Member Visits Sister Organization in Australia;
Describes Aussie Animal ID Program as ‘Orwellian’

 Note to Media: R-CALF USA National Membership Committee Co-Chair Joel Gill spent the last week in August ‘Down Under’ visiting members of our sister organization, the Australian Beef Association. His report is below. Gill also serves as the R-CALF USA Checkoff Committee Chair and is a cattle buyer based in Mississippi. To schedule an interview with Gill, or obtain a photo or bio of Gill, contact R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson.

 Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia (September 12, 2007) – “G'Day,” was the greeting on everyone’s lips as I met each of the directors of R-CALF USA’s sister organization, the Australian Beef Association (ABA), at its meeting before the annual convention, held here on Aug. 28. The ABA was formed in 1997 to represent independent cattle producers across Australia in their fight to be heard by Parliament/Congress in their struggles against the forces of powerful abattoirs/packers, the Meat and Livestock Australia/CBB, and the cattle council/NCBA.

These men and women face the same struggles as R-CALF USA members do. They have stood strong with their one underpaid employee, Secretary Sally Black, as she worked to assist the unpaid board of 14 and the other willing volunteers to bring their membership to a little over 1,000. (With only 20 million people occupying a nation the size of the United States, ABA’s 1,000 members is about the same as R-CALF USA's 15,000 in a nation of 300 million citizens.)

 It was uncanny how our two sagas meshed so well. While each of our groups seem to face issues at home, it became glaringly clear that it was actually rampant free trade agreements and the international corporations’ desires for the lowest-cost products that are our mutual foes.

 One of the areas of concern these producers have is the unworkable nature of Australia’s National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), which became mandatory three years ago. 

 While not as comprehensive as our NAIS because NLIS covers only cattle, it was obvious that Australia’s NLIS is a nightmarish system of Orwellian proportions. Besides the information put forward in the presentations during ABA’s convention, discussions with individual ABA members brought home the message that the traceback system there is greatly flawed. Everyone had a story of varying tag retention rates in their animals – or beasts, as they call them. The few ABA members who stood up to the system by refusing to use the tags at first, told their tales of heavy fines levied and jail time threatened for non-compliance.

 One of the ABA directors, Dr. Lee McNichol, a veterinarian, related how he had refused to use the tags and was fined $1,000 ($850 US), then spent another $20,000 appealing his conviction only to lose in the end. He showed me sheet after sheet attributing individual cattle to his pic (premises number) that he did not own. The database had it wrong. When McNichol questioned the compliance officer about this situation and pointed out the error, he was told that it was an administrative matter and could be quickly corrected as soon as the particular animals were moved or sold and thus re-scanned. At that time, the administrator would know where the animals were actually located and a correction could occur.

So much for accurate disease traceback.

 Others told how the actual tag retention rate was around 70 percent to 82 percent – not anywhere close to the nearly 100 percent suggested by early data from U.S. animal identification projects as reported by USDA to U.S. producers about the effectiveness of the Australian system. Some of this excessive loss is due to poor application procedures of producers, but most is due to the net-type of fencing widely utilized by producers, which will snag and pull out the tags as the calves rub their heads in it. Far from receiving any kind of premium for participation, if tag replacement is needed, a new orange RFID tag will be inserted in the animal’s ear. All cattle with these orange ear tags receive a discount at sale because they no longer qualify as having “guaranteed lifetime traceability”. (The original tags are white.) These producers’ experiences should give each of us in R-CALF USA a boost to help us continue to energize our fight against NAIS.

 Now that Australia is three years into the program, the truth is coming out. While there, the Australian agriculture ministers said several times that this system was crucial for “Assuring our trading partners of age and source verification.”

 What happened to health traceback?

 During my one-week stay, a true health crisis did arise. Equine influenza was discovered, which brought all movement of horses nationwide to a complete halt, much as would happen in the U.S. if a case of foot-and-mouth disease were detected in cattle. Horse racing, the third largest industry in Australia, was delayed nationwide, but ultimately reopened everywhere except the states of Queensland and New South Wales, which are still counting the costs of the suspension in the tens of millions of dollars, not only to the racing industry, but to the smaller supporting industries as well. The culprits turned out to be two horses imported from Japan that were improperly inspected. Outside imports ruined an economically important national industry.

