Fighting NAIS

[Sandhusker]

Groups Urge Congress to Immediately Halt Any Further Advancement of NAIS;

Also Request Oversight Hearing to Investigate NAIS Activities

Washington, D.C. – In formal correspondence sent today to the leaders of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, two national groups and nine others – all from different states – requested that Congress immediately halt any further advancement of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and to conduct an oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) NAIS activities to carefully and deliberately investigate the full ramifications of USDA's NAIS-related actions and proposals.

"USDA's procedures for advancing and implementing NAIS are improper, if not outright unlawful, and yet, Congress continues to appropriate funding for NAIS, subjecting U.S. farmers and ranchers to extraordinary pressure from USDA to assist the agency in its implementation of an unproven, questionable and potentially cost-prohibitive program that Congress itself has not seen fit to authorize," said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry.

The groups – R-CALF USA, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska, Independent Cattlemen of Iowa, Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming, Buckeye Quality Beef Association, Oregon Livestock Producers Association, Colorado Independent CattleGrowers (sic) Association, Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Independent Beef Association of North Dakota and the Cornucopia Institute – assert that:

* USDA has misrepresented Privacy Act protections to U.S. livestock producers when as early as August 2006, former Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns assured producers their information was protected under the Privacy Act and could not and would not be released, which was false. USDA did not attempt to secure NAIS data under the Privacy Act system of records until April 30, 2008. Additionally, it remains uncertain as to whether such records are entitled to Privacy Act protections.

* USDA has improperly acquired premises registrations by registering premises without farmer or rancher consent. Evidence shows there are likely thousands of citizens whose premises were registered in the NAIS directory against their will or without their knowledge. In Idaho, for example, citizens' information was obtained by tapping into the state's brand database and summarily assigning numbers to brand owners. Also, improper tactics have been directed at minors involved in 4-H to secure NAIS registrations. Therefore, USDA cannot claim that NAIS is voluntary when its own cooperators and contractors are mandating NAIS participation.

* Several states have found it necessary to pass legislation to protect citizens from USDA's NAIS-related advances that promote government-sanctioned animal identification systems. Nebraska passed a law that provides a formalized procedure for citizens to withdraw their premises registrations should the state establish an NAIS-type animal identification system. Kentucky passed a law to prevent release of its citizens' confidential information for the purposes of NAIS. Arizona passed a law to prohibit the state from mandating, or otherwise forcing, participation in NAIS. Missouri passed a law to prohibit the state from mandating, or otherwise forcing, citizens to comply with NAIS premises registration and to authorize citizens to withdraw from NAIS at any time.

* USDA is proceeding without regard to stakeholder cost, liability and confidentiality concerns. Livestock producers already operate on extremely tight profit margins and there have been no studies to determine if NAIS is economically feasible for family farmers and ranchers. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) predicts economic returns to producers will remain negative and could hit -$51.87 per cow by 2012. USDA also claims the sole purpose of NAIS is to have the information to trace an animal disease incident within 48 hours. However, in its Business Plan to Advance NAIS, USDA states it intends to assist meatpackers in transferring NAIS information to carcasses.

"This new purpose for NAIS bears the unmitigated potential to expose individual producers to liability for problems that occur after an animal leaves the farm, which could prove financially devastating to producers should meatpackers or others attempt to share fault along the entire chain of custody for problems they have created themselves," Thornsberry warned.

* USDA's ongoing NAIS activities usurp congressional authority and potentially violate Administrative Procedures Act rules.

"Though numerous bills have been introduced in Congress to authorize USDA to establish some sort of animal identification system, Congress has not acted to delegate any such authorization to USDA," Thornsberry concluded. "R-CALF and many other groups have repeatedly appealed to Congress to cease any further advancement of NAIS, but our requests have gone unheeded. Now we are respectfully, but strongly, urging Congress to immediately halt further advancement of NAIS and to conduct an oversight hearing on USDA's NAIS activities so that the full ramifications of USDA's NAIS-related actions can be carefully and deliberately investigated."

 

[Kathy]

Thanks for this article Sandhusker, I will post it at www.agriville.com "beef production" message board.

I just posted this on message, regarding Alberta's plans to "reign in" the Alberta animal and meat producers; an issue that is going to steam-roll the producers here, and make way for "integration" of USA laws with Canadian laws.

You know I really don't have time to do this today, so bare with my short notes on the subject of implementation of the new "Animal Livestock and Meat Strategy" VIA the as yet, unproclaimed Alberta "Animal Health Act" which was pushed through in the first half of 2007.

Link: http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Acts/A40P2.cfm?frm_isbn=9780779728060

There are approximately 89 references to the word "premises". MOST of the references referring to this subject are prefixed by the word "QUARANTINED".

