Showing posts with label Shenanigans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shenanigans. Show all posts

January 25, 2009

So Much for Live Free New Hampshire


Mandatory Equine Licenses Enacted

by Darol Dickinson~~ 1-26-09

The New Hampshire Municipal Association proudly touts a new special "equine" tax that will increase jobs and create new state income from the estimated 24,000 equine in New Hampshire. A licensing of each and every equine is proposed to be effective July 1, 2009. This is a tax of $25 per horse (equine) and in cases of refusal to comply, the state adds another $50 to slap the cowboys in line. It isn't a smoke screen about export, food safety or disease, it is just a new state income.

Beyond the state lines of New Hampshire, the USDA has been at war with livestock owners to coerce enrollment in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a multi-billion dollar scheme to computerize, number and create a permanent surveillance system on all US livestock. This plot is the mother of all numbering scenarios. With the commerce of all US livestock, at the end of three years the total computer movements recorded, and paid for by animal owners, would eclipse the number of the earth's human population.

These draconian sounding tax collection schemes, although totally putrid to animal lovers, are completely sane to bureau-rats who's salary increases, retirement and weekly sustenance depend on innovative ways to transfer wealth from the regulated to the regulators.

Just down the trail to New York 88 new taxes have been deviously hatched by the lowly staff of Governor David Paterson to help pay for his flawed $15.4 billion budget gap. Hookers who have enjoyed a tax break on work clothes worth less than $110, won't any more. An 18% increase on sodas is proposed; higher gas tax, increased taxi tax, boats, cars, rental car taxes, cigars, iPods, etc. Plush governmental cubicles high in the New York sky are filled with think-tank devious minds searching the alleys for a new tax source to increase the regulator's revenue. New York Conservative Party Chairman, Michael Long says, "You're (Gov. Paterson) sending notice to the people of New York that we really don't want you here."

Tribute ideas like the USDA's NAIS, horse licensing and the New York taxationists search the world over to locate new and innovative collection methods. It is one thing to develop a new tax and another to collect it. That is where enforcements are enacted with fines, late penalties, and refusal-to-comply fees.

In Australia a tax called the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) has been operational for several years. Herds of computer toting Biosecurity Officers now stalk the Outback to locate animal owners out of compliance; conviction is up to a $4000 fine for not registering a livestock premises.

The love of companion animals is multiplying in affection world wide. What a sadistic way to create funding, to assess a new tribute for pets, livestock and beloved family animals. Animal licensing is the contemporary government way to tax not just the animal, but the joy and profit of livestock ownership.

In New Hampshire it starts out,

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine,
and then explains for Equine Licenses. Amend RSA 435, Sec 41, etc. In a scoop shovel it is proposed, $25 per year, every year, and each animal must have a number. The number process approved by the USDA is a computer chip, surgically injected under the skin by a USDA licensed veterinarian at a fee of $75 to $125 per equine, depending on how many in the remuda.

The Fiscal Impact: "The Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food and the New Hampshire Municipal Association estimates this bill will increase state and local revenue, and increase local expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2010 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on county revenue or state and county expenditures."

On July 1, will the horse owners of New Hampshire migrate to other states or will a large population of equine feces machines establish residence on the Concord State Capitol lawn?

This may be the time and place to rethink the New Hampshire motto: "LIVE FREE OR DIE."

First Australia, the NAIS, the New Hampshire Equine Licenses----all innovations of hostage taxation, which is a spreading livestock disease in itself. The mystery of expanding government is not how it works, but how in the world to make it stop!

More info

www.naisSTINKS.com, Australian Biosecurity, www.dpi.qld.gov.au.

More info on the proposed Equine license law in NH:

HB 427 would require all owners of equines older than 4 months to annually license their animals with the town/city clerk for $25 upon proof that the animal had been vaccinated for rabies. The hearing is set for Tuesday, January 27 th at 1:45 pm before the House Local and Regulated Revenues Committee in Room 303 of the Legislative Office Building

I hope the public descends on that hearing like a plague of locusts!

December 18, 2008

The Stowers tell their story

See my earlier post here urging farmers to carry video tapes with them so they don't end up like the Stowers of LaGrange, OH, who were invaded by the jackboots of the Department of Health.

Now see the YouTube video of them telling their story.



I ask you this... people have the right to consume cheap and crappy food from WallyMart, why don't other people have the right to consume locally grown and produced food? What is wrong with this country? What is wrong with USDA?

January 25, 2008

Whispers

Just had to put in a little video of Mitt Romney getting cues from someone on what he should be saying.

January 24, 2008

DATCP Posts Incorrect Email Address on Website


This is an update to the post yesterday about Wisconsin and DATCP.

We want to tell DATCP that signing up farmers and other animal owners against their will under proposed rule changes ATCP 10, 12 and 17 – Wisconsin's Animal Health Rules is unconstitutional and they need to stop their proposed rule changes relating to implementing NAIS in WI. The Amish and others who object for constitutional reasons do not want to be added to a National Animal ID System, and have rights guaranteed by the constitution to not submit to a government sponsored ID program. As some one emailed me a few days ago, he just got it, this is Real ID for animals, and property. Many have been emailing that DATCP website has been posting the incorrect email address. While this email was taken directly from the their web site, it has been found to be incorrect and has bounced. Some people report that an alternate address works.

On their site it is listed as melissa.mace@wi.gov and the correct address is melissa.mace@wisconsin.org, or at least that is an address that has been getting through and not bouncing back for some people. This is inexcusable, and I would like to know what can be done and how my legislators can assist, so I have asked them. I urge you all to ask yours. Attached is also a snapshot that I took of the page that proves this information has been out there as incorrect.[I have not included this file - Henny]

http://datcp.state.wi.us/ah/agriculture/animals/health/index.jsp is the full link. Take a snapshot (control+S on a PC) and save this email to send to WI legislators and let them know that DATCP is denying you your right to submit information. I would suggest that anyone wishing to submit comments use the web site today, https://apps4.dhfs.state.wi.us/admrules/public/Search enter (Enter CR07-107 as the search term as directed by DATCP on the same page), but when I try it, it yields no results as well.

If you do an open search for Department of Ag, Trade and Consumer Protection, you can find ATCP rule 17, where you can then log in, and submit comments. Why would we log into a government website? And who knows if the snail mail address is correct? We cannot get our information to the correct people, without compromising our beliefs, so how can we speak?

Or perhaps that is the point.

I don't know about you friends, but I am tired. Not tired enough to lie down, but sick and tired of not being heard, what part about NO to NAIS are these people missing? My parents raised me to respect No, and NO means NO. That is a value that I intend to pass along to my children. Reason number 4309 to keep fighting.

October 17, 2007

The Rebel Cow Farmer

Finally a balanced article. It is long but well worth the read.

The Rebel Cow Farmer

Anne Stanton

Greg Niewendorp was a passing blip on the TV news last week, but it�s a blip that will likely balloon. Niewendorp has started a needed conversation about the industrialization of our food supply, and the liberties of people�both farmers and consumers�who don�t want to be part of it.
Last week, in an act of civil disobedience, Niewendorp forced the Michigan Department of Agriculture to obtain a search warrant before coming onto his farm to put radio frequency ID chips on his cattle and to test his cattle for bovine tuberculosis.

SHERIFF RIDES INTO COW TOWN
The scene was peaceful. Charlevoix County Sheriff George Lasater read the search warrant while Niewendorp and 10 supporters stood and listened on an unusually hot fall morning. Niewendorp�s supporters, including one woman who worked on a TB project in Nepal years ago, peppered the key state official, Bridget Patrick, with questions about the $10 million bovine TB eradication program. After about 30 minutes of this, the two techs and the state veterinarian hiked the hills of 160 acres of pastureland to find, catch, and do the skin test on the cattle. It took them the entire day.
Niewendorp lives in the middle of a very quiet nowhere in East Jordan, raising about 20 herd of dairy and beef cattle and one hog. He rotates his cows on 40 different pastures, riding his horse and using a herd dog. In winter, the cows eat hay. Like a lot of small-scale farmers, he slaughters the cows himself and �gives� to friends and family.
His homestead is reminiscent of the kids� tale of Old MacDonald�s farm - and starkly contrasts with the Kansas feedlots of 38,000 head of confined cattle. It wasn�t lost on anyone standing at Niewendorp�s farm that the nation just suffered its second largest recall of meat in history�more than 21 million pounds of frozen hamburger patties suspected of E. coli bacteria contamination �a byproduct of feedlot cows forced to stand in their own manure for months on end.
Niewendorp�s own farm began as a political rebirth. A fifth generation farmer, Niewendorp, 54, grew up on an Iowa farm and saw his father play by the rules in the 1960s, employing �modern management techniques.� His dad amped up his beef herd and each year, confined the animals, and tried to �manage� the pools of liquid manure, which created a penetrating stench on the farm. But �bigger� meant broker, and the family farm went belly-up.

