USDA and our stakeholders in animal agriculture must continue moving forward with the  National Animal Identification System. NAIS must be implemented for our country to maintain its reputation as having the most efficient and effective animal health surveillance and response system in the world. I believe a fully functional animal tracking system will keep us competitive in international markets, helping us retain and
expand our market share. This Department is wholly committed to making NAIS a reality. Mike Johanns Secretary of Agriculture

And then William "Bill" Hawks written words in the DP about the need for the National Animal Identification System, but yet the USDA is going to open up the border for cattle over 30 months for  Canada to NORMALIZE TRADE.

We have been working on an animal identification plan here at USDA in conjunction with a lot of interested parties over a number of years now, and our goal has remained consistent—to be able to track animals within a 48-hour period. We are prepared to roll up our sleeves and get this implemented.

The attention garnered from the BSE case last December, coupled with the increasing number of animal disease outbreaks worldwide over the last decade, has intensified the
level of interest in developing NAIS. September 11, 2001, also taught us that we have to prepare for potential intentional disease introductions. NAIS is a top USDA priority.

 William “Bill” Hawks,Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs

Dr. Thornsberry has it correct the USDA is suppose to look out for the welfare of the U.S. livestock industry.

I don't know about you but I will be writing my senators again concerning this outrages  plan and I'm not going to hold back from the GOOD senators. I can guarantee that within 2 months a case of BSE will rear its ugly head. This email needs to be forwarded to everyone you know. I said it once and I will say it again, The only intentional disease introduction will be by the USDA due to the Normalizing of Trade. 

One other question, How will introducing more BSE cattle in the USA normalize trade?  Doesn't every new BSE discovered in the U.S. then  increase the Minimal Risk.........??????

R-CALF: USDA OTM Rule Heightens Disease Risk To U.S. Cattle Herd, U.S. Consumers

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=161401

Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA was extremely disappointed to see today’s Federal Register, in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its final rule (Rule 2) to begin allowing imports of Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, and Canadian cattle over 30 months (OTM) of age, into the United States, scheduled to be effective Nov. 19. OTM cattle originating from a country affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) have an inherently higher risk for transmitting the disease.

“USDA’s mandate is to prevent BSE from entering the United States, but the first thing the agency said at Friday’s news conference was this rule is designed to normalize cattle trade with Canada,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee. “The U.S. Centers for Disease Control recently concluded that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely to test positive for BSE than U.S. cattle.

“USDA went on to say that it’s an integral part of the agency’s efforts to promote fair trade practices and that the agency will encourage other countries to align their trade requirement to meet USDA expectations,” he continued. “Apparently, USDA thinks opening the border to older Canadian cattle will improve our export markets, so the agency, basically, continues to blatantly disregard the product demands of our export customers.

“When is someone going to point out to this runaway agency that it is not USDA’s job to improve trade relations because there already are federal agencies for that – the USTR and the Commerce Department,” Thornsberry asserted. “USDA is supposed to look out for the welfare of the U.S. livestock industry, so how in the world did USDA get the authority to decide it’s in the United States’ best interest to continue pushing for the ‘no borders’ approach to create a North American cattle herd, which continues to jeopardize the health of the U.S. cattle herd?

“During Friday’s news conference, USDA refused to answer what percentage of public comments the agency received on this rule were proponents of Rule 2 and what percentage of the comments came from people opposed to opening the border to OTM Canadian cattle,” he pointed out. “It doesn’t matter what the comments said because USDA already had its mind made up. I think they’ll do exactly as they please.”

What the OTM Rule Would Do:

Allow importation of all live Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, regardless of the intended use of the cattle, e.g., breeding, feeding, or slaughter.

Allow importation of beef, beef products, and beef byproducts, including whole or half carcasses, offal, tallow, and gelatin derived from Canadian OTM cattle. (This means that while live cattle born before March 1, 1999 are deemed to harbor an unacceptable risk for BSE, the beef from cattle born before March 1, 1999, can, nevertheless, be imported into the United States.)

Allow importation of bovine blood and blood products derived from Canadian cattle of any age. 

Allow importation of casings and the part of the small intestine from Canadian cattle of any age and from sheep that were less than 12 months of age at slaughter. 

How the OTM Rule Would be Administered: 

The age of Canadian cattle would be determined by a certificate signed by a Canadian veterinarian.

Each Canadian bovine imported for purposes other than immediate slaughter must be identified with an official ear tag that enables traceback to its premises of origin and each animal must be permanently branded with a “CAN,” or ear tattooed with a “CAN.”  (Note: The use of a tattoo in lieu of a brand represents a relaxation of current requirements.)

Canadian cattle imported for immediate slaughter would be transported in a sealed conveyance, with the seal applied at the U.S. port of entry.

Canadian cattle imported for other than immediate slaughter would not be required to be transported in sealed conveyances.

Besides the risk of diseased Canadian cattle commingling with the U.S. herd, R-CALF USA members also are worried once the border opens that the bottom will drop out of the U.S. market for cull cows and that the U.S. also will become a dumping ground for the specified risk materials (SRMs) that Canada has banned from its entire animal feed chain – yet another disease risk to the U.S. cattle herd. Here in the United States, SRMs are still allowed in pet food, as well as hog and poultry feed. Producers here are fearful that Canada will ship more cattle to the U.S. to dispose of SRMs in U.S. rendering facilities, posing further risks that BSE may be introduced into the animal feed supply chain here. Commingling of cattle feed with other animal feed is suspected as the source of continued BSE infection in Canada, causing Canada to ban cattle parts from all animal feed. There have been no similar efforts to enhance our own feed ban.

USDA acknowledges that Rule 2 would negatively impact U.S. cattle producers “as sellers of cull cattle, dairy producers, as well as beef producers are expected to be negatively affected by the price decline for cull cattle due to this rule.”

“Because Rule 2 is deemed ‘economically significant,’ Congress will have 60 days to review the rule,” Thornsberry explained. “R-CALF USA will continue to work with Congress in an effort to have Rule 2 withdrawn, but if that falls short, R-CALF USA is prepared to take the matter to court.

“Canada’s ongoing BSE struggle continues to disrupt international beef trade and continues to create hardships for the U.S. cattle industry when Canadian cattle and beef are mixed with U.S. cattle and beef,” he concluded. “Rule 2 is premature and will cause additional and potentially severe consequences for U.S. independent cattle producers, and we simply cannot sit idly by without a fight while our own government’s actions will harm our industry – all in the name of ‘normalizing’ trade.”

Page 7 DP

Driving Force:  
The strongest driving force is the risk of adverse animal health events that require quick response. With the outbreak of exotic Newcastle disease in California in 2002 and 2003 and the Canadian cow that tested positive for BSE in 2003, the need for rapid tracebacks has become more urgent. Recent outbreaks worldwide of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), especially in the United Kingdom in 2001, show the United States is at risk, too. In addition, the September 11, 2001, attacks make clear that an intentional introduction of an animal disease is a real risk.