Yesterday, a reader wrote me to express concern “that all the attention that has been placed on raw milk has pulled people’s attention away from the NAIS (National Animal Identification System) issue. And I have begun to wonder if this isn’t being used as one of the ways to sneak the NAIS stuff through in the farm bill while people are otherwise occupied with another issue.”
Well, I may have neglected NAIS in recent months, but the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund hasn’t. Shortly after I received the reminder, the FTCLDF made its first foray beyond raw milk cases, announcing its intention to file a major suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Michigan Department of Agriculture over enforcement of NAIS in Michigan.
USDA and MDA have cooperated over the last few years to make Michigan in effect a prototype for the full NAIS program of premises and animal regisration. I wrote extensively about the MDA’s grueling effort to implement NAIS in Michigan via its campaign to force cattle farmer Greg Niewendorp to place RFID tags on his animals—ostensibly to control bovine tuberculosis. (For background, search this blog under “Niewendorp.”)
Under rules of engagement in these types of things, the FTCLDF must first file a Notice of Intent, which asks the USDA and the MDA to “immediately suspend the funding and implementation of NAIS” and to “fully and fairly examine” whether NAIS is really necessary. If the government refuses to go along with the FTCLDF request to halt implementation of NAIS and re-evaluate the program (which, given the huge commitment already made, seems highly unlikely), then the fund will push ahead with a suit in a federal or state court, on behalf of Michigan farm owners affected by NAIS and the bovine TB program.
In a 25-page Notice of Intent document explaining its reasoning, the FTCLDF argues that the federal government “has been taking concrete actions to implement NAIS for several years now. For example, USDA has been providing conditional funding and technical support to States that implement the program. Another strategy has been to make NAIS mandatory through existing, mandatory animal disease control programs, as has been done with the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) bovine tuberculosis (‘TB’) program.”
The FTCLDF accuses USDA of violating federal rule-making policies, as well as federal environmental policies. It also accuses both the USDA and MDA, in setting up NAIS in Michigan, of preparing to violate the fourth and fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
“Not only has Michigan gone way beyond the bounds of scientifically-based TB eradication in cattle, but by its terms the requirements have been broadened to cover all livestock. Specifically, the MOU {memorandum of understanding with USDA} also requires MDA to ‘[u]tilize State authority to randomly intercept and inspect vehicles that are transporting livestock on public roads within Michigan for compliance with State and Federal split state status requirements and this MOU.’ The Animal Health Protection Act expressly states that USDA does not have authority to stop and inspect vehicles transporting livestock without a warrant or probable cause to believe that the vehicle is carrying an animal which may be regulated or under quarantine. 7 U.S.C. § 8307(b). This constitutes a possible violation of the Animal Health Protection Act and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution which protect against unreasonable searches and seizure and the taking of private property without just compensation.”
The FTCLDF in its statement also begins to make a connection to raw milk, and other nutrient-dense foods, by arguing at length that small farms that produce such products are much less polluting than large agribusiness operations. It adds:
“There are also many health benefits provided by small farms. Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that grass-fed meats, eggs, and dairy products provide health benefits that outweigh similar products from animals fed grain in CAFOs. Consumers also choose locally produced foods for what many believe to be the superior culinary value of fresh, locally grown or raised foods. The FTCLDF is dedicated to preserving and protecting the right of all Americans to make informed choices regarding their health and well being and the food they eat, and to do so in a manner that is free from burdensome governmental intrusion.”
In the final analysis, the FTCLDF is doing something similar to what it’s been doing in its cases challenging state restrictions on distribution and sale of raw milk: demanding that judges review the arbitrary rules, arbitrarily enforced, by arbitrary bureaucrats in the hip pockets of agribusiness.
time to cook three days’ rations and saddle up. this will be a long one.
here is ref:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7570.cfm
On another note. My blog had a hit from state.pa.us on the search term linzey raw milk. From a comment on my own blog we find that
http://henwhisperer.blogspot.com/2007/09/we-will-not-comply-two-nais-resistors.html
Painted Hand Farm http://paintedhandfarm.blogspot.com/
said…
People are completely unaware of the truth of the Mark Nolt matter. He does not only sell milk and products direct from his farm. He goes to public farmers market and sells THOUSANDS of dollars of raw milk. Secondly, it was not his raw milk that was filthy, but his value-added products such as his raw milk butter–some of the worst that had ever been tested by Bill Chirdon. And third, Nolt pioneered the use of labor contracts, which were blessed by PDA as long as the farmer held a raw milk permit. That labor contract was written by attorney, Tom Linzey of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (www.celdf.org), but chose instead to eschew this in favor of breaking the law. There are currently 76 farmers in Pennsylvania legally producing raw milk. Many of them are even smaller operations than that of the Nolts. His actions are nothing more than a slap in the face to those who take the time and effort to LEGALLY and CLEANLY produce raw milk.
————
I have to wonder if they are going to go after Mr. Linzey now,
kings bishop to g5+
i don’t get all the credit. our newest board member, marc stimpert, wrote the brunt of the letter. i just massaged it a bit! this was definitely a collaborative effort by a whole lot of people. 🙂
Bob Hayles
I’ve sent messages out all day. Yahoo groups, my elists, personal emails. Yet I’ve hardly seen a blip on the radar. I too like Henwhisperer, want to know if this part of the world is awake. Has it made a ripple yet?
