|
<Back
| Home | Basics |
Departments | Get
Involved | Site Map | What's
New
Update on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
WESTON A. PRICE FOUNDATION
INFORMATION ALERT
April 10, 2006
WAPF Member and Chapter Leader, Judith McGeary (Austin, TX) has created
a new non-profit organization, The Farm and Ranch Alliance, to lobby
for independent farmers and ranchers on NAIS and other such intrusive
programs (part 1 below). She also provides an up-to-date look at NAIS,
based on a press conference USDA Secretary Mike Johanns held on Thursday,
April 6 (see part 2 below). The good news is that USDA will not propose
regulations in July 2006 for NAIS and the USDA extended the timelines
for the program. The bad news is that the USDA has simply decentralized
the system without significantly changing the requirements
1. The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance:
Leading the Fight Against NAIS
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA), a newly-created nonprofit
organization, will lobby on behalf of independent farmers and ranchers.
For too long, legislators and agency bureaucrats have heard only from
large, corporate producers. Meanwhile, independent producers have been
largely unrepresented.
This lack of representation has culminated in the current problem:
the creation and pending implementation of a national animal identification
system ("NAIS"). NAIS poses a serious threat to all farmers,
ranchers, livestock owners, and companion-animal owners, whether they
are organic or conventional, small or large, involved with animals for
business or for pleasure. Across the country, every person with even
one horse, cow, chicken, pig, goat, sheep, exotic animal or virtually
any other
livestock animal on their premises, will be required to register their
homes and property into a database and subject their property and animals
to government surveillance.
Each animal would be individually identified, physically tagged (in
many cases with radio frequency tags or microchips), and every "event"
in the animal's life (including birth, movement to and from premises,
and death) reported to the government or to a private industry database
that the government has the power to access. The only exception from
individual identification and tracking is that large industrial agricultural
producers will be able to use just one group number for an entire confinement
house of poultry or swine. Small producers, who do not manage their
animals in isolated groups, will not qualify for this convenience.
NAIS does not distinguish between large corporate factory farms and
the smallest family producer, hobby farmer, or the grandmother with
a few laying hens. Many families may be made criminals due to their
religious convictions and concerns over privacy and property rights.
Small and medium-size farmers and ranchers will be driven out of business,
and the consolidation of our food supply into the hands of a few large,
multinational corporations will continue. NAIS must be stopped, and
FARFA
will lead the fight, first in Texas and then at the national level.
Beyond the immediate problem of NAIS, FARFA will continue to serve
as the voice of non-corporate agriculture. The issues are many and varied:
land use regulations, land valuation issues, condemnation of land for
"public purposes," protection of Constitutional rights and
liberties, funding for research, regulation of marketing, and many others.
Priorities will be based both on threats (such as NAIS) and on recognizing,
and
even creating, opportunities for independent ranchers and farmers, whose
work guarantees America's food supply.
Visit FARFA's website at http://www.farmandranchfreedom.org/.
For more information concerning NAIS or FARFA, contact Judith McGeary
at
or (512) 243-2706.
2. Preliminary Analysis of USDA's April 6, 2006 Announcement on NAIS
USDA's press conference on April 6 and the documents released the same
day provide some very good news. USDA will not propose regulations in
July 2006 for NAIS. USDA has also extended the timelines for the program.
These are excellent developments. They mean that we have time: time
to educate people about this program, time to work with our state
agencies, and time to place pressure on our elected officials.
The bad news is that it appears that USDA has simply decentralized
the system without significantly changing the requirements. Perhaps
USDA recognized that handling NAIS as a nationalized program in a single
database was technologically impossible. Perhaps USDA hopes to avoid
a direct challenge to NAIS by not adopting regulations that could be
challenged in court. Or perhaps USDA hopes that those who are against
NAIS
will not be able to effectively oppose a system that is scattered through
50 states and multiple private entities. While the reasons are not clear,
the result is: NAIS will be implemented by the states and private entities,
and USDA will have access to the information through a metadata portal.
This is no less burdensome or intrusive on animal-owners than the original
plan.
The documents released by USDA include "Strategies for the
Implementation of NAIS" ("Strategies") and "Administration
of Official Identification Devices with the Animal Identification Number"
("Administration"). These documents have not been published
in the Federal Register, unlike the Draft Plan and Draft Strategic Standards
from 2005. To review these documents, please see http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml.
A transcript of the press conference can be found here.
While the press release and Strategies document repeatedly discussed
how NAIS is a "voluntary plan," the USDA has set specific
benchmarks. The Strategies states:
USDA will evaluate whether the participation levels are increasing
at rates that will achieve full participation by 2009. Based on that
analysis, USDA will determine if the market-driven incentives, along
with industry "buy-in" for improved animal disease programs,
is resulting in adequate participation and growth rates for NAIS to
be successful by the established target dates. If participation rates
are not adequate, the development of regulations through normal rulemaking
procedures will be
considered to require participation in certain aspects of the program.
(Strategies, p.3, emphasis added.) There is no definition for
"adequate participation" or "growth rates." The
benchmarks are set as follows:
January 2007: 25% of premises registered
January 2008: 70% of premises registered
40% of animals registered
January 2009: 100% of premises registered
100% of "new" animals identified ("New" is defined
as animals born in the last year)
60% of animals < 1 year of age have complete movement data
(Strategies, p.3) "These benchmarks are participation levels APHIS
believes are necessary for the industry, State, and Federal partnership
to successfully achieve the goals and objectives of NAIS." (Strategies,
p.3.) Consistent with the goal of 100% participation, the Administration
document states: "To have a successful animal disease management
program, all producers and affected industry segments will have to participate
eventually." (Administration, p.1, emphasis added.)
In other words, the USDA contends that 100% of premises must be registered
and that all animals born after January 2008 will have to be individually
identified, to meet its goal for January 2009. And if that goal is not
met, we can expect there to be federal regulation. Indeed, by setting
the intermediate benchmarks, if USDA does not think that there is adequate
"growth rates," it may issue proposed regulations even
before 2009. USDA still claims (incorrectly), that it has statutory
authority to implement a mandatory NAIS if it chooses to. (See Transcript
of Tele-News Conference, April 6, 2006; "REPORTER: ... If you wanted
to make this program mandatory, is this something you could do through
the rulemaking process within USDA, or would you actually need Congress
to put out some new legislation? SEC. JOHANNS: We would not. We can
do
that today. We would not need new legislation.")
One of the confusing things about these documents is that USDA appears
to have underestimated the number of premises and animals involved.
The Strategies states that USDA estimates that there are 2 million premises
and 40 million newborn animals annually. This leaves open the slight
possibility that, if USDA reached those numbers, it might choose to
ignore the fact that this would not mean 100% participation. But the
USDA has not bound itself to that limitation. Rather, the Strategies
defines "premises" in essentially the same way as the 2005
Plan:
"[Premises that need to be registered by 2009] includes all locations
that manage and/or hold livestock and poultry." (Strategies, p.4,
emphasis added.)
Moreover, even as it provides these low estimates, the Strategies reiterates
that USDA's goal is for 100% of premises and 100% of new animals to
be registered. (Strategies, p.4-5.) And the USDA maintains its ability
to mandate 100% compliance: "If the marketplace, along with State
and Federal identification programs, does not provide adequate incentives
for achieving complete participation, USDA may be required to implement
regulations." (Strategies, p.3.) Even if USDA were content with
those 2 million registrations and 40 million animal identifications,
many small and medium size producers will have to be included to reach
those numbers, placing the heavy burdens of NAIS on their shoulders.
USDA also appears to be trying to quiet the opposition from the horse
and poultry owners. The Strategies focuses on cattle in its specific
examples (such as estimates of the number of cattle killed each year)
and the Administration document identifies cattle as the priority for
the animal identification stage. But neither document defines "animals."
Thus, we have to rely on the definitions provided in the published plan
from 2005, which would include all livestock, including poultry and
horses. Indeed, the Cooperative Agreement that was also released by
USDA
on April 6 includes the following Purpose statement:
The purpose of this CA [Cooperative Agreement] is to facilitate the
deployment of an information technology infrastructure that will enable
animal health officials to access animal identification, tracking, and
movement data from data sets other than those maintained by the Federal
government as necessary to support animal disease control and eradication
programs of pests or diseases to protect all livestock, i.e., all farm-raised
animals, in the United States. This agreement assists in implementing
an interim/development phase to enable private organizations
and States with systems that meet minimum requirements to participate
in the development of the infrastructure for the timely advancement
of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). (emphasis added)
Similarly, USDA appears to be trying to deflect the criticism of the
technology aspects of NAIS. Thus, the Administration document provides
that non-RFID tags may be used. At the same time, USDA clearly intends
to move the entire program towards electronic identification: "At
this time, USDA views visual identification tags as a starting point
for the identification of cattle to ensure greater participation among
all producers." (Administration, p.5, emphasis added.) Once every
premises is
registered in state and private databases, it would be easy to require
the animal owners to move away from this "starting point"
to the radio tags and microchips that would profit the technology industry.
There is no mention of abolishing the poultry or equine working groups.
Nor is there any change in the composition of the working groups, so
that they remain dominated by the large associations (who are potentially
candidates for operating the private databases at a profit), large agricultural
companies (who want NAIS to improve the export market), and technology
companies (whose self-interest is obvious).
Overall, the April 6th announcements present a small victory, while
still showing how much work is in front of us. We have gained precious
time, and no longer face the imminent threat of regulations. Yet the
USDA has not changed the true substance of NAIS. Rather, we face a fight
in every state to prevent burdensome and pointless regulations, while
still facing the threat of federal regulation if USDA believes that
there is insufficient progress.
For more information, contact:
Judith McGeary
Executive Director
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
8308 Sassman Rd
Austin, TX 78747
(512) 243-2706
http://www.farmandranchfreedom.org/
<Back
| Home | Tour
| Calendar | Contact
Us | Funding | Join
Now
|