USDA to Dump National Animal Identification System.. Sort of Posted on March 5th, 2010
A flurry of news surrounded the announcement by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack that the controversial National Animal Identification System (NAIS) would be scrapped. The measure met stiff resistance from homesteaders, small farmers, organic growers, and raw milk and whole foods advocates. The problem is, the news is wrong. The NAIS isn’t being scrapped, it’s just being shelved “pending more review.”
There is a mixture of good and bad news in the USDA’s decision. The decision was likely not made to benefit the small producer or the homesteader. Rather, it was probably made in order to take them out of the debate so that the tracking system could go through.
The original NAIS plan would have required onerous costs on small agricultural producers – whether they were selling product or not – and distinctly favored the large agricultural conglomerates, who could easily afford the new rules. Rules which applied differently to them.
In the NAIS, each animal on a farm would require a tracking number and 48-hour reporting of its whereabouts and condition. This applied to everything from backyard poultry to cattle herds in the hundreds of thousands. The big difference was that large (industrial) livestock herds could be tracked as a single unit, whereas small homestead or farm herds had to be tracked as individual animals.
Besides the economic reasoning, however, whole foods advocates like Judith McGeary of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance say that the system itself is a waste of taxpayer’s money. Tracking the animals does nothing but allow for finding the source after the fact, but nothing to prevent anything up front. The whole excuse for the NAIS was to be able to prevent diseases like mad cow from spreading.
“USDA’s claim that we need 48-hour traceback of all animal movements is not supported by scientific studies or logic. The agency should focus on high risk situations, namely the factory farms. The agency should also look at the specific diseases of concern and how they are spread. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work.”5
Now, any animal that does not cross state lines upon its sale is not required to be tracked. This eliminates most small farms, local sellers, and homesteaders out of the equation, which would, in turn, give them no reason to combat the USDA’s plans for a future NAIS.
However, it will still effect many of us in the whole foods and organic lifestyle movements. Anyone who has homesteaded realizes that you cannot produce everything you need all on your own. You need neighbors with whom you can barter and do business. A small farmer on the eastern edge of Wyoming, for instance, may need chicks to replenish his hen house after an unfortunate fox attack. He is as likely to go into Nebraska, next door, as anywhere else. Except now he`s crossed state lines, so those chicks must be registered with NAIS.
That is only one example and assumes that the USDA will not expand the reach of its program once it’s in place. Further, it’s obvious that the USDA’s plan to track animals will do nothing to prevent disease and only allow them to point the finger to lay blame when an outbreak occurs.
The real problem here are the huge, commercial meat producers who handle their cattle as if they were merely cogs in the wheel at a factory. This industrial agriculture means huge stockyards with thousands of pens holding hundreds upon hundreds of animals packed in shoulder-to-shoulder, wallowing in their own filth. This is a disease bomb just waiting to explode onto the market.
The USDA’s plan for NAIS is not to scuttle the project, but only to change it and re-introduce the same idea in a couple of years. This does nothing to prevent disease and everything to cater to the huge agricultural conglomerates and industrial meat producers.
All while making life more difficult, even impossible, for the small farmer and homesteader.
Resources:
1 – USDA Plans to Drop Program to Trace Livestock, William Neuman, New York Times, Feb. 5, 2010
2 – USDA Announces New Framework for Animal Disease Traceability, USDA, Feb. 5, 2010
3 – Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance Weighs in on NAIAS, Hartke Is Online, June8, 2009
4 – Q&A: New Animal Disease Traceability Framework, USDA APHIS, February 2010
5 – Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance Weighs in on NAIAS, Hartke Is Online, June 8, 2009
S. 510: Small Farms Under Attack AGAIN Posted on January 8th, 2010
LEARN MORE:
Read the bill at OpenCongress
How to Fix S 510 – A Sustainable Ag Perspective
Monsanto’s Baby: S 510
What is NAIS?
On Wikipedia
NAIS: http://nonais.org/
From an email:
Right now, huge numbers of small farms across France which were known worldwide for their cheeses, are gone. The were to sell cheeses their families had profitably sold for generations because they suddenly couldn’t meet the new corporate EU “food safety” standards, (See the PBS show “The Cheese Nun” for a view of this.) Those standards were arranged carefully by corporations specifically to get rid of farmers and S 510 is designed to “harmonize” with those EU laws.
