Update: USDA announces an "opt out" procedure for NAIS

As I suspected. This is not the breaking news that Liberty Ark (cough cough) would have you believe. I called the chap at the USDA yesterday and spoke with him. What I learned directly from him is that what USDA will do is tell any caller who wants to opt-out that they have to contact the state's agriculture agency with a written request. The state will decide on a case-by-case basis. Case-by-case? Kaczmarski said he wasn't familiar with the criteria for case-by-case and again suggested that anyone wanting to opt out should contact their state agency. Another push onto the states, making them responsible for the program that they didn't write and, no doubt, is becoming a huge headache.

So, nope, no opt out procedure. Still, I'd call your state's ag agency and request to be opted out just to see what happens.

I annoys me that LibertyArk is acting just like a mainstream activist organization. I am starting to wonder who is funding them. I haven't trusted them since the Talent/Emerson bill debauchle. That was when I resigned as Vermont's state coordinator. Lately whenever they get involved in the crafting of a bill you can be sure that the word "voluntary" will pop up in the bill's language.

---

Original post 1/29/07
Unsubstantiated, but worth putting up anyway.

USDA announces an "opt out" procedure for NAIS

By Henry Lamb

Monday, January 29, 2007

In a remarkable turnaround, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has decided to provide an "opt out" procedure for people whose premises have been registered in the National Animal Identification System. Complaints have arisen in several states from people who say that their premises were registered without their knowledge. Until now, these people have been told the USDA has no provision for removing a premises once it has been registered.

Ben Kaczmarski, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, told the Liberty Ark Coalition late last week, that since the NAIS was now an "opt in" voluntary program, that it had decided to provide an "opt out" procedure. Even though the protocol has not yet been fully defined, the spokesman said the procedure would require that a person who wants to opt out, write a formal request to be removed from the NAIS, to the state NAIS coordinator. The state coordinator will confirm the validity of the request, and advance the request to USDA. The USDA will then, presumably, remove the name from the registry, according to Kaczmarski. State NAIS coordinators can be located here.

Carol and Calvin Whittaker are delighted to hear this news. They have tried unsuccessfully for several months to get their land removed from the NAIS registry. They are now filing the written request as specified by the USDA, and the Liberty Ark Coalition will monitor the process to measure the time required, and the bureaucratic obstacles, if any, that must be overcome.

This new policy is met with great enthusiasm by the many people who oppose the NAIS, but it is also met with a large degree of skepticism. Since the controversial program was announced in 2005, with a time-line for the program to become mandatory by 2007, opposition has grown steadily. The USDA had to release a new strategy in 2006, and renounce the "mandatory" provision of the program.

While proclaiming that the program is now, and will always be, voluntary, the USDA poured money into states to encourage them to make the program mandatory at the state level. But opponents have convinced legislators in six states to introduce legislation prohibiting any kind of mandatory animal identification program. And several other states are likely to follow with similar legislation.

Moreover, at its October 16, 2006 meeting, the United States Animal Health Association's Livestock Identification Committee issued a report (Page 14) that recommends that the USDA create a list of "consistent" states, which are states that:

"have established by law, rule, order, or other means a requirement that all breeding age cattle be officially identified by means of official tag or registration brand or tattoo at each change of ownership, other than movements direct to slaughter, or movements through one approved market and then direct to slaughter."

Should the USDA adopt this recommendation, animal movement in "non-consistent" states could be restricted, not only by the USDA, but by the states. To NAIS opponents, this appears to be another way the USDA is saying to the public that the NAIS is voluntary, while behind the scenes, doing everything in its power to force livestock owners to comply with the identification requirements.

The public relations campaign in support of the program claims it will stop, or reduce, animal disease outbreaks such as mad cow disease, by providing the ability to trace a diseased animal to its source within 48 hours. The Liberty Ark Coalition says this is a myth, because:

"Mad Cow disease is not contagious, takes years to develop, and is completely preventable. NAIS is designed to do only one thing: provide 48-hour trace-back of animal movements. This is simply not relevant to protecting our food supply from Mad Cow disease. Moreover, the USDA has stated that it estimates that there are only four to seven (4-7) cows in the entire U.S. that have BSE, or Mad Cow Disease, and that it's not even necessary to conduct testing to protect our food supply. Indeed, the USDA refuses to allow a U.S. company, Creekstone Farms & Premium Beef, to voluntarily test all of its cattle for BSE, in order to satisfy its customers' wishes. If BSE is not enough of a threat to justify (or even allow) testing, then certainly it cannot be the basis for requiring millions of animals to be electronically tagged and their every move tracked."

Opponents of the program contend that it was conceived by, and will benefit, only large meat packers and exporters, and the technology companies that provide the identification and tracking equipment.

Opposition has grown dramatically, as small farmers and ranchers realize that their horse, chickens, pigs or cows fall under the USDA's jurisdiction, and they will have to bear the cost and inconvenience of a program that will make no difference to animal health, and benefit only the large exporters and technology companies.

Premises registration will minimize losses - In a pig's eye it will

Bruce Knight, Undersecretary of Agriculture for marketing and regulatory programs, urged livestock producers attending the American Farm Bureau Federation's 88th annual meeting to participate in a voluntary nationwide program that could help prevent an animal disease outbreak from becoming widespread.

"The threat of a foreign animal disease outbreak is very real," Knight said, mentioning agri-terrorism as one possible catalyst for such an outbreak. [A few months ago it was Avian Influenza]"We need you involved to make the animal identification system effective and minimize the damage from an outbreak."

"It's a voluntary program, and it's not going to go mandatory" in the future, Knight said. [Is that so? Why not break out your copy of the Cooperative Agreement FY 2007 that encourages states to make it mandatory.] When asked by a member of the audience whether he can guarantee that members of Congress and future presidential administrations would not keep the plan voluntary, Knight said he believes it would be unlikely for any public official to change the plan in light of the intense criticism he or she would receive from angry producers. [Angry producers? I sure wish he'd stop calling me and those like me producers. We aren't. We don't have any global marketing going on. We are angry, though. He didn't lie about that.]

