A New Threat to Rural FreedomMary Zanoni , Ph.D. , J.D.
low farmers and homesteaders have chosen their way of life of life because they love their exemption — the freedom from urban noise and congestion , the independency from daily politics and incarnate interference , the self - reliance of providing one ’s own shelter , water and food . Now the USDA ’s National Animal Identification System ( NAIS ) is poise to threaten the traditional freedom comrade with the rural life style .
special ! Extra !
Just prior to this issue going to press , HFparticipated in a roundtable discussion on March 8 , 2006 with the USDA ’s Neil Hammerschmidt , NAIS coordinator , Dore Mobley , APHIS public involvement specialist and Dr. John Weimers , Senior Staff Officer .
Mobley indicated that the USDA has received hundreds of thousands of emails from interested small-scale farmers , and those electronic mail are being forwarded to working group . Regarding the beast - ID component of NAIS , Hammerschmidt betoken there are species exercise groups analyzing the point for how each specie / animal will need to be identified ( ear tag , microprocessor chip , etc . ) ; tracking and apparent motion constituent are being discourse in working groups make up of industry representatives and stakeholder . Mobley posit that the groups involve not only be comprised of manufacture representative and stakeholder — that the median citizen can request to be on a panel — they are all voluntary positions .
When presented with unlike animal - crusade scenarios ( such as taking your sawhorse out for a track ride ) , Hammerschmidt indicate that nothing is concrete and that the USDA is work with the focus groups .
principal Requirements of the NAISThe NAIS would require two types of mandatory enrolment . First , premiss enrolment would take every soul who owns even one sawbuck , moo-cow , pig , chicken , sheep , pigeon or well-nigh any livestock animal , to cross-file their dwelling , including owner ’s name , speech and telephone number , and be matched to Global Positioning System ( GPS ) coordinates ( for satellite - assist position of homes and farms ) in a federal database under a 7 - digit “ premises ID number . ” ( Standards , pp . 3 - 4 , 10 - 12 ; Plan , p. 5 . ) Second , item-by-item animal designation will require proprietor to obtain a 15 - finger’s breadth ID number , also to be kept in the federal database , for any animal that ever leaves the premises of its birth . Thus , even if you are raising animal only for your own food , you will be want to prevail an individual ID to send animals to a slaughterhouse , to betray or grease one’s palms animals , to obtain stud service , etc . prominent - scale producer will be allowed to name big groups of animal ( for example pigs or broiler ) raised and processed together by a single chemical group ID number .
However , owners raise single animal or a small number of animals , under most circumstances will have to identify each animate being individually for purposes of slaughter , cut-rate sale or breeding . If you own a non - food animal such as a horse , you would need an single ID if you ever allow your property for veterinary charge , shows or trail rides . The word form of ID will most in all probability be an ear shred or microchip hold in a Radio Frequency Identification machine , design to be read from a space . ( Plan , p. 10 ; Standards , pp . 6 , 12 , 20 , 27 - 28 . ) In addition to this “ electronic identification , ” the USDA will allow “ industry ” to decide whether to expect the utilization of “ retinal CAT scan ” and “ deoxyribonucleic acid ” identification for all animals . ( Plan , p.13 . )
Within this scheme , for animate being subject to individual brute identification , the animal owner would be required to report : The birthdate of an animal , the program of every animal ’s ID tag , each time an animate being leaves or enters the belongings , each time an animate being loses a tag , each time a tag is replaced , the walloping or destruction of an animal , or if any animal is missing . Such events must be account within 24 hr . ( Standards , pp . 12 - 13 , 17 - 21 . ) The USDA plans “ enforcement ” to ensure compliance with the NAIS . ( Standards , p. 7 ; Plan , p. 17 . ) The USDA has not yet destine the nature of this “ enforcement , ” but presumptively it would let in amercement and/or raptus of creature .
A more recent ontogeny is a trend , spearheaded by the National Cattlemen ’s Beef Association , to “ privatise ” the database which will contain all the assumption and animate being identification information and tracking information . As reported in Lancaster Farming , Aug. 6 , 2005 , p. due east 22 , the NCBA has lobbied the House Agriculture Committee to urge the USDA to put the NAIS database administration into the ascendence of the NCBA itself . As explained below , such “ denationalisation ” will only worsen the chance for invasion of privacy and economic pressures on small farmers and homesteader .
Any “ Benefits ” of the NAISThe NIAA and USDA claim two master benefit of the NAIS : First , raise export food market for U.S. livestock product ; and secondly , allowing traceback to farms of fauna ’ origin when fauna diseases ( such as BSE ) are found . These “ benefit ” are of no use to most diminished Fannie Farmer and squatter . pocket-size farmers and homesteader deal to their neighbors or consume their animal products themselves — they do n’t profit from “ exportation market . ” diminished farmers and nester bring up their creature in born and healthy precondition — usually on pasture , with minimum home - raised or constitutional metric grain , with plenty of space for utilization and dispersion of wastefulness – to secure that problem like BSE and bacterial taint wo n’t pass in the home - raise animals specify for their own tables .
Indeed , the NAIS “ traceback ” system would be much less efficient against BSE than a system of rules of prove every butcher cow . Europe and Japan do examination of every cow . The USDA has refused such examination ; but surely the testing would be less expensive than a vast trailing system monitoring every cow , horse , donkey , llama , alpaca , squealer , sheep , goat , pigeon , chicken , duck’s egg , farmed fish , etc .
Moreover , the NAIS system would be of no function at all in make out with the most vulgar type of meat contamination in the United States , the occurrence of pathogen such as listeria orE. coliin processed meat . One exemplar of such contaminant can be found atwww.fsis.usda.gov/Fsis_recalls , 2005 recalls nos . 033 - 2005 and 040 - 2005 . Those incident involved over one million lbf. ( enough to dish out at least 4 million the great unwashed ) of ground beef cattle contaminated with coliform bacteria , distributed nationally by a single processor . Such instances of contamination are not see until the heart and soul has been distributed into the supply chain . Assuming that a cow yields 500 pounds of ground substance , the one million pounding in the foregoing recalls symbolize meat from over 2,000 cows . There is no mode to identify individual cow from 1 million pounds of contaminated beefburger ; no way to tell if any contamination came from a cow , multiple cows , or from the processing itself ; and no benefit to consumer safety in such a office from the NAIS organisation . In total , when meat turns up contaminate at a expectant packing works , millions of consumers in all 50 DoS can be exposed to the grave mathematical product . In contrast , an incident of impaired food at a small - scale farm or local processor might affect only a few 12 consumers in a single county . Thus , by encouraging increased integration of the meat industry , the NAIS would actually make America ’s solid food provision more unstable and less safe .
It is therefore clear that the benefits of the NAIS are illusory . Unfortunately , the harms of the NAIS are very real , and fall in the main upon the smallest farmers , homesteaders and consumers .
Bioterrorism Rules to Affect More Than Just Livestock OwnersThe Union government ’s cause to protect the nation ’s nutrient supplying seem to have impacted everyone from backyard farmers to large - scale farm animal producers . Now it will touch even more agricultural producer — hay growers . accord to a Food and Drug Administration spokesman , even granger who trade only hay must be in accordance with the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 ; primarily with their record keeping . Any hay - growing mathematical process with more than 11 full - time employee must record the field that each load of hay come from ; the truck that hauled the hay ; the name and contact information of the equipment driver , and the people who help load and set down it ; the name and reference of the hay emptor ; and the date the hay make it . The finish of this political program is the same as the animal ID : To be able to trace any feed contamination problem back to its source . According to the 2002 law , it applies to “ someone that manufacture , cognitive operation , pack , transport , distribute , encounter , hold or import food . ” creature provender is included in the FDA definition of nutrient . food grain elevators , provender manufacturers , alfalfa mainframe and other businesses that work or depot farm products must also comply . The effectuation appointment for hay grower with more than 11 employees is June 6 , 2006 ; little operations must comply by December 9.–SECThe Harms of the NAIS Are Very RealThe NAIS will drive small producers out of the market , will prevent people from promote animals for their own food , will infest Americans ’ personal privacy , and will violate the religious freedom of Americans whose notion make it impossible for them to comply .
Bioterrorism rule to bear upon More Than Just Livestock Owners
The federal government ’s endeavour to protect the Carry Amelia Moore Nation ’s intellectual nourishment supplying seem to have impacted everyone from backyard farmers to great - graduated table livestock producers . Now it will impact even more farming producers — hay growers .
