text:
Posts Tagged Bribes
NAIS wins award for USDA's most dastardly idea.
Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments
Note: NAIS has won the award for 2009's most DASTARDLY USDA IDEA. In Ag Sec Vilsack's listening sessions, designed to find some common ground of appreciation for the USDA brain child, the bribe-riddled NAIS found accumulations of increasing retch with each of 16 town hall style meetings. Livestock people increased dislike with each interpretive spin from USDA. Although the livestock press, USDA state veterinarians and USDA universities defend full-blown NAIS, livestock producers were not willing to relinquish their meager profits for the red tape of a new government enforcement program.
When NAIS was not palatable federally, the USDA split the troops and provided over $150,000,000 in incentives for each state to take NAIS as a state enforcement project. When that costly idea slammed head-on to more resistance, in court and otherwise, now the USDA troops are dividing more. NAIS surveillance is becoming mandatory for certain disease studies. To try and forget the flawed thought of NAIS, new names are now being invented like "animal ID", "information systems", "food safety", "animal health emergency management", "animal security" and a host of other invented terms, just to sell the same old NAIS enforcement.
Beyond the millions spent to swallow NAIS, now many more millions are being spent to huddle government employees around new brain schemes to sugar-coat livestock surveillance enforcements. The article below is filled with costly processes that will be paid for by livestock owners and create more government jobs.
At a unique time in the history of agriculture production, when cost of goods are increasing, profits are reducing, the USDA is working at mach-speed to increase red tape and cost of doing business. Now, here it comes again, "One Health."
NIAA meeting examines 'One Health'
By Drovers news source | Monday, January 04, 2010
"One Health: Implications for Animal Agriculture" is the theme of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), March 15-17 in Kansas City, Mo.
"One Health is a worldwide initiative focused on the interdependencies of human, animal and ecosystem health, and, with this concept comes significantly expanded roles and expectations placed on animal agriculture and professionals within animal agriculture," states Dr. Tony Forshey, co-chair of NIAA's Annual Meeting. "The general sessions and committee meetings at NIAA's Annual Meeting will explore how the initiative may impact the various species and segments within production animal agriculture and animal health management."
NIAA's opening general session speakers will look at how the One Health initiative and strategies shift the focus from surveillance to intervention and prevention and how challenges need to be faced collectively rather than in individual silos and disciplines. The lineup of speakers will represent active members on the One Health Commission, representatives from the veterinary and human health community and representatives of animal agriculture.
NIAA's 11 species-based and issue-based committees–which are open to NIAA members and non-members–will meet on Tuesday afternoon, March 16, and Wednesday, March 17. Issue-based committee meetings include animal care, animal health emergency management, animal health and international trade, animal production food safety and security, emerging diseases, and animal identification and information systems. Species-based committees include cattle, swine, poultry, equine, and sheep and goat. Each committee meeting features its own line-up of nationally recognized speakers.
"NIAA's annual meeting is an ideal place for producers, animal health and management professionals, animal agriculture extension specialists and all of those involved in animal agriculture–cattle, swine, sheep, goats, poultry and equine–to gather and become better informed and involved regarding One Health," Forshey adds.
A schedule of events for NIAA's 2010 annual meeting, meeting registration, list of NIAA committees and hotel information are available at the NIAA Web site. Individuals are also welcome to call NIAA at (719) 538-8843 for information.
Tags: Bribes, Corruption in Government, Destroy Small Farms, fascism, Government collusion, NAIS - About Control, Political Protest, USDA Not Trustworthy
NAIS: Life Support ~~ Dead on Arrival
Posted by admin in Food, NAIS | No Comments
No sooner have most people pronounced NAIS dead-on-arrival, than a number of recent events may have breathed life back into the U.S.A.'s National Animal Identification Scheme. A combination of market forces aligned with a simplified tracking technology, and some rare positive news may have reinvigorated USDA's moribund, voluntary animal traceability initiative.
First the news headlines. Even though the U.S. House of Representatives had voted to cut off funding for the NAIS as part of the Farm Bill, a joint House-Senate conference committee agreed a few weeks ago to continue funding the program to the tune of $5.3 million for fiscal year 2010-2011. This funding is a reduction from the $14.2 million authorized for last year and less than the $14.6 million the Senate approved, but the program will continue. However, a growing number of Congressional members have made it clear they want to see effective leadership from USDA to dispel some of the more egregious NAIS rumors running unchallenged in the countryside (e.g., backyard farmers with only a few chickens for home use or sale to friends will have to tag and track each animal). They also want to expand the number of farms and ranches that have registered with the NAIS premises database from the current anemic 13% to closer to the 90% needed for an effective national system.
The second piece of news for NAIS supporters is that U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer in Washington, D.C., dismissed a civil suit filed by the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and a group of Michigan cattlemen against the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) over the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The group's suit, filed last September, sought to enjoin the implementation and enforcement of NAIS. The suit was dismissed primarily because Judge Collyer ruled the program was voluntarily adopted by state departments of agriculture and was not federally mandated. Should NAIS become mandatory, sorry — the judge has already ruled.
Even with a bit of good news, the large opposition anti-NAIS forces continue to rally their troops by claiming that NAIS is overly burdensome, and is unnecessary because existing livestock records, such as brands, ear tags, veterinary logs and auction barn records do a good and economical job of tracking cattle movements. Dr. George Teagarden, the Kansas state veterinarian, agrees that the current record-keeping system can be used "to find the animals in question, but it can be months after the fact." According to Dr. Teagarden, this time lag isn't nearly fast enough and he cautions, "A highly contagious animal disease will devastate this country." He underscores this dire prediction by noting that in Kansas in a single month cattle from all 48 of the Continental U.S. states arrive at least once a month. The speed of commerce is too fast to be handled by the paper-based system." Dr. Teagarden is also aware that history does not record any such "devastating" disease to affect Kansas since Foot & Mouth was eliminated in the late twenties. His pandemic prophecy is not a fear to the majority of livestock producers in Kansas or the nation, however those hovering inside the beltway still listen.
Apparently, a number of national governments agree with Dr. Teagarden, and recently several have made or are poised to move their systems from voluntary to mandatory. Within the last few months these key countries have made major moves towards mandatory traceability; moves that are likely to impact USA policy and USA producers.
It is important to understand the difference in other countries. Australia and Canada produce 60% more beef than their country consumes and absolutely must protect and increase export sales. Totally different, the US in 2008, according to the NASS, exported $2,876,906,000 in wholesale beef, but imported $4,764,392,000. For 21 years the US has not produced enough beef to feed the nation. The difference in the urgency to export US beef is drastic. If the US exports more beef, they, in turn must import that exact amount more to feed the nation. In that respect, the US is depending on imports and has no surplus for export at all. All beef export from the US is simply a trading process that does not profit producers, but only those directly related in the selling and buying.
Brazil. Brazil, also producing much more than is being consumed, has just announced that by 2011 all livestock producers will be required to participate in a mandatory traceability system. The new system will rely on simpler technology than the current, voluntary SISBOV system which is RFID-based, and every segment of the Brazilian supply chain, from cow-calf operator to slaughter facility including transporters will be required to provide a complete chain of custody records. Real-time electronic record-keeping is not being mandated, but standardized record-keeping whose data can be transmitted via Internet portals to centralized databases will be used. The SISBOV system will continue to exist for those who want to use it, but the expectation among Brazilian officials is that most producers will use the standardized, simplified paper-based system. On a world export basis, the countries with the most compliance costs will be the least competitive.
Korea. South Korea has instituted a traceback system on domestically raised beef, and has indicated that it would require traceback on imported product by 2010.
Japan. The Japanese government has had a domestic animal identification system in place for several years, and on three different occasions the then-minority political party, the Democratic Party of Japan, had unsuccessfully tried to pass legislation that would require the same level of traceability for imports. In August the DPJ successfully became the controlling party for the first time in a long period, and newly appointed Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has vowed to once again try to revise the Beef Traceability Law. He doesn't have control of the Upper House of Parliament, but he may be able to persuade his two coalition partners to go along.
How do these foreign government actions impact the U.S. meat industry? The Brazilian action probably has less direct impact on the US than do the Asian actions, because the Brazilian action was aimed at broadening acceptance of Brazilian beef in the EU. There will be some impact, though, because the largest of the Brazilian meat companies, JBS, is also one of the major U.S. meat producers so there will likely be some technology transfer from Brazilian ranches to their U.S. counterpart.
A major key to Brazilian acceptance of a mandatory livestock traceability system by Brazilian legislators was the simplification of the system of initially registering an animal and then tracking its movements from birth to export. The predecessor voluntary system in Brazil known as SISBOV is an RFID-based identification system with real-time electronic data collection and transmittal. While effective, this system is technologically sophisticated and beyond both the economic means and technological understanding of a large percentage of Brazilian producers. Embracing and actively promoting a simplified registration and tracking system by USDA, we believe, will go a long way towards helping reduce opposition to NAIS.
Even with all of these developments, make no mistake — NAIS is still on life support, and it may still die. But when the marketplace speaks and producers begin to learn the US is and has been a net import country, and no export markets are necessary at all, NAIS becomes even closer to true and lasting death!
Tags: Bribes, Destroy Small Farms, Dump NAIS, fascism, NAIS, NAIS - About Control, NAIS Not Needed, NAIS Not Wanted, NAIS Scheme, Oppose NAIS
The Money behind the National Animal ID System
1. A small number of private interests will make out big financially by supplying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tracking devices and software to livestock producers.
2. Small producers, unable to cope with the costly technology demands associated with animal tracking, could be forced to give up their farms and ranches — allowing major players like Cargill, Smithfield and Tyson to exercise an even greater control of meat production.1,2
For the time being, the animal tracking program is voluntary, though the USDA has invested more than $125 million in the last five years3 trying to create the support and infrastructure needed to advance a mandatory NAIS for livestock. In particular, tracking cattle is a high priority for the agency because it is seen as a way to restore international confidence in American beef after the discovery of mad cow disease devastated the industry in 2003. Much of this money has gone toward registering farm premises where livestock are found throughout the United States into a central database, the first step in creating a national animal-tracking program.
In order to advance the NAIS agenda, the USDA agreed in 2005 to begin privatizing parts of the system,4 creating another incentive for powerful industry trade groups to support the program. By providing the hardware, software and tracking technology, private industry groups and technology companies have already been able to extract millions of dollars from the proposed NAIS.
NAIS is the product of more than a decade of planning — mostly by the private sector — but only really gained momentum as an animal health measure seven years ago in response to the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States. NAIS continues to be as much the product of private industry and the non-profit trade groups that represent it as it is the USDA. Like wolves in sheep's clothing, these trade organizations loudly promote an animal-tracking system as necessary for the meat industry while positioning themselves or their industry partners to possibly reap the windfall revenues that a mandatory animal-tracking program would generate.
The Costs
In April 2009, the USDA released a cost-benefit analysis of NAIS which estimates that a full-traceability animaltracking system will cost the livestock industry alone $209 million annually.5 The most costly part of NAIS involves Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), which could cost about $100 million for cattle alone.6 The preferred method of tagging and tracing cattle, RFID uses tiny radio transmitters about the size of a grain of rice that are either implanted into an animal or into an ear tag that the animal wears. In theory, this technology gives livestock producers and slaughterhouses the ability to quickly "scan" each animal and determine where it came from, which could help trace diseases in the event of an outbreak.
RFID technology is extremely costly for ranchers, but extremely lucrative for private technology providers. Currently only nine RFID manufacturers are recognized by the USDA as approved providers of the devices,7 and a handful seem to have emerged as the dominant competitors, vying for the tens of millions of dollars in revenue8 that a mandatory NAIS would generate each year.
These RFID providers will likely generate revenue disproportionately from small livestock producers. USDA estimates show that among livestock producers that don't currently tag their beef cattle, the smallest producers — those with fewer than 50 head of cattle — would incur the highest RFID costs as a group, amounting to almost $35 million dollars a year.9 This is approximately how much all other beef cattle producers combined would pay.
For small livestock producers working on tight profit margins, these costs could be devastating. Larger producers have deep pockets and the advantage of economies of scale, allowing them to more easily adjust to the technological requirements of NAIS, a point that the USDA readily acknowledges.10 The USDA estimates that the RFID costs per head of cattle are somewhere between 30 and 200 percent greater for the smallest producers than the largest producers under a full-traceability NAIS,11 in part because big producers can buy larger quantities of RFID tags at a discount. Some estimates of the high costs small producers will pay are much higher than the USDA's,12 with numbers surpassing $40 a head (about five times greater than the USDA estimate) when costs of RFID readers are included.13
The costs that livestock producers could incur under NAIS include: buying an RFID tag for each animal, buying an RFID applicator, paying someone to implant the device, buying an RFID reader, buying a computer and paying monthly internet services, creating the necessary infrastructure on a farm to support animal tracking, and providing the time and labor needed to register individual animals in an Animal Tracking Database — which is also a privatized venture, mostly controlled by a small number of corporations and private interests.
The costs and time needed to comply with program requirements would give the largest operations a competitive advantage. This further promotes an unhealthy control of the meat market among a handful of corporations. Ironically, large-scale operators use confinement methods and feeding practices that are viewed by many as increasing the risk of animal diseases that NAIS would track.
Consider the Kansas Farm Bureau, a non-profit group that, according to its Web site, "represents grassroots agriculture" and "supports farm families who earn their living in a changing industry."14
In carrying out these missions, the bureau has also managed to position itself to be a major beneficiary of the tech-fest that would unfold under mandatory NAIS. The Kansas Farm Bureau aggressively promotes its Beef Verification Solution, an animal-tracking program developed though its Agriculture Solutions division, in conjunction with AgInfoLink,15 a private tech company16 that could be one of the leading beneficiaries of a mandatory NAIS. The Beef Verification Solution, according to the Web site, is the "one-stop shop for ISO compliant, USDA approved radio frequency identification (RFID) ear tags, RFID readers and data collection software."17
Essentially, by contracting with private tech companies like AgInfoLink and using its members as its customer base, the Kansas Farm Bureau could generate large revenues for both itself and its private-sector partners.
And measured by the support it has received so far, the Kansas Farm Bureau seems to have done pretty well for itself. The Beef Verification Solution has received the endorsement of numerous trade groups and fellow farm bureaus in big cattle-producing states like Colorado,18 Oklahoma19 and Nebraska.20 The American Farm Bureau, the parent organization to all the state affiliates,21 has endorsed the program, too.22 By 2007, the Kansas Farm Bureau was boasting that the Beef Verification Solution was primed to capitalize on 24 percent of the cattle market.23
In marketing the Beef Verification Solution, the Kansas Farm Bureau and its partners encourage cattle producers to use other services provided by AgInfoLink,24 one of six companies offering an animal-tracking database that the USDA considers fully functioning and capable of providing traceability.25 In addition to promoting AgInfoLink's CattleCards and BeefLink software,26 the Kansas Farm Bureau apparently also promotes business for the providers of RFID hardware, including the company Allflex.27
Illinois Beef Association (IBA)
In addition to its partnerships with the farm bureaus, AgInfoLink has also partnered with the Illinois Beef Association (IBA),28 a state-level affiliate of the powerful trade group the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA),29 whose industry partners include corporate meatpackers like Cargill, Smithfield and Tyson.30
From October 2006 to September 2007, during which time the IBA began endorsing AgInfoLink, the organization received $1.2 million from the beef checkoff,31 a government- initiated program that requires every cattle farmer in America to pay one dollar for every slaughtered head of cattle, supposedly to promote beef.32 Most of that money, which amounts to around $45 million a year,33 ends up in the hands of the NCBA34 and its affiliates like the IBA.35 It needs to be examined whether the NCBA is using this money in its efforts to promote an animal identification program, which would stand in contrast to its mission of supporting the interests of ranchers and cattle producers, many of whom may not support animal tracking.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)
The NCBA, which collects around $45 million dollars a year in beef checkoff money,36 has worked as a major stakeholder in the development of NAIS, hoping that an animal-tracking program would have been in place by 2007.37 In that year, an NCBA affiliate called the National Cattlemen's Foundation38 entered into a cooperative agreement with the USDA39 to help register farm premises — part of a push to expand the NAIS database. Shortly before cooperative agreement was announced, the National Cattlemen's Foundation received more than $2 million from the USDA.40
Back in 2004, the NCBA began working with private technology groups that would benefit financially from NAIS. Called the Beef Information Exchange and apparently comprised of a group of animal-tracking service providers, the group was promoted by one of NCBA's members, Mark Armentrout, who was also the chief operating officer of AgInfoLink Global, Inc.41
Additionally, the NCBA sits with the American Farm Bureau on the board the United States Animal Identification Organization (USAIO),42,43 which has its own NAIScompliant Animal Tracking Database,44 a potentially big money-maker should NAIS become mandatory.
Most of the big names in animal identification have aligned themselves with NCBA, sometimes making cash donations to the organization. Both Allflex USA and Schering-Plough Animal Health (Schering-Plough owns Global Animal Management), two approved technology providers for NAIS, donated $100,000 to the NCBA to become "Allied Industry Partner" Gold Level Sponsors.45
Other technology providers like Destron-Fearing, Y-Tex and AgInfoLink count themselves as allied Industry Council members or associates.46
United States Animal Identification Organization (USAIO)
Established to "oversee a database solution for tracking animals"47 and built with members from some of the most powerful farm groups, the USAIO seems to have an interest in controlling a database for tracking animals — and perhaps benefiting from the huge revenues that would come with it.
Like the National Cattlemen's Foundation, the USAIO entered into a cooperative agreement with the USDA to register farm premises. Shortly before the agreement was announced, the USDA awarded the USAIO $1.5 million in taxpayer money.48 The group planned to register as many as 100,000 new farm premises under the agreement, the first step toward initiating a fully functional National Animal Identification System.49
The USDA has put $9 million toward these cooperative agreements,50 with non-profit organizations51,52 that frequently have close ties to industry. As one USDA official said about these organizations, "In many cases, these groups don't just represent industry, they are industry…"53
Big players like Microsoft may also leverage their financial power and political connections if NAIS becomes a mandatory program. In 2006, the USAIO teamed up with Microsoft and a company called Viatrace to offer what they called an "industry-led, multispecies animal tracking database to record movements of livestock from point of origin to processing."54
One report indicates that USAIO disbanded in 2007,55 but the group's animal-tracking database remains on the current USDA list of approved providers.
Agri Beef
Agri Beef, a vertically integrated cattle operation56 that regularly ranks as one of the largest in America,57,58 serves as the first point of contact for USAIO's Animal Tracking Database.59 Though the exact relationship between the USAIO, a non-profit group, and Agri Beef, a for-profit meat producer, is unclear, it seems that their animal-tracking database could generate big money for both the groups.
The vice president of Agri Beef is Rick Stott,60 listed as one of a handful of members on the USAIO in 2006.61 He also has served as a member of major industry groups like the NCBA.62 And Stott worked on a governmentsponsored pilot NAIS project in the Pacific Northwest called the Northwest Pilot Project,63 reportedly worth more than a million dollars.64
As the chairman of the project, which was administered by the Idaho Cattlemen Association65 (affiliated with the NCBA66), Stott was able to help shape and test a pilot NAIS program based on the proposed national system, which he, his employer and his industry friends could benefit from enormously.
But also disconcerting is that Stott, as the head of a pilot project, apparently was overseeing the collection and processing of private data of dozens of other cattle producers participating in the program67 — essentially giving him access to proprietary information about his competitors. Big agribusiness groups have pushed the USDA to keep the animal-tracking databases out of government's hands, claiming that any other arrangement would subject a company's data to Freedom of Information Act requests or new government regulations.68,69 But keeping the database in the hands of big agribusiness — whether with private companies or the trade industries that represent big agribusiness — could force small livestock producers to disclose confidential information about their operations (size of herd, types of animals, etc.) to competitors or the companies they sell to.
The Money Funnel
The financial windfall that has fallen from government to the private sector with NAIS has been mighty, and there seems to be no end in sight. The federal government has already spent more than $125 million on the development of NAIS,70 funneling money into private industries and state governments to promote the animaltracking program.
Though NAIS is not yet a mandatory program, many technology providers have already benefitted financially in a big way. Global Animal Management71 and Digital Angel72 have both received more than half a million dollars in government contracts for animal tracking devices, while Allflex has raked in close to $1 million.73
It is important to note that these companies spend money in lobbying efforts around NAIS. The owner of Global Animal Management, a large pharmaceutical corporation called Schering-Plough, plowed millions of dollars a year into lobbying efforts in both 2007 and 2008, some of it on animal identification issues.74 Between 2004 and 2007, Digital Angel spent more than a million dollars on lobbying efforts75 and Allflex spent an undisclosed amount (under $10,000)76 in 2006, 2007 and 2008.
More disconcerting, it appears that two of these three competitors have partnered, further reducing competition among RFID providers. In 2008, Digital Angel and Global Animal Management (owned by Schering-Plough) announced a deal in which Digital Angel would acquire the rights to Global Animal Management's RFID tag77, 78 made by Geissler Technology.79
Digital Angel's acquisition of a competitor's RFID-technology could prove to be a wise investment. As part of its 2009 budget, the USDA plans to spend millions of dollars on a campaign directed at the cattle industry called "840 Start Up."80 The '840' refers to the United States' three digit country code that precedes animal identification numbers. The number also refers to the RFID devices that can store and transmit the ID numbers. As more and more farm premises are registered in a national database, the next step in NAIS is to outfit all farm animals with these 840 RFID tags.
And because RFID devices are sold by privately owned companies, the USDA's multi-million dollar "840 Start Up" campaign may really serve to funnel millions of dollars into the bank accounts of the few tech companies that have been approved to sell these products.
Whether it is taxpayers or the farmers themselves who would end up paying for the technology under NAIS, it is clear that it will be the tech companies and the trade organizations they align with that will benefit.
Case Study: Wisconsin
One of the best places to follow the money behind NAIS is Wisconsin, where the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) and its partner group, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP)81 have managed to secure close to $7 million in federal funding and more than a million dollars in non-federal funding over the last eight years.82,83 Bolstered by a state law requiring every farm premises to be registered in a central database, these groups are serving as administrators of what amounts to a state-level pilot project for NAIS.
The WLIC, a consortium of private industry stakeholders and government agencies, has used these federal tax dollars to fund groups that could benefit financially from NAIS. By the middle of 2005, WLIC reportedly was funding more than a dozen research projects valued at close to $400,000, with money going to the Wisconsin Pork Association,84 which currently sits on the WLIC board of directors, and Smithfield, a current member of WLIC.85
WLIC was founded in 2002 as "a proactive, livestock industry- driven effort"86 with a mission "to create a secure, nationally compatible livestock identification system."87 The members and affiliates of the consortium read like a laundry list of the corporate and private interests that stand to gain from a mandatory NAIS. The big animal-ID tech companies, like AgInfoLink, Digital Angel, Global Animal Management, Y-Tex and Allflex USA, are all represented as members.88
In coalition with the Wisconsin Department of Trade and Consumer Protection, the WLIC has developed its own USDA-compliant Animal Tracking Database — one of six that the USDA considers fully functional and capable of providing traceability.89
The push for animal tracking in Wisconsin, however, has not gone smoothly. Some farmers continue to resist registering their premises or participating in animal identification — either because of privacy or property rights concerns, or, in the case of Amish farmers, on religious grounds.90 In 2007, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture began sending letters to dairy farmers on unregistered premises indicating their milk production licenses could be revoked if they failed to register their farms.91 This threat, which would have essentially forced non-compliant dairy farmers to go out of business, was eventually softened,92 but to critics of NAIS, it demonstrates the heavy-handed tactics that government agencies are willing to use to promote the program.
Case Study: Michigan
The state of Michigan has gone a step farther than Wisconsin, issuing a requirement that every head of cattle in the state must now have an RFID tag, essentially creating a state-wide mandatory animal-tracking system.93 Additionally, Michigan is using an animal-tracking system maintained by Holstein Association USA,94 a large nonprofit industry group.
Until late spring 2009, the Michigan Department of Agriculture's Web site directed farmers needing to purchase the mandatory RFID tags to Holstein Association USA, which sells tags at $2 each,95 plus a $20 fee for the applicator,96 the tool that attaches the ear tag to the cow. (A recent update to the site now includes another tag provider, but the site still emphasizes Holstein Association USA.) In 2007, the state announced that cattle producers had bought more than one million RFID tags.97 That represents at least $2 million in sales, with the proceeds apparently going to Holstein Association USA and the provider of its tags, a company called Allflex.98 In addition to the revenues it may generate from the RFID hardware, Holstein Association USA also serves as the administrator99 of Michigan's animal-tracking database,100 which could provide another source of revenue. In 2007, Holstein Association USA boasted that its animal-tracking database is one of the world's largest, with more than 5 million cows registered.101
When the state of Michigan began requiring all livestock owners to register and tag their farm animals and then directing farmers to a single purchasing option for the animal-tracking hardware and software, the state essentially funneled millions of dollars into the Holstein/ Allflex partnership.
(If you diligently scour the Michigan Department of Agriculture's Web site, you find that you can also order RFID tags from Northstar Cooperative,102 which sells tags from Allflex and one other tech company, Digital Angel.103 The USDA has declared nine different RFID-providers as NAIS-compliant, so it is unclear why the state of Michigan would direct its livestock producers to a single provider.104)
On top of these de facto state subsidies to Holstein Association USA, the federal government has also given the group millions of dollars directly. Holstein Association USA has received more than $3 million in federal funding between 2000 and 2007 to develop animal-tracking programs.105
NAIS Failure
If you take a hard look at the money associated with NAIS, you find that the numbers don't add up to a net benefit for consumers or livestock producers. The government has invested $125 million so far trying to promote NAIS, a program that will cost producers $200 million a year. These huge sums of money guarantee very little in terms of improved food safety because the tracking ends at slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants where most food safety problems occur. The money the USDA is plowing into NAIS would go far further if it were used instead to bolster existing food safety programs and existing animal health programs that aim to prevent disease.
The costs associated with NAIS threaten to increase the price of meat for consumers and to ruin the businesses of countless small producers, who would bear significantly greater financial pressure relative to larger producers adapting to the technological demands of NAIS. Because NAIS favors large-scale industrialized operations, which have deeper pockets to pay for the necessary technology, and puts financial pressure on small producers, a mandatory NAIS could contribute to a further concentration of the livestock industry among a few corporations.106
Indeed, the only sure outcome of NAIS are the windfall rewards, which tech companies and the trade groups that support them are currently jockeying to catch. The consortiums they form with private technology providers and federal and state governments are too cozy and too lucrative to give the system an appearance of anything but a cash cow for corporate beneficiaries. The tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money that has already poured into NAIS has done more to enrich a handful of money-minded organizations than to ensure food safety, and it is time that the USDA jettison this program.
1 Duffey, Patrick. "Dismantling of Farmland continues; Smithfield buying pork business." USDA Rural Development. November 2003.
2 Heffernan, William and Mary Hendrickson. "Concentration of Agricultural Markets." Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. April 2007. http://nfu.org/issues/economic-policy/ resources/heffernan-report
3 USDA. "A business plan to advance animal disease traceability." September 2008 at 41.
5 USDA. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System." January 14, 2009 at Table 4.10.
7 USDA. List of approved NAIS devices. animalid.aphis.usda.gov/ nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/NAIS_ID_Tag_Web_ Listing.pdf
9 USDA. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System." January 14, 2009 at Table 4.2.
10 USDA. See "Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System." January 14, 2009 at 24, 29, 48.
11 USDA. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System." January 14, 2009 at Table 4.2.
12 Blasi, Dale et al. "Estimated Costs of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) Systems." 2005. http://beefstockerusa.org/rfid/. 2005.
13 Cattlenetwork. "Jolley: Five Minutes With Dr. Dale Blasi, Kansas State University." May 8, 2009. http://www.cattlenetwork.com/ content.asp?ContentId=313299
14 Kansas Farm Bureau. "About Us." http://www.kfb.org/aboutus/aboutus.htm
15 Kansas Farm Bureau. "Knowledge IS Power: The Value of Knowing Your Cow Herd From the Inside Out." December 2008.
16 AgInfoLink "About Us" and "Locations." http://www.aginfolink.com/aboutus.html and http://www.aginfolink.com/web/locations/ locations.htm
17 Agricultural Solutions. "Beef Verification Solution Program Description." http://www.agsolusa.com/bvs/Aboutus.htm.
18 Kansas Farm Bureau. "KFB's Beef Verification Solution Partners With Colorado Farm Bureau." November 16, 2007.
19 Kansas Farm Bureau. "KFB's Beef Verification Solution Partners With Oklahoma Farm Bureau." July 24, 2007.
20 Kansas Farm Bureau. "Beef Verification Solution Partners With Nebraska Farm Bureau." February 1, 2007 Kansas Farm Bureau. "Increasing the Value of this Year's Calf Crop." August 29, 2007.
21 American Farm Bureau. http://www.fb.org/index. php?fuseaction=newsroom.statefbs
22 American Farm Bureau. "Excitement Building for New Animal ID System." January 8, 2006
23 Kansas Farm Bureau. "Increasing the Value of this Year's Calf Crop." August 29, 2007.
24 Kansas Farm Bureau. "Increasing the Value of this Year's Calf Crop." August 29, 2007. 25 USDA. National Animal Identification System Compliant Animal Tracking Databases Status Report.
27 Kansas Farm Bureau. "KFB's Beef Verification Solution Now Offers More Radio Frequency ID Tag Choices." July 3, 2008.
28 AgInfoLink. "AgInfoLink and Illinois Beef Association Team Up on Animal Information Services; Wellman Joins AgInfoLink Staff." April 17, 2007
29 National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "State Affiliates." http://www.beefusa.org/affistateaffiliates.aspx
30 National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "Allied Industry Partners." www.beefusa.org/affialliedindustrypartners.aspx
31 IRS 990 form. 2007 at 8.
32 Cattlemen's Beef Board. "Financial & Audit." http://www.beefboard.org/financial/financial_audit.asp
33 Cattlemen's Beef Board. "Annual Report." 2008 at 13. http://www.beefboard.org/library/annual-reports.asp
35 National Cattlemen's Beef Association. http://www.beefusa.org/affistateaffiliates.aspx
37 Cattlemen's Beef Board. Long-Range Plan 2010. 2006. http://www.beefboard.org/library/annual-reports.asp
38 990 IRS Form. 2007.
39 USDA. "National Cattlemens Foundation Partners With USDA To Register Premises As Part of the National Animal Identification System." November 30, 2007.
40 Information found at www.usaspending.gov.
41 National Cattlemen's Beef Association. 2004 Beef Business Bulletin Stories Archive. "Industry Seeks Private Sector Animal ID System." 2004.
42 National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "USAIO Statement on USDA's National Animal Identification System Implementation Plan." April 6, 2006.
43 Nebraska Cattlemen Newsline. "Independent Consortium Formed To Manage National Animal ID Database." January 18, 2006.
44 USDA. National Animal Identification System Compliant Animal Tracking Databases Status Report.
45 Information Available online at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Web site (www.beefusa.org), under "Allied Industry Partners."
47 American Farm Bureau Federation. "Shawcroft Selected to Animal ID Organization." March 31, 2006.
48 Found at USAspending.gov. The USDA has only ever awarded the USAIO one cooperative agreement, which was worth $1.5 million and which happened in close proximity to the USDA announcement of its NAIS agreement the USAIO.
49 USDA. "U.S. Animal Identification Organization Promotes National Animal Identification System." July 17, 2007.
50 USDA. "A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability." September 2008 at 44.
51 USDA. "USDA Announces Plans to Expand National Animal Identification System Cooperative Agreements to Nonprofit Organizations." Feb. 2, 2007
52 USDA. "A Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability." At 36.
53 Email from Ed Curlett to "Community Outreach Partners." January 16, 2007.
54 Microsoft. "High-Tech Animal Database Launched to Help Ensure U.S. Livestock Producers Maintain Competitive Edge in the Global Marketplace." March 1, 2006
55 Northwest Pilot Project. "Final Report: Addendum." June 2007 at 15.
56 Agri Beef. "Agri Beef Co. Partners with Loomis Cattle Company to Develop the Finest Beef in the Northwest."
57 Peck, Clint. "Northwest Entrepreneur." Beef Magazine. Jan 1, 2002.
58 Northwest Farm Credit Services. "Industry Perspective, Feedlot." 2007.
60 Agri Beef Company. Information found at http://www.Agri Beef.com/Agri Beefco/contact.asp
62 NCBA. "National ID Program for Livestock on Track, Cattlemen Say." September 28, 2005.
63 Northwest Pilot Project. "Final Report." 2006 at 34. http://www. northwestpilot.org
64 Evans, Tony. "A Beeper for Every Cow." Boise Weekly. June 21, 2006.
65 Ibid.
66 Idaho Cattle Association. "About ICA." http://www.idahocattle. org/about.dsp
67 Northwest Pilot Project. "Final Report." http://www.northwestpilot. org
68 American Farm Bureau. "Stallman says NAIS requires producer involvement." September 28, 2005.
69 Oklahoma Farm Report. "NCBA Continues to Worry About Mandatory Animal ID." May 8, 2009.
71 Information found at http://www.usaspending.gov
74 Information found at http://www.opensecrets.org
77 Digital Angel. "Digital Angel's Recent Acquisition of Geissler Technologies Expands Company's Commercial Relationship with Schering-Plough." January 18, 2008
78 Global Animal Management. "Program Compliant Tags." October 14, 2008. https://www.mygamonline.com/trimerit/images/ approvedtaglist.pdf
79 USDA. "National Animal Identification System: Official Animal Identification Number (AIN) Devices." December 10, 2008.
81 Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. www.datcp.state.wi.us/premises/index.jsp
82 Data for the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium found at www.usaspending.gov and www.fedspending.org
83 Data for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture found at www. usaspending.gov and www.fedspending.org
84 National Hog Farmer. Wisconsin Funds ID Projects National Hog Farmer. June 15, 2005
85 "Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) Board, Members, Ex Officio and Staff." http://www.wiid.org.
86 Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC). "WLIC History." http://www.wiid.org.
87 Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC). "WLIC Philosophy." http://www.wiid.org.
89 USDA. "National Animal Identification System Compliant Animal Tracking Databases Status Report." March 19, 2009.
90 Jones, Tim. "Using modern laws to keep Amish ways." Chicago Tribune. September 20, 2008.
91 Leaf, Nathan. "Livestock Registration Law Opposed." Wisconsin State Journal. April 25, 2007.
92 Hundt, Tim. "Premises ID Enforcement Put on Hold." Vernon County Broadcaster. May 2, 2007.
93 Michigan Department of Agriculture. "Questions and Answers for Mandatory Cattle Identification Program." http://www.michigan. gov/mda/0,1607,7-125–137059–,00.html
94 Michigan Department of Agriculture. "Electronic Identification Program." http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-48096_ 48149-86002–,00.html
95 Michigan Department of Agriculture. "Order Bovine Tags." http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-48096_48149-172 599–,00.html
96 Personal communication with Holstein Association USA sales associate.
97 State of Michigan. "One Million Electronic ID tags purchased by Michigan Beef and Dairy Producers." November 8, 2007. Found at http://www.michigan.gov
98 Holstein Association USA. http://www.holsteinusa.com/animal_ id/tag_id.html
99 USDA. Food Safety Research Information Office. "Animal Identification Pilot Project." Available online at: fsrio.nal.usda.gov/ research/fsheets/fsheet12.pdf
100 Michigan Department of Agriculture. "Electronic Identification Program." http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-48096_ 48149-86002–,00.html
101 Holstein Association USA. "Holstein Association USA Approved by USDA as a Compliant Animal Tracking Database." October 18, 2007
102 Michigan Department of Agriculture. "Questions and Answers for Mandatory Cattle Identification Program." http://www.michigan. gov/mda/0,1607,7-125–137059–,00.html
103 Northstar Cooperative. http://www.northstarcooperative.com/ dhia/ProductsAndServices/spryRFID.html
104 Several places on the Web site such as "Order Bovine Eartags" direct you to Holstein USA, although in late spring 2009 some portions of the website did add Northstar Cooperative to the page. However, if you download a PDF entitled "Mandatory Cattle Identification Program Q & A," the question-and-answer number-23 informs you that you can also order RFID tags from Northstar Cooperative.
105 Information found at http://www.usaspending.gov
106 Heffernan, William and Mary Hendrickson. "Concentration of Agricultural Markets." Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. April 2007. http://nfu.org/issues/economic-policy/ resources/heffernan-report
Tags: Bribes, Codex Alimentarius, Corruption in Government, DC Politics, decentralized food system, Destroy Small Farms, fascism, Food Safety, Government collusion, Jackass Congress, NAIS, NAIS - About Control, NAIS Is a Threat, NAIS kills competition, NAIS Land Grab, Oppose NAIS, Political Bribery, Scrap NAIS
Wisconsin Steps up funding for NAIS/Premises ID
Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, NAIS | No Comments
Marti Oakley
Senator Kohl of Wisconsin who had a direct hand in setting up the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USDA to force the Wisconsin farmers and ranchers into the NAIS/Premises ID and who also, along with Rep. Obey facilitated the cooperative funding agreement [bribery payment] cementing that contract with the USDA, just announced that $1,550,000 has been allotted to WLIC. This was the consortium set up after NAIS/Premises ID was shoved through the Wisconsin legislature and promoted as a strictly "voluntary" program.