Regarding the confidentiality of the National Animal Identification System, Knight sought to allay the concerns many producers feel by stating the program would be maintained by state government and private entities, not the federal government. "We have built safeguards in the system to ensure" producer information is kept confidential and used only in declared emergencies, he said. [Was the Colorado blizzard an emergency that caused USDA to go "off label" with NAIS? I hope we hear an explanation for that soon.]

Knight said if producers would take a few minutes now to register their premises in the National Animal Identification System, it could save them in the long run.

"Delays lead to losses in livestock, income, markets and labor," he said. "A viable animal identification system will reduce unnecessary losses," including those of decades-old bloodlines, and better ensure future business viability.

He also encouraged livestock producers to remember the costs of a disease outbreak--which likely would involve quarantines--[and eradication in a 6 mile perimeter] to neighbors and communities when they weigh the pros and cons of premises registration. The more producers enrolled in the NAIS, the more likely the source of a disease outbreak could be traced within 24 hours. [Bull hocky!]

Knight said that beyond premises registration, USDA intends for the NAIS to include additional premises identification [what in the heck is "additional premises id"?]and animal tracking steps down the road. However, he stressed it would be up to producers to "decide their level of participation" in the NAIS ultimately. [Mr. Knight, I've already decided my level. None. I don't care how many pairs of vice grips you give me.]

He reminded Farm Bureau members that Australia and Canada already have animal tracking systems in place, [but did he inform them what a disaster Australia's system is? They reported 11 million phantom cattle in 2006] and he predicted that U.S. markets, including restaurants and retail outlets, will request more information from producers in the future. "We want U.S. producers to be competitive with the safest, most wholesome" product available anywhere, he said.

Knight said about 343,000 livestock premises, nearly a quarter of those nationwide, have enrolled in USDA's program. The goal is to register a majority of livestock premises by 2009.

A "big push" this year will be to get livestock producers who raise animals destined for human consumption to enroll their premises. This emphasis is more important now than enrolling smaller-scale producers and those individuals who keep a few horses or other animals for recreational purposes, Knight said. [I don't trust it, but having him feel the need to say it means that we are making a difference.]

Knight, a South Dakota native, said he understands the frustrations and concerns many farmers and ranchers have about the program because members of his own family raise livestock commercially. However, premises registration is free and easier than many producers believe, with not much more information requested than what they would use to place an ad in their local phone directory.

Knight urged livestock producers to review at www.usda.gov/nais for more information. [If you click through you might want to save what you find to your hard drive. USDA frequently moves things around or makes them disappear.]

Premises Registration Statistics as of 23 Jan

To see the real deal, click here. It's a PDF.

Challenge: Find the state with over 100% compliance. Right, more than 100%. Go figure. And those highly paid professionals didn't find anything odd about that. I'll tell ya, that USDA, a real crack team of deep thinkers.

Fields of Fire - In memory of the millions of animals destroyed by the ‘cure’ for Foot and Mouth Disease, 2001

This is quite long, a whole book on a website. My interest in it particularly is to find a counter balance to the propaganda that our Vermont State Vet and his crack team in the Vermont Agency of Agriculture put forth during the public hearings about premises registration last year.

I have no doubt that should a rogue notion about AI or FMD come to the surface in the USDA, this is exactly what will happen on our shores.

The following paragraph is from the Introduction:

It should be made clear that, from the start, it was an economic and political decision to cull all the animals, and not a scientific one. In an ideal world, foot and mouth disease would have been allowed to run through the herds and flocks to build up immunity, with relevant treatment and culling only in cases where animals were suffering badly. As a compromise, a combination of vaccinating and allowing the disease to maintain a presence could have been used – or else, perhaps the more popular choice, culling infected animals and ring vaccinating in each relevant area. If this had been done at the start, things would have been back to normal long ago and we would not now be seeing the destruction of farming families, empty fields, rural industries in ruins, pollution of our land through funeral pyres and burial pits – and the complete devastation of our beloved countryside.

Wake up.

Toll Road Giant Buys Newspapers to Silence Critics

Do you know about the Trans-Texas Corridor? The idea is to extend the rebuilt I-35 NAFTA super-corridor highway all the way from Laredo, Texas, to Canada, with extensions in Canada to be built out to Montreal in the east and Vancouver in the west. In Mexico, the super-corridor will connect via Mexican railroads with the port at Lazaro Cardenas. It is being built because of the coming North American Union. A good take can be found here. The government's website for the North American Union can be found here. Its name is Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America.

I'm not making this up, folks. This is why you have to wake up to what is going on in Washington. As you learn more, you come to understand how NAIS is just the tip of the iceberg.

Toll Road Giant Buys Newspapers to Silence Critics
Critics charge that the Macquarie purchase of American Consolidated Media is designed to silence critics of a Texas toll road project.

Australian toll road giant Macquarie agreed Wednesday to purchase forty local newspapers, primarily in Texas and Oklahoma, for $80 million. Macquarie Bank is Australia's largest capital raising firm and has invested billions in purchasing roads in the US, Canada and UK. Most recently the company joined with Cintra Concesiones of Spain in a controversial 75-year lease of the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road.

Sal Costello, the leading opponent of toll road projects as head of the Texas Toll Party, says the move is directly related to a 4000-mile toll road project known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. It will cost between $145 and $183 billion to construct the road, expected to be up to 1200 feet wide, requiring the acquisition of 9000 square miles of land in the areas through which it will pass.

"The newspapers are the main communication tool for many of the rural Texan communities, with many citizens at risk of losing their homes and farms through eminent domain," Costello wrote.

Many of the small papers purchased, most have a circulation of 5000 or less, have been critical of the Trans-Texas Corridor. An article in the Bonham Journal for example, states, "The toll roads will be under control of foreign investors, which more than frustrates Texans."

Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who tried to get an amendment passed to defund NAIS in May 2006 is doing an exploratory committee on a run for President. I like him because he is a strong Constitutionalist.

From his website

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

It is good to have someone inside the beltway who actually remembers the oath of office.