According to a Food and Drug Administration spokesman , even sodbuster who trade only hay must be in accordance with the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 ; mainly with their record keeping .
Any hay - grow operation with more than 11 full - metre employee must record the field that each cargo of hay came from ; the motortruck that hauled the hay ; the name and contact entropy of the driver , and the people who helped load and unload it ; the name and reference of the hay purchaser ; and the engagement the hay get in .
The goal of this program is the same as the animal ID : To be able to trace any feed taint problem back to its source . According to the 2002 law , it applies to “ mortal that manufacture , summons , pack , transport , spread , have , hold or spell food . ” brute feed is include in the FDA definition of food .
texture elevators , feed manufacturers , Medicago sativa central processing unit and other concern that process or storage farm products must also comply .
The execution date for hay growers with more than 11 employees is June 6 , 2006 ; little operations must comply by December 9.–SEC
The NAIS will produce an unjust economic encumbrance on humble farmers and nester because animal possessor will bear the cost of property and animal registration . As the USDA frankly admits , “ there will be price to producers ” ( Plan , p. 11 ) ; “ individual funding will be demand . . . . producer will identify their animals and render necessary records to the databases . . . . All group will need to provide labor . ” ( Plan , p. 14 . ) In sum , there is no realistic chance of government funding to cover the costs of the program once it is established , and animal owners will have to give the tab for premises registration fee , individual animal ID fee , report fee for events such as animals leaving a given premise or being butcher , and for equipment such as RFID rag , tag readers or software needed to account to the database . The suggest privatization of the NAIS would only decline the economical load , since a secret database holder would certainly want to make some net income from the system .
The NAIS would also , in fact , lessen rather than amend the security of America ’s brute foods . The NAIS is tout by the USDA and agricorporations as a way to make our food provision “ impregnable ” against diseases or terrorism . However , most people instinctively understand that real solid food security comes from raising food yourself or buying from a local farmer you actually know . The USDA plan will only suffocate local sources of production through over - regulating and additional costs . Ultimately , if the NAIS goes into effect , more consumers will have to buy food produced by the large - scale industrial methods which multiply the effects of any food rubber and disease problems . Moreover , the NAIS system of rules will create chance for havoc , such as the measured introduction of diseased animal into farm check large issue of one metal money .
Perhaps the most troubling facial expression of the NAIS is its proponents ’ lack of concern for single secrecy and religious freedom . Consider that the NAIS plan is a compulsory readjustment with the government of all multitude who want to raise their own animal foods . Concededly , the Bill of Rights does not contain a constitutional amendment specifically to protect one ’s rightfield to produce one ’s own solid food . But that is only because the beginner could never have imagined a rural area that would compel citizens to essentially ask for government permission to produce their own food .
Further , consider that livestock animals are a legal form of personal property . It is unprecedented for the United States authorities to conduct enceinte - scale information processing system - aided surveillance of its citizens but because they own a vernacular type of property . ( The only elision are registration of motor vehicles and guns , due to their cleared inherent risk — but they are registered at the DoS level , not by the Union government . )
Surveillance of small - scale farm animal owners is like the politics subject people to surveillance for owning a sofa , a TV , a lawnmower , or any item of personal dimension . Moreover , privatization of the NAIS will sure enough lead in the same consummate abuses already plain in secret databases of financial data — the sales event of citizens ’ most personal data , without their knowledge , to the highest bidder ; and the vulnerability of citizen ’ information to cyberpunk and stealer .
The NAIS also violates America ’s tradition of respect for the religious freedom of members of nonage - religion communities . Many adherent of unpatterned ( and other ) faiths raise their own food animals and use creature in farming and transportation because their beliefs require them to live this way ( e.g. the Amish ) . Such people plainly can not comply with the USDA ’s computerize , technology - dependant system of rules ; and many of them also believe that biblical teachings or other religious tenets prohibit the marking of animate being or homes with gamey - technical school numbering system of rules . The NAIS will force these mass to plunder their religious beliefs , by compelling them to make an impossible pick between abandoning the stock ownership necessary to their religious way of biography , or accepting the administration ’s imposition of practices against their faith .