The Animal Health Act (Bill 32 - 2007)gives the Minister the right to grant "LICENCES".

Under Part 9 Licenses, section 43(4)it reads:

"(4) The Minister may issue a licence under this section for any purpose specified in the regulations and subject to any terms and conditions the Minister considers appropriate."

Think about this one for a while.

Similar to wording in the "Declaration of Applicant" for AgiStability, where-in all the rules and decisions are at the "discretion of the AFSC".

So maybe for now, the Minister says ranchers don't have to have a licence to raise cattle on their land - but really, how long will that last?

(Not just cattle)

At the Minister's discretion via "regulation" this can be changed; a "production licence" will be MANDATORY.

Remember, the AB government can change the regulations without any debate in the Legislature. That's what they like to call "enabling" legislation.

According to the government's website, these are the dates for Bill 32 the AB Animal Health Act:
[note dates are all 2007] -

Bill 32 — Animal Health Act (Groeneveld)
First Reading — 670 (Apr. 19 aft.)
Second Reading — 754-57 (May 1 aft.), 1070 (May 10 aft., passed)
Committee of the Whole — 1520-25 (Jun. 4 eve., passed)
Third Reading — 1710-11 (Jun. 12 aft., passed)
Royal Assent — (Jun. 14 aft.) [Comes into force on proclamation; SA 2007 cA-40.2 ]


Bill 32 HAS NOT been proclaimed as of today (July 23, 2008). What are they waiting for? Just take some time to review the act, while keeping in mind that licencing of "animal and/or meat producers" IS (in my opinion) the end-game. Perhaps even a "supply management system" similar to the dairy industry.

That's the Alberta Advantage folks, NO property rights!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kathy]

I thought I'd also mention, that the Alberta government makes no bones about it. This new Livestock and Meat Strategy with its all encompassing "data base", is to build a "robust" data-base for sharing of information within the industry.

No more secrets... or proprietary know-how.....

One lady from the Canadian Livestock Idenficiation System has quit her job there and told them to fly a kite, as she only helped to push for the Canadian Animal Idenfication System because she was told this information would be kept private and only used in emergencies by the government agencies that would be required to handle these emergencies.

Now, this robust data base is a free for all. When will producers wake up to the massive take-over plans of these multinational corporations. I can live without oil/gas.... I cannot live without food.

 

[Kathy]

I thought I'd also mention, that the Alberta government makes no bones about it. This new Livestock and Meat Strategy with its all encompassing "data base", is to build a "robust" data-base for sharing of information within the industry.

No more secrets... or proprietary know-how.....

One lady from the Canadian Livestock Idenficiation System has quit her job there and told them to fly a kite, as she only helped to push for the Canadian Animal Idenfication System because she was told this information would be kept private and only used in emergencies by the government agencies that would be required to handle these emergencies.

Now, this robust data base is a free for all. When will producers wake up to the massive take-over plans of these multinational corporations. I can live without oil/gas.... I cannot live without food.

 

[MoGal]

Now, this robust data base is a free for all. When will producers wake up to the massive take-over plans of these multinational corporations. I can live without oil/gas.... I cannot live without food.

There you go. People have not woke up to the fact these multinational corporations are taking over all businesses (the rich become richer) in globalizing. NAIS is just a prerequisite to condition the people to becoming NAIS'd themselves. By 2024, the global rich cartel want a cashless society. They will be able to tax you automatically through your NAIS id and make no mistake about it, this is the goal. You won't be able to buy or sell without your "mark". The global rich cartel run the economy, now they want to control the people..... and how do you control people?? with water and food.

Don't believe me? Go search out what the CFR and United Nations say, as the UN is wanting a global food bank. They also want equal parity among all (no one owns agriculture but it belongs to all).

2010 is their goal for a North American Union and you will see more and more laws integrated. If you think I wear a tin foil hat and play in the electric fence all day you're sadly mistaken. I read my Bible and in these times, I've been searching out Bible prophecy. For those of you who are Christians out there let me remind you, we live in God's economy not the world's economy. When you trust in God to provide all your needs and you know everything comes from him is how Christians will survive this chaos. God intends for his children to be above and not beneath, the head and not the tail. That's my thoughts on it.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I'll admit I've been pretty lazy about following the NAIS issue, but after the big brand inspection fiasco in South Dakota I've been getting a lot of information on the issue from my constituents who think NAIS is the ultimate goal in doing away with a reliable hot iron identification system.

I really believe that this is a property rights issue and the more I research the subject, the more upset I become.

