USDA-NAIS national animal id system

Franklin, Louisiana 2 comments
Not resolved

NAIS is touted as a plan to track/protect us from animal disease but is actually a business plan designed by/for corporate ag/chip makers with the false mantra “to show the world what safe food we have”.NAIS plans to track on every livestock animal in the USA EXCEPT the ones on the factory farms but those who own even one chicken,horse/ livestock must register their premises, microchip/ file reports to the govt on every move those animals make.

Big Ag gets ONE lot number per group of animals/no chipping and only a few movement reports.

NAIS tracibility ends at the moment the animal goes to slaughter, which is when most food safety issues occur.nonais dot org

Review about: Nais.

Comments

Anonymous
Boston, Virginia, United States #16233

No one needs NAIS, as the COOL law has been passed.COOL is a item level traceback with required audit trail to the source of a product.

No one has to register a premise with USDA and in case of an disease you know where the stuff came from. The recent tomato contamination shows you get sick from vegetable as much as from meat. There is no eartag on a tomato. A global traceback system is needed and not more buerocracy and costly certification.

Contamination do not only occur on a farm or in a packingplant.When a farmer somewhere in the world hauls chicken and turns around and pick up melons that's how you get salmonella in the produce too.

Anonymous
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, United States #16181

USDA in accordance with WTO/OIE plans for animal Husbandry is substituting traceability and GGFP (Guide to Good Farming Practices) for testing.

The USDA Three Step Plan must be considered as a whole:

Step 1 Premises ID

Step 2 National Animal Identification

Step 3 WTO /OIE and Codex working group “Guide to Good Farming Practices”

text

Depopulation instead of vaccination in the event of disease out break

text

text

Implementation enforced by Fines/jail: Proposed CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES-Under The Animal Health Protection Act (HR2002) May 24, 2001

Is the WTO/OIE plans for animal Husbandry practical?

See the list of Nations at: OIE member Nations Source: text

Farmers in the UK, Austraila, Canada and the USA have described the WTO/OIE plan as cumbersome, burdensome and unwieldy. One farmer in the UK stated the paperwork consumed 60% of his time. Can this system of animal management be used in all 172 OIE Nations when ¾ are developing countries? Can a starving, illiterate peasant in the Congo Argentina, or Zimbzbwe cope with RFID tags, a reader and tracking? When looked at from an International perspective the idea is laughable.

Once you see this list "global" Animal ID and farm management by OIE rules is shown to be an unobtainable dream at least in the near future.. The idea is just not viable on an International scale and I am sure the WTO and World...

"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." Maurice Strong This is the senior advisor to the UN and the World Bank.

If only “developed countries” have farmers who can afford the time and money to implement the OIE plan, does it make sense to do so?

The USA, Canada, Australia and Europe do not have major disease issues in their animal populations. The diseases are in the 3/4 of the OIE membership called "developing Nations" who can not possibly implement the OIE rules. For example out of the list of 2600 farms initially proposed by Brazil as meeting EU standards only 106 met EU guidelines.

International FRAUD

Even if NAIS is somehow implemented worldwide, Fraud and black-market will be alive and well. If the private NAIS data base is in the hands of people like the "Cattle Network, that diseased cow brought in from Brazil through the port operated by a Mexican syndicate could have YOUR FARM as its origin.

May 2 2008 ~ more than a matter of labelling regulations

The text reported yesterday that the demand for locally sourced meat is being exploited and beef labelled British has been found, in reality, to come from elsewhere ("Brazil or Botswana") But the report failed to mention the serious underlying issue that goes beyond fraud: if foreign meat is arriving without proper surveillance and testing the route for pathogens is wide open.

As one emailer writes today:

" If the origin of this meat is unidentified and has no audit trail, doesn't that mean that this meat is likely to be entering the UK (and other EU countries?) illegally? Are samples being tested for disease?"

This problem is not confined to the UK. The text reported on Tuesday:

".... only 1 percent of imported food is inspected, even though about 60 percent of fresh fruits and vegetables and 75 percent of seafood is imported..."

When disease can wreak such havoc it is surprising that in the UK the FSA's only reported response was to call for "labelling laws to be clarified". The Trust for America's Health report on Wednesday recommended that a new agency should be responsible for all food safety and that a priority should be "inspecting foods throughout the entire food production and processing chain". text

JBS S.A., the world's biggest beef producer, agreed to pay $1.27 billion in cash and stock for assets in the U.S. and Australia,The transactions would make JBS, the largest American beef processor. JBS, currently has beef operations in Brazil, Argentina, the United States, Italy and Australia. The Brazilian Government will increase its stake in JBS to 21% JBS wants to expand in the U.S., Australia and Europe to bolster sales in markets that restrict imports of Brazilian beef.

John Nalivka, president of livestock advisory firm Sterling Marketing, estimates U.S. slaughter plants are running at 84% capacity, below the 92% to 92% level necessary to turn a profit. "This is not a short-term glitch," said Nalivka. "Two years out doesn't look any better."

Why would JBS buy plants with operating at 80% capacity if it is NOT planing to make up the head count difference with imported beef? Perhaps with Brazilian beef imported at Santa Teresa, NM, were Chihuahuan cattle producers [Mexican] operate both sides of the cattle port-of-entry

text

Show more

You May Also Like