| Health
|
[
Health ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
14827 |
|
|
Date: May 15, 2024 at 08:06:38
From: chatillon, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Nat’l Alert – Protect Small Farmers & Ranchers from Forced Electronic |
URL: This really belongs on Nat'l, but............... |
|
Nat’l Alert – Protect Small Farmers & Ranchers from
Forced Electronic ID!
MAY 15, 2024 BY ADMINISTRATORLEAVE A COMMENT
Nat’l Alert – Protect Small Farmers & Ranchers from
Forced Electronic ID!
🖨️ Print post
Tell Your U.S. Senators Cosponsor S. 4282
Protect Small Farmers and Ranchers from Forced
Electronic ID
We urge you to take immediate action and voice your
opposition to electronic animal ID mandates! Senator
Rounds has introduced a vital one-sentence bill, Senate
Bill S. 4282 (S. 4282): “The Secretary of Agriculture
shall not implement any rule or regulation requiring
the mandatory use of electronic identification ear tags
on cattle or bison.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been told
by numerous stakeholders for over a decade that
mandatory electronic Animal ID is a solution in search
of a problem; one that will harm thousands of small
farmers and ranchers across the country. The agency is
not listening, and it is time for Congress to step in.
Mandatory electronic Animal ID is expensive, intrusive,
and unreliable. The plan benefits two groups: the large
meatpacking corporations, and the technology companies
that produce electronic tags, readers, and software.
USDA has ignored protests from the majority of
independent farmers, ranchers, cattle owners, and local
food consumers.
Despite all the objections, the USDA has now finalized
a rule that mandates electronic tagging for cattle
crossing state lines. In six months, cattle and bison
crossing state lines will not be able to use visual-
only ear tags, but must have electronic ID. And USDA’s
press release signaled what we have known all along –
this is just the first step back to an all-encompassing
electronic ID mandate from “birth to slaughter.”
Mandating electronic ID undermines the goal of
promoting a resilient food system: If we want to build
resilient, diversified supply chains, the federal
government must take steps to avoid regulations and
policies that are prejudiced AGAINST small- and mid-
scale producers, such as mandatory electronic Animal
ID.
The solution is simple: Keep the 2013 Animal Disease
Traceability Rule unchanged, allowing farmers and
ranchers to identify their animal with traditional,
low-tech forms of ID or electronic ID, depending on
which works best for their operations.
We have to stop this forced mandate – and we only have
6 months before the new rule takes effect.
ACTION TO TAKE
1. CALL your U.S. Senators and urge them to co-sponsor
Senator Round’s bill, S. 4282. Calls are most
effective, so be sure to follow up by phone. Click here
to find your U.S. Senators. See Talking Points and More
Information below.
Sample script: “Hi, my name is ___ and I live in
[state]. I am calling to ask my Senator to sign on to
S. 4282 to stop electronic cattle mandates.
I am concerned about this issue because [I am a rancher
who relies on traditional metal tags; I am a small
farmer in an isolated area without good access to
tagging equipment; I am a consumer who wants to support
local farmers, not international meatpackers … whatever
it is, in a sentence or two, let them know why you are
calling about this]
[You can add Talking Points from below, if you like –
but the most important part is your story as a
constituent!]
2. Share this information with your friends, family,
and fellow farmers. Encourage them to also call their
Senators and voice their opposition to the mandate and
their support for S. 4282!
Your action is vital to protect small farmers and
ranchers and all those who depend on them for their
food. Thank you for taking action now!
TALKING POINTS
1. The cost of RFID tags disproportionately burdens
small- and medium-sized independent farmers and
ranchers.
2. USDA rule allows large, corporate-owned herds to be
grouped and tagged as one group, creating a huge
loophole that keeps costs low for the companies.
3. Although USDA claims the rule is about animal
health, it does nothing to prevent or treat disease.
USDA hasn’t provided any data to show how it will
significantly increase traceback – the agency simply
assumes electronic systems will be faster, even though
the experience in other countries, such as Australia,
does not support this.
4. USDA’s press release (April 26) focused on the real
driver for electronic ID, namely greasing the wheels of
the export market. This benefits the big companies,
while putting the cost on the farmers.
5. These RFID tags on live cattle do nothing to
increase food safety.
MORE INFORMATION
“I don’t take my cattle across state lines, why should
I care?”
“I don’t even have cattle, I have goats, sheep, horses,
pigs, or poultry – why should I care?”
Because this is just the first step back towards an
all-encompassing electronic ID mandate. In the early
2000s, USDA proposed a comprehensive plan for birth-to-
death electronic tracking of all livestock and poultry
animals, known as the National Animal Identification
System (NAIS). After years of protests from
conventional ranchers, organic farmers, homesteaders,
property rights advocates, privacy watchdogs, and local
food consumers, the agency withdrew the NAIS plan. In
its place, USDA adopted a rule that addressed
interstate cattle movements and explicitly provided for
a range of types of identification – including low-
tech, traditional methods – to be used.