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/

Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA)

This is very interesting. The Cooperative Agreement that provides funding at the state level for NAIS says that USDA will pay up to $12.00 per registration via an incentive, like vice grips and logo embossed holster (guffaw, that one always makes me laugh at the sick irony, vice grips...). So where is Tennessee coming up with the extra money?

As Walter over on NoNais.org said:

Apparently, the claims of better disease tracking, social obligation and bigger markets are not enough to get Tennessee cattle producers to join NAIS. Now they’ve decided they must add a significant monetary bribe.

Before I publish this post, let me give a little shout out to the USDA who is viewing my blog right now. Hey there!

TDA offers incentive to "beef up" cattle sales

Jan 24, 2007 9:43 AM

Adding value and protecting livestock health are good reasons for producers to market their cattle through “age and source” and “preconditioning” programs. Now there’s another reason.

The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) will pay producers up to $500 for marketing their cattle through a USDA approved age and source verified program and state approved pre-conditioning program announced Agriculture Commissioner Ken Givens.

Producers will be paid $5 per head of cattle sold or marketed through an age and source verified program and an additional $5 per head if the animals were certified pre-conditioned, up to $250 for each program.

“Today’s livestock buyers, and ultimately the consumer, want to know where their meat comes from and how it’s been produced,” said Givens. “With age and source verification and pre-conditioning programs, cattle buyers know they’re getting animals that have been properly cared for and that meet certain standards.”

“With these payments, we want to encourage better cattle management and to ensure that Tennessee cattle producers have access to domestic and international markets where age and source verification is fast becoming a standard.”

Age and source verification is a marketing tool that producers can use to assure cattle buyers of the origin and maximum age of their cattle. Producers who enroll in an age and source verification program are responsible for keeping records on their cattle as part of an auditable process.

Pre-conditioning is a program where producers agree to perform certain best management practices such as vaccinations, weaning, castration, parasite control and dehorning for improved cattle health and quality.

The new cattle marketing incentive program is in addition to cattle genetic and handling facilities cost share incentives funded through the Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program (TAEP). The TAEP was proposed by Governor Phil Bredesen in 2005 and funded by the Tennessee General Assembly to improve cattle production, encourage farm diversification and safeguard livestock health in Tennessee.

Producers interested in enrolling in an approved age and source or pre-conditioning program can contact their local University of Tennessee Extension office, or contact TDA by calling (615) 837-5189.

A list of approved organizations is also available online at www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/enhancement then select “Value Added Cost Share” link.

To qualify for a payment, producers must live and farm in Tennessee and register their livestock premises with the National Animal Identification System. Premises registration is free, and forms are available at most local farm-related agencies and service locations.

Registration forms can also be downloaded from TDA’s Web site at www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/tpis.

Producers must also be certified under the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Program, a two-hour educational course on cattle management and care sponsored by the Tennessee Cattlemen’s Association. Certification is $10 for members and $20 for non-members. More information on BQA classes is available by contacting the association at (615) 896-2333 or info@tncattle.org, or by visiting their Web site at www.tncattle.org.

Producers who have sold or marketed cattle through a USDA approved age and source verified program since July 1, 2006 are eligible to receive a payment.

Producers can file for a payment by filling out an Age and Source/Pre-conditioning claim form with the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. Forms are available online at www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/enhancement then select “Value Added Cost Share” link.

Burnt Orange Report - Don't Tag Texas

Interesting to see Texas rise up inspite of the We Want a Voluntary NAIS put forth by Liberty Ark and FARFA. I read that FARFA put a notice about this on their website but did not give credit where credit is due, typical of how they operate. I didn't check that out myself, so I don't know if they have changed it on the website or not.

I am glad to see the way the Lord makes it all work together for the good of all.

Don't Tag Texas! by: hank Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 14:24:49 PM CST

(Declare independence from the tag! - promoted by John McClelland) After a little rest and re-aquaintance with my family, it's now time to get back to work. Rather than taking "baby steps", I've decided to run the marathon. Let me explain. During my recent campaign for Agriculture Commissioner, I made a pledge to the people of Texas. Win, lose or draw, I was going to organize a march on the state capitol protesting the Trans-Texas Corridor and the National Animal I.D. System. This journal is to inform you about the upcoming event, appropriately named, "Don't Tag Texas!" On March 2,2006 (fittingly Texas Independence Day), the march will occur. It will begin at 2:00 p.m. with a march up Congress Ave. to the capitol. The rally will commence somewhere around 2:30 and go until 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. Every member of the house and senate, along with every member of the state executive branch, will receive a personal invitation. THIS WILL NOT BE A POLITICAL RALLY. It is a true bipartisian event to protest these two issues; Issues that will affect every citizen of our state and country. We are in the process of assembling speakers for the event. Many will be national figures, as well as leaders of some well-entrenched state organizations.

My goal is to garner national attention with this rally, so that the rest of the country can see what is going to happen to them if we don't stop this in Texas. I have already garnered support from other activists in outside states that have committed to attend. I will do a series of national radio shows between now and then to draw even more outside support. We hope to have national media and talk-shows present as well. In order for this to be succesful and make Governor Perry, Lt. Governor Dewhurst, Ric Williamson and others to understand, we have to have numbers. My goal for this rally is 250,000 to 500,000 people. We are working with over 100 groups in Texas to make this happen. We already have committments for tractors, horses and other farm implements in the parade march. We will be posting a web page in a couple of days to my website, www.hankgilbert.com, that can be linked to other sites and/or emails. We need the word to get out everywhere. I need your help to get this done. Just like you supported me during the campaign, I need you now. Help me to show the "powers at be" what we can do if backed into a corner. Together, we will "take back Texas!

Animal Pharm: publisher's notes: National Animal Identification Scheme

Animal Pharm: publisher's notes: National Animal Identification Scheme

A blogger from England found my blog and wrote the following. Please, you who are reading this, click through and leave a comment. You'll find my comment there also.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

National Animal Identification Scheme

For those of us in the UK who remember the emergence of BSE, the classical swine fever outbreak a few years back and the more recent foot and mouth epidemic, animal identification and traceability is unquestionably A Good Thing. So much so that it almost qualifies as a no-brainer.

