|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Home | News | Commentary | Forum | The Loft | Online Activist | State News | Resources | Cartoons | Classifieds | Contact Us |
By Henry Lamb January 30, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Should the USDA adopt this recommendation, animal movement in "non-consistent" states could be restricted, not only by the USDA, but by the states. To NAIS opponents, this appears to be another way the USDA is saying to the public that the NAIS is voluntary, while behind the scenes, doing everything in its power to force livestock owners to comply with the identification requirements. The public relations campaign in support of the program claims it will stop, or reduce, animal disease outbreaks such as mad cow disease, by providing the ability to trace a diseased animal to its source within 48 hours. The Liberty Ark Coalition says this is a myth, because: "Mad Cow disease is not contagious, takes years to develop, and is completely preventable. NAIS is designed to do only one thing: provide 48-hour trace-back of animal movements. This is simply not relevant to protecting our food supply from Mad Cow disease. Moreover, the USDA has stated that it estimates that there are only four to seven (4-7) cows in the entire U.S. that have BSE, or Mad Cow Disease, and that it's not even necessary to conduct testing to protect our food supply. Indeed, the USDA refuses to allow a U.S. company, Creekstone Farms & Premium Beef, to voluntarily test all of its cattle for BSE, in order to satisfy its customers' wishes. If BSE is not enough of a threat to justify (or even allow) testing, then certainly it cannot be the basis for requiring millions of animals to be electronically tagged and their every move tracked." Opponents of the program contend that it was conceived by, and will benefit, only large meat packers and exporters, and the technology companies that provide the identification and tracking equipment. Opposition has grown dramatically, as small farmers and ranchers realize that their horse, chickens, pigs or cows fall under the USDA's jurisdiction, and they will have to bear the cost and inconvenience of a program that will make no difference to animal health, and benefit only the large exporters and technology companies. --------
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty International . -------------------- Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA. >> Back -- Page 1 2
Current rating:
|
|
4.4 out of 5.0 (34 total votes)
|
|
|
|
| |||
 | |||
| |||
|
