# FDA's OK May Spark 'Clone-Free' Labels



## kleenex (Dec 28, 2006)

FDA's OK May Spark 'Clone-Free' Labels - washingtonpost.com

one step closer to have cloned meat at a grocery store.


----------



## VeraBlue (Dec 28, 2006)

I don't think that is what the article is saying at all.  It sounds to me as though the FDA would not permit a label that says -clone free- because it would mislead consumers into believing that the product in question was safer than another product.  
According to the article, there is virtually no difference in the meat or dairy product produced by clones.  
Considering most meat, poultry, fish and vegetables are already chemically enhanced, I don't see the big difference here.  Actually, I imagine once the cloning process is complete, a cloned animal could be raised green, organically, making a healthier product for the consumer.

I wouldn't reject it any more than I would reject any other meat.


----------



## stinemates (Dec 28, 2006)

I don't understand what the benefit would be to selling cloned cattle beef over regular cattle beef..?

Am I missing something?


----------



## Constance (Dec 28, 2006)

I really don't understand what all the big fuss is about, but it's always been that way with something new. A lot of people didn't like homogonized milk when it first came out, or bread made with enriched flour (didn't like the taste of those vitamins). Most of you all are just too young to remember that.


----------



## VeraBlue (Dec 28, 2006)

stinemates said:
			
		

> I don't understand what the benefit would be to selling cloned cattle beef over regular cattle beef..?
> 
> Am I missing something?



more food for more people...Supply and demand.


----------



## licia (Dec 28, 2006)

I would like to know if the meat is from a cloned animal or not. I think there is a period of time for questions and argument and believe that to be best.


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 28, 2006)

Reading the above linked Washington Post article and listening to a couple news segments on the subject leads to think that it means the FDA doesn't expect to require labels.

If they think it would give them a competitive edge marketers will "label" it "No cloned..." but it won't have any real meaning, in my opinion.

Personally I think this is presently more of an animal rights/cruelty issue than a public health one.


----------



## VeraBlue (Dec 28, 2006)

licia said:
			
		

> I would like to know if the meat is from a cloned animal or not. I think there is a period of time for questions and argument and believe that to be best.



Currently, they are in the questions and arguments period.


----------



## stinemates (Dec 28, 2006)

VeraBlue said:
			
		

> more food for more people...Supply and demand.



I still don't get it... you still have to raise them from babies.. or are you implying that because they can clone abnormally large cows, it will increase the supply?

I am not trying to poke holes, just trying to understand..


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 28, 2006)

stinemates said:
			
		

> I still don't get it... you still have to raise them from babies.. or are you implying that because they can clone abnormally large cows, it will increase the supply?
> 
> I am not trying to poke holes, just trying to understand..


 I'm not very smart but I think the idea is that maybe someday instead of a cow producing one calf in a year, a whole herd might be cloned from it in the same time.

I could be wrong on this, but at current state of art, after many unsucessful and very expensive clones are produced, one may actually be a healthy, successful duplication of the "parent."  I presume that's why the article says that it is currently only practical for breeding stock.


----------



## Constance (Dec 28, 2006)

I think you've got the right idea, Skillit. If that's the case, it could actually end up being a lot better for our environment. Cattle take an enormous amount of land to raise, and if one cow could deliver a whole herd of steers instead of just one, it would save considerable pasture land. 

As long as we don't start eating Soylent Green.


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 28, 2006)

Constance said:
			
		

> I think you've got the right idea, Skillit. If that's the case, it could actually end up being a lot better for our environment. Cattle take an enormous amount of land to raise, and if one cow could deliver a whole herd of steers instead of just one, it would save considerable pasture land.
> 
> As long as we don't start eating Soylent Green.


If I understand it correctly, it would take a Bull to produce a herd of cloned calves which could be turned into steers.  Unfortunately for the bull, the process would not be nearly as enjoyable.


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 28, 2006)

Come to think of it; no reason why a steer couldn't be used to clone a herd.


----------



## amber (Dec 28, 2006)

Constance said:
			
		

> I think you've got the right idea, Skillit. If that's the case, it could actually end up being a lot better for our environment. Cattle take an enormous amount of land to raise, and if one cow could deliver a whole herd of steers instead of just one, it would save considerable pasture land.
> 
> As long as we don't start eating Soylent Green.



Assuming one cow produces many, wouldnt that take up more pasture? 

On to the question at hand, I dont see any difference between cloned cows, but for some reason I wouldnt want to buy one just yet, not sure why though.


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 28, 2006)

amber said:
			
		

> Assuming one cow produces many, wouldnt that take up more pasture?


 No, because you wouldn't be pasturing the mother cows.  Remember that this is not yet possible.



			
				amber said:
			
		

> On to the question at hand, I don't see any difference between cloned cows, but for some reason I wouldnt want to buy one just yet, not sure why though.


 Nor am I.  Fortunately, it is not yet an option.

Where are our agricultural experts to enlighten this conversation.  Sparrowgrass, we need you.


----------



## Andy M. (Dec 28, 2006)

If you can select animals that are extra prolific milk producers or yield prime beef rather than choice or select, you could clone them and produce offspring( if that's the right term) that all produce a higher quality product and more of it for the same money.

You don't need a steer.  You simply take any cell from the animal to be cloned and process it from there.


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 28, 2006)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> You don't need a steer.  You simply take any cell from the animal to be cloned and process it from there.


Of course you are right Andy.  If I intimated that the process involved the sacrifice of the cell donor, I apologize for the confusion.


----------



## StirBlue (Dec 29, 2006)

I just wish they would clone another cashier!
Oops, they did; it's called "self check".  lol

_more food for more people...Supply and demand._


----------



## boufa06 (Dec 29, 2006)

Reading the linked article and the subsequent posts, two names stand out above all the din, ViaGen and Cyagra. For now they are my heroes. True benefactors of mankind! At significant cost to them, they work tirelessly to produce more and better meat for us let alone the extra milk! What a fine example of corporate altruism (an oxymoron perhaps?)! As for any health concerns, 678 pages of FDA outpouring (based on data contributed so unselfishly by our hero companies) should be enough to silence (or at least confuse) even the most vociferous of the unbelievers. Although I am not keeping track of such statistics, I am nonetheless certain that the pages of the document essentially approving cloned meat for human consumption far exceed in number as well as in weight those of the document approving the use of thalidomide (another unselfish gift to mankind) a little while back. There only remains one final step, i.e., to ram the use of cloned meat down the throat of the rest of the world so that they can all benefit accordingly. It is heart-warming to see that the FDA is cognizant of such need by declaring themselves against the use of labels that reveal the cloned or clone-free origin of marketed meat. With 2007 just around the corner, I wonder why it feels a bit like 1984.


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 29, 2006)

boufa06 said:
			
		

> Reading the linked article and the subsequent posts, two names stand out above all the din, ViaGen and Cyagra. For now they are my heroes. True benefactors of mankind! At significant cost to them, they work tirelessly to produce more and better meat for us let alone the extra milk! What a fine example of corporate altruism (an oxymoron perhaps?)! As for any health concerns, 678 pages of FDA outpouring (based on data contributed so unselfishly by our hero companies) should be enough to silence (or at least confuse) even the most vociferous of the unbelievers. Although I am not keeping track of such statistics, I am nonetheless certain that the pages of the document essentially approving cloned meat for human consumption far exceed in number as well as in weight those of the document approving the use of thalidomide (another unselfish gift to mankind) a little while back. There only remains one final step, i.e., to ram the use of cloned meat down the throat of the rest of the world so that they can all benefit accordingly. It is heart-warming to see that the FDA is cognizant of such need by declaring themselves against the use of labels that reveal the cloned or clone-free origin of marketed meat. With 2007 just around the corner, I wonder why it feels a bit like 1984.


As the self appointed spokesman of the dumbest among us; Say what?


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 29, 2006)

boufa06 said:
			
		

> Reading the linked article and the subsequent posts, two names stand out above all the din, ViaGen and Cyagra...


Seriously boufa, no one here has claimed intimate knowledge of the subject.  You clearly have strong feelings but I can't extrapolate the logic of the argument from all the sarcasm.  Please clarify your position.