It can come as quite a shock therefore to stumble across blogs unashamedly dedicated to campaigning against the USA's proposed National Animal Identification Scheme.

I've come across occasional conspiracy theories among the UK agricultural community - mostly aimed at Brussels and the European bureaucrats rather than UK politicos - but nothing on the scale suggested by the blog that I encountered this morning.

http://henwhisperer.blogspot.com/2007/01/much-to-talk-about-today.html


My question to you, gentle reader, is how does one effectively address this level of suspicion, prejudice and fear to make the case for NAIS?

Much to talk about today

First, I watched Freedom to Fascism last night. It was extremely depressing. Now I understand for sure that this country is doomed to serfdoom unless the people rise up. The premise of Freedom to Fascism is that Aaron Russo, a Hollywood movie producer, was trying to find the law that requires us to pay income tax. He couldn't find it, it doesn't exist. In the course of doing the research for the movie -and as I understand it, you can rent it on Netflix, he found out a bunch of other things about the Federal Bank.

---

The following is from Downsizer-Dispatch:

Percy Bysshe Shelley said that, "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." Shelley was, of course, a poet, so it's understandable that he got it wrong. Who are the real "unacknowledged legislators?"

American bureaucrats.

No one elected them. Hardly anyone can fire them. Mostly nobody knows what they're doing. And yet, they have the figurative power of life and death over individuals and whole industries. They can makes laws, and dispense with obeying the law, at a moments notice, on the merest whim, without fear of consequence.

Case in point . . .

State governments are balking at complying with the bureaucratic requirements of NAIS -- the National Animal Identification System. So, the bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture are contemplating the creation of a new law, which they euphemistically, if not poetically, call a regulation. This new regulation/law would . . .

. . . p rohibit interstate movement of cattle that isn't officially tagged under the NAIS requirements.

But this law, that they call a regulation, would not even be called a regulation, let alone a law. It would be promulgated as an "interim rule."

Interim rules are a neat little trick unacknowledged legislators can use to force people to do their bidding, because "interim rules" can be enacted with no prior opportunity for public comment, let alone Congressional oversight or agreement. (Remember, your elected legislators are too busy not reading their bills to have time to worry about such details)

This particular rule would be difficult for state governments to resist, because it would leave their agricultural businesses isolated from the national market. In other words, a small farmer in Texas couldn't sell his cow to a meat packer in Chicago, unless he complied with NAIS, even if farmers in Texas are not legally required to do so by either state or federal law.

Yes, Alice, we are through the looking glass, and deep into Wonderland.

The result would be that everyone would be forced to comply with NAIS through a back-door means.

Who's pushing for this new law/regulation/interim rule? The U.S. Animal Health Association. And who is that? A society of poets perhaps? Not hardly. They represent big agri-business, which will benefit from NAIS by driving the small farmer OUT of business. Big corporate farms will have special rules that will make it cheap and even beneficial for them to comply with NAIS, while small farms will work under especially special rules that will make their cost of complying prohibitive.

In short, big corporate farms can use one NAIS chip to identify and track a whole herd, while small farms most use individual chips for each individual animal.

Do you begin to see the rhyme and reason behind this bureaucratic poetry?
Here's the kicker. The federal government is prohibited from making such impositions on the states by the 10th Amendment, and on interstate trade by the Commerce Clause, which was intended to prevent the erection of trade barriers between the states. So where do the feds think they get the power to do this? From the Commerce Clause, of course, which they have turned on its head.

Black is white, and free interstate trade really means prohibited interstate trade.

What can we do about this? Well, send Congress a little poetry asking them to stop the enforcement of NAIS. You can do so here.

And if you need some more rhyme-and-reason on this "interim rule" thing you can find it here.

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

---

A new anti-NAIS website http://www.naissucks.com/

Report of the Committee on Livestock Identification of the U.S. Animal Health Association (USAHA)

This is an alert by Mary Zanoni.

The following document is the Report of the Committee on Livestock Identification of the U.S. Animal Health Association, from a meeting on October 17, 2006. Present at the meeting were USDA Undersecretary Bruce Knight, Dr. John Clifford, Dr. John Wiemers, and Neil Hammerschmidt.

http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2006/report-id-2006.pdf

On p. 14 of this document we have a hint about a very dangerous game that the USDA may be intending to play with our way of life and our ability to keep livestock. The last paragraph on page 14 describes a recommendation that this Committee of the USAHA has made to the USDA. The Committee has recommended that, prior to July 1, 2007, the USDA should promulgate an "interim rule" that would prohibit interstate movement of cattle from any state that fails to REQUIRE THAT ALL BREEDING AGE CATTLE BE OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED at each change of ownership. Such an "interim rule" would make it impossible for any state to resist, because it would become economically isolated. Also note that an "interim rule" can be promulgated WITH NO PRIOR OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

Is the USDA planning to follow this Committee recommendation and force NAIS upon the entire nation by means of a dictatorial "interim rule"? It is bad enough that the USDA has been killing off American agriculture for decades; don't let them kill off democracy.

Please send a copy of this message to your U.S. Congressman and your two U.S. Senators. This scheme must be stopped in its tracks.

Mary Zanoni

The USDA must be stopped. Who is responsible for the oversight of the USDA? Is the USDA the mafia? Something is very wrong with this picture. And, imagine this, this is just one tiny thing that is happening behind the scenes, without our knowledge. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

To see what other people are saying about this, click through to Nonais.org.

Localvore Project - Even if you aren't in Vermont you can do it locally

Click here for the Eat Local Winter 2007 Survival Guide.

The Winter Challenge is Coming!

January 29 to February 4, 2007

After the great success of our September '06 challenge, the Mad River Valley Localvore Project is excited to announce a Winter Challenge. The Eat Local Challenge is an event where participants pledge to eat only locally grown and produced foods - this time in the middle of the winter - an even greater challenge!