This new rule, which violates that vital recognition of
the importance of traditional forms of ID, is not only
a problem for the cattle owners it will immediately
directly impact – it’s the first step back to a NAIS-
type plan. USDA signaled this in its press release
announcing the new rule, trumpeting its benefits for
the export market (which will not be satisfied with
only tracking interstate movements) and talking about
moving to a “modern animal disease traceability system
that tracks animals from birth to slaughter.”
Mandatory electronic Animal ID is expensive, intrusive,
and unreliable. The plan benefits two groups: the large
meatpacking corporations, and the technology companies
that produce the electronic tags, readers, and
software.
USDA and the meatpackers argue that traceability is
about addressing animal disease and food safety. But
it’s really about furthering corporate control of the
meat industry by creating yet more regulations that
promote international trade for the big meatpackers,
are cheap for large-scale operations, and burden family
farmers.
The vast majority of food-borne illnesses in meat are
the result of practices at the slaughterhouse and
afterwards in the processing and handling. We have seen
millions of pounds of meat recalled due to unsanitary
conditions and a lack of proper oversight at huge
slaughterhouses. But the animal ID program ends at the
slaughterhouse door – RFID tags on cattle won’t do
anything to increase food safety.
Nor will RFID tags make our animals healthier. USDA
continues to allow imports of livestock from countries
with known disease problems. In fact, this electronic
ID plan is primarily designed to maximize corporate
profits by promoting exports and imports of animals and
meat – further increasing the risk of introducing and
spreading diseases.
If USDA wanted to address food safety and animal
disease, it would increase oversight and testing at the
large meat processing plants, and stop boxed meat and
live cattle imports from countries with known disease
problems. These two steps would do far more to promote
a safe, secure food supply than sticking RFID tags in
cows’ ears.
We already have Animal ID requirements that provide for
low-tech forms of ID. Traditional metal ear tags cost
about 10 cents each, and the USDA provides them to
farmers for free. They work and they are cost-
effective. In contrast, the agency estimates the cost
to farmers for RFID tags will be $2-$2.60 per head.
That doesn’t seem like much, but that translates to
sales for the tag manufacturers of tens of millions of
dollars each year. The people pushing electronic ID
have not provided a scientific basis for replacing the
existing ID programs with one that is significantly
more expensive and intrusive.
Please call your U.S. Senators now and urge them to
support S. 4282!
For more information on mandatory electronic Animal ID,
go to Mandatory Animal ID Programs – Farm and Ranch
Freedom Alliance
WAPF will send out future alerts as events warrant.
LINKS
Senate Bill S. 4282 –
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-
bill/4282
Find your U.S. Senators –
https://secure.everyaction.com/p/I3mEazX3_kitVjsKjTOvCg
2
USDA rule mandating electronic ID for cattle and bison
–
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-
09/pdf/2024-09717.pdf
USDA/APHIS press release 4/26/2024 –
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/agency-
announcements/aphis-bolsters-animal-disease-
traceability-united-states
FARFA info on Mandatory Animal ID Programs –
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[14828] |
|
14828 |
|
|
Date: May 15, 2024 at 16:34:06
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Nat’l Alert – Protect Small Farmers & Ranchers from Forced... |
URL: https://www.statnews.com/2024/05/07/tracking-h5n1-means-tracking-livestock-movements-around-the-us/ |
|
As livestock move around the country, so does H5N1. The U.S. needs real-time tracking of livestock movements
By Shweta Bansal and Colleen WebbMay 7, 2024
The presence of H5N1 avian influenza virus, better known as bird flu, among dairy cows in Texas — the second largest producer of dairy cattle — was first confirmed in late March. By then, H5N1 had likely been
circulating among dairy cows for months. Six weeks later, the nine states responsible for more than one-quarter of U.S. dairy production, which accounts for 3.5% of the U.S.’s gross domestic product, had each
reported H5N1 cases in dairy cows and continue to do so.
Many questions remain open about the transmission of H5N1 among dairy cows and about the possibility of the virus adapting to transmit among humans. Even with the best possible outcomes, this outbreak reveals
the precipice on which the U.S. rests with respect to livestock diseases.
In the event of an infectious disease outbreak in livestock, even one that does not directly threaten human health, the costs can be catastrophic. The production of animal products (milk, other dairy products,
eggs, and meat) can decrease drastically. Other costs can come from the control efforts or trade bans and loss of consumer demand. Twenty years ago, a single case of “mad cow disease” caused U.S. beef exports
to plummet by more than $2.5 billion, and domestic prices fell by 16%.
News of the spread of avian influenza among U.S. dairy cows in late April led cattle futures to fall sharply at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the largest U.S. exchange for cattle futures). And Colombia,
which buys $43 million in beef annually from the U.S., has restricted beef imports, even though no evidence has yet been found of the virus in beef cattle.