Recent developments lauded by many in agricultural circles as the "end of NAIS' as a result of funding being withheld or denied on the federal level, apparently weren't aware that the USDA through its for-profit activities as a sub-corporation of the federal corporate government, has nearly limitless sources of funds that can be used for any thing they deem appropriate. With the agricultural industrial complex willing to supply any and all funds necessary to overthrow traditional farming and ranching in favor of industrialized operations, USDA has no shortage of funds that can be paid to bankrupted states in desperate needs of funds to continue operating. So what if traditional farmers are driven off their lands and forced to forfeit everything they have worked for so long as corporations can make a profit and states can pad their coffers with bribe money.
AgriView
Kohl Secures Funding for Wisconsin Projects in 2009 Agriculture Spending Bill
From article on Agri-view comes this excerpt:
"-$1,550,000 for the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium – The Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, though the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, leads the nation in developing a workable approach for premise registration, a critical element of livestock identification and tracking. These resources will allow that work to continue."
Apparently NAIS/Premises ID forced compliance is in full swing in Wisconsin and Senator Kohl appears to be quite proud of the fact that Wisconsin, one of three test states first bribed by the USDA to bypass Constitutional rights and protections not only on the federal level, but also in gross violation of the Wisconsin Constitution itself prides himself and his state on leading the nation in developing a "workable" approach to Premises ID and NAIS, both key components of Codex Alimentarius.
I can only presume that "workable approach" must mean the prosecution of those farmers and ranchers who have steadfastly refused to comply with this [voluntary] program and the subsequent persecution of an Amish farmer who objected on religious grounds, now forced to defend himself and his religious beliefs in court against a government machine that exists to end all but industrialized harmonization agreements and illegal and unconstitutional trade agreements.
The recent and first round of court proceedings against the Amish forced Wisconsin officials to admit neither NAIS nor Premises ID had done, or would do anything to increase the safety of the food supply. With this admission, answers should be demanded as to why they entered into such an agreement, took the bribe money and persist in prosecuting those who refuse to convey ownership of their property to USDA acting as agent for the federal government.
Of course, Senator Kohl along with Representative Obey were instrumental in storing the data mined information on the gps location of all agricultural properties and owners, along with any other information they had mined, in the Oracle database, and moving that database off US soil into storage in Canada to make it unavailable to FOIA requests. This move was made until a provision could be slipped not only into the 2005, but also 2008 Farm Bills making any such requests for information unobtainable by the very people logged into that database; with or without their knowledge.
No where in the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin, nor in the federal Constitution does the government have any right, other than power it has granted itself under fictions of law, to implement or otherwise force compliance to these programs. Even the illegally ceded authority granted to unelected bureaucracies can not hold up to constitutional challenges.
At what point will Wisconsin property holders demand the right to be left alone by government? At what point will they move to impeach from office these same public officials who have violated the public trust; assaulted their property rights and have conspired with the industrialized corporate complex to defraud them of their right to life, liberty and their right to own property free of government interference?
Tags: Bribes, Corruption in Government, Cut Funding to NAIS, Destroy Small Farms, Dump NAIS, fascism, Government collusion, NAIS, NAIS - About Control, NAIS kills competition, NAIS Not Needed, NAIS Not Wanted, Oppose NAIS, Political Bribery, Scrap NAIS
Lies and Prevarication
Doreen Hannes, radio talk show host, NAIS scholar, legal analyst and livestock freedom advocate prepared the following details of HR 2749. Hannes, far more knowledgeable of international political sabotage than most all elected officials, offers this carefully researched document. Read it and go to the next town hall meeting with your elected employees. Use this data to know how the cow ate the cabbage and where to spit it. Darol
HR 2749 Authorizes International Take Over of Food Production –
by Doreen Hannes 2009
The staff of Congress said HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, didn't authorize the National Animal Identification System. Many organic groups agreed with them.
They weren't telling the truth, however, either out of ignorance or deliberate omission.
HR 2749 certainly doesn't mention "the" National Animal Identification System by name, but it definitely authorizes the program.
It also doesn't state that it is legally authorizing Good Agricultural Practices, or GAP, partially comprised of Codex guidelines on traceability and food safety and the OIE's Guide to Good Farming Practices including auditing, certification and inspections as well as disincentives for not participating in the form of fines, penalties, and loss of access to market; but it most certainly does.
Is it possible that Congress doesn't have the slightest idea what they were voting on?
It doesn't come as any surprise that Congress didn't read the bill as it was changed three times in a 24-hour period before it was passed out of the House with a 283-142 vote.
Congress says it doesn't have time to read bills like HR 2749.
The bill includes that mentioned above and even more.
All one needs to do is understand what is involved in Good Agricultural Practices and how the agencies of the World Trade Organization operate within member countries to get this.
I'll explain that to you. Really, there are only a few pieces from the legislation itself that are necessary to read to fully comprehend that this is indeed what we are dealing with in HR 2749.
The international "guidelines" are much lengthier than the legislation itself.
HR 2749 is 160 pages in its final version. If you search through it, you will find the following references to international standards and guidelines:
"(B) INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS.—In issuing guidance or regulations… the Secretary shall review international hazard analysis and preventive control standards that are in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act and relevant to such guidelines or regulations to ensure that the programs…..are consistent……with such standards." (page 35)
"CONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.—The Secretary shall apply this paragraph consistently with United States obligations under international agreements." (page81)
"The Secretary shall issue regulations to ensure that any qualified certifying entity and its auditors are free from conflicts of interest. In issuing these regulations, the Secretary may rely on or incorporate international certification standards." (page 82)
What this actually means is that there will be a layer of auditors, certifiers, and inspectors over every aspect of food production in this country, and that these inspectors and certifiers will be trained in ISO (International Standards Organization) management program certification.
The ISO has been working with Codex Alimentarius on Food Safety Standards and in particular, a technical standard for Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) which is a consortium of the seven largest food retailers in the world, and that is ISO22000:2005.
All traceability falls under the purview of Codex, the OIE (World Animal Health Organization and the IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) for global trade agreements.
The following excerpt from HR 2749 shows the fully interoperable global network already in existence regarding food and its production:
"Development of such guidelines shall take into account the utilization of existing unique identification schemes and compatibility with customs automated systems, such as integration with the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the International Trade Data System (ITDS), and any successor systems." (page 142)
So it is clear that international standards and guidelines are implicit in this legislation.
Note the usage of the command form SHALL. This isn't a 'might', 'may' or in anyway a voluntary issue on the part of the Secretary.
Then there is the section on Traceability. This is a code word in the National Animal Identification System and when one reads Sec.107 of this bill, it definitively describes components of NAIS even down to the 48 hour trace back, which cannot even be fantasized about with out individual animal identification.
"…..the Secretary shall issue regulations establishing a tracing system that enables the Secretary to identify each person who grows, produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, holds, or sells such food in as short a timeframe as practicable but no longer than 2 business days." (=note that it says "grows"=) (page 70), and
"……use a unique identifier for each facility owned or operated by such person for such purpose…" (page69)
So we have PIN and 48 hour traceback harmonizing with international standards and guidelines along with this:
"…."(C) COORDINATION REGARDING FARM IMPACT.—In issuing regulations under this paragraph that will impact farms, the Secretary "(i) shall coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture; and "(ii) take into account the nature of the impact of the regulations on farms." (page 71)
Now that I've killed you with legalese, it's time to let you find out just what these international standards and guidelines mean to those engaged in agriculture in this country.
Good Agricultural Practices are not a standard in and of themselves. They are more of a combination of standards and guidelines set forth by the FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, through both the OIE (World Animal Health Organization) and Codex Alimentarius (Food Code) to meet the certification and auditing side of the international trade aspects of the standards set forth.
The OIE and Codex are charged with setting global standards and guidelines for the member countries of the WTO to meet to satisfy the SPS (Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary), TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) and Equivalency agreements of the WTO for participation in international trade.
Both the OIE and CODEX have guidelines for traceability that, with the passage of HR2749 into law, would be written into regulations governing all interstate commerce within the boundaries of the United States.
The components of traceability are the pillars of NAIS that many of us have become so familiar with in the course of the battle over the past several years. Those being:
Premise Identification,
Animal Identification, and
Animal Tracking.
You can't have traceability under the Codex and WTO and FAO international standards without having those three components.
One of the main issues in the implementation of these standards and guidelines within a member nation of the WTO is that they must have a legal framework through which to regulate and enforce these guidelines and standards.
HR 2749 would meet the criteria for that legal framework via the excerpts from the bill above.
In the OIE's "Guide to Good Farming Practices" the management of a livestock facility are clearly spelled out.
Some of these recommendations that would become defacto law in the US under agency rule-making on passage of HR2749 (GGFP delineates international guidelines for food safety at the farm level) are for each animal, you must keep:
All commercial and health documents enabling their exact itinerary to be traced from their farm or establishment to their final destination,
A record of all persons entering the farm,
Medical certificates of persons working with the animals,
Documents proving the water you give to the animals meet specific criteria,
Samples of all feed given to the animals,
Documents from official inspections,
Records of treatment and procedures on all animals (castration, disbudding, calving, medications, etc.)
Prevent domestic animals (cats and dogs) from roaming in and around livestock buildings,
All of these documents at the disposal of the competent authority (government or veterinary services) when it conducts farm visits.
Some of the other guidelines and standards that would come into play after the implementation of traceability for all agricultural products would be :
(from FAO COAG/17 "Development of a Framework for Good Agricultural Practices")
The adoption and implementation of international standards and codes for which Codex food safety standards and guidelines have been designed, and
The associated capacity building, training, development and field implementation in the context of the different production systems and agro-ecozones. These include:
Enhancing Food Quality and Safety by Strengthening Handling,
Processing and Marketing in the Food Chain (214A9);
Capacity Building and Risk Analysis Methodologies for Compliance with Food Safety Standards and Pesticide Control (215P1);
Food Quality Control and Consumer Protection (221P5);
Food Safety Assessment and Rapid Alert System (221P6); and
Food Quality and Safety Throughout the Food Chain (221P8)."*
To be certified as meeting the requirements of "GAP," which is synonymous with being in compliance with international standards and guidelines, we can check out GlobalGAP.org.
This is "the" certifying methodology for international trade in ag products. Here are a few excerpts from their 122 page general regulations booklet that has links to checklists for those who would be certifiers and auditors under the principles of GAP.
GAP is an organization, not a governing body under WTO agreements, that works with nations and businesses to meet the criteria regarding these GAP practices for international trade. Here is a bare minimum of excerpts from their regulation document:
(ii) Developing a Good Agricultural Practice (G.A.P.) framework for benchmarking existing assurance schemes and standards including traceability. (iii) Providing guidance for continuous improvement and the development and understanding of best practice. (iv) Establish a single, recognised framework for independent verification.
Production Location: A production unit or group of production units, covered by the same ownership, operational procedures, farm management, and GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) decision-making activities.
Within the context of GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) Integrated Farm Assurance this means tracing product from the producer's immediate customer back to the producer and certified farm.
Within the context of GLOBALGAP (EUREPGAP) Integrated Farm Assurance this means tracking product from the producer to his immediate customer.