For the winter challenge participants will have the option of choosing to pledge for a meal, a day, or the entire week. We've posted a special page of recipes which can be made from locally available foods in the winter, as well as a list of where to find local ingredients in the Mad River Valley.

Indiana Senate Bill 0486 - Another NO NAIS bill

Senate Bill 0486

2007 Regular Session

Latest Information

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Termination of farm animal tracking agreement. Provides that the state may not participate in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) or any component of animal tracking. Places restrictions on private systems for premises registration and animal identification. Provides that the state and units of local government may not provide any special consideration or other incentives to benefit any participant in an animal identification or premises registration based solely on participation in a private system for premises registration and animal identification. Provides that rules adopted by the state board of animal health and any agreements entered into by the state under NAIS are void.

Texas opts for a voluntary NAIS, totally predictable

80R2228 MSE-F

By: Hughes H.B. No. 637

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to making participation in an animal identification
program voluntary.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 161.056, Agriculture Code, is amended by
amending Subsections (a), (c), (d), and (e) and adding Subsections
(a-1), (j), and (k) to read as follows:
(a) In order to provide for disease control and enhance the
ability to trace disease-infected animals or animals that have been
exposed to disease, the commission may develop and implement a
voluntary animal identification program that is, to the extent
required by federal law, consistent with the United States
Department of Agriculture's National Animal Identification System.

Click here to read the rest of it.

Did we fight for over a year and a half against any government NAIS just so that Texas, under the leadership of LibertyArk, FARFA, Judith McGeary, Karin Bergener and the rest of the so-called steering committee could sell out to all the people that they suckered in? It was in Sept. 06 that Judith McGeary testified before TAHC that FARFA was for a voluntary program. That set more than a few of us on edge. And then they got their fingers into the Talent/Emerson Bill and that would have opened up a whole new can of worms making NAIS something legitimate for Congress to do. I think it was about that time when I and others resigned our state coordinators posts with LibertyArk because we could see they were not what they seemed to be. Now, I have a term for LibertyArk and FARFA - controlled opposition. They have been for NAIS all along.

There can be no government mandated National Animal Identification System. Period. Anyone who is for an even voluntary system is evil.

If I were a paying member of LibertyArk or FARFA, man, I'd get all over them. They are going to march your state right into the hands of the Farm Bureau and NAIS.

Washington state files no NAIS bill

Activists in the State of Washington have put forth a House Bill 1151 to stop NAIS.

Read the text of the bill here (note it is a PDF file and you'll need Adobe Reader to view it).

Contact your state representatives to support them to vote for this bill.

Virginia files no NAIS bill

HOUSE BILL NO. 1990
Offered January 10, 2007
Prefiled January 5, 2007
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 3.1-14.4, relating to the National Animal Identification System.
———-
Patron– Wittman
———-
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
———-

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section
numbered 3.1-14.4 as follows:

§ 3.1-14.4. National Animal Identification System.

The Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall ensure that the Department does not participate in or provide any assistance to the establishment of the National Animal Identification System or any substantially similar program.

Make sure you call your state reps and support them to vote for this bill.

Missouri files a no NAIS bill

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 422

94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

---

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES WHORTON (Sponsor), SMITH (150), KUESSNER,
WALLACE AND DOUGHERTY (Co-sponsors).

Read 1st time January 16, 2007 and copies ordered printed.

D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

1156L.01I

---

AN ACT

To amend chapter 267, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the national animal
identification system.

---

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 267, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 267.165, to read as follows:

267.165. The department of agriculture shall not participate in the national animal
identification system (NAIS) administered by the United States Department of Agriculture
absent specific statutory authorization for such participation.

-MO House Bill 422

If you live in Missouri, call your state reps and give them support for the bill.

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

Copyright 2007 by Mary Zanoni. The following article may be distributed solely for personal and non-commercial use without prior permission from the author. Non-commercial distribution and posting to assist in disseminating information about NAIS is, in fact, encouraged, so long as proper credit is given and the article is reproduced without changes or deletions. Any other distribution or republication requires the author’s permission in writing and requests for such permission should be directed to the author at the address/phone/e-mail address below.

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.

P.O. Box 501

Canton, NY 13617

315-386-3199

mlz@slic.com

January 17, 2007

Like many small-farm advocates, I have been fielding questions over the past few weeks about the above survey being sent out by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Many people ask if there is any relationship between the survey and the data being collected (often without the knowledge or consent of farmers) for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). As we shall see, although USDA personnel won’t admit it, NASS data is the foundation of the USDA’s aggressive pursuit of NAIS.

To my great surprise, in this morning's mail I myself received a 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey (2006 AIS). I say "to my great surprise," because I am not and never have been engaged in any type of commercial agriculture whatsoever. I have never before received any type of communication from NASS.

The envelope states in very large letters, "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW." The envelope further states that the due date is January 29, 2007. As explained below, it is clear that many people receiving this form are not in fact "REQUIRED BY LAW" to answer it. Further, a recipient has only a couple of weeks between the receipt of the form and the purported deadline, and it would be impossible for the average non-lawyer to do enough research within that time to figure out whether he/she is or isn't actually required to respond.

The form itself begins with several general questions, such as “Do you own or rent any land?” “Do you grow vegetables, hay or nursery stock?” “Do you receive government payments?” The questions appear deliberately designed to imply that anyone who would answer “yes” is among those “REQUIRED BY LAW” to fill out this form. The USDA is thus casting a very wide net in this particular intrusion into the lives of American citizens, because, frankly, just about everyone who is not homeless “owns or rents” real estate; some 75 million people in the United States “grow vegetables;” and some 60 million people receive “government payments.” (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 1226 (vegetable gardening); Table 528 (government transfer payments).)

