Eat That!
As the Colorado State Fair comes to an end this weekend, most will come away with good feelings, prizes won, pride of livestock exhibitors and the chosen to be sold at the Junior Livestock Sale, and the fun of enjoying the many events offered at the 135th annual fair.
Unfortunately a black cloud came then stayed, unwanted and ominous over the fair grounds in Pueblo.
Hiding behind this black cloud was the ugly face of European Union values, i.e. socialism.
You might ask, “Why would he suggest that?” Well, what I’m about to tell you is what I saw. And it wasn’t pretty.
Because the packing industry controls the United States Department of Agriculture, we in the cattle industry are held tightly by its strong arm.
One of the many off-shoots of the packer control is implementation of a program called Premises Identification, and National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
While this federal program is touted as a voluntary action to attend to quick trace back of disease and bio terror (national security), it’s been problematic from the onset. Some examples include: Non-submission of data proving federal claims of “cost benefits” and “value added” to cow-calf producers;” Cost and implementation burden falls on cow-calf producers; Vanquished promise of recognizing brands in states with brand laws; Cumbersome accessibility of vaccine thereby voiding hope of timely response; Federal data base ignoring private property rights.
Running cattle in two states that have brand laws, I’ve had opportunity to visit with their brand inspectors and state vets about such things as tracking and vaccine. It’s very clear that they’ve had a solid hundred plus year history of being able to ably handle crisis just by simply “communicating” with one another and using the brands.
It’s likely that having an additional step of “federal” would slow down and encumber the entire process to such extent that mortality would arise as the grave matter to deal with.
It’s a given that with all this knowledge, the proposed Premises I.D. and NAIS was met with reasonable resistance from thinking cow-calf producers.
Furthermore, it was easy to see the pro-generators of this idea, was the packing industry, for it would ease their selling of USA meat products to foreign countries.
Probably because of the deep resistance to implement these I.D. programs, in 2006 U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns changed the once status of “”mandatory” to “voluntary.”
Many though, knew the feds would not give up their charge of mandatory, and that it’d only be a matter of time before they’d return that program under a different guise. Unfortunately one would never have guessed they’d use our children to attempt crashing the gates of resistance.
Yet that’s exactly what happened here in Colorado.
The federal government gave large moneyed grants to Colorado State University Extension, the F.F.A., and the Colorado Department of Agriculture, to route the animal I.D. as mandatory on our youth and their livestock.
The Colorado State Fair took it one step further by making mandatory premise I.D. on exhibitor entry forms…as a condition of showing.
I see two major problems with this idea. One, it’s discriminatory, in that children who house their animal on property other than their parents would pose an unacceptable affront to the rightful property owners. Two, it forces children to register property they don’t hold title to, which is against the law.
I wonder. What does this teach our children?
Some exhibitors were told using a valid premise I.D. from their county’s fair ground was OK, only to harshly and unfairly learn later… they’d been misled.
This is where the black cloud of socialism showed up. Word has it that around 12 youth exhibitors who had qualified for the Junior Livestock sale catalog, found their county fair ground I.D. was not only refused by fair officials, they were told to leave the fair grounds within 24 hours or be escorted off the grounds by the Sheriff’s department.
Needless to say, these youngsters were crushed. Instead of reaping the reward of their years work with their animal, they were treated like criminals.
Although they were offered a buy out and asked to remain silent about such (And some did.) I find using tax payer dollars a rather odd solution.
In visiting with one ousted, teary eyed youngster, she calmly stated, “Yes, they made me feel like some low human, but I will rise above them. I will not sink to their level.”
Fair officials claim it took 30 days for them to identify and weed out the alleged offenders of their ruling.
This 30 day time frame will most likely repeat itself when the feds finally respond to veterinarians emergency vaccine requests.
We read about the exploitation of children under communist rule, and shake our heads. One would never dream this type of action would rear up in America. But it has.
Right here in your back yard, your tax dollars are being funneled through the U.S.D.A. to force our children to engage in illegal activities simply to appease the packing industry.
I can’t believe our own federal government would use our children to get back at their law-abiding adult parents.
But as long as financial gains of mega oligopoly packer industry converts neatly into campaign contributions for any bureaucrat wanna be and trumps anything just, decent and good, socialism will be the only thing left…green…and growing.
Eat that!
Chuck Sylvester
P.O. Box 155
LaSalle, CO 80645
970-284-6874
Farm_Cowboy@msn.com
If memory serves me correctly, a similiar tactic of proof of the animals ID has been enforced here in NE for the participants showing animals at fairs. It absolutely scares the ba-jesus out of me to see where this country is headed. It's like our so-called leaders are like chickens running around with their heads cut off, cuz they sure ain't using any common sense in some of the legislation they're pawning off onto the citizens of this nation.
Good article! Judi
Great article, Chuck!!
I have come across the vaccination problem before in the context of the EU. The US govt has come under immense pressure from the big beef industry to either allow meat producers/packers to perform their own voluntary testing (to get Korea, Japan, Europe to approve US beef exports, or to impose mandatory regulations based on the EU precautionary principle.
This is causing substantial 'pain' to smaller businessmen like you in this industry. Ultimately, this type of thinking will kill competition b/c only the 'big' players can afford to meet the 'voluntary' / mandatory 'safety' standards created to protect the export markets for US beef.
In fact, I had one Washington lawyer approach me over a year ago to see if I knew a way around the USDA regs which prohibited self-inspection by beef producers & packers. The USDA wasn't permitting it since to do so would indirectly bring in the 100% inspection requirement of the EU, which had been adopted by Asian countries as a way to ban US beef exports. I didn't then have an answer for him b/c that would have meant giving in the EU push to have the precautionary principle in USDA regulations.
Arguably, USDA did not have a problem with US beef producers wanting to preserve their export markets. However, to have allowed them to self-inspect, USDA still would be responsible for ensuring 'food safety', its regulatory function.
Anyhow, I thought this would be important information for you to understand the context in which the USDA has been operating. They are under extreme pressure internationally to adopt the precautionary principle as an across-the-board regulatory law requirement to ensure farm-to-table food safety as they do in Europe.
I included mention of the regulatory issue in a paper of mine that was published in 2004. See: http://diplomacy.shu.edu/journal/KOGAN%20-%20Precautionary%20Principle%20&%20WTO%20Law.pdf
The relevant excerpt: (p. 80)
THE NATURE AND CONTEXT OF GLOBAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS
The recent discovery, this past December, of the first documented case of mad
cow disease in the United States caused many people to question the safety of U.S.
beef and the reliability of the U.S. beef inspection system. These concerns were
largely based on what was perceived to be the inadequate response of European
governments to a more pronounced "mad cow" crisis that had swept Europe during
the 1980s.20 Such thinking was understandable in light of other reports about beef
safety issued by the European Commission and consumer and environmental groups.
Such reports have highlighted the potential but uncertain risks posed to our endocrine
systems by the synthetic hormones injected into cows to enhance growth and milk
production.21 They have also discussed the potential but uncertain risks posed to
our immune systems by the antibiotics administered in cattle feed rather than
therapeutically to maintain a herd's health and to enhance livestock growth.22 There
was no mention, however, that the science underlying these reports was less than
conclusive or that the findings were the subject of debate within the scientific
community.23
FOOTNOTE #23
23 A discussion relating to how the United States continues to dispute 'scientific' data produced by the EU
in support of its beef hormones ban is set forth in a later section of this paper. Several European studies
have been prepared on this subject. See: Rainer W. Stephany, "Hormones in Meat: Different Approaches
in the EU and in the USA," National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands,
APMIS 109 (Suppl. 103): S357-64 (2001), wherein the author explains that "the differences in
approach and attitude towards the 'hormone problem' in the different parts of the world in the last decade
resulted in conflicts between the EU and amongst others the USA." Id., p. 357.
