| Sunday, May 17, 2009 |
|
|
A Reader Weighs in on the Nature of the NAIS Listening Sessions
By Monica @ 7:13 AM   
One of my readers recently attended one of the NAIS listening sessions in Pennsylvania. Her comments are below (italic emphasis mine).
In a private email, she wrote
Feel free to share this information with as many people as possible. When you sign in at the meeting, you receive a ticket with a number - if the number is called, you get to speak, so there's no screening process (as far as I could tell). One of the more interesting observations, which I didn't mention in the post, is that uniformed [not sure if they were armed] security people were present in each of the listening session rooms.
I'm releasing the information about this session in order to encourage people to attend. It's quite clear from this session that there is no support for NAIS among the independent farming communities, yet USDA is trying to ram it through and create a perception of consensus where there is none. The fact that they think security guards are needed at public hearings says something, I think.
Some people have privately raised the possibility of lobbying for an exception to NAIS for small farmers. I believe this misses the entire point. The whole point of making NAIS mandatory is to make the program financially viable for meat exporters by putting disproportionate cost onto independent farmers. If Big Ag wants this program (and they do) let them sign up for it voluntarily and pay for it themselves. NAIS must be opposed on a matter of principle. The program is blatantly unconstitutional and violates about five constitutional amendments. Period. Think hard and ask yourself -- do you wish to compromise with people who have no respect for your constitutional rights?
If you would like to learn more about NAIS, please see these links.
What you are about to read is enormously depressing -- a stark picture of how unaccountable our government has become. Our officials appear to need a constant reminder that they are supposed to work for us -- not the other way around. I will be offering my own reminder on June 1 in Loveland, CO -- either orally (if I'm allowed) or as a written statement.
Without further ado, here are the reader's comments:
I attended the NAIS "listening session" in Harrisburg, PA on May 14th. While I don't have an exact count, I know that attendees traveled from all over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, and New York state to be there. Many of the public comments were made on behalf of larger groups who were not able to attend. As was pointed out, the USDA had chosen to hold a minimum number of meetings AND they were being held during the farmers' busiest time. There were few consumer or "general public" spokepeople- it seems that the general public is [not surprisingly] largely unaware of the issue.
If I had to choose one statement that sums up the public comments it would be "What part of "NO!" don't you understand?" Chosen by lottery, about 25 people presented oral comments; I believe that 4 were supportive of NAIS. In both the morning session and the afternoon breakouts, the supporters of NAIS were either (a) representatives of large meat associations with a large export interest [who urged for implementation ASAP]; (b) Dept. of Agriculture employees [in my world, this would be called a major conflict of interest]; or (c) people who are affiliated with Penn State programs that are associated with the PA and US Depts. of Ag.
Key points that came out during the morning session:
USDA Panel Presentation [the order below is random and is not meant to imply prioritization]
-Meat exporters have suffered losses because of disease scares and are pushing for compliance with global standards in order to receive "premium" recognition and improve perceptions abroad about US meat.
-The current program has had [depending upon whose statistics you believe] anywhere from 10% [independent farm group's assessment based upon evaluation of the way the USDA conducted their study] to 30% [USDA statistics] voluntary participation.
-The current program is not economically viable without "full" participation.
-Government-owned herds would not be required to participate in the program.
-Nobody could provide details about how this NAIS program would be implemented, funded, enforced, or what penalties would be levied in case of non-compliance. They were unable to answer questions about cost with respect to tags, electronic and other equipment, fees, permits, etc.
-The panel side-stepped questions about constitutional authority for implementing such a program.
-At the start of the question session, the panelists stated they would refuse to answer questions about or speculate about the future of the program; they would only respond to questions about their presentations.
Public [taken from my notes with minimal editing, sorry]
-There was little interest in arriving at a "consensus"- the majority is vehemently opposed to participation in a mandatory NAIS program.
-If the large exporters need to have such a program, let them participate and fund it; don't force everyone into the program.
-The USDA and PDA have created a "disease problem" that does not exist, especially at the independent farm level. [Nobody from USDA the could provide examples of recent problems.]
-The raw milk fiasco is regarded by the public as an example of what's in store for them with NAIS.
-Current surveillance problems are working just fine and there is no need to add another bureaucratic entity to the mix.
-The USDA can't assure they have the ability to handle the huge amounts of data the program would generate, nor could they assure that electronic records would remain private [a private company would be handling part of the data management].
-What companies are supplying the technology and what are their relationships with the proponents of the program? [Not answered]
-The implicit (and sometimes explicit) tone was that a line had been drawn; people will not comply and are willing to engage in civil disobedience rather than be forced to participate.
I could go on, but I think those are the key points and the transcripts are supposed to be available at the NAIS website within the month.
My own commentary: As someone who runs focus groups and provides strategic recommendations with respect to programs that "tell a story" I could identify many of the same processes and tactics in play here.
-The USDA materials refer to "stakeholders'...a term that was refuted by many attendees.
-The agenda for the breakout session assumed that NAIS was a done deal and described the objectives of the session as being a way to "solicit ideas about how USDA can bring non-participants into the program."
-During the breakout sessions, USDA employees and supporters tried to get an "on-the-record" vote that at least "we can agree that there is a need for animal identification.." They were called on this tactic and the transcript should reflect the comments that people were not willing to have their opinions be manipulated to show support for the program. No "vote" was taken.
-Once again, the main issues raised by the independent farmers included: the USDA [and the US government in general] is overstepping its constitutional authority; the program should be scrapped; the idea of reaching a consensus was not valid as the majority of participants will not comply with mandatory NAIS program.
I spoke with a woman who, as a representative of a national organization, had attended a higher-level meeting in Washington last week. Her comments were:
-Congress didn't have a clue, and couldn't wrap their minds around, the real issues.
-Homeland Security was present at the meeting; congressional supporters of the Homeland Security aspects of the program wanted to know why "everybody hadn't been brought on board yet."
-The NAIS program is buried in several House and Senate bills. -The secretary would not meet with representatives of independent farm and animal organizations.
I did talk with a genetleman in PA who is working with his representatives in Lebanon County - he's interested in developing a network of people/groups who do not support a mandatory NAIS program with the goal of raising congressional and public awareness of the issues and the extent of disagreement with a mandatory program. Labels: NAIS
|
 E-mail Monica
 PermaLink
|
|
1 Comments:
Wow. Amazing. Amazingly scary. Keep us posted!
Post a Comment
<< Home