Home   ||   FA/RM Blog   ||   Goals   ||   Individual Rights   ||   Activism   ||   Contact FA/RM

Bloggers Monica Hughes Guy Adamson Diana Hsieh Blog Links RSS Feed RSS by E-Mail Blogroll Archives December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 September 2009

Saturday, June 6, 2009 Opposition to NAIS Remains Strong By Monica @ 10:08 AM The USDA has added NAIS listening sessions country-wide past the June 1 session in Loveland, CO. Opposition to NAIS at the original sessions was very strong. I presume they will be at the additional sessions as well (unless USDA has organized NAIS cronies to attend). You can leave your comments on NAIS on the USDA page if you wish. The "consensus" on NAIS is rather clear. Independent farmers and ranchers do not support this program. It will literally destroy any semblance of a free market in farming that remains in this country. If the big producers with a large meat export interest want a traceability system for foreign standards, let them fund it privately and voluntarily, not place disproportionate costs on independent farmers through their thug-buddies, the USDA. Let them compete. That's called laissez-faire capitalism. Additionally, there will a NAIS protest on June 9 in Missouri. Here is the press release: Press Release Contact; Paul Hamby 816 632 0602 For immediate release June 5, 2009 Jefferson City, Missouri. Farmers, Ranchers and Consumers will hold a protest of the NAIS – National Animal ID System on Tuesday June 9 from 8 am to 12 noon. The protest will run concurrently with the USDA NAIS listening session at Truman Hotel & Conference Center in Jefferson City, Missouri. More than a dozen organizations have signed on in support of the peaceful protest and will have members attending to speak out against NAIS. The USDA has been pushing for mandatory NAIS, originally calling for mandatory in January of 2008 and with enforcements in January of 2009, but has delayed implementation due to huge public outcry against the program. USDA is now asking for public input on how to overcome objections to the program. Bob Parker, a southern Missouri farmer, has toured the state speaking out against NAIS, “The USDA does not want to accept that the people are against this program. They are asking how to make it more palatable. Our message to USDA is to end NAIS now.” NAIS is a three phase program designed by the USDA and the Nat’l Institute for Animal Agriculture to advance guidelines for international trade through an agency of the World Trade Organization called the OIE. NAIS will tag and track movements of 33 species of animals worldwide. Phase 1 requires livestock owners to obtain a GPS linked Premise ID number for their property. Phase 2 requires all animals be identified with an international ID device. Phase 3 requires electronic reporting of movements on or off a premises to effectuate 48 hour trace-back to the premises of origin of any and every animal. Each phase is predicated upon the preceding phase. There can be no NAIS animal ID without a NAIS premises ID. Opposition to NAIS is strongest from independent cattlemen, small farmers and hobbyists. Doreen Hannes is a researcher, author and public speaker whose family has a small farm and raises much of their own food. She states, “The design of NAIS is effectively a license to farm. This program would cost us at least $4,000 the first year. There is no method for growers to recoup the cost of the program, and the implementation of NAIS will be the destruction of the family farm and rural America. The cost to freedom is simply immeasurable.” “The Missouri Libertarian Party has worked with farmers and ranchers in Missouri for years to prevent implementation of the burdensome regulations of the National Animal Identification System being forced on them by the USDA”, Glenn Nielsen, Missouri Libertarian Party Chair. Paul Hamby, NW Missouri coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, states “NAIS will put an undue burden on non-electric Amish farmers, small hobby farmers, 4-H and FFA members while providing no benefit to them. NAIS will not make our food supply safer. I am against this international livestock ID program run by the same federal government who just bought General Motors. “ The following organizations are sending members to Jefferson City to speak against NAIS on June 9. R-CALF USA, Missouri Campaign for Liberty, Arkansas Animal Producers Association, International Dairy Goat Registry, Missouri Independent Consumers and Farmers Organization, Illinois Independent Consumers and Farmers Organization, Ozarks Property Rights Congress, Missouri First, Inc., Liberty Restoration Project, Legislators Against Real ID, Missouri Libertarian Party, Missouri Constitution Party, Missouri Rural Crises Center, Citizens for Private Property, Douglas County Citizens for Liberty. For interviews or talk radio guests call, Doreen Hannes 417 349 9625/417 962 0030 Bob Parker 417 257 8711 Ray Cunio 314 223 6925 Paul Hamby 816 632 0602 Updates and links to organizations listed above www.missouriansagainstnais.com Labels: NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Wednesday, May 20, 2009 Opposition to NAIS Dominates the Listening Sessions By Monica @ 8:00 AM An email update from the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance summarizes each of the National Animal Identification Listening Sessions that the USDA has been holding. It's extremely interesting: PENNSYLVANIA Approximately 100 people attended the Pennsylvania meeting. At this first meeting, USDA spent significant time "selling" the program in the morning, and strictly limited people's opportunity to speak. Of the 36 people who did speak, 27 spoke strongly against NAIS, 5 were somewhat indecisive, and only 4 spoke in favor of the program. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund provided the following report from a farmer who attended: "The people who spoke in favor of NAIS were mostly from organizations like the Farm Bureau which has consistently supported NAIS. ... In my session the participants continued to speak out against the implementation of NAIS in any form, even as the facilitator kept trying to elicit comments about how the program could be improved." News coverage: NAIS Meeting Draws Impassioned Crowd Farmers resist USDA ID system WASHINGTON Between 50 and 75 people attended the Washington state listening session, and the speakers were again overwhelmingly opposed to NAIS. "Only three spoke in favor of the program, a dairyman, a rep for an ear tag manufacturer, and the Washington State veterinarian, and even he sounded lukewarm towards the NAIS," reported Kathy and Bert Smith, FARFA and Liberty Ark members. On the breakouts: "The general consensus was that even a voluntary NAIS is unacceptable. USDA officials were unwilling to answer any questions. Whenever a question was posed, the facilitator replied that they were just there to listen and gather input, not to answer questions. The facilitator kept reminding participants that the USDA was seeking solutions to make the NAIS workable. This group was hard pressed to come up with solutions. The general consensus was an overwhelming majority against NAIS and to do away with it completely. Most were not even willing to compromise with a voluntary program." News coverage: Producers say 'no' to NAIS Ranchers still oppose animal ID TEXAS Approximately 150 people attended, including many FARFA members and people representing the Texas Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association, Liberty Ark, R-CALF, Livestock Marketing Association, and the Libertarian Party. There were small farmers, auction barn owners, horse owners, consumers, old ranchers, just-beginning farmers all speaking passionately against NAIS. Many of the speakers have been posted on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/user/somervellcountysalon USDA attempted to start the day with a video of Vilsack, but had technical problems getting the recording to play! After that ironic beginning, 56 people spoke against any NAIS or advocated for a voluntary, market-driven program only. Only eight people spoke in favor of NAIS, almost entirely from the Texas Dairymen Association and Pork Producers. The afternoon sessions were also strongly anti-NAIS, with one session culminating in a blunt discussion of "how do we stop NAIS?" It was not a question on USDA's list, but it was definitely the one that most of the people there cared about! News coverage: Critics turn out for USDA hearing Central Texas farmers voice concerns on USDA program NAIS listening sessions in full swing USDA: Does their animal system work ALABAMA FARFA Chapter leaders and Liberty Ark coordinators Susie Stretton, Rhonda Selser, and Margaret Stretton drove more than 450 miles from Louisiana to speak against NAIS at the Birmingham, Alabama meeting. They were joined by individuals not only from livestock organizations, but also from religious and property rights groups. Out of the crowd, 33 people asked to speak and 30 of them spoke against NAIS. At the breakout sessions, all of the rooms were overwhelmingly anti-NAIS, just like the morning sessions. In one session, a woman claiming to represent the Tribes spoke at length about her qualifications and the cost-benefit analysis, only to be countered by the practical comments of the farmers in the room, who carried the NAIS documents and documented information with them. After participants spoke strongly against NAIS based on the cost, the lack of animal health benefits, and religious objections, the USDA facilitator stated that everyone was of "diverse opinions" and a consensus was impossible. A local farmer with the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund corrected him, pointing out that all but 2 people in the room were against NAIS. There was consensus at this meeting, although not the consensus that USDA was hoping for! Press Release: Consumers, Farmers Make Themselves Heard as USDA's NAIS Listening Tour Continues KENTUCKY In Kentucky, about 150 people attended the session. Thirty-seven people spoke, with more than 90% speaking against a mandatory NAIS. Those who spoke against it were mostly individuals, speaking for themselves. Pro-NAIS speakers all represented organizations or their employers. Wendell Berry gave a rousing speech declaring that this was the first meeting he'd been at with USDA, after decades of activism, where USDA brought armed police to protect itself. Ralph Packard, a natural livestock farmer, agreed with Wendell Berry, that the government will need its guns if they make the program mandatory and require people to register their farms and animals. Speakers came from Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. Break-out groups started early, but no consensus was possible. Some USDA personnel continued to insist that NAIS is voluntary, ignoring the coercion that USDA has funded, and state mandatory programs, also funded by USDA. One USDA staffer painstakingly stated that there are many tagging options and that microchips aren't required "at this time." When confronted that his comment meant this could change, he would not respond. It was obvious that pro-NAIS personnel were uncomfortable, but also did not come prepared to make concessions. More promising were the connections made among anti-NAIS activists. The Community Farm Alliance held a press conference at noon. Adam Barr, Ralph Packard, Weldell Berry, and Karin Bergener spoke about why NAIS will wipe out small, independent farmers and the meetings still failed to truly provide farmers a forum because of the late notices, and timing during busy season. Labels: NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   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   Monday, May 4, 2009 NAIS Hearings Around the Country -- Take Part! By Monica @ 9:57 AM The USDA is hosting NAIS listening sessions in seven states. These public meetings will run from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time, with registration one hour prior to each meeting. The meetings will be held: * May 14 in Harrisburg, Pa.; * May 18 in Pasco, Wash.; * May 20 in Austin, Texas; * May 21 in Birmingham, Ala.; * May 22 in Louisville, Ky.; * May 27 in Storrs, Conn., and * June 1 in Greeley, Colo. Additional information on the meetings can be found here. I encourage you to take part in these meetings. Usually, you can present an oral statement no longer than three minutes long. I will be presenting a statement in Greeley, CO on June 1. Judith McGeary of Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance notes: Last week, Secretary Vilsack held a round table in DC, inviting 29 organizations to present their views on the NAIS. More than a third of the organizations at the meeting opposed a mandatory program, showing a growing trend among a wide range of organizations to question NAIS. But some of those who claim to support a "voluntary" program agree with the use of coercive tactics, which we have already seen happen under the current so-called voluntary program. And multiple Big AG organizations, who have a lot of influence with USDA and Congress, still openly support a mandatory NAIS. So we have a tough fight in front of us. Labels: Activism Opportunities, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Sunday, April 19, 2009 NAIS Meeting with Ag. Secretary Tom Vilsack By Monica @ 9:45 AM Walter Jeffries of NoNAIS has a recent report of his testimony about The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in front of Tom Vilsack, our new head at the USDA. I agree with the vast majority of what Jeffries wrote in this piece, with the exception that democracy is somehow about individual rights -- it's not. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. In any case, I recommend reading Jeffries' report in its entirety. Labels: NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Wednesday, April 1, 2009 Local Farmers Corralled in Sting Operation By Guy Adamson @ 8:22 AM SPRINGFIELD (FNS), April 1 -- The kids say they were only doing their part, but authorities say the nation’s food supply is a little bit safer now thanks to the work of these school-age members of the volunteer service group AgriCorps. Six local farmers were cited for noncompliance with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) thanks to help from area 4-H Club and FFA members, now part of the U.S. government’s AgriCorps food safety volunteer group. “We really couldn’t have carried out this animal safety sting operation without the help of our youngest volunteers,” said Skip Butts, Sr. Executive Regional Troop Leader of the AgriCorps Volunteers. According to authorities, the school-age AgriCorps volunteers asked the farmers to bring their best dairy calves and heifers to the county fairgrounds for a 4-H dairy judging competition. But the competition was just a ruse to see if the farmers were following NAIS protocol—they weren’t. NAIS regulations require all farm animals to be tagged with an identification chip and any movement tracked in the national food safety database. None of the six farmers who showed up were in compliance and all were issued citations. In lieu of a court appearance, all six volunteered to join the AgriCorps Volunteer-Abroad program. None of the four men and two women cited were available for comment since they immediately left for the new AgriCorps farm training facility at Riker’s Island in New York, according several relatives, who asked not to be named. “The best part is, we get to keep the animals!” said a delighted Lisa Smith, age 10, who begged her neighbor to bring his animals to the contest. “I’m glad they volunteered to go help people in other countries who don’t know how to grow food.” The local Dairymen Corps, Inc., a public/private partnership organization, will operate the six farms until the local farmers return from overseas volunteer duty, said Butts. He added that additional supply of soy milk from the National Food Reserves will be allocated for the area to make up for any drop in cow’s milk production as a result of the transition. ### April Fools! Yes, this is a fictional story…for now. Labels: "Safety", Government Idiocy, Humor, NAIS E-mail Guy Adamson    PermaLink    0 Comments   Sunday, March 29, 2009 Good News on NAIS -- State Laws and Resolutions By Monica @ 11:14 AM Via Walter Jeffries of nonais.org comes this encouraging news: The list of states standing up against NAIS is now up to five! Utah has passed a bill requiring that NAIS be voluntary in that state, joining Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska. The bill was unanimously passed by the Utah House and Senate, and Governor Huntsman signed it into law Tuesday, March 24th. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop Congress or the USDA from making NAIS mandatory. However, as Walter writes: The adoption of this new law in Utah is an important step in our struggle to keep our farms free. As more states reject NAIS, it sends a mess age to Congress that people across the country are opposed to this program! But the fight in Congress will be difficult, as the craze for traceability as the supposed answer to food safety problems continues. Now is a good time to call your U.S. Representative and Senator, and talk to them about why NAIS is not a food safety program! Walter also details recent anti-NAIS bills and resolutions being drafted in other states: Arkansas, Illinois, Montana, North Dakota, and Texas. See his post for more information. I'm very encouraged by this news and am emailing around to see if we can start such a bill in Colorado. Activism against NAIS has to continue at many levels: contacting legislators, writing for local media outlets, and drafting bills to protect our freedom. For more information about the status of NAIS, or to get help with preparing a bill against NAIS for your state, feel free to email the Liberty Ark Coalition. Labels: Activism Opportunities, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Thursday, March 19, 2009 Who Supports (and Opposes) NAIS? By Monica @ 4:57 PM I'm often greeted with disbelief or dismay when I suggest that larger producers favor NAIS. But it's true. This excellent editorial by Timothy Carney nails it when it comes to NAIS (and even other issues like the unintended effects of recently enacted regulations on childrens' clothing shop owners and toymakers). Here's an excerpt: It’s informative to study who’s backing mandatory NAIS, and who’s opposing it. On the pro-regulation side, lobbying records and congressional testimony show, are McDonalds, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Milk Producer Federation, and some technology companies that likely hope to get in on the action of tracking all these animals. On the anti-regulation side are hundreds of family farmers and ranchers who argue the mandate will crush them. If you are a corporate ranch, the costs and hassles of tracking each animal by RFID tags may be worth it in any event, while smaller outfits do better with cheaper, old-fashioned methods of tracking their herds. Think of Wal-Mart’s inventory control compared to a mom-n-pop corner store. Separate from congressional discussions about mandating NAIS, the USDA has proposed a new uniform numbering system for the current voluntary NAIS. The public comments on this regulation reflect the small rancher outrage over the program. Nearly 5,000 comments have been filed, many by farmers, almost all negative, and mostly directed at NAIS itself rather than the numbering proposal. In a New York Times op-ed this week, one family farmer described the burdens this law would impose. “Each time one of those animals is sold or dies, or is trucked to a slaughterhouse, we would have to notify the Agriculture Department. And there would be penalties if we failed to account for a lamb quietly stolen by a coyote, and medical bills if we were injured when trying to come between a protective sow and her piglets so we could tag them.” ... And in all these regulations, there’s another common thread. The biggest businesses in the regulated industries—often the businesses whose sloppiness lead to the safety scares in the first place—support the regulations. The big companies have the lobbyists to craft the fine print in the regulations, and they also have the economies of scale to bear the burdens. Government regulation is usually billed as a check on big business by the people’s representatives. Looking closer, however, reveals that regulation is often a big-government power grab that crushes smaller businesses and protects the big guys. Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Tuesday, March 17, 2009 Activism Against NAIS By Diana Hsieh @ 12:05 PM Reposted from NoodleFood: On March 11th, a congressional committee held a public hearing on plans to expand NAIS, the National Animal Identification System. This issue has been on my radar thanks to Monica Hughes' blogging on it here on the FA/RM blog. An action alert from the Weston A. Price Foundation describes the proposal as follows: The USDA has proposed a rule to require all farms and ranches where animals are raised to be registered in a federal database under the NAIS for existing disease control programs. The draft rule covers programs for cattle, goats, sheep, and swine. It also sets the stage for mandatory NAIS animal identification in the future. It's not too late to comment. The alert noted that: You can submit written testimony to the subcommittee up to 10 days after the hearing. Send your testimony to the Hearing Clerk, Jamie Mitchell, at Jamie.Mitchell@mail.house.gov. Be sure to put "March 11 Hearing - Animal Identification Programs" in the subject line. Keep your comments clear, polite, and concise. Here is the e-mail that I sent yesterday. I encourage others to write their own letters. From: Diana Hsieh <diana@dianahsieh.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:58:58 -0600 To: <Jamie.Mitchell@mail.house.gov> Subject: March 11 Hearing - Animal Identification Programs Dear Members of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry -- I am writing to you to oppose National Animal Identification System (NAIS). I am an ordinary citizen from Colorado, albeit with some interest in raising livestock myself. I am opposed to NAIS because: * NAIS violates the property rights of all farmers. Farmers should not be required to tag their livestock any more than parents should be required to tag their children. Livestock is private property, and the government should respect that by limiting itself to protecting the rights of property and contract. * The costs of compliance with NAIS will drive smaller farmers out of business. Sadly, I suspect that many large farms -- particularly those already on the government dole -- are pushing for NAIS for that very reason. They are eliminating their competition by government regulation. That's anti-American. The government should not be complicit in such schemes. * NAIS will raise prices for consumers. Food prices have already gone through the roof. Particularly during an economic downturn, to require farmers to incur more costs -- which will then be passed on to consumers -- is very bad economic policy. Freedom, not government controls and regulation, is the key to economic prosperity. * NAIS will not protect the food supply. The government does a lousy job of protecting the food supply, as the recent peanut butter and tomato scares show. The solution is not more burdensome regulations. It is a free market in agriculture. Under that system, Americans would have the capacity to buy from known local farmers or rely on the private certification of their choice. Americans will be responsible for their own safety -- just as they ought to be. We are not children: we are rational adults who ought to be free to act on our own best judgment. NAIS is indefensible. It is anti-American. It should be wholly abandoned. For more information on Free Market Agriculture, see the web site of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets (FA/RM) at http://fa-rm.org/. -- DMH Diana Hsieh Ph.D Candidate, Philosophy, CU Boulder E-mail: diana@dianahsieh.com Blog: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Twitter: http://twitter.com/DianaHsieh Secular Government: http://www.SecularGovernment.us Free Market Medicine: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org I also sent that letter to my two senators and one representative in Washington. If you express your opposition to this dangerous and expensive expansion of government control over the private property of farmers, write to the subcommittee hearing clerk at Jamie.Mitchell@mail.house.gov. You can find and contact your own representatives via Congress.org. You are welcome to use my letter (or portions thereof) as you see fit. Please feel free to post what you write in the comments. Labels: Activism Opportunities, NAIS E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    0 Comments   Friday, March 13, 2009 White Paper on NAIS By Monica @ 8:16 AM The National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association has just published an excellent white paper on NAIS. It clearly details the cost of NAIS to various size producers and is a must-read for anyone interested in fighting this new legislation: $6.69 per head for over 400 head of cattle $18.07 per head for 100 head of cattle $63.61 per head for 25 cattle. (!!!!!) I am friends with a family that raises a small herd of Angus in Longmont. This would increase their costs by at least $636 yearly. (They have at least 10 head of angus, possibly more.) Another acquaintance who does not wish to be named went to a state hearing last year about NAIS. She told a pork producer in favor of this program (no doubt a large producer) that she didn't support NAIS because it would wipe out her family's ability to feed themselves. His response? "Well. Just go to WalMart and buy food, you idiot." Government programs, especially NAIS, do not support family farms or a more independent lifestyle, nor will they do anything to make our food supply safer. Traceability with NAIS would end at the slaughterhouse, not the grocery store. The goal is for large producers to gain greater access to the export market. Let them use their program voluntarily, not force it on everyone else to be paid for by everyone else. "Farm to fork" traceability with an RFID tag also makes no sense for small farmers selling directly to consumers who know exactly where the products came from. Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Wednesday, March 11, 2009 NAIS Hearing Today, Streaming Video/Audio By Monica @ 8:19 AM The NAIS hearing of the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock Dairy and Poultry on Wednesday March 11, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, will have video and audio streaming available at the following link: http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/audio.html Our legislators are to discuss Animal Identification. Besides RCALF no "stakeholders" get to testify. RCALF has made their position quite plain before. Let's hope they do so again today. Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Tuesday, March 10, 2009 One Day to Act on NAIS -- Today By Monica @ 2:00 PM ***ACTION ALERT*** I've written about the NAIS hearing before and this is a new reminder. Please call and leave your congressman a message today before tomorrow's hearing. It's crucial that we do all we can to stop NAIS. From Nature's Harmony Farm Blog: The U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry will hold a hearing on NAIS on March 11. Bills to put National Animal Identification System (NAIS) into law, HR875 and companion Senate S814, are being pushed through Congress, as well as an Appropriations Bill with funding for NAIS. This hearing is critical to blocking mandatory NAIS. :::::::: WHAT: Congressional Hearing on NAIS WHEN: Wednesday, March 11 WHERE: Washington, DC The U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry will hold a hearing on NAIS tomorrow, March 11. Bills to put NAIS into law, HR875 and companion Senate S814, are being pushed through Congress, as well as an Appropriations Bill with funding for NAIS. This hearing is critical to blocking mandatory NAIS. Find your congressman here and contact him or her immediately. It's easy to get involved and make a difference. Labels: Activism Opportunities, Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Monday, March 9, 2009 The Cow Tax and PeTA's Dishonesty By Monica @ 12:55 PM I've written previously on the EPA's grand scheme to tax farm animals because they emit "greenhouse gases." Even Fox News reported on this story awhile back. Both a PeTA spokesperson, and the owner of Nature's Harmony Farm in Georgia, were interviewed with regard to the "cow tax". I can't find a way to embed the video of the interview in this post, so be sure to click here and view the video yourself before reading further. OK, did you watch it? You may be surprised to hear me say that I don't disagree with most of the points that the PeTA spokesperson presents. (I wholly disagree with the philosophy that farmers need to "give back". Wouldn't it be easier to just not let them take taxpayer dollars in the first place?) There are a few minor errors, but mostly, he's correct that tens of billions of dollars are poured into factory farming yearly, and that we have a socialized factory farming system. Before I get on to my analysis of his statements, let me say that one thing I found very interesting was the PeTA spokesperson's use of certain terms to appeal to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Instead of sound reasoning, this is a trick more and more people are using to disarm their opponents, and it borders on ad hominem argumentation. The term "socialized" appeals to the conservatives. The term "factory farming" appeals to the liberals. If you use these code words, you can subconsciously get a variety of people on your side who might otherwise oppose you. Clever. The dishonesty isn't in what facts were presented. The dishonesty is in what facts that were conveniently left out. Sure, cows emit methane and alter the biodiversity of natural ecosystems, and feedlots contribute to water pollution. However, it's extremely deceptive or ignorant to argue that one is aiding the environment simply by avoiding meat, as I've described in detail before. Let's get to the criticisms. First, which factory farmers are subsidized? Let's have a look at the agricultural products that get subsidies, shall we? Let's see... it looks like roughly 15 billion of the 177 billion in farm subsidies go to livestock production, a whopping 8 percent or so. Where does the rest of the 92% of the subsidy money go? To all the other crops and the chief behemoths of the USDA food pyramid : corn and wheat. None of these crops and the carbon released from tilling the soil to produce them, nor the darling of the vegan movement -- soy -- gets a mention by PeTA. He knows that soy is about as equaly subsidized as all livestock, erodes the soil, and poisons the Gulf of Mexico. However, he'd rather not share that due to his ideological bias. The second delusion is in thinking that farming is (or was, even 50 years ago) sustainable long term without animals. I ask any vegan reading this to please supply me with an example of an ecosystem where nutrients aren't returned to the soil via primary through tertiary consumers. Without domestic animals, where would this fertilizer come from? Humans, presumably? I'm all for that, but the fact is that we're not doing it. We have divorced animal fertilizer from the farm and replaced it with nitrogen that is pulled from the air and turned into fertilizer using incredible amounts of fossil fuel. We violate those laws of nature by not returning the other nutrients to our food as well, and we cannot continue that process indefinitely. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Do vegans care about soil fertility? Apparently not, or they would not suggest that healthy food can be grown without domestic animals, which they'd like to wipe from the face of the Earth. Remember, domestic animal extinction is PeTA's goal. Their goal is not just vegetarianism for everyone and the abolition of meat eating, and they are not particularly concerned about environmental quality or human health, either. While other vegans may be so deluded into thinking that agriculture is possible and sustainable without animals, PeTA is not. Their goal is ending any exploitation of animals whatsoever, including animals for any purpose in agriculture. Don't be fooled. Their goal isn't mere vegetarianism, it's veganism -- because if you want to make domestic animal species extinct that necessarily eliminates any source of non-meat animal products such as butter, milk, or eggs OR animal fertilizer. Vegans who are vegans for ideological reasons don't even eat honey because they believe they are exploiting the bees. (Obviously it goes without saying that this is a complete deviation from the evolutionary history of human foodways.) If you need some convincing that PeTA's goals are that radical, that they want to eliminate domesticated farm animals entirely and for any purpose whatsoever, here are some quotes of people from various organizations, most notably Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), with known alliances to PeTA: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993 "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996. "The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to call ourselves advocates of animal rights." Gary Francione, The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55. "...the animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos and circuses." Barbara Biel, The Animals' Agenda, Vol 15 #3. "It's not about loving animals. It's about fighting injustice. My whole goal is for humans to have as little contact as possible with animals." Gary Yourofsky, founder of Animals Deserve Adequate Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT), now employed as PeTA's national lecturer "We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. "If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that's morally justifiable, in our opinion…There were always innocent people who got hurt somewhere along the way but it was important that those who oppressed one group of people be stopped, and we don't see the animal liberation struggle being substantially different from these [apartheid and slavery] other struggles.… A sustained campaign against a particular industry or a particular organization has the potential to be quite effective." Jerry Vlasak, in response to indictments of 11 ALF/ELF arsonists. AP, January 20, 2006. These true goals of PeTA align pretty well with such onerous schemes as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and the cow tax. NAIS won't really hurt factory farmers since they are the ones who have been pushing for this program for 20 years and are the only ones who will benefit. But if you can shut down family farming of animals through a cow tax or NAIS, and if you can create extinctions of certain animal breeds through NAIS, then you can eventually shut down factory farming of animals, too. The goal of the animal rights activists is the elimination of animal agriculture, not factory farms. That's why PeTA supports the cow tax, which will only possibly be afforded by those producing animals at a huge economy of scale. Don't be fooled. PeTA are a group of bald-faced liars with an obvious agenda. I've already discussed the cattle emissions issue in a previous post, so if you haven't read it, it bears mentioning. As for the issue of biodiversity, I think I'll leave that to an excellent comment from a man named MikeL in this Mark Sisson post on veganism: And finally, anyone who argues that farming soy and grains is more sustainable than, for example, huge herds of free-ranging cattle and bison, has completely forgotten—or never knew—that the prairies of the American midwest were once home to some of the richest plant diversity in the temperate latitudes. But it’s gone now, ripped away to feed our insatiable appetite for cheap and unhealthy carbohydrates. And the residues of that farming is drifting down the Mississippi, killing life at the delta. Think about that the next time you bite into a faux-meat soy burger. So my advice to vegans and vegs: dump the sanctimony and eat some meat. We’ll all be better off for it. Indeed. Labels: Bison, Buffalo, corn, Ethics, Global Warming, Grains, Heritage Varieties, Meat Myths, NAIS, Nutritional Guidelines, soy, Subsidies E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Saturday, February 28, 2009 Red Alert on NAIS -- Bills in Congress! By Monica @ 7:03 AM ****ACTION ALERT**** WHAT: Congressional Hearing on NAIS (National Animal Identification System) WHEN: Wednesday, March 11 WHERE: Washington, DC The U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry will hold a hearing on NAIS on March 11, 2009. Bills to enact NAIS into law, HR875 and HR814, are being pushed through Congress, as well as an enormous "Appropriations Bill", i.e. massive spendulus program, with funding for NAIS which passed in the House and is now awaiting in the Senate. This House hearing is critical to blocking mandatory NAIS. Blocking passage of the appropriations bill, 1105, is also critical. What do these bills do? Here is the first one HR 814 - the bottom line is that the Dept of Ag can: 1. Make all farmers who bring an animal to a USDA slaughterhouse participate in this program or the USDA slaughterhouse can refuse them (regardless of whether you are selling your meat in state or across state lines). 