Browsing Posts tagged control eradicate

Downsize Government

Memo ~~ USDA knows 18% of the beef consumed in the USA was imported
in 2011 because the nation does not produce enough product to feed
it’s people, yet more costly rulemaking is assessed upon producers
by bureaucrats. This document is vague and impossible to determine
the teeth, however, be assured, the devil is in the details. Once
Hammerschmidt gets this approved and mandatory he will personally
add the teath. There will be no more listening sessions or public
comments — the federales will have their way, regardless of the
majoritie’s oppositon.

Yesterday, USDA submitted it Animal Disease Traceability Rule to the
White House Office of Management and Budget for final review. See
Below.
This is one obstinate agency.

 

AGENCY: USDA-APHIS RIN: 0579-AD24TITLE: Animal Disease Traceability
Neil HammerschmidtSTAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
** RECEIVED DATE: 04/25/2012 LEGAL DEADLINE: None
RIN Data
USDA/APHIS RIN: 0579-AD24 Publication ID: Fall 2011
Title: Animal Disease Traceability

Abstract: This rulemaking would establish a new part
in the Code of Federal Regulations containing minimum
national identification and documentation requirements
for livestock moving interstate. The proposed regulations
specify approved forms of official identification for each
species covered under this rulemaking but would allow such
livestock to be moved interstate with another form of
identification, as agreed upon by animal health officials
in the shipping and receiving States or tribes. The purpose
of the new regulations is to improve our ability to
trace livestock in the event that disease is found.

Agency: Department of Agriculture(USDA)
Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage
of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 90
Legal Authority: 7 USC 8305
Legal Deadline: None

Statement of Need: Preventing and controlling animal disease is the
cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers
and farmers work hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods,
there is never a guarantee that their animals will be spared from
disease. To support their efforts, USDA has enacted regulations to
prevent, control, and eradicate disease, and to increase foreign and
domestic confidence in the safety of animals and animal products.
Traceability helps give that reassurance. Traceability does not prevent
disease, but knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they
have been, and when, is indispensable in emergency response and in
ongoing disease programs. The primary objective of these proposed
regulations is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event
that disease is found in a manner that continues to ensure the smooth
flow of livestock in interstate commerce.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or
restrict the interstate movement of any animal to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock, and
may carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or eradicate
any pest or disease of livestock. The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the Act.

Alternatives: As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal
health, APHIS initiated implementation of the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. More recently, the Agency launched
an effort to assess the level of acceptance of NAIS through meetings
with the Secretary, listening sessions in 14 cities, and public
comments. Although there was some support for NAIS, the vast majority of
participants were highly critical of the program and of USDA's
implementation efforts. The feedback revealed that NAIS has become a
barrier to achieving meaningful animal disease traceability in the
United States in partnership with America's producers. The option we are
proposing pertains strictly to interstate movement and gives States and
tribes the flexibility to identify and implement the traceability
approaches that work best for them.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: A workable and effective animal
traceability system would enhance animal health programs, leading to
more secure market access and other societal gains. Traceability can
reduce the cost of disease outbreaks, minimizing losses to producers and
industries by enabling current and previous locations of potentially
exposed animals to be readily identified. Trade benefits can include
increased competitiveness in global markets generally, and when
outbreaks do occur, the mitigation of export market losses through
regionalization. Markets benefit through more efficient and timely
epidemiological investigation of animal health issues. Other societal
benefits include improved animal welfare during natural disasters. The
main economic effect of the rule is expected to be on the beef and
cattle industry. For other species such as horses and other equine
species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids, APHIS
would largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of
existing disease program regulations. Costs of an animal traceability
system would include those for tags and interstate certificates of
veterinary inspection (ICVIs) or other movement documentation, for
animals moved interstate. Incremental costs incurred are expected to
vary depending upon a number of factors, including whether an enterprise
does or does not already use eartags to identify individual cattle. For
many operators, costs of official animal identification and ICVIs would
be similar, respectively, to costs associated with current animal
identification practices and the in-shipment documentation currently
required by individual States. To the extent that official animal
identification and ICVIs would simply replace current requirements, the
incremental costs of the rule for private enterprises would be minimal.

Risks: This rulemaking is being undertaken to address the animal health
risks posed by gaps in the existing regulations concerning
identification of livestock being moved interstate. The current lack of
a comprehensive animal traceability program is impairing our ability to
trace animals that may be infected with disease.

Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 08/11/2011 76 FR 50082
NPRM Comment Period End 11/09/2011
Final Rule 08/00/2012

Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels

Affected: State, Tribal
Small Entities Affected: Businesses Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No

Agency Contact: Neil Hammerschmidt
Program Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS

Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 46,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone:301 734-5571
______________________________________________________________________

 

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

“Fighting for the U.S. ! Cattle Producer”

For Immediate Release                                                                         Contact: R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard

December 15, 2011                                                                                          Phone: 406-252-2516; r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com

8 Days of Opposition to USDA’s Proposed Mandatory Animal Identification Rule:  Part II of VIII-Part Series

Billings, Mont. – As promised, R-CALF USA has launched an 8-day series of news releases to explain in detail many of the reasons our members vehemently oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS’) proposed mandatory animal identification rule titled, Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate (proposed rule).

With this effort, R-CALF USA hopes to bring to light many of the dangerous aspects associated with the proposed rule that R-CALF USA described in its voluminous comments submitted to APHIS on Dec. 9, 2011. Click here to view the entire 41-page comment submitted by R-CALF USA, which includes all of the group’s citations to specific references that are removed from this news release to save space.

Part II:  By Deploying the Underhanded Tactic of “Bait-and-Switch,” APHIS Deceptively Scared the Livestock Industry, Congress, and the Public Into Falsely Believing that a Mandatory Animal Identification System was Absolutely Critical to Protect the U.S. from Foot-and-Mouth Disease

  1. APHIS’ Flip-Flop Regarding Its Principal Justification for a Mandatory Animal Identification System Demonstrates that APHIS has an Ulterior Motive for the Proposed Rule that Is Unrelated to the Prevention or Control of Animal Diseases

Remarkably, while APHIS touted the risk of FMD introduction and spread as the principal justification – indeed its “poster-child disease” – for a national animal identification system (NAIS) in the years, months and days leading up to its publication of the proposed rule, FMD is no longer included among the diseases APHIS identifies as justification for its proposed rule. In fact the voluminous, 28-page proposed rule does not even mention FMD, let alone reference it as a disease APHIS would expect to prevent or control should it finalize its proposed rule. Any mention of FMD is now relegated to a small, hypothetical and ambiguous section in APHIS’ supporting documents, in which APHIS provides the disclaimer that its hypothetical FMD discussion “does not specifically model conditions that may exist under the proposed rule;” and in whi! ch APHIS provides no explanation regarding how its proposed rule would, in any way, protect against a potential outbreak or spread of FMD.

It is abundantly clear that while APHIS has long assigned substantial weight to the potential to mitigate FMD introduction and spread in the United States in its historical and ongoing effort to impose a national animal identification system on the U.S. cattle industry, it has now completely abandoned its flagship disease.

In its 2008 risk evaluation of South Korea, APHIS described in detail South Korea’s evolving national animal identification system to highlight the system as a measure to effectively mitigate FMD spread following a FMD outbreak (EXHIBIT 6, pp. 24, 25). Similarly, in recent congressional testimony, APHIS testified that Japan had adopted a national animal identification system and that the need for such a unified national animal identification system had assumed greater urgency in the U.S. due to FMD (EXHIBIT 7). APHIS further claimed that a national animal identification system would be critical in mitigating the risks posed by potential FMD outbreaks, and vehemently argued that the costs of a national animal identification system must be compared with the estimated billions of dollars in losses th! e U.S. would be expected to suffer from a FMD outbreak (EXHIBIT 7). Recently, in APHIS’ risk analysis section of its risk evaluation for the agency’s proposed rule to regionalize a Brazilian state, APHIS describes Santa Catarina’s animal identification systems in significant detail and claims the systems would allow officials to trace the movement of cattle within Santa Catarina, presumably to mitigate the spread of a FMD outbreak in Santa Catarina (EXHIBIT 8, pp. 45-47). Then, within just days of publishing the proposed rule, APHIS published a notice of availability (notice) and request for comment that referenced its APHIS Evaluation of the Foot and Mouth Disease Status of Japan risk analysis as the basis for deciding whether to resume trade in FMD-susceptible products with Japan (see 76 Fed. Reg. 44503-504 (July 26, 2011)). APHIS stated in its notice: “The risk analysis will also serve as the basis for our determination whether to allow the resumption of the importation of whole cuts of boneless beef from Japan.” Id., 504, col 1. APHIS’ referenced risk analysis regarding the potential risk of FMD introduction from Japan stated, “Japan’s cattle identification system ensures adequate trace-back capability in the event of an [FMD] animal disease outbreak” (EXHIBIT 9, p. 17).

As demonstrated above, APHIS for many years concocted a virtual taxpayer-funded fervor, both publicly and within the entire U.S. livestock industry, to advance its goal to establish a mandatory animal identification system in the United States – which goal manifested into the proposed rule – principally, if not exclusively, by claiming a mandatory animal identification system is essential to prevent the introduction and/or spread of FMD in the United States. APHIS’ absolute silence regarding any potential for the proposed rule to mitigate the introduction or spread of FMD in the U.S. is inexplicable and provides compelling e! vidence that APHIS has an ulterior motive for proposing the proposed rule, which ulterior motive has absolutely nothing to do with prevention or control of animal diseases.

APHIS’ proposed rule is a complete scam. APHIS provides no support whatsoever for its proposed rule based on its multi-year, multi-million dollar (EXHIBIT 10, p. 1), taxpayer-funded public-relations and nationwide marketing campaign to hype a mandatory animal identification system as essential to protecting U.S. livestock from the most contagious disease known to cloven-hoofed animals – FMD; and, as will be discussed below, APHIS’ proposed rule directly contradicts APHIS’ claimed objective to carry out its statutory responsibilities using a scientific, risk-based approach.

APHIS’ inexplicable abandonment of the threat of an FMD introduction as its principal justification for a mandatory animal identification system as is clearly revealed in the proposed rule is akin to the hideous and unlawful scheme known as bait-and-switch in the retail industry.  Under a bait-and-switch scheme, retailers lure consumers into their establishment by advertising an item known to attract consumers; but, when the consumer arrives at the establishment, the item that lured them there is unavailable, and the retailer hopes the unsuspecting consumer will nevertheless purchase an alternative item. This deceptive tactic is precisely what APHIS has employed to coerce unsuspecting cattle producers to buy into the proposed rule – it aggressively advertised FMD as the principal disease ne! cessitating a mandatory identification system and when the proposed rule is published, FMD suddenly is abandoned as justification for the proposed rule, with only less contagious diseases remaining.

Like the victimized consumer duped by a retailer’s deceptive bait-and-switch scheme, cattle producers have no moral or ethical obligation to comply with APHIS’ equally deceptive bait-and-switch tactic deployed in the proposed rule, and they should have no legal obligation either.

If APHIS proceeds in any way other than to immediately withdraw the proposed rule, it must fully and comprehensively explain why APHIS abruptly abandoned FMD as a justification for the proposed rule. As part of that explanation, APHIS must describe in detail the specific role that a mandatory animal identification system played, if any, during the outbreaks of FMD that occurred very recently during this decade in the United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, and Paraguay.  Specifically, APHIS must describe in detail the degree to which traceability in those nation! s reduced the spread of FMD or otherwise assisted in combating the disease.

Further, and in addition to the proposed rule’s failure to address APHIS’ historical insistence that a mandatory animal identification system is needed to address FMD, the proposed rule also fails to explain or describe what measures and operations APHIS will deploy to control or eradicate any specific diseases. APHIS’ authority to control or eradicate diseases (note that “control” and “eradicate” have very different meaning) is conferred by the AHPA’s authorization to carry out operations and measures for those purposes. (See 7 U.S.C. 8308 (a), (“The Secretary may carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or eradicate any pest or disease of livestock. . .”). However, the proposed rule is silent on any specific “operations and measures” the agency intends to carry out to eradicat! e or control any specific disease.

Due to this additional deficiency contained in the proposed rule, and if the agency proceeds in any way other than to immediately withdraw the proposed rule, the agency must explain and describe to the U.S. cattle industry:

  1. The specific diseases APHIS intends to “control” under the proposed rule.
  2. The specific nature of the “operations and measures” APHIS intends to use to “control” each of the specific diseases APHIS intends to “control” and a detailed description of the role of the traceability contemplated in the proposed rule in carrying out such “operations and measures.”
  3. The specific diseases APHIS intends to “eradicate” under the proposed rule.
  4. The specific nature of the “operations and measures” APHIS intends to use to “eradicate” each of the specific diseases APHIS intends to “eradicate” and a detailed description of the role of the traceability contemplated in the proposed rule in carrying out such “operations and measures.”

R-CALF USA encourages readers to share this information with their neighbors, state animal health officials, and their members of Congress.

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

Powered by WordPress Web Design by SRS Solutions © 2017 National Association of Farm Animal Welfare Design by SRS Solutions