GROWING RESENTMENT
There is no stench on Niewendorp�s farm because the cattle are not confined. Niewendorp said the factory farm system heightens the risk of disease, which has led to the birth of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Its goal is to track every animal from birth to death, and all the movements in between, with the radio frequency IDs that look like white buttons. Supporters say that tagging animals with a 15-digit ID will make the food supply safer. The USDA aims to register all meat producers by January of 2009.
The idea of the NAIS�voluntary in most states�is to quickly identify the source of an infected animal and to protect citizens from terrorists who contaminate the food supply. Farmers will have to log in every �event� of an animal�s life, such as going to a fair, trucking them to another farm, or participating in a rodeo. Not just cattle, but also pet ponies, 4-H animals, and backyard chickens (not fish, though). Scanners at the slaughter house read the chips, much like a grocery store wand reads the price of milk.
Niewendorp said small farmers can scarcely afford the burden of logging and reporting every event of every animal�s life.
The state switched to the RFIDs in March, but was already tracking cattle with metal tags. Niewendorp believes they are using the bovine TB issue as a guise to comply with the NAIS, although state officials say it�s simply quicker, with less room for error.
�These tags make me part of the system, and I have never agreed to that,� he said.
David Gumpert, a writer for Businessweek.com with the blog, thecompletepatient.com, has followed Niewendorp�s story since last winter. He calls his actions �a rebellion of the factory food system.�
�This all ties into nutritional freedom and the growing resentment and suspicion of our country�s whole food supply. A bigger issue than NAIS and raw milk and bovine TB is the integrity of the food system. What you�re seeing is the reaction of increasing numbers of people buying local. What Greg really does is sell directly to local consumers. Unfortunately, the state�s view will take away the individual�s right to self-police, and to knowingly buy meat from cattle that hasn�t been tested for bovine TB or injected with antibiotics or hormones, precisely because that meat is clean.�

TEST OR CONSEQUENCES
On the other side of this issue is Bridget Patrick, the bovine TB eradication project coordinator from the Michigan Department of Community Health and liaison MDA.
She believes that Niewendorp has a right to his opinion, but says it�s a straightforward issue: the state simply wants to protect the public from the risk of contracting bovine tuberculosis, and to stop its spread from wild deer herds to domestic cattle. The test is free, she said, and Niewendorp owes his customers the assurance of safe meat. (As a note, all commercial cattle have been federally inspected for TB at slaughter facilities since 1959; no one, to Patrick�s knowledge, has been sickened by eating a TB cow.)
�The thing is, we have to test for TB because it is in the deer herds, and if we don�t find it in the cattle, it can go from cattle to healthy deer. So although this person doesn�t want to participate in the testing program, he�s jeopardizing the cattle farms and the deer herd,� Patrick said.
There�s a real fear that bovine TB has spread from the northeast part of the state to Antrim and Emmet counties. Yet the devil is in the details. One wild deer tested positive in 1999 in Antrim County. Neither cattle nor deer have tested positive in Charlevoix County where Niewendorp lives. Two cattle tested positive in neighboring Emmet County, but that was five years ago. Two cattle tested positive in farms somewhat near Niewendorp�s farm, but were imported from different parts of the state. The only animal to definitively contract TB in the area was a dairy cow, which tested positive in May of 2006, but it was 15 miles from Niewendorp�s ranch (the range of a wild deer is seven miles). Extensive testing of wild deer turned up nothing.
When pressed at last week�s event, Patrick said this: �If we don�t test, our farmers would lose their ability to market their cattle. It would impact the entire country.�
And her point is valid. The USDA can impose heavy consequences on Michigan farmers if the state does not meet its testing requirements. Since Michigan lost its TB-free status, farmers have sold meat as usual, but Wisconsin farmers stopped buying the state�s live cattle.
Since testing began a decade ago, the numbers of one or more cows testing positive in a herd have dropped from a high of eight herd in 2001 to four last year. Only one cow tested positive this year so far.
Wild deer tell a different story. It peaked at 78 in 1998, with numbers bouncing generally down. A total of 41 deer tested positive in 2006, about twice the number of 2005, and they continue to heavily cluster in the Alpena area, home to exclusive hunt clubs of the rich and powerful (see sidebar).

ONE COW, TRIPLE THE HASSLE
If a single cow is diagnosed with TB, the entire herd is �depopulated� as Patrick would say. The reasoning: the bacterium is very slow growing. Infected cows might test negatively, yet spread it to deer who are nuzzling them through the fence. Producers receive fair-market value, the testing is TB free, so Patrick is wondering why Niewendorp is complaining.
Patrick�s words sound soothing. But Niewendorp�s act of civil disobedience has prompted farmers to speak up.
There is Doug Kirkpatrick, a farmer outside of Alpena, who had his 50 cattle and 10 pigs �depopulated� after a single cow was diagnosed with TB. The herd was condemned a year ago, but the USDA took months to remove. Kirkpatrick told the Petoskey News Review that he spent $6,000 to feed animals considered already dead. The state also killed 231 cattle owned by Kendall Sumerix of Alpena because a cow he bought from Montana tested positive. The MDA went even further and destroyed another 26 cattle of his brother-in-law, Kim Sumerix, in June of 2006. Why?
�Because we bought 13 of the Montana cows from Kendall two and a half years before they ever found the reactor cow in Kendall�s herd,� said Neva Sumerix, who is married to Kim. �But our cattle never tested positive. We were blown away. They told us we had to destroy any relation to his cow because of the possibility of exposure. There was also an issue of what to do with the 13 calves, but my husband and I both work full-time and we didn�t have the time to bottle feed the calves, so we said, take them too. We tried to get along. If we didn�t, our herd would have been quarantined and we wouldn�t have been able to sell our cattle to make payments on the farm. It doesn�t make any sense.�
The MDA says it gives market value for the cows that are �depopulated,� but Sumerix said she had to pay more money for the 11 new cattle than the total she received for the 26 killed. The farmer can�t restock the farm until the last exposed cow leaves the premises, and then it�s another several months to disinfect the farm. That�s time the farmer loses to make money.
Kim Korthase, who lives 10 miles from Niewendorp, said after a steer tested positive, it took �months and months� for the USDA to remove the 259 cattle.
�They found one deer in Antrim County in 1999. Are we going to kill everything for one deer? They have to treat each area for the actual risk. I say, get rid of the deer in the (Alpena area) and let the deer herd come back healthy.�

A BETTER WAY?
Whole herd testing began in Charlevoix County after the MDA declared Antrim County as a �high risk� area in a July 2003 memo. Niewendorp went along and allowed his herd to be tested for TB, but he began researching the disease, believing there was a better way. He discovered that bovine TB bacteria thrives in high-acid, high-iron soil that�s common in Northern Michigan. The iron percolates into the water and into grass and herbs, which are eaten by deer and cattle. With high iron levels, the deer and cattle are more susceptible to the invasion of bovine TB. Bait piles also throw off the deers� natural diet and drive up iron levels. Medical studies show that TB bacteria thrives when a host has high iron supplies. Niewendorp gives his own herd calcium-enriched water, which helps keep iron levels normal for very little money.
He also came across a 1997 Michigan State University study of M. paratuberculosis, in which Michigan farmers were asked to apply lime to pastures as a protective measure. This particular bacteria causes Johne�s Disease. It is a mycobacterium, the same as bovine TB, but not a strain of bovine tuberculosis. In that study, researchers saw a ten-fold reduction in odds of herd infection in pastures applied with lime.
Dr. John Kaneene, a study author and an MSU professor of epidemiology, said he believes it would be a good idea to conduct a similar study with the bovine TB bacterium. One reason is that three Michigan farms found with infected cattle were re-infected, despite attempts to disinfect the grounds.
�The question is, why? Obviously there are many, many reasons. Maybe the farmers don�t do what we recommend�disinfecting and cleaning their farm before bringing in new animals. But the one key question is, are we destroying the organism from the environment from the farm.�
After hearing of Niewendorp�s approach of reducing iron levels of the cattle with calcium supplements, Kaneene agreed that it might serve as an experimental approach. The only caveat was getting permission to expose healthy animals with a dangerous bacteria.