----------



## boufa06 (Dec 29, 2006)

Oh, never mind.  Have a Happy New Year!


----------



## Mrs. Cuillo (Dec 29, 2006)

I understand the reason for it, our world population is over 1 billion!!! (Time magazine, I believe, had it on the front cover of an issue in September or October) But, as others have stated, I don't think I would eat it just yet and I am not sure why.


----------



## Candocook (Dec 29, 2006)

The point of cloned animals will be to improve the *breeding* stock. What is sold in the supermarket will not be the cloned animal, which at the moment costs perhaps $20,000. The clone would be used as a normal breeding animal to produce more or better animals for sale--these are not clones. This is little different from the huge breasted turkeys that have been developed by selective breeding , for example. OR milk cattle that have been bred to have long back legs to make it easier to milk them.


----------



## Chief Longwind Of The North (Dec 29, 2006)

Andy and Candocook hit it right on the head.  Cloned animals would try to produce superior animals from proven stock, just as the best stallions are used as stud animals to improve a line of horses.  Cloning is simply put, an attempt to recreate exactly a target animal, be it horse, cow, rabbit, sheep, human, etc.

The real fear in cloning is the manufacture of humans by uscrupulous humans (gasp, you mean there are such people!) and then using those bodies for spare parts for the original donors of the cells.  I remember talking about this with my instructor from a physiology class way back in 1974.  These are not new ideas and have been bandied about for some 30 to 40 years now.  They are just now seeing the light of reality.  Such things are possible, right or wrong.  It is up to the societies of the world to determine the proper use, or the misuse of any technology.  And so far as I have seen from history, as a world society, our track record isn't so good.

Cloning has great potential for good, but it also has equally great potential for bad.  Maybe the answer isn't to create a more efficeint way to feed the world's burgeoning masses, but rather to exercise a bit of discipline in our explosive growth, and proper use and replenishment of what we already have.  Just a thought.

Seeeeya; Goodweed of the North


----------



## Mrs. Cuillo (Dec 29, 2006)

But even though the actual cloned cow would not be for sale in gracery stores, would the cattle that is sold in the grocery store still have half clone in them?  Therefore making it a cloned cow? I am not trying to be a jerk, I am just trying to understand.


----------



## Andy M. (Dec 29, 2006)

Mrs. Cuillo said:
			
		

> But even though the actual cloned cow would not be for sale in gracery stores, would the cattle that is sold in the grocery store still have half clone in them? Therefore making it a cloned cow? I am not trying to be a jerk, I am just trying to understand.


 
I don't think you're trying to be a jerk.

The answer to your question is yes.  But I don't understand the concern.  Currently, most cows are artificially inseminated with sperm taken from top steers that are known to produce good offspring.  Does that bother you?  

It's not as if they are creating Frankenstein cattle.  They are simply trying to produce cattle with the best qualities for market.  

The reason the FDA thinks they won't require special labeling for meats from cloned animals is that there is no difference in the meat.


----------



## Chief Longwind Of The North (Dec 29, 2006)

First we must understand what cloning is.  With artificial insemination, the egg has sperm inserted by human intervention to start the growth of the new animal or person.  That is, the egg of the parent is fertilized by introduced sperm cells rather than letting the little critters randomly swim to the egg.  With surrogate parents, the egg and sperm of the donors are artificially fertalized and implanted in a host womb, usually because the natural mother isn't able to carry a child for one reason or another.  Cloning takes this to another level.  Rather than fertalizing an egg with a sperm cell, both of which contain the genetic material that organizes the mytocis of one cell into a viable animal, a cell is introduced with the gentic material from a donor and allowed to divide naturally until it produces an identicle animal as the donor.  That is, the offspring will be exactly like the donor, be it cow, pig, chicken, or human.  The cell will progress through all stages of development, just as the cel in a fertalized egg progresses.

Simply stated, cloning is another way of jump-starting the cell mitosis that results in a living organism.

Some of my explanation may be skewed a bit as I haven't studied cloning in 30-plus years.  But essentially, it should convey the correct principle.  As Andy stated, meat from a cloned animal is no different than meat from an animal brought into the world by a bull and cow getting together on a moonlit night.

Another useful and interesting side issue is growing skin, which is actually a type of cloning whereby several skin cells are immersed in a nutrient bath and allowed to grow on an artificial surface.  When there is enough of this "artificially" grown skin, it is used to replace the host skin that may have been lost to injury or burns.  The body accepts the skin rather than rejecting it because it is identical to the skin that already grows on the person.  Food for thought.  Good science, bad science, it depends on who's using it and the motivation and use.

Seeeeeya; Goodweed of the North


----------



## cara (Dec 29, 2006)

Over here in Germany we have a different view of cloning.
I don't want to eat GMO's.
Where is the benefit in cloning animals? Shorten the evolution process?
There are lots of excellent genetics in cows, there is not only insemination but also embryo- transfer. You can buy a inseminated ovum with wonderful genetics. That's expensive.

But would cloning be cheaper? No.
As Boufa said, there will be one or two companies who will patent the clones and they will charge dues to allow anyone to use their clones.
You will have to pay to get a calf from this clone, not only for the ovum or the sperm, but for the patent. And you will have to pay for the next generation.. and the next.. and the next.
That is what we have with GMO canola right now.
Monsanto has the patent and you must pay once you decided to grow their canola. Your neighbour has to pay, too, because his canola got in contact and they mixed. 
Same with Soy.
You buy the "better" stuff from whoever, round-up-resistent, bad luck for you, your weeds cross with the pollen and they are resistent, too.
so whats coming next?


It's very difficult to me the write about this in english, it's even in german complicated. I hope you understand what I mean...


----------



## boufa06 (Dec 29, 2006)

skilletlicker said:
			
		

> Seriously boufa, no one here has claimed intimate knowledge of the subject.  You clearly have strong feelings but I can't extrapolate the logic of the argument from all the sarcasm.  Please clarify your position.


 Sarcasm (despair more likely) apart, my position is as follows:

Tampering with genetics may have far reaching harmful effects that one could not even imagine at this point.  This is not by any means a certainty but even a remote possibility is enough for me.  Having said this, I would not expect genetic research would stop just to make me and others who think likewise feel safe.  What I would expect however, is to be given the choice to stay away from such meat and similar products by being warned in advance through proper labelling.  I do think that those who take the FDA's word to heart should be free to indulge in cloned meat to their heart's content.  Therefore, my main gripe is with the FDA's thinly disguised attitude to deliberately withhold such info on the packaging so as to give the companies that have invested in animal cloning a leg up on the competition.

My sentiments do reflect a sense of foreboding as I see a concerted effort already in progress including such 'scientific breakthroughs' as GM food, cloned animals, patented animals and plants, vegetables whose seeds will not reproduce the parent plants, to mention only a few.

Since I will soon take residence in a small farm of our own, I take solace in the fact that we can grow our own veggies and rear our own animals.  But how long is all this going to last?  In a relatively recent newspaper article, it was mentioned that Monsanto petitioned the EU to grant them a patent on a special breed of pigs.  The way the patent was worded anything with a snout and a wiggly tail would come under the Monsanto patent as their intellectual property possibly requiring us to pay licensing fees to them.  Another near miss came a few months ago with the bird flu.  All poultry was supposed to be kept indoors to avoid contamination.  I was thinking how close this might be to having our poultry declared unsafe, having it confiscated, slaughtered, and dumped somewhere.  From there it would be a simple matter to declare chickens from big commercial breeders as the only safe-for-consumption poultry.

Is my position a bit clearer now?


----------



## bethzaring (Dec 29, 2006)

I stay away from GMO's too, but I would have no trouble eating offspring from a cloned animal.  GMO products and cloned animals are completely different ball games.

Cloned animals are identical to the original natural animal.

I saw Dolly the sheep, she is stuffed and in a museum in Scotland, and I read the information offered on cloning at that museum.  Of course I do not remember what it said, but the feeling I came away with was it was perfectly acceptable/safe to eat offspring from cloned animals, there is no difference in the animals.  So why label it??  The argument that we do not know, nor do we demand to know,  the animals produced by Artificial Insemination is a good argument.  It just does not matter the animals are cloned, biologically speaking.  We may know the answer in our wallet though.  This science/issue is very far off in the future, and plenty of debate will continue to take place.