In simple English, which appears to be highly lacking in all these guidelines, it means NAIS for everything, and for anyone who wishes to be engaged in agriculture. Remember the "grows" phrase from the earlier excerpt from HR2749.
Now let's look at some of the 'exception' clauses in HR2749.
This bill is a terrifically crafty piece of legislation that is designed to cloud the reader's understanding of the impact of the law being proposed in it.
For example, all of the exception clauses give the exception under this Act so long as you are ready to be regulated under a different Act. We'll just look at a couple of these clauses to allow you to get the gist of the lack of exception available through the exceptions….
FARMS- A farm is exempt from the requirements of this Act to the extent such farm raises animals from which food is derived that is regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act.
"(I) such an operation that packs or holds food, provided that all food used in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on such farm or another farm under the same ownership;
"(II) such an operation that manufactures or processes food, provided that all food used in such activities is consumed on such farm or another farm under the same ownership; (pages9 and10)
Thus, if you grow everything you feed and consume, then everything you grow—and use no minerals or salts that you don't mine yourself—you may be exempt.
Or, in plain English, don't even try to make a living in agriculture if you won't comply with these rules.
One more exception to contend with here is:
'(A) DIRECT SALES BY FARMS- Food is exempt from the requirements of this subsection if such food is–
'(i) produced on a farm; and
'(ii) sold by the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such farm directly to a consumer or to a restaurant or grocery store. (page 71)
Thissounds good.
However, there are several problems with this that are not evident without some knowledge of how things are done in the traditional avenues open for market to growers.
First of all, cattle, whom you may recall as the primary target of the NAIS Business Plan, are sold either at auction barns or via potload to feedlots. It is illegal to sell beef directly from the farm to consumers in every state that I know of. People often will sell a calf ready to butcher in halves or quarters to people and deliver the calf to the slaughter facility for the consumer, but this is far from the normal route of commerce in cattle or other species of meat animals. Even if you can securely wedge your operation into this particular exemption, they get you later via the record keeping section of this bill:
'(E) RECORDKEEPING REGARDING PREVIOUS SOURCES AND SUBSEQUENT RECIPIENTS- For a food or person covered by a limitation or exemption under subparagraph (B), (C), or (D), the Secretary shall require each person who produces, receives, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, distributes, or holds such food to maintain records to identify the immediate previous sources of such food and its ingredients and the immediate subsequent recipients of such food.
'(F) RECORDKEEPING BY RESTAURANTS AND GROCERY STORES- For a food covered by an exemption under subparagraph (A), restaurants and grocery stores shall keep records documenting the farm that was the source of the food.
'(G) RECORDKEEPING BY FARMS- For a food covered by an exemption under subparagraph (A), farms shall keep records, in electronic or non-electronic format, for at least 6 months documenting the restaurant or grocery store to which the food was sold.'. (page 74 and 75)
So being exempt means you are required to keep records.
Keeping required records means you may be required to release those records. So how exempt can a person get under this legislation?
Then of course, as with any law, there are the fines and penalties. These are from $20,000 to $1,000,000 per violation. (page 122)
There is also the change under the seizure section that takes away judicial overview…(double quotations indicate amending language)
". . .procedure in cases under this section shall conform, as nearly as may be, to the procedure in admiralty; except that on demand of either party any issue of fact joined in any such case shall be tried by jury, ""and except that, with respect to proceedings relating to food, Rule G of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions shall not apply in any such case, exigent circumstances shall be deemed to exist for all seizures brought under this section, and the summons and arrest warrant shall be issued by the clerk of the court without court review in any such case""……pg 116
So we can just throw out that pesky Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and while we're at it, let's get rid of probable cause as well via this wording from page 117:
by striking "credible evidence or information indicating" and inserting "reason to believe;"
There are many other dangerous aspects to HR 2749, like seizures, quarantines, and licensing and whistle blower provisions, but this should leave no doubt that this bill will indeed affect ranches and farms, and has the potential to affect even home food production if an agency decides to apply the international risk analysis schemes to that venue.
Now, the questions that everyone involved in agriculture, meaning everyone who eats, must ask themselves are these:
Can regulating, fining and destroying the freedom of people to grow food create food safety?
Have the impacts of Free Trade on this nation been beneficial for the citizens of this country?
Have food safety concerns increased or decreased since we have begun to import more food under these trade agreements?
And ultimately, does the US Constitution provide for the voidance of the Bill of Rights to participate in global trade?
My copy of the Constitution clearly does not allow for any law to void the Bill of Rights which is unalienable and Constitutionally guaranteed. It's time to let our Federal representatives know in no uncertain terms, that everything to do with governance ultimately comes down to the consent of the governed, and we will not consent to being run by international agencies.
My deep thanks to Paul Griepentrog, who helped in going through the legislation and many of the ramifications and amendments to current law under this Act.
Tags: Bribes, Codex Alimentarius, Corruption in Government, Destroy Small Farms, fascism, FDA Monsanto Pawn, Food Safety, Government collusion, HR 2749, One World Government, Political Bribery, Reps Lying
USDA Partners with Private Companies (Fascism)
Billings, Mont. — The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has partnered with Allflex, a private multinational firm that manufactures and sells ear tags in more than seven countries, to help Allflex market, promote and sell ear tags to U.S. cattle producers. Both USDA and Allflex contributed $10,000 or more to become "Platinum Level" sponsors of the private industry conference ID∙INFO EXPO 2009 to be held August 25-27 at the Westin Crown Center in Kansas City, Mo. Among the stated purposes of the conference is to further participation in USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a program that would significantly increase the market demand for ear tags.
"This is a perfect example of how USDA is inappropriately using taxpayer dollars to further the interests of private multinational companies," said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group's animal health committee. "This huge contribution clearly shows that USDA is catering to the interests of multinational corporations to the exclusion of the hard-working men and women who are being besieged both by ear tag companies and USDA to force them to comply with NAIS."
In each of the 14 NAIS listening sessions held throughout the U.S. during May through June, overwhelming opposition was raised by U.S. farmers and ranchers against the USDA's NAIS program.
"Despite this overwhelming opposition, and despite repeated pleas from U.S. farmers and ranchers that USDA cease catering to the interests of multinational corporations and begin listening to the concerns of U.S. citizens, the agency obviously is forging ahead to help its corporate friends," Thornsberry said.
"Allflex is among a select list of USDA-authorized ear tag manufacturers, so its help from USDA to boost demand for ear tags under NAIS is certain to boost the company's marketing opportunities," he added. "We are appalled by USDA's brazen financial partnership with Allflex and urge Congress to immediately cut all further funding to USDA for the purpose of promoting NAIS."
R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on trade and marketin! g issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA directors and committee chairs are extremely active unpaid volunteers. R-CALF USA has dozens of affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
Tags: Bribes, fascism, Government collusion, NAIS Is a Threat, Oppose NAIS, R-Calf
Organic farmers plead for help from USDA Secretary Vilsap
Written by: Bill Suydam, Editor, Health Spectator
Hello! If you are new to our site, please Register either by clicking here or using the Register link at left under the Services heading. Registration is free and allows you unlimited access to all that our
site has to offer.
This posting from the Cornucopia Institute is a video that portrays an emergency meeting of organic dairy farmers in Wisconsin pleading with U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to level the playing field against factory farms so that small farmers can survive.
One of the ironies of this piece occurs at the beginning, when an emcee approaches the refreshment stand at the fair and notes that bottled water is selling for $2.00—and milk for $0.50.
"Can farmers really be expected to sell milk for one quarter the price of water?" he asks the camera.
The farmers are protesting the fact that many large "organic" dairy farms flaunt the regulations, while "conventional" dairy farms—ironically the current term used for farms that inject their dairy cows with hormones to force them to produce twice as much milk as normal—may milk as many as 7200 cows a day.
Meanwhile, small farmers are finding it tough to survive, and more go out of business every day. This is not what we want to see if we are going to keep ourselves and our children healthy with wholesome products from small, local organic farms.
Tags: Bribes, Corruption in Government, decentralized food system, Destroy Small Farms, Farmers Plead with USDA, Food Safety, USDA Not Trustworthy
NAIS ~~~ the Purchase of Policy
Here is a new article by Darol Dickinson that really tells what is going on with the political payola being passed around. Shows where the bribes have gone. Funny how the people up there giving glowing endorsements to NAIS at the listening sessions are the same ones who have received large bribes, er "grants", whatever. -K
"Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; every one loveth bribes, and followeth after rewards;" Isaiah 1-23
Here is a link to the USDA spread sheet for NAIS bribes—- sanitized as cooperative agreements. These are the funds received by tribes, states, government employees and companies who promise to enroll properties for USDA. Listed is only a scintilla of the cost. Every veterinarian, county extension agent, and ASCS office employee has been coerced to distribute NAIS literature and "speak kindly" about enrolling. The real cost is well above published data required by law. There are millions being spent monthly. Check it out at (http://www.usaspending.gov/index.php)
The National Pork Board got their trough filled with $800,000. That is why USDA tapped them for the emphatic NAIS report to the Subcommittee hearing March 11. The hogs are bought. In the funeral business these are called "rental pallbearers." (Not about friendships, just money for the moment.)
FFA got $359,995 to sign up their kids before they could show at fairs. The hesitant children who refuse are considered rebels and malcontents.
American Angus Assn got $594,585 to hammer the horns off their members. They also used the $$ to hammer enrollments from non AAA member Angus clients of AAA members who did not surrender to NAIS.
The Holstein Assn made a bold strong testimony at the hearing. They stuck $1,754,428 in the milk bucket so they were glad to brag about NAIS before Congress. Their milk drinking political wing National Milk Producers Assn stuck $1,027,000 in the milk tank from USDA. That is why dairies were forced to enroll property or they could not sell their milk. They closed down numerous Amish dairies with this dirty heartless trick.
Indian tribes are numerous to have coins placed in their teepees? USDA cut deals with tribal leaders and automatically listed tribe members who had livestock. The cost of Indian bribes are much lower than those for the pale face; just a few bottles of fire water keeps history from changing. Once again the government shafts the Indians. (Some Indian tribes have tribal managed herds so every tribe member receives a percentage of the income. This would let every tribe member unknowingly be enrolled in NAIS.)
USDA alleged that the 2008 cooperative agreements would be calculated on achievement. There would be larger payments for more properties surrendered and less if the recipients did not perform. Oops! USDA forgot the oversight part again and each one got full amounts.
Massachusetts has a 227% property sign up. The Ag Census reports that the US has over 3,910,022 farms that qualify to enroll in mandatory NAIS. USDA says there are 1.4 million. Therefore, when they get 100% sign-up there will be another 200% left freely roaming the barn yard. By real numbers they have 9.7% signed up now, not 35% as USDA falsely, under oath, told Congress. If you removed the Indian "bribe" enrollments the USDA has about 4% of the US properties "volunteered." How sad the USDA has become? Every one should be so ashamed of this expensive dismal branch of the government.
Bribery is not always frugal when spending other people's money. In fact this project has wasted truck loads of tax money. The cost per person enrolled for NAIS property is a putrid fact. The sickest is Rhode Island with an expenditure of $169,520 and only 15 people surrendered. Alaskan farmers cost $3,083 each. California $708. Connecticut $1,994. Hawaii $1,085. Montana $1,452. New Mexico $695. Wyoming $1,119. Vermont $5,776. Those who spend other's money, in the case of NAIS, have had amateur supervision from USDA with the appearance of no remorse.
The Washington DC wealth distributors have given USDA a $138,000,000 property sign up budget and more is on the way. As the spread sheet shows, some $40 million is concealed. As a fungible issue this may involve homes in the islands, company planes or "ladies of the night."
We live in a day that bribes, campaign donations, and cooperative agreements are highly respected in nearly every association, tribe, and government office. USDA uses subject's tax money to bribe universities and USDA outlets to demand specific performances. Few government offices have the courage to refuse a nice sweet bribe regardless of the smell of Machiavellianism.
NAIS is the farm issue of the hour. USDA has been to the vault to drink the Kool-Aid. You, the enforced ones, call your enforcers and remind them —- an election is coming. Don't fund one penny to NAIS!! Stop this scam now!!
"In whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is full of bribes." Psalms 26-10
Tags: Bribes, Corruption in Government, NAIS, Oppose NAIS


text:
goog.provide('gmf.objecteditingtoolsDirective');

/** @suppress {extraRequire} */
goog.require('gmf.objecteditinggetwmsfeatureDirective');
/** @suppress {extraRequire} */
goog.require('ngeo.btnDirective');
/** @suppress {extraRequire} */
goog.require('ngeo.createfeatureDirective');
/** @suppress {extraRequire} */
goog.require('ngeo.createregularpolygonfromclickDirective');
goog.require('ngeo.DecorateInteraction');
goog.require('ngeo.ToolActivate');
goog.require('ngeo.ToolActivateMgr');

/**
 * A list of additional options for this directive that are not defined as
 * html attributes. All keys of this hash are optional. For the complete list
 * of keys and their possible values, see in gmfx.js, under:
 * `gmfx.ObjectEditingToolsOptions`.
 */
gmf.module.value('gmfObjectEditingToolsOptions', {});

/**
 * Directive used to edit the geometry of a single feature using advanced
 * tools.
 *
 * Example:
 *
 *     <gmf-objecteditingtools
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-active="ctrl.objectEditingActive"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-copyfromactive="ctrl.objectEditingCopyFromActive"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-deletefromactive="ctrl.objectEditingDeleteFromActive"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-feature="ctrl.objectEditingFeature"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-geomtype="ctrl.objectEditingGeomType"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-map="::ctrl.map"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-process="::ctrl.process"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-queryablelayerinfo="::ctrl.queryableLayerInfo"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-requireslayer="ctrl.requiresLayer"
 *         gmf-objecteditingtools-sketchfeatures="::ctrl.sketchFeatures">
 *     </gmf-objecteditingtools>
 *
 * @htmlAttribute {boolean} gmf-objecteditingtools-active Whether the
 *     directive is active or not.
 * @htmlAttribute {boolean} gmf-objecteditingtools-copyfromactive Whether the
 *     'Copy from' tool is active or not.
 * @htmlAttribute {boolean} gmf-objecteditingtools-deletefromactive Whether the
 *     'Delete from' tool is active or not.
 * @htmlAttribute {ol.Feature} gmf-objecteditingtools-feature The feature to
 *     edit.
 * @htmlAttribute {string} gmf-objecteditingtools-geomtype The geometry type.
 * @htmlAttribute {ol.Map} gmf-objecteditingtools-map The map.
 * @htmlAttribute {string} gmf-objectediting-process Determines the
 *     behavior to adopt when sketch features are added.
 * @htmlAttribute {gmf.ObjectEditingQuery.QueryableLayerInfo} gmf-objectediting-queryablelayerinfo
 *     Queryable layer information.
 * @htmlAttribute {boolean} gmf-objectediting-requireslayer Flag that determines
 *     if the currently active tool requires a queryable layer or not.
 * @htmlAttribute {ol.Collection.<ol.Feature>} gmf-objectediting-sketchfeatures
 *     Collection of temporary features being drawn by the tools.
 * @return {angular.Directive} The directive specs.
 * @ngInject
 * @ngdoc directive
 * @ngname gmfObjecteditingtools
 */
gmf.objecteditingtoolsDirective = function() {
  return {
    controller: 'GmfObjecteditingtoolsController as oetCtrl',
    scope: {
      'active': '=gmfObjecteditingtoolsActive',
      'copyFromActive': '=gmfObjecteditingtoolsCopyfromactive',
      'deleteFromActive': '=gmfObjecteditingtoolsDeletefromactive',
      'feature': '<gmfObjecteditingtoolsFeature',
      'geomType': '<gmfObjecteditingtoolsGeomtype',
      'map': '<gmfObjecteditingtoolsMap',
      'process': '=gmfObjecteditingtoolsProcess',
      'queryableLayerInfo': '=gmfObjecteditingtoolsQueryablelayerinfo',
      'requiresLayer': '=gmfObjecteditingtoolsRequireslayer',
      'sketchFeatures': '<gmfObjecteditingtoolsSketchfeatures'
    },
    bindToController: true,
    templateUrl: `${gmf.baseTemplateUrl}/objecteditingtools.html`
  };
};

gmf.module.directive('gmfObjecteditingtools', gmf.objecteditingtoolsDirective);

/**
 * @param {angular.$injector} $injector Main injector.
 * @param {!angular.Scope} $scope Scope.
 * @param {ngeo.DecorateInteraction} ngeoDecorateInteraction Decorate
 *     interaction service.
 * @param {ngeo.ToolActivateMgr} ngeoToolActivateMgr Ngeo ToolActivate manager
 *     service.
 * @constructor
 * @private
 * @ngInject
 * @ngdoc controller
 * @ngname GmfObjecteditingtoolsController
 */
gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController = function($injector, $scope,
    ngeoDecorateInteraction, ngeoToolActivateMgr) {

  // == Scope properties ==

  /**
   * @type {boolean}
   * @export
   */
  this.active;

  /**
   * @type {boolean}
   * @export
   */
  this.copyFromActive;

  /**
   * @type {boolean}
   * @export
   */
  this.deleteFromActive;

  /**
   * @type {ol.Feature}
   * @export
   */
  this.feature;

  /**
   * @type {string}
   * @export
   */
  this.geomType;

  /**
   * @type {ol.Map}
   * @export
   */
  this.map;

  /**
   * @type {gmf.ObjectEditingQuery.QueryableLayerInfo}
   * @export
   */
  this.queryableLayerInfo;

  /**
   * @type {string}
   * @export
   */
  this.process;

  /**
   * @type {boolean}
   * @export
   */
  this.requiresLayer;

  /**
   * @type {ol.Collection.<ol.Feature>}
   * @export
   */
  this.sketchFeatures;

  // == Injected properties ==

  /**
   * @type {!angular.Scope}
   * @private
   */
  this.scope_ = $scope;

  /**
   * @type {ngeo.DecorateInteraction}
   * @private
   */
  this.ngeoDecorateInteraction_ = ngeoDecorateInteraction;

  /**
   * @type {ngeo.ToolActivateMgr}
   * @private
   */
  this.ngeoToolActivateMgr_ = ngeoToolActivateMgr;

  // == Other properties ==

  /**
   * @type {string}
   * @export
   */
  this.geomTypePolygon = ngeo.GeometryType.POLYGON;

  /**
   * @type {Array.<string>}
   * @private
   */
  this.toolActiveNames_ = [];

  /**
   * @type {boolean}
   * @export
   */
  this.drawActive = false;

  this.registerTool_('drawActive',
    gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.ProcessType.ADD);

  /**
   * @type {boolean}
   * @export
   */
  this.eraseActive = false;

  this.registerTool_('eraseActive',
    gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.ProcessType.DELETE);

  /**
   * @type {boolean}
   * @export
   */
  this.drawTriangleActive = false;

  /**
   * @type {number}
   * @export
   */
  this.triangleAngle = Math.PI / 180 * 90; // 90 degrees

  const oeToolsOptions = /** @type {gmfx.ObjectEditingToolsOptions} */ (
      $injector.get('gmfObjectEditingToolsOptions'));

  /**
   * @type {number}
   * @export
   */
  this.triangleRadius = oeToolsOptions.regularPolygonRadius !== undefined ?
    oeToolsOptions.regularPolygonRadius : 100;

  this.registerTool_('drawTriangleActive',
    gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.ProcessType.ADD);

  this.registerTool_('copyFromActive',
    gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.ProcessType.ADD, true);

  this.registerTool_('deleteFromActive',
    gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.ProcessType.DELETE, true);

  $scope.$on('$destroy', this.handleDestroy_.bind(this));
};

/**
 * Register a tool using its `active` property name and what behavior it should
 * have when it is active and a sketch feature is added
 *
 * This method:
 *  - registers a watcher on the tool active property to manage this directive
 *    main active property, i.e the directive is considered active when one
 *    of the tools is active,  otherwise it's not active.
 *
 *  - creates a `ngeo.ToolActivate` object and registers it in a group so
 *    that only one tool can be active at a time
 *
 * @param {string} toolActiveName The name of the active property for the tool.
 * @param {string} process The behavior the tool should use when active
 *     and when sketch features are added.
 * @param {boolean=} opt_requiresLayer Whether the tool requires the queryable
 *     layer or not. Defaults to `false`.
 * @private
 */
gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.prototype.registerTool_ = function(
  toolActiveName, process, opt_requiresLayer
) {

  const requiresLayer = opt_requiresLayer === true;

  this.scope_.$watch(
    () => this[toolActiveName],
    this.handleToolActiveChange_.bind(this, process, requiresLayer)
  );

  const group = `${gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.NAMESPACE_}-${ol.getUid(this)}`;
  const toolActivate = new ngeo.ToolActivate(this, toolActiveName);
  this.ngeoToolActivateMgr_.registerTool(group, toolActivate, false);

  this.toolActiveNames_.push(toolActiveName);

};

/**
 * Called when any of the tool 'active' property changes.
 * @param {string} process The behavior the tool should use when active.
 * @param {boolean} requiresLayer Whether the tool requires the queryable
 *     layer or not.
 * @param {boolean|undefined} newVal New value.
 * @private
 */
gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.prototype.handleToolActiveChange_ = function(
  process, requiresLayer, newVal
) {

  // Update process if a tool was activated.
  if (newVal) {
    this.process = process;
    this.requiresLayer = requiresLayer;
  }

  // Update active property
  let active = false;
  for (let i = 0, ii = this.toolActiveNames_.length; i < ii; i++) {
    active = active || this[this.toolActiveNames_[i]];
    if (active) {
      break;
    }
  }
  this.active = active;

  if (!this.active) {
    this.requiresLayer = false;
  }
};

/**
 * @private
 */
gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.prototype.handleDestroy_ = function() {};

gmf.module.controller(
  'GmfObjecteditingtoolsController', gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController);

/**
 * @const
 * @private
 */
gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.NAMESPACE_ = 'oet';

/**
 * @enum {string}
 */
gmf.ObjecteditingtoolsController.ProcessType = {
  ADD: 'add',
  DELETE: 'delete'
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
COVID-19 – Common Employment Issues for the Care and Supported Living Sectors
Vanessa James
Providers of residential or domiciliary care services or supported living arrangements (including homelessness) are encountering very different work force issues than other sectors. While many employers are quickly making use of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) to support staff they have had to lay off at short notice, care providers are, in the most part, faced with the opposite issue.
Here are some frequently asked questions in this sector at the moment from a HR and employment law perspective (many of which will also be applicable to other healthcare providers):
Can we move staff to different sites to cover staff shortages?
Provided that you have an employment contract that provides for this flexibility then you can ask staff to work at a different location - within reason. You will still need to consider travel distance and transport provision from the care worker's home address and if the new location is a greater distance possibly offer transport and consider whether to pay for travel time.
If the contract does not allow for such flexibility then you can only move them to different locations by agreement.
We have been told that one of our staff members has received a letter telling them they need to 'shield' and so cannot attend work. Do I still need to pay them?
The NHS sent out 1.5 million such letters to certain categories of people who due to medication and/or health conditions have been told to 'shield' for 12 weeks, which essentially means not leaving their house. You cannot expect these people to attend work but for leave purposes they are not technically sick and so do not qualify for statutory sick pay (at least not unless the government intervene).
There have been suggestions that the furlough scheme could be used for such employees but at the moment this remains unclear. It is not yet entirely clear whether the employer can decide when to 'furlough' someone (i.e. pay them 80% and claim that back through the CJRS) or if there needs to be a reduction in the need for the job, similar to a redundancy situation. The earlier guidance was based on the premise that the CJRS was to support employers who could not offer work to their staff due to the effects of coronavirus on their business. The most recent guidance released on 26 March does not mention this as a specific requirement.
Therefore, employers who wish to furlough those who are shielding can certainly do so if there is a reduction in the need for their job role as well; however, if the job is clearly still needed and the employer can pay the salary, the risk is that, when the HMRC portal opens later in April for employers to make their claims for salary, the claim could be rejected. HMRC have also said that they will have the right to review claims made retrospectively by auditing employers to claw back any claims made fraudulently or on erroneous grounds.
Once the portal is released and the questions asked by HMRC are known, the position will hopefully become clearer.
In the meantime employers will have to determine their policy to deal with such workers and may have to put in place interim measures until the situation is clear.
One of my employees has refused to come to work on 'health and safety' grounds; can we dismiss them for refusing to work?
You first need to understand the reason for the refusal – is the person in one of the vulnerable groups of do they live with someone who is vulnerable? If they have justification for raising a health and safety complaint and refuse to come into work, then they would be protected from dismissal – even if they have less than 2 years' service.
Employers need to find a way of agreeing terms of leave (possibly unpaid) and avoid dismissals that could be automatically unfair.
Some employees have raised the protection at section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which provides for paid leave for employees who refuse to go into work until the employer can agree to ensure a safe place of work. Advice ought to taken by employers for whom this issue arises as the application of this section will be subjective depending on the specifics of each individual scenario.
I need staff to be more flexible than normal in shift patterns, so can I change the employee's regular shift pattern during this time?
It is common in the care and supported housing sector for hours of work in to be expressed in contracts in weekly hours to be worked across a shift rota system. Provided that your contracts reflect this then there will be some flexibility for changing shift patterns.
Difficulties may arise if you are seeking to place those who work daytime shifts (normally termed 'early or late' shifts) on to waking night shifts (or vice-versa) and so if you can maintain sufficient flexibly without compromising that distinction then that would be a better approach.
Also changing shift patterns may effect child care arrangements for some and so any notice you can give on flexibility needed will help mitigate such difficulties.
If the hours of work in the contract are specific and the contract does not allow for flexibility, then you would have to obtain agreement and consent to change shift patterns – which is more likely achievable in the current crisis, especially where you give assurances that the person can revert to their contractual shift pattern after the crisis has abated.
Given staff shortages (caused by staff who have to self-isolate or are off for other reasons) we need flexibility in terms of job role – can I ask staff to cover different roles to cover such shortages?
All written contracts should have a job title and this will be accompanied by a separate job description which often includes a contractual right to amend the job description. This will allow some flexibility but it would still have to be consistent with the scope of what you would reasonably associate with the job title.
It is unlikely that you could force someone to work in an entirely different role than that which is in their contract and so any obvious changes to the job would have to be by agreement.
For more information on the article above please contact Vanessa James or visit the Coronavirus/ COVID-19 area on our website.
UPDATED - Legal issues and questions emerging from the official Guidance on the Furlough Scheme...
HMRC updated ten Guidance documents relating to the Furlough Scheme on 10 November 2020, to cover the extension to the Scheme.
Age discrimination, justification and the "costs-plus" rule
In the case of Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice, the Court of Appeal considered the long held view that costs alone could not justify something which would otherwise amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of age.
Chancellor announces new Job Support Scheme
On Thursday 22 October 2020 the Chancellor announced changes to the Job Support Scheme, which is still due to come into force on 1st November.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl