NoNAIS.org

[An excellent statement from Jane Willions of the Arkansas Animal Producers Association. Might I suggest that other individuals, organizations and states come up with similar statements. Send them to your senators by paper and email. See the contacts section of the right sidebar. Also send copies to your newspapers as well. -WJ]

Statement By Jane Williams
of Bluffton, Arkansas

On Behalf of the
Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association

Submitted at the request of Senator Lincoln to the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

The Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association (ARAPA) was created as a direct result of the development of the proposed USDA guidelines for Farm Premises Identification (FPI) and the National Animal Identification Tracking System (NAIS). Members believe that some organizations that were suppose to be representing their interests are not doing so on the FPI, NAIS, and COOL issues. ARAPA membership consists of independent animal owners who rear animals as a hobby, for their nutritional needs, and/or for income. At some point members transport animals off of their land to sell, barter, butcher, exhibit, secure veterinary services, go on trail rides, compete, or simply to give an animal away.

Senator Lincoln’s request for this statement, on behalf of independent animal producers, is appreciated. It is time that our concerns are heard and listened to by our public servants.

The proposed USDA guidelines, as published in the “DRAFT Strategic Plan 2005 to 2009” and the “Draft Program Standards” published April 25, 2005, would prohibit an animal owner from taking an animal off of the owner’s land unless that owner filed an application with the USDA for a FPI and then attached or injected an identification device in or on the animal on the farm or at a tagging facility. The USDA tries to tell us that FPI is voluntary. It may be voluntary today, but the USDA does not inform animal owners that they intend to make it mandatory. FPI is coercive—not voluntary. If you do not have a FPI, you will not be allowed to place identification on your animals. You would thus be prohibited from taking an animal off of your premises. On page 10, the last sentence of paragraph one in the “NAIS DRAFT Strategic Plan 2005 to 2009” it is stated, “Premises registration and animal identification according to NAIS standards will be required by January 2008.”

A mandatory program, as proposed by the USDA, would place such extreme hardships on animal owners that many of them would cease to rear animals. Presently 85% of Arkansas sale barn customers are small producers who most likely would be forced out of business by the proposed USDA program. The economic losses to Arkansas resulting from a large number of animal owners going out of business would be devastating to the Arkansas economy since the loss of customers by sale barns, feed stores, mom and pop stores, butcher shops, farm equipment suppliers, etc. would necessitate their closing.

Why Would FPI and NAIS Cause Independent Animal Producers To Cease Rearing Animals?

1. refusal to accept USDA jurisdiction over their farm by applying for a FPI
2. religious beliefs that prohibit animal identification as proposed by the USDA
3. costs associated with NAIS
4. personal aversion to attachment or injection of devices on or into animals
5. inability or refusal to comply with the complexity of the reporting program

Jurisdiction:

Executive Order 10998 gives the Secretary of Agriculture, when ordered by the President, the authority to confiscate all farm equipment, fertilizer, animal feed, and animals in the event of a declaration of a National Emergency. Every year the President declares a National Emergency. A USDA employee could enter a farm without additional permission, beyond the FPI, from an animal owner and do anything they wanted to do on a farm to or with the listed property. The 1942 Supreme Court decision rendered in Wickard v. Filburn states that the federal government has the right to regulate that which it subsidizes. The USDA is subsidizing the FPI program, thus they could regulate the activities on a farm with a FPI or that had received federal funds.

The USDA states that their authority to implement FPI and NAIS is derived from the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) which was a part of the 2002 Farm Bill. Although the AHPA does not give the Secretary of Agriculture express consent to establish NAIS, it does give the Secretary of Agriculture unprecedented power to make warrantless searches, arrest individuals, and issue fines for up to $500,000 for being “about to” violate a mandate of the Secretary of Agriculture. AHPA tramples many principles enshrined in the Constitution. Placing such power in the hands of an appointed individual is unprecedented in United States history. These are some of the reasons many animal owners will not place their farms under USDA jurisdiction by requesting a FPI.

Religious Beliefs:

Practitioners of religious faiths, such as the Amish, that prohibit animal identification as proposed by the USDA could not comply with USDA guidelines without violating their beliefs. Their faith does not allow them to use automobiles, so they travel in buggies and on horseback. Without complying with FPI and NAIS, they would be imprisoned on their farms unless they walked to and from town and to and from adjoining farms. Some members of these faiths are considering selling their farms and immigrating to another country that would guarantee them the right to freely practice their beliefs. Many Christians see FPI and NAIS as being parallel with Revelations that speaks of all being required to accept a “mark”, which is a sign of ownership, in order to buy and sell. These believers will sell out before using electronic devices on their animals.

Profitability:

There are no controls over what identification devices would cost. We are told that an electronic tag for a calf would cost about $3.00; however, Australians were told the same thing and they are now paying $35 to $37 per tag. In England the cost is reported to be $69 per animal. A producer could possibly absorb that cost when selling a calf, but a sheep or a goat tag that cost that much would take most, if not all, of the profit out of selling an animal. A weanling pig sells for $25 to $50. If an implantable chip cost $20, the animal owner could not make a profit when selling the pig. Combine the cost of the implantable chip and the minimum $20 cost to have a veterinarian draw blood to satisfy state regulations and the pig owner is in the hole before the pig is offered for sale—even before adding sow, boar, and pig feed costs, facility expenses, health care expenses, and hauling expenses. Producers can not stay in business if they do not generate a profit.

Installation of computers, software, chutes, reading devices, etc. would be an expensive proposition for sale barns to meet the proposed USDA guidelines for NAIS. A minimum of $80,000 would be required for a small sale barn to install the required equipment. These costs would be passed on to the independent producer through increased commission charges.

Large animal producers could market their animals by lots and use only one tag per house of animals whereas the small producer would need to tag every animal. The cost of a tag for fowl might well exceed the value of the bird. The small producer would need to tag every bird. Thousands of factory housed chickens or pigs could be slaughtered under one tag. This provision of NAIS establishes an unfair economic advantage for large producers.

Complexity:

The complexity of the proposed reporting of every birth, death, farm exit, farm entry, lost tag, etc. would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Each reporting would also have a cost attached to it that once again would hit the independent producer in the pocket book. The number of proposed required reports for the entire nation would be staggering. Recently predators attacked a 300 head herd of cattle causing them to stampede through fences onto the farm of a statistical analyst who maintained 60 head of cattle. It took days of riding on horseback through many farms to round up the 300 head and separate them from herds they had joined. Under the proposed USDA guidelines, this stampede would have initiated 1800 required reports, according to the statistical analyst. Most independent animal owners would not be willing to do such reporting much less have the time to file such reports. On large ranches with rough terrain, it is impossible to check all livestock on a daily basis. Animals are only accounted for at round up time.

Need for FPI And NAIS:

Out breaks of disease within the United States in animals is common. Serious diseases such as brucellosis, cholera, pseudo rabies, as well as avain influenza have been resolved without an elaborate and expensive FPI and NAIS. Rest assured selling an animal that bangs out results in immediate contact by a state veterinarian. We have an inexpensive cattle tracking system that works. This system could be continued, if needed, and thus there is no need for an expensive and complicated program called NAIS.

Dependability Of NAIS:

Reports from England, Canada, and Australia are detailing extreme expenses by producers for a system that is inefficient in tracing animals through the purchasing chain. Reports have also been published that electronic tags can get viruses that can infect and destroy the data system. Electronic tags can be modified by hackers and lost by animals. The proposed system has been proven to be unreliable in other countries. There is no reason to believe that it will be dependable in the United States.

Terrorists:

Supporters of NAIS tell us that FPI and NAIS would prevent or help track terrorist activities that might occur in the animal industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. A national animal data base would pin point the exact location and species of animals for terrorists. As independent animal owners across the nation went out of business because of NAIS, animal ownership would be concentrated in fewer locations and most likely in larger concentrations or in confinement facilities. These concentrated animal locations would make much easier and desirable targets for terrorists than many small farms scattered across the nation.

Imports And Exports:

So many independent animal producers have been forced out of business by low profitability and excessive state regulations that United States agriculture can no longer supply the meat demands of the United States public. The United States currently imports almost twice as much meat as it exports. Reducing meat imports would create more profitability for the farmer and thus encourage people to return to livestock production and thus increase the domestic meat supply. Meat exports are not a concern of small, independent livestock producers. Imports are a major concern, since the United States producer has greater production costs than foreign producers. Imported meat hurts United States producers, while the major packers benefit from brokering imports and purchasing meat at a lower price. In the grocery store, there is presently no differentiation in price between United States meat and foreign meat. Once again the small, independent producer in the United States is placed at a disadvantage as a result of the excessive tonnage of imported meat. Reducing imports would also reduce the possibility of foreign diseases being introduced into the United States. This nation should never become dependent on other nations for its food supply.

Responsibility And Liability:

Independent animal owners work hard to maintain healthy animals. Those who market their livestock and those who consume their own livestock insure they produce healthy animals in healthy surroundings. Once an animal is sold, the original producer has no control over the nutrition, living conditions, or health care of the animal. It is the responsibility of packers to insure that the animals they slaughter are healthy and slaughtered in a sanitary fashion. They should be held liable when they process unhealthy animals. The proposed USDA tracking system seems to place emphasis, identification costs, and most of the responsibility on the farm of animal origin.

Misinformation:

Animal owners no longer trust the USDA because their literature about FPI and NAIS is misleading and in many instances contradictory. “A Guide for Small-Scale or Non-Commercial Producers” that the USDA published on June 2, 2006, does not indicate that it supersedes the “DRAFT Strategic Plan 2005 to 2009”. It was not entered into the Federal Register as an official document, nor as a document for which comments were to be accepted. Since it contradicts the “DRAFT Strategic Plan 2005 to 2009”, one must assume that it is basically a press release or a propaganda document and not a change in the USDA “DRAFT Strategic Plan 2005 to 2009”.

Recommendations;

FPI and NAIS:

The Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association requests the members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to recommend de-funding of the USDA FPI and NAIS programs. If the market actually determines that a NAIS is needed, then let those who wish to participate in such a program fund and operate that program. FPI and NAIS should never become federal mandates.

Recommendation; AHPA:

The Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association requests the members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to implement legislation to repeal the unconstitutional delegation of authority given to the Secretary of Agriculture in the Animal Health Protection Act.

Recommendation; Country of Origin Labeling:

The Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association fully endorses Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). We encourage the members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to go to any sale barn or any meat market and ask the customers if they support Country of Origin Labeling on meat. Undoubtedly you will receive a 99.99 plus positive response for COOL on all meat products. The producers of meat products and consumers of meat products demand immediate COOL implementation.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the concerns of independent animal producers to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

Jane Williams
Hwy. 28
Bluffton, Arkansas 72827
fish@arkwest.com
479-299-4334 (after dark)
http://arkansasanimalproducers.8k.com