The intentional elimination of small organic farms by Big Agro

Plot Device · Feb 3, 2009

The following info I got from resident AW poster GeorgeK who is invovled with (I think??) sheep herding (is that right, George?).

Anyway, George explained in this thread here that a measure (called the National Animal Identification System) was pushed through the USDA at some point in the past few years. And this measure will essentially eliminate small organic farmers from this nation once and for all, leaving JUST the giant farm factories to provide our food for us. And that means we will all be forced to contend with our food containing growth hormones and anitbiotics and the disease potential from that crazy feeding procedure. The "crazy feeding procedure" done by Big Agro consists of grinding up the leftovers from the carcasses of slaughtered cows, then feeding that mash to the living cows who remain, tricking those poor unsuspecting herbivor bovines into being cannibalistic carnivores. And THIS feeding method is where the bulk of prion disease comes from in our food system.

Here's the gist of what George explained and bout the National Animal Identification System (I reworded it slightly):

'The actual regulations were many pages on a USDA site which was taken down by the USDA because of being swamped by calls and emails from irate farmers. In short this new legislation will lead to the full elimination of Food Inspection and slaughterhouse inspection, and instead all the small time producers will be obliged to place a government issued ear tag on every animal on their farm (the original wording even extends this mandate to wild animals), which is supposed to apparently magically prevent the various prion diseases. The small farmers also have to maintain death reports, possibly perform their own autopsies (or commission autopsies out of their own pockets) and retroactively store the carcasses for an undisclosed period of time. Any animals that leave the farm --whether it's to the market, to a vet, or (in the case of riding horses) walking a trail-- must be cataloged insofar as every other animal they might have encountered, including wild animals. However BIG agribusinesses are exempt, even though (statistically) Big Agro has always been the real risk of prion diseases and foodborne contagion because of the way they feed the animals. These new regulations basically are a sneaky way to eliminate all small scale and organic producers whom the big conglomerates fear because the small time producers have a higher-end quality product. Campaign contributions speak --loudly so in the case of Bush.

If you want to look up NAIS, you have to spell out National Animal Identification System, because in an attempt to hide what he did Bush made a different program with the exact same acronym. Interestingly the regulations have also been pushed through the USDA, so that nobody gets to vote on it and to reduce the ability of the public to notice until it's too late. (Assume when I say Bush, that mean Bush and or his cronies)

I've heard people, after looking up the requirements and who is exempt say, "This is a joke! The government can't be that retarded!"

Unfortunately it is no joke.'

And here's a link George provided to a Gov't web site where the regulations can be found.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0096

This is just monstrous.

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

The national animal identification program aims to maked every animal used to create a food product identifiable by the end user or on their behlaf. Thus if a burger kills a kid in a restaurant the meat will able to to be tracked quickly from the source to the plate. Thus the hazard can be found and adulterated meat withdrawn before others sicken and die.

It is a regulatory burden but the idea that is is motivated by big business desire to destroy small farms strikes me as disingenuous at best. iI it is an unfair economic burden that could be fixed without having untraceable or hard/slow to trace food products in the food chain--like the melamine in milk that killed babies in China, the meat scraps that brought mad cow to the UK, or the current E Coli and salmonella outbreaks in the US (yes, a similar scheme applied to vegetables). This tracking is already in place in the UK, Australia, Canada and new Zealand. In the US neither tracking nor effectively sensative testing is currently in place even for known hazards such as mad cow and melamine.

If meat is untraceable then food safety cannot be assured. And according to current statistics (CDC) hazardous food (e.g. salmonella on eggs, e coli in orange juice) comes from large and small, organic and non-organic sources at equivalent rates.

Plot Device · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
The national animal identification program aims to maked every animal use to create a food product identifiable. Thus if a burger kills a kid in a restaurant the meat will able to to be tracked quickly from the source to the plate. Thus the hazard can be found and adulterated meat withdrawn before others sicken and die.

It is a regulatory burden but the idea that is is motivated by big business desire to destroy small farms strikes me as disingenuous at best. if it is an unfair economic burden that could be fixed without having untraceable mystery meat in the food chain--like the melamine in milk that killed babies in China or the current E Coli and salmonella outbreaks in the US (yes, a similar scheme applied to vegetables).

If meat is untraceable then food safety cannot be assured.

If what George said is correct, then only small farmers have to do this and Big Agro is exempt.

WTF??

The cows from Big Agro NEVER have disease? So Big Agro does NOT need to do any tracking while the little guy does?

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

No animal that will enter the food chain will be exempt.

p.s. if you read the rule this is all it is about: "We are proposing to amend the domestic livestock regulations to require that when animal identification numbers (AINs) are used, only those numbers beginning with the 840 prefix will be recognized as official for use on all AIN tags applied to animals 1 year or more after the date on which this proposed rule is finalized. "

That is, this rule is still in a *voluntary* framework but standardises the numbers used, paving the way for a compulsary framework in the future.

I strongly support making NAIS fully compulsary at the Federal level--but making arrangement to allow small holders to comply without unreasonable expense.

But honestly, there is not crippling cost to sticking a tag with a number on it to the ear of each cow or sheep. In many countries, including the outback of Australia, they manage to do this as part of the normal farming routine. Being able to reliably identify which sheep is which is beneficial for normal husbandry.

GeorgeK · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
The national animal identification program aims to maked every animal use to create a food product identifiable. Thus if a burger kills a kid in a restaurant the meat will able to to be tracked quickly from the source to the plate. Thus the hazard can be found and adulterated meat withdrawn before others sicken and die.

It is a regulatory burden but the idea that is is motivated by big business desire to destroy small farms strikes me as disingenuous at best. if it is an unfair economic burden that could be fixed without having untraceable or hard/slow to trace mystery meat in the food chain--like the melamine in milk that killed babies in China, the meat scraps that brought mad cow to the UK, or the current E Coli and salmonella outbreaks in the US (yes, a similar scheme applied to vegetables).

If meat is untraceable then food safety cannot be assured. And according to current statistics (CDC) hazardous food (e.g. salmonella on eggs, e coli in orange juice) comes from large and small, organic and non-organic sources at relatively equal rates.

Except that an ear tag will not stay with the meat unless people are only able to buy uncut carcasses which obviously will never happen...ok, obviously should never happen. Incubation time for prion diseases can be months to decades in humans. No additional volume of paperwork will work. Are you going to keep a diary of of bar code labels from every source of meat you've ever consumed for 20 years? Also, if it actually could do what they claim, it will at best fail because the major producers (campaign contributors) are exempt. This was about food safety in name only. All they'd need to do is allow the health inspectors to do their jobs. Do you remember the video of the obviously diseased cow being pushed and dragged up the chute this past summer? That's what actual inspectors had been stopping in the past.

Mellamine fom China was deliberate. It's a different issue.

And yes PD, I'm a retired MD on a farm and sheep are one of the livestock species we raise for self sufficiency.

Kitty Pryde · Feb 3, 2009

I believe it is incorrect that only small organic farmers need to do this while big farms are exempt. I believe it is actually the case the this will proportionally be a much bigger burden for a little farm than for a big factory farm (a large overhead cost, I believe the economists would say). Also, this article from Mother Earth News says that large factory farms already have similar tracking systems in place, so it will cost less for them to implement th new regulations. So for those two reasons, it may screw over the small farm.

It is also true that the advisory group that wrote the regulations was made up of mostly big agricultural companies.

But I don't think the big factory farms are exempt from these regs. Just saying.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/2007-06-01/National-Animal-ID-System.aspx?page=2

Don · Feb 3, 2009

I think that what I heard is that big concerns are issued one number per farm, while small farmers will be required to individually tag each animal. Also, a log must be kept of all animals that interact with a TAG, so small farmers have to cross-ID all their livestock, while mega-farms simply report under the single number they're assigned.

Isn't it amazing that in all of recorded history people have managed to feed themselves safely without the government IDing every piece of meat, and but that is now impossible?

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

GeorgeK said:
Except that an ear tag will not stay with the meat

The system includes a chain or custody post slaughter using labelling and auditing.

GeorgeK said:
Incubation time for prion diseases can be months to decades in humans.

Animals can be tested for mad cow and scrapie, the only common prion diseases known to be in the food chain. We just don't do it to any meaningful extend in the US.

