We'll be posting a blog roll over the next few weeks of the new Vermont Tea Party bloggers. It is important, in this very liberal state filled with people who just believe what they are told by MSM, that we offer an outlet for the real truth.
The truth will set you free.
Our own Roger Allbee in this morning's Burlington FreePress. Just be aware that his reference to Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) comes from the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN).
Good Agricultural Practices are "practices that address environmental, economic and social sustainability for on-farm processes, and result in safe and quality food and non-food agricultural products" (FAO COAG 2003 GAP paper).
So, in other words, the UN is driving the standards of agriculture in Vermont and Roger Allbee is a part of its implementation.
The variety of topics and concerns brought up as well as the individuals in attendance underscore the diversity of agriculture in Vermont and the vital role it plays in our communities, society and economic well-being. A recent survey showed Vermonters (over 97 percent) place great value for their quality of life on the state's working landscape and heritage.
Agriculture means big business to Vermont. The dairy industry alone contributes over $2 billion to Vermont's economy, with over 15,000 jobs directly or indirectly associated with agriculture. And it is critical that we maintain current food safety standards in Vermont.
Recent U.S. Census figures show that agriculture is indeed growing and expanding in Vermont. The number of farms increased by 6 percent from 2002 to 2007, with a trend toward starting and operating smaller, diversified farms. Vermont is at the vanguard of emerging sectors like agricultural tourism, New England wine and spirits production, artisan cheese, and the high-quality specialty foods that have created a brand name for our state around the world. Vermont's farmers are both the traditional center of our communities and our greatest entrepreneurs.
Today we are seeing a return of consumers to buying local. I call this a "renaissance of the past." The excitement and passion expressed by our farmers is mirrored in consumers. This excitement is particularly strong as consumers return to buying local, learning where their food comes from and developing new skills in working with locally available ingredients. Increasingly, we are also creating long-term customers from visitors who enjoy a Vermont experience and continue to buy Vermont products, often online, after they have left.
Vermont's reputation for quality and the highest of standards is why companies locate here -- to capitalize on the Vermont brand name. And consumers seek Vermont products because they know they are fresh and safe.
But we have also learned from our past. Some issues raised at the farm forum included regulations in relation to dairy and meat processing in the state. Over the years, safety measures have been developed to protect consumers' health and our food supply, and that protects our producers, as well. In fact, many retail outlets are now requiring local producers to obtain Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certification before they will sell their products. As a state, we need to do everything in our power to make sure Vermont products are safe, consumers are protected, and farmers have the ability to produce the high-quality products we are known for.
Over 60 percent of milk and dairy products produced in Vermont are consumed by several million people within a few hours of Vermont. Companies like Ben & Jerry's, Cabot Cheese, Shelburne Farms, Grafton Cheese, Vermont Butter and Cheese, the many small artisan cheese makers in the state, and the numerous specialty food producers depend immensely on the Vermont name and thus the Vermont brand. In this time of increased concern over food safety, now is not the time for the Legislature to loosen food safety standards in Vermont that could jeopardize Vermont's good reputation in these and other markets.
Roger Allbee of Townsend is the secretary of the Agency of AgricultureI got the following notice in the mail the other day. It aggravates me greatly that they have sunk to this level of trying to make people be afraid. I've met Julie Smith before. She bleeds USDA logos. I'm going to this event and will try very hard to remain civil.
(I think if you click on the jpeg you'll be able to read the notice more clearly.)
This is a bill that is sorely needed here in Vermont. I hope you, dear reader, understand the wisdom of buying and consuming locally grown food considering the food recalls of the last year.
There will be a Public Hearing on 4 April at the State House in Montpelier, Room 11, 10 o'clock to noon. If you are a Vermonter, please come. Let's show our support for for this bill and for on-farm poultry slaughter.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/H-522.HTM
Download this document in MS Word format
| BILL AS INTRODUCED | 2007-2008 |
H.522
Introduced by Committee on Agriculture
Date:
Subject: Agriculture; long-term goals, policies, and actions
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to assure the long-term viability of Vermont agriculture by establishing goals for the state, stating legislative findings outlining the problems and possibilities for the agricultural industry and the legislative intent behind the act.
The bill also authorizes the agency of agriculture, food and markets to establish systems for the state to purchase local food and dairy products, develop proposals for developing additional in-state dairy processing facilities, establish an alternative dairy pricing system that assures Vermont dairy farmers a stable and equitable price for their milk, suggest ways to lower farm workers’ compensation insurance, study establishing a state farm energy purchase program, and review state statutes with an eye to improving effectiveness in the development and delivery of farm programs. In addition, the bill clarifies that a producer may process without inspection up to 999 birds (on the farm) to be sold from the farm, at a farmers’ market, or to a restaurant with required consumer labeling. The bill enables the secretary to authorize mobile processing units, exempts the units from Act 250, and includes them in the accepted agricultural practices statute. Wineries would be exempt from Act 250 before their grapes mature if the wineries will use grapes principally grown on the farm. New farms on land with an Act 250 permit would be exempt from Act 250 and local zoning.
AN ACT RELATING TO THE VIABILITY OF VERMONT AGRICULTURE
It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
Sec. 1. GOALS
The goals of this act are for Vermont to:
(1) Support programs and policies that foster the development of a diversified agricultural sector that:
(A) offers farmers an opportunity to sell their products to a marketplace that pays them a reasonable rate of return for their labor and capital investments;
(B) offers the public nutritious and safe foods;
(C) produces, markets, and distributes agricultural products in a sustainable manner that conserves energy and the environment;
(F) expands the market opportunities for farm-raised poultry and other meat products.
(2) Maintain the state’s prominence as a major milk producer in the region, and;
(A) assure a continued supply of high quality milk to processors and consumers in the region;
(B) enable Vermont dairy farmers, processors, and retailers and their supporting infrastructure to achieve a positive return on their labor and investment;
(3) Enable agricultural operations of diverse sizes producing a wide array of products to prosper in Vermont and contribute to the state and regional economy.
(4) Support initiatives such as the development of a mobile slaughtering unit to serve Vermont poultry farmers and the building and modernization of approved slaughtering facilities.
(5) Assure continued stewardship of the land with respect for the environment and efficient use of energy.
Sec. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS
The general assembly finds:
(1) A viable agricultural sector in Vermont represents part of a secure regional food supply, which in turn lends itself to energy and economic efficiencies.
(2) The general public is increasingly interested in locally produced food.
(3) The benefits of local food systems to local communities include open land, jobs, nutritious and safe foods, and youth education opportunities.
(4) Farms are an integral part of Vermont’s overall economy.
(5) Vermont agriculture is dependent upon a reliable and affordable supply of electrical energy, fuel, feed, and other supplies.
(6) Vermont agriculture is dependent upon the availability of a competent work force; the shortage of willing and knowledgeable workers is detrimental to farm operations.