The USDA ’s Planned NAIS TimetableThe following is the USDA ’s timetable , as prepare forth in the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards on April 25 , 2005 , for implementing the mandatory NAIS . basically , the USDA timetable would make premises identification and individual animate being identification mandatory as of January 1 , 2008 . Please note that there can be no assurance that the USDA will not advance ( or delay ) the previously announced timetable . In addition , the USDA timetable may take issue from that of case-by-case body politic , which have had the incentive of allot money from the USDA to establish pilot projects of premises and animal identification . ( For lesson , Wisconsin is seek to compel premise and animal identification by belated 2005 or during 2006 . )
April 2005 – the USDA issued its Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards for public gossip . The public remark full stop for those document ended in former July 2005 .
Fall 2007 – the USDA plans to bring out a “ net principle ” to establish the requirements of the mandatory NAIS . ( Plan , p. 10.)January 2008 – this is the most crucial escort in the USDA ’s present timetable , the date when premises designation and brute identification would become mandatory . ( Plan , pp . 2 , 10 . )
January 2009 – “ animal tracking ” would become mandatory , including “ enforcement ” of the reporting of animate being movements . ( Plan , p. 17 . )
How to Oppose the NAISThere is still time to oppose compulsory premises and animal designation . Small - scale steward of livestock can take action to make an efficient motion in opposition to the USDA / agricorporate plan . First , small - scale livestock owners should not enter in any “ voluntary ” state or Union political platform to register farms or animals . The USDA is using Fannie Farmer ’ supposed willingness to move into a “ voluntary ” programme as a justification for making the plan mandatary . ( See Plan , “ Executive Summary ” and pp . 7 - 8 . ) If a country or university extension official urges registration of your premise or livestock , question them about whether the registration is mandatory or voluntary and about any deadline for enrollment ; and ask them for a copy of the legislation or rule found any claim authorization to require such enrolment .
Small farmers and livestock owners can also help inform and prepare others . The USDA presently does not project to finalize its rules to instal mandatory ID until the summer of 2006 . ( As stated above , private state of matter , such as Wisconsin , may be planning earlier effectuation , but even in such states , far-flung dissent by fauna owner can still sham whether plans become permanent and whether reasonableexceptions may be establish . ) animate being owners should contact strain associations , constitutive and sustainable farming organizations , or world-wide farming stake groups and ask them to oppose the NAIS . Also ask such organizations to start or support campaigns of varsity letter - written material to officials and of commenting on the USDA rules schedule to be put out in summer 2006 ( and any similar state rules ) .
NAIS antagonist can also individually spell their federal and state legislator . you may find contact information for both federal and state officials throughwww.vote-smart.orgor through the federal governance ’s site , www.firstgov.gov . Remember , the schematic wiseness is that case-by-case letters send by postal chain mail carry more free weight than e - mails or signal form letters . But any input is more useful than no input , so if you do n’t have time for an item-by-item letter , use e - post , phone , group request or any means you could . Also remember that both single go-ahead and group initiatives enumerate , so even after you have sent a varsity letter , continue , if you’re able to , to respond to margin call for action asking you to send additional messages to government officials .
In picky , the USDA ’s planned issuance of a NAIS rule for public input in July 2006 will be a crucial crossroads . Be aware of pressure coverage or activity alarm at that prison term , and when you hear that the public scuttlebutt full stop on a NAIS rule is open , please take the metre to defer an individual scuttlebutt .
Finally , if the time comes when the NAIS ( or a state equivalent ) is about to go into effect as presently planned , and you feel your right are being violated , you’re able to touch groups that may ply effectual theatrical without cost . Some sources of data to try are : ( 1 ) Farmers ’ Legal Action Group , www.flaginc.org , ( 651 ) 223 - 5400 ; ( 2 ) the American Civil Liberties Union , www.aclu.org ; for the ACLU in your country , see the rive - down carte on the bottom of that page , under “ your local ACLU ” ; and ( 3 ) the American Bar Association ’s guide to legal services;www.abanet.org / legalservices / findlegalhelp / home.cfm .
This information is not mean to provide legal advice . sound advice can only be given by a lawyer certify to practice in your state and conversant with your particular circumstances .
