R-CALF

mRNA Conspiracy Theories: Ranch Group Offers ‘Fearmongering’ and ‘Misinformation’

Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:23:57 GMT

Misinformation and conspiracy theories regarding the use of mRNA vaccines in livestock continue, despite efforts of the scientific community, the Animal Health Institute and government agencies.

Last week Drovers and AgWeb reported about a bogus claim on social media that producers are required to inject livestock with mRNA vaccines. USDA spokesperson Marissa Perry said, “There is no requirement or mandate that producers vaccinate their livestock for any disease.”

Further, the mRNA vaccines are not even available for cattle in the United States, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association issued a statement indicating such in an effort to tamp down the internet falsehoods.

University of Florida professor Kevin Folta appeared on AgriTalk confirming to host Chip Flory that no mRNA cattle vaccine is approved in the U.S., but researchers are working on an mRNA vaccine for swine to battle porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).

“It’s (mRNA) a vaccine for the animal that, just like any other vaccine, protects the animal from disease,” Folta said. And, “It’s not in your food.”

Despite Folta’s and assurances from many others in the scientific community, false accusations about the safety of meat and milk continue. Late last week one ranch group issued a press statement followed by a commentary, both filled with inaccuracies about mRNA and frosted with a coating of fear for consumers.

In the press release, R-CALF USA said after a briefing from its Animal Health Committee Chair, who “spoke with medical doctors and a microbiologist” who were unnamed, the group’s board passed a motion to bring the issue before the full membership at its next annual meeting to determine policy direction. Until then, R-CALF says mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) must be adopted, because without COOL, “The American consumer has no way of knowing if the beef they are buying is coming from a country using this debatable mRNA technology in their cattle health management.”

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard went even further in his commentary , calling the mRNA vaccine “an injection.” Additionally, he claimed that mRNA “hijacks living cells, tricking them into producing some level of immunity against human viruses.”

But the most egregious statement from Bullard seems to cavalierly tarnish beef’s safety image.

“There is great concern that living cells excrete the mRNA over time and the mRNA can then be transferred to animals and humans that have never received the mRNA injection,” Bullard wrote. “It is believed, for example, that humans can contact (sic) mRNA by eating meat from livestock that have received the injection.”

All of that is false, of course. To obtain confirmation we reached out to Dr. Jeff Savell, Vice Chancellor and Dean, Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M University, who is also a Distinguished Professor, Meat Science. He promptly put us in contact with a faculty expert.

That would be Dr. Penny Riggs, associate professor of animal science at Texas A&M. More of her credentials later. But first, after reviewing the R-CALF releases she called them “fearmongering and misinformation.”

Quoting directly from the email Drovers received from Dr. Riggs:

“First. No mRNA vaccines are currently available for beef cattle. I understand that there are a couple of vaccines against respiratory disease and rotavirus for swine.”

“Second. No food safety risk exists for meat from animals that have received any vaccination.” [Regardless of vaccination type, proper withdrawal times should be ensured. Specified withdrawal times are based on the specific vaccine and its formulation components.]

“Third. mRNA from a vaccine will NOT be passed along in meat.”

So what about Dr. Riggs’ credentials? Start with a BS in Biology, and then a Masters in Cytogenetics from Purdue University. Then a PhD in molecular genetics from Texas A&M.

(Here’s a crash course in just what mRNA is and the important job it does, authored by Dr. Riggs for The Conversation.)

“Riggs’ research focuses on analyses of gene, RNA and protein expression, function, and signaling that regulate or influence aspects of beef quality, skeletal muscle traits, and developmental processes in beef cattle, as well as whole genome sequencing of bacterial pathogens. She has additional interests in genome technologies and genetic modifiers of disease susceptibility and in the role of animal agriculture and biotechnology in ensuring food and nutritional security,” according to her A&M profile.

And for good measure, Riggs “conducted postdoctoral work in the radiation biophysics lab as a Texas Aerospace Fellow at the University of Houston and the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.”

Regarding the misinformation about the safety of meat contained in the R-CALF releases, Riggs called it “unfortunate.” As agriculturalists, “we should be celebrating the advances in technology that enable more precise and effective strategies for ensuring animal health and well-being in order to continue producing the nutritious and safe meat, milk, and other animal source products that sustain life and good health.”

Riggs went on to address the commentary and press release specifically, noting they both contain numerous factual errors. The following are Riggs’ verbatim comments to Drovers:

1. mRNA itself is neither a vaccine, nor an injection. Specific mRNAs are produced in every cell of every living organism as the first step for every biological function. The mRNA is a specific and relatively short-lived nucleotide message that is translated into the proteins in our cells. The messages are destroyed in the cell after sufficient protein is made for each biological task (minutes to hours).

