Listen LIVE to CNN's Lou Dobbs as he reports and discusses one of the two treaties that is in the article below. Have you ever heard of the North American Union? Yes, this is all a part of the same thing, including the NAIS!
YES, EVEN THE 4-Her's AND FFA KIDS ARE BEING AFFECTED! +++++++
By Doreen Hannes
April 1, 2006
If you've been wondering where the insanity masquerading as our federal government "food safety" and animal health protection regulations and laws are coming from, you can now say, with certainty, that they descend from the organizations within, and tied to the United Nations.
Before you throw a conditioned response out, that this is all just "conspiracy theory" propagated by right-wing nut-cases, you had best be able to understand the impact on trade of the SPS and TBT agreements made through the WTO (World Trade Organization), and be able to relate the position of the United States in the OIE and Codex.
Should you be unfamiliar with the NAIS (National Animal Identification System), the shortest explanation that can be given of the proposed system is that anyone who has any type of livestock, say two chickens, will have to register their property, complete with global positioning satellite coordinates, microchip their chickens with an NAIS ISO11785 compliant chip, and report within 24 hours if said chickens ever leave the property, hatch out chicks (another chip required), go to the vet, or die. No kidding. To learn more about that, you must read the "Draft Strategic Plan" and the "Draft Standards" which are available only online. The USDA will not send you copies of these documents, but they will send you a nice glossy packet with a "soft" description of the program.
This is not an easy subject to relate to people who, by design, have very limited knowledge of our government's involvement in these organizations, and even less understanding about the mechanisms employed in the organizations. It's extremely complicated, and at the very least, veiled to public scrutiny, but if you are willing to dig, and read hundreds of pages of mind-numbing rules and agreements, it is there, and it is proven.
An introduction to acronyms is necessary. The players involved in the proposed National Animal Identification System being pushed by the USDA, and to be managed by APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) are varied. First, there is the WTO (World Trade Organization), which reached an agreement amongst participating countries several years ago in Uruguay, called the SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) and TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) agreements.
In laymen's terms, what the SPS agreement says is that each member country can make regulations that must be met by other member countries, in order to trade in agricultural goods with each other. These regulations must be in the interest of protecting the country making the regulations, from disease, pests, or perceived health dangers. Countries making regulations cannot impose more strict regulations on importer nations than they do on their own nation.
Then there was the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) agreement made at the same time in Uruguay. What that says is that developed countries must help less developed countries to advance technologically, to be able to participate in trade with other member countries. Developed countries cannot require more than a country is able to achieve, and the developed countries need to help the less developed countries to meet their own criteria, through funding and other assistance.
Then there is the OIE, or World Animal Health Organization, which, although it is independent of the U.N. in origin, works very closely with both the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.) and Codex Alimentarius, which is a child of the U.N. and FAO. Codex can be best understood as being the global FDA, and OIE as the global USDA. The Untied States of America has membership in both the OIE and the U.N., and, therefore, Codex.
The OIE has authority over all member nations' veterinary services. Most of the OIE rules are rather innocuous, however, they have become increasingly involved in issues directly relating to trade, since the advent of the WTO in 1994. OIE has also been increasingly involved with Codex, and are working in concert on nearly everything at this time. Of particular importance to the subject of the NAIS (National Animal Identification System), is the issue of "traceability/product tracing" and "good farming practices."
The OIE has a publication available online called the "Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission," which is absolutely loaded with information regarding "traceability/product tracing" and Codex standards on the subject.
On page 41 of the TAHSC (Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission), it states that there is a critical relationship between animal identification and the traceability of animal products, and that animal identification and traceability are:
"...key tools for animal health, including zoonoses (diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans), and food safety", as well as "incidents, vaccination programmes, herd/flock management, zoning/compartmentalization, surveillance, early response and notification systems, animal movement controls, and health measures to facilitate trade."
Also, worth noting, from page 41, is the following paragraph:
"The Competent Authority, in partnership with relevant government agencies and the private sector, should establish a legal framework for the implementation and enforcement of animal identification and animal traceability in the country. In order to facilitate compatibility and consistency, relevant international standards and obligations should be taken into account. This legal framework should include elements such as the objectives, scope, organizational agreements, including the choice of technologies used for identification and registration, obligation of the parties, confidentiality, accessibility issues, and the efficient exchange of information."
