) such an operation that packs or holds food, provided that all food used in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on such farm or another farm under the same ownership;

‘‘(II) such an operation that manufactures or processes food, provided that all food used in such activities is consumed on such farm or another farm under the same ownership; (pages9 and10)

Thus, if you grow everything you feed and consume everything you grow, and use no minerals or salts that you don’t mine yourself, you may be exempt. Or, in plain English, don’t even try to make a living in agriculture if you won’t comply with these rules.

One more exception to contend with here is:

‘(A) DIRECT SALES BY FARMS- Food is exempt from the requirements of this subsection if such food is–

‘(i) produced on a farm; and

‘(ii) sold by the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such farm directly to a consumer or to a restaurant or grocery store. (page 71)

This sounds good. However, there are several problems with this that are not evident without some knowledge of how things are done in the traditional avenues open for market to growers. First of all, cattle, whom you may recall as the primary target of the NAIS Business Plan, are often sold either at auction barns or via potload to feedlots. It is illegal to sell beef directly from the farm to consumers in every state that I know of. People often will sell a calf ready to butcher in halves or quarters to people and deliver the calf to the slaughter facility for the consumer, but this is far from the normal route of commerce in cattle or other species of meat animal. Even if you can securely wedge your operation into this particular exemption, they get you later via the record keeping section of this bill:

‘(E) RECORDKEEPING REGARDING PREVIOUS SOURCES AND SUBSEQUENT RECIPIENTS- For a food or person covered by a limitation or exemption under subparagraph (B), (C), or (D), the Secretary shall require each person who produces, receives, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, distributes, or holds such food to maintain records to identify the immediate previous sources of such food and its ingredients and the immediate subsequent recipients of such food.

‘(F) RECORDKEEPING BY RESTAURANTS AND GROCERY STORES- For a food covered by an exemption under subparagraph (A), restaurants and grocery stores shall keep records documenting the farm that was the source of the food.

‘(G) RECORDKEEPING BY FARMS- For a food covered by an exemption under subparagraph (A), farms shall keep records, in electronic or non-electronic format, for at least 6 months documenting the restaurant or grocery store to which the food was sold.’ (pp. 74-75)

So being exempt means you are required to keep records. Keeping required records means you could be required to release those records. So how exempt can a person get under this legislation? Especially when the slughter facilities will all be regulated unless the USDA already regulates them?

PENALTIES AND FINES
Then of course, as with any law, there are the fines and penalties. These are from $20,000 to $1,000,000 per violation. (p. 122)

NO JUDICIAL REVIEW
There is also the change under the seizure section that takes away judicial overview…(double quotations indicate amending language)

…….procedure in cases under this section shall conform, as nearly as may be, to the procedure in admiralty; except that on demand of either party any issue of fact joined in any such case shall be tried by jury, “”and except that, with respect to proceedings relating to food, Rule G of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions shall not apply in any such case, exigent circumstances shall be deemed to exist for all seizures brought under this section, and the summons and arrest warrant shall be issued by the clerk of the court without court review in any such case””…… (p. 116)

So we can just throw out that pesky Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and while we’re at it, let’s get rid of probable cause as well via this wording from page 117:

by striking ‘‘credible evidence or information indicating’’ and inserting ‘‘reason to believe’’;

There are many other dangerous aspects to HR 2749, like seizures, quarantines, and licensing and whistle blower provisions, but this should leave no doubt that this bill will indeed affect farms and has the potential to affect even home food production if an agency decides to apply the international risk analysis schemes to that venue. This bill opens a huge regulatory nightmare that is only evident when one knows what the international guidelines and standards consist of in regard to agriculture. Understanding those, it is highly unlikely that they will issue regulations that keep things as they are now.

Now, the questions that everyone involved in agriculture, meaning everyone who eats, must ask themselves are these:

Can regulating, fining and destroying the freedom of people to grow food create food safety?

Have the impacts of so-called “Free Trade” on this nation been beneficial for the citizens of this country?

Have food safety concerns increased or decreased since we have begun to import more food under these trade agreements?

And ultimately, does the US Constitution provide for the voidance of the Bill of Rights to participate in global trade?

My copy of the Constitution clearly does not allow for any law to void the Bill of Rights which is unalienable and Constitutionally guaranteed. It’s time to let our Federal representatives know in no uncertain terms, that everything to do with governance ultimately comes down to the consent of the governed, and we will not consent to being run by international agencies. ===end===

My deep thanks to Paul Griepentrog, who helped in going through the legislation and many of the ramifications and amendments to current law under this Act.

Previous Older Entries