“R-CALF USA does not support the proposed Animal ID system,” he said. “It is hypocrisy to put such a costly and burdensome regulation on the U.S. industry while we lower our import standards to countries that could expose us to higher disease risk.”
Now I've always been disappointed with R-CALF for there lackluster attitude towards NAIS. I thought maybe Leo's statement was a shift from their position to a stronger negative position of this issue. I was wrong. Here we find R-CALF's position on NAIS.
R-CALF USA is committed to working with Congress and the Administration on animal identification to ensure:
The industry is fully informed of the expected costs and benefits of any proposed system;
Producer input is taken into account and weighed fully before any mandatory system is created;
If a single tracking database is created and submissions of producer data are mandated, the system is exclusively managed by the federal government in coordination with state and tribal animal health authorities; and
Any national identification system builds upon the success of existing animal identification systems, and there should be strong support for such systems and pilot projects that comply with national standards and protect producer data.
(emphasis added are mine)
What Leo said, and the above position don't jive. He needs to get his story straight. R-CALF's position is to work with the USDA to ensure before the mandatory system is in place that producers are aware of the costs and can publicly gripe about it. They also want the government to handle all the data, where it can be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests by anybody, and that existing methods of identification be taken into account. How in the hell does this position match the statement "R-CALF USA does not support the proposed Animal ID system?"
IT DOESN'T!!!!!
Like I said, R-Calf needs to take a strong position of opposition on this matter and they are dropping the ball. Too bad, they could have really increased their membership with a firm stance on this one. There is a lot of opposition to this out there to capitalize on. R-CALF should be taking advantage of it.
Leo, maybe you need to review the position on NAIS you proposed, you are being a typical politician and talking out of both sides of your mouth.
False words do not bring forth fruit. Sophocles
Cross Posted to No Mandatory Animal ID
If I may, the reason the policy is written as it was, is so that if we are unsuccessful in stopping Mandatory ID, then R-CALF wants to remain involved to help ensure implementation is done in a reasonable fashion and to try and mitigate the harmful effects of Mandatory ID.
R-CALF's efforts have absolutely been aimed at stopping Mandatory ID from the get-go. Attending the convention and visiting with directors over the last couple years has convinced me of that.
As to the reply above, one of the main efforts R-CALF has undertaken in this discussion to to try and ensure that programs such as state brand inspection programs are utilized if Animal ID goes forward. This was promoted to try and minimize the costs and impacts on cattle producers and make use of programs that are working well already.
R-CALF has always promoted the model of "Presumption of Origin" which is to say, mark or label the imports and all else is presumed to be of US origin whether that be cattle or beef. They have been fighting with the USDA on this very issue since COOL was passed.
Now that USDA has relenquished their efforts for a mandatory ID, I would like to say the reason for the success of stopping Mandatory Animal ID lays with people such as yourself and the concentrated efforts of R-CALF. Other supposed producer groups have no stake in this win although they might have jumped on late when it appeared that the momentum was swinging our way. These groups include the Farm Bureau and NCBA.
If this is truly an important issue to you and your readers, I believe everyone in the cattle-producing sector needs to become members of R-CALF. R-CALF may not be perfect but they work hard for the cattle producer and promote policy that helps those of us who rely on cattle to make a living for us and our families.
Thanks.