-Blair
I would be surprised if the agencies do/say anything; it’s highly unlikely, with $118 million spent so far. They’ll probably just sit tight to see how serious things really get. Basically, you can’t sue the government in this situation until you give them this kind of a notice. So this is the first step. We will need lots of patience, resources and time to see it through to its proper end.
I’m totally confused here…why is animal identification controversial? I guess there is the invasion of privacy, but a quick search revealed that big ag industry is against the program too (or wants to keep the information secret).
Thanks and sorry for my ignorance in case this has been covered already.
C2
I’d be interested in your citations where you’ve found big ag is against it. Maybe they will join FTCLDF in opposing this program, although I’m not holding my breath. Seriously, take the time to read the Notice. I think you’ll find it very interesting.
Thanks for the information. The opposition I heard related to keeping data collected by the government on farms and animals confidential and the costs of the program. But, digging around it looks like the very large industry groups (AMI, etc.) support NAIS now. I stumbled across the links below trying to find more–maybe related to bullet 10 below.
10. Privacy and property rights. NAIS would create the first permanent federal registration system for land and personal property. It would require reporting of normal, daily events in peoples lives
Farm Bill Blocks Court-Ordered Release Of
Subsidy Program Data Under FOIA
http://www.mulchblog.com/2008/05/farm_bill_blocks_court-ordered.php
A provision secretly tucked into the Farm Bill Conference Report (Sec. 1619, "Information Gathering") nullifies a recent, major federal appeals court decision under the Freedom of Information Act that ordered USDA to make public large amounts of data crucial to monitoring the economic and environmental impacts of multi-billion-dollar farm subsidy and conservation programs.
Info of Farm Bill Federal FOIA Exemption
http://foiadvocate.blogspot.com/2007/11/info-of-farm-bill-federal-foia.html
BARRE, MA – The Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc. (NOFA/Mass) called upon Senators Kerry and Kennedy this week to reject a provision in the 2008 farm bill, which recently passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, that would criminalize disclosure of information from the USDA’s new proposed program, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
Concerning secrets, my own personal theory (note: this is not part of the FTCLDF Notice to Sue) is that Big Ag would find NAIS very handy, should the day of cloned animals come to pass commercially, to prove the genetics (i.e., the property, in the cloned-animal=intellectual-property sense) of a particular animal, thereby making it a handy infrastructure of proof by which the "owners" of the genetics from a cloned animal could prove "infringement" of their property rights. Monsanto does this all the time by suing farmers into whose field some neighbor’s GMO seed has drifted. Just as surely as seed drifts, so do bulls get through fences and "into" the neighbors cows – it happens all the time. I recently helped round up a bull (who went off to slaughter, since the offending neighbor consistently was unable to keep the bull fenced-in) whose mean-spirited genes were not appreciated by the farmer whom I assisted. Picture this kind of tiff transformed by cloning and tracking systems, so that if the bull contains genes from a clone and is thereby subject to a limited license, Presto, lawsuit, and NAIS would be the way to prove it. The farmer whose cows ended up with that trespassing bull’s genes would not just suffer actual damage (as with my mean-spririted example, namely the herd being degraded by undesirable traits), he would instead suffer the monetary insult of having the offending farmer’s licensor suing for infringement. Brave New World. Aside from the obvious (to me anyway) advantages of a universal registration system by which such genetics (property rights) could be traced, I believe the patenting of life-forms is not just immoral, but a sacrilege. No human being (or corporation) "owns" life.
Unique, identifying numbers and RFID chips need to be assigned to all farmers, farm or CAFO employees, veterinarians, milk haulers, hoof trimmers, feed deliverers, USDA and state inspectors and regulators, fieldmen, organic certification inspectors, and any visitors that may set foot on a farm that may some day test positive for a disease. Since these humans are much more mobile than the animals, it would be necessary to place GPS trackers in any vehicles that they may use and the NAIS database must be sized to accommodate position data of these vectors on a fairly frequent basis. This data could be augmented by storing the tracking of the cell phones that many of these vectors carry, though the cell phone positions would not be sufficient since the phones run out of charge or get left in odd places.
The air flowing over farms and CAFOs, which does carry disease organisms, could initially be tracked meteorologically by estimating air parcel trajectories from routine weather analyses and weather radar data. As NAIS technology and comprehensiveness improves, it might be possible to continuously emit a plume of traceable dust, such as the minute traceable particles placed in explosives to enhance forensic analyses of explosive crimes, from a suitable stack or chimney near the several herds.
Similarly, there will need to be tracers to put in the rain water running off the backs and noses of the herds (and in the effluents from larger operations) that could be monitored and accumulated in the NAIS disease tracking database.
Unfortunately, much of this tracking cannot be accomplished until much more powerful satellites are in place to query the many RFID tags and air and water masses flowing between farms and the transmitters in the RFID chips will need to be improved to send the relevant data back to the monitoring satellites. The positive side to a NAIS expansion is that such a large database will require many technical employees to maintain the hardware and also require many skilled analysts to map, study and model the various transmission routes. Gotta stop here or I might talk myself into giving up farming and getting in on the ground floor of the NAIS Enterprise.
Bob Hayles
Great mix of sarcasm and science (principles of disease transmission). DC might like your proposal. And, it could provide a job if kicked out of public health for moving slightly to the raw milