Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 hi... I was recently startled, when i heard that certain nightclubs required members to have microchip credit cards implanted under their skin for paying bills etc and for keeping the club exclusive.... Implanted information is on its way, on an arm or leg, near us. Soon all living things will be turned into products, including ourselves... It was no surprise to get this thin end of the plan... OLD BIG BROTHER HAD A FARMBy Amanda Griscom LittleGrist MagazineMarch 25, 2006http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/33967/A USDA plan to attach microchips to every farm animal in America has somesmall-scale farmers worried.............If only Orwell could get a load of this.The U.S. Department of Agriculture is promoting a system that would havefarm animal owners and livestock handlers attach microchips or other ID tagsto their furry and feathered charges so they could be monitored throughouttheir lifetimes by a centralized computer network. The National AnimalIdentification System, as it's known, has been in development by thedepartment since 2002, with help from an agribusiness industry group thatrepresents bigwigs like Cargill and Monsanto.Sounds like Animal Farm meets Big Brother. Yet, while some small-scalefarmers are outspoken in their criticism of the scheme, many in theagriculture community say it's high time the U.S. more carefully trackedlivestock. The question is how best to do it -- and the devil, as always, isin the details.The vision, says Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, is to create acomprehensive high-tech tracking system that would eventually know thewhereabouts of every cow, llama, hog, catfish, ostrich, and other farmcritter in the nation so that animal-borne diseases such as avian flu, madcow, and foot-and-mouth disease could be easily and systematically kept incheck. If an animal were discovered to be a carrier of a disease, thissystem could supposedly track every location it had been in through thecourse of its life and the other animals it may have come in contact with;those exposed could then be killed before the disease spread out of control.Some independent farmers are concerned that the costs of NAIS would beparticularly burdensome for small-scale operators, who are alreadystruggling to stay afloat. "It's horribly insidious," says Lynn Miller,editor of Small Farmer's Journal. "The USDA is poised to push us off ourfarms."Dore Mobley, spokesperson for the USDA, counters that such claims aregreatly exaggerated. "It's simply not true," she says, explaining that thedepartment has no intention of putting any farmer, no matter how small, outof business. And though she acknowledges that farms of every size will haveto share the costs of the program, she reasons that it is "an investment inthe future of animal agriculture from which all will benefit."Martha Noble of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which advocates onbehalf of midsize and small-scale farming, acknowledges that some form oftracking system may be necessary for public-health reasons. "We are notopposed to a tracking program, per se," she says. "We understand the needfor effective monitoring of animals and disease, but there's a lot ofdisagreement about how is it going to be implemented, who is in control, andhow is it going to be paid for."Some small-scale farmers also suspect that the program was designed by bigindustry, for big industry -- and, indeed, there's no denying that industryhad a heavy hand in it. According to Glenn Slack, president of the NationalInstitute for Animal Agriculture, a trade group, "The program is largelybased on a plan developed in 2002 through an industry-governmentcollaborative effort facilitated by NIAA." NIAA represents, among others,the biggest meat producers in the U.S., including Cargill Meat Solutions andthe National Pork Producers Council, and the makers of high-tech animal-IDequipment, such as Micro Beef Technologies and Digital Angel. The lattergroup, needless to say, could benefit directly from a nationwide animal-IDprogram.Paul Shapiro of the Humane Society of the United States has taken noposition on the program, but argues it could actually be better for theanimals than current tagging methods: "If anything, microchips may be lessinvasive to animals than branding or ear-clipping, which has been going onfor eons," he says. And according to Mobley, the ID program would enableofficials to be more prudent in choosing which animals are killed in theevent of a disease outbreak, rather than wiping out herds and flocks on alarge scale, as has generally been the approach heretofore. (Granted, mostof the animals are destined for the slaughterhouse anyway, but that'sanother story.)I'm going to have to see your IDThe program -- which is thus far voluntary, but could eventually becomemandatory -- is designed to unfold in three stages. First, farmers andproducers would register the barns, factories, slaughterhouses, and evenhomes where their animals -- be they 10,000 cows, a dozen chickens, or asingle potbellied pig -- reside and are processed.Second, animals born or living on those premises would be assigned a15-digit federal ID number and a tag -- in some cases, an implantedradio-frequency identification (RFID) device. But producers of certainspecies such as chickens and swine that are bought, moved, and slaughteredin big groups could be allowed to identify an entire lot with a single IDnumber -- a less time-intensive and expensive process. Critics argue thatsince factory farms are in the business of mass production of animals, thiswould present them with a cost advantage. Miller says this is a loopholethat effectively "renders the whole program moot."Third, data on each animal's whereabouts would be compiled and regularlyupdated in a centralized computer network, which the USDA expects to be upand running on a national scale by 2009 at the earliest. The department hassuggested that animals' RFID tags could eventually be tracked real-time by aGlobal Positioning System, but there is no clear time frame for thisscenario.Many producers have voiced concern that if the government controls this kindof proprietary information about the purchase and sale of their products,the IRS or a competitor could get ahold of it through a Freedom ofInformation Act request. That's presumably much of the reason why, thoughthe first two stages of NAIS are intended to be carried out by federal andstate agencies, the USDA has decided that the third stage of the programshould be overseen by private entities. Exactly which entities remains to beseen. (Johanns, who happens to be the former governor of a bigbeef-producing state, Nebraska, had at one point supported a proposal thatwould have a spin-off of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association take aleadership role in overseeing the database for much of the program. Thatdidn't go over so well.)Already some 200,000 large-scale facilities are voluntarily participating instage one, having registered themselves on the state level, perhapsbelieving that a tracking program will eventually help demonstrate thesafety of their meat products to overseas customers. Says NIAA's Slack, "Inaddition to providing a much-needed national emergency-response capabilityin the event of disease outbreak, NAIS will help enlarge the internationalmarket for U.S. livestock products."A draft plan released by the USDA last April proposed making the programmandatory as soon as 2008, and indicated that there would be no significantfederal funding assistance for the tagging process. The proposal ignited afirestorm of opposition within the farming community, and Johanns has sincebacked off the mandatory aspect.The USDA hopes to release a revised plan by the end of this year, and itwill likely leave to state officials decisions about whether to make theprogram voluntary or mandatory. The agency's NAIS coordinator, NeilHammerschmidt, said in a speech last month to the cattle-industry groupR-Calf USA that USDA isn't sure whether it has the authority to impose afederally mandated program that requires producers to report to a privateentity.In the meantime, states are moving on their own to put the animal-trackingsystem in place. Minnesota and Wisconsin have approved measures that makestage one of the NAIS program mandatory, according to Mobley, and Maine,North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Washington are considering similarlegislation. The USDA has allocated more than $60 million to help statesimplement the animal-ID program, Mobley says.Not safe, just sorryWhat irks Mary Zanoni, executive director of Farm for Life, which works toprotect the rights of small farmers, is that she believes the current USDAproposal would not make the U.S. meat supply appreciably safer. "Basically,the NAIS system would be of no use at all in dealing with the most commontypes of meat contamination in the U.S., the occurrence of pathogens such aslisteria or E. coli in processed meat," she says. That's because whencontaminants occur in industrial-scale quantities of meat -- as is often thecase -- and are not discovered until the meat has been distributed throughthe supply chain, it is all but impossible to find the source. "There is noway to identify individual cows from one million pounds of hamburger," shesays.But would the NAIS help control the spread of mad cow or avian flu? "We havereams of scientific data that tell us without exception that by far thehighest incidence of any transmittable contagion happens in industrial farmapplications," says Lynn Miller. "That's where animals are in cramped,unhealthy conditions, and vulnerable to widespread disease outbreak." If theUSDA wants to control disease, he says, it should develop standards forhealthier animal conditions and then put in place a monitoring and trackingsystem solely for factory farms.Zanoni sums up the views of many independent farmers: "Real food securitycomes from raising food yourself or buying from a local farmer you actuallyknow. The USDA plan will only stifle local sources of production throughover-regulation and unmanageable costs."...........NHNE Factory Farming Resource Page:http://www.nhne.org/resources/tabid/451/Default.aspx------------NHNE News List:To , send a message to:nhnenews- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Not sure if this is true or not about the clubs, but I always thought that it was only a matter of time before you could not take your baby out of the hospital without a bar code or chip. So what clubs are these that you have heard of that do this? Nikki , " Colin Sky " <colinsky wrote: > > hi... > > I was recently startled, when i heard that certain nightclubs required members to have microchip credit cards implanted under their skin for paying bills etc and for keeping the club exclusive.... > > Implanted information is on its way, on an arm or leg, near us. > > Soon all living things will be turned into products, including ourselves... > > It was no surprise to get this thin end of the plan... > > OLD BIG BROTHER HAD A FARM > By Amanda Griscom Little > Grist Magazine > March 25, 2006 > > http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/33967/ > > A USDA plan to attach microchips to every farm animal in America has some > small-scale farmers worried. > > ............ > > If only Orwell could get a load of this. > > The U.S. Department of Agriculture is promoting a system that would have > farm animal owners and livestock handlers attach microchips or other ID tags > to their furry and feathered charges so they could be monitored throughout > their lifetimes by a centralized computer network. The National Animal > Identification System, as it's known, has been in development by the > department since 2002, with help from an agribusiness industry group that > represents bigwigs like Cargill and Monsanto. > > Sounds like Animal Farm meets Big Brother. Yet, while some small- scale > farmers are outspoken in their criticism of the scheme, many in the > agriculture community say it's high time the U.S. more carefully tracked > livestock. The question is how best to do it -- and the devil, as always, is > in the details. > > The vision, says Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, is to create a > comprehensive high-tech tracking system that would eventually know the > whereabouts of every cow, llama, hog, catfish, ostrich, and other farm > critter in the nation so that animal-borne diseases such as avian flu, mad > cow, and foot-and-mouth disease could be easily and systematically kept in > check. If an animal were discovered to be a carrier of a disease, this > system could supposedly track every location it had been in through the > course of its life and the other animals it may have come in contact with; > those exposed could then be killed before the disease spread out of control. > > Some independent farmers are concerned that the costs of NAIS would be > particularly burdensome for small-scale operators, who are already > struggling to stay afloat. " It's horribly insidious, " says Lynn Miller, > editor of Small Farmer's Journal. " The USDA is poised to push us off our > farms. " > > Dore Mobley, spokesperson for the USDA, counters that such claims are > greatly exaggerated. " It's simply not true, " she says, explaining that the > department has no intention of putting any farmer, no matter how small, out > of business. And though she acknowledges that farms of every size will have > to share the costs of the program, she reasons that it is " an investment in > the future of animal agriculture from which all will benefit. " > > Martha Noble of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which advocates on > behalf of midsize and small-scale farming, acknowledges that some form of > tracking system may be necessary for public-health reasons. " We are not > opposed to a tracking program, per se, " she says. " We understand the need > for effective monitoring of animals and disease, but there's a lot of > disagreement about how is it going to be implemented, who is in control, and > how is it going to be paid for. " > > Some small-scale farmers also suspect that the program was designed by big > industry, for big industry -- and, indeed, there's no denying that industry > had a heavy hand in it. According to Glenn Slack, president of the National > Institute for Animal Agriculture, a trade group, " The program is largely > based on a plan developed in 2002 through an industry-government > collaborative effort facilitated by NIAA. " NIAA represents, among others, > the biggest meat producers in the U.S., including Cargill Meat Solutions and > the National Pork Producers Council, and the makers of high-tech animal-ID > equipment, such as Micro Beef Technologies and Digital Angel. The latter > group, needless to say, could benefit directly from a nationwide animal-ID > program. > > Paul Shapiro of the Humane Society of the United States has taken no > position on the program, but argues it could actually be better for the > animals than current tagging methods: " If anything, microchips may be less > invasive to animals than branding or ear-clipping, which has been going on > for eons, " he says. And according to Mobley, the ID program would enable > officials to be more prudent in choosing which animals are killed in the > event of a disease outbreak, rather than wiping out herds and flocks on a > large scale, as has generally been the approach heretofore. (Granted, most > of the animals are destined for the slaughterhouse anyway, but that's > another story.) > > I'm going to have to see your ID > > The program -- which is thus far voluntary, but could eventually become > mandatory -- is designed to unfold in three stages. First, farmers and > producers would register the barns, factories, slaughterhouses, and even > homes where their animals -- be they 10,000 cows, a dozen chickens, or a > single potbellied pig -- reside and are processed. > > Second, animals born or living on those premises would be assigned a > 15-digit federal ID number and a tag -- in some cases, an implanted > radio-frequency identification (RFID) device. But producers of certain > species such as chickens and swine that are bought, moved, and slaughtered > in big groups could be allowed to identify an entire lot with a single ID > number -- a less time-intensive and expensive process. Critics argue that > since factory farms are in the business of mass production of animals, this > would present them with a cost advantage. Miller says this is a loophole > that effectively " renders the whole program moot. " > > Third, data on each animal's whereabouts would be compiled and regularly > updated in a centralized computer network, which the USDA expects to be up > and running on a national scale by 2009 at the earliest. The department has > suggested that animals' RFID tags could eventually be tracked real- time by a > Global Positioning System, but there is no clear time frame for this > scenario. > > Many producers have voiced concern that if the government controls this kind > of proprietary information about the purchase and sale of their products, > the IRS or a competitor could get ahold of it through a Freedom of > Information Act request. That's presumably much of the reason why, though > the first two stages of NAIS are intended to be carried out by federal and > state agencies, the USDA has decided that the third stage of the program > should be overseen by private entities. Exactly which entities remains to be > seen. (Johanns, who happens to be the former governor of a big > beef-producing state, Nebraska, had at one point supported a proposal that > would have a spin-off of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association take a > leadership role in overseeing the database for much of the program. That > didn't go over so well.) > > Already some 200,000 large-scale facilities are voluntarily participating in > stage one, having registered themselves on the state level, perhaps > believing that a tracking program will eventually help demonstrate the > safety of their meat products to overseas customers. Says NIAA's Slack, " In > addition to providing a much-needed national emergency-response capability > in the event of disease outbreak, NAIS will help enlarge the international > market for U.S. livestock products. " > > A draft plan released by the USDA last April proposed making the program > mandatory as soon as 2008, and indicated that there would be no significant > federal funding assistance for the tagging process. The proposal ignited a > firestorm of opposition within the farming community, and Johanns has since > backed off the mandatory aspect. > > The USDA hopes to release a revised plan by the end of this year, and it > will likely leave to state officials decisions about whether to make the > program voluntary or mandatory. The agency's NAIS coordinator, Neil > Hammerschmidt, said in a speech last month to the cattle-industry group > R-Calf USA that USDA isn't sure whether it has the authority to impose a > federally mandated program that requires producers to report to a private > entity. > > In the meantime, states are moving on their own to put the animal- tracking > system in place. Minnesota and Wisconsin have approved measures that make > stage one of the NAIS program mandatory, according to Mobley, and Maine, > North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Washington are considering similar > legislation. The USDA has allocated more than $60 million to help states > implement the animal-ID program, Mobley says. > > Not safe, just sorry > > What irks Mary Zanoni, executive director of Farm for Life, which works to > protect the rights of small farmers, is that she believes the current USDA > proposal would not make the U.S. meat supply appreciably safer. " Basically, > the NAIS system would be of no use at all in dealing with the most common > types of meat contamination in the U.S., the occurrence of pathogens such as > listeria or E. coli in processed meat, " she says. That's because when > contaminants occur in industrial-scale quantities of meat -- as is often the > case -- and are not discovered until the meat has been distributed through > the supply chain, it is all but impossible to find the source. " There is no > way to identify individual cows from one million pounds of hamburger, " she > says. > > But would the NAIS help control the spread of mad cow or avian flu? " We have > reams of scientific data that tell us without exception that by far the > highest incidence of any transmittable contagion happens in industrial farm > applications, " says Lynn Miller. " That's where animals are in cramped, > unhealthy conditions, and vulnerable to widespread disease outbreak. " If the > USDA wants to control disease, he says, it should develop standards for > healthier animal conditions and then put in place a monitoring and tracking > system solely for factory farms. > > Zanoni sums up the views of many independent farmers: " Real food security > comes from raising food yourself or buying from a local farmer you actually > know. The USDA plan will only stifle local sources of production through > over-regulation and unmanageable costs. " > > ........... > > NHNE Factory Farming Resource Page: > http://www.nhne.org/resources/tabid/451/Default.aspx > > ------------ > > NHNE News List: > > To , send a message to: > nhnenews- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.