2. A vaccine is a derivative of a pathogen—such as a modified virus, a killed virus, part of a virus, or a specific mRNA copy of a small part of a virus—that can function as an antigen. That means that when the vaccine is delivered, often by injection, our bodies recognize that antigen and respond to it by making antibodies, enabling development of immunity to that original pathogen. What makes an mRNA vaccine different is that it is the minimal amount of sequence needed for eliciting an immune response. Viruses tend to mutate rapidly, so mRNA is an advantage for speedy vaccine production because the sequence can be revised as needed. Also, this type of vaccine doesn’t have to be grown – so there are fewer ingredients in the formulation that could have potential to elicit an allergic reaction. In short, the mRNA vaccine is a new tool that is very precise and can be formulated rapidly as threats emerge.

3. What does the mRNA in a vaccine do? THE mRNA from a vaccine DOES NOT rewrite instructions from the body’s DNA. The mRNA does not hijack the cell.

When the mRNA enters the cytoplasm of the immune system’s sentinel cells, the normal protein-making “machinery” present in the cytoplasm reads the message and generates a protein product that is then recognized as the foreign antigen. Then, our immune system is stimulated to produce antibodies, just like any other vaccine does.

4. Potential risks are very low for humans and livestock. Although vaccines are very safe and help protect people and animals from harmful viruses and other pathogens, they function by eliciting an immune response. Rarely, that triggering of the immune response may be harmful, or a person may have an allergic reaction to the materials used to formulate the vaccine – for example, people allergic to eggs should not receive a vaccine developed in eggs. So far, data only exists for the mRNA vaccines developed to protect again COVID-19 and the limited swine vaccinations. From data collected to date, the risk of adverse events compared to other types of vaccines is very low, achieving zero risk for anything is almost impossible.

5. NO, there is NOT “great concern that living cells excrete the mRNA over time and the mRNA can then be transferred to animals and humans that have never received the mRNA injection.”

6. NO it is NOT TRUE that “for example, that humans can contact [sic] mRNA by eating meat from livestock that have received the injection.”

This is false. These statements are unfounded fearmongering. Every morsel of food we eat that comes from plants or animals is loaded with the DNA, RNA (mRNA, rRNA, miRNA, etc), along with proteins and other contents of the cells from source organisms – no matter if it is spinach or steak. People can enjoy a great meal, digest the meat, and none of its DNA or RNA will be transferred to them. It’s just not physically possible for that to occur.

7. mRNA vaccines have been “in development” for a couple of decades, but mRNA is unstable and difficult to deliver as a vaccine. As a result of U.S. investments during COVID, the last hurdle was overcome – how to deliver the specific mRNA and keep it from being destroyed long enough for an immune response to occur. This is still expensive technology, but the big breakthrough enables highly specific vaccines to be formulated rapidly and deliver only what is required. However, tests have shown that even these types of mRNA molecules can’t survive very long in the cell – an estimate is that 50% of the mRNA from a vaccine is gone in about 20 hours, and completely destroyed within a few days.

8. NO, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that contain a portion of the Sars-CoV2 spike protein will not deliver mRNA to consumers who drink milk if it is injected into dairy cows. Yes, there are ways to genetically engineer animals to deliver protein products in milk – this was done in dairy goats many years ago, but it CANNOT be accomplished by an mRNA vaccine.

9. NO, people who eat meat from an animal treated with an mRNA vaccine, CANNOT absorb the mRNA from the vaccine in the intestinal tract.

In conclusion, Riggs wrote, “These outlandish claims are nothing more than fearmongering to push other agendas. The various state and federal proposed bills are not based on any kind of rational scientific evidence.”

Groups Seek Reintroduction of American Beef Labeling Act

Thu, 12 Jan 2023 21:11:47 GMT

The United States Cattlemen’s Association, R-CALF USA, among 48 other groups and organizations recently sent a letter to U.S. Senate and House members asking them to reintroduce the American Beef Labeling Act in 2023, which would reinstate country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) for beef in the U.S.

As the letter states, “We the undersigned organizations would like to express our gratitude for your leadership and support of the American Beef Labeling Act ( S.2716, H.R. 7291 ). This commonsense policy has remained popular with the American people since Congress rescinded country of origin labeling for beef in 2015.”

This bill would re-insert the words “beef” and “ground beef” to the existing 2002 MCOOL law, which requires country of origin labels on other foods, such as lamb, chicken, fish, nuts, fruits and vegetables. The bill would further require all beef, including imported beef, to be labeled as to where it was born, raised and harvested.

The joint letter also notes a recent poll conducted by Morning Consult on behalf of the Coalition for Prosperous America (CPA), in which 86% of votes support the American Beef Labeling Act, with 64% of voters who strongly support and 22% of voters who somewhat support the legislation.

Originally introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) in September 2021, the bill was last referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

The letter addressed Sen. Thune and co-sponsors Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy.), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), as well as U.S. House of Representatives supporters, including Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Virg.).

“Although we did not cross the finish line in the 117th Congress we are confident that with your continued leadership and our support we can ensure that beef produced from U.S. born and raised cattle is distinguished in the marketplace and consumers will have accurate information as to the origins of the beef they purchase for their families in the 118th Congress,” the letter states.

