FROM: HerpDigest Volume # 10 Issue #19 4/21/10 (A Not-for-Profit Publication)

1) U.S. Senator Landrieu Welcomes Court Ruling in Favor of Turtle Farmers
FDA asked to reconsider the ban on baby turtle sales.

Press Release, Washington, — 4/4/10 U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., today welcomed Louisiana's Western District court's ruling that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to adequately address the turtle farmer's petition against a ban on the sale of baby turtles in the United States. The court's ruling sent the matter back to the FDA for additional consideration.

"The ban on domestic baby turtle sales was implemented over 30 years ago," said Sen. Landrieu. "Since then, technological advancements have made it possible to safely and easily treat pet baby turtles for salmonella. It is time for the FDA to begin working with the industry to re-open the market here in the United States and create rules for the responsible sale of baby turtles."

In 1975, the FDA banned turtle farmers from selling turtle eggs and turtles smaller than four inches in length in the United States. The ban was initially intended to protect potential pet owners from salmonella.

Snakes, iguanas, geckos, frogs and other amphibians and reptiles also have the potential to carry salmonella, but the FDA does not currently ban the domestic sale of these animals, nor does the FDA require these animals to be treated for salmonella before purchase.

In 2007, Sen. Landrieu co-sponsored legislation to permit the domestic sale of baby turtles in the United States. That same year, she also authored an amendment included in the FDA Revitalization Act that sought to lift the ban. Both pieces of legislation would require all turtles sold to be treated for salmonella, providing for the safe sale of turtles as pets.

There are approximately 80 turtle farmers in Louisiana, which make up a $9.4 million industry
_______________________________________________________________________
2) (Comments by Editor on above Turtle Farm Press Release from The Senator’s website.
As I see it, the decision basically puts the ball in the FDA’s court. But I see some many possible scenarios that are disasters for the farmers. Here is just two. What if he FDA does prove jurisdiction and agrees that things have changed in 35 years? But what if the FDA says that all herps carry salmonella, (CDC has recorded illnesses and deaths from salmonella caught from herps include lizards, snakes and I believe frogs.) So all herps should be banned? Eliminating the so-called prejudice.

Or it seems to go the turtle farmer way? The FDA reversing the national ban does not open up the entire US to the trade. Before the FDA passed the rule, many states, cities, counties had their own regulations before the FDA got involved. Oregon was the first in 1962, Connecticut banned the sale of all turtles, any size until the early 90s.)
The FDA got involved by the way so there would be one rule for the entire country. The banning of turtles as pets was secondary. If it was first they would have banned all size turtles.

The Current need to open up the US for pet turtles below four inches is the result of the farmer’s own actions. For years the two main legal markets for those turtles were Europe and Asia. Now they can’t export any to Europe based on EU environmental laws (the red-eared slider has basically been called one of the top reptile invasive species in Europe. Pushing native turtles out, and breeding from Portugal to Italy) And the Asian market has been taken over by China using turtles they bought from the farmers and now produce and sell for a much cheaper price.

By the way there was no deadline I could find for the FDA to issue their report, so stay tuned.)

=====================================

My opinion is that the original FDA ruling was one of the first big AR initiatives perpetrated upon us. Of course, the true rational behind promulgation was deftly hidden behind the smoke of "for our own good" blather. In other words, let Big Brother step in and protect ignorant people from the consequences of their own behavior. Look how fat our kids have grown from all this Governmental molly-coddling. Oh yeah, something about the Law of Unintended Consequences comes to mind. This speaks directly to Mr. Salzberg's editorial comments. Marginalizing and sweeping the industry under the carpet has has led to the unfortunate detrimental situation of today, while an industry allowed to thrive, improve, and grow with transparency, through knowledge and improvement in sophistication would probably had a more favorable outcome. Sweeping the problem under the rug with the "hands off" "leave it to the authorities" policy has had a dismal record.
Keep your eyes peeled for HSUS propaganda pursuing a continuing ban ruling by the FDA.
Just my opinion.
jsc
_________________________________________
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

[ Show Entire Thread ]