Here’s what the EU is doing and what S 510 would do
TAKE ACTION:
Contact your representatives AND local newspaper
Another easy way to contact your representatives
RELATED:
Judge Rules GMOs Violate Environmental Law Posted on October 7th, 2009
For those of us wondering how bad the untested genetically modified food experiment is going to get before it gets any better, a ray of hope was just offered. A San Francisco judge, the very honorable, Judge Jeffrey White just ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture`s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated environmental law because of inadequate environmental testing of genetically modified sugar beets. He ruled that the agency failed to see if the genetically altered beets would eventually share their funky pesticide proof genes with other crops. Judge White noted that pollen from sugar beets can be blown long distances and pollinate other crops, including table beets and chard.
White wrote, “The potential elimination of farmers` choice to grow nongenetically engineered crops, or consumers` choice to eat nongenetically engineered food … has a significant effect on the human environment.”
The judge ordered the federal agency to produce an environmental impact statement after taking a hard look at the issue. A lesser look by the agency found that the sharing of genetically altered pollen was no cause for concern.
This is the second blow for Monsanto and according the Associated Press, a “similar ruling in 2007 forced a ban on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa until a re-examination was done.” That environmental impact statement has yet to be completed, so it effectively halted the growth and sale of GMO alfalfa.
About half of the sugar beets used in the United States are currently Monsanto`s genetically modified variety and the judge didn`t rule about the harvest of the current crop.
Judge rules against Monsanto’s GM sugar beets Posted on September 25th, 2009
A federal judge ruled on Monday that the USDA failed to adequately assess the environmental impact of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) sugar beets before introducing them into the food supply.
While the judge has ordered that the USDA conduct a thorough assessment of the environmental and economic risks, the decision could lead to a ban on the sugar beets, which have been widely adopted across the US. However, more than 100 food companies have signed a non-GM beet sugar registry, set up by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and others in February, pledging not to knowingly use GM sugar in their products.
Judge Jeffrey White, of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, said that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets have not been properly assessed and require an Environmental Impact Statement, overturning a previous decision made by the Bush Administration to deregulate the crop. He said that the USDA should have assessed the impact the sugar beets could have on closely related crops such as red table beets and Swiss chard.
The CFS has expressed concern that GM beet pollen could contaminate non-GM and organic crops because sugarbeets are wind pollinated.
Legal remedies are due to be discussed in a meeting with the concerned parties in October.
Executive director of the Center for Food Safety Andrew Kimbrell said: “This court decision is a wakeup call for the Obama USDA that they will not be allowed to ignore the biological pollution and economic impacts of gene altered crops. The Courts have made it clear that USDA’s job is to protect America’s farmers and consumers, not the interests of Monsanto.”
No one from Monsanto was available for comment prior to publication.
Read the rest of the article here
How to Fight Back Against Genetically Modified Foods Posted on August 26th, 2009
With genetically modified (GM) foods dominating the United States’ corn and soybean crop today, Monsanto – the company most responsible for GM foods – has also dominated most of South Africa`s seed crops as well. As reported by Barbara Minton here at Natural News in April, a huge crop failure there is directly attributed to this lack of seed diversity. So how do Americans, and people world wide, fight back against this takeover of food sources by GM foods? To answer that, the GMOs themselves as well as the way the company who makes them operates should be understood. That will show how real, grassroots, actions that everyone can participate in will work to stop this monopolization of the world’s food.
How GM Foods and GMO Works
The most common modification that Monsanto makes to seeds is to create HT-ready crops (“herbicide tolerant” crops). These are crops that are able to withstand Monsanto`s other product, RoundUp, to a strong degree. This increases crop yield by allowing the farmer to spray liberally with the RoundUp herbicide to kill weeds and some parasites.
The problem? Well, obviously, all that spraying can`t be good for anybody. It also is severely destroying seed diversity in the agricultural markets – over 90% of American soybean crops are now genetically modified organisms (GMO). About 70% of our corn crops are also GMOs.1
Now that Monsanto has a virtual monopoly on those seeds, they`ve announced that they`re raising seed prices by up to 42%, as reported in Bloomberg on August 13.2
Further, as Ethan Huff pointed out in his article here at Natural News, there is plenty of reason to question thehealth problems associated with GM crops.
Currently, Monsanto is working to corner the market on GMO wheat crops in the U.S. If their progress there is anything like it`s been with corn and soy, they could hold 70% or more of the seed market within fifteen years.
Most of the reasons for not liking GMO crops have been outlined already, but for more information, you can check the Natural News archives on GMOs here.
Monsanto`s gangster tactics can be seen in the documentary movie The World According to Monsanto by Twilight Earth.3 This is how they`ve gained their monopoly.
Fighting Back Against Monsanto and GM Crops
First and foremost, stop financially supporting Monsanto as much as possible. This means scouting out and avoiding GMO foods on the grocery store shelf, not buying Monsanto`s products, and more. As Shelly Roche of Bytestyle.tv says, “Vote With Your Fork!”