In Appendix XXXIV of the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards document it states that VS (veterinary services) are the "Competent Authority" for animal identification and traceability in all member countries. It also does such fun things as roll the words "animal identification system" into the word "animal identification," so that the smaller term may legally be referred to a meaning an entire national, or international system.
The European Union has made no real secret of the fact that their animal identification requirements are in line with both Codex and the OIE. It is my understanding that RFID will also be a mandatory requirement in the EU in January of 2008. There are a few catch phrases that have become fairly common, stemming from the mandates of Codex, such as "farm-to-fork" traceability and "from stable-to-table," that leave no doubt of the identity of the progenitors of the U.S. National Animal Identification System. The USDA and the OIE and Codex, as well as the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.), state that this is consumer-driven.
While there may be a desire on the part of consumers to know the conditions under which their food was raised, the conditions which spark that desire are not conditions caused by small- or medium-sized agricultural endeavors, or even large privately owned operations. The corporate ag companies, with their disregard for life, and use of chemicals, antibiotics and hormones to improve their bottom-line, are responsible for the lack of confidence felt by those who cannot raise their own food. Yet, the net-effect of this program will be much higher cost for food, and a loss of choice for the consumer, as smaller farmers will be driven out of business by the costs of compliance and loss of production time, because of the increase in paperwork and reporting needs, as well as the many millions who will not be able to comply with the system, because of deeply held religious convictions, or aversions to the loss of freedom necessitated by the monitoring and surveillance implicit in this program.
As a matter of fact, corporate ag will be one of the few beneficiaries of this system, because they will be allowed to tag their animals as groups, or lots, under only one tag per group/lot, whereas those who practice more natural forms of animal rearing will need to tag each and every animal born, at additional cost, with additional reporting time. Reports may also be required on what is being fed to the stock, as "assurance" schemes are repeatedly referred to in both OIE and Codex guidelines.
On page 37 of the TAHSC (Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission document, referred to above) there is a clear, and indisputable tie to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, which passed into law, and is enforced by the FDA in the United States. The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 is the Act which is requiring that hay producers in the U.S. register their premises, and report who drove the truck, which field it was from, who worked on the harvesting of the hay, and to whom the hay was sold. A quote from the TAHSC document, showing the clear link follows:
"... the Task Force on Animal Feeding (May 2004) agreed to add a footnote to the title of Section 4.3 "Traceability/Product Tracing and Record keeping of Feed and Feed Ingredients" to indicate the defintion developed by the Codex committee on General Principles applied to the Code (Terrestrial Animal Health Code, of the OIE) as appropriate ... the prompt trace-back of feed and feed ingredients should be to the immediate previous source, and trace forward should be to the next subsequent recipients."
Throughout these documents are references to harmonization of identification and traceability methods and standards. In one document, by Perry, "harmonization" is defined as: "the establishment, recognition, and application of common sanitary and phytosanitary measures by different Members." The United States is a "Member," so the directions following harmonization apply to the U.S. For food safety, (feed included) we must refer to Codex, for animal health, the authority goes to the OIE. In the World Trade Organization documents, regarding the SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary agreement) and the TBT (technical barriers to trade agreement), it is recommended that any disputes be mediated by the OIE or Codex.
It is abundantly clear that through these international entanglements, our officials are both legislating and regulating our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights away. In the name of international trade and globalization, these officials have agreed to implement a plan that is destructive to our nation's existence, as well as our freedom to feed ourselves, without intense surveillance.
As a nation, we must ask ourselves: Is our freedom for sale in the global market? Is selling beef to Japan important enough to throw our Constitution, and our children's future into the trash can? Can we not support ourselves agriculturally, with the excellent controls we already have in place? Is your freedom worth more than all the bananas you may eat? To quote Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, ______." I hope you can fill in the blank.
When I wrote this I tried very hard to not branch off into other aspects other than the Bioterrorism Act of 2002...but just so you know, the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission document also covers dogs. It excepts cats at this point, but does cover dogs. The OIE's Good Farming Practices tells you that the 'competent authority' is in charge of *your* herd. That autority is your vet. Dorene
It was your postings that led the way for my local paper to allow me to write when before they were not interested but then sought me out. I had some of the pieces since 1986 the USDA got into competition with the ones they regulated with full ability to be a profit corporation with none of the rules of regular corporations and ability to team up with global firms or even make non-global firms world wide controllers like Monsanto. I understood the UN Agenda 21 and part of the WTO aspects but your posts helped lock in some of the pieces of the total take over of America and destruction of our sovereignty. Sue Karber Oklahoma
"AN INTERNATIONAL GAME OF TAG"
NAIS (National Animal Identification System) is simple to understand if one understands the impact on trade of the SPS and TBT agreements made through WTO (World Trade Organization) and the OIE and Codex. Already lost most of you haven’t I?
Simply put, NAIS has nothing to do with food safety but everything to do with giving up our sovereignty. The USDA is selling this invasive, unconstitutional program as a means to increase international trade by complying with the international mandates we got under in treaties and now forced to live under those international laws even if it means destroying our constitution. Now ask yourself this; would you rather eat a cow that has been tested free of BSE (Mad Cow) or would you rather eat a cow that has a brand new NAIS compliant microchip and not tested and proven clean for BSE? No brainier right? Well, our government doesn’t think it is scientific to test because they are not allowed by treaty without permission from other treaty holders. Creekstone Farms in Kansas has lost 2 billion dollars in sales and laid off 150 tax paying employees while they sue the USDA for the right to test every cow they process.
Japan tests every cow they process and Creekstone has a ready market if they are allowed to test. So again why would tags make cattle sell better to foreign markets than testing? It won’t, but since we have entered into agreements to allow the European Union to set the standards for our Agricultural Industry and we have to obey their commands, the USDA is trying to make us swallow the compliance order of total surveillance of every moving creature.
Most big cattle processors are global so they think it is great to have a global system of surveillance and ability to pass their liability over to producers. They don’t want to test cattle that would end the producer’s liability for good. Any processing problems after testing means the processors have liability, which cannot be passed back to producer. By the way, the tests are both USDA approved and EU approved from several vendors. Creekstone has a brand new lab just waiting to be used for 27 months now or 2 billion lost sales ago and climbing. You have to ask why the USDA demands tags and not testing? How will tags increase confidence in safety over testing?
Now for the kicker. The big boys don’t have to tag. Only the little guys have to tag every single animal while the big boys get lot numbers. The little guy gets to report by phone or computer program which costs money, has yearly royalty fees and pay a fee for incident reports which must be filed within 24 hours or fines or in some cases even jail. What are those incidents? Birth, death, buy, sell, take to show, take to vet, any movement off property, any co-mingle with other animals. There are also the tag costs, reader cost and prayers they work. Tags have a 50% failure rate in four years tests in Australia, are easily lost and hackable and some have viruses that can wipe out that expensive computer, expensive report program and reader. USDA will not discuss actual costs so we have to go by the tests in other countries. I have three sources that range from $35.00 per head to 37.00 per head and climbing, and according to the Winter 2005 , Volume 3 and Number 4 of “Cattlemen’s Journal USA”, the disease trace back has been IMPEDED by the E-Nils (Aussie Version of NAIS) because of so many animals never deleted from the data base and other hindrances. They had to go back to the old methods. R-Calf can be reached for a copy at 888-258-7212 or email email@example.com. There are some great resources to many unanswered questions in this publication. Cattle Facts has some great information, but is Australian so it might be better to visit on the web http://www.cattlefacts.com.au/Issues_nlis_let.htm and see what their actual costs have really been and some of the headaches.
USDA won’t send you the drafts or supplements or the Strategic Plans which are available on line and big reading (they have been removed from the USDA website as of late June 2006), but they have a nice glossy packet that skims over the details they will hand out or send. It doesn’t tell about the real guts of the program that will wipe out all but big producers. I call it fascism but others may have other words for it. The total program is extremely complicated and mostly hidden to public scrutiny, but if you have the guts to dig you can get the real story.
Lots of acronyms to learn in this global game of tag of what is yours is now federal property (national herd), not private property. We are now stakeholders not property owners. Here are the various players in the proposed National Animal Identification System being pushed by the USDA and managed by APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service). Hang on to your hat because the ride is a doozy.
There is the WTO (World Trade Organization), which reached an agreement with participating countries a few years back in Uruguay, called the SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) and TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) agreements which I have been up rechecking my facts all night since it is so complicated a mess. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/agric_e.htm this will get you started.
OK, This all boils down to the SPS agreement says that each member country can make regulations that must be met by other member countries in order to trade in agricultural goods with each other. Hint, we let the EU/UN make the rules. These regulations must be in the interest of protecting the country making the regulations, protecting against disease, pests or perceived health dangers. Hint, the reason the tags are animal health is because we are under international rules, not US rules/laws, and must abide by trade agreements which has removed our sovereignty and Constitutional rights, but the government does not want us to understand this until it is too late. Countries making the regulations cannot impose more strict regulations on importer nations that they do on their own nation. This is where the TBT comes into play, remember the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement made at the same time in Uruguay. That says that developed nations need to help the less developed nations to meet their own criteria, through all kinds of assistance. It hits us in the pocket book big time.
Then there is the OIE, or World Animal Health Organization, which is independent of the U.N. in origin but works very closely with FAO (Food and Agriculture Organizations of the U.N. and Codex Alimentarius, which is a sub part of the U.N and FAO. Codex is a global FDA and OIE is like a global USDA. The US is a member of all the above. OIE has authority over all member nations’ veterinary services. OIE has become more and more involved in trade since WTO came on the scene in 1994. In 10 years it has done a number on America Citizens' rights and freedoms. I was nice, I did not point out all the job losses.
OIE and Codex are working together on most everything now since, if the UN controls the food, they can control the world, and we gave them treaties and funding that said go for it. One of the results is NAIS or National Animal Identification System with the issue of “trace ability/product tracing” and the UN version of “good farming practices”. On page 41 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission it actually sums it all up about animal identification and the tracing of animal products and keep on reading on age 41 of the same TAHSC publication, and you will see NAIS spelled out in the part that starts “The Competent Authority, in partnership…. In the Appendix XXXIV of the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards it states such things as “animal identification system” being rolled into “animal identification” so that the smaller term may legally be referred to meaning an entire national or international system. http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm enjoy the read now you have the codes to follow.
Now what does this mean for us? WE HAVE BEEN HAD...but before you blow a gasket understand that the our representative passed the Bioterrorism 2002 Act with two copies with two weeks to review and this got slid past them. The UN/EU set the rules and we fell for it, and when push came to shove and it had to be sold to the US citizen, the opportunity came in the Bioterrorism Act and putting USDA under Homeland Security with our representatives voting blind. No way could all have read the whole mess with only two copies available in the two weeks time according to the GAO reports I read. So don’t blame the reps…just push them to fix it and quit conning us that tags and expensive tracking will make our food safer or easier to track. It is pure bull pucky.
The only beneficiary of this mess is Global AG and they are really pushing...
I really hope you will read all the sources I have presented and not take anyone’s word for it. Notice all the phrases, stakeholder, national herd, farm to fork and on and on you will see our programs being shoved down our throats to end our constitutional sovereignty and rights are right out of the above treaties, publications, organizations.
It is not too late. Educate yourself and then let your voice be heard.
Consumers, small farmers, family farms, traditional farms, local supply market production, all lose. The only winner is Global AG. Are you willing to give up your freedom for them? Are you so gullible you believe tags are safer and less expensive than testing?
Notice the language in this first paragraph of the article. It is all about international rules.
April 4, 2006 original story by The Wichita Eagle (KS)
WASHINGTON - U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns was cited as saying Monday that the federal government can't let an Arkansas City company test its cattle for mad cow disease because doing so would be bad for international trade, adding, "If you're going to have a coherent system of trade in beef... you need to advance the cause of scientifically based international standards. (This is what happened to us, we are under international rules with USDA trying to match with US laws for a set of treaties already signed by US.)
That is why I am fighting. Check it out for yourself.
Harold and Sue Karber Oklahoma