Visipec: Brazilian Ministry did not provide the data

Visipec deforestation: Brazilian Ministry did not provide the data

The Ministry confirms that the GTA data are only to be used by the animal inspection services, as previously argued here.

Compare this to what the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW) and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) say, that Visipec “integrates information from public databases”. By this they seem to imply that their collection and processing of the data was perfectly ok. Yet, judging from what the Ministry is saying below, it looks not ok.

Further, the Ministry says that using the data outside of animal health surveillance poses various risks, both to individuals and to society, and that such use can subject the offenders to the penalty of law.

Currently, this blog is the only party raising the argument that there are serious risks in misusing the cattle traceabiltiy data that UW and NWF are using to boycott producers for deforestation.

Other people that were calling for a serious consideration of the risks were silenced by NWF through legal threats. This blog was one of the receivers of those threats.

This blog will continue providing information to help you assess the risks of not questioning the NGOs’ narrative.

Below is the full response that the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture provided to a freedom of information request.

--

"This Ministry understands that, in its individuality, both other cadastral data and GTA data contain information of a personal nature, so they are not of collective or general interest.

Those information are eminently pertinent to the Animal Health Inspection Service, as they confer traceability of herds as well as transit control, being fundamental to the decision-making process on public policies of agricultural inspection but not intended for the general public. Any impacts on the agricultural market will also be considered.

Furthermore, the explanation provided by the National Forum of Agricultural Sanitation Executors - FONESA, an entity representing the State Sanitation Executors, OEASA, which, once provoked by the Attorney General's Office, from the Federal Prosecutor's Office, replied

‘in response to that Attorney's Office of the Republic asserting, in short, that in compliance with the Transparency Law - which provides for the exhibition of information pertaining to the Public Administration and not to individuals —, data relating to institutional attributions and GTA are disclosed on the electronic sites of the OEASA, meeting the needs of society, related to supervision and to the parties involved in the movement of animals, and shared with the Ministry of Agriculture - MAPA forming a unique database, managed through the Agricultural
Management Platform - PGA, allowing agility of analysis and the ability to carry out consultations with the use of different filters, enabling the response to a multitude of questions pertinent to the management of animal transit, sanitation programs and other activities relevant to the Animal Health Inspection Service.’

FONESA continues, arguing that ‘the cadastral data in the GTA are declaratory, where a bond of trust and the commitment is established between the OESA and the producer to use the information exclusively for the purpose of animal health surveillance and protection, under the penalty of law, as they contain information of a personal and patrimonial nature regarding producers, so that the detailed and irrestricted availability of the information contained in the GTA implies the revelation of commercial transactions that put at risk the physical and patrimonial security of producers, their family members and employees, in addition to exposing business strategies, both for the domestic market and to the international market, with risks of losses to agricultural defense activities and state economies.

Best regards

Traffic and Animal Quarantine Coordinator - Substitute’

Best regards

Citizen Information Service - SIC/Ombudsman/MAPA

Clique aqui e veja tudo o que já publicamos sobre esse assunto.

Imagem de Darwin Laganzon por Pixabay

“Informação publicada é informação pública. Porém, alguém trabalhou e se esforçou para que essa informação chegasse até você. Seja ético. Copiou? Informe e dê link para a fonte.” asdfgçlkjh