(7) Current workers’ compensation insurance rates account for a significant portion of farmers’ payroll expenses.
(8) Succession, or the transfer of farms from one generation to the next, is a critical part of a viable future for Vermont agriculture.
(9) Vermont is the leading producer of fluid milk in New England, but only about five percent of its production is consumed in Vermont.
(10) The current federal milk pricing system does not allow a reasonable return on labor and investment for most Vermont dairy farmers.
(11) Regional marketing arrangements such as the Northeast Interstate Compact for Dairy Pricing have provided a positive operating margin without taxpayer subsidies or support.
(12) The general assembly finds that dairy processing facilities in Vermont are crucial to both Vermont dairy farmers and the promotion of the Vermont name.
(13) The “Vermont” name evokes a positive image for people and contributes to the marketing of Vermont products.
(14) Value-added products offer profit potential and economic opportunity for Vermont producers and nonfarmer entrepreneurs alike.
(15) Many factors affect the ability of businesses to process value-added food products, including shortage of capital, lack of design and engineering expertise, and issues relating to multi-layered state and federal regulation such as permitting, zoning, and inspection.
(16) Institutional purchasers in Vermont have difficulty sourcing locally raised good quality products, including proteins such as meats and poultry.
(17) There is a shortage of slaughter and meat processors as well as a lack of training opportunities for industry personnel.
(18) Federal restrictions prevent interstate shipment of state-inspected meat from amenable species, although Vermont standards are equal to or exceed federal standards.
(19) Relationship-based food systems such as farm-to-school programs, community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, farmers’ markets, and
pick-your-own operations are increasingly popular and offer areas of opportunity for new farmers.
Sec. 3. LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The general assembly intends:
(1) To support and develop a more robust and self-sustaining agricultural sector.
(2) That the policies and programs of the state will support and promote the Vermont agriculture industry as a vital component of the state’s economy and essential steward of our land.
(3) That current policies and programs pertaining to the viability of Vermont’s agricultural industry be reviewed and confirmed or changed in order to assure the long-term economic prosperity of the industry.
(4) That Vermont will cooperate and coordinate with other northeastern states to assure stable and fair prices for milk sold in the northeastern market.
(5) That Vermont will promote processing and consumption of dairy products bearing the Vermont seal of quality.
* * * Local Food Procurement * * *
Sec. 4. FOOD AND DAIRY PROCUREMENT
(a) The agency of agriculture, food and markets in cooperation with the secretary of administration and the department of buildings and general services shall establish a system whereby the state will follow its own “buy local” campaign by purchasing local food and dairy products. In so doing, the agency shall determine:
(1) The amount of food and dairy products purchased annually by the state and state-funded entities, other than primary and secondary schools, and the associated costs.
(2) The number and type of government and state-funded entities that purchase food and dairy products and the quantities and varieties purchased by each.
(3) The person or persons with authority to make food and dairy purchasing decisions within each entity and the scope of that authority.
(4) The implications of a program that directs “local” purchasing.
(b) The agency of agriculture, food and markets, the agency of administration, and the department of buildings and general services shall:
(1) Establish a system for local producers and processors to market their products to state purchasing entities.
(2) Establish a system for state purchasing entities to advertise to and connect with local producers and processors.
(3) Establish a program in the agency of agriculture, food and markets to provide strategic and technical assistance to local producers and processors for creating or enlarging the facilities necessary to produce or process food for sale to the state or other expanded markets.
(4) Establish a system for the purchase of local food and dairy products at all levels of state government, other than primary and secondary schools, and at state-funded entities, other than primary and secondary schools.
(5) Draft rules, policies and procedures for this section and report their findings with respect to feasibility, cost and progress to the joint agriculture committees on or before November 1, 2007.
(c) All rules, policies, and procedures necessary to implement this section shall be adopted on or before October 1, 2008.
* * * Dairy Processing * * *
Sec. 5. INSTATE PROCESSING FACILITIES
(a) Legislative finding. The general assembly finds that dairy processing facilities in Vermont are an integral part of the infrastructure of both Vermont agriculture and the entire Vermont economy. These facilities provide jobs and create income that is spent multiple times in Vermont.
(b) The secretary of agriculture, food and markets shall:
(1) Determine ways to attract and retain dairy processors to the state;
(2) Determine ways to increase the numbers of producers processing their own milk;
(3) Calculate the additional costs and benefits to dairy producers that may result from these additional processors;
(4) Develop proposals for developing additional instate processing facilities. These proposals and any recommendations for legislative action shall be presented to the house and senate committees on agriculture on or before November 1, 2007.
Sec. 6. DAIRY PRICING INITIATIVE
The secretary of the agency of agriculture, food and markets shall endeavor to reestablish the Northeast Interstate Compact for Dairy Pricing or establish an alternative regional pricing system that assures Vermont dairy farmers of a fair, stable, and equitable price for their milk. The secretary shall collaborate with Vermont’s Congressional delegation, the governor’s dairy task force, the coordinated milk pricing group, the region’s dairy cooperatives, and the Congressional delegations and state legislatures of the other states in the region to take such steps as necessary to assure the continued viability of dairy farming in the northeast and to assure consumers of an adequate, local supply of pure and wholesome milk.
* * * On-farm Poultry Processing and Labeling for Sale * * *
Sec. 7. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AGENCY OF AGRICULTURE,
FOOD AND MARKETS REGULATIONS
The department of health shall amend Regulation 5-204(1)(X) (requirement of agency of agriculture, food and markets or United States department of agriculture inspection of poultry) so that the regulation does not require inspection of poultry that is exempt from inspection under 6 V.S.A.
§ 3312(b).
Sec. 8. 6 V.S.A § 3312 is amended to read:
§ 3312. INSPECTION; EXCEPTION EXCEPTIONS
(a) Inspection shall not be provided under this chapter at any establishment for the slaughter of livestock or poultry or the preparation of any livestock products or poultry products which are not intended for use as human food, but these products shall, prior to their offer for sale or transportation in intrastate commerce, unless naturally inedible by humans, be denatured or otherwise identified as prescribed by rules of the secretary to deter their use for human food. These licensed establishments shall be subject to periodic review.
(b) Inspection shall not be required for the slaughter or preparation of poultry products of the producer’s own raising on the producer’s own farm, whether or not they are intended for use as human food if fewer than 1,000 birds are slaughtered annually and no birds are offered for sale or transportation in interstate commerce, and the poultry products are only sold from the farm, at a farmers’ market, or to a food restaurant licensed by the commissioner of health, or are for personal use.
(c) All poultry sold pursuant to the exemption in subsection (b) of this section shall be labeled with the following information:
(1) Name of farm and name of producer;
(2) Address of farm;
(3) Exempted per 6 V.S.A. § 3312(b): NOT INSPECTED.
(d) The department of health shall establish labeling requirements for all poultry products exempt from inspection pursuant to subsection (b) of this section and sold at a food restaurant licensed by the department. Labels shall include safe handling and cooking instructions and shall identify the poultry grower for purposes of traceability. The requirements shall be effective November 1, 2007.
(e) Poultry sold to food restaurants under the exemption in subsection (b) of this section shall also include the following on the label:
Any menu item that includes this poultry must clearly state the name of the farm and have the words “poultry processed on the farm and not inspected” on the menu in proximity to the menu item.
(f) The poultry producer, upon first selling poultry to a food restaurant, must procure a signed statement from the food restaurant stating that the food restaurant is aware that the poultry is exempted from inspection under subsection (b) of this section, and that the menu of the food restaurant must have the information required by subsection (d) of this section. The poultry producer must keep the signed statement on file as long as the producer is selling poultry to the food restaurant under this section. The poultry producer must have a signed statement on file from each food restaurant to which poultry is sold under this section.
* * * Authorizing Mobile Processing Units * * *
Sec. 9. 6 V.S.A. § 3302 is amended to read:
§ 3302. DEFINITIONS
As used in this chapter, except as otherwise specified, the following terms shall have the meanings stated below:
* * *
(42) “Mobile slaughter and processing establishment” means any transportable structure used for slaughtering or processing of meat or poultry products on farm or an agricultural fairground registered pursuant to section 3902 of Title 20.
Sec. 10. 6 V.S.A. § 3305(17) is added to read:
(17) authorize and recognize mobile slaughter and processing establishments as official establishments or exempt them under subdivision 3305(13) of this section.
* * * Definition of Farming for Act 250 * * *
Sec. 11. 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22)(E) is amended and (H) is added to read:
(E) the on-site storage, preparation and sale of agricultural products principally produced on the farm or to be principally produced on the farm in the case of orchard lands planted to fruit-producing trees, bushes, or vines which are not yet of bearing age; or
(H) the on-farm or agricultural fairground, registered pursuant to section 3902 of Title 20, inspection, slaughter, processing, and preparation of meat and poultry products produced on farms using a mobile slaughtering and processing establishment authorized by the secretary of agriculture, food and markets pursuant to 6 V.S.A. § 3305(17).
* * * Vermont Seal of Quality * * *
Sec. 12. 6 V.S.A. § 2964(e) is amended and (f) is added to read:
(e) As used in this chapter, "agricultural products" means any product of a farming operation as defined in 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22)(A), (B), (C) and ,(D), and (H).
(f) The secretary shall annually review the effectiveness of the identification program for increasing the value of Vermont agricultural products.
* * * Mobile Processing Units Comply with AAPs * * *
Sec. 13. 6 V.S.A. § 4810(a)(1) is amended to read:
(1) "Accepted Agricultural Practices" (AAPs) shall be standards to be followed in conducting agricultural activities in this state. These standards shall address activities which have a potential for causing pollutants to enter the groundwater and waters of the state, including dairy and other livestock operations plus all forms of crop and nursery operations and on-farm or agricultural fairground, registered pursuant to section 3902 of Title 20, livestock and poultry slaughter and processing activities. The AAPs shall include, as well as promote and encourage, practices for farmers in preventing pollutants from entering the groundwater and waters of the state when engaged in, but not limited to, animal waste management and disposal, soil amendment applications, plant fertilization, and pest and weed control. Persons engaged in farming, as defined in section 6001 of Title 10, who follow these practices shall be presumed to be in compliance with water quality standards. AAPs shall be practical and cost effective to implement. The AAPs for groundwater shall include a process under which the agency shall receive, investigate, and respond to a complaint that a farm has contaminated the drinking water or groundwater of a property owner.
* * * Farming by Land Covered by Act 250 Permit * * *
Sec. 14. 10 V.S.A. § 6081(s) is added to read:
(s) No permit or permit amendment is required for activities which constitute farming as defined in subdivision 6001(22) of this title.
Sec. 15. FARM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE
The secretary of the agency of agriculture, food and markets shall consult with the department of labor; the department of banking, insurance, securities, and health care; and representatives of the farm community to determine what can be done to lower the cost of workers’ compensation for agricultural employers. The secretary shall report with recommendations to the house and senate committees on agriculture on or before November 1, 2007.
Sec. 16. FARM ENERGY PURCHASE REPORT
(a) Legislative findings. The general assembly finds that state-government buildings use 4.2 megawatt hours of electricity each year.
(b) The agency of agriculture, food and markets shall study establishing a farm energy purchase program. The program could purchase renewable energy attributes from farm-based renewable energy projects to support a portion of state-government electrical usage and ensure a market for farm produced energy. The agency shall report to the house and senate committees on or before November 1, 2007 with any legislative proposals.
Sec. 17. AGENCY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND MARKETS REVIEW
(a) The agency of agriculture, food and markets in consultation with the legislative council shall jointly review existing state statutes as they pertain to public or quasi public entities created to provide and promote services to the Vermont agriculture sector. The review shall consider the relevancy of the statutes as they relate to economic conditions in which Vermont agriculture is operating today. The review shall include recommended changes in authorizing language to improve effectiveness in the development and delivery of programs designed to enhance the long-term viability of Vermont’s agriculture industry.
(b) The agency of agriculture, food and markets with the legislative council shall report their findings back to the house and senate committees on agriculture no later than November 1, 2007.
Sec. 18. EFFECTIVE DATE
This act shall take effect upon passage.
The Vermont General Assembly
115 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont
Blogger has been acting up the last few days and it has been impossible to post. Very frustrating. especially when you realize they don't care a bit.
So much is going on, Big Brother encroaches. And it seems that things are happening faster.
Representative Koch (R) of Barre Town (VT) has introduced H.0126 titled Distracted Driving. H.0126 proposes to prohibit some activities that contribute to distracted driving. These high-risk activities are things you have to use your hands for instead of driving like "reading, writing, performing personal grooming, smoking, consuming any food or nonalcoholic beverage, playing a musical instrument, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo" and cell phones. The penalty would be less than $300.00 but not more than $600.00.
These sorts of legislation drive me to distraction. Mr. Koch, the government cannot legislate common sense. It is these attempts to force on people what they may not already possess – common sense - that causes everyday citizens like me to flirt with becoming a criminal which I will become because I do not intend to give up smoking in my car. What are people who have to practically eat every meal in their cars because of their life commitments - jobs, kids, soccer, music lessons, church, etc. - to do?
Here's an idea! Add a new component to the driver's test called multitasking ability. Have the person taking the test drive and talk on a cell phone or eat lunch or drink a soft drink, etc. and be scored on that performance. Then have that result indicated on their license like they do for people who have to wear glasses. Of course, Representative Koch isn't interested in real solutions, so I doubt a common sense approach to driving while being distracted would interest him.
The Winter Challenge is Coming!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.
Four comments to one entry, that's a first.
