NoNAIS.org

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has released the following attempt to get the new Obama administration to halt the USDA’s proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS). There is some controversy about their efforts in the past for failure to dot their i’s and cross their t’s. Still every voice counts for Change, right?

Legal Defense Fund Calls for Obama Administration to Permanently Stop USDA Animal Identification Rule

FALLS CHURCH, Va. - (Business Wire) The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund called on the new administration to permanently halt a U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed rule that would effectively mandate the implementation of the first two stages of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) for thousands of Americans.

The proposed rule, entitled the “Official Animal Identification Numbering Systems,” was published by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in the Federal Register January 13. On Tuesday, the Obama administration ordered federal agencies to halt all pending regulation until they can be reviewed.

“The APHIS regulation is further evidence of the department’s unrelenting effort to make a so called voluntary program mandatory, and it should be permanently stopped by the new administration,” said acting Fund president Pete Kennedy.

“This effort by the former Bush administration is yet another back-door attempt to circumvent the will of the U.S. Congress which has repeatedly failed to pass legislation making NAIS mandatory and the will of four separate state legislatures that have passed legislation explicitly prohibiting the mandatory implementation of NAIS,” said Kennedy.

The Fund filed suit last year against the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture to stop the mandatory implementation of NAIS, which is the USDA’s plan to electronically track every livestock animal in the country. The Michigan Department of Agriculture has implemented the first two stages of NAIS – property registration and animal identification – as part of a state-wide bovine tuberculosis disease control program required by a grant from the USDA.

The proposed APHIS rule seeks to amend current domestic livestock regulations to allow only numbers beginning with an 840 prefix to be used to tag animals for use in official programs such as existing disease control efforts. Numbers beginning with 840 are specific to the NAIS program, and, in order to obtain an 840-numbered tag, animal owners will need to first register their premises with NAIS.

“This proposed rule is just the latest in a series of actions taken by the USDA to make NAIS mandatory over the objections of small farmers, ranchers and four state legislatures,” Kennedy noted. “Not only will the use of the 840 tags cost them money, but their private information and data will now be entered into a national database that will be accessible not only by state and federal agencies, but also by private organizations. Farmers don’t want that,” Kennedy said.

In September of last year, USDA issued a memo to its Veterinary Services Management Team ordering federal, state and private veterinarians to assign a premise identification number to any property whose owners participate in or are subject to a disease management program such as having their animal vaccinated. Those who refused were to be registered against their will.

“In the face of overwhelming opposition, USDA cancelled the September memo with a follow-up memo in December, but in doing so, reiterated its policy of using NAIS premise identification numbers for the administration of animal disease programs,” Kennedy said, “thus continuing its effort to make NAIS mandatory.”

Both the September and December memos were cited by the Fund in an amended complaint filed Jan. 16 to its original suit.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court – District of Columbia on September 8, 2008, asks the court to issue an injunction to stop the implementation of NAIS at both the state and the federal levels by any state or federal agency. If successful, the suit would halt the program nationwide.

The suit charges, in part, that USDA has published rules and issued guidance documents (that are tantamount to legislative rules) regarding NAIS in violation of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act; has never performed an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act; is in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that requires the USDA to analyze proposed rules for their impact on small entities and local governments; and violates religious freedoms guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

About The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund: The Fund defends the rights and broadens the freedoms of sustainable farmers, and protects consumer access to local, nutrient-dense foods. Concerned citizens can support the Fund by joining at www.farmtoconsumer.org or by contacting the Fund at 703-208-FARM (3276). The Fund’s sister organization, the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation (www.farmtoconsumerfoundation.org), works to support farmers engaged in sustainable farm stewardship and promote consumer access to local, nutrient-dense food.

Editor’s Note: A copy of the suit filed against the USDA and MDA, together with the amended complaint is available at www.ftcldf.org.

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and Farm-to-Consumer Foundation
Taaron G. Meikle, 703-537-8372
tgmeikle@aol.com
or
Cummings & Company LLC
Brian Cummings, 214-295-7463
brian@cummingspr.com

Hat tip to Peter & Sharon.

We have a new Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Let’s welcome him in and let him know what issues we want to see him address. You can write him at AgSec@usda.gov. Keep it polite. Here is my letter:

Dear Secretary Vilsack,

Welcome to your new office as our leader of the USDA. I hope that you will take seriously that 86% of the farmers in America are small and very small farmers (USDA statistics), 96% of us don’t need or get subsidies and 95% of us don’t want NAIS (Independent Surveys). What we do need is:

1) A level playing field rather than the current one biased toward Big Ag. Subsidies predominantly go to the big players giving them an unreasonable advantage in the market which lets them under price their products and hide the true costs of production. This makes it harder for the small farmer to compete and burdens American tax payers with the bill. Eliminate the subsidies and the big producers will have to price their products honestly to reflect their true costs. This will let us all compete on a level playing field and allow small producers to get a fair price for their products too.

2) Real Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) that forces imports to be labeled as such. We don’t need Premises ID for COOL - simply label all imported foods, even if they are mixed origin or processed, as Made in Canada, Made in China, Made in Argentina, etc. Simple, honest labeling for whole cuts to hot dogs and more. We have it on T-shirts, auto parts and plumbing supplies - why can’t we have honest labeling on meat, peas & corn or honey? If it is from another country, during any part of it’s cycle, then it should say so. Any import should be properly labeled to let the consumer know where it was imported from. The burden should fall on the importers, not American producers.

3) Delete the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Yes, simply delete it. It’s the key in the upper right of your keyboard. NAIS needs to be killed at both the federal and the state levels - all the databases must be purged. Burn the backups. Why? They are filled with erroneous and involuntary premise registrations, the system is deceptive and unconstitutional and lastly NAIS gives a false sense of security to consumers while burdening taxpayers and small farmers. NAIS does nothing real or productive. Our customers know where our pork came from, our farm - They can drive by and see our pigs grazing in our fields. I don’t need NAIS. My customers don’t need NAIS. NAIS will not help the vast majority of farmers and it will increase the costs of production on millions of small farms. This will raise food prices and drive small farmers out of business. That means more consolidation into the hands of fewer big players which will result in less food security for our nation. Big Ag, on the other hand, will gain a marketing advantage from NAIS at close to no cost for them since they can use the Group ID numbering and won’t have to tag animal to gain source verification paid for by tax payers. This is an unfair competitive advantage for Big Ag who’s already getting USDA subsidies. As to health, NAIS does nothing to control or eradicate disease as the USDA has admitted, see the FOIA response: http://NoNAIS.org/2008/10/31/depopulation-foia-response/ NAIS does nothing for BSE which is caused by feeding cows to cows which is outlawed in the USA. NAIS does nothing for E. coli, Listeria or Salmonella which are all introduced after the farm at the processing plants. NAIS does nothing for foot and mouth disease - we don’t have it in this country so no need to waste $100,000,000 chasing ghosts that don’t exist. NAIS is not cost effective. It’s a boondoggle for the benefit of Big Ag and the tag makers. If Big Ag wants source verification for marketing or foreign sales, their apparent real rational for NAIS, then let them create and fund a private, voluntary system for themselves. My customers and I already have source verification - I know where my pigs are.

4) Support small meat processing plants while also better inspecting the big processors. Everything to scale. The small local processors don’t have the same problems we see in the huge processors so don’t over burden them with unreasonable regulations, testing and requirements. Instead, support the development of more very small processors. Every year we lose more very small processors, the only ones that will work with small farmers, due to the high costs imposed by over-regulation while we simultaneously suffer recall after recall out of the big processors due to too little oversight. Small farmers, which make up the vast majority of farms, need small and very small slaughterhouses, butchers and smokehouses. Without them we can’t get our meat to market so we might as well not raise the animals. Without livestock we don’t have high quality manures for organic and naturally grown vegetables - even the vegetarians and vegans will suffer if we lose the very small meat processors. The very small processors face different issues and need different approaches than the mega processors. In recent years the USDA has made great strides with the small and very small plant outreach program. Continue and expand this so that small farms can get their products to the American consumers.

5) Conservation and sustainability to involve current and future generations at all levels of society. When people think of these issues they typically think that we need to save our soils, water, breeding stock genetics and such for our future generations. This is true, but it goes a lot further. We need to save farming itself. Without farming there is no food. Factories merely transform raw food into processed foods. We need man diversified farms to maintain our heritage of farming, the core of knowledge. Farmers must be protected from the predatory legal practices of GMO companies - we are not responsible for where the wind blows GMO pollen and seed, the GMO companies are. Agriculture must be an attractive career & life style for our next generation. America has gone from a land of a great many farmers to less than 2% being involved in agriculture and much of that concentrated into the hands of few. Onerous zoning and regulations are outlawing livestock ownership and even gardening. We need more people interested in very small, even micro agriculture. We need victory gardens in every backyard, on every balcony to conserve the land and the knowledge, our connection to the earth and maintain our national food security.

I welcome your new leadership to this important office. I hope you’ve gotten your feet under you and are settled in so lets get running on fixing the USDA to better represent the needs of all farmers and American consumers, not just the biggest players. Remember, the vast majority, 86%, of us are small farmers and we don’t need subsidies - we need a level playing field, less invasive government, local small scale infrastructure and the ability to pass on our farming heritage to the future.

Thank you,

Walter Jeffries
Sugar Mountain Farm
in Vermont

Yes! Years ago I was one of the many people who wrote to our milk suppliers, stores, legislators and newspapers trying to stop rBST. Monstersanto fought back by actually sueing those who advertised they didn’t use it. Talk about a topsy-turvey world. Booth Brothers Dairy was on our side and advertised their milk rBST free - That’s what I buy. Now the big guys like Cabot and Walmart are are board too. rBST is on the way out and even Monsanto seems to see the end for this ill-conceived idea.

Dairy cooperative to stop using controversial growth hormone
Friday January 23, 2009, John Dillon, Montpelier, Vt

The region’s largest dairy cooperative wants to phase out use of a controversial growth hormone that’s used to boost milk production. The Agri-Mark dairy co-op says it’s following the lead of its customers - who have rejected milk from hormone-treated cows. Agri-Mark has told its members that starting in August it will no longer accept milk in New England from cows injected with the hormone. The product is made by the Monsanto Corporation and it’s called bovine somatatropin, or BST.

Spokesman Doug DiMento says the issue has been under discussion for 15 years - since the hormone was first introduced in the early 1990s. “But during the last few months we’ve told our members that it seems like the market for milk from farms using synthetic BST is diminishing and we won’t have any markets for that milk over the next several months. So we’re trying to take steps to preserve markets for our farmers.”

BST can boost milk production in cows by around 15 percent. But it was controversial from the start. The Food and Drug Administration said it was safe. And many farmers viewed it as simply another management tool. But consumer organizations worried about the hormone’s impact on cows and on humans.

In response, organic milk companies and many conventional dairies began marketing their product as hormone free. And last year, retail giant Wal-Mart announced that it would no longer sell milk under its own label from hormone-treated cows.
-Vermont Public Radio

Yee-haw! Goliath gets nailed in the forehead! It is wonderful to finally see Monsanto get their comeuppance. Lately they’ve been losing a lot of battles. One can hope this is a strong future trend.