2. Farms will need a premise ID to ensure traceability from farm to consumer in order to comply with this bill. 3. The Dept of Ag can send a rep out to your farm to inspect and copy your records for each animal. HR 814 -TRACE ACT of 2009 This Act may be cited as the `Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act of 2009′ or `TRACE Act of 2009′. SEC. 414A. TRACEABILITY OF FOOD. (a) Establishment of System- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system described in subsection (b) for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging, and distribution of food. (b) Description of System- The traceability system required by subsection (a) shall require each article of food shipped in interstate commerce to be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to retrieve the history, use, and location of the article through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification. SEC. 26. TRACEABILITY OF LIVESTOCK, MEAT, AND MEAT PRODUCTS. (a) Definition of Traceability- In this section, the term `traceability’ means the ability to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification. (b) Requirements- (1) IN GENERAL- Cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses, mules, and other equines presented for slaughter for human food purposes, and the carcasses or parts of carcasses and the meat and meat food products of those animals, shipped in interstate commerce shall be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to trace– (A) each animal to any premises or other location at which the animal was held at any time before slaughter; and (B) each carcass or part of a carcass and meat and meat food product of such animals forward from slaughter through processing and distribution to the ultimate consumer. (2) TRACEABILITY SYSTEM- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system for all stages of production, processing, and distribution of meat and meat food products that are produced through the slaughter of animals described in paragraph (1). (c) Prohibition or Restriction on Entry- The Secretary may prohibit or restrict entry into any slaughtering establishment inspected under this Act of any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses, mules, or other equines not identified as prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (b). ——————————- The second bill establishes NAIS via the newly created Food and Safety Administration, run by the “Administrator” - whoever that is…. HR 875 - ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FOOD SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SEC. 210. TRACEBACK REQUIREMENTS. (a) In General- The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution. b) Applicability - Traceability requirements under this section shall apply to food from food production facilities (FARMS), food establishments, and foreign food establishments. ACTION: Please call and fax all members of the subcommittee (below). 1. When you call, ask to speak to the legislative aide for agriculture. 2. Please send this to everyone you know, ESPECIALLY to people in the states with members on the subcommittee. Members need to hear from their constituents- -the people who vote them into office. It's important that residents of Colorado and Connecticut call in. The representatives sponsoring these atrocious bills are Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). *State*** *Party/Dist* ** *Representative* ** *Phone*** *Fax*** *Website email form* AL R-13 Mike Rogers 202.225.3261 202.226.8485 http://www.house. gov/mike- rogers/contact. shtml CA D-18 Dennis Cardoza 202.225.6131 800... (20... http://www.house. gov/cardoza/ contact.shtml CA D-20 Jim Costa 202... (20... http://www.costa. house.gov/ CA D-43 Joe Baca (20... (20... http://www.house. gov/baca/ zipauth.shtml CO D-4 Betsy Markey, (20... (20... https://forms. house.gov/ betsymarkey/ contact-form. shtml GA D-13 David Scott (Chair) (20... (20... http://davidscott. house.gov/ Contact/ IA D-3 Leonard Boswell (20... (20... http://boswell. house.gov/ messageform. htm IA R-5 Steve King 202.225.4426 202.225.3193 http://www.house. gov/steveking/ email.shtm ID D-1 Walt Minnick (20... (20... https://forms. house.gov/ minnick/tours. shtml MD D-1 Frank Kratovil, Jr. (20... (20... https://forms. house.gov/ kratovil/ contact-form. shtml NE R-3 Adrian Smith (20... (20... http://www.house. gov/formadriansm ith/issues_ subscribe. htm PA D-17 Tim Holden (20... (20... http://www.holden. house.gov/ contactform_ zipcheck. shtml TN R-1 David P. Roe (20... (20... https://forms. house.gov/ roe/invite- request-form. shtml TX R-11 K. Michael Conaway (20... (20... http://conaway. house.gov/ TX R-19 Randy Neugebauer, Ranking Minority Member (20... (888) 763-1611 (202) 225-9615 http://randy. house.gov/ ?sectionid= 8&sectiontree= 8 VA R-6 Bob Goodlatte, (202) 225-5431 (202) 225-9681 http://www.house. gov/goodlatte/ emailbob. htm WI D-8 Steve Kagen, (202) 225-5665 (202) 225-5729 http://kagen. house.gov/ contact.shtml Also, email Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. His e-mail address is AgSec@usda.gov. Finally, contact your Senators and tell them NOT to support HR1105. The message is simple: We don't want, nor will we comply with, the National Animal Identification System in any form. It doesn't matter that there is ever more consumer demand for locally raised animal products. The government could kill small farming with these bills. If you are a farmer, take action or lose your right to raise animals. If you are not a farmer and you plan on raising animals in your backyard, take action or lose the right to raise these animals. How easy/cheap do you think it will be to order a few chicks by mail order from a hatchery when the whole process will require traceability by a bloated government organization? If you are a consumer of locally raised meat, take action or lose the right to eat the food you want. This isn't an exaggeration. Most people think the choices in our supermarkets are greater than ever before, but this is mostly true for produce and processed foods. Check out the meat products available in London in the mid-1800s. Ask yourself how many of those species and cuts of meat are available in your supermarket today in 2009. Some of this is simply a result of consumer choice, but a good deal of it is regulation. Try finding brain, for instance. It's loaded with DHA and perfectly safe if it comes from grass-fed animals, but the regulators have banned access to it. The government/Big Ag juggernaut wants to shut down our freedom of choice for their short-term goals. Remember, NAIS is a program invented by Cargill, etc. to gain access to the export market, which requires traceability. They are not content to form a voluntary program on their own; they are the ones who presented the idea to the USDA; they would rather have small farmers pay for the program so that they can benefit (every animal tagged vs. one tag for hundreds of animals for the corporate farm). If we don't act, small farmers will be forced out of business and we will be faced with one species of chicken raised in a few "approved" warehouses in the United States where the animals are packed in like sardines. Same for every other farm species, of which over 30 will be tracked by this proposed program. Not only is this a violation of our rights, it will further consolidate and endanger our food supply. Any thinking person who understand the principles of disease control could tell you that this is an epidemiologic nightmare waiting to happen -- and the results would be the exact opposite of the supposedly beneficial intentions of this tracking program. It's that simple. Your sustenance is in peril. Don't think if you are a vegetarian or a vegan that regulation of food "safety" doesn't affect you. "Safety" is just an excuse for ever greater control over our food supply -- whether it is forced regulation /safety /pasteurization / irradiation mandates for meat, milk, or vegetables. Labels: "Safety", Activism Opportunities, De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Individual Rights, Meat Inspection, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   Wednesday, January 21, 2009 NAIS Presentation from Liberty Ark Coalition By Monica @ 8:07 AM The Liberty Ark Coalition has constructed a short video on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). This video is slightly more informative than the one I embedded before in this post. I encourage everyone interested in fighting NAIS to view the video to the end, which includes some education and activism opportunities. I'll be keeping everyone up to date with what is going on with NAIS, and issuing reminders about the March deadline for comment from time to time. It's urgent that we stop this intrusive government program. Labels: NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Saturday, January 17, 2009 Range Magazine Article on NAIS By Monica @ 10:57 PM Range Magazine recently published an article entitled "NAIS STINKS!" It's a very informative article for those who want to learn more about NAIS. I've been asked to spread this article around, but I don't want to reproduce the entire thing because it's all worth reading. Here's an excerpt: A few years ago, Darol attended a USDA-sponsored "listening session." A federal employee explained a new program: the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Darol was shocked to learn that the ranch would have to be registered with a new seven-digit identification number in a new government database. He learned that each of his animals would have to have a new identification device bearing a new 15-digit identification number, loaded into another new government database. And he learned that every time one of his animals was moved off the property, the event would have to be reported and recorded in the government database within 24 hours. "Well, that just left a horrible taste in my mouth," Darol says. "The way it was presented, we had no choice. It was a done deal. We would be forced to sign up." The USDA spokesman talked about how foot-and-mouth disease would wipe out an entire herd in a matter of hours, and how dangerous anthrax is, and, of course, he talked about the dreaded mad cow disease. This new USDA program would make it possible for the government to trace back any diseased animal to its source within 48 hours, the groups was told. Darol knew something was not right. "It did not pass the basic hubcap sniff test," he says. He contacted a specialist at Texas A&M, Uvalde, Texas, who confirmed that there had not been a case of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States since 1929. He also learned that anthrax is no longer a problem because ranchers can vaccinate against it for 80 cents a head. Mad cow disease is not a problem because it is not contagious, and the new system would do nothing to stop the disease even if a case were discovered. Does NAIS sound fishy to you yet? It should. Just like RealID, tracking all animals (or people for that matter) with chips and tags isn't really going to do anything to protect us from terrorism or disease. Instead of strengthening the disease monitoring systems already in place (like allowing independent access to USDA test kits for mad cow) the USDA wants a national animal surveillance program. Go read the whole thing. Then go comment on USDA's proposed NAIS rules. Labels: NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   ACTION ALERT on NAIS: USDA is Moving Fast! By Monica @ 8:43 PM If you haven't read about NAIS yet, please do so now. The USDA is moving fast on NAIS -- and so should we. About a month ago, R-CALF sued the USDA when it attempted to make NAIS mandatory for interstate commerce. Now, we have some inkling as to why the USDA has so easily canceled that memo that would have made premises ID mandatory for interstate commerce. They have a much bigger trick up their sleeve. A commenter, Mary Zanoni, in this yahoogroup, Colorado Against NAIS, informs us: On Tuesday, January 13, 2009, the USDA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would make two elements of NAIS -- NAIS Premises ID and NAIS individual animal ID -- effectively mandatory in USDA animal disease programs. This rule, if it goes into effect, would be an enormous step toward creating a fully mandatory NAIS for all U.S. livestock. The proposed rule directly affects cattle, bison, sheep, goats, and swine. However, it will also bring a full NAIS closer for all species. Therefore, all owners of horses, poultry, and other species should also submit comments and urge their livestock/farming organizations to submit comments. The comment period is scheduled to close on March 16, 2009. Commenting on this proposed rule is extremely important. Not only all animal owners, but also consumers of local/organic/grassfed foods, and everyone concerned with preserving a place for family farms in a world increasingly dominated by Industrial Agriculture, is urged to comment. I agree. Ranting