ODD BEDFELLOWS
Along the way, Niewendorp has collected an odd mix of bedfellows�organic food activists such as author Stephanie Mills; stay-off-my-land property rights activists in Antrim and Charlevoix counties; and Amish farmers who feel the same way as Niewendorp about getting their animals tagged. The Amish oppose the tags because of a prophesy in the Bible�s Book of Revelation, which says the �beast� forced everyone to �receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark.� In this case, the computer that scans the ear tags would be the beast.
Niewendorp also had long talks with Ted Beals, a pathologist who taught at the University of Michigan Medical School for 31 years. Beals� own research showed that it is extremely rare for a person to contract bovine TB in this country with current safeguards (although some elderly may harbor the bacteria from earlier days).
In fact, since the big TB scare ten years ago, the MDA has identified only two people with the specific strain of bovine TB. One was a hunter who was dressing a deer in Alpena County. He cut into a TB nodule and the bacteria seeped into a cut in his hand. The cut was badly infected and it took nine months to heal with the help of antibiotics, Patrick said.
The other was an elderly man, who died of other causes shortly after the bacteria was discovered in a medical workup. No one knows how and when he got TB.
The chances of contracting bovine TB by eating meat is so remarkably low, it�s almost impossible, Beals said.
�The animal would have to be very, very sick, and you�d have to eat an infected part of that animal. If the animal had active TB, it would be very obvious to the farmer it was very sick. It�s unlikely that the animal would get past an inspector, and if it did, you�d have to eat the part of the animal that�s actively infected (the lungs, stomach or lymph nodes), and that�s even less likely.�
How about drinking milk from a TB cow?
Possible, but again, highly unlikely. �I am unaware of any documented cases in which a human became infected with bovine tuberculosis by drinking milk that contained the bacteria. It may be technically possible for the bacteria to be present in milk (in those countries with lots of infected and sick cows) and technically possible for a human to drink that milk and have bovine tuberculosis in the intestine, but I do not believe that it has ever been documented. And that is not even conceivable in a country were bovine tuberculosis is seen only rarely in cows, and sick cows are not being milked,� Beals said.

EXTRAVAGANT WASTE
The bovine TB eradication program in 1996 cost several hundred thousand dollars. Now it tops $10 million.
Niewendorp said that one reason he refused testing last year, and again this year, was that the program is an �extravagant waste of money.� A state law says testing must stop if there�s no positive finding within three years in a �high risk� area (Patrick said Charlevoix County is not �high risk�). He contends that the state has not refined or pared down the program and that�s because it would lose $5 million in federal matching grants.
Meanwhile, many hunters are still using bait piles because it hasn�t affected them. Only one deer has actually been found dead of TB, perhaps because critters eat the weak and infected deer, or the deer are shot before getting sick. Whatever the reason, herd numbers are steady.
Beals supports common sense herd management, but said that testing Niewendorp�s herd is unreasonable.
�He is a very good farmer and he knows his animals very well, unlike some situations. There are some big factory farms, where the actual owner may never see the animals. He�s not like that. He knows their health. If any are sick, he knows about it. They are his equity. He�s extraordinarily careful when milking his animals to avoid contamination.�
But wouldn�t examination on a farm-by-farm basis be too difficult?
�The inspectors do know Greg personally and they know all the farmers personally � I don�t buy that argument. You need to do something wrong before you�re arrested or issued a ticket. We expect from our civil servants a fairly high degree of judgment.
Author Stephanie Mills agreed that the state must act in a measured way or risk bankrupting small farmers.
�I must tell you that having consumed beef and milk and cream from Greg�s animals, I discovered what those things really taste like. I did so knowingly. We weigh the risks of the vanishingly small possibility of getting TB from these grass-fed critters against the risks of getting something worse from poorly inspected slaughterhouse beef that�s been re-reddened by exposure to carbon monoxide to keep it salable on the shelf, or encountering hormones in milk that�s come from scores of big dairies to be processed and mixed. I can imagine there being small farmers who are real slobs and who try to get away with shabby practices and sick herds, and I wouldn�t knowingly trade with them. But I know Greg and I know his standards.�

So how did the TB skin tests come out? Two of Niewendorp�s young calves tested positive, meaning they could have avian TB, which is harmless to cattle, or bovine TB. It also could be a false positive. A blood test will provide answers on Tuesday. Stay tuned.


Is The Feeding �Ban� a Farce?

By Anne Stanton

Back in 1994, there came a troubling sign that Michigan was no longer free of bovine tuberculosis. An infected deer was found on the grounds of the ritzy Turtle Lake Club, a 23,000-acre deer hunting club that�s home to 19 multi-millionaire members and cottage mansions.
The 1994 discovery led to the state�s effort to eradicate bovine TB both from cattle and deer. But one farmer in the �hot zone� surrounding Alpena County said the state won�t win the war until it stops going easy on the powerful hunt clubs.
If you�ve never heard of the Turtle Lake Club, an Outdoor Life article describes life on the other side:
�Hunters at Turtle Lake are taken to their blinds in horse-drawn wagons. The deer are driven to the hunters by locals who walk through the woods squeezing rubber bulbs on horns like those used in antique cars,� * wrote Eric Sharp in the September 2007 article.
State officials realized that deer eating and breathing together at bait piles triggered the bovine TB problem. That led to limiting bait to two gallons per hunt site; it must be spread out, not piled.
But farmer Kendall Sumerix, also a biochemist, said enforcement of that rule is a farce. The number of bovine TB deer found in 2006 was about double that of 2005. That�s because the state became lax, he said.
�Stores are selling sugar beets in bulk again; they haven�t done that in five or six years. They�re advertising again and they�re selling the stuff by pick-up loads,� said Sumerix.
Sumerix suggested increasing the current fine of bait pile violations from $100 (it was originally a wrist-slapping $25) to a $500 fine. Maybe half the fine could reward the one who reports it, he said.
Sumerix said the state won�t get tough on bait piles or force a thinning of the infected herd because it would mean mixing it up with the rich and powerful.
�If it involved unimportant people such as us, they�d take out all the deer,� Sumerix says. �But look who hunts there - Governor John Engler. They (the hunt clubs) give politicians free perks and free hunting trips. I�m a Republican, and I think it�s disgusting. It�s all politics, there�s nothing scientific about this program.�
One study shows an outright ban on bait piles would be effective. An extensive MSU study completed in 2001 showed that any amount of bait can be expected to �sustain and spread a disease like bovine TB, but smaller quantities tended to be even worse than the large ones.�
A Danish study gives another compelling reason to eliminate bait piles. Wild deer, in winter, eat moss containing usnic acid, a natural antibiotic for TB. Captive deer won�t eat it because they aren�t hungry enough, Sumerix said.
DNR wildlife biologists for years have told the Natural Resources Commission that bait piles help spread the disease, but the NRC has repeatedly blocked an outright ban, said outdoor writer Bob Butz.
Keith Charters, who heads the NRC, is a long-time friend of former Governor John Engler. A ban on baiting piles would drastically reduce deer numbers and make it much harder to snag a deer.
DNR biologists in the field have told Sumerix that it would be best to drastically thin the infected herds, and let the herd rebuild with a healthy stock. Those in the DNR�s higher echelons say they can�t do that on private land�not even when the deer are fenced in. But that�s exactly what they�re doing with cattle herds on private land when they find just one infected animal, Sumerix said, whose herd was �depopulated� last year.
Is it possible to skin test deer?
No, because the stress would kill them, said Bridget Patrick, bovine TB eradication project coordinator. DNR biologists observe captive deer herds periodically. The DNR is also field testing a blood test that provides an instant result, said DNR spokeswoman Mary Dettloff.
If the state doesn�t get serious about bait piles, bovine TB will continue to seep to other areas of the state, Sumerix fears. The deer are like firewood: hunters kill them, take them downstate, butcher them, and often throw the bone into the bushes. Small animals could eat the guts and spread TB to cattle and deer. The DNR doesn�t believe that small animals can transmit the infection, but many farmers differ.
Sumerix is more than a little concerned. �It�s spreading now! How long are they going to wait?�
Dettloff said that while the incidence of bovine TB spiked in 2006, the state is much better off than it was 12 years ago. �In 2006, the prevalance rate for Bovine TB (in the hot zone), was 2.3 percent. In 1995, it was at 4.9 percent. Eradication efforts are working.�
Tom Cuorchaine, who heads up enforcement, said the department has written 150 citations in the core area and conducted 100 flight patrols since 2004. It plans to step up enforcement this fall.
�I know we haven�t made progress in the last year or two, but it�s not because we haven�t been trying. It goes back to public support�the people who own the property, the people who hunt deer, and the courts.�

October 8, 2007

Greg Niewendorp Served Warrant, Cattle Tested and Tagged - Meanwhile our big U.S. packing plants are employing TB infected workers...


Greg Niewendorp Served Warrant, Cattle Tested and Tagged Against Niewendorp’s Will

East Jordan, Michigan--Monday October 8, 2007

This morning, agents of the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) used a warrant to get on the property of cattle farmer Greg Niewendorp for the purpose of TB testing and ear-tagging his cattle with National Animal Identification System (NAIS) compliant Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) ear-tags against Niewendorp’s will. Niewendorp has refused to participate in the dangerous experimental herd testing program and refused the application of the RFID ear tags which force him, against his will, to have his cattle be part of the NAIS.

Charlevoix County Sheriff George Lassiter, who has worked closely with Niewendorp in the events leading up to today’s trespass, served the warrant at 9:00 and soon after MDA agents arrived and began to herd the cattle into pens for testing and tagging. Sheriff Lassiter did not allow the Michigan State Police to participate, contrary to what TB program coordinator Bridget Patrick insisted would be the case when I interviewed her two weeks ago.

Patrick showed up early to be interviewed by the numerous media present (local NBC and CBS affiliates among others). A woman physician among Niewendorp’s local supporters asked Patrick extensive, pointed questions about the nature of TB and the TB eradication program, as did Niewendorp. Independent filmmaker Mark Nixon taped the day’s events including the Patrick interviews.

MDA agents took from 9:00 to 3:00 to pen the cattle they could catch, leaving them panting and without water in near-90 degree weather while they tested and tagged. Though the warrant said “tag” it did not specify RFID tags. When Niewendorp said. “I’m protesting the fact that RIFD tags are being used on my cattle. It’s what puts you into the USDA system,” his formal protest was entered in the day’s report. Unsure how to proceed, the agents called their superiors for orders, were told to use the RFID tags, and proceeded to do so.

NOTE: Mark Nixon will be providing a raw footage DVD of the day which we hope to post on the VICFA and NICFA websites. Please check regularly for non-compliance updates at http://www.vicfa.net and http://www.nicfa.org .

Non-Compliance Relief Fund:
Taking a stand of non-compliance puts a tremendous toll on one’s resources. The National Organization for Raw Materials (NORM) established the Non-Compliance Relief Fund to provide specific support for those like Greg NIewendorp who take such a courageous position. To support Greg and others like him, please donate here (one-time donation or monthly pledge) or send a check made out to NORM to:

Non-Compliance Relief Fund
c/o NORM
680 E 5 Point Highway
Charlotte, MI 48813

Many thanks,
Deborah Stockton, Editor
VICFA Voice

The Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA)
Our purpose is to promote and preserve unregulated direct farmer-to-consumer trade
that fosters availability of locally grown or home-produced food products.
VICFA opposes any government funded or managed National Animal Identification System.

September 23, 2007

ALERT: Michigan Ag Gets Warrant to Test and Tag Greg Niewendorp's Cattle

~CIVIL ACTION~
PLEASE BROADCAST FAR AND WIDE ---ESPECIALLY TO FOLKS IN MICHIGAN

East Jordan, Michigan
Sept. 23, 2007

On Tuesday, September 18, Sheriff George Lassiter informed Michigan cattle farmer Greg Niewendorp that the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) has secured a warrant to go on Niewendorp's property to TB test his herd and apply NAIS compliant radio frequency identification ear tags to the cattle. Since February, when he submitted a letter to the MDA stating that he would not participate in the MDA's dangerous experimental TB herd testing program, Niewendorp has refused to let MDA on his property. On August 21, state police and an MDA representative came illegally onto Niewendorp's property attempting to coerce him into having his herd tested, and Niewendorp politely escorted them off.

Sheriff Lassiter told Niewendorp and the MDA that, as the server of the warrant, he will give Niewendorp 72-hour notice before serving him the warrant. The 3 day notice will allow time to notify supporters to assemble at Niewendorp's.

It is important that as many people as possible assemble at Niewendorp's farm the day the MDA plans to trespass to test and tag the cattle. Niewendorp's intent is that the cattle NOT be tested or tagged. Niewendorp wants as many people as possible to come. Please be ready to assemble once the 72-hour notice has been given. Niewendorp plans to "open the freezer" and have an all-day cookout for everyone who joins with him in standing up for his God-given divine rights and preventing the barbaric behavior of the MDA.

The MDA will have an undisclosed number of police "to assist." In my conversation with Bridget Patrick, coordinator of the TB herd eradication program, she insisted the police were just coming "to assist." Though she went through a number of verbal gyrations to try and eliminate any concerns I might have, she was quite evasive in answering my pointed questions concerning the nature of that "assistance." The bottom line is, the more people who show up, the better off everyone will be. There IS safety in numbers.

Please bring video recording equipment and cameras.

We will send updates (and directions) with any new information.

Greg Niewendorp is putting everything on the line for the freedom and rights of all of us. Let us not fail him.

LOCATION
Greg Niewendorp
Beishag Road
East Jordan, MI 49735

Non-Compliance Relief Fund
Taking a stand of non-compliance puts a tremendous toll on one's resources. The National Organization for Raw Materials (NORM) established the Non-Compliance Relief Fund to provide specific support for those like Greg Niewendorp who take such a courageous position. To support Greg and others like him, please donate here or send a check made out to Non-Compliance Relief Fund to:
Non-Compliance Relief Fund
c/o NORM
680 E 5 Point Highway
Charlotte, MI 48813
Many thanks,
Deborah Stockton, Editor
VICFA Voice
The Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA)
Our purpose is to promote and preserve unregulated direct farmer-to-consumer trade
that fosters availability of locally grown or home-produced food products.
VICFA opposes any government funded or managed National Animal Identification System.

August 17, 2007

Texas County (Missouri) Farm Bureau Expels Member Over NAIS

Outspoken Farm Bureau Member gets the Axe over NAIS!

For immediate release; contact information; Bob Parker Bob@bakerealty.com

Texas County Farm Bureau Expels member over NAIS

In Houston, Missouri the debate over The National Animal Identification System rages on. Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, the board met with about half of the board members present. Board member Gerald Campbell, also past President of Texas County Cattlemen's Association and also a director from District 3 of the Missouri Beef Industry Council Board of Directors, made a motion to remove longtime Texas County Board member Bob Parker because of his outspoken opposition to the NAIS program.

Mr. Campbell, whose wife Nancy works for Farm Bureau, stated that Bob Parker had attacked Missouri Farm Bureau and needed to be removed from the board. Mr. Campbell also stated that he had attended the Property Rights Congress Meeting in Cabool a few days ago and stated that PRC president Russell Wood, speaker Doreen Hannes, and speaker Ray Cunio, and Bob Parker had all attacked Missouri Farm Bureau for their promotion of NAIS. Mr. Campbell's motion was seconded by Gus Adams, his wife Betty Adams is also Vice President of the Property Rights Congress Chapter and both voted for Mr. Parker's removal.

Mr. Parker repeatedly asked specifically why the board was seeking to remove him. He was told by Mr. Campbell and Texas County FB President Don Luersson that because of his open attack upon Farm Bureau that they wanted him removed. Betty Adams charged that Mr. Parker had personally attacked Gerald Campbell at the PRC meeting by exposing how he voted on a resolution supporting Mandatory NAIS. Mr. Parker stated that he believed the votes of the Texas County Farm Bureau board should be open to it's members and the public. Mr. Campbell was invited to sit on a panel discussion on NAIS at the PRC meeting but after a 10 minute opening statement Mr. Campbell refused to answer any questions about NAIS or explain his statements. He stated that he had to leave for a granddaughters birthday party and left the panel only to take a seat in the back of the meeting hall.

Mr. Parker asked the board several times specifically what the charges were against him and also stated that the by-laws of Texas County Farm Bureau did not provide for removing a member in this way. President Don Luersson agreed but said they were going to do it anyway. No specific charges were ever given.

Mr. Parker said he would be glad to respond to any specific charges and would gladly show anyone why he has been very vocal about his opposition to what the leadership of MOFB has done, citing specifically a July 2005 letter where MOFB President Charles Kruse told the USDA that Missouri Farm Bureau supported NAIS and that the full program should ultimately be Mandatory. Mr. Parker continues to contend that MOFB grassroots members have never said that in their policy. Mr. Parker believes that the leadership in MOFB has been in full support of a mandatory program in the past and doesn't trust the leadership anymore.

Mr. Parker states ''I have pointed out what the leadership of MOFB has done, and they are continuing to cover up how this ''voluntary'' program will become ultimately Mandatory! Did you know that most marketing programs and all animal health programs are requiring a NAIS premise number? How will that be ''voluntary''? Why doesn't MOFB point that out to their members? Why is no opposition to NAIS ever invited to speak to the resolutions committee's? I could go on and on. Why did Mr. Kruse stop a meeting in Springfield when I asked about his letter? He doesn't want you to know about it, they had to get me out, this information is starting to cost them a lot of money, and members.''

I have repeatedly asked leadership in MOFB to tell the members the facts about NAIS. They have flatly refused. This is too huge of an issue to ignore, I firmly believe that if NAIS is fully implemented it will wipe out most small farmers, this is for 29 species, not just cattle!'' Mr. Parker continues, ''when I told Mr. Campbell last year about how small farmers would not do all the work that these regulations would impose he told me that we don't need all those small producers anyway, he said and I quote, 'what good are they doing for the industry?' He also voted that NAIS should be Mandatory when our board voted on it Tuesday, March 14th, 2006 by voting against it. The resolution stated; Be it hereby resolved that the Texas County Farm Bureau Board Does hereby reject the current proposal by USDA to make mandatory the implementation of the National Animal Identification System.

I think that FB members should know what their leaders really think about NAIS and I also believe that Cattlemen should know what their Missouri Beef Council leaders are saying and doing.''

The majority vote was in favor of removing Mr. Parker immediately from the board. Two members, Dan Kyle and Robert Rouse voted against the motion. Mr. Parker goes on '' I have tried to expose Farm Bureau leadership for what they have done. It comes as no surprise that this happened, I could never explain the details of what has happened to my board because of constantly being attacked by Gerald Campbell and President Don luersson at the meetings. Missouri Farm Bureau's membership is off about 10% in many areas in the State due to members learning about what Farm Bureau has done. They are very upset over that.

Mr. Parker ''I have never told anyone to leave MoFB. I have tried to work to change the organization for the better. I believe in the grassroots structure but the leadership controls all the information thatthe members get. Farm Bureau has never printed anything about why so many oppose this NAIS program. Now I strongly encourage every member to drop Farm Bureau! Drop your membership! Drop your insurance! Drop your support, and send a strong message to MOFB that this leadership must be changed before you support this organization any more''.

''I thought one of the founding principals of our country was freedom of speech, not in Farm Bureau, not anymore. You can be a grassroots member, as long as you don't expose leadership. I guess the facts speak for themselves. Don't be fooled by the new rhetoric from the leadership of Missouri Farm Bureau saying they oppose mandatory NAIS, they know that very soon NAIS will be involved in so many programs we will never keep it ''Voluntary'', regardless of their ''policy''. The days of Free Farmers will soon be over, sold out by the very people we trusted''.

For immediate release;
contact information; Bob Parker Bob@bakerealty.com

May 27, 2007

USDA restructuring? Sounds good? Not a chance.

In another turn of events Rep. Colin Peterson, head of the House Ag Committee is saying he might call for a restructuring of USDA. Read about that here.

40 words in Farm Bill remove state's rights - You better make your voice heard on this one

Folks,

Of late things in Washington have been moving fast, too fast for a Congress that does not read the bills they pass. Certain people want certain outcomes in the Farm Bill, like making NAIS mandatory while requiring Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and other legislation. Those certain people seem to be the ones who have so much power that there is no official oversight to their doings. Read this and see what I mean. [I've added my emphasis]

Provision would strip States of Control

The House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry passed on the full committee on Thursday a briefly-worded provision that could have huge ramifications for the abilities of state and local governments to effectively oversee anything involving agriculture.

[This takes away states rights to make decisions regarding agriculture - anything USDA wants USDA is going to get]

Under the heading Miscellaneous Provisions, Sec. 123 USDA Inspection and Determination of Non-Regulated Status, the subcommittee approved a provision that would ban a state or locality from "prohibiting an article the Secretary of Agriculture [ Mike Johanns] has inspected and passed, or an article the Secretary has determined to be of non-regulated status."

The provision passed on to the full committee without discussion.[Without discussion?]

It's a brief statement that, based on the interpretation, could prevent a state from establishing rules tighter than USDA or protecting the interests of local producers. It would seem as well the tiny provision would also tell states they don't have any right adopt food-safety or recall standards.

This proposed restriction on the rights of states is being offered at the same time dozens of lawmakers are pushing to allow state-inspected meat to be sold across the country. So on one hand, Congress is trying to clamp down on they way a state can regulate and on the other hand, Congress wants to give states more authority over meat inspections. [A la Hydra the many headed serpent]

The Center for Food Safety was about the only group to challenge the intent of this proposal. The center stated in a news alert that the provision appears to be aimed at enacted state laws that restrict the planting of genetically engineered crops. Further, the provision could prohibit states from taking action when food contamination cases occur, the center pointed out.

This biotech battle in a variety of states. Some, such as Iowa, Nebraska and others have passed legislation making sure local counties cannot adopt their own biotech planting bans. Voters in at least four California counties passed such measures, leading biotech seed and chemical companies to go into action and get lawmakers to make sure such bans could not occur in major biotech crop states.

Still, states in recent years have had to take action to protect the interests of markets, even when USDA has approved a product. Rice, in particular, comes to mind. Lawmakers in Arkansas, Missouri and California have created legislation against biotech rice because USDA approved a product that, if grown, would have caused major international or domestic commodity buyers to stop buying rice from those states. In other situations, USDA regulators didn't do enough to ensure companies prevented the spread of an unapproved product into the general crop planting. Arkansas, not exactly a bastion of liberal, locally-grown, organic consumerism, had to take action because two of its best varieties of long-grain rice were contaminated. European countries have continued to kick back shipments because of that.

It's not known at this point why this provision was added or ended up in the purview of a subcommittee on livestock, poultry or dairy. But if such a law is needed and would effectively strip authority from states and counties to follow the wishes of voters or the needs of their farmers, then shouldn't such a proposal demand a hearing, open debate and discussion before Congress offers a new, broad power to the Secretary of Agriculture with fewer than 40 words in the farm bill? [Can't you just read the headline? "Agriculture Czar Johanns said today...".

#####

Can you sense the duplicity in Washington, DC? Who is keeping your best interests at heart? Sadly the answer is NO ONE. The Farm Bill is being decided by revolving door, business to government agency bureaucrats. Iraq is just a distraction while those in Congress are taking away your rights. They just took away state's rights to decide on agriculture issues for their counties and towns, Who gets to set policy for states if the Farm Bill passes? The USDA's Secretary of Agriculture. Mike Johanns.

They call it cooked frog syndrome. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog never realizes the water is getting hotter to kill him.

Oh, right, why should you care about this? This means no state or locality can ban risky products when the federal government has failed to act to protect our health or the environment. The primary intent of this passage is to deny local or state rights to regulate
genetically engineered crops or food.

The biotech industry and big agribusiness have been trying to push similar bills in dozens of states across the country, and also at the Federal level with last year's so-called "Food Uniformity" bill. Now they want to sneak it into a committee hearing and hide it in the Farm Bill.
Like Paul Revere, I sound a warning. An urgent warning...Your government is being stolen by Democrats and Republicans alike who do not remember why they are in office and, certainly, can't recall their oaths of office.

People, everywhere, government is taking a serious turn. We have just got to wake everyone up.

Those of you who read this, please, please, please, reflect and ask God to bless you with insight, with clarity, with eyes to see, eats to hear, hearts to understand and act on in His will for you in this fight to keep our country.

Take Action Now! You can make a difference. You must help us make a difference. Email me and I will provide you with contact information for the subcommittee.

It's not for you and me that I work against these issues. No. It is for your children's children. The world is going to be lost for them if we don't get things straightened out now.

April 23, 2007

"USDA has so far shown no desire whatsoever to trace back the contaminant to the source of the contamination."

And yet they somehow insist on persisting (definition: to go on resolutely or stubbornly in spite of opposition) with the phony idea of traceability in livestock.

(Hi there, BrandX. Who are you?)

Food Safety
Recalls come at critical time for FSIS

By John Gregerson on 4/23/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Timing, as the saying goes, is everything.

No sooner did members of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service endure a scathing session with the House Agriculture Subcommittee on the issue of food-borne illness last week than they were confronted with a pair of major recalls on Friday, both involving outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7.

In Sonoma County, Calif., at least three children were sickened after consuming hamburgers from Calistoga Little League baseball snack shacks on April 3. On Friday, Merced, Calif.-based distributor Richwood Meat Co. voluntarily recalled more than 100,000 ponds of frozen ground beef patties associated with the outbreak. The frozen patties initially were distributed to discount grocers and institutional foodservice providers in California, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Across the country, South Claysburg, Pa.-based processor HFX Inc. voluntarily recalled 259,230 pounds of beef product after discovering a positive test for E. coli in Eastern Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Health linked steaks manufactured by HFX to a late-March outbreak involving Hoss's Family Steak and Sea Restaurants, a Pennsylvania-based meat chain. Authorities speculate the illnesses resulted from undercooked steak product. Four of the five consumers who became ill required hospitalization.

Both recalls arrive on the heels of a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control indicating that instances of foodborne illness in the United States have either risen or remained the same over the past five years. Although FSIS data shows unchanging or decreasing figures among plant samples, the CDC figures and a report from the Government Accountability Office indicating that one-third of U.S. meat plants weren't inspected last year prompted Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D.-Conn.] to blast FSIS during the April 18 House Agriculture Subcommittee hearing.

After losing her temper, DeLauro said, "I am going to do everything I can to delay [FSIS's risk-based plant inspection initiative] until we're standing on solid facts." The initiative, which already has been delayed until summer, essentially seeks to deploy inspectors where they are needed most, meaning some plants would receive more visits than others.

Traceability troubles

Friday's recalls also prompted allegations that FSIS never attempted to identify the processor involved in an earlier recall involving Richwood Meat. On Feb. 24, 2004, the distributor recalled 90,000 pounds of ground beef for E. coli. John Munsell, president of Montana Quality Foods, told Meatingplace.com that when he contacted the company about the matter on Feb. 26, he was told that "USDA has so far shown no desire whatsoever to trace back the contaminant to the source of the contamination."

Richmond VP Steve Wood refused to discuss either Friday's recall or the 2004 incident with Meatingplace.com.

He did, however, take time to tell other members of the media that the blame for Friday's recall rests with his company's suppliers. "It's supposed to be clean, but they are picking out [only] little samples here and there," he said.

Wood indicated he didn't really know who "they" are. Munsell said he hoped FSIS puts forth the effort to find out.

April 16, 2007

Imported food rarely inspected

Again, time and time again, FDA and USDA fail miserably at their jobs of making sure our food supply is not compromised. It is time for the FDA and USDA to be audited because it is clear they are not doing the job of protecting the country from foreign-borne diseases.

I don't know whose idea it was to globalize, but that person deserves a huge head-spank for it. So far nothing good has come of it. We have lost jobs here in America, we have given a huge amount of money to the UN and for what, the quality of overseas products is substantially inferior to what America used to make, on and on I could go with that rant. Time to pull in! Go back to being for America first.

Write to your legislators in Congress and demand an audit of the FDA and USDA.

-----------------------------------
Imported food rarely inspected

By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Just 1.3 percent of imported fish, vegetables, fruit and other foods are inspected — yet those government inspections regularly reveal food unfit for human consumption.

Frozen catfish from China, beans from Belgium, jalapenos from Peru, blackberries from Guatemala, baked goods from Canada, India and the Philippines — the list of tainted food detained at the border by the Food and Drug Administration stretches on.

Add to that the contaminated Chinese wheat gluten that poisoned cats and dogs nationwide and led to a massive pet food recall, and you've got a real international pickle. Does the United States have the wherewithal to ensure the food it imports is safe?

Food safety experts say no.

With only a minuscule percentage of shipments inspected, they say the nation is vulnerable to harm from abroad, where rules and regulations governing food production are often more lax than they are at home.

"FDA doesn't have enough resources or control over this situation presently," said Mike Doyle (news, bio, voting record), director of the University of Georgia's Center for Food Safety, which works with industry to improve safety.

Last month alone, FDA detained nearly 850 shipments of grains, fish, vegetables, nuts, spice, oils and other imported foods for issues ranging from filth to unsafe food coloring to contamination with pesticides to salmonella.

And that's with just 1.3 percent of the imports inspected. As for the other 98.7 percent, it's not inspected, much less detained, and goes to feed the nation's growing appetite for imported foods.

Each year, the average American eats about 260 pounds of imported foods, including processed, ready-to-eat products and single ingredients. Imports account for about 13 percent of the annual diet.

"Never before in history have we had the sort of system that we have now, meaning a globalization of the food supply," said Robert Brackett, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

FDA inspections focus on foods known to be at risk for contamination, including fish, shellfish, fruit and vegetables. Food from countries or producers previously shown to be problematic also are flagged for a closer look.

Consider this list of Chinese products detained by the FDA just in the last month: frozen catfish tainted with illegal veterinary drugs, fresh ginger polluted with pesticides, melon seeds contaminated with a cancer-causing toxin and filthy dried dates.

But even foods expected to be safe can harbor unexpected perils. Take wheat gluten: Grains and grain byproducts like it are rarely eaten raw and generally pose few health risks, since cooking kills bacteria and other pathogens.

Even so, the FDA can't say for sure whether the ingredient used in the pet foods was inspected after it arrived from China. And if the wheat gluten was, officials said, it wouldn't have been tested for melamine. Even though the chemical isn't allowed in food for pets or people, in any quantity, it previously wasn't believed toxic.

How did the melamine wind up in the wheat gluten? Investigators still don't know. Meanwhile, China is struggling to overhaul its food system and improve safety standards, but still faces major hurdles.

Farmers use pesticides and chemical fertilizers to build produce yields and antibiotics are used on seafood and livestock. Heavy metals also can be introduced into the food chain by widespread industrial pollution.

Increasingly, those foods are sold in a now global marketplace.

While the European Union, Canada and Mexico still top the list of food exporters to the U.S., China is coming up fast. Since 1997, the value of Chinese food imports, including commodities like wheat gluten, has more than tripled, to $2.1 billion from $644 million, according to Agriculture Department statistics. It accounts for 3.3 percent of the total food the U.S. buys abroad.

For suspect imported products — and wheat gluten is now one of them — the FDA issues alerts to its inspectors. The FDA flags Chinese food and other imported products it regulates, like cosmetics, for that extra scrutiny more than any other country except Mexico.

To safeguard its export business, China is looking at separating foods by their ultimate destination, domestic or foreign, according to Michiel Keyzer, director of the Center for World Food Studies at Amsterdam's Vrije Universiteit.

U.S. government statistics suggest China still has a way to go.

The FDA has been stopping Chinese food import shipments at the rate of about 200 per month this year. Shippers have the right to appeal the detentions, after which the government can order products returned or destroyed.

How do you know the origin of the food you eat? The 2002 Farm Act called for fish, fruit and vegetable imports to be labeled by country of origin, though implementation for the latter two foods has been delayed.

Meanwhile, the U.S. imports more and more, though the increase in value is partially due to the weaker dollar.

All told, the U.S. is expected to import a record $70 billion in agricultural products for the 12 months ending in September, according to an Agriculture Department forecast. The value of those imports will be about double the nearly $36 billion purchased overseas in 1997.

Contributing to that growth are the fresh fruits and vegetables imported during the offseason, when domestic production dwindles or ends.

About one-quarter of our fruit, both fresh and frozen, is imported. For tree nuts, it's about half. And for fish and shellfish, more than two-thirds come from overseas.

Even as the amount of imported food increased, the percentage of FDA inspections declined — from 1.8 percent in 2003 to 1.3 percent this year to an expected 1.1 percent next year.

"Inspections have a very important role but they're not the solution. They are the verification," FDA commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach said.

The FDA and the USDA have adopted a "risk-based" inspection philosophy, focusing on specific foods, sources or producers that they believe represent the largest potential risk to the public's health.

"The public at large is not at any increased risk," said Craig Henry, senior vice president and chief operating officer for scientific and regulatory affairs of the Grocery Manufacturers-Food Products Association, an industry group.

Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group, countered that "risk-based" is just shorthand for "reduced resources."

"Whenever they say 'risk-based approach,' it often means they don't have enough staff to actually do the job. They're doing triage. They're trying to hit what's most important to inspect but they're missing a lot," DeWaal said.

Groups lobbying to increase the FDA's budget say its spending on food safety has languished, despite the agency's outsized role in ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply.

A recent Government Accountability Office report noted that most of the $1.7 billion the federal government allocates to food safety goes to the USDA, which is responsible for regulating about 20 percent of the food supply. The FDA, responsible for most of the other 80 percent, gets about 24 percent of the total spent on food safety.

Unlike the FDA, the USDA requires foreign inspection certificates to accompany all products it regulates, which include meat and poultry. Those imports are then reinspected at each port of entry before they are allowed into this country — something that doesn't happen to all FDA-regulated imports.

Under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, anyone importing food into the United States is required to notify the FDA of the shipment before it arrives by land, air or sea. That allows the FDA to intercept contaminated products before they reach the marketplace, though agency officials acknowledge it doesn't always work that way.

"We have better control than we did a few years ago but it is largely the responsibility of the importer to make sure those products are safe," said Stephen Sundlof, the FDA's top veterinarian.

ChemNutra Inc., the Las Vegas importer of the tainted wheat gluten, said it was "particularly troubled" that its supplier did not disclose it contained melamine.

Doyle, of the University of Georgia, warned the contaminated pet food could be an unsavory taste of what's to come.

"This is not the first and will not be the last but it certainly is a wakeup call for the public to get a better appreciation for where this country is going with imports and imported foods," Doyle said.

Brackett, the FDA official, said the globalization of the food supply means the agency is going to have to be more creative and strategic in ensuring its safety. "I am not quite sure how we're going to do that yet," he said, "except to know that that's the direction that we're going to be heading."

April 14, 2007

Another example of the USDA gone mad

The fact that APHIS has made statements regarding the insignificance of improper documentation accompanying imported Canadian cattle while holding Darrol Dickinson to another standard just proves to me that USDA and APHIS are being run by very bad people who don't know what their right or left hands are doing. And just that alone should cause everyone to demand that USDA/APHIS be investigated.

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America


For Immediate Release Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator

April 13, 2007 Phone: 406-672-8969;
e-mail: sdodson@r-calfusa.com

Group Questions USDA Enforcement Actions

Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA is seeking information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on why it appears that agency officials describe incomplete paperwork on perhaps hundreds of imported Canadian cattle as “minor record-keeping problems,” yet initiate enforcement action against a U.S. cattle producer, claiming animals were transported in interstate commerce without a valid health certificate.

The U.S. producer in question is Darol Dickinson, owner of Dickinson Cattle Co. in Barnesville, Ohio. The event in question is the transport of a 6-year-old Texas Longhorn cow and a bull calf from Oklahoma to Ohio in January 2006. The veterinary health certificate – issued by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture – states the identity of the pair as “Rosey Bark-B” and “Bull Calf at side” on the form under “EARTAG NO. OR OTHER OFFICIAL IDENTIFICATION, NAME OR DESCRIPTION.’

USDA correspondence to Dickinson dated Feb. 26, 2007, from the Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) branch of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) states that Dickinson transported the pair without a valid health certificate because “the consignee portion of the health certificate was incomplete and no official identification was listed for the cow.” The IES correspondence instructs Dickinson that he can waive his right to a hearing and settle the matter by paying a $1,250 penalty by March 26, 2007. If Dickinson does not request a hearing or pay the fine by said date, the IES letter states that litigation will result, and furthermore, “…The penalty offered in this Stipulation is not relevant to the sanctions APHIS may seek, or that will be assessed after issuance of a formal complaint…”

Dickinson maintains that all charges are false for the following reasons:

1) The animals were transported with an official Oklahoma State Health Certificate of Inspection prepared and signed by a USDA-licensed Oklahoma State Veterinarian.

2) Information for the Consignee portion of the health certificate was indeed complete for a resident of a small rural village.

3) All official identification for the cow was provided exactly as required by the printed form issued by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture.

4) He relied on the USDA-licensed professional to properly execute the government form in its entirety.

5) The truck driver who transported the animals stopped at every port-of-entry crossing in every state required by law during the legal transport of these cattle.

6) The truck driver is not a USDA-licensed professional, and therefore, unable to evaluate the official veterinary health certificate for errors.

“Apparently, USDA doesn’t think the veterinarian who filled out the health certificate for these animals did so in a way USDA considers to be correct,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the R-CALF USA Animal Health Committee. “We have written a letter to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns protesting that fine, particularly drawing attention to USDA’s comment that all the cattle coming in from Canada without proper paperwork was a simple, minor paperwork infraction.”

R-CALF USA sent the letter to Johanns on March 23, 2007, requesting that the fine immediately be rescinded. Only today did USDA confirm to R-CALF USA that an investigation is ongoing and that the results will be forthcoming in the near future.

“USDA’s citation against Dickinson Cattle Company appears to be discriminatory, based on recent statements to the media by APHIS officials regarding the insignificance of improper documentation accompanying imported Canadian cattle,” Thornsberry continued. “It appears APHIS is holding Dickinson Cattle Company to a much higher standard than it holds individuals or entities that authorize the transport of imported Canadian cattle, and this is patently wrong.”

On Feb. 23, 2007, the Chicago Tribune published an article by Washington Bureau Reporter Steve Hedges, with the headline “USDA: Mistakes tracing Canadian cattle are ‘minor’”. The piece quoted APHIS spokesperson Andrea McNally as characterising problems with the documentation of imported Canadian cattle as only “minor record-keeping problems.”

“If that’s USDA’s position, then the citation issued to Dickinson for transporting U.S. cattle within the United States is wholly unjustified and discriminatory,” Thornsberry asserted. “Based on our understanding of the circumstances, Dickinson’s documentation was in substantial compliance, if not complete compliance, with APHIS rules and regulations. R-CALF USA is requesting that USDA take steps to ensure that U.S. cattle producers are not discriminated against by being held to a higher standard than that imposed on individuals or entities handling imported cattle.

“This heavy-handed USDA enforcement action focuses only on whether an animal identification number was included in the documentation – it had nothing to do with the health of the animals in question,” Thornsberry concluded. “R-CALF USA is concerned that this situation may be indicative of the control USDA intends to exercise over U.S. cattle producers under it proposed National Animal Identification System. If this is the case, then the U.S. cattle industry would be subjected to an unacceptable level of regulatory control by USDA.”

Note: To view R-CALF USA’s letter, the veterinary health certificate, USDA’s correspondence to Dickinson and other supporting documents, visit the “Animal Health” link at www.r-calfusa.com.

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization and is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on both domestic and international trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA has more than 60 affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

February 23, 2007

Where's the Beef?

Where's the Beef?

by Doreen Hannes

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation along with the House Ag Committee Chair Colin Petersen (D-MN) seem to think that we must "preserve our export markets" by trading our real liberty for other nation's false sense of security through mass registration of our livestock and property under the National Animal Identification System or NAIS. It's common for beef magazines to lament about the new "voluntary" approach to the NAIS as being harmful to our economy.

Finding this an interesting argument, I decided to research the actual numbers to find out the truth of the importance and value of our beef export market.

Oddly enough, what I found out first was that the USDA does not publish all pertinent information in a single document that jibes with other documents. They also don't publish the information necessary to ascertain solid facts about import/export in an apple to apple comparison, but consistently compare apples to oranges. For instance, one report on exports will address the amount of beef imported in millions of tons with no indication of whether this is live weight, carcass weight, or dressed weight, and then the amount of exported beef will be given in dollar amounts. After digging extensively through USDA documents this shouldn't come as any kind of a surprise, but it certainly is an aggravation. In order to be terrifically generous to the USDA , I decided to simply address all weights as dressed beef based on an average dress out of 770 pounds per carcass which seemed to be a fairly agreed upon average between industry magazines and university studies as well as government reports. So let's count the cattle.

In 2005, the consumption of beef in the United States was 27.8 billion pounds. This breaks down to 36,103,896.1 or 36.1 million head. The total poundage of imported meat from all sources was given in one report as 6.6 million tons, another report as 6.2 million tons and yet another as 4.8 million tons. Which was it? Who knows? The USDA obviously doesn't… which raises some terrifically interesting questions that may be addressed in other articles, but for our purposes we'll just use the average so we can't be accused of being unfair.

So imported beef is roughly 5.8 million tons (give or take a few million head depending on the stats) or11.6 billion pounds for 2005. That breaks down to over 15 million head of cattle.

Surprisingly, the revered export market had the same stats in many places. That is 272,000 tons of beef translating into 706,493 head.

Doing the math then, we find that for less than 2 percent of our total consumption we are told we must "get with the rest of the world" and implement an onerous program that will drive small farmers out of business and consolidate the production of food to corporate growers.

Even more incredibly, we are only producing 56% of the beef we consume including the paltry amount we export. So we have a 44% shortfall in production, which means we should be raising another 15.7 million head before we even think about exporting the first cow!

Other statistics indicate that 66% of our cattle herds have less than fifty cattle. Some say 80%, but never mind that, we'll stick with the most accepted percentage. For a herd of 50 cows it would cost $34.52 per cow to get into the NAIS system, or $1726. That is assuming that a laptop can be purchased for $123, which would be a wonder. I don't think I'd want that laptop myself. When you take into account that the average age of the cattle grower is nearing 60 years of age (55.3 nationwide) you have to wonder if people will want to jump through all these hoops just to keep making a few dollars a year. Now, let's have a little more fun with numbers and look to the 2002 Ag Census for some info.

In the 2002 Census, it shows that we have over 1,018,359 farms that produce cattle. Yet the USDA adjusted their estimate of the number of premises down from 2.1 million to 1.4 million last fall. Intriguing, isn’t it? Busting out the calculator again, if you add the total number of farms with less than 50 head of cattle you come up with 671,425 farms. Presuming those with less than fifty head won't find the idea of coughing up $1700 in order to keep their cows a financially brilliant move, many would probably quit. It's way too much of a headache with all the reporting and such. If those farmers bail, taking their thirty percent of the beef production with them, it means we would need to import an additional 10.8 million head. Hmm. If they all stayed in business, that 10.8 million head would translate into $372.8 million for the identification and technology companies. Finally, we see that someone will benefit from this system!

If USDA statistics are trustworthy, and we actually have 1.4 million premises that should be registered under the NAIS, then every sale barn, vet clinic, livestock hauler and backyard chicken raiser must grow another 11.26 head of cattle in order to meet our consumption. So the next time someone tells you we must preserve our export market, you should probably slap 'em upside the head.*******

sources:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
www.calbeef.org/index/pdf/About%20the%20Beef%20Business.pdf

ffas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/2004/04-10LP/beefoverview.pdf

www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/lsmkt/docs/mon111805.pdf
http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_bigger_cheaper/
stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2007/a/pages/nais.html
- 21k -
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/livestockfarm.html

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/index2.htm



http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:W_QXpkGbStsJ:www.beef.org/uDocs/Econ%2520Impact%2520Beef%2520v2.doc+percent+production+herds+less+than+50+head&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us





Senator Brent Steele of Indiana Betrays Farmers

An urgent alert from Mary Zanoni:

Please make people aware of a big problem in Indiana. The sponsor of what was once an antiNAIS bill has today offered an amendment that would make it a pro-NAIS bill. People must be told that the amendment (or the bill as amended) must not be permitted to pass.

On Mon. 2/19, the Indiana Senate Ag & Small Business Committee voted out to the full Senate a bill that at the time was an anti-NAIS bill -- the bill was originally sponsored by Brent Steele (R-44th Dist.) and the text as introduced and as voted out of committee would have essentially stopped the Indiana Board of Animal Health from continuing with their mandatory premises
ID program.

I received a forward of an e-mail dated Tues. 2/20 from Steve Bonney, president of an Indiana small-farming organization called Sustainable Earth, expressing happiness over the bill passing out of committee and urging people to contact senators to get them to vote for the bill.

However, today, there is a very, very ominous development on this bill. The sponsor himself, Senator Steele, has moved to amend the bill into a PRO-NAIS bill. I have spoken to Steve Bonney of Sustainable Earth and he reports that the state vet and the lone member of the Ag Committee who would not support the original bill "got to" sponsor Steele and made him offer the pro-NAIS amendment. According to Steve Bonney, at present all people can do is to urge Sen. Steele to withdraw the amendment to SB 486; (Sen. Steele's phone numbers are 317-232-9400 or 800-382-9467) or else, to tell their own senators to vote against the amended bill.

Below is the link to and text of the amendment. The amendment gives Indiana BOAH the green light for their mandatory premises ID and also sets the stage for them to conduct a coerced "voluntary" animal ID and animal tracking.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2007/SAMF/MO048603.001.html

SB 486-1_ Filed 02/22/2007, 09:01 Steele

SENATE MOTION

MADAM PRESIDENT:

I move that Senate Bill 486 be amended to read as follows:

Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SOURCE: IC 15-2.1-18-24; (07)MO048603.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 15-2.1-18-24
IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007]: Sec. 24. (a) As used in this section, "NAIS" refers to the
USDA's National Animal Identification System or any component thereof, including:
(1) premises or property identification by numbers (Stage I);
(2) animal identification (Stage II); and
(3) tracking or surveillance of domesticated animals (Stage III).
(b) As used in this section, "USDA" refers to the United States
Department of Agriculture, and any successor agency within the federal
government.
(c) The state may not require participation in the livestock
identification (Stage II) or tracking components (Stage III) of the USDA's
National Animal Identification System.
(d) The state may not withhold indemnity as provided under section 14 of
this chapter if a person does not participate in NAIS.
(Reference is to SB 486 as printed February 21, 2007.)


Use this link to email Senator Steele http://www.in.gov/cgi-bin/legislative/contact/contact.pl?data=Senate|Steele,Brent|s44|sr