----------



## bethzaring (Dec 29, 2006)

For the record, I am a MILLION times more concerned about the US Federal Governments proposed National Animal Identification System than I am about cloned animals.  This National Animal Identification System would end backyard, small scale farming as we know it in the USA.


----------



## sparrowgrass (Dec 29, 2006)

Someplace back in this thread, I think there was a comment about one cow producing a whole herd of cows.  That is possible--any number of cells could be taken from one donor--but you would still need a mama cow for each embryo.  It will be a long, long time before science can eliminate the uterus.

I don't see how cloned animals would be in any way harmful to eat.  There might be other harmful effects--maybe limiting the gene pool could cause health problems down the line, for example.

I guess if a farmer had a sure shot at reproducing fast growing, feed efficient calves at a reasonable price, they would do it.  That is why they have gone with artificial insemination--AI allows a farmer to get good genetic material without the expense of buying and maintaining that outstanding bull.

However, like someone else said, we probably won't be eating cloned animals any time soon, any more than we eat those high priced bulls.  Breeding stock might be cloned, and you might eat a steer born from a cloned bull and a
 cloned cow.

Since the cloned animal and the donor animal are genetically identical, how is it different if you eat the offspring of the original animal or the offspring of the clone of the original animal?  DNA should be the same, no?

Human cloning is a whole 'nother subject.


----------



## licia (Dec 29, 2006)

I think several things involved here are a bit scary and I do think we should be told the origin of the food presented for sale.


----------



## auntdot (Dec 29, 2006)

Agree with all of those who point out that it is still going to take one mama to give birth to one baby, even though it may share little genetically with the mom who gave birth to her.

I can thiink of a few reasons why overall production could go up, but not enormously.

But just think about being able to go to the butcher and being able to find nothing but prime beef because that is all they are breeding.

Or great poultry, or piggies, or lambs with flavor to perfection.

OK, the conditions under which the clones are raised will probably make a difference, but you can't make a great porkchop out of a sows ear. (Sorry about the metaphor.)  But a genetically great tasting animal clone is probably going to taste one heck of a lot better than one with so-so meat tasting genes, if both are raised under similar circumstances.

Anyway, I am with the folks who will eat cloned meat without worry.

Just my opinion.


----------



## boufa06 (Dec 29, 2006)

bethzaring said:
			
		

> Cloned animals are identical to the original natural animal.


 bethzaring, is this really so?  How sure are you?  Let me guess.  You are very sure about it because it's scientifically true.  

However, a scientific truth is merely an assumption that has not been proven false by any known evidence as yet.  It is common place in science that subsequent evidence does surface that pokes holes in the original 'scientific truth.'  Science shrugs off such things and promptly replaces the format 'scientific truth' with a new one that is consistent with all known evidence up to that time.

This is why I am more than a bit skeptical as to whether the cloned animal is really an exact copy of the donor.  As far as I can tell, the cloned animal is the result of tampering with genetics, a process we can hardly claim that we have mastered.  It is quite likely that future evidence might prove that things are not that simple as producing xeroxed copies of animals and the effects of present day genetic technology may be disastrous indeed.  Therefore, I would rather stay away from this and hope that I would be granted the freedom to choose what I eat.


----------



## Andy M. (Dec 29, 2006)

boufa06 said:
			
		

> ...However, a scientific truth is merely an assumption that has not been proven false by any known evidence as yet...


 

This statement boggles my mind!  It sounds like you are suggesting all scientific truths will eventually be proven wrong.


----------



## boufa06 (Dec 29, 2006)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> This statement boggles my mind!  It sounds like you are suggesting all scientific truths will eventually be proven wrong.


 Andy, not necessarily so.  It is more like it that what we consider today as scientifically true in areas of science that mankind has dealt with for a long time, is not what was considered true at earlier stages of scientific development.

Now genetic research is a relatively new area of science.  Shouldn't we expect that there might be some changes in what we accept as true today?  That is to say, is it reasonable to assume that we got everything right about genetics right from the start?