Now, perhaps it is possible that this “wide net” might not be as intrusive as it appears. After all, maybe NASS has only sent this form to people reasonably assumed to be farmers. But in fact it was distressingly easy to confirm that intrusiveness and deliberate over-inclusiveness are the hallmarks of the NASS approach. This morning, I called the information number listed on the form and spoke to a woman at the USDA’s Helena, Montana call center. According to her, the call center is being swamped with calls from people who live in cities and have nothing to do with agriculture. She stated that the call center employees really have no idea of why or how all these people have been sent the 2006 AIS. When asked for some conjecture as to how so many unnecessary people could have been included in the mailings, the woman explained that, for example, anyone who had ever subscribed to a “horse magazine” might have been included in the database.

Now, that raises interesting questions. How is the USDA/NASS getting the subscription lists of “horse magazines”? Why and how are “horse magazines,” or, for that matter, any rural-life publication, any breed association, feed store, or private or public livestock or horticultural enterprise whatsoever, giving their member/subscriber/customer lists to the government without telling their members, subscribers, or customers?

Or, worse yet, how is the government accessing such lists or databases without the awareness of the businesses or organizations in question? During times when the Executive Branch of the United States Government has secretly gathered the records of most people’s incoming and outgoing phone calls, and the President asserts a right to open your mail and my mail without a warrant, this is not a trivial question.

Returning to the first page of the form, we see the wide net growing ever wider. The form states: “Many people who don’t consider themselves farmers or ranchers actually meet the definition of a farm or ranch and are important to agriculture.” “We need your completed form even though you may not be actively farming, ranching, or conducting any other type of agricultural activity.” Finally, the first page of the form reinforces the threat of the “REQUIRED BY LAW” language of the envelope:

“ ‘Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) (Note the single-double quotation marks – the threat actually is in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-grade stylistic conceit of “quoting” something to make it appear extra-important.) One senses evasions aplenty here -- the form has referred to the “definition of a farm or ranch” but nowhere tells us that definition. It suggests that anyone receiving a form has a legal obligation to answer it, even though their enterprise may not meet the definition of a “farm.”

Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions about the definition of a “farm” and the possible legal penalties for not responding to the 2006 AIS. Specifically, I asked if my understanding of the definition of “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in sales from agriculture was correct. (See 2002 Census of Agriculture, FAQs, www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agriculture/frequently_asked_questions/index.asp#1.) Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC § 2204g (d) (2), namely, that a “person . . . who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question . . . . shall be fined not more than $100,” I noted that, insofar as the 2006 AIS actually contains 42 separate questions, it could be important to know whether there was a separate $100 fine for each unanswered question, or just a single $100 fine for not answering the entire 2006 AIS. These questions were beyond the purview of the call-center woman, so she made a note of the questions, referred them to a member of the NASS professional staff, and promised that the NASS staff member would call me with the answers.

The next day, January 12, 2007, I received a call from Jody Sprague, a NASS statistician. First we addressed the question of the “farm” definition. Ms. Sprague conceded that someone whose property or operation did not meet the “farm” definition would have no obligation to answer the 2006 AIS. She also conceded that the basic definition of a “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in agricultural sales was correct, but explained that in addition to the gross sales figures, NASS also assigns certain “point values” for particular agricultural activities. If the points add up to 1000, your operation would meet the definition of a “farm.” When asked for an example of how the point values work, Ms. Sprague explained that 5 equines would equal a farm but 4 would not. (Subsequently, she explained that each equine equals 200 points.) When asked how many cattle equal a “farm,” Ms. Sprague said she did not know. At one point Ms. Sprague said that NASS wanted, through the 2006 AIS, to determine if they could delete people who should not be on their mailing list. But for the most part she contended the opposite, e.g., that she would “advise” anyone who had received the form to fill it out; and that even a person with one horse should complete the questionnaire, although she previously had conceded that someone with fewer than 5 horses would not meet the definition of a “farm” and therefore would not be required to fill out the survey.

We next turned to the issue of how NASS may have compiled its mailing list for the 2006 AIS. First Ms. Sprague maintained that the sources of the NASS mailing list are “confidential.” I noted the call-center woman’s reference to a subscription to a “horse magazine” as a source of names, and asked for some other possible sources. Ms. Sprague said that growers’ associations, such as the Wheat Growers’ Association and Barley Growers’ Association, were examples of sources. I asked for more examples but she was reluctant to give any, claiming that some are “confidential” and some are “not confidential.” She explained the overall process of list building thus: as NASS comes across lists where there are “possibilities of agricultural activity,” NASS incorporates those names into its mailing list.

We returned to the subject of “point values” for different livestock. Explaining that many people were likely to have questions about this, I asked if Ms. Sprague could find out for me the point values of cattle or other non-equine livestock. She put me on hold for a long while. Subsequently, she gave me the following point values: beef cattle, 310 points per head; dairy cattle, 2000 points per head; goats and sheep, 50 points per head. (I wanted to ask about chickens, but I was getting the distinct sense that I might be pushing my luck.)

Ms. Sprague stressed that she did not want people to be concentrating on the point values. For example, she noted that people should not say they have 4 horses if they really have 5 horses, “because it wouldn’t be ethical.” (But apparently under the NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those Choicepoint-type consumer profiles to track your reading habits is perfectly “ethical.” And, as we shall see, the NASS moral code also permits forking over your data to states that are in hot pursuit of the NAIS premises-registration quotas imposed as a condition for the states’ continued receipt of federal NAIS grant money.)

We went on to the question of the $100 non-compliance fine. Ms. Sprague assured me that a farmer’s failure to answer any or all of the 42 total questions on the 2006 AIS would only result in a single $100 fine. She also said that the fine is “rarely enforced” and that if any “producer” “chooses” not to report, no one from NASS would seek them out.

Finally, I asked Ms. Sprague if there were any relationships between NASS and the APHIS NAIS program, and she said, “Absolutely none.” I asked her if any other agency, state or federal, would ever be allowed to use NASS’s database to solicit premises IDs for NAIS, and she said, “Absolutely not.” And indeed, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2204g (f) (3), “Information obtained [for NASS surveys] may not be used for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which the information is supplied.”