Here is one of the articles sent to me that frankly scares me to death:

Protect the Right of Small Farms to Exist -- Stop NAIS!

Do you value the right to revel in the plump, orange yolks of eggs from pasture-raised chickens, rich in fat-soluble vitamins, pigments, and essential fatty acids? Do you value the right to eat beef from cows that have been raised on grass? Do you -- in short -- value the right to be healthy?

I do.

But it might not last very long. The emerging Orwellian police state is expanding to agriculture under our noses, and farming will soon be a privilege rather than a right.

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a program of the USDA, being promoted through the agency's regulatory authority, thus bypassing Congress. It aims to register virtually every animal in the country except a few types of pets in a national database that will have a digital identity much like your social security card and will be tracked by radio frequency ID (RFID) chips implanted under their skin or hung from their ears.

The program is "voluntary" for now, but many state governments already have mechanisms for making it mandatory in place, and some of them are registering "premises" into the database without even notifying the owners. Congress has been complicit in funding it, and in June went even further by slyly sneaking into a funding bill the requirement that school lunch programs only purchase food from farms that are "voluntarily" complying.

The pretense is preventing the spread of disease. But the danger to independent farmers is serious. The dangers range from the predictable effects of the clear intentions of the USDA and the state governments helping to implement the program to the more cynical predictions one could make if one were skeptical of the government's intentions.

One Vermont farmer described the threat in the following way:
Small Farmers who sell direct to their customers will be devastated. Small farmers already work at higher costs than the big factory farms. Under NAIS they'll have to identify each and every animal at a high cost because they can't use the group identification techniques of the big Agri-Biz corporations. The big guys do all-in/all-out animal management. Each mass group of animals are of one gene stock and the same age. The factory farms need only apply for one ID to cover the entire group of thousands of animals. Small, traditional-style farmers have many, genetically diverse animals of different ages on their farms. Each individual animal will be required to have an ID. The result is that the cost of farming will go up greatly for small farmers. This is likely to be the final nail in the coffin of small farming. Developers will be over joyed as they buy up farm land at rock bottom prices to divide up into condos and strip malls. Rural America will turn dingy with pavement. Gone will be the fields, pastures and meadows filled with grazing livestock. Vermont can kiss its tourist industry good-bye.

But it is easy to imagine worse scenarios.

For example, consider the Mexican government's attitude toward its own small farmers, who, thanks to NAFTA and US farm subsidies, are being kicked off their land in droves. A 2003 opinion piece in the New York Times reported the following:
Mexican officials say openly that they long ago concluded that small agriculture was inefficient, and that the solution for farmers was to find other work.
Is it not possible that what Mexican officials say openly US regulatory agencies believe -- but that rather than talking about it they are doing something about it behind the scenes?

After all, Mexican officials may believe that their own small farmers should find other jobs, but American officials are doing most of the work -- like providing the farm subsidies. They don't talk about how they are driving the campesino off his land -- they just do it. Are they doing the same here?

Gun owners fear that plans for registration mean plans for confiscation are in the works. Regardless of whether that's true, registration certainly makes confiscation much more possible to implement.

Registration clearly does not always lead to confiscation. My car is registered, for example. But lots of big businesses make money when I drive my car.

Lots of big businesses, by contrast, would love to wipe out small farms once and forever just to take over their markets. But now that small farms and even larger farms are presenting a pasture-based, organic alternative to the factory farm, making up for volume by charging a larger premium or using direct sales, and providing a product that consumers perceive as healthier and tastier, now these independent farms are actually a threat to big business.

So what happens when, after NAIS has been implemented for a few years, the USDA declares that, to prevent avian flu, all chickens must be kept indoors? How is the farmer whose operation is based on her ability to charge a premium for free-ranging her chickens going to survive?

What happens when the USDA takes up the argument of the FDA's John Sheehan that grass-feeding makes milk more likely to be contaminated with B. cereus, and all dairy cows must therefore, until further notice, be fed exclusively on grain?
What happens when the USDA declares that, due to the threat of some disease, all meat must pass through a centralized clearinghouse for slaughter, and fails to provide sufficient means for separating the grass-fed from the grain-fed meat, and consumers who buy in bulk direct from farmers may no longer trust that their half-cow or full-cow is in fact the grass-fed one they paid for?

If all animals are individually tracked with RFID chips, implementing these practices on a national basis becomes much more possible.

The right for farmers to operate independently from the Big Government system designed to facilitate the Big Business agriculture plan is in danger. Our right to consume the foods we believe are healthy is in danger. Our ability to form tight-knit communities based on local food production is in danger.
And it is our responsibility to preserve these rights. Here are several resources for learning about and working to stop NAIS:
* Liberty Ark Coalition
* NoNais.Org
* StopNAIS.Org
* National Property Owners Association
* Weston A Price Foundation: Stop the NAIS
* Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
* SpyChips RFID Blog: NAIS Archives

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/National-Animal-Identification-System-NAIS.html

 

[PORKER]

NAIS could be gone.

http://www.farmandranchfreedom.org/content/letter_080917

 

[Anonymous]

NAIS could be gone.

http://www.farmandranchfreedom.org/content/letter_080917

I didn't see NCBA's name on that letter- Did I miss it :???: Or are they still supporting creating more/bigger Federal Bureaucracy at a huge cost to taxpayers and producers :???:

 

[Tex]

I think we need to go further than getting rid of the NAIS program. We need to get rid of the USDA attorneys who represent the AMI in public U.S. agriculture policy.

First we need to make sure they are in our National Corporate Fascist Government for Sale To Highest Bidder data base so we can track them.

I don't think one of porker's identity implants is enough. Send them to Montana and brand them so we can tell who they are. A big T, no wait, that might get confused with the great state of Texas-- A big TYSON/AMI CRONY brand should suffice. If it doesn't do the job, we could add a few more letters.

 

[PORKER]

AVMA Urges Veterinarians to Support National Animal Identification System
SCHAUMBURG, IL — The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is showing its strong support for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) by urging veterinarians to actively participate in the system and utilize the new Veterinarian's Toolkit.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (USDA-APHIS) Veterinarian's Toolkit is an online resource developed by veterinarians for veterinarians. It provides a myriad of information including a detailed guide to how NAIS works and resources to help communicate its importance and benefits to producers.

"The AVMA fully supports a national livestock identification system. This toolkit will help ensure that both veterinarians and producers are on the same page when it comes to protecting our nation's livestock," says Dr. Ron DeHaven, Chief Executive Officer of the AVMA. "We're asking veterinarians, particularly those working with livestock, to become involved in the NAIS program, to register their own hospitals in addition to their premises and animals, and also to encourage their clients to register their animals and premises. No one carries more credibility with animal owners than veterinarians."

A Veterinarian's Toolkit includes factsheets and "conversation-starter tips" to help veterinarians inform their clients about the NAIS and why it is so vitally important to our national security. The online toolkit will be updated by USDA-APHIS and provides links to other relevant resources.

The NAIS is designed to help producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal health events in the United States. NAIS utilizes premises registration, animal identification, and animal tracing to locate animals that may have been exposed to disease and remove from suspicion animals that are not a threat.

"The NAIS is an essential tool for tracking down all animals impacted by a disease outbreak," Dr. DeHaven explains. "A disaster is not the time to start planning, and we can't afford to wait until the next disease outbreak to participate in this critical national identification program."

For more information about the NAIS, visit www.usda.gov/nais. For more information about the AVMA and its programs, please visit www.avma.org.

 

[horsein]

http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/audience/vets/vets_toolkit.shtml

What the USDA wants the Vets to tell to their customers and of course more
selling of the NAIS.

 

[Anonymous]

"The AVMA fully supports a national livestock identification system. This toolkit will help ensure that both veterinarians and producers are on the same page when it comes to protecting our nation's livestock," says Dr. Ron DeHaven, Chief Executive Officer of the AVMA. "We're asking veterinarians, particularly those working with livestock, to become involved in the NAIS program, to register their own hospitals in addition to their premises and animals, and also to encourage their clients to register their animals and premises. No one carries more credibility with animal owners than veterinarians."

The same Ron DeHaven who used to be the head vet for the USDA- in the continuing cycle of go from industry to government and back- continuing the Corporate Fascist takeover of our Republic-- and who at the bequest of the Packers thru out a 10 year BSE study and policy to help the Meat Mafia profiteer......

This idiot didn't even know what a S-A-N-T-A G-E-R-T-R-U-B-I-S was-....I'm not sure any ear tag could help him.....

 

[Kathy]

There is an article in "Acres USA" magazine, June 2008 issue, which I just saw and found fascinating.

The article is called "The Road to Serfdom" by Charles Walters and it includes a transcript of a speech given by John Carter from the Australian Beef Association (ABA).

John states that Australia has had premise ID since 1980. He goes on to state that the system is in shambles and the database is "garbage in - garbage out"....


John C. also stated that Australian producers were receiveing about 60% the value for their cattle, as compared to the Americans.

Perhaps I'll post the whole article, if I get some time. I highly recommend this magazine to you all. Their concerns are reflective of many producers - no matter what country you are from.

Here is a link to the Australian Beef Association. Brad Bellinger is their top guy, right now, and here is his bio. There are bios for all their directors. I note that Linda Hewitt - is mentioned in John Carter's comments in Acres. He states that the Hewitts run 15,000 head of cattle. When their stations was flooded out by the rains, and cattle were scattered helter-skelter, the good old "firebrand" was used to sort out the cattle. Then the veterinarians and bureacrats stepped in and told the owners that before they could take their cattle back home, they would be have to be RFID tagged with a special tag, to show that there was no continuity in their "ownership"/"history". This special tag, would then allow the packers to discount those cattle - according to John.

Australians were told they had to implement an animal ID program because the USA was going to and the USA would take away their markets.... Perhaps there are some past shows from the Derry Brownfield radio program with these guys on, which can be downloaded from their archives?

Brad Bellinger, ASA director, (according to Derry Brownfield), has expressed deep concern over the Australian government's plans to bring to their isolated continent, research on Foot and Mouth and other diseases which Australia does NOT suffer from. They are concerned the disease(s) will be released into their herds, just as it was in the UK - from the labs manufacturing vaccines, and doing research on these diseases.

This mirrors the concerns of American producers who are faced with the move of the 'isolated' Plumb Island research facilities for infectious animal diseases to Manhattan, Kansas (which happens to be the geographical center of the USA).

http://www.austbeef.com.au/Content.asp?regID=15403&id=73371

DIRECTOR PROFILES

Brad Bellinger (Chairman): Oxley

Brad Bellinger grew up on his Family's mixed grazing farm in Tasmania. He jackarooed at Forbes, before attending Marcus Oldham Agricultural College, graduating in 1987. He returned to the family property, taking on a joint management role, until purchasing his own property in northern Victoria in 1994. Here, he was involved with grain production, fat lambs, wool, and cattle trading. In 2001 he sold that property purchased a grazing property called Trevanna near Glen Innes in northern New South Wales. Trevanna runs 5000 sheep and 500 head of cattle.
In Tasmania, he was involved in the Wool Floor price debates and was also involved in a successful campaign against the introduction of Land Tax on rural property. Eventually the tax was dropped. He has been continually dismayed at the increasing erosion of farmers' rights over the past 20 years and although he participated in the farmer protests of 1985, which saw the formation of the NFF and associated state farming organisations, he has been disappointed in the effectiveness of these groups. He feels the mandatory introduction of NLIS is the final straw in a long list of government lead infringements on his right to farm and the ability to run to run his enterprises in a manner, which he sees, fit.
In 2004, he conducted 2 polls in order to gauge the feelings of producers on mandatory NLIS. One poll was undertaken at the Inverell saleyards, where 88 people voted, 87 against NLIS and only 1 in favour. The second poll was conducted through the Land Newspaper, where 1877 voted against NLIS and 22 in favour. He took these results to the Minister for Agriculture in NSW, Ian McDonald, who ignored them. The Minister is completely oblivious to the democratic process, which Brad believes should be the policy driver for new legislation placed upon farmers.
In November 2004, he was appointed as Vice Chairman of the Australian Beef Association. In this position, he will endeavour to campaign against legislation, which infringes upon his right to farm and the manner in which he raises and sells his livestock.

John Carters article in Acres, also mentioned a poll that was done by other parties, it turned out this poll was hacked by members of the Meat and Livestock Association - and the numbers which were very much "against" mandatory animal identification, were switched around to show a favourable response. The hackers were caught, but not punished.

 

[pointrider]

This is from Sandhusker's original post that started this thread:

"* USDA is proceeding without regard to stakeholder cost, liability and confidentiality concerns. Livestock producers already operate on extremely tight profit margins and there have been no studies to determine if NAIS is economically feasible for family farmers and ranchers. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) predicts economic returns to producers will remain negative and could hit -$51.87 per cow by 2012. USDA also claims the sole purpose of NAIS is to have the information to trace an animal disease incident within 48 hours. However, in its Business Plan to Advance NAIS, USDA states it intends to assist meatpackers in transferring NAIS information to carcasses.

"This new purpose for NAIS bears the unmitigated potential to expose individual producers to liability for problems that occur after an animal leaves the farm, which could prove financially devastating to producers should meatpackers or others attempt to share fault along the entire chain of custody for problems they have created themselves," Thornsberry warned. "

This is what it's all about, folks. For many years already, distributors such as Sysco and U.S. Foodservice required their suppliers to have huge product liability insurance policies to protect them in cases of food-borne illness, etc. This is just simply passing the liability down to the lowest level and covering their b****. Vertically integrated ag producers (do both production and processing) (e.g. large, commercial egg producers with inline complexes) have been required to have liability insurance policies for many years already.