GeorgeK said:
Are you going to keep a diary of of bar code labels from every source of meat you've ever consumed for 20 years?

Once this system is in place an outbreak could be linked to supplies epidemiologically, yes even after that kind of delay. But as the animals themselves can be tested for the two biggies, this kind of detective work would not be necessary in those cases.

GeorgeK said:
Also, if it actually could do what they claim, it will at best fail because the major producers (campaign contributors) are exempt.

What makes you say that? I see no evidence supporting this assertion. the whole point of NAIS is absolutely comprehensive coverage.

GeorgeK said:
Mellamine fom China was deliberate. It's a different issue.

It is an adulterant that can be detected by testing and traced to a source if the source is identifiable. Whether contamination is deliberate or from lack of hygene as with E Coli isn't that pertinant to the victim.

kuwisdelu · Feb 3, 2009

Don said:
Isn't it amazing that in all of recorded history people have managed to feed themselves safely without the government IDing every piece of meat, and but that is now impossible?

It's simple--people haven't always managed to feed themselves safely.

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

Don said:
I think that what I heard is that big concerns are issued one number per farm, while small farmers will be required to individually tag each animal. Also, a log must be kept of all animals that interact with a TAG, so small farmers have to cross-ID all their livestock, while mega-farms simply report under the single number they're assigned.

I believe animal level and flock level numbering are equally available to any farm so long as the flock move together as a group through the system until slaughter.

Don said:
Isn't it amazing that in all of recorded history people have managed to feed themselves safely without the government IDing every piece of meat, and but that is now impossible?

Isn't it amazing how many people currently die from E Coli poisoning from their food being mixed with animal feces before they buy it?

To be specific, every year in the United States 1,800 people die from preventable pathogens in their food such as Listeria, Salmonella and E Coli. Many of these are children.

So I would opt for ironing out the kinks in the system not just writing this off as an acceptable loss. Honestly, if every other affleunt nation can do this, surely the US can do it too? Or shall we continue to have the highest %GDP cost of any nation on earth and yet far from the best life span and infant mortality--because we won't do what is necessary to protect public health.

GeorgeK · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
The system includes a chain or custody post slaughter using labelling and auditing.

We already have a system for that. NAIS doesn't add anything

veinglory said:
Animals can be tested for mad cow and scrapie, the only common prion diseases known to be in the food chain. We just don't do it to any meaningful extend in the US.

Right, because Bush told the inspectors to sit at their desks and not got to the slaughtering facilities.

veinglory said:
Once this system is in place an outbreak could be linked to supplies epidemiologically, yes even after that kind of delay. But as the animals themselves can be tested for the two biggies, this kind of detective work would not be necessary in those cases.

Again, we can already do that

veinglory said:
What makes you say that?

The USDA regulations. I would refer you to their original site but they've disabled the site.

veinglory said:
It is an adulterant that can be detected by testing and traced to a source if the source is identifiable. Whether contamination is deliberate or from lack of hygene as with E Coli isn't that pertinant to the victim.

Mellamine was added to falsely boost the protein readings. It has nothing to do with hygiene. It was a criminal act.

GeorgeK · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
I believe animal level and flock level numbering are equally available to any farm so long as the flock move together as a group through the system until slaughter.

No, it's based on the number of head not whether or not it is a closed flock. The big businesses graze on public land and the herds mix, yet they don't have to tag. The small farmer with his own fenced land is the one affected. It's been a few years so I don't remember exactly where it has happened. I'm sure it's on the www.NoNais.org site, but USDA officials have gone onto small farms and fined them for not tagging pets and for not tagging a single steer being raised for home consumption.

veinglory said:
Isn't it amazing how many people currently die from E Coli poisoning from their food being mixed with animal feces before they buy it?

To be specific, every year in the United States 1,800 people die from preventable pathogens in their food such as Listeria, Salmonella and E Coli. Many of these are children.

So I would opt for ironing out the kinks in the system not just writing this off as an acceptable loss.

Again, if you understood the science you would realize how this legislation will not help with that. It was never intended to work for that. All those foodborne pathogens you mentioned are contaminants that take place after the slaughter from spilling offal and improper processing/storing. An eartag will not change that.

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

GeorgeK said:
We already have a system for that. NAIS doesn't add anything

In correct. Even the opponant of NAIS say they oppose tracing animals and it won't help (all evidence to the contrary), not that we are already doing it.

GeorgeK said:
Right, because Bush told the inspectors to sit at their desks and not got to the slaughtering facilities.

Incorrect. We don't have enough inspectors on the payroll to even pretend to inspect at an effective level. Whcih everyone in industry and oversight is aware of. Their responsibility have increased tenfold in a few years and their budget hasn't even tracked inflation. You do remember the recent 'its the tomataoes, or the spring onion... actually we have no idea' thing recently... the six month it took to find the cause of the tainted spinach that killed 3 people?

GeorgeK said:
The USDA regulations. I would refer you to their original site but they've disabled the site.

I read them at the time and have direct access to the documents. It isn't in there.

GeorgeK said:
Mellamine was added to falsely boost the protein readings. It has nothing to do with hygiene. It was a criminal act.

That is what I said. However adulteration is prevented and detected the same way whether criminal by means of malice or neglect. I mean dropping poop in the meat to make money be selling the product isn't exact non-criminal if it causes death.

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

GeorgeK said:
Again, if you understood the science you would realize how this legislation will not help with that.

I have been, and continue to be, directly involved in this process. I continue to be more worried about preventable fatalities than anything else.

We can make NAIS fair and equitable by responding to the Federal Register notice linked at the top of this page--that is the purpose of Federal Register notices.

Allowing people to sell adulterated products to unsuspecting families, with complete and guaranteed immunity, will never be an option I find acceptable.

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

GeorgeK said:
No, it's based on the number of head not whether or not it is a closed flock.

And I quote: "Animals of the same species that typically move through the production chain as a group can be identified by a group/lot identification number (GIN), rather than by individual numbers."

That is exactly what NAIS actually says. Farm size, flock size and organic status are refered to at no point whatsoever.

GeorgeK · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
In correct. Even the opponant of NAIS say they oppose tracing animals and it won't help (all evidence to the contrary), not that we are already doing it.

You've obviously never been to a livestock auction then. The bills of sale can trace and have traced things before. If NAIS was applied to ALL animals at auction that would be one thing, but it is selective legislation.

veinglory said:
Incorrect. We don't have enough inspectors on the payroll to even pretend to inspect at an effective level. Whcih everyone in industry and oversight is aware of. Their responsibility have increased tenfold in a few years and their budget hasn't even tracked inflation. You do remember the recent 'its the tomataoes, or the spring onion... actually we have no idea' thing recently... the six month it took to find the cause of the tainted spinach that killed 3 people?

They used to be able to do it until Bush and again you are talking about problems that took place after the farm, not at the farm.

veinglory said:
I read them at the time and have direct access to the documents. It isn't in there.

Then maybe you could post a link if they've put up a new site

veinglory said:
That is what I said. However adulteration is prevented and detected the same way whether criminal by means of malice or neglect. I mean dropping poop in the meat to make money be selling the product isn't exact non-criminal if it causes death.

?

GeorgeK · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
And I quote: "Animals of the same species that typically move through the production chain as a group can be identified by a group/lot identification number (GIN), rather than by individual numbers."

That is exactly what NAIS actually says. Farm size, flock size and organic status are refered to at no point whatsoever.

That's out of context as far as how officials have so far interpretted it. The crux is how they define "moving through the production chain as a group". The cases I've heard about so far say a group is enough animals to keep the slaughtering facilities running all day long until they clean the machinery. Small farms don't have those numbers.

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

GeorgeK said:
You've obviously never been to a livestock auction then. The bills of sale can trace and have traced things before. If NAIS was applied to ALL animals at auction that would be one thing, but it is selective legislation.

It will be applied to all animals, or unseparated groups of animals, to the point of slaughter.

GeorgeK said:
They used to be able to do it until Bush and again you are talking about problems that took place after the farm, not at the farm.

Tracking aims to address to both on farm and post farm contamination.

GeorgeK said:
Then maybe you could post a link if they've put up a new site

I only have my paper copy. But I will see what I can Google.

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

GeorgeK said:
That's out of context as far as how officials have so far interpretted it. The crux is how they define "moving through the production chain as a group". The cases I've heard about so far say a group is enough animals to keep the slaughtering facilities running all day long until they clean the machinery. Small farms don't have those numbers.

I have seen opposition groups create that straw man argument. I do not find it plausible. (The epidemiological argument is simple, disease travels in a group--if the group stays together it is a single vestor and so valid to be traced as one entity. that is the explicit intent of GIN. But hey, I am okay with dropping gin and tagging every single animal too). You see they people rasing the argument have tended to be 1) trying to escape the cost of tracking their animals and 2) rather anti-government in general. I also see them saying there is nothing wring with fecal contamination, people should just cook the meet to the point were the feces in it is safe to eat.

GeorgeK · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
I have been, and continue to be, directly involved in this process. I continue to be more worried about preventable fatalities than anything else.

What exactly is your connection to this process?

veinglory said:
Allowing people to sell adulterated products to unsuspecting families, with complete and guaranteed immunity, will never be an option I find acceptable.

I don't know anyone who would, but then I don't associate with people I consider to be evil

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

These cover the salient points:

http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal_id/index.shtml
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/audience/vets/printable/animal_identification.pdf
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/User_Guide.html
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais...raceabilityBusinessPlan Ver 1.0 Sept 2008.pdf

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

I am submiting a notice response for an animal welfare charity, on a volunteer basis, and this is a subject I cover as a professional duty. If you want full details please PM.

GeorgeK · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
I have seen opposition groups create that straw man argument. I do not find it plausible. (The epidemiological argument is simple, disease travels in a group--if the group stays together it is a single vestor and so valid to be traced as one entity. that is the explicit intent of GIN. But hey, I am okay with dropping gin and tagging every single animal too). You see they people rasing the argument have tended to be 1) trying to escape the cost of tracking their animals and 2) rather anti-government in general. I also see them saying there is nothing wring with fecal contamination, people should just cook the meet to the point were the feces in it is safe to eat.

There's nothing straw about it. Farmers have been fined, and are you saying that larger groups are somehow immune or less likely to carry more diseases?

If a processor slices open the colon, and spills poop on the meat, how is an eartag going to stop that and how is that the fault of the farmer?

I don't know anyone who is afraid of knowing where the meat goes and having it traceable. What they don't want is to be blamed for sloppy processors, especially ones that don't get inspected. I don't sell animals at auctions and I don't sell meat, yet they will want me to tag regardless. This is also anti-Muslim and anti-Semite legislation because there will be no "unblemished" animals for them to buy for their annual holy day (which I translate as the Abraham's Thanksgiving)

What I see, is selective application of regulation by either little tin gods or worse, protectionism for campaign contributors.

GeorgeK · Feb 3, 2009

veinglory said:
I am submiting a notice response for an animal welfare charity, on a volunteer basis, and this is a subject I cover as a professional duty. If you want full details please PM.

That explains it. You're another anti-meat activist who wants to put farmers out of business.

veinglory · Feb 3, 2009

I am saying the GIN applies to any group staying together until slaughter. Flock size is a straw man argument because GIN is not based on flock size.

I am saying tracing adulterants is not about blaming farmers. Whoever added the adulterant would be liable.

I see this system, as all the works of man, will be flawed--but so is the system we have, it would be hard to make it worse. But the more people take part in it with good faith--the less flawed it will be. Because, honestly, it's going to happen. the comments on that site that just kick and scream and object are missing a chance to make the system work better, or even (if one is a pessimist) fail less.

But again, why will the US fail at something that the Canadians, Australian, Kiwis etc could do? All this is is a number on an ear tag between the first years or life and slaughter. As you say, many people do this already--now they are just being asked to standardise the number.

That is all the notice at the top says, it says 'please use this national numbering scheme'.

The intentional elimination of small organic farms by Big Agro

A woman said to write like a man.

volitare nequeo

A woman said to write like a man.

volitare nequeo

ever seeking

i luv you giant bear statue

All Living is Local

volitare nequeo

Revolutionize the World

volitare nequeo

ever seeking

ever seeking

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

ever seeking

ever seeking

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

ever seeking

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

ever seeking

ever seeking

volitare nequeo