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 29, 2006)

boufa06 said:
			
		

> Sarcasm (despair more likely) apart, my position is as follows:
> 
> ...
> 
> Is my position a bit clearer now?


 Yes, very much so, and I thank you for the explanation.  Your post and some of the others have made me aware of issues that I didn't even know existed.

Bethzaring's comment on the National Animal Identification System also gave me something to worry about that I'd never heard of.  I can very easily imagine how the NAIS combined with the patented animals that boufa and cara are talking about could, in bethzaring's words "end backyard, small scale farming as we know it in the USA."

I thought this whole cloning issue posed no risk until, as sparrowgrass says, "science can eliminate the uterus."  You all have convinced me I was wrong.


----------



## suzyQ3 (Dec 29, 2006)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> This statement boggles my mind!  It sounds like you are suggesting all scientific truths will eventually be proven wrong.


Well, Andy M., when I was younger I used to think that gravity was an unassailable fact. But now I can tell you definitely that I have proved that scientific truth to be wrong. 

Seriously, though, I agree with you. Sure, there are no absolute guarantees, and sure we should opt for healthy skepticism, but I'll take science any day over superstition, fear, and paranoia -- its main enemies.


----------



## Mrs. Cuillo (Dec 29, 2006)

Wow!!   I have learned so much on this thread!! I have changed my mind as far as eating cloned animals go.  I guess I never fully understood how cloning worked.  As far as labeling it goes...I don't know.  I don't see it necessary if the meat has all the same "ingredients" and tastes the same.  Though some would prefer it...I don't know.  Like may people have said, this is not going to happen soon.  Great thread topic Kleenex!


----------



## boufa06 (Dec 29, 2006)

skilletlicker said:
			
		

> I can very easily imagine how the NAIS combined with the patented animals that boufa and cara are talking about could, in bethzaring's words "end backyard, small scale farming as we know it in the USA."


 skilletlicker, well you hit it on the nail!!!  This is the heart of the matter and not benefitting the masses with better meat at cheaper prices.


----------



## boufa06 (Dec 29, 2006)

suzyQ3 said:
			
		

> but I'll take science any day over superstition, fear, and paranoia -- its main enemies.


 Me too!  But one should be aware of its limitations too.


----------



## Chief Longwind Of The North (Dec 30, 2006)

The money driven aspect of our world's societies certainly scares me.  The financial "requirements" of business has for the most part been geered toward ever-increasing profits, no matter what the cost to society or even the well being humanity.  The idea that more is better is IMHO a major fault in the collective thinking process.  It has fueld wars and skirmishes as much as any other single though process.  It has ruined ecologies, and has created untold misery.  I agree with those who are frightened by the prospect of those who would seek to make profit from cloning at the expense of everyone else.

But I am not afraid of the science behind it.  A simple staff, made from hardwood can be a benign object, to help aid someone in walking.  It can also be a deadly weapon in the hands of one trained to use it as such.  But the staff itself, it is simply a piece of wood.  It is the user that gives it its purpose.

It is the choices made by people that make anything good or bad.  And sadly, there are enough people with bad intentions to cause any possible thing imaginable to be used to satisfy selfish desire.

Is cloning a bad thing?  What has to be decided is not whether the science si good or bad, but rather, can the application of the science be intelligently used for the good of all, rather than the selfish needs of the few.

Seeeeeeya; Goodweed of the North


----------



## cara (Dec 30, 2006)

goodweed, you don't really think of the good warmhearted Monsanto-company, who wants patents on pigs, cows and even humans just for the good of all? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





but I agree.. cloning as such could be a good thing... but not with money behind


----------



## bethzaring (Dec 30, 2006)

skilletlicker said:
			
		

> Bethzaring's comment on the National Animal Identification System also gave me something to worry about that I'd never heard of. I can very easily imagine how the NAIS combined with the patented animals that boufa and cara are talking about could, in bethzaring's words "end backyard, small scale farming as we know it in the USA."


 

I had a feeling that the majority of the members of this forum may not be aware of the NAIS issue.  I applaud you skilletlicker for looking into this potential drama.  IMO this NAIS issue is much more of an immediate serious threat to our choice of foods to purchase to eat.


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 31, 2006)

bethzaring said:
			
		

> I had a feeling that the majority of the members of this forum may not be aware of the NAIS issue.  I applaud you skilletlicker for looking into this potential drama.  IMO this NAIS issue is much more of an immediate serious threat to our choice of foods to purchase to eat.


I'll likely never own a cow but would sure like to think that I have a right to without jumping through a lot of bureaucratic hoops.


----------



## cara (Dec 31, 2006)

skilletlicker, no, you don't have.
We have a system like this in the european union for years now. 
every cow and every pig must be registered within a week. 
I could tell you loits about this, but I must admit, I don't have the time and the motivation.
But believe me, nothing is perfect, there are still people who find a way to cheat.


----------



## bethzaring (Dec 31, 2006)

cara, I am afraid you are correct on this. And I know what you mean about not having the time and energy to discuss this. Presently people in the USA do have the luxury to own and care for animals pretty much as we please. Especially in the country, cities have for a long time enforced zoning laws that keep most livestock out of cities.

I am afraid of the scenerio of having a mad cow or bird flu scare and the USDA making the NAIS mandatory. Right now it is a voluntary program and I am sure we country folk would put up quite a fight if it were made mandatory in a period of calm. But just wait until a perceived crisis occurrs and watch this program mandated. I will look into the EU's version of this program. I hope it is more evenly geared to the average small livestock holder, rather than the USDA NAIS program which is geared toward hugh agribusiness.


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 31, 2006)

I'm real new to this issue, but from the reading I have done it seems to me that the voluntary aspect is intended to be temporary.
The following is from this USDA site.


> *Q. Will This be a Mandatory Program?
> A. *USDA and its cooperators are working toward developing a             national program that will allow us to rapidly track animals exposed             to a disease concern and that will meet the needs of animal owners,             animal industries, domestic and international markets, and consumers.                     The system needs to be tested to be sure it is effective and workable.             While the NAIS is being developed and refined, producer participation             will be voluntary. As the system continues to take shape and is tested             for all livestock and food animals, USDA will reassess the need for             making some or all aspects of the program mandatory. Some States, such             as Wisconsin, have passed laws to make certain components of an animal             identification program mandatory in areas under their purview.
> Eventually, USDA may move toward a requirement for mandatory premises             and animal identification for all species included in the system. If             USDA does decide to make all or parts of the NAIS mandatory, we will             follow the normal rulemaking process. The public will have the opportunity             to comment upon any proposed regulations. Return


----------



## bethzaring (Dec 31, 2006)

skilletlicker, this whole issue just makes my head hurt.  There is so much info published on this that I do not know what is good info and what is mis-information.  Look at this.......

"Market to drive national animal identification
By Shannon Burkdoll, The Prairie Star Editor
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 12:29 PM MST

  The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in recent months it has no intention of making the National Animal Identification System mandatory - it is permanently voluntary. Some are skeptical of the voluntary statement and others have diagnosed the death of the program from this statement."


----------



## skilletlicker (Dec 31, 2006)

As I read it, the current USDA position is that it will remain voluntary at the federal level but states can make it mandatory. Wisc. has apparently already done so and others including Texas will be following shortly. My sense of it is that this is mostly PR.  The following is from an Oct. 31 speech by a Deputy Secretary of Ag.  



> I ask you to keep stressing that this is a voluntary system. I believe that message strikes a chord with producers. It also helps deal with the myths, half-truths and misconceptions that have been circulating about N-A-I-S. Some of you who have worked on the system for a long time feel that we can best achieve our objectives through a mandatory system.
> But  the best system, simply put, is one that will work.
> That  means a system farmers will participate in and support.  And that’s a voluntary system.
> Since we’ve had some confusion on this, we need to be as clear as we can be. This is Voluntary with a capital V. Not a currently voluntary, then maybe a mandatory system. This is a permanently voluntary system at the federal level.
> Of  course, individual states may choose to require participation based on local  needs. That’s up to them.


----------

