|
<Back
| Home | Basics |
Departments | Get
Involved | Site Map | What's
New
NAIS Update
Protecting Access to Our Food Supply:
Update on the National Animal Identification System
By Judith McGeary
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a program developed
by agri-business and technology companies in the 1980s and 1990s. In
2002, an industry trade organization, the National Institute for Animal
Agriculture (NIAA), took the plan to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), which has been working on it ever since.
The NAIS applies to everyone who owns even one livestock animal, including
a chicken, horse, cow, sheep, goat, pig or bison. It would require each
person to: (1) register their property; (2) individually identify each
animal, in most cases with electronic identification; and (3) report
"events" to a government-accessible database within 24 hours.
The NAIS has the potential to drive many farmers out of business, due
to government intrusion and the practical burdens that would be imposed.
For WAPF-oriented consumers, this means increased cost and reduced availability
of healthy, local foods. Both farmers and consumers must speak out to
stop this program.
The last few months have seen a number of developments in the fight
against NAIS: the NIAA's annual conference, panels at other conferences
(including the Weston A. Price Foundation conference), and a new document
issued by the USDA. With each event or development, three issues predominate:
whether NAIS is mandatory or voluntary, what are the expected benefits
and what are the costs.
Mandatory or Voluntary?
On November 22, USDA published a new plan entitled National Animal
Identification System (NAIS): A User Guide and Additional Information
Resources. You can find it online at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/userguide.shtml.
The User Guide was clearly written in response to the grassroots criticism
of the NAIS. Unfortunately, when one cuts through the bureaucratese,
it appears that the USDA has not changed much, if any, of the substance
of the NAIS.
The USDA's new User Guide states repeatedly that the NAIS is voluntary
at the federal level. Before pointing out all of the holes in this claim,
it's worth acknowledging that this at least represents an improvement.
Many states have claimed that they "must" implement the NAIS
because it is a "federal mandate"--essentially, they need
to do it before the feds implement the program. Pro-NAIS forces now
have lost that argument. It is now absolutely clear that the NAIS is
not a federal mandate and that the state legislators and agencies
need to take responsibility for their own actions.
But despite repeating ad nauseum that NAIS is voluntary at
the federal level, USDA notes that it has authority to make the NAIS
mandatory if it decides to (page 4). The same people who tried to make
NAIS mandatory for several years now want us to trust them to believe
that they have changed their minds and that NAIS is, and will remain,
a voluntary program--unless they change their minds again. Perhaps more
importantly, even if USDA never adopts regulations making the NAIS mandatory
at the federal level, it can still effectively establish a mandatory
program. USDA can, and still is, encouraging and funding mandatory programs
at the state level. The User Guide allows states to impose mandatory
animal identification and premises registration programs. USDA Secretary
Johanns has stated that funding mandatory state programs does not conflict
with a "voluntary" federal program.
The same day that USDA released its new User Guide, it also announced
the availability of over $14 million in funds for states and Indian
tribes to implement NAIS. The Work Plan for applicants reiterates USDA's
goal of "full participation by 2009"--in other words, the
registration of every single person who owns even one head of livestock
and the identification of hundreds of millions of animals. The USDA
will withhold part of the funds until the state shows that it has reached
specified results.
At the state level, we have seen a variety of responses to this federal
pressure. Some states, such as Wisconsin and Indiana, have adopted mandatory
regulations under a state-level NAIS statute. Other states are using
existing programs to force people to comply with NAIS; for example,
New York has rolled the information from the scrapie program into the
national NAIS database. And yet other states have developed so-called
voluntary programs, without going through the normal rulemaking procedures,
that involve various coercive methods, such as telling people that they
will not be able to participate in events or sell at sales barns if
they don't register, linking farm assistance programs to registration,
etc.
Michigan provides a particularly instructive example about the realities
of the NAIS program. Michigan is using its tuberculosis program to require
the tagging of all cattle with Radio Frequency Identification Devices
by March 2007. At the NIAA Conference, a representative for the Michigan
program urged state officials to follow their example and implement
mandatory programs, as the best (or only) way to reach the USDA's goals
for the NAIS. We do not have any protection against mandatory or coercive
programs until both Congress and state legislatures adopt legislation
reining in the agencies.
The Basis and the Benefits
Along with reassuring statements about the voluntary nature of the
NAIS, the User Guide claims that there will be many benefits to the
program for everyone, ranging from animal health to the livestock market.
Nowhere does the User Guide provide any hard facts or even theoretical
models to support its claim.
The stated purpose behind NAIS is international trade and consumer
confidence. At the NIAA conference, USDA Secretary Johanns stated that
he became convinced that animal identification was needed while on a
trade mission to Japan. Speaker after speaker at the conference focused
on the supposed need for NAIS to improve international trade. No one
addressed the fact that the U.S. imports three to eight times as much
beef as it exports. No one addressed the fact that farmers who direct-market
their products are not affected by the international market. No one
discussed alternatives to NAIS, such as testing all exported cattle
for BSE. And no one discussed the ethics problems of imposing a program
on every animal owner in order to benefit a handful of meat packing
companies.
Rather, the industry and government officials keep trying to sell
the NAIS as an animal health program. One would expect that a disease
control program would be designed based on scientific studies and epidemiological
models addressing such issues as high-risk versus low-risk situations,
the impact the program would have on disease, and comparisons to alternative
approaches. None of these appear to exist for the NAIS.
At the NIAA conference, I asked Neil Hammerschmidt, the USDA official
in charge of implementing the NAIS, to provide the scientific basis
for the design of the NAIS. His response was that he was in charge of
the practical implementation of NAIS and was the wrong person to ask
for the scientific underpinning. In other words, the government official
in charge of the program does not have a grasp of the science that supposedly
supports the design of that very program! He recommended I speak with
Steve Weber in USDA's Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Weber
stated that he knew of only one specific study (which he co-authored)
that supported the design of NAIS. He said that the design of the NAIS
was based on a variety of studies, along with actions other countries
have taken. He promised to email me the citation for his article, and
ask around to see whether other people in the USDA knew of other specific
studies. I have never received any information from him.
I have also spoken about this issue with Dr. Wiemers, the head vet
for USDA on NAIS, and with multiple industry representatives. Each conversation
has provided a central message: "trust the experts." Even
if one were inclined to do so, the lack of any scientific support for
their program destroys their credibility. And the pro-NAIS forces appear
oblivious to the concept that a farmer might have a better grasp of
what is needed for animal health than a desk jockey with a degree.
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance has filed a Freedom of Information
Act request on this issue. If and when we receive a response from the
government, we'll provide an update in Wise Traditions.
What are the Costs?
Many people would object to the NAIS even if it imposed no monetary
costs, because of the government intrusion into people's lives and businesses.
And it's obvious that the NAIS will also impose significant tangible
costs.
In the latest User Guide, USDA purports to provide an estimate of
the costs. But they seem to have simply pulled numbers out of thin air.
As just one example, according to USDA, a horse owner would pay "just
a few dollars" for a microchip. But even for those implanting the
chips themselves, just the microchip and syringe costs around $18. With
a vet's assistance, the cost can be anywhere from $35 to $70. Those
quotes do not include the cost of hauling the horse to the vet, or paying
the barn-visit fee. Fees for other animals may differ, of course, but
the cost of electronic tagging is not cheap for any species.
USDA also fails to include the costs of RFID readers, computers or
other means required for reporting to the NAIS database, and the untold
hours of labor involved with tagging animals, record keeping and reporting.
Estimates from the Australian Beef Association place the total cost
of tagging and tracking at $37 to $40 per animal, on average. A British
parliamentary report estimated the costs for the British system at $69
per head. Since people who own one or just a few animals usually pay
more than large producers, because of economies of scale, these averages
understate the probable cost for most individuals.
Interestingly, I presented these numbers at a panel discussion on
the NAIS at the Carolina Farm Stewardship Conference. After the panel
discussion, Neil Hammerschmidt and both state vets (North and South
Carolina) quietly cornered me to try to convince me to stop talking
about these numbers. Of all of the challenges I raised to the NAIS,
this one seemed to bother them the most. They claim that the numbers
are wrong and we wouldn't see those costs in the U.S. Yet when I asked
them to show me any analysis they had done to support their claim that
the NAIS would not cost this much, they couldn't.