The 118th United States Congress session began on Jan. 3, 2023.

The full list of groups signing in support of the American Beef Labeling Act can be found in the letter .

R-CALF Loses Appeal On RFID Challenge

Tue, 24 May 2022 18:56:51 GMT

Ranchers lost their federal claims in an appeal of a suit originally filed in 2019 against USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture challenging the use of two private groups to help develop the government’s proposed rule requiring the use of electronic ear tags for cattle.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th District on Friday ruled against R-CALF USA and ranchers from Wyoming and South Dakota who had challenged the agencies use of two private groups to help formalize the government’s proposed rule requiring electronic ear tags. The ranchers claimed the Cattle Traceability Working Group (CTWG) and the Producers Traceability Council (PTC) were subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), but the three-judge panel disagreed.

In April 2019, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published its mandatory radio frequency identification (RFID) mandate which was scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, 2023. R-CALF USA sued in October 2019, alleging the agencies’ mandate was unlawful. Subsequently, the agencies withdrew the mandate and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that the agencies had voluntarily cured their violation.

That lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in February 2020 when the USDA withdrew a factsheet promoting the change. That’s when the CTWG and PTC began meeting to discuss the technology. USDA claimed it neither created nor managed the groups, but R-CALF USA called the group’s makeup biased and claimed violations of the FACA. R-CALF filed an amended complaint in April 2021, asking the court “to issue a declaratory judgment that [defendants] violated FACA,” or to enjoin defendants from using any “of the work product from” CTWG or PTC. When the lower court dismissed the second complaint in May 2021, the plaintiffs appealed.

Harriet Hageman, an attorney with New Civil Liberties Alliance, told the three-judge appeals court USDA couldn’t have moved forward with rulemaking without the working groups’ input and urged the panel to focus on the rule’s consequences.

“The harm is the USDA is trying to move forward with a radio-frequency identification requirement based on two committees illegally formed under FACA,” Hageman said.

The Circuit Court, however, disagreed with Hageman.

“We agree with the district court that there is no basis to conclude that defendants either ‘established’ or ‘utilized’ the Cattle Traceability Working Group or Producers Traceability Council within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,” wrote Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe in a 46-page opinion.

“Consequently, we reject plaintiffs’ requests to direct the entry of judgment in their favor. Instead, we affirm the district court’s decision in its entirety,” she wrote for the panel.

“The evidence in the record quite clearly indicates that both the Cattle Traceability Working Group and Producers Traceability Council were formed by and composed of industry leaders,” Briscoe wrote.

Group Seeks To Add to R-CALF’s Suit Over RFID

Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:44:01 GMT

A new nonprofit civil rights group has filed a lawsuit challenging USDA’s attempts to implement mandatory use of “radio frequency identification” (RFID) eartags for cattle and bison.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to add nine documents to the Administrative Record in the case of R-CALF, et al. v. USDA, et al. The suit seeks consideration of extra-record evidence and challenges USDA’s alleged violation of both the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by establishing and utilizing two separate advisory committees to provide recommendations for implementing the RFID eartags, but failing to follow the proper procedures for doing so.

According to a statement issued by New Civil Liberties Alliance, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) established the “Cattle Traceability Working Group” in 2017 of which NCLA client Kenny Fox was a member.

NCLA alleges that upon discovering that the CTWG was not producing the pro-RFID recommendations they desired, certain CTWG members sought to exclude anyone who opposed mandatory RFID from further participation, eventually starting a second advisory committee called the “Producer Traceability Council” or PTC.

“High-level USDA employees were actively involved with both the CTWG and PTC, but failed to follow the requirements of FACA by, among other things, ignoring public notice requirements and blocking participation of those opposed to RFID requirements,” NCLA’s statement says. “Mr. Fox and other cattle producers who oppose mandating RFID eartag use have been entirely excluded from PTC membership, with only pro-RFID individuals and companies (such as electronic eartag manufacturers) being allowed to participate.”

NCLA said the nine documents it has asked the court to add to the lawsuit are crucial to “showing that USDA ‘established’ and ‘utilized’ the CTWG and PTC as advisory committees in the development of the 2019 Factsheet and policy to move forward with mandating cattle and bison producers to use RFID eartags.”

NCLA further said that USDA’s “briefs filed to date suggest that it will defend itself against R-CALF’s FACA claims by asserting that the Act is inapplicable to USDA’s interactions with the two advisory committees.”

NCLA’s senior litigation counsel Harriet Hageman said, “Our battle against USDA’s unlawful push to force livestock producers to use RFID eartags continues. Our latest efforts are designed to ensure that the Court has a full record on which to evaluate our FACA claim against USDA. While USDA has sought to avoid its obligations under FACA and the APA, we will keep moving forward to demand accountability and transparency in order to protect the constitutional and property rights of livestock producers throughout the country.”