Related: Study of cow tissues provides clues for unusual pattern of bird flu infections in dairy cattle
Managing diseases in livestock in a country the size of the U.S. is a huge challenge due to the frequent and extensive movement of animals across the nation. That means local animal disease problems quickly
become national. In the ongoing H5N1 outbreak, cattle were moved from a farm in Texas, where infected animals had been detected in March, to farms in Ohio and Michigan that tested positive in early April for a
very similar strain of the virus. This suggests that direct cattle-to-cattle transmission is occurring, and implicates animal movements in the large-scale diffusion of the virus.
National-scale movement of farm animals as they transition through the production cycle is a key component of this highly specialized industry and is unlikely to change. In the U.S., beef cattle might be born
in one place, raised and fattened in another, then killed and butchered in another. The U.S. livestock industry is geographically dispersed and intensely connected: 60% of cattle born in a year cross state
borders, with particular concentrations in the Plains states. This has been brought about by regional differences in livestock productivity and by economies of scale, which make it more cost-effective to ship
live animals than shipping animal feed.
The U.S. has one of the most intense livestock industries in the world, primarily due to the aggregation of production over the last 50 years and the presence of large markets and mega-scale animal feedlots
that are unique to the U.S. When animal movements are disseminating infection, there is a particularly high risk of infection reaching premises with lots of traffic.
Livestock markets act much as airports do for humans: they bring together animals (sometimes of multiple species) coming from many different farms, creating opportunities for contact between infected and
susceptible animals before being sold and dispersed to other far-flung farms. Feedlots, facilities at which animals are fattened before slaughter or before being returned to the same or different dairy farms
for stronger milk production, can also act as hubs for propagating infection.
In response to the evolving H5N1 outbreak, the USDA has placed additional influenza-testing requirements on interstate movements of dairy cows. However, the limited information available about livestock
movement indicates that the movements of most cattle (dairy or beef) from or to markets occur within states. While the USDA strategy is essential in limiting the geographical diffusion of H5N1, the disease
could be moving long distances within states without detection.
Given the integral role that livestock movement currently plays in U.S. agriculture, and the potential for animal movements to create pathways for the spread of pathogens, understanding the volume and
structure of livestock movements across the U.S. is crucial to the success of the nation’s infectious disease management efforts. Unfortunately, livestock movements in the U.S. are only partially characterized
and, in many states, only when animals cross state lines. But this information comes from veterinary inspection certificates that lack a uniform format. While this approach to tracking the movements of
livestock animals aids the response to diseases, it lacks the speed and resolution required for most outbreaks, and it will not move forward the country’s preparedness in anticipation of the next livestock
disease emergency.
Related: Bird flu virus circulated in cows for four months before outbreak confirmed by USDA, analysis shows
What is needed instead is a national view of the U.S. livestock industry that incorporates the vast degree of livestock movement that occurs within the industry. This would ideally be powered by a real-time
animal identification and tracking system, where the movements of individual animals are prospectively recorded from birth to slaughter as they change ownership and location. Such “animal passport systems”
exist throughout the European Union and the U.K.
In the U.S., a national animal identification and tracking system has been controversial due to concerns of infringement of property and private rights of individuals, the potential cost, and the exposure of
business strategies crucial to market competitiveness. But states such as Michigan and Minnesota, motivated by the threat of bovine tuberculosis, and Montana and Wyoming, plagued by chronic outbreaks of
brucellosis, have implemented cattle identification and tracking systems, setting examples for a successful national system. While the establishment of these state-level animal identification programs faced
some opposition from producers, the keys to their successes have included a cost-effective system, the mandatory nature of the program, and clear communication and education about the benefits of animal
identification for both disease management and production management.
The use of animal tracking data in veterinary epidemiology and mathematical models would be crucial to U.S. preparedness and response to the inevitable future outbreak of an emerging livestock disease. In
addition to improving animal health management, animal identification and tracking would also retain and increase export market access (currently out of reach due to unmet animal-tracking regulations), food
safety assurances, and producer profitability by improved production efficiency and increased access to information.
Information provided by animal identification and tracking would make it possible to estimate the scope of a potential outbreak and plan outbreak mitigation and control strategies. Driven by data on animal
demographics and movement as well as disease-specific parameters, epidemiological modeling studies could help target and hone these plans to allow maximum business continuity and minimum use of resources.
The benefits of collecting animal-movement data in real-time include evaluating the potential of an epidemic to spread, designing optimal surveillance programs and control strategies, accurate quantification
of ongoing disease threats, and short- and long-term analysis of policies that may affect agricultural business practices. Each of these can help minimize the risk of the next livestock disease emergency,
avoiding colossal economic and food losses, ameliorating animal welfare impacts, and mitigating the potential emergence of highly virulent strains with pandemic potential into human populations.
Shweta Bansal is a professor of biology at Georgetown University whose research focuses on how population connectivity drives the transmission and diffusion of infectious diseases in human and animal
populations. Colleen Webb is a professor of biology and mathematics at Colorado State University and serves as vice provost for graduate affairs and dean. Her research focuses on data-driven modeling of
disease and evaluation of preparedness and control strategies in livestock diseases.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Health ] [ Main Menu ] |