Industry claims that RFID tags will be sold for $2.75, and that that
will include "lifetime reporting." Based on the costs reported
for existing programs in Australia and Britain, this claim is difficult
to believe. A conversation with one of the board members of the U.S.
Animal Identification Organization (USAIO) cleared up the confusion.
USAIO was created in 2006 by Farm Bureau, National Cattlemens Association,
and others, to manage the "industry-led animal movement database."
Apparently, USAIO's plan is to develop contracts with slaughterhouses
and sales barns to fund part of the cost of the databases. So, instead
of paying for reports directly, animal owners will pay indirectly every
time they take an animal for processing or sale. And whatever shortfall
is not covered by the levies on the tags and services will presumably
be made up in our tax dollars.
USDA repeatedly says that competition in the market will keep reporting
fees down for animal owners. However, the User Guide does not say how
these costs will be controlled or minimized. The technology companies
and industrial-agriculture associations have played a key role in developing
the plans for the NAIS; they will undoubtedly work to maximize their
profits from it, which will not keep costs down for farmers.
These are just specific examples of an overarching problem: the USDA
has no idea what it is talking about when it comes to either the costs
or the benefits of NAIS. The User Guide even admits this: "USDA
plans to have a cost-benefit analysis conducted that will help us more
precisely forecast the potential economic benefits of NAIS." Even
though they have spent years and tens of millions of dollars developing
NAIS, USDA has never conducted a cost-benefit analysis to see whether
this thing makes sense or not.
What You Can Do About NAIS
The government and industry officials have spent over a decade developing
their plans for NAIS. The grassroots movement opposing NAIS just started
to gain momentum over the last year, and has a long way to go--most
US citizens still don't even know NAIS exists. If we want to stop it,
we have to do more!
Writing your state legislators and Congressmen is a great first step.
You can multiply your effectiveness by helping to build a bigger grassroots
movement. Hand copies of this article or other information about NAIS
to your neighbors. Put stacks of flyers at your local feed stores and
auction barns. Help to organize a local meeting and bring in a speaker.
You can download materials and information at both www.libertyark.net
and www.farmandranchfreedom.org. If you don't have internet access,
you can call the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance at 1-866-687-6452.
The Weston A. Price Foundation can help by sending out action alerts
to members in states where hearings or votes on NAIS are taking place.
Sidebars
Other Regulatory Issues
Registration under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002: The
Bioterrorism Act of 2002 requires that "domestic and foreign facilities
that manufacture, process, pack or hold food for human or animal consumption"
in the United States must register with FDA by the end of 2006. The
statute exempts both "farms" and "private residences."
Unfortunately, the FDA adopted rather unclear regulations and their
help desk--run by an independent contractor--told people that they had
to register their farms if they sold anything off of it, even hay! At
the conference, Leslye Fraser, Director of the FDA Office of Regulations
and Policy, stated that sales directly from the farm do not trigger
the registration requirement. FDA's guidance document can be found at
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ffregui4.html
Food and Drug Administration's priorities: Michael
Landa, Deputy Director for Regulatory Affairs, spoke about current events
at the FDA. A great deal of his talk centered around the FDA's need
for funding. Disparate interests, including both consumer groups and
pharmaceutical interests, have formed the "Coalition for a Stronger
FDA" to try to increase FDA's resources. See http://www.fdacoalition.org/
for more information on that effort. Despite the FDA's lack of resources,
they place both raw milk and egg safety high on their list of priorities,
above shellfish safety, foodborne viruses, allergens, and chemical contaminants.
FDA does not appear to be paying any attention at all to biotech foods;
in fact, Dr. Landa labeled them as merely a "perception" issue!
FDA is considering new regulations addressing egg safety and labeling,
so we need to be vigilant to ensure that they do not place onerous burdens
on pastured egg farmers.
Uniformity for Food Act: The Uniformity for Food Act,
HR 4167 and S3128, would radically change the traditional allocation
of authority over food safety among the local, state, and federal authorities.
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has been
actively opposing the Act. The bill would pre-empt all local and state
regulation of food. The meaning of the provision is not completely clear,
but it could pose a threat to state laws allowing for the sale of raw
milk or local laws that provide greater protection against genetically
modified foods. The bill was passed in the House without a hearing;
the Senate held a hearing in July, but did not invite several key players
in the debate. The bill is currently still in committee and is not expected
to pass before Congress recesses. We will monitor the next Congress
to see whether it is introduced again.
A Review of the 29th Annual National Food Policy Conference
By Matthew Rales
In October, 2006, I attended the 29th Annual National Food Policy
Conference on behalf of the Weston A. Price Foundation. The conference
provided an eye-opening and sobering look at the current state of commodity
food and agriculture in America. The Washington D.C. pressroom, where
the conference was held, was filled with academic nutritionists, FDA
officials and corporate food public relations representatives from all
over the country.
These leaders in industry presented diverse views on the topic of food
policy, yet their general understanding of food as it relates to human
health was startlingly poor. Among the common suggestions were to limit
caloric intake and follow the guidelines presented by the USDA. The
culminating message was that virtually no food is safe unless it is
inspected by a standardized government program, based on the assumption
that the only food available is corporate imitation food. According
to the majority of the speakers, alternatives do not exist, are unsafe
or are not widely available enough to make a difference.
The lesson of the two-day gathering: how to pick "sensible"
imitation food in the grocery store aisle. The "sensible solution,"
as these food officials like to euphemistically call their recommendations
to consumers, was indeed varied. For a Kraft public relations representative,
the "sensible solution" was a block of imitation cheese
with a gram less trans fat than the original block of imitation cheese
and a gram of added fiber in the form of dextrose. For a political representative
from Alaska working on school lunch programs it is a granola bar instead
of a coke. And for an NYU professor of nutrition, food studies and public
health it is fruits and vegetables, regardless of their origin or the
growing practices used to produce them.
Consider the sponsors of the conference: Cargill, General Mills, Kraft
Foods and Pioneer Hi-Bred International. It comes as no surprise, then,
that breakfast cereals, granola bars, fake cheese and genetic engineering
were all espoused as the saviors of the dietary and agricultural problems
in America. Even nanotechnology, genomics and biomarkers were suggested
by one FDA official as the pending solutions to outbreaks like the recent
E. coli menace in bagged spinach (this was breaking news on the second
day of the conference). There was no mention of simple solutions like
buying your spinach from a nearby farmer you can trust.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest seemed to have a representative
on nearly every panel discussion. They called for lawsuits against breakfast
cereal marketing firms that target children and complained that we in
America do not have the "luxury" of a National Animal Identification
System. Of course, no mention of nutrients in food by these folks either.
As for real foods like butter, eggs and whole milk, these are not
a part of the food policy vocabulary. They are no longer the topic of
debate because it is simply assumed that these foods are unhealthy.
Raw milk of course is just dangerous--no further discussion permitted.
If the broad-spectrum, standardized food policy that these folks want
is to be effective in improving the health of America's children, shouldn't
it focus on counting nutrients instead of calories? The advantages of
real food become apparent with real science. But as long as the system
continues to operate under a regime of fabricated science, we will continue
to be indoctrinated with fabricated food.
Matthew Rales is a recent graduate of Middlebury College in Vermont
with a BA in Environmental Studies and Literature. He recently completed
an internship with the Weston A. Price Foundation and is currently working
as an intern at Joel Salatin's grass-based Polyface Farm.
About the Author
 Judith
McGeary is the WAPF chapter leader for Austin, Texas, and is also an
attorney and small farmer. She has a B.S. in Biology from Stanford University
and a law degree from the University of Texas. After a clerkship with the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, she practiced as an attorney in administrative law,
litigation and appeals. She left her legal practice to form the Farm and Ranch
Freedom Alliance (FARFA), a nonprofit organization dedicated to lobbying on behalf
of independent agriculture, representing both farmers and consumers. She and her
husband live on a sustainable, pasture-based farm outside of Austin, with heritage
poultry, sheep, cattle and horses. For more information, go to www.farmandranchfreedom.org
or call 1-866-687-6452.
<Back
| Home | Tour
| Calendar | Contact
Us | Funding | Join
Now
|