Page 94 - Summer 2017 Journal

Yet again, the proponents of animal ID dismissed the concerns of small scale producers, going so far as to say that if they couldn’t comply with such a system, they should get out of the business.
operations would inevitably drive many small farmers and independent ranchers out of busi- ness, leading to the consolidation of the beef industry and the loss of the burgeoning sustain- able livestock movement.
For consumers in general, this would have meant a significant loss of options. For WAPF consumers, who emphasize nutrient-dense ani- mal foods, it would have been a disaster.
When small farmers and their consumer al- lies became aware of this plan in 2006, we were already far behind the curve. Despite claims that the program would be “voluntary at the federal level,” USDA’s documents laid out the method for making the program mandatory on every livestock owner in the country by January 2009, and the momentum was all on the side of agribusiness.
But as activists spread the word, USDA faced a firestorm of protests from organic farmers, independent ranchers, horse owners, property rights advocates and others. Thanks to the organized grassroots outcry, then-Secretary Vilsack withdrew the plans for NAIS in 2010. At the same time, he announced plans for a replacement program, to be called the Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program. We spent
the next two years fighting to ensure that USDA kept its commitment to make ADT a reasonable, cost-effective plan.
In 2012, USDA issued the ADT rule. It covered inter-state movements only, requiring that cattle and poultry that crossed state lines be identified. Traditional, low-tech forms of ID were expressly allowed, and several exemptions that we had fought for were included.
Among other things, the final ADT rule dropped the proposed requirements for “feeder cattle”—beef cattle younger than eighteen months of age. The USDA explicitly stated that it would revisit the issue of feeder cattle in the future, allowing a focused discussion on the specific problems posed by identifying younger animals in a separate discussion.
So when USDA posted a notice for a series of meetings to discuss ADT this spring, it was not a major surprise—we had known that sooner or later there would be a discussion about feeder cattle.
Then, a week before the first meeting, USDA posted the supporting documents. The meeting handout hinted that the underlying agenda is to begin pushing intra-state require- ments and electronic forms of identification
UPDATE ON THE NEW ADMINISTRATION
President Trump’s nominee to lead the FDA, Scott Gottlieb, was confirmed by the Senate in May. While Dr. Gottlieb was a clinical assistant professor at New York University School of Medicine and has several years of prior experience at FDA, his main work has been with pharmaceutical companies and in the venture capital world. He is a venture partner at New Enterprise Associates, a director at Tolero Pharmaceuticals, and a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s product invest- ment board. Gottlieb’s financial disclosure letter during the nominations process disclosed financial relationships with over twenty-five entities, many of them giants in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries.
As predicted based on the Presidents’ list of likely candidates to lead the FDA, Gottlieb is a supporter of measures to allow companies to bring drugs to market much faster. This might open the door for more innovative alternative therapies —but only if the costs of FDA approval are drastically reduced in the process.
On the food side, we know very little about Gottlieb’s views, just what came out during the confirmation process. In response to questions from the Senate committee, Gottlieb stated: “The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) provides FDA with important tools and authorities to support its responsibility to ensure the safety of our nation’s food supply. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the agency has the appropriate policies, processes, and resources in place to implement FSMA, as intended by Congress. FDA should implement FSMA in a way that protects and promotes public health by enhancing food safety, while also collaborating with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state officials, and other govern- ment agencies to conduct regulatory activities in a manner that takes into account the unique challenges faced by small farmers and small businesses.”
One of the Big Food industry’s top priorities is to delay until 2021 new nutrition labeling requirements that were due to take effect this year. The excuse is that the USDA will be requiring GMO labeling in 2021 (although it will likely be of little use to consumers, since the DARK Act included so many loopholes). Big Food claims that changing labels twice in four years would be too confusing for consumers. Gottlieb has indicated that he is open to the idea, and the agency already temporarily delayed the rules during his confirmation process.
94
Wise Traditions
SUMMER 2017