See: Rainer W. Stephany, "Hormone Residue Testing: An Update in Research and Approaches," National
Institute of Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands (Oct. 2001); R.W. Stephany,
"Hormones in Meat? Are Only Natural!" Laboratory for Residue Analysis (ARO), National Institute of
Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), the Netherlands, wherein, the author concludes that,
".[T]here is no such thing as hormone-free meat and.the meat of animals which have been treated with
anabolics in an expert and controlled manner contains hardly any more hormones than are found
naturally. Under these conditions there is no risk to the consumer" (emphasis added). According to two
recent scientific reports, the EU ban on growth-promoting antibiotics in animal feed may have given rise
to a 'risk/risk scenario' wherein there is now more risk posed to human health and animal welfare because
of threat of increased antibiotic resistance than before the bans were instituted.
See: Mark Casell, Christian Friis, Enric Marco, et al., "The European Ban on Growth-Promoting
Antibiotics and Emerging Consequences for Human and Animal Health," Journal of Antimicrobial
Chemotherapy (July 2003) 52, pp. 159-161. "Experience in Sweden had already shown that the bans
might have adverse consequences for animal health and welfare, and economic consequences [from
reduced animal production] for farmers. There were also suggestions that human health is unlikely to
benefit and that it might even be adversely affected.The driving forces behind these bans were consumer
and political opinion, and a scientific concern that resistance in selected animals might be transmitted to
humans to the detriment of their health.The efforts and expenditure involved in the imposition of the
ban would have been better spent on achieving rational antibiotic use in humans and animals, and on
much greater efforts to understand the complex epidemiology of resistant pathogens and resistance genes,
as well as adequate risk assessments of both the ban, the 'precaution,' in parallel with the 'threat,' i.e., the
continued use of growth promoters" (emphasis added). Id., pp. 159 and 160-61.
See: Ian Phillips, Mark Casewell, Tony Cox, et al., "Does the Use of Antibiotics in Food Animals Pose a
Risk to Human Health? A Critical View of Published Data," Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (Sept.
2003). "Essentially antibiotics are used if they are known to be effective for their indicated purpose. They
must cure or prevent infection, or in the case of growth promotion, must have a significant effect on food
conversion parameters, and thereby improve the economic return to the animal producer, and they should
not harm the animal.Almost every case made for or against antibiotics used in animals is complicated by
the use of the same antibiotics in humans, which are equally able to give rise to resistance.What has not
happened in 50 years of antibiotic use in animals and man seems unlikely to happen at a rapid rate now.
The banning of any antibiotic usage in animals based on the 'precautionary principle' in the absence of a full quantitative risk assessment is likely to be wasted at best and even harmful, both to animal and to human health" (emphasis added). Id., at p. 17.
Thank you to those of you who forwarded comments by Troy Marshall ( Editor- The Seedstock Digest) regards my article "Eat That!
The following is my direct reply to Mr. Marshall.
From: "Charles Sylvester" <farm_cowboy@msn.com>
To: seedstockdigest@hotmail.com
Subject: Dear Mr. Marshall,
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:39:57 -0600
Dear Mr. Marshall,
Please find following, my direct response to you, in regards to your comments to -someone - about my article "Eat That!", which pertained to the mistreatment of our youth at the Colorado State Fair.
While Sgt. Joe Friday’s "just the facts ma’am," may or may not be present, ethics are noted as missing.
Ethics: A principle of right or good behavior; system of moral principles or values; rules or standards of conduct governing members of a profession.
I would allow that attorney’s who specialize in private property rights should haggle over legal interpretations as to whether or not a premise I.D. is guarantee not to generate any liability over premises’s owner or the under-aged registrant.
Mr. Marshall, your claim, "there is nothing illegal about registering property that they don’t own," brings my question...where may I find this new law that apparently gifts provisions to the Colorado State Fair Board exempting them from all legal and historic standings regards our federal, state, and county constitutional rights to acquire, own, enjoy and protect property?
Is there a clause on Colorado State Fair Board’s required registrations which waives property owner of any liability what-so-ever?
Was a specific federal or state law or regulation quoted (included) on registrants forms, that would satisfy all legal justifications for Fair Board’s demand?
The USDA claims that private property information pertaining to NAIS and Premises I.D. will be maintained in a secure federal data base. How then, did State Fair employees gain access to these records?
Were the livestock registrants notified, in writing, of any request of information relating to them?
Was Fair Board’s policy born out of our state’s time honored, ethical, accepted legislative or ballot process?
Was Fair Board’s policy put in crystal clear words easily understood by the under-aged who were the ones conditionally mandated to comply?
Why the Fair Board’s zeal in enforcing a yet unproven idea?
Your comment "if you don’t like the rules as put in place by the State Fair, and the 4-H and FFA programs, you do not have to participate," is akin to a union run by thuggery as opposed to those unions who maintain a product prospective members would eagerly subscribe to.
Your "...don’t like the rules..." comment is also a prime example of how some monopoly or oligopoly businesses today, flex their muscle and money to deliver poison policies that are absolutely killing our constitutional rights.
To make matters worse, the wind is picking up the toxicity from these poison policies, and blowing it into brilliant young minds of youth (like yours Troy), and yes even some adults.
These people then get really confused, and not unlike heathens start worshiping the big moneyed as their God of choice.
And in the U.S. cattle industry, the big moneyed are commonly known as the packers.
Through the packer policy of "it’s our way or the highway,"many whose truthful testimonies would not bode well for them, have been silenced.
I personally know entities who’ve been bluntly threatened by one from the big four oligopoly "if you tell, we will never buy your fed cattle again!"
Big money is buying followers... left and right... whose march is destroying the once viable road to the US cattle industry.
As to the NWSS requiring a negative BVD test on all show animals...well probably most understand the difference between this normal requirement and Premises I.D. But to help clarify for you, BVD is a health issue having nothing to do with Premises or NAIS. The BVD requirement is no different than equine owners providing a negative Coggins test before entering show grounds.
As for "brand laws vs individual I.D", have you visited with brand inspectors and state vets about your concerns of their ineffective way of going for the past 100 years? I’m sure they’d work hard to improve. Maybe you could even help expedite federal processing of vaccine to insure they receive it within 24 hour notice. As I mentioned in my article, at present the feds vaccine turn-around time frame will produce more mortalities than stoppage of disease.
In addition to my before-mentioned concerns, the USDA usage of our tax dollars to lobby (gifting grant monies to key groups) for the promotion and implementation of any I.D system, ranks the USDA at the top of un-ethical groups.
If it isn’t illegal for USDA or any government entity to use tax dollars to lobby, it should be!
The very simple and easy to understand bottom line to all this is: Whether knowingly or not, the USDA under Secretary Johann's guidance, is hurting our families by threatening our children. As adults, it is our duty to protect children. Mandating any identification of one's property is in direct violation of our private property states guarantee by our constitution, and in this specific case- debasing the US cattle industry.
Therefore, we politely ask for you, along with Secretary Johann's and the packer oligopoly to stop hurting us.
Charles W. Sylvester
From: "Troy Marshall" <seedstockdigest@hotmail.com>
To: farm_cowboy@msn.com
Subject: RE: Dear Mr. Marshall,
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:10:11 -0600Chuck,
I am sorry that once again, my neighbor feels free to cross the ethical boundary of sharing conversation between two people, but admittedly I knew that any response I wrote would be blasted out to the network, so I won't even feign indignation, at his questionable code. He is certainly famous for creating division, and it is unfortunate, that we know are added to that list. I didn't save Joe's email, but please feel free to forward this email to him.
First of all regarding CSF's blunder -- it is not ethical to pay someone off because of blackmail, and to not enforce the rules that were clearly understood by all. That as you should no is one of the most frustrating things about youth programs in general is rules that are either not enforced or unenforceable.
Yes, I'm aware of the conspiracy theorists who believe that a premise registration is accepting liability for one's property. Interestingly, the legal liability if such already exists, all the premise ID does is allow the government to assign it more rapidly. I will not get into the liability debate, because I'm sure your lawyers are saying the same thing.
The government already in numerous locations has all the information included in a premise registration and then some. You are not construing any special right to the government that they do not already hold. Any claim to the contrary is ludicrous on its face. What a premise registration does is place this information into a database that can be used when rapid traceback is necessary. Nothing more or nothing less. Certainly, one can argue about whether this is necessary...etc.. ..
Regarding the property that they don't own comment, I don't want to get into an argument over semantics. My point was that you are not construing any property rights, so there is no legal issue about registering said premise in respect to private property issues. If one has livestock than one should register said premise where the livestock is. Certainly from a traceback standpoint, multiple premise ID's should not be registered to a single location, so while a premise registration for a youth defacto registers said premise for the adult. It does not construe any liability on adult, because said adult can elect to participate in said program or not, but most importantly.....any such liability etc.... already existed with or without premise registration. Premise registration merely helps state and federal health officials in times of emergency. That is it period.
You are right I do not understand your arguments about CSF, or whomever acquiring private property rights of individuals, and if I believed for one second that any of that was either accurate or had anything to do with premise registration, NAIS or the like I too would be demonstrating in the streets. It simply doesn't, and I have no idea where this fantasy was created or started, or how it continues to be propogated. It is absurd on its face, and would even in America be unconstitutional if it did. I understand that with Kelo, ESA and a host of legitimate inroads on private property rights that it is one of the most serious issues facing cattlemen and this country in general. Let's not do this legitimate battle a disservice by creating these straw men.
No there is no clause limiting liability, just as said guardian now can be held liable if animal has not been treated in accordance with rules, etc.
No there was no federal or state law. CSF rules are rarely or ever based on state or federal law, but were based on the rules of the state 4-H and FFA organizations and the support of a majority of the state's livestock groups. And yes, the rules of the CSF were enacted properly, and yes if as a potential exhibitor you agreed to abide by them when you enter and yes if you don't agree with said rules you can choose not to participate. Of course, you are well aware this is how it has always been done at livestock shows and expositions since their inception. If you don't like AQHA rules then don't show at AQHA shows. No need to elaborate.
Again, we disagree on the term private property information, but no state fair officials never accessed any database. Of course, as it was a rule of the CSF, said exhibitors must provide proof of valid premise registration. Again this is too simple to keep repeating, but when you show at CSF you agree to those rules, don't like them work to change them, or don't come.
Yes the policy was crystal clear, evident by the fact that even as a new policy virtually 100% complied with the rule. Most importantly, the two members who did not comply, were given the chance to comply and they refused, making the rewarding of breaking the rules even more incomprehensible to me. I can understand the concept of civiil disobedience, and am fine with it being executed, but nobody and certainly the two who choose to defy the rules could be accused of not understanding the rule. Any claim to the contrary is a red herring at best.
Zeal in applying the rule? What!!!!!! They didn't apply it.... The rewarded the cheaters, and I can not imagine any other rule so clearly stated with such clear consequences for failure to comply being disregarded. I am no fan of mandatory NAIS or mandatory anything, but what we had here was two families who broke the rules, were given a chance to come into compliance and refused, and then wee rewarded with actually more than those who obeyed the rules, because they threatened litigation and CSF determined that it would be cheaper to pay off the blackmail then to enforce the rules. I can't believe that someone ignoring the fitting rules, the ownership rules, etc...etc...would ever have been treated in such a manner. This wasn't zeal it was cowardice, because a vocal minority were spouting rhetorical mumbo jumbo about socialism, private property rights and the like. It was a rule that was not followed, period, and CSF rewarded those individuals which was immoral and unethical.
I love your thuggery analogy...again I see no basis for it, but I love it. Great. I don't agree with the rule about artificial coloring above the hocks....so I should just what...break it according to your theory? Perhaps, animal weigh backs, BQA guidelines, and we all know the more serious isssues yet....yep....I don't agree so just ignore them...threaten litigation and be rewarded as a result? I know you understand that if you agree to exhibit at said show which is no right but a privilege, you agree to abide by their rules as clearly stated. You call it thuggery, without it you have anarchy and no rules. There are methods to change rules, I'm even fine with disobeying and getting kicked out for cheating to highlight your opposition to the rule. I have no problem with those who cheated, my issue was with the CSF who elected to reward instead of deal with the cheaters as was stipulated.
I will not address the packer conspiracy rhetoric, it is has been trotted out for forty years, and while it is not without some merit, and certainly not the stretch that the private property conspiracy theorists are trotting out at web sites like eco-logic...etc...where the world is conspiring to eliminate American independence and create a one-world government, etc...I find it insulting to be told of those who have been threatened. I too talk to hundreds of cattle feeders etc.....and I know the ones who have been threatened and the context, and I'm amazed that somebody is surprised by this. Let's see if I run out and call you all kinds of names and sue you, would you be less likely or more likely to buy my cattle if given numerous options. Please what is next not only do we pay off those who break the rules, but if I insult enough of my customers, will the government just step in and make them pay me a whole lot for my cattle, because I'm being discriminated against? These claims have not held up in the court of laws, but I know that the conspiracy theory goes that USDA is controlled by the packers, as is the the big feeders, and the big cattleman groups, and that somehow the juries were manipulated and or the judges ignored the facts, but contrary to the economic data that shows fierce competition for our cattle we are to believe those who claim it simply is not true. Unfortunately, I believe the economists at the land grant universities and do not believe they have been bought by the packer conspiracy and are lying to us. No need to elaborate on the packer conspiracy. We will probably always disagree, which amusingly implies I have been bought and paid for by them as well, and means I'm either too naive, stupid, or something to not care about my family and my operation, or are selling out the people I love cow/calf producers for some other reason.
I don't agree with your analogy either on BVD vs. Premise...both are health issues, both are designed to help prevent or mitigate an animal disease outbreak...plain and simple. I salute you for your creativity in trying to make them two seperate issues...my mind is not capable of that leap.
Yes, I have talked to veterinarians...and yes I saw the absolute inability to track animals in various instances like with BSE where literally 100's of people putting in 10,000's hours of time were not only unable to track 50% of the animals, but it took them months to trace back adequately the animals they were able to trace. I have yet to talk to one...and I have talked to approximately 20 state veterinarians, who believe that current systems would allow them to respond quickly enough in the face of a disease outbreak, either naturally or otherwise occurring. I love my brand inspector, I support our brand laws, and I know they will support their livelihood, but they recognize that they are designed to assign ownership, which is very important, but that they are not geared to providing individual identity and that is the key to traceback and disease prevention, but I know you are well aware of this fact.
I have no idea what your 24 hour vaccine turn around time is referring to and increased mortality, but I will concede that point, because I certainly have no idea how that is relevant to this discussion.
And I like your direction on making it illegal for USDA to spend money on programs approved by Congress...yes Congress provided the funding, and are threatening to pull it, because of a lack of a more cohesive effort. But while it sounded good when going on paper...that is what governments do they influence actions, etc...with their dollars....I agree get rid of all the government regulation, spending, programs etc...but to imply that USDA trying to get adoption of voluntary NAIS is unethical or immoral at least any more so than any goverment program...again...is easy to classify...
And it is closing lines like the last one, that make people like me, sworn enemies instead of allies, and I wonder how in the world do you all believe those kind of attacks serve some form of purpose. But it is America and you have the right to insult my motivations and intentions as you see fit. However, I can promise you I love this industry, and will work for its future unceasingly..
-- Troy Marshall Editor, The Seedstock Digest 719-346-8524 (office) 719-346-8650 (fax) P.O. Box 297 Burlington, CO 80807 seedstockdigest@hotmail.com
Thank you for your quick response.
I am pleased that we're not that far apart on many issues.
These kinds of discussions are beneficial.
And in time...differences of opinion can be worked out.
What's nice is we remain friends, and only in America can we carry on like this.
Your friend,
Chuck