Tony says:this is the first time
I say, Tony, don't give up meat. Better for you if you locate a local grass farmer and buy sustainable meat and produce that way. The meat from the grocery store, cloned meat aside, comes from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) where the cows are fed corn which ruins the pH of their rumins. When the pH of the rumins is put out of balance the animal gets sick and needs to be given antibiotics and other drugs. The meat that comes from the grocery store is filled with the drugs they give the animals. It boggles my mind that the mainstream media who is always trying to help us get healthy never, ever advises that people should stop shopping at the grocery store. Check out SlowFoodUSA.
I've seriously felt like
giving up meat. For some reason,
the idea of not knowing
whether the meat I'm eating is
cloned makes me more queasy
than any slaughter house
documentary or e-coli pandemic.
I see an immediate crash in
hamburger consumption
----------------------
These next two comments had the ip address and name server of the FDA
150.148.0.0 - 150.148.255.255
Anonymous said... i guess ignorance reigns on this blog; once it has been cloned, it's an animal, stupid, no different from any other. It's like saying you won't let your kids play with the neighbors kid created through IVF, because we still don't know, maybe they carry disease..I am ignorant because I have an immediate emotional reaction to the idea of cloning?
and, Grandma, virtually indistinguishable means just that, no conspiracy here; two hamburgers from cattle procreated by AI (cows and bulls don't have sex on farms BTW) are also virtually indistinguishable, they are not the "same" since they are two different hamburgers
Anonymous said... can you read?!? try this again, when the hot flashes subside:To produce a clone, the nucleus of a donor egg is removed and replaced with the DNA of a cow, pig or other animal. [Wait a minute. What did FDA say cloning didn't involve? "Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering, which involves altering, adding or deleting DNA; cloning does not change the gene sequence." DNA is added or it isn't? ]If you take the nucleus (contains DNA, right?) out of an egg, that is the same as deleting it, right? Then you replace the DNA with some other DNA, isn't that the same as adding it? So the egg is altered, right? See above.
The DNA is moved into the nucleus, it is not altered and nothing is added or deleted
Anonymous said... Why will they not label it! Then people can decide if they want to eat cloned or GMO.Dear Anon,
Here’s the news! Vermont did not apply for the FY 2007 CA, so NAIS and prem reg is dead in Vermont. I spoke with our state vet today and he gave me the news. When I asked him where that leaves Vermont he said, “There is a voluntary program at the Federal level.”
I do not believe for a second that this is all over in Vermont but I do believe that we have a huge advantage now. New Ag secretary and under secretary coming in, no funds from the Feds for at least a year, though I bet they won’t be able to apply for FY 2008 money either because they will be so far behind in the benchmarks, all that would leave me to think their only hope would be to get legislation passed.
What a good Christmas present!
Animal ID Big Issue For Small Producers In Northeast States
By David Bowser
CANTON, New York — Mary Zanoni is not a big rancher. She has 11 animals on 25 acres in upstate New York. She has five head of cattle, seven chickens, two cats, a dog and a cockatiel.
She is not happy with the idea of a National Animal Identification System.
"In April 2005, when USDA released the draft strategic plan," Zanoni says, "I saw a small article in Lancaster Farming that mentioned it, so I downloaded it and read it."
Lancaster Farming is a farm publication out of Lancaster, Penn. While she says it primarily focuses on the dairy industry, it is the dominant agricultural publication in the northeastern U.S.
In one issue of Lancaster Farming, Zanoni says, there were a couple of paragraphs buried inside the paper saying the draft had been released.
"It piqued my curiosity," Zanoni says. "I had heard things previously about the USAIP (U.S. Animal Identification Plan) and so forth, but had never read any of them or had any intention to, but I figured, ‘Oh, it's getting serious.’"
"When I read it," she says, "I was amazed. It was overblown and absurd. Insane. Bureaucratic. It was just astounding to me that a relatively small number of people could decide upon doing something like that that would affect such a large number of people without any input from the large number of people."
Zanoni, who has a Ph.D. from Cornell and her law degree from Yale, is executive director of Farm Life, a sustainable agriculture organization in upstate New York. She taught at the University of Texas and clerked for a New Jersey Supreme Court justice.
"I worked with the federal court system," Zanoni says. "I was the head of the staff attorney's office for the federal district courts in New Jersey."
She's also interned at grass-based dairies.
After reading the 2005 draft strategic plan, she began speaking out on the National Animal Identification System.
She's been writing opinion pieces for various publications and speaking to small breed associations and farm groups.
"I spoke at the Northeast Organic Farming Association meeting this summer," Zanoni says. "That was in August. I was on a panel there with a woman from Food and Water Watch from Washington, D.C., and man from the Center for Science in the Public Interest in D.C. and the Massachusetts Commissioner of Agriculture, Doug Gillespie."
Animal owners in Massachusetts were angry with Gillespie because the state department of agriculture took state data they had collected for decades and gave it to the USDA.
"They've historically had an animal census in Massachusetts," Zanoni explains.
Last year, the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture took all those records and sent them to the USDA premises registration database, but neither the farmers nor the legislators knew about it.
Soon Massachusetts farmers were getting notification of their premise ID numbers. A lot of farmers were confused and many of them were angry. They had not signed up for the program.
At the Northeast Organic Farming Association meeting, Zanoni says Gillespie told farmers that technically, because the USDA registration is voluntary, once they've received their registration number, they could go online and get back out of the federal database.
With a laugh, Zanoni says she's now getting reports from farmers who have tried to remove their farms from the database and the government wants them to sign a waiver of their legal rights to be removed from the premise database.
"People don't want to sign that because they say, ‘What if they don't take it out of the database?’" Zanoni says. "They don't know what to do."
Zanoni says the Northeast Organic Farming Association is actively opposing the National Animal Identification System.
She was on a program in Pennsylvania with several National Animal Identification System officials.
That vociferousness apparently resulted in an invitation to speak at the ID Expo in Kansas City, Mo., in late August.
"I was invited by Jim Clement, who organized that session," Zanoni says. "He's the assistant state veterinarian in North Dakota, and he organized that session, so he called me and invited me."
Dr. Clement is also the animal ID coordinator for North Dakota, and Zanoni says she assumes that he wanted different viewpoints at the conference.
"I don't think the NIAA (National Institute for Animal Agriculture) has the least interest in a point of view from outside," Zanoni says.
She thinks they hope to implement the National Animal Identification System eventually, and that the people who don't like it will just go away.
But she says there is growing opposition to NAIS among small livestock producers in the Northeast.
"What's even more surprising to me is that the state regulators who are doing this at the behest of the USDA, they find it surprising that people would consider it objectionable to get this number in the mail of a program that they don't want anything to do with, and it's supposed to be voluntary," Zanoni says.
She says the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has also taken data from existing state programs and shared it with USDA.
"The coordinators who work for this state are people whose positions were created with grant money from USDA," Zanoni says.
Their jobs wouldn't exist without the USDA, Zanoni contends.
"These are new positions created because they got grant money from the USDA, so they hired somebody to do NAIS work," she says.
Zanoni says she had one report from a farmer that a woman he contacted with the New York agriculture department told him the state was just taking data from whatever state programs they had and sending it to the USDA and the USDA was assigning premise ID numbers based on that state information.
"Right now, if you look at the NAIS website, they've got 322,000-plus premise registrations," Zanoni says. "There is merit to our contention that there's a difference between volunteering for a program and being forced or being placed in it without even consultation and assenting to it."
She questions how many of those 322,000 are bogus.
"How many of those people can actually show you where Joe Hog Farmer came and filled out a form and said, 'I want to be in the program. I want a premise registration?'" Zanoni asks. "You would think they would be able to show that for every single one of them."
She thinks all the premise IDs USDA has assigned in Massachusetts, New York and now Pennsylvania might be invalid.
"Whatever has been sent in from those three states is apparently completely bogus, and none of those people actually volunteered," Zanoni says. "They just took it from some existing database."
She says some of the property owners might have volunteered, and some of them may still volunteer to join the program, but some of them won't.
"In Vermont, this whole thing has gone through three phases," Zanoni says. "First, the USDA put out the draft strategic plan and said, ‘Here's our intention. We're going to do rulemaking in the summer of 2006 to make this a mandatory program, and here is how we expect it to go.’"
But that rulemaking never happened.
"I guess because they had complaints about it," Zanoni says, "for some reason they didn't want to do that rulemaking last summer."
At least, they didn't do any rulemaking.
"Instead, they put out an implementation plan in April that said they're just going to leave it voluntary for now," Zanoni says, "but if we don't get 100 percent participation, we'll make it mandatory anytime we feel like it. They didn't, couldn't or chose not to make it mandatory that way."
Last year, Zanoni says in some states, the agriculture departments went to their state legislators and said they wanted legislation for mandatory premise identification.
"They did that in Vermont," Zanoni says. "They did that in Maine."
But a lot of animal owners and farmers showed up at hearings and didn't want it.
The legislators didn't want to impose an unpopular program.
In both Maine and Vermont, Zanoni says, legislators told the state agriculture departments they wouldn't pass it that year and to come back and try the next year.
"As I understand it, in Vermont," Zanoni says, "where they don't have any mandatory premises ID, the number of people who volunteered was a few hundred."
In New York State, some 13,000 have been registered.
"In Pennsylvania, they say they've submitted over 25,000," Zanoni says, "but as far as I know, none of those are legitimate volunteers."
Zanoni indicates that she thinks it's more than just an animal health issue.
"You look at this and you see complete top-down imposition of a way of doing something," Zanoni says. "It's all interrelated with the dictates of international trade and the dictates of international animal health. It's a handmaiden for trade."
Right now, she says, the U.S. loves the concept of foot and mouth disease-free versus non-FMD-free areas because the U.S. has no FMD. It's an advantage for the U.S.
"We can use it to bludgeon other countries that aren't FMD-free," Zanoni says. "If we had some FMD in this country, I betcha in a New York minute our agriculture department would be going to the OIE, saying ‘That's a false distinction. Let's do away with it.’"
In fact, she questions whether the National Animal Identification System has anything to do with animal health.
"All of these things, when you start taking them apart and looking at them, they seem to have nothing to do with any really legitimate concerns about health," Zanoni says.
She says animal ID became a priority when bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE or mad cow disease, first hit the headlines. She says the reaction to BSE was out of control.
There have been fewer than 200 cases of variant CJD in human beings worldwide.
"It's a really tragic disease," Zanoni ackowledges, "but it's a minute number of people."
There have fewer than 200 deaths of H5N1 avian influenza in the world since they first recognized the strain a decade ago, she says.
"How's this stuff becoming this giant pseudo problem that's somehow dominating our thinking," she asks, "and allowing the imposition of these huge bureaucratic control programs? I simply don't think any government should have such complete knowledge or control over who owns livestock, what are they doing with the livestock, where are they selling the livestock, or where are they putting the livestock."
The USDA keeps assuring everyone that the information will be kept confidential, she says. They say they won't even go into any of the databases unless a disease of concern pops up somewhere.
"The temptation to use these databases for all kinds of other things is going to irresistible," Zanoni counters. "The only way to keep a database from being abused is to not have it."
Zanoni says she doesn't find it comforting that the USDA wants to put the animal-tracking database into private hands.
She also questions the economics of it.
"There's absolutely no cost control," Zanoni says.
She says other federal programs like crop insurance are out of control.
"That's one of those public-private partnerships," Zanoni says of the crop insurance program. "Farmers don't complain about it because their premiums are kept artificially low because they're subsidized, but in the NAIS program, there's not going to be any government subsidy. They keep saying that. They keep saying there will be costs to producers. They won't really define or tell us how much it's going to cost, but there will be costs to producers."
There has been some indication, she says, that the animal ID program won't be cheap.
"We know from the rules that were introduced, although not implemented yet in Texas, that it was going to be at least $10 a year for premise ID, which is probably a realistically low cost," Zanoni says. "We know that the RFID tags that you can get for $3.25 apiece only have a 70 percent read rate, so they're no good. You really have to buy ultra high-frequency tags, which cost $20 a pop. There are an awful lot of things walking around on four legs that don't yield you $20 after you've sold them."
She says she's seen one estimate that the reports filed each time an animal is moved will cost 30 cents.
Zanoni says she expects that to go up. Such cost coupled with the beef checkoff, whether it's a dollar a head or goes up to two dollars a head, will just add to the overhead for small producers.
"It's the exact same thing as the crop insurance scam," Zanoni says. "It's just a way for a few players to make a lot of money off government-sponsored programs. It's even more offensive because the crop insurance isn't mandatory and the farmers at least get the subsidized premiums. In animal ID, you're going to get no subsidy from the government and it's going to be mandatory eventually. Even if you didn't want it, you wouldn't be able to send animals to the auction without it."
The luckiest thing that ever happened to the opponents of animal ID, Zanoni says, is that USDA released the draft strategic plan.
"What a giant mistake that was," Zanoni says. "If they had just gone ahead with all this underhanded subterfuge like assigning the numbers in Pennsylvania and New York, then we wouldn't have known what the heck they were. That incompetence might seem funny, but if they impose the plan and it's mandatory, we're going to put up not only with that degree of incompetence but worse in the running of the plan."
EDITORIAL
Wanted: agricultural savior
Written by Ethan Dezotelle
The County Courier
Thursday, 16 November 2006
It was announced late last week that after four years, Vermont’s Secretary of Agriculture, Steve Kerr, would resign from his post, effective Friday, Dec. 15. David Lane, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, is now Acting Secretary.
Kerr’s resignation comes at an interesting and tumultuous time for Vermont’s agriculture industry, and the man or woman picked to replace him in the long term faces trials that could break the back of many a Vermont farmer, as well as opportunities that could propel the state’s agrarians into a very fruitful future.
One of the first challenges before the next Ag Secretary is how to involve him or herself in the milk price support payment program overseen by the State. On the heels of high fuel prices, low milk prices, and uncooperative weather, the Legislature and Gov. Jim Douglas in July agreed to dole out $8.5 million to Vermont farmers in the form of monthly, emergency payments. This decision was made to stem the lack of support given to farmers by the Bush administration. Of that promised sum, $6.1 million has been distributed. Of the remaining $2.4 million, the Douglas administration has its sights set on distributing only $225,000 in total, over this month and next. The next Ag Secretary must work both to ensure that promised monies get distributed, and pressure Washington, D.C., to do its part.
Another challenge our new Ag Secretary will face is cleaning up the mess left behind by Kerr. When he leaves office Dec. 15, he leaves behind a legacy of mistrust, obfuscation and doublespeak. Perhaps the most glaring example of this is the series of meetings held around the state last summer concerning premises registration. Charged with educating the public about this controversial plan, the Agency of Agriculture proceeded to sidestep that request, instead holding hearings and flat-out promoting the plan. Pressed about the educational component and the intent of the hearings, it seemed at times that no two agency employees could provide the same answer. In the end, Kerr reversed his position on the plan and took it off the table, citing concerns about privacy at the federal level. This came after weeks of denying that premises registration and federal plans for a National Animal Identification System were linked. In the end, he admitted to the County Courier, “The thing’s all balled up.”
Kerr also created a split in Vermont’s agricultural community, due in part to his connections with the nation’s corporate ag industry. These connections led to an atmosphere of mistrust and divisiveness, not just between Kerr and certain farmers, but between farmers, in general.
This is why the next Ag Secretary must be someone firmly entrenched in Vermont’s agricultural way of life, someone who understands the past while also having a firm grasp on where the state’s farmers can and should go in the future.
This person must be as much a teacher as a leader, as much a listener as a speaker, as much a farmer as a bureaucrat.
This person must understand that for a good number of farms in Vermont, it is a matter of change-or-die. He or she must realize that in 21st century Vermont, farming involves more than growing corn, baling hay and milking cows. Yes, this is the idyllic vision in our mind’s eye, but reality bears out much more than that. Dairy farming, organic farming, bio-engineered crop farming, turkey farming, cheese making, sugaring, agritourism, subsistence farming, and more – the next Ag Secretary must have a mind that can grasp the diversity of Vermont’s agricultural lifestyles.
Otherwise, in the not-too-distant future, we may not need an Agriculture Secretary at all.
I ordered Mad Sheep from Amazon and it came on Friday. I finished reading it on Saturday night. It is that kind of book, could hardly put it down. And nearly burst out crying in a couple of places.
Mad Sheep is the story of the Faillace family of Warren, Vermont. They imported, with the full cooperation of the USDA, special sheep of a certain type known for it's milking. The USDA decided it needed a "scape goat" to make it look like Corporate Agribusiness was really doing something to combat BSE, that is Mad Cow.
While what happened to the Faillace's and the people they sold sheep to was in the media for awhile, the whole story wasn't told. For one thing, sheep don't get BSE, though they can get Scrapie. The breeds they brought to the US never had one case of Scrapie, ever. The USDA made every effort to make it look like the sheep had been exposed to disease, though, interestingly the only time the sheep could have been exposed to BSE tainted grain was when the sheep were housed in a USDA quarantine facility. The Faillace's helped start the Scrapie program here in Vermont and in the end, the USDA ignored it all.
If you want a clear and consise look into the future under NAIS, read Mad Sheep. Here is the link to the publisher.
In an apparent parting of the ways, Steve Kerr gave his resignation to Governor Douglas yesterday. It was a mutual decision as the Burlington Free Press reported this morning. David Lane will stay on as interim secretary, though he has not decided if he will seek the position permanently. Kerr's last day, according to the media reports, is 15 December.
As one person wrote to me, it is better to sleep with the devil you know than one you do not know. I agree, but in this case, I am glad we are rid of Steve Kerr. I hope the Governor will seek out a more moderate secretary and one without agribusiness ties.
Mark Bosma, who was the Public Information Officer, seems to have changed jobs as well with his name and Vermont Emergency Management showing up in a byline in the newspaper. Could Dr. Kerry Rood and Carl Cushing be far behind? One can only pray and hope that the whole of the Agency be turned over like you might do to a field, making way for good roots to grow, not bad ones.
I understand that Arkansas' Phil Wyrick may lose his job. Another excellent choice judging by the crap he wrote in justification of ID chips in horses. His logic is faulty and what he proved is that this whole id'ing and chipping of animals just makes more avenues for criminals to get away with things. It also turns regular people who just want to live their lives in peace into criminals.
Ta-ta Steve Kerr. We won't miss you. I will be interested to discover where you land next. Will you show up in the belly of the USDA/NIAA beast?
Just a few days away, what a relief it will be to have this election be over. I've watched with awe the way the players have changed their issues to match up with what the various National Committees have deemed to be important, which has nothing to do with We, the people. When asked the really important issues, like how the candidate means to combat the further and more devestating loss of our Constitutional rights in favor of global economy (NAIS for one) the best they can answer is "...an undue burden...".
There is still time to ask questions and expect answers from your candidates. Vote for the candidate that supports the Constitution and not, as a friend of mine said, because they are a "nice person". Ack.
www.metrologymedic.com
It looks so good in the paper and on TV: Steve Kerr, Agency of Agriculture Secretary, has put a hold on premises registration because of a sudden realization that information send to the USDA might not be kept confidential. Well, DUH!
But that is not what this is all about.
Let's look at the facts:
Steve Kerr is on record since before 1996 in strong favor of a full implementation of an animal tracking system.
Kerry Rood sits on the Animal Identification Committee for the NIAA.
Back in Feb. when the "memo" came out, the Agency listed their initiatives that included getting $214,000 from USDA to implement the full three prongs of NAIS. I like to imagine they were sitting around a big table kicking around ideas. The subject of how the farmers might take the program, someone says, "Those guys are so deep in manure that they won't know until we go knocking on doors telling them it's mandatory." And starting fining the crap out of those who won't comply.
In April the number of people who showed up in Montpelier to make their anti-NAIS comments was a surprise to the Agency. I remember Steve Kerr sitting in the hall outside of the chamber, stone faced, in the dark (as befitting his Dark Lord status).
The appropriations bill passed in May gave specific guidelines to the Agency with regard to holding educational outreach, which somehow morphed into public hearings, in each of Vermont's 14 counties. Their educational outreach is not that at all. It is the shabbiest attempt at propaganda, the State Vet and his cohorts have not been prepared to answer questions, it's just sad.
I think that the Agency plain old under estimated the intelligence of people. In other words, they were blind sided by the 30, 40, 50 or more people who turned out for the public hearings and totally unprepared for the backlash.
Being that elections are coming up and Steve Kerr's boss, Governor Douglas is up for re-election, they probably thought better of trying to ram NAIS down our throats until the legislature starts up again with the new members.
There is one thing that bothers me greatly right now. The Brattleboro Reformer had an article which said, in part:
“He (Kerr) said he wants to sever the link with the USDA, and create a separate Vermont database. At the end of the week the Agency of Agriculture will ask the USDA for a block of animal registration numbers so as not to mess up the countrywide standardized numbering system that ensures none are repeated, and speeds up the response time between states in the event of an outbreak.”
V3.2
SECTION 1204 Livestock Premises Registration
I. Definitions In this chapter:
(1) “Address” means one of the following:
a. A street address.
b. Township, range and section numbers, if the location has no street address.
c. Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, if the location has no street address and no township, range and section numbers.
(2) “Livestock dealer” means a person who is required to be licensed 6 VSA §761.
(3) “Livestock dealer premises” means any real estate, owned or controlled by an animal dealer, at which the dealer keeps, exhibits or receives livestock or wild animals, or from which the animal dealer ships livestock or wild animals.
(4) “Livestock auction or sales ring” means any premises that are open to the public for the purpose of buying or selling livestock or wild animals, and that have facilities to keep, feed and water livestock or wild animals prior to sale.
(5) “Livestock packer” means a person who is required to be licensed under 6 VSA §761.
(6) “Livestock transporter” means a person who is required to be licensed 6 VSA §761.
(7) “Livestock transporter premises” means any real estate, owned or controlled by an animal trucker, at which the animal trucker collects or holds livestock for transportation.
(8) “Bovine” means cattle, American bison, or water buffalo of any age or sex.
(9) “Cervid” means any member of the family cervidae, except for white tail deer and moose (6VSA §1151(15)).
(10) “Clinic” means a place where livestock are brought or kept for purposes of health care or rehabilitation.
(11) “Confidential information” means information that the agency is required, under 6VSA §61, and this chapter, to keep confidential.
(12) “Contiguous” means adjacent, or separated only by a transportation corridor, stream or like feature.
(13) “Contract agent” means a person who acts on behalf of the agency, pursuant to a written contract with the agency.
(14) “Dairy farm” means a dairy farm as defined 6 VSA §2672 (3).
V3.2
(15) “Cervid farm” means real estate on which a person, who is required to register under 6 VSA §1153(c).
(16) “Agency” means the Vermont agency of agriculture, food and markets
(17) “Description” of a location means an address or other information that identifies that location.
(18) “Farm-raised deer” means a captive cervid.
(19) “Individual” means a human being.
(20) “Keep livestock” means to own, feed, house, confine or care for livestock, or to exercise legal or physical control over livestock. “Keep livestock” does not include the temporary quarantine or confinement of livestock by the agency or by the USDA.
(21) “Livestock” means cattle, sheep, goats, equine, deer, American bison, swine, poultry, pheasant, Chukar/partridge, Coturnix quail, camelids, and ratites. This term shall include cultured trout. It will exclude psittacine birds and ferrets (6 VSA §1151).
(22) “Livestock fair” means any public or privately operated facility where animals are confined for the purpose of display and/or sale or for viewing (20 VSA §3091).
(23) “Location” means a parcel of real estate in this state, or a group of 2 or more contiguous parcels of real estate in this state, on which livestock are kept.
(24) “Milk handler” has the meaning given in 6 VSA §2721.
(25) “Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, cooperative, Limited Liability Company (LLC), trust, or other legal entity.
(26) “Poultry” means domesticated fowl commonly used for human food, including domesticated chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea fowl and squab, captive game birds and ratites.
(27) “Premises” means one or more locations that a person registers under a single premises code.
(28) “Premises code” “premises number” means a 7 digit, alphanumeric number issued through the Agency’s premises registration system.
(29) “Primary location” means a premises location to which a premises code is assigned.
(30) “Ratite” means a member of the group of flightless birds that includes the ostrich, emu, cassowary, kiwi and rhea.
(31) “Register” means to apply for and obtain from the agency a premises registration certificate.
(32) “Registered location” means a primary or secondary location that is covered by a current premises registration certificate.
(33) “Secondary location” means a location that shares or commingles animals with the primary location and is registered with the primary location under a single premises code.
(34) “Slaughter establishment” means a place at which livestock are received for slaughter.
II. LIVESTOCK PREMISES; REGISTRATION REQUIRED
(1) GENERAL
A person who keeps livestock at a location in this state needs to register that premises with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Market (VAAFM) premises registration system as prescribed under this section. There is no fee to register. A registration expires on December 31 of each biennium, except as otherwise provided in subsection (2)(c).
(2) WHO MUST REGISTER
a. If two or more persons are involved in keeping livestock at the same location, one of those persons shall register that location. A person is not required to register a location that is currently registered by another person. A premises registration by one person does not prevent other persons from keeping livestock on the registered premises.
b. A person may not register a premises that is currently registered by another person. The agency may transfer a current registration from the current registrant to another person if the agency finds that the other person is required to register the premises under part (c), is more directly engaged in operating the premises, or can provide more definitive knowledge of livestock movements to and from the premises. The agency shall notify the current registrant and give the current registrant a chance to comment before transferring a registration to another person.
c. A person who operates any of the following shall register the locations at which that person keeps livestock or receives livestock carcasses as part of that operation:
i. A dairy farm that is required to be inspected under 6 VSA Chapter 151. The farmer may register the dairy farm premises as part of the milk producer’s initial startup inspection or subsequent milk inspections.
ii. A captive deer farm that is required to be registered under 6 VSA §1153. The operator may register the deer farm premises as part of the operator’s annual inventory and inspection.
iii. A livestock market, auction, or fair that is required to be licensed or registered under 6 VSA §762 and 6 VSA §3902. The operator may register the premises as part of the operator’s annual license/registration application.
iv. Livestock dealer premises that is required to be licensed under 6 VSA §762. The animal dealer may register the premises as part of the animal dealer’s annual license application.
V3.2
v. Animal transporter premises operated by an animal transporter who is required to be licensed in 6 VSA §762. The animal transporter may register the premises as part of the animal transporter’s annual license application.
vi. A slaughter establishment. The operator may register the slaughter establishment premises as part of the operator’s annual license application under 6 VSA §3306.
vii. An equine quarantine station for which a permit is required. The operator may register the equine quarantine station premises as part of the operator’s annual permit application under.
viii. A rendering establishment, animal food processing establishment or grease processing establishment that receives livestock carcasses and is required to be licensed. The operator shall include, in a registration, any transfer stations or other locations at which the operator collects livestock carcasses for transfer to a rendering or processing location.
ix. Veterinary clinic that receives or houses livestock as part of their care or treatment.
(3) HOW TO REGISTER
Except as provided in subsection (2)(c), a person shall register in one of the following ways:
a. By applying on-line at http://www.vermontagriculture.com
b. By filing a hard-copy application with the agency on a form provided by the agency.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE
Individuals that keep livestock for sale to the public (or product from livestock) will have 6 months to comply with this rule. All others will have one year from the effective date of this rule to comply.
(5) INFORMATION REQUIRED
A registration application under subsection (3) shall include all of the following information:
a. The registrant’s legal name and any trade names under which the registrant keeps livestock in this state.
b. The registrant’s mailing address.
c. The registrant’s telephone number.
d. The address of the primary premises location, and any secondary premises locations. 4
V3.2
e. The name and telephone number of at least one individual who has knowledge of livestock and livestock carcass movements to and from every location included in the premises.
f. The types of livestock operations conducted on the premises. The registrant shall designate one or more of the following:
i. Farm or production unit.
ii. Clinic.
iii. Livestock exhibition.
iv. Laboratory.
v. Livestock market or collection point.
vi. Port of entry.
vii. Quarantine facility.
viii. Rendering.
ix. Slaughter plant.
x. Tagging site.
xi. Non-producer participant.
g. The types of livestock kept on the premises. The registrant shall designate one or more of the following:
i. Aquaculture.
ii. Cattle.
iii. Bison.
iv. Swine.
v. Sheep.
vi. Goats.
vii. Horses or other equine animals. 5
V3.2
viii. Farm-raised deer.
ix. Poultry.
x. Ostriches, emus or other ratites.
xi. Llamas, alpacas or other camelids.
(6) AGENCY ACTION ON REGISTRATION APPLICATION
a. Except as provided in part (d), the agency shall grant or deny a registration application under subsection (3) within 30 days after the agency receives a complete registration application.
b. The agency may deny a registration application if the application is incorrect or incomplete, or if the primary location identified in the application is currently registered. The agency shall state the reason for the denial.
c. If the agency denies an application because the primary location identified in the application is already registered, the agency shall disclose to the applicant the premises code assigned to that registered primary location after making sure there has not been a change in ownership or business status. The denial does not prevent the applicant from keeping livestock at the registered primary location or from registering other locations.
d. If a person submits a registration application as part of that person’s application for another license, permit or registration identified in subsection (2)(c), the agency shall grant or deny the registration application within the time period prescribed for agency action on the other license, permit or registration application. The denial, suspension or revocation of another license, permit or registration does not affect a premises registration under this section.
(7) REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
a. Whenever the agency grants a registration application under subsection (3), the agency shall immediately issue a registration certificate to the registrant. The agency shall issue the registration certificate in hard copy or printable electronic form, depending on the method of registration.
b. A registration certificate under part (a) shall include a premises code assigned under subsection (7).
c. A registration certificate covers the primary location and all secondary locations identified in the approved registration application, regardless of whether the certificate includes descriptions of all of those locations.
d. If a person submits a premises registration application as part of that person’s application for
6
V3.2
another license, permit or registration identified in subsection (2) (c), the agency shall issue the premises registration certificate with or as part of that other license, permit or registration.
(8) PREMISES CODE
Whenever the agency grants a registration application under subsection (3), the agency shall assign a unique code to the primary location identified in that application. A premises code may not be transferred to other premises.
(9) ENFORCEMENT
The secretary may take the following action to ensure compliance with the premises registration provisions of Section II (2) of these rules:
a. A person who is required but who fails to register a livestock location under these rules shall be sent a written letter of warning which shall include a brief description of the alleged violation of these rules and include a request that the premises be registered within 30 days of the date of the letter;
b. If, after the expiration of the 30 day period described above, a person who is required but who fails to register a livestock location may receive a cease and desist order from the secretary requiring the person to register the livestock premises;
c. Violations of a cease and desist order issued under this section may be enforced through an proposed administrative penalty not to exceed $1,000.00 pursuant to 6 V.S.A. §15(a);
d. Administrative penalties issued under this section shall comply with the provisions regarding notice and an opportunity for a hearing as set forth in 6 V.S.A. §16.
III. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
(1) GENERAL
Except as provided in subsections (2) to (4), premises registration information received by the agency or its contract agent under this rule is confidential and may not be disclosed to any other person or agency.
(2) INFORMATION REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS
Subsection (1) does not apply to information that a person is required to provide to the agency under other law. This subsection does not authorize disclosure of information that is protected from disclosure under other law.
(3) AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE
After approval by the Secretary of Agriculture or state animal health official, the agency may disclose, to any of the following, information that a registrant provides under this rule: 7
V3.2
a. A person to whom the registrant authorizes disclosure.
b. The animal and plant health inspection service of the United States department of agriculture, through a signed memorandum of understanding, not to disclose the information except in situations in which the agency is authorized to disclose the information.
c. The agency’s contract agent, subject to this section.
d. To another person or agency, or to the public, if the agency believes that the release is necessary to prevent or control disease, to enforce laws under its jurisdiction, or to protect public health, safety, or welfare. The agency may disclose information under this paragraph subject to any confidentiality requirements that the agency considers necessary under the circumstances.
(4) AGGREGATE INFORMATION
a. The agency may create aggregate information, such as maps and statistics, from registration information obtained under this rule. Except as provided in par. (b), the agency may disclose that aggregate information to another person or agency, or to the public.
b. The agency may not disclose aggregate information under paragraph (a) that does any of the following, unless that information qualifies for disclosure under subsections (2) or (3).
i. Discloses the street address, section number, global positioning system coordinates of any premises, or the identity of any registrant.
ii. Makes it possible to deduce with certainty the street address, section number, global positioning system coordinates of any premises, or the identity of any registrant.
(5) DISCLOSURE BY CONTRACT AGENT
a. The VAAFM may authorize a contract agent to disclose, on behalf of the agency, information that the agency is authorized to disclose under this section, except that the agency may not authorize its contract agent to release aggregate information.
IV. CONTRACT AGENT
(1) GENERAL
a. The agency may contract with an agent to process registrations, manage registration information, and perform other functions on behalf of the agency under this chapter. The contract agent shall comply with the provisions of these rules.
V. RECEIVING LIVESTOCK FROM UNREGISTERED LOCATIONS
(1) PROHIBITION 8
V3.2
Except as provided in subsection (2), no person may receive, for purposes of sale, exhibition or slaughter, livestock from a location that is required to be registered under this rule or an equivalent law in another state, unless that location is registered according to this chapter or an equivalent law in the other state.
(2) APPLICATION CONTINGENT UPON RECIPROCITY
Subsection (1) does not apply to any person, or to any receipt of livestock for a purpose identified in subsection (1), unless the United States Department of Agriculture or all of the states surrounding Vermont prohibit persons in those surrounding states from receiving livestock for that purpose from unregistered locations in this state that are required to be registered under this rule.
9