Several weeks ago, Missouri antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series of questions about Missouri’s solicitation of NAIS premises IDs to Steve Goff, DVM, the Animal ID Administrator of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA). Dr. Goff provided written answers on December 20, 2006. When asked where the MDA had obtained addresses for its solicitation of NAIS premises IDs, Dr. Goff stated: “the mailing was done through a contract with the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.”

I won’t answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey. Instead, I will send a copy of this article to my Congressman and my two United States Senators. I will ask them to have the House and Senate Agriculture Committees investigate the rampant and shameful abuses of federal law and common morality inherent in NASS’s compilation of its mailing lists and use of those lists to promote the APHIS National Animal Identification System. Why will I do this? Because I don’t live by the USDA’s false code of ethics; I answer to a higher authority.

Farmer's Field Guide to the NAIS

Can YOU answer these questions?

1) What is the legal nature of the contract that I enter into when I sign up for a U.S. Premises Identification Number?

2) If I want to, can I rescind that contract at any time?

3) Does the U.S. Premises Identification Number “cloud” the title to my property?

4) When I get a U.S. Premises Identification Number, does my farm become subject to the regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture?

5) What is the legal nature of the contract that I enter into when I buy a tag or RFID-chip with the U.S. Animal Identification Number on it?

6) Does the U.S. Animal Identification Number attached to my animal restrict my ownership of that animal?

7) When I attach a tag or RFID-chip with the U.S. Animal Identification Number to my animal, does my animal become subject to the regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture?

8) Do U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations preempt all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with the USDA’s regulation?

9) Who owns the information that I am being asked to give to the National Animal Identification System about my farm and animals?

10) Is the Department of Homeland Security in charge of enforcing the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002?

11) Is the National Animal Identification System authorized for general, public use by the Office of Management & Budget (OMB)?

12) What gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture enforcement authority in this State?

You can learn the answers here: Free To Farm

After you educate yourself, ask those same questions of your State Representatives, Mayor and Governor.

If you, as a citizen of the United States, can't answer these questions then you should not be signing on the dotted line. If by chance you do get answers from your Representative, Mayor or Governor, come back and post a comment.

One more thing. If you received a survey from USDA/NASS you will want to refer to this article at Nonais.org before you decide what to do. One side of the USDA/NASS mouth says it is mandatory, another side says it is voluntary. Be educated to make educated decisions.

A good news Friday! Part 2

Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step yesterday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid - this time as a Republican.

Just shake them up, Ron!

A good news Friday! Part 1

Major British grocers to boycott meat from cloned animals

By Pete Hisey on 1/12/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Reacting to reports that a cloned cow from the United States has birthed a calf on a British farm, virtually all major British grocery chains have pledged to boycott meat from clones or their offspring. Tesco, Wal-Mart's Asda chain, Morrisons and Marks & Spencer were among the chains participating in the boycott, which would include meat, milk or "anything else from clones or their offspring," according to an Asda spokesperson. British law prohibits the sale of meat or milk from cloned animals, but makes no mention of the offspring of clones. According to The Daily Mail, the British Food Standards Agency is in emergency talks with European Union officials about the gap in regulations that allows products from clone offspring to be sold. The Food and Drug Administration is in the process of approving the sale of meat from clones and their offspring in the United States, and has received strong criticism from consumers' groups. On Thursday, a major dairy processor, Petaluma, Calif.-based Clover Stornetta, announced that it will not accept milk from cloned animals.

Chipless RFID Ink for your cattle or for you?

Another very bad "innovation". I tell you, we are on the way to being marked.

Somark Innovations said Tuesday that it successfully tested its biocompatible chipless RFID ink in cattle and laboratory rats.

The company said in a release that the test proved the effectiveness of injecting and reading a biocompatible chipless RFID (radio frequency identification) ink "tattoo" within the skin of animals. RFID "tags" can be used to identify an object or being using radio waves.

Somark said the technology initially will be marketed to the livestock industry to help identify and track cattle, and mitigate export trade loss from Mad Cow Disease concerns.

The company, which is currently raising a Series A equity financing, said it plans to license the technology to secondary target markets such as laboratory animals, dogs, cats, prime cuts of meat, and military personnel.

Somark Chief Scientist Ramos Mays said in a statement, "This proves the ability to create a synthetic biometric or fake fingerprint with Biocompatible Chipless RFID Ink and read it through hair."

The company also said it recently formed a five-member Advisory Board comprised of: Mark Prausnitz, a professor of chemical & biomedical engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology and a director of the Center for Drug Design, Development and Delivery; Darrell Bengfort and Bill Lazechko, electrical engineers and founders of TelGaAs Inc.; John Ross, an electrical engineer and founder and vice president of research and development at Viamorph Inc.; and Bob Van Schoick, retired executive director of marketing and corporate accounts at Merial.

Additionally, Somark announced that it retained intellectual property counsel firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati of Palo Alto, Calif.

Somark Innovations is a technology company located at the Center for Emerging Technologies in St. Louis.

"USDA says NAIS Valuable druing Blizzard recovery" or When does the spin stop?

The USDA has already used NAIS for something other than what it was intended for. Read this spin and then at the bottom read something written by a major cattle producer who is squarely anti-NAIS.

National Animal Identification System Proves to be a Valuable Tool During Blizzard Recovery Operations
January 4, 2007 - Lakewood, CO

Phone calls directly to ranchers in southeast Colorado helped evaluate the safety of those ranchers families and the well being of Colorado livestock during the blizzard recovery operation. This process was made possible by the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

Those with registered premises were called on Wednesday and Thursday by the Colorado Department of Agriculture's State Veterinarian's Office. Those phone calls helped locate animals and find out if they have had access to feed.

"Starvation and dehydration are certainly animal health concerns and we are pleased that we could utilize the system in this emergency situation," said State Veterinarian Dr. John Maulsby. Maulsby, who has been in southeast Colorado assisting with relief efforts, was speaking about the National Animal Identification System's premises registration.

Emergency hay drops had begun when the decision was made to use this tool in the six counties hit hardest by the storm to make contact with ranchers, ensuring they had been able to get feed to their livestock.

"Having direct access to livestock owners gave us the opportunity to quickly assess the situation," said Colorado Division of Emergency Management Director, George Epp. "Protecting the health of Colorado livestock is a top priority to this operation and NAIS was a big help."

Aerial surveillance crews continue to search for additional herds; meanwhile, the Colorado and Wyoming National Guard are performing hay drops to get feed to stranded livestock. So far, more than 70 tons of hay has been delivered by helicopters and a C-130 military transport plane. Generators are being utilized to help communities without electricity to pump water. Large tankers are also being used to deliver water to necessary locations.

If livestock owners need assistance getting food and water to animals, it is recommended they call their local sheriff's office.

========================
Now from the cattle producer:

Here's my take----70 tons is 140,000 pounds. A cow weighing 1000 lbs will eat her body weight in 10% moist fiber, (hay) once a month----so that is 33 lbs a day, not counting what is stepped on and buried, and what is blown away by blizzard wind. Divide one day's meal for one cow into the 140,000 lbs and you have enough to feed 4242 cows one day, or about 5% of the cattle in one large feed lot. Wow!!! God Bless NAIS and the Colorado State Vet. It costs the government over $1200 per hour to place a helicopter in the air that carries about the same amount of hay as a beat up ranch pickup truck. It makes a great spin story for city people to fall in love with NAIS, however those of us who are in the business know the tax payers paid more to feed the cows than the cows were worth! Sure it makes good TV to see those bales drop from the air, but the facts are, #1 the cows that were lost in the blizzard were lost before the helicopters found the hay stack, and #2 more than 99% of the cattle were fed with the pickup trucks and tractors with hay from their owners.

Let's get real!!!! I prefer to be lied to professionally, rather than by government bureaucrats who set behind desks in warm brick buildings. When the government invents self serving press releases telling how great they are, don't try explaining floods to Noah! I lost 40 head in a Colorado blizzard on March 10, 1977 and I am still looking for the helicopters. I suppose we didn't have a NAIS program then?

======================

Where is Bill O'Reilly when you need him to stop the spin?

Proverbs 27:23

"Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds."

Now if everyone who owns livestock, including those big feedlots, would follow this advice there would be no need for government interference.

Farm Food Voices, DC 2007

***ACTION ALERT***
Farm Food Voices, DC 2007
National Grassroots Small-farm Lobby Day, February 14th
[No experience needed!]

Joel Salatin, Speaker
Anti-NAIS, pro small/sustainable/independent agriculture

Under the banner of The National Independent Consumers and Farmers Advocates Fund
(NICFA Fund http://www.nicfa.net)

WHAT: Grassroots lobbying and legislative reception
WHERE: Washington, DC
WHEN: Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 12:00 noon
WHY: So legislators can meet small, sustainable producers and the consumers who depend on them and hear their message.

Most federal legislators don’t know we exist, or take us seriously. We have to change that.

Jointly organized by the Virginia Independent Consumer Farmers Association (VICFA) and the Maryland Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (MICFA), Farm Food Voices, DC 2007 will bring America’s farmers and the consumers who depend on them from all over the country to DC to meet legislators, explain to them why NAIS would destroy sustainable agriculture, the economies and communities these small farms sustain, and the foods millions of consumers depend on.

We will provide Talking Points for grassroots lobbyists and information packets for legislators.

Weston A. Price Foundation members in the DC area will prepare a nourishing Traditional Luncheon style reception, with food sampling, for legislators and grassroots lobbyists.

(We’ll meet in one of the Congressional office buildings. See http://www.nicfa.net for room closer to date).

AGENDA: 12:00 – 12:50

Reception 1:00 -- 3:00 Individually lobby legislators from your state Meet at noon in reception room Joel Salatin will address grassroots lobbyists and legislators, followed by Q and A Mingle with and speak to legislators and staffers during reception

1:00—disperse to meet with representatives and senators of your state to tell them about small producers and that NAIS is another big government program that discriminates against small farmers.

We oppose any government funded or managed National Animal Identification System.

ACTIONS: Come to Washington DC February 14th. Call the U.S. Representative and Senators from your state NOW and make an appointment to speak with them OR THEIR STAFF MEMBERS February 14th. (Staffers are just as important!!!). When you call them for the appointment, invite them AND THEIR STAFFERS to the legislative reception at noon. (See http://www.nicfa.net for room closer to date).

Find your legislators (enter zip in top of left column)

Event information: http://www.nicfa.net
email: editor@vicfa.net
Phone: Richard Bean 434.263.8704

Will there be no more "natural" anything?

Why is it that MAN thinks he can outsmart God and nature? Not everything in nature lives because if everything lived the earth would become over populated.

Cattle engineered to lack BSE-causing proteins
By Tom Johnston on 1/2/2007 for Meatingplace.com

An international team of researchers from the United States and Japan has genetically engineered several cattle to be free from prions, the proteins associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The findings, published in the online journal Nature Biotechnology, are leading to speculation that it may be possible to make animals immune to the disease.

In a post-mortem study, research results showed that after scientists "knocked out" the gene responsible for making prions, animals did not succumb to BSE when exposed to the bad prions associated with the disease. However, it may be a few years before other animals in the study demonstrate similar immunity to BSE.

"This could have some promising applications," Joe Schuele, spokesman for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, told Meatingplace.com today. "However, the safeguards we have in place in the United States have eliminated BSE as a human health risk, and should have us on track to completely eradicate BSE well before this technology will be approved for any widespread practical use."

Paul Clayton, senior vice president of export services at the U.S. Meat Export Federation, told Meatingplace.com today that it's too early to tell how the study would affect access to foreign markets, since any commercial applications of the research presumably lie in the distant future.

"Also, since this is biotechnology, we may encounter other access concerns," he said.

"These cattle can help in the exploration and improved understanding of how prions function and cause disease, especially with relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy," Edward B. Knipling, administrator of USDA's Agricultural Research Service, indicated in a press release. "In particular, cattle lacking the gene that produces prions can help scientists test the resistance to prion propagation, not only in the laboratory, but in live animals as well."