Joint Statement of Priorities from U.S. and Australian Cattle Producers
• https://mcusercontent.com/3ac0220907d479b33ff07dbbc/files/56d13fca-f95a-301d-d75f-4e0f157660db/240509_NCBA_CA_Joint_Statement_of_Priorities_FINAL.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0RU3eRlUGv7c2NSbf10u1xB3MEfwbTbzFc6UJrrUW-iiSW6l-kxKl8sFg_aem_AYdXMx4wkwgRanImAYsPQN5nrbWaylfTrpdbwdjBjEBednHKiilFrbGzFoEr-3KkZuW1CRqjRhlWWZys2gUgpDI6

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Cattle Australia issued a statement encouraging the Government of the United States and the Government of Australia to continue working together to combat devastating foreign animal diseases, to promote sustainable global trade that encourages efficient production practices, and to ensure science-based food safety and marketing regulations of emerging food technologies like lab-grown proteins.

In the statement, the organizations confirm that combating devastating animal diseases such as Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) and Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) is an effort that requires both national preparedness planning and international cooperation.

FMD is the most economically devastating transboundary disease threat facing American and Australian cattle producers, and the global threat level for FMD is higher than ever before with FMD present in areas of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America. Any incursion of FMD into our countries would result in the immediate cessation of trade in animals and animal products, and the potential restriction of movement of people and goods in affected areas. Likewise, LSD would also have a devastating economic impact on cattle producers.

NCBA and Cattle Australia call for the urgent and continued investment in critical infrastructure and preparedness activities in each of our countries to protect against and ultimately respond to outbreaks of such foreign animal disease.

Both industries are working hard to meet sustainability goals, and encourage producers to continue promoting their efficient, science-based technologies and production practices that enable the production of more beef with less resources. While the anti-meat agenda equates less beef consumption with a healthier environment, managed cattle grazing is essential for healthy land management, and science-based production practices result in healthier cattle, improved land and water quality, and happy consumers. According to the organizations, it is critically important that our governments promote livestock production as an effective tool in land and resource management and a necessity for achieving climate improvement initiatives.

As global beef demand continues to grow, new technologies such as lab-grown proteins are emerging to mimic or replicate the qualities of beef and to capitalize on the positive eating experience of beef absent the conventional production of cattle. Most of these technologies are still in the developmental phase and are not commercially viable, but it is critically important that these technologies are properly vetted by regulatory authorities, so they do not pose a potential risk to consumer health and food safety. It is also important that regulatory authorities understand the long-term effects on human health, nutrition, and the environment that result from these emerging technologies.

NCBA and Cattle Australia emphasize the importance of proper and transparent marketing of such lab-grown proteins as to not compromise the consumer trust that we have built as cattle producers, stating that “the growing global consumer base wants access to safe, nutritious beef, produced from cattle that are sustainably and efficiently raised in a natural environment – not in a bioreactor.”

Sen. Mike Rounds introduces bill to prevent mandatory use of EID in cattle
• https://www.agweek.com/news/policy/sen-mike-rounds-introduces-bill-to-prevent-mandatory-use-of-eid-in-cattle?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_Agweek

According to AgWeek, Senator Rounds has introduced legislation to prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from implementing any rule or regulation requiring use of electronic identification tags — also known as EID or RFID for radio frequency identification —on cattle and bison, calling such move by the USDA “federal government overreach.”

The USDA announced on April 26 that a rule soon will be published in the Federal Register to require use of EID tags for “all sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months of age or older, all dairy cattle, cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo or recreation events, and cattle or bison of any age used for shows or exhibitions” that cross state lines. The rule will go into effect 180 days after publication, pinning the effective date likely sometime in late fall of 2024.

The previous version of the rule, in place since 2013, required visual identification tags for such animals and did not require the electronic tags. Under current rules, animals that need to be ID’d before crossing state lines are given metal tags with nine-digit codes that are written down by a veterinarian and sent to state veterinary officials to be entered into a database that can be accessed to trace animals in case of disease outbreaks. EID also has been allowed — but not mandated.

With EID, a round tag is placed in an animal’s ear, and a wand electronically reads the tag, and a unique 15-digit code is uploaded into a spreadsheet that then can be accessed by a state veterinarian’s office. Proponents of the tags have said they’ll cut down on human error in the process, while maintaining the same information already collected.

Rounds said in a statement that “South Dakota cattle producers don’t need DC bureaucrats telling them how to manage and track their livestock … If farmers and ranchers want to use electronic tags, they can do so voluntarily.”

The cattle industry has been split on the EID discussion, with groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association coming out in favor of the rule, echoing USDA sentiments about the need to rapidly respond to disease concerns to protect markets. Other groups, like R-CALF USA, have said EIDs are too costly and represent a government overreach.

Executive Director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Doris Lauing said “We have had ample protection and means to trace any animal health issues in the past, the mandatory direction by the United States government to use electronic animal ID tags will be a violation of constitutional personal property rights and unnecessary expense.”

R-CALF USA CEO, Bill Bullard commented “It’s nonsensical for the Secretary of Agriculture to complain that America is losing too many farmers and ranchers while simultaneously forcing America’s farmers and ranchers to purchase and use the most expensive form of animal identification available.”

Bullard added that “These ear tags will cost the industry tens of millions of dollars without any means of recovery from the marketplace. This is government overreach at its worst and we’re thankful Senator Rounds is taking decisive action to protect the freedoms and liberties of America’s cattle producers by allowing them to continue choosing how to manage their cattle operations.”

But not all South Dakota cattle groups are against EID. South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association President Warren Symens pointed out in a statement that the recent USDA rule “only changes the type of identification to electronic tags with visual readable numbers” and when “it’s not a matter of if there’s a catastrophic animal disease outbreak in cattle, but when, utilizing the latest technology allows for the quick and accurate contact trace back to mitigate the spread of animal disease and protect the health of our nation’s cow herd.”