 Can anyone say Canadian BSE?

 http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/091207-member.htm

*********************************************************************************************

For Immediate Release                                                                               

October 23, 2007                                                                                    

Senate Asked to Place Moratorium

on Further Premise Registration Efforts, Defund NAIS

Billings, Mont. – In a letter to the Senate Agriculture Committee, R-CALF USA has requested a moratorium on any further premise registration efforts, and also has requested that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), or any other similar systems under any other name, be defunded at once.

“There are just so many questions and issues that must be addressed before reasonable consideration could be given as to whether funding of NAIS should continue at all,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee.

“Does USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) truly have the authority to mandate NAIS under the Animal Health Protection Act,” Thornsberry asked. “We want a thorough study on the legitimate authority and legal ramifications of the program, as well as a complete financial audit of NAIS thus far.”

R-CALF USA believes that USDA has used improper and questionable tactics to garner NAIS premise registration numbers. It is our opinion that the methodology used is less than ethical, and that the potential ramifications of a program of this scope and complexity must be assessed and completely understood by all Members of Congress to adequately represent their constituents.

USDA published, in the July 17, 2007, Federal Register, its final rule on Animal Identification Numbers (AINs), which repeatedly refers to rolling in all disease-control programs to reach “full implementation” of NAIS. Livestock producers are being rolled into NAIS with, or without, their knowledge or consent. This “full implementation” also is referenced in several NAIS documents and means “mandatory with enforcement.”

“To increase participation in premise registration, USDA has used Cooperative Agreements to contract with various state departments of agriculture, and other parties, such as FFA, 4-H, state fairs, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Angus Association,” said Thornsberry. “Many of these tactics, we believe, have been underhanded, deceptive and unethical.”

For example:

1) Roll-ins to NAIS through existing state disease-control programs, such as scrapies, calfhood vaccinations and brand registrations, which are mandatory in many Western states. Idaho achieved a 96 percent participation level by rolling into NAIS more than 13,000 registered brands. New York achieved a 58 percent level by rolling into NAIS those who vaccinate their calves. Interestingly, in Wisconsin , which requires mandatory premise registration, USDA reported a 114 percent participation level. How so?

2) Some fairs in some states, especially Colorado , require premise registration numbers, especially from FFA and 4-H kids, before these students are allowed to participate in the fairs. These minors do not own property, but, nonetheless, are required to have a Premise Identification Number (PIN) to participate.

3) Most states give away some sort of premium or financial incentive to encourage people to register their premises. Items vary from coffee cups, to vise grips, and even cash. Producers in Tennessee were required to register their premises if they wanted to participate in the hay-share relief program there.

4) In many states, cattle producers, in particular, were told they would have to participate in NAIS to continue to engage in commerce. In Missouri during the summer of 2005, NAIS Committee Member Dr. Taylor Woods visited livestock auctions across the state and told producers they would be required to electronically identify their cattle by January 2006, or they would be unable to sell cattle in their state. Approximately 8,000 premises were registered as a result.

5) USDA also has awarded grants to many non-profit breed and farm organizations, as mentioned earlier, as well as the U.S. Animal Identification Organization (USAIO) for the tracking database. Many pork producers have been required to register their property with PINs or lose their ability to market their hogs, all while USDA continues to state that NAIS “is voluntary with a capital V”.

There are approximately 100 million head of cattle in the U.S. , and the NAIS-compliant RFID (radio frequency identification) tags for these animals would cost approximately $300 million. The approved device for horses is an implantable microchip with an average cost of $25 each. In 2006, the USAIO predicted a charge of 30-cents per entry into its database. There is an awful lot of money to be made on the backs of livestock producers that obviously will have an impact on Rural America.

“Historically, the United States has had the most efficient and effective disease control programs in the world,” Thornsberry asserted. “Our programs have worked because they were disease-specific and species-specific, and also had good science behind them without being overly burdensome on farmers and ranchers.

“The U.S. has existing emergency animal disease protocols in place in each and every state, and NAIS will not change the protocols for disease control and eradication,” he emphasized. “NAIS implementation is both redundant and a waste of taxpayer money. Was it truly the intent of the Congress and Senate to require citizens engaging in the commonplace activity of owning animals to be under such onerous regulations and penalties?”

Note: To view R-CALF USA ’s letter to the Senate Agriculture Committee, please visit the “Animal Identification” link at www.r-calfusa.com.

# # #

R-CALF: USDA OTM Rule Heightens Disease Risk To U.S. Cattle Herd, U.S. Consumershttp://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=161401 Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA was extremely disappointed to see today’s Federal Register, in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its final rule (Rule 2) to begin allowing imports of Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, and Canadian cattle over 30 months (OTM) of age, into the United States, scheduled to be effective Nov. 19. OTM cattle originating from a country affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) have an inherently higher risk for transmitting the disease. “USDA’s mandate is to prevent BSE from entering the United States, but the first thing the agency said at Friday’s news conference was this rule is designed to normalize cattle trade with Canada,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee. “The U.S. Centers for Disease Control recently concluded that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely to test positive for BSE than U.S. cattle. “USDA went on to say that it’s an integral part of the agency’s efforts to promote fair trade practices and that the agency will encourage other countries to align their trade requirement to meet USDA expectations,” he continued. “Apparently, USDA thinks opening the border to older Canadian cattle will improve our export markets, so the agency, basically, continues to blatantly disregard the product demands of our export customers. “When is someone going to point out to this runaway agency that it is not USDA’s job to improve trade relations because there already are federal agencies for that – the USTR and the Commerce Department,” Thornsberry asserted. “USDA is supposed to look out for the welfare of the U.S. livestock industry, so how in the world did USDA get the authority to decide it’s in the United States’ best interest to continue pushing for the ‘no borders’ approach to create a North American cattle herd, which continues to jeopardize the health of the U.S. cattle herd? “During Friday’s news conference, USDA refused to answer what percentage of public comments the agency received on this rule were proponents of Rule 2 and what percentage of the comments came from people opposed to opening the border to OTM Canadian cattle,” he pointed out. “It doesn’t matter what the comments said because USDA already had its mind made up. I think they’ll do exactly as they please.” What the OTM Rule Would Do: Allow importation of all live Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, regardless of the intended use of the cattle, e.g., breeding, feeding, or slaughter. Allow importation of beef, beef products, and beef byproducts, including whole or half carcasses, offal, tallow, and gelatin derived from Canadian OTM cattle. (This means that while live cattle born before March 1, 1999 are deemed to harbor an unacceptable risk for BSE, the beef from cattle born before March 1, 1999, can, nevertheless, be imported into the United States.) Allow importation of bovine blood and blood products derived from Canadian cattle of any age.   Allow importation of casings and the part of the small intestine from Canadian cattle of any age and from sheep that were less than 12 months of age at slaughter.   How the OTM Rule Would be Administered:   The age of Canadian cattle would be determined by a certificate signed by a Canadian veterinarian.  Each Canadian bovine imported for purposes other than immediate slaughter must be identified with an official ear tag that enables traceback to its premises of origin and each animal must be permanently branded with a “CAN,” or ear tattooed with a “CAN.”  (Note: The use of a tattoo in lieu of a brand represents a relaxation of current requirements.) Canadian cattle imported for immediate slaughter would be transported in a sealed conveyance, with the seal applied at the U.S. port of entry. Canadian cattle imported for other than immediate slaughter would not be required to be transported in sealed conveyances. Besides the risk of diseased Canadian cattle commingling with the U.S. herd, R-CALF USA members also are worried once the border opens that the bottom will drop out of the U.S. market for cull cows and that the U.S. also will become a dumping ground for the specified risk materials (SRMs) that Canada has banned from its entire animal feed chain – yet another disease risk to the U.S. cattle herd. Here in the United States, SRMs are still allowed in pet food, as well as hog and poultry feed. Producers here are fearful that Canada will ship more cattle to the U.S. to dispose of SRMs in U.S. rendering facilities, posing further risks that BSE may be introduced into the animal feed supply chain here. Commingling of cattle feed with other animal feed is suspected as the source of continued BSE infection in Canada, causing Canada to ban cattle parts from all animal feed. There have been no similar efforts to enhance our own feed ban. USDA acknowledges that Rule 2 would negatively impact U.S. cattle producers “as sellers of cull cattle, dairy producers, as well as beef producers are expected to be negatively affected by the price decline for cull cattle due to this rule.” “Because Rule 2 is deemed ‘economically significant,’ Congress will have 60 days to review the rule,” Thornsberry explained. “R-CALF USA will continue to work with Congress in an effort to have Rule 2 withdrawn, but if that falls short, R-CALF USA is prepared to take the matter to court.  “Canada’s ongoing BSE struggle continues to disrupt international beef trade and continues to create hardships for the U.S. cattle industry when Canadian cattle and beef are mixed with U.S. cattle and beef,” he concluded. “Rule 2 is premature and will cause additional and potentially severe consequences for U.S. independent cattle producers, and we simply cannot sit idly by without a fight while our own government’s actions will harm our industry – all in the name of ‘normalizing’ trade.”  

April 10, 2007