against industrial agriculture sounds anti-business but unfortunately, most large producers simply don't oppose NAIS. That's the unfortunate fact. Here is a good example of such support. Although NAIS is now a USDA program, it was invented by large producers to get better access to export markets due to traceability requirements. (I believe Cargill was the company that presented USDA with this program idea in the first place.) Now the USDA wants to force it on everyone, even if they don't ship materials internationally or even interstate. Large producers don't care because they know it will be a more burdensome cost for smaller producers that will pay in greater proportion for the program since their every animal will be tagged, while whole lots of animals in industrial agriculture can just be moved under one tag. Mary continues: In regard to advancing NAIS, the four most important aspects of the USDA/APHIS Jan. 13, 2009 rule are: 1. As of the effective date of the final rule, the NAIS Premises ID Number (PIN) would be the only form of PIN allowed for certain official uses. (Note on timing -- the comment period is open until March 16, 2009. Then USDA reviews the comments and at some point can issue a final rule. That date of issuance would be the effective date for the mandatory assignments of the NAIS Premises IDs. However, a large number of unfavorable comments might result in the postponement, or even retraction or cancellation, of the rule.) 2. Although the system announced in this proposed rule supposedly permits the continued use of the National Uniform Eartagging System (traditionally, metal tags) and a "premises-based numbering system," in fact, these systems would be used in the same way as NAIS Animal Identification Numbers. The older forms of eartags and individual IDs would all be connected into the NAIS Premises ID database through the Animal Identification Number Management System ("AINMS," the USDA system that keeps track of what individual animal identification number is assigned to what farm or ranch). In other words, under the system of this proposed rule, anytime a farmer/rancher has metal tags applied to livestock (such as for TB or brucellosis testing), the farm/ranch will be placed into the NAIS Premises ID system and the numbers on the tags will be tied to the farm/ranch through the USDA's AINMS system. 3. Some requirements are being added for official eartags and these new requirements might make it very difficult or even impossible to obtain metal tags instead of the NAIS tags. The additional requirements include a "U.S. shield" printed on each tag, and tags must be "tamper-resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal." The APHIS Administrator must approve all tags. The NAIS tags now available already meet these standards. It is not clear that metal tags have ever been judged by these standards, so it is possible that the APHIS Administrator could fail to approve metal and other non-NAIS tags. Also, tag manufacturers will have a clear self-interest in abandoning production of cheap metal tags in favor of expensive NAIS RFID tags, so non-NAIS forms of tags may quickly become extinct. 4. The addition of a definition of the AINMS to the animal-disease program rules in the Code of Federal Regulations is huge. Previously the AINMS has only been defined in the non-rule NAIS informational documents (Draft Strategic Plan, User Guide, Business Plan, etc.) so it did not have any defined legal status. Now this proposed rule adds a definition of the AINMS and also provides that eventually the AINMS will be used to tie all types of "official" tags -- not just the NAIS 15-digit tags -- to a NAIS registered premises. The proposed rule accomplishes essentially a mandatory system for the first 2 elements of NAIS -- NAIS premises ID and NAIS individual animal ID. The only difference from the original NAIS plan is that now the metal tags and other traditional forms of individual ID have become additional forms of numbering/tagging that are used as part of NAIS. Note that even if your state has passed a law to keep NAIS "voluntary," that will not necessarily save you from this rule. The Federal Register notice specifically states: "All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted." (p. 1638.) However, if you are working to pass a state law limiting NAIS in the present legislative session, keep working -- such a law could still be very important. It shows the opposition of animal owners and consumers to NAIS, which may help get the rule postponed or rescinded. In addition, the question of whether this rule would pre-empt contrary state laws in all circumstances may someday be open to legal challenge. Your best defense against government takeover of your food is to go comment on the proposed rule right now. There are only a handful of comments there. (Mine is not there yet but it will be.) I cannot urge strongly enough how important this is. How long would citizens be able to remain independent with a government-controlled food supply? If the government can control the food, it can control the population. Just tonight I was at a meeting in which it was revealed that Monsanto is proposing a program to the government to track all vegetables. Folks, I am not kidding. Industries invent these programs to protect themselves, because the enormous scale and centralization of modern production means food-borne illness outbreaks are huge when they end up happening (just look at the recent peanut butter outbreak). It's not a global conspiracy for takeover of our food, I don't think. The problem is that these programs then become required of everyone when they are proposed to government, not just the groups for whom it might make some sense. When I get milk from my local farm (or vegetables or whatever) it makes ZERO sense to track these items with RFID chips. I know where these products came from. "Treaceability" is a nice idea for industrial agriculture, but for local farm-to-consumer sales it is just an added, costly regulatory burden that puts my local producer out of business and makes me more reliant on a government-controlled supermarket. (This has been going on for nearly a century now will predictable results.) No, thank you. The USDA has said all along that NAIS will be voluntary. Now they are reneging. How can we possibly believe the USDA when it now assures farmers that this information will be kept private and used only for disease programs? Given the increased communication between the alphabet soup agencies that we have seen under the Bush administration under "Homeland Security" we could easily expect that such premises IDs could be handed over to the EPA for them to collect their taxes on cows because they release methane. This will destroy not just small, local, sustainable or organic agriculture -- yes, that will go first, just as it has been going for the past 40 or so years. But eventually it could be all of agriculture decades down the road when the government decides it needs to "depopulate" not just farm animals, but humans, too, in order to "save the planet". It's not a conspiracy theory. The USDA or EPA, I'm sure, doesn't plan on eliminating any humans right now and most government employees would be horrified at the thought. But eventually, we've seen the incredible control that is concentrated in the hands of government agencies if citizens don't stand up for their rights. The Founders of this country would be absolutely horrified at the United States today. Given the USDA and EPA statements on the taxation of agriculture to prevent global warming, I'm not encouraged about NAIS's potential uses. Right now they claim it's about disease control of TB, brucellosis, etc. I'm skeptical, since the USDA has actively blocked independent testing for mad cow. Whatever the true intentions of NAIS right now, this recent action proves, yet again, that the USDA has no intention that NAIS be voluntary at the federal level. Their intention for state mandates hasn't worked, and since the disease control programs the USDA already has in place are mandatory, converting THESE programs to mandate NAIS premises registration effectively makes the program mandatory. I urge everyone to sumbit comments on this sneak introduction of NAIS onto producers and consumers via the Federal Rulemaking Portal. The proposed rules may be read in full here in the Federal Register. Clearly state that your comment refers to Docket # APHIS-2007-0096. Our very sustenance is in peril. If you eat any meat whatsoever, this affects you, but if you eat locally sourced meat it affects you even more. Please comment before March 19. Thank you. Labels: EPA Tyranny, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Monday, January 12, 2009 Freedom to Farm -- in Your Backyard By Monica @ 7:05 PM I've been increasingly concerned about our food supply with the thought of an economic meltdown. There are others I have spoken to who feel similarly. Some have even written about such matters: When things rumble and bump in our economy, due to natural causes or government-made ones, shortages like our gas situation are going to occur. Big bumps, big problems. In my more paranoid moments, I wonder what will happen if the economy goes boom! I shouldn't take it for granted that I'll be able to find gasoline. Or insulin. How hard will that be to find in an emergency, with the government "helping" with price ceilings and regulations that will shackle the very people who make it and the people who need it. It's very scary to contemplate showing up at the pharmacy and facing an insulin shortage. Because you just expect it to be there, just like you expect gasoline to be at the gas station. Damn. That's right. And we shouldn't take it for granted that we'll be able to find anything, including food. It's disturbing to me that economists at the USDA control the futures market for major crops. In doing so and in controlling production with subsidies, the USDA essentially controls supply and demand. I worry because farmers do not necessarily have the knowledge or equipment to go back to less fuel intensive methods of farming now. Fifty years ago farmers all knew how to produce 20 different commodities on their farm. Today, they largely produce only two: soy and corn. It is almost all dependent on soy and corn, and depends on quite a bit of fossil fuel to boot. Farmers can't just put animals back on pasture right away in order to cut fuel costs. They would need to convert those fields to different crops: hay, wheat, or some mixture of native grasses. They don't necessarily have the equipment for that anymore nor do they even own any animals. It would require some sort of partnership between farmers and feedlot owners, I suppose. I'm not an economist so I can't say how things would pan out in a depression if one were to occur. I honestly don't know. However, our food system is incredibly centralized and dependent on foreign oil. That's not reassuring to me. For that reason, I feel the need to secure my food supply before anything like this happens. I've bought a lot of open pollinated plants to attempt a garden this summer, and I'm starting to buy more and more from local producers in an attempt to escape a food system that might collapse one day. Sounds scary, I know -- and it's not a bullet-proof plan, of course. Luckily, I live in an area where I can get a lot of locally produced items relatively cheaply direct from the farm, including bison, beef, elk, venison, vegetables, eggs, and milk. I could probably produce a considerable amount of eggs, honey, and vegetables on my own property. If you, too are concerned about such matters you may wish to check out where to obtain locally produced goods. I've produced and maintained home gardens with a reasonable amount of effort with friends -- enough to supply two people for a year on about 5000 square feet or so. I also fondly remember my grandparent's garden when I was growing up. In the two world wars, backyard gardening played a much more important role in American society, according to Michael Pollan. I find it interesting that in WWII such "Victory Gardens" were supplying 40% of America's produce. That's pretty impressive, but not too surprising from my perspective since I know first hand what a moderate-sized garden can produce in a good year. It's also not surprising to hear Pollan say that the USDA opposed such Victory gardens, because of course the USDA makes no sense whatsoever most of the time. I'm certainly not hoping for a depression. I'm just speculating and trying to be secure. I don't have the same obstacles as many people, thank goodness. I imagine that in an economic meltdown, homeowner's associations aren't really going to care whether you dig up your front and back yards for vegetable gardens or not. I'm pretty sure they would have some pretty nasty restrictions about it officially on the books, though. One of my friends is restricted in the type of trees she can plant in her own backyard. It's really quite absurd. It's her property and really not any of her neighbors' business. It bothers me that HOAs have grown into sort of quasi-governmental organizations restricting such basic freedoms as the right to plant a tree on one's own property because of a few seed pods that might blow into someone's yard. For people who belong to HOAs, I think it might be wise to start raising such issues if you know there are rules on the books restricting your freedoms. There is another growing trend that does relate to real governmental organizations, and that is keeping chickens in one's backyard for eggs. (Of course, I'm not advocating roosters -- that would be a complete nuisance to neighbors.) Hens are not loud and with a fence no one really notices them. This site, Urban Chickens, often discusses urban chicken ordinances and the efforts in getting them overturned. It appears that people all around the country are looking into keeping chickens in their backyards, and where such ordinances exist they are seeking to overturn them, often with success. The benefits, of course, would be yummy eggs, pest control, and fertilizer for your lawn! Such freedoms might be particularly important in the future. Those who are concerned about their local ordinances should get involved in trying to get the rules changed. And, of course, we need to keep a very close eye on the USDA's onerous National Animal Identification System. Such a program will protect no one from terrorism or disease, and we all know what it is really about: more government control over our food. We honestly don't need the USDA or the EPA coming around and collecting taxes on chicken farts. Join me in a future post as I discuss the soil fertility benefits of animal-based agriculture. Yes, even in your own backyard! Labels: De-regulation, Individual Rights, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Monday, January 5, 2009 Linda Faillace Discusses NAIS By Monica @ 7:56 PM NAIS is not going to assure consumer confidence in the meat supply, but that is how it is being sold to the American public. In fact, the USDA has actively blocked independent testing of mad cow disease by Creekstone Farms, and the levels of testing that the USDA carries out are woefully inadequate: less than a tenth of a percent. With three cows discovered so far, that level of testing is simply not going to be effective at discovering the disease, and the USDA knows it. It has admitted a concern that more testing will "undermine confidence in the meat supply." We're going to have to keep a close eye on the Obama administration when it comes to the NAIS issue. It's simply a mechanism for more control over our food supply. The safety and terrorism issues are a complete smokescreen. In Linda Faillace's book Mad Sheep, she issued a very strong verdict against the USDA, saying that it needs to be completely dismantled and restructured. I give the book my highest recommendation and wrote a review of it here. Labels: "Safety", Meat Inspection, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    8 Comments   Saturday, January 3, 2009 What's Wrong With Tom Vilsack? By Monica @ 10:13 PM Lots. Tom Vilsack is Obama’s pick for Secretary of Agriculture, if you hadn’t heard. Let's start with corn. As governor of Iowa, he was named “Governor of the Year” by the Biofuel Industry Organization. If you did not know, ethanol from corn is a process that uses as much or more energy to create than the finished product generates. Only the government could dream up such a wasteful scheme. Cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel may be profitable enterprises, as opposed to corn ethanol, but if that is the case they do not need government to prop them up. This is not rocket science -- even self-described environmentalists agree that ethanol needs to stand on its own. But it would appear that it’s going to be business as usual at the USDA with Vilsack in charge, with yet more taxpayer money -- on top of the $56 billion already spent in a decade on corn! -- going to Big Corn. Monsanto, Syngenta, et. al. must be lapping this news up. Once these programs get started, they grow a life of their own. That's why we have to kill them before they are actually born. Speaking of killing bad programs before they start, let's talk about the National Animal Identification System -- NAIS. Those trying to raise healthy, free-range grass-fed meat animals might be up against more trouble under USDA headed by Vilsack. Vilsack is a supporter of NAIS, and if implemented fully, more small farmers (read: pastured, humane operations) raising animals will be put out of business by it. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) will be allowed to register hundreds of animals under one tag while other producers will have to buy a tag for each animal. This system will not even prevent animal-borne disease. It can only track it 48 hours after an outbreak. And given that the USDA is allowing the mixing of meat from Canada, Mexico, and the USA and labeling it as such in grocery stores, it is not even going to be useful in meat recalls. NAIS needs to be a top priority under the Obama administration. It's an invention of Big Moo to give them better access to the export markets. It needs to remain a completely voluntary system and the USDA is trying hard to get this implemented for all animal owners by now trying to get it implemented state by state, requiring it for interstate commerce, and requiring it of producers in order to sell meat for the USDA's School Lunch Program. Thankfully, many are fighting hard against NAIS now and it's only been implemented in a handful of states. A recent suit brought against the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has resulted in APHIS canceling their memo requiring NAIS for interstate commerce! This is very encouraging -- it shows that when people stick up for their rights and stand up against intrusive programs before they start, they can be prevented. If you haven't voted to kill NAIS, please do so here. It's in third place for ideas about Agricultural Policy on change.org. You can also vote to legalize raw milk: that proposal is in first place in Agricultural Policy. Obama's pick for Secretary of Agriculture really doesn't look good for people who support individual rights and a more rational farm policy. In addition to wanting to prop up Big Corn and Big Moo with your money, Vilsack himself received $42,782 in farm subsidies over a seven year period. Are we ready to end the farm subsidy programs yet?!? Is this “change we can believe in?" The "change" that economically unsustainable ethanol should continue to guzzle our tax dollars, deplete our soils of vital nutrients, and create an enormous hypoxic dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey? The "change" that millions of dollars should be spent on animal eartags in the name of “safety” at the expense of the small farmer? The "change" that billions of dollars should continue to be extorted from hard working Americans to give to lawmakers and billionaires? The "change" that Americans should continue to be fed a steady diet of subsidized commodity corn, wheat and soy products that lead to obesity, cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes, while continuing to be told by the USDA that these foods will lead to better health? No. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was "No." John Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, p. 973 (35th Anniversary Edition) Labels: "Safety", De-regulation, Government Idiocy, NAIS, Nutritional Guidelines, Rants and Whines, School Lunch Program, Subsidies, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   Sunday, December 28, 2008 The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy on NAIS By Monica @ 5:39 PM The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy is an organization devoted to the conservation of rare and endangered livestock breeds. In perusing their most interesting site, I found the following statement on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS): For a variety of reasons, many of our country’s rare, endangered and heritage breeds of livestock and poultry are stewarded and maintained on small, independent farms and ranches. Thus, any regulations, policies or procedures that may prove sufficiently onerous or cumbersome will discourage a significant number of those farmers and ranchers currently breeding or contemplating raising such animals. The NAIS program could have serious, unintended, and unanticipated effects on the long-term viability of our nation’s livestock industry. ...we urge all NAIS decision and policy makers to be aware of the importance of conserving our national livestock genetic legacy and to be mindful that regulations and procedures designed specifically for agribusiness and large-scale production systems may have disproportionate impact on those currently maintaining these genetic resources. Policies, procedures, and regulations that inappropriately or unnecessarily discourage farmers and ranchers from considering or continuing to steward rare, endangered, or heritage agricultural animals could lead to the extinction or functional loss of the genetic resource these creatures represent. Such a loss would diminish our country’s genetic legacy, significantly reduce the capacity of present and future animal breeders to respond to new challenges and opportunities, and potentially compromise our nation’s food security. I'd never before considered the potential effect that NAIS could have in contributing to the extinction of rare livestock breeds. What is worse is that I'm sure the USDA hadn't, either. Labels: Government Idiocy, Heritage Varieties, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Thursday, December 18, 2008 Yet Another Reason to Oppose NAIS By Monica @ 9:08 PM Data thieves are targeting the USDA, which has lax security standards: A computer hacker may have stolen "personal identity information" for 26,000 current and former U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters employees, agency officials said. The USDA announced the security breach shortly before midnight on Wednesday, nearly three weeks after it occurred. It offered one year of free credit-monitoring services to the potentially affected employees. The agency said that its computer systems were illegally accessed during the first weekend of June. Officials said that at first they thought the personal information was still protected, but now they are not sure the data is safe. At risk are the names, Social Security numbers and photos of USDA headquarters employees and contractors. The 26,000 names represent one-fourth of the USDA's workforce. The information was in the same database as work site information that is open to the public. Great. What if data thieves could paw through all the private property information of every animal owner in the United States? Labels: NAIS, Rants and Whines, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Wednesday, December 17, 2008 What NLIS Has Done to the Australian Cattle Industry By Monica @ 6:09 PM We have a bit of a case study of what NAIS in the United States might do to cattle producers, since Australia already has a similar system, called National Livestock Identification System (NLIS). Australian ranchers are not happy about NLIS -- nor other government regulations. American cattle producers should sit up and take notice: We have been told for years that we lead the World with MSA and NLIS. We have continually told in the media that our cattle prices are good. After a 40 cent price drop (from a low base) on a falling dollar, in a month, I am not amused. Why, when we are paying the highest levies and using the most expensive QA and Trace-back systems in the World are we getting the lowest true prices in the developed world? Is our “Best beef in the World”, really the worst in the developed world? Must we face the fact that we produce a third world product? Is it possible that we have been led by idiots who can’t see beyond their ivory tower? One has to love the no-nonsense of the folks down under. I don't claim to know much about the Australian cattle industry, but the author of the article appears to point to at least a few more regulatory problems. FYI, MSA is a government meat grading program (referred to above and below) and from what I can see, looks to be an extreme waste of Australian taxpayer money, as does NLIS: There is now no viable export abattoir in two thirds of our Continent, west of a line from Adelaide to Townsville; - there were once eight. Western Australians are trucking cattle over the Nullabor, or just moving out of the industry. It is a terrible indictment on industry and Ministerial leadership. We are leading the world into vegetarianism, as our cattlemen are squeezed out of business by the highest regulatory costs, the toughest retail duopoly, one of the highest interest rates in the World, on top of trying to produce in one of the toughest environments. What to do? We must change direction – fast; - cut our costs. Forget about complicated systems like NLIS, MSA, Breed plan and our expensive levy. They have taken us down the path to oblivion. Unfortunately, there are similar parallels in the United States. I would guess the lack of abbatoirs has to do with the cost of federal inspection, as it does here in the United States. Off the top of my head, I remember reading today that there were 500 or more federally approved slaughterhouses in the United States about 10 years ago. Today? 350. And only four of those slaughterhouses handle a whopping 90% of the meat produced in the United States. Since USDA approved slaughter is a requirement of selling your meat to others, this is an enormous problem. All such government programs and regulations, including NAIS and requirements for federally approved slaughter for sale to consumers, must be abolished. It is absurd to believe that USDA approved slaughterhouses that probably look worse that the ones Upton Sinclair observed in the early 1900s (who would know? no one is allowed into them!) produce safer meat than local, small scale operations, such as this one below. The following operation is federally inspected (otherwise the owners would have to give the meat away and it would be illegal to sell it) but I can scarcely believe the regulations affect their practices much. I'm sure it costs them a lot, though. (Warning, it's slightly graphic after the first few moments): HT for Australian cattle article: Walter Jeffries Labels: De-regulation, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   USDA Motions to Dismiss Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund Suit By Monica @ 5:52 PM The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund has filed a suit with the U.S. District Court – District of Columbia requesting an injunction to stop the implementation of NAIS by states or the feds. If successful, the suit would halt the program nationwide. (Yes!) Despite the fact that the USDA has said that NAIS is a voluntary program, there are various mandatory implementations in a few states, namely Wisconsin, Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Colorado. Unsurprisingly, the USDA has now filed a motion to dismiss the suit: Motions filed by the U.S. and Michigan Departments of Agriculture seeking to dismiss the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund suit to stop the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), incorrectly claim that NAIS is a voluntary program. “Even as the agencies try to deny the clear facts of what they have done in Michigan, the USDA recently issued a memo that confirms what the Fund has stated in its lawsuit: NAIS is not voluntary,” said Pete Kennedy, interim president of the Fund. Kennedy cited Veterinary Services Memorandum No. 575.19 addressed to USDA's "Veterinary Services Management Team" that requires NAIS premises registration for various disease program activities. “The memo includes activities such as vaccinations, testing, and applying official ear tags for programs for every livestock species, ranging from brucellosis to scrapies to equine infectious anemia,” Kennedy noted. “One of the most important aspects of this memo is that people who refuse to have their farms registered will be registered against their will. Thus, USDA has officially abandoned the supposed ‘voluntary’ nature of NAIS.” Oh, but that's typical of so many "voluntary" government programs that then become mandatory or expanded beyond belief. Hopefully the FTCLDF will make a strong response, and I'm very glad to see them taking the offensive position on this. Too often, as in the Faillace family's case, the courts simply defer to the USDA. We need to reign in these rogue agencies. Ultimately, the USDA needs to be completely dismantled. Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Monday, December 15, 2008 Will NAIS Make Food Safer? By Monica @ 9:44 AM From NoNAIS: In Ireland industrial oil contaminated the pig feed at a major commercial feed supplier resulting in 200 times the acceptable levels if dioxins in the pork. As a result 100,000 pigs face depopulation as the government likes to euphamistically puts their killing sprees. The result is a total worldwide recall of Irish pork products which will hurt farmers, workers, retailers and consumers. It also leaves in question the safety of beef, poultry and lamb that may have been fed tainted food from that same supplier. This disaster points to the problems with centralization, consolidation of Big Ag both in the single source of feed and the small number of large pork producers. Indeed. Imagine a top down centrally planned system in which all auto makers in the United States are encouraged and supported through "auto subsidies" from the United States Department of Automobiles (USDA) to make only 2-3 types of vehicles. The consolidation of these companies is supported through government handouts over the course of a century, because the government has decided that auto makers will be far more efficient if there are fewer of them and if they each concentrate their efforts on 2-3 types of automobiles rather than 20 or so. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent in an effort to encourage the auto makers to produce as many autos as possible, regardless of consumer demand. When problems of quality, efficiency and safety arise, regulations are piled on top of regulations to "ensure" the safety of both the autos and the products used to make these autos, under various programs under the United States Department of Automobiles (USDA). A number of new, small auto makers wish to sell their autos, for which there is great demand. However, the USDA is concerned about these uninspected automobiles. A few defective autos from these smaller auto makers result in a public outcry for the USDA to start regulating the smaller auto makers as well, regardless of the fact that the USDA-approved manufacturers are pumping out a higher proportion of defective products. The USDA comes to the obvious conclusion based on this public outcry. It must outlaw the direct sale of any automobile not made in a USDA-approved plant. Despite the slightly higher production costs to produce their product in a USDA approved facility, the smaller companies operating without USDA subsidies and outside of the USDA approved supply system see their market share continue to grow due to increased demand by a minority of informed consumers. Because of regulations outlawing the sale of these autos in ordinary establishments, they work directly with consumers to establish CSAs, or Community Supported Auto companies, in which consumers will buy autos directly from the manufacturers in an attempt to escape the costly USDA regulations. These CSAs are so successful that they see their market share grow from $1 billion to $12 billion over the course of a decade. Nevertheless, this new arrangement is branded as uncapitalistic and an obvious communist threat to free enterprise. Quality continues to decline in USDA approved facilities. Massive recalls of millions of autos result, so the USDA does the obvious. It attempts to avoid disaster by providing more "auto subsidies" to the subsidized auto makers so that they can improve quality and safety. All at the USDA agree that consumer confidence in the socialized auto market, which they insist is an example not of socialism but of free enterprise, must be upheld. Unfortunately, over time, recalls of the USDA-approved items keep getting larger as the USDA-supported consolidation continues. The USDA can no longer ignore these problems. The USDA comes to the obvious conclusion that the current regulations are insufficient to ensure the safety of the public. A new system of safety must obviously be drawn up. After all, the majority of the public is crying for the USDA to “do something”. Many important people at the USDA, together with the USDA approved manufacturers, get together and brainstorm a system that might once and for all finally ensure the safety of autos everywhere. They call the system NAIS, the National Auto Identification System. They propose that all autos be tagged with radio frequency identification chips so that any auto with a problem can be traced back to one of the four auto making plants in the United States, all of which rely on 1-2 auto parts supply companies for their raw materials. Most of the larger, USDA subsidized auto makers sign up for the program. When problems are found either in one of the four auto plants or one of the two parts suppliers, the tracking system is hailed as a marvelous success at determining the source of the safety problems. Although this does nothing to actually make autos safer, it does determine the source of the safety problems so that yet more regulations can be applied to the few remaining producers to ensure safety. The government responds to this success at tracking safety problems with the only obvious solution. New regulations must be drafted that mandate the tagging system be used and paid for by all auto makers, not just those not using USDA certified suppliers or USDA manufacturing plants. After all, how will people who buy their car directly from a particular auto maker through a CSA know where the safety problem originated? More safety problems emerge under producers compliant with NAIS. The solution is obvious. The NAIS tagging system must now obviously be required of all those producing autos for their own use, even if they do not sell their autos to anyone else. After all, public safety and confidence in the USDA must be upheld! Shortly after the enforcement of NAIS for every automobile in the United States, all transportation production becomes controlled by the USDA. Home-produced autos and even bicycles not inspected in a USDA facility or bearing a USDA RFID chip are outlawed as an obvious threat to public safety. Under the Auto Patriot Act, anyone questioning the lawfulness or utility of the USDA’s NAIS system is branded as unpatriotic. The Bill of Rights is discarded and the US Constitution is re-written. Shortly thereafter, the NAIS information is handed over to the EPA so that the EPA can collect emissions taxes. What a handy system at monitoring exactly who owns how many automobiles! That wasn't the original intent of NAIS, but it sure became convenient once the EPA got their slimy hands on the information! Now the USDA, in concert with the EPA, can mandate the total number of automobiles a person is allowed to have. The EPA continues to draw new and lower threshholds of the number of autos per person as the decades pass. Eventually the mission of the USDA is transformed over the course of a century from the regulation of auto safety to bicycle redistribution and education through the Bicycle Stamp Program and the Bicycle School Transportation Program. (See any similarities to the previous post yet?) Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Monday, December 8, 2008 What is NAIS? By Monica @ 4:15 PM This USDA program, the National Animal Identification Program (NAIS), is currently "voluntary" but will probably become required within a year if it doesn't receive strong opposition. So what is it? Many farmers have been registered under NAIS without their knowledge and against their will or consent. The supposed aim of this program is to protect Americans from bacteria and terrorism by tracking animals with radio frequency identification chips. Similar aims are touted for Bush's RealID program, which would put RFID chips in driver's licenses at the state's expense and then require a RealID of every person in order to open a bank account or enter a Federal Building. (The RealID program was passed in Congress as part of a military appropriations bill. This is also a program deserving strong opposition from supporters of individual rights, but it is beyond the scope of FA/RM.) If you eat animal products, NAIS affects you. From Northern Express: Its goal is to track every animal from birth to death, and all the movements in between, with the radio frequency IDs that look like white buttons. Supporters say that tagging animals with a 15-digit ID will make the food supply safer. The USDA aims to register all meat producers by January of 2009. The idea of the NAIS—voluntary in most states—is to quickly identify the source of an infected animal and to protect citizens from terrorists who contaminate the food supply. Farmers will have to log in every "event" of an animal's life, such as going to a fair, trucking them to another farm, or participating in a rodeo. Not just cattle, but also pet ponies, 4-H animals, and backyard chickens (not fish, though). The passage above is somewhat consistent with what is already happening. Here in Colorado, a child wanting to enter their animal in the Colorado State Fair has to be part of the "voluntary" NAIS system. So, technically, it's not voluntary if states require it. Both Michigan and Indiana have mandatory NAIS. Texas, however, has successfully fought against implementation of this system. Go Texas. This is the government website from APHIS (the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) explaining NAIS. The problem is that the goals of NAIS appear to conflict. The website indicates that NAIS is about disease control. Yet the USDA has recently issued letters assuring farmers that NAIS will not be used for disease control. This makes no sense. Here is what I know about NAIS after months of research. Every farm animal will be monitored with RFID chips as it is moved from location to location, only small or backyard farms will be required to tag every animal, and larger corporate farms that move animals in groups will only be required to purchase one tag per lot of hundreds of animals. (Obviously, at $5-$20 per tag, that's going to create a huge distortion in the market favoring the large farmer.) Large farming corporations designed and are supportive of this NAIS effort, because it will allow them greater access to the international market (not to mention eliminating domestic competition because of the disproportionate costs borne by the small farmer). That is unfortunate but it should be no surprise to anyone who knows anything about agriculture. APHIS would like premises registration and animal identification to become mandatory by January 2008, and enforcement of the reporting of animal movements to be mandatory by January 2009. Thankfully the NAIS program has not met these timelines, but we must still act to prevent further implementation, because it appears that APHIS has just made NAIS mandatory for interstate commerce. To make matters worse, legislators have tried to link NAIS with the School Lunch Program (both are USDA programs), making premises registration under NAIS a requirement of producers selling food that will be used in the School Lunch Program. (I am uncertain as to whether this requirement was actually passed in the agriculture appropriations for 2009 but if it wasn’t, we can certainly expect it to rear its ugly head again in the next Farm Bill omnibus legislation). To summarize, NAIS is a violation of the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments. Besides the fact that this program is an obvious violation of individual rights, let’s examine some of the other pragmatic reasons that NAIS is a bad idea. First, it will eliminate small producers. This will further marginalize safety which will then likely lead to further government regulatory mandates to clean up dirty food (such as irradiation) rather than making sure it is clean in the first place. Eliminating smaller producers will also largely erase any vestige of humane treatment in the production of animal foods. (I realize many people don’t care about either of these things, but I do.) Second, it will allow the government unprecedented access to private property information. When considering the proposed EPA animal taxes to control CO2 production and the increased communication we have seen between federal agencies under the Bush administration, this is a very bad thing. We do not need the USDA reporting private property information to the EPA so that the EPA can collect taxes on cow farts. Third, owners will be required to report birthdates of animals, lost tags, and slaughter/death/missing animals. Such events will be required to be reported within 24 hours, with massive fines if they do not cooperate. Fourth, veterinarians will be required to report sightings of untagged animals and register the animals with the USDA (involuntary registration is already happening without the will or consent of farmers by state employees). Fifth, it is unprecedented for the US government to conduct surveillance of citizens simply because they own a specific type of property. The exceptions are motor vehicles and guns, but these are registered at the state level. NAIS would subject all owners of farm animals to federal surveillance and control. What can you do? First, visit Barack Obama’s site at http://change.gov/pages/rural_agenda/ and tell him what you think of NAIS. You can also post comments at http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_nais and vote to move anti-NAIS higher onto Obama's agenda (I have done this and you should see my comment there). Save your comments and also consider writing your representatives to tell them that you oppose NAIS. Third, use those comments to write the House Committee on Agriculture at agriculture@mail.house.gov. Spread the word to family and friends. Consider writing op-eds and letters to the editor. Also, visit stopanimalid.org and nonais.org for more reading and information. Labels: De-regulation, EPA Tyranny, Government Idiocy, NAIS, School Lunch Program, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Cow Fart Tax Coming Your Way By Monica @ 4:06 PM If someone had told me five years ago that the EPA would start taxing farting cows to control greenhouse gas emissions, I would have laughed in their face. It is now happening. The flatheads at the EPA are going to tax flatulence. But first, a bit of history. This summer, Dr. John Lewis published a timely call to action: In July the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which details their plan to force Americans to reduce emissions of CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases.” This follows on an Executive Order signed by President Bush, which was made possible by a U.S. Supreme Court decisions ruling that CO2 is a “pollutant.” (!) This plan will strip the American people of their freedom, and place them under the control of a single, all-powerful, federal agency. Industrial permits, furnace regulations, auto emissions testing, building permits, transportation, and food production—all will fall under the boot of the EPA. Environmentalists will use lawsuits to pressure the EPA to tighten an ever-shrinking noose around the neck of every American. The EPA's document starts with a clear warning that using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 will lead to uncontrollable growth of the agency’s power: "EPA’s analyses leading up to this ANPR have increasingly raised questions of such importance that the scope of the agency’s task has continued to expand. For instance, it has become clear that if EPA were to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also emit GHGs [Greenhouse Gases] – such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitals – could also be triggered. One point is clear: the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land." (ANPR p. 5) The ANPR also includes the following, in a comment by the Department of Agriculture: "many of the emissions are the result of natural biological processes that are as old as agriculture itself. For instance, technology does not currently exist to prevent the methane produced by enteric fermentation associated with the digestive processes in cows and the cultivation of rice crops; the nitrous oxide produced from the tillage of soils used to grow crops; and the carbon dioxide produced by soil and animal agricultural respiratory processes. The only means of controlling such emissions would be through limiting production, which would result in decreased food supply and radical changes in human diets." (ANPR pp. 66-67) To the many who believe that these excerpts from the EPA's document are exaggeration, recent events have proven otherwise. The EPA has not lost any time in calculating how much to tax agriculture under its new plan to cut CO2 emissions, according to NoNAIS: In a massive power grab the EPA is attempting to tax all sources of greenhouse gasses. If your cow farts they want your money. Same goes for your pigs. Your house. Anything.... If the USDA EPA has their way it would impose an annual tax of $20 per pig and $87.50 per cow. Who knows how much they’ll tax your home or wood stove but you can bet once they get their slimy claws into your life they’ll never let go. (link inserted by me) Moreover, as explained by the blog author, Jeffries: In the Federal Registry the USDA comments discuss: If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved. Jeffries explains that presumably, the cost per animal is calculated through the Title V regulations. This has become more widely substantiated through other press releases and independent associations (you can simply google for other news reports if you desire). It is crucial for everyone to understand that the proposed tax on livestock is just the beginning. The underlying premise here is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. According to EPA documents, they will have the authority to regulate any emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. This means the rest of agriculture as well (tilling the soil releases CO2), your woodstove, your barbeque grill, etc. The predictable result is that massive amounts of farmers would go out of business, consumer food prices would be driven through the stratosphere, and the EPA will continue to expand its powers as they draw new minimum thresholds of greenhouse gases. Jeffries further notes: You will have to make your house meet EPA standards, pay fees to get it inspected and approved or have it condemned. Want to talk housing crisis? Very few homes in America will meet the standards. This means all those homes will get dumped on the market for pennies on the dollar. That will create a new round of foreclosures and depress real estate prices further. The EPA is throwing gas on the fire. Having just read Harvest of Sorrow about the dekulakization of towns in Russia, I can’t help but notice the similarities between Soviet Russia and what our future situation might look like in the United States if we don't act and speak out. The result would be mass unemployment and an even greater reliance on foreign countries for our food. If these rules were to be strictly enforced, the ultimate result would be famine, death, and waves of people being hauled off to prison camps for minor infractions of agricultural codes, such as keeping a few extra chickens. In the end, it would be the downfall of the United States. It is all there in the government documents above. Unfortunately, both NAIS (see the post above) and the EPA taxes would dovetail to create disastrous government controls over our food, because the USDA would have the knowledge about all premises in the country where animals are raised and could simply pass this information to the EPA so they can collect their taxes. Many farmers are already being enrolled in the USDA’s “voluntary” NAIS program without their knowledge or consent. Both of these programs must be stopped before they are started. What can you do? First, you can speak up to the coming Obama administration about your views on such matters. Visit http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/ and http://change.gov/pages/rural_agenda/ and leave your comments about such matters as the USDA’s NAIS and EPA taxes on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Second, you can look at my proposal on Obama's site and vote for it, here: http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_the_proposed_epa_taxes_under_anpr 158 more votes to get it to first place in the category of Global Warming! Come on, activists, let's overwhelm them with votes! Second, save the comments you submit to the Obama change.gov site and write your representatives and officials for office about your views. Write op-eds or letters to the editor. It is also of vital importance to simply spread the news to others. Alert your friends and family to these proposals by pointing them to our website and blog so that they can remain updated. Labels: EPA Tyranny, Global Warming, Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments