|
livestock 
Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 14:12:05 PM PST
|
The New York Times credits the American Farm Bureau with opposing NAIS (the National Animal ID System). And that's just bull. Here's what they said:
"It was just overwhelming in the country that people didn't like it, and I think they took that feedback to heart," said Mary Kay Thatcher, public policy director of the American Farm Bureau Federation, which had opposed the identification system. "I think it's good they've at least said we're going to do something different."
Umm... no. The American Farm Bureau helped develop NAIS and originally supported making the program mandatory for anyone who owned any of a long list of animals, even if the animal was just a pet (like a pot-bellied pig or a horse). The defeat of NAIS is entirely thanks to grassroots outrage, opposition, and plain old refusal to comply NO MATTER WHAT. That opposition stalled the USDA long enough that Congress eventually yanked some of NAIS's funding because the USDA was essentially just wasting all of its NAIS funding, trying to get the program in place and utterly failing. When Vilsack came into office, he set up "listening sessions" about NAIS all over the country. The attendance at those listening sessions was overwhelmingly anti-NAIS.
The listening session transcripts are no longer up on the USDA's site (as best I can tell) but fortunately, Google never forgets anything :) Below, I've posted a quote by the Farm Bureau at one of the listening sessions, followed by a quote by a farmer that is more typical of what was heard at these listening sessions.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 615 words in story)
|
|
Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 08:48:51 AM PST
|
|
As I noted before, NAIS is toast. However, the USDA does plan to do SOMETHING in its place. A new PDF put out by the USDA's Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has more details about the future of animal traceability.
In short, there will be a new system but it will ONLY cover animals moving across state lines. NAIS would have covered ALL animals (even pets) even if they were born and died on the same farm. The new system will be "minimally intrusive" but it remains to be seen what that actually means. NAIS was extremely intrusive as all animal movements and life events (births, deaths, etc) had to be reported within a brief timeframe after it happened. Also, the new system will use "lower cost technology"... that part is vague, but it implies that microchipping will not be a mandatory part of this program.
The end result will be a meeting in March of this year, followed by a proposed rule this fall. We will be able to comment on the proposed rule when it is published in the federal register.
Below, I've included some of the Q&A's from the APHIS document.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 397 words in story)
|
|
Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 07:59:32 AM PST
|
From the New York Times today: "U.S.D.A. Plans to Drop Program to Trace Livestock." This is GREAT news!!!! Many small farmers thought the National Animal ID System (NAIS) would put them out of business if it was implemented. Currently, the policy is (or was?) "voluntary" but certain states were enforcing it as mandatory. But while the current version of NAIS is going away, the big question is "What will replace it?" The NYT says:
In abandoning the program, called the National Animal Identification System, officials said they would start over in trying to devise a livestock tracing program that could win widespread support from the industry.
Start over in trying to devise a livestock tracing system? That means they haven't totally given up. The USDA has a conference call scheduled at noon EST to discuss this decision. I will follow up after that if I hear about any new news on this topic.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:00:50 PM PST
|
|
What do consumers want? Cheap, tasty, convenient food. And they DON'T care how you produce it. That's what Elanco, subsidiary of Eli Lilly, maker of rbGH and other animal drugs says in a white paper available from their website. Details below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 1299 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 14:17:19 PM PST
|
|
The American Meat Institute sent a comment to the DOJ about their antitrust hearings that amounted to: "We can NOT haz regulation? Srsly. Kthxbai."
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 279 words in story)
|
|
Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 22:09:31 PM PST
|
|
S. 619, The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), just gained 3 new co-sponsors in the Senate: Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI), Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Sen. Specter (D-PA). This brings it up to a total of 15 co-sponsors in the Senate (and 100 co-sponsors in the House version, H.R. 1549). That's still not enough to pass it in either body, but it's nice to see some movement on such an important bill. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be a left-right issue since both Senators from Maine plus Lieberman have signed on. You'll notice a lack of co-sponsors from the center of the country though.
The bill does not ban all antibiotics in livestock. If an animal is sick, of course the farmer should be able to treat it. The ban will be on nontherapeutic uses (i.e. when an animal is NOT sick) classes of antibiotics that are used in human medicine. The goal is exactly like the name of the bill says - to prevent the evolution of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics used to treat humans. This bill was introduced into the House by Louise Slaughter, and she's got a microbiology background. The Senate version was introduced by Ted Kennedy and it's unfortunate that he won't be around to vote for it. I've included a full list of Senate co-sponsors below. If either of your Senators aren't on the list, shoot 'em an email and ask them to co-sponsor it.
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 61 words in story)
|
|
Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:54:52 AM PDT
|
|
A year ago, I made headlines by asking Al Gore this question. He kind of fumbled with it and admitted he had a meat habit, and maybe that's why he hadn't addressed the issue very well. He added that "we have to walk before we run" on fighting global warming, which seemed to me to be entirely counter to the rest of his message.
Meanwhile, the EPA (under Bush) put out a statement that the U.S. agriculture industry only accounts for 6% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (and, presumably, livestock is a part of that number but not all of it). That's much less than the FAO's estimate that the global livestock industry accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Given this discrepancy, I am very grateful to Ralph Loglisci of Johns Hopkins' Center for a Livable Future, who looked into this very question.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 443 words in story)
|
|
Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:27:56 AM PDT
|
|
Why is it that physicians who care for humans worry about antibiotic resistance from overuse of antibiotics, but veterinarians are not at all concerned? The vast majority of antibiotics used in this country are given to animals who aren't even sick. The antibiotics are intended to promote growth and to prevent infections from occurring in factory farmed animals whose immune systems are compromised by the harsh conditions they live in. The practice of giving non-therapeutic antibiotics to livestock threatens the effectiveness of antibiotics in human medicine, yet the American Veterianary Medical Association has come out against a bill to ban 7 classes of antibiotics used in human medicine from non-therapeutic use in livestock. What gives?
Antibiotic resistant bacteria is not a future problem - it's a current problem. In addition to reports of MRSA on factory hog farms, I've also seen reports like this one from Bill Marler about antibiotic-resistant Salmonella:
Just in the last week, the reality (again) of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella Newport has surfaced (again), this time sickening dozens so far in several states, and leading to the recall of nearly a million pounds of tainted hamburger. This follows a recall of nearly a half a million pounds of Salmonella-tainted burger in Colorado after sickening several a month ago.
Of course, this is not the first time that antibiotic-resistant Salmonella has hitched a ride in hamburger - there were illnesses in 1999, and it was reported by the CDC in 2002 and a WARNING issued by FSIS in 2007. The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services has urged a strategy to combat multidrug-resistant (MDR) Salmonella in ground beef. The CDC, through NARMS has continued to raise concerns about the over-use of antibiotics in our food supply. And, there is clearly no question that these bugs are in the cows we get our milk and the meat that we eat.
The CDC has reported that Salmonella Newport is the third most common Salmonella serotype in the United States. During 1997 - 2001, the number of laboratory-confirmed Salmonella Newport infections reported to CDC increased from 1,584 (5%) of 34,608 reported Salmonella infections to 3,152 (10%) of 31,607 (CDC, unpublished data, 2002). The increasing number of Salmonella Newport infections in the United States appears to be associated with the emergence and rapid dissemination of multidrug-resistant strains of Salmonella Newport. Since 1996, NARMS has identified an increasing number of Salmonella Newport isolates that are resistant to at least nine of 17 antimicrobial agents tested: amoxicillin/clavulanate, ampicillin, cefoxitin, ceftiofur, cephalothin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, sulfamethoxazole, and tetracycline.
If you find this as concerning as I do, please contact your Representative and your Senators and ask them to support the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Mon May 11, 2009 at 05:00:00 AM PDT
|
Recently, Republican Eric Cantor announced a Republican "listening tour." The next day Rush Limbaugh said:
"We do not need a listening tour. We need a teaching tour. That is what the Republican Party, or, slash, the conservative movement needs to focus on. Listening tour ain't it."
Cantor got the hint and changed his tune very quickly. But so did, unfortunately, the USDA. That's right - the United States Department of Agriculture. No, they weren't planning a Republican listening tour. They were planning a National Animal ID System (NAIS) listening tour to find out why SO MANY family farmers, horse owners, pet owners, and people who like to buy food from family farmers were INFURIATED by the idea of NAIS.
Turns out, it's a teaching tour, more or less. They want to teach us to like this program that is going to crush family farmers without really improving food safety at all. Each "listening" session gets kicked off with an hour of the USDA talking. That's followed by a mere 2 hours of public comment, and then breakout groups. Consider also that this is planting season for anyone who grows crops in addition to raising livestock, and they only gave farmers two weeks notice about the listening sessions.
You can also submit comments via the internet. You can't mail or fax them in. And an awful lot of farmers don't have internet. So many, actually, that rural broadband is a current major initiative at the USDA.
At the end of these "listening" sessions, the USDA will be able to say that they listened to the opposition before cracking down on mandatory animal ID. Except that they won't really have listened.
Want to take action? Don't just send in comments to the USDA (I will make sure to post instructions and talking points on this blog). Read this article about NAIS and then CALL the office of Rosa DeLauro, the Congresswoman from Connecticut. She's the major force behind this initiative to speed up the implementation of NAIS. Don't email unless you live in her district because members of Congress often filter out emails from outside the district. Instead use these numbers:
Phone: 202-225-3661
Fax: 202-225-4890
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
Wed May 06, 2009 at 19:30:31 PM PDT
|
( - promoted by JayinPortland)
Many people involved in the local foods movements are aware of NAIS, the National Animal ID System, which, if implemented in full as a mandatory program, will require anyone, large or small, commercial, homesteader, or hobbyist, to register with their state, ID their animals either by group or individually, and report all animal movements to privately or publicly held databases. Large producers will get to ID and report by lot, small producers, hobbyists and homesteader will get to ID and report individual animals and their movements. It's all going to cost, both in money and in time. There will be mistakes made and it isn't going to be the magic bullet in the event that a foreign animal disease (FAD) is found in the USA, especially not if that FAD happens to be something as potentially devestating as foot and mouth disease (FMD), the boogeyman dujour. Now don't get me wrong, FMD is a very, very bad thing, especially if it ever gets back into this country. It hasn't been here since 1929, Harold knew somone, when he was still in California, who lost his whole herd during that outbreak. If FMD ever gets back into this country we're going to have problems like no body's business, especially if animal movements are still allowed during an outbreak. Which brings me to the topic I'd like to discuss today.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 1450 words in story)
|
|
Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 17:10:32 PM PDT
|
|
A few weeks ago, the New York Times published a fantastic piece by Nicholas Kristof called "Our Pigs, Our Food, Our Health." Kristof, who grew up on a farm himself, argued FOR limiting antibiotic use in livestock and talked about how factory hog farms often have MRSA (drug resistant bacteria) in both hogs and humans. Well, the factory hog industry has been going NUTS about this. They say that limiting antibiotic use will make pork LESS safe. So they somehow suckered the NYT into publishing an op ed with their (bullshit) side of the issue.
And they can talk, but they can't make smart people believe their BS. On this blog, the Center for a Livable Future exposed that the National Pork Board paid for the study referenced in the recent NYT op ed. But another farmer went even further, debunking the NYT piece line by line in her blog post "Good Science or Political Agenda?."
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 969 words in story)
|
|
Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
I was only a toddler back when Reagan proposed Star Wars, but I can imagine how great it sounded at the time. To our country, still gripped by the Cold War and the fear of instant annihilation at the hands of a distant government, it must have sounded great. Even now, people STILL talk about a "missile defense shield" that would protect us from any incoming nuclear strikes, even though most people know the whole plan is bogus. And, bogus or not, it didn't stop us from spending a whole lot of money on it all. So now we are STILL vulnerable to incoming nuclear attacks, protected only by our own diplomatic and intelligence abilities to prevent them. Scary - but what can you do? Throw more money into a bullshit missile defense shield that doesn't work?
It seems to be that NAIS (the National Animal ID System) is the ag equivalent of Star Wars. Here's why...
|
|
There's More...
:: (7
Comments, 465 words in story)
|
|
Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 13:01:58 PM PDT
|
|
The events in this diary happened on March 30th. I was going to post on Twitter and never 'got around to it', I need to get more 'roundtoits' as I'm going to need them as the weather warms and the outdoor workload increases.
Anyway, I wrote things down as I had time, and kept the writing pretty lean so that each event would fit into the limits of a 'tweet'. It's a pretty interesting format for writing. I'm going to have to explore it more.
Anyway, here it is - A day in the Life. Come follow me on the farm.
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 546 words in story)
|
|
Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
Today is the LAST DAY to comment on NAIS, the National Animal ID System. Organic Consumers Association has an excellent action alert you can use to just fill in your name and click submit.
Below, I've pasted the National Sustainable Ag Coalition's newsletter blurb about the NAIS hearing held in the House Ag Committee last week. It did NOT go well, sadly. You can find instructions to send them a piece of your mind here (do this by the end of today as well).
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 361 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
One of my favorite Congresswomen, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is reintroducing her Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) to limit use of antibiotics in livestock. I don't yet know the bill number in this Congress but you can look it up as H.R.962 in the 110th Congress to find the bill text from before.
ACTION: Email your representative and ask them to co-sponsor this bill. (Last time she had 40 co-sponsors so you can check at the link above to see if your congresscritter's already on the list.)
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 419 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
