44853
From: chatillon, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Nat’l Alert – Protect Small Farmers & Ranchers from Forced Electronic
|
Nat’l Alert – Protect Small Farmers & Ranchers from Forced Electronic ID! MAY 15, 2024 BY ADMINISTRATOR 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 – |
44855
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:
[44856]
44856
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Nat’l Alert – Protect Small Farmers & Ranchers from Forced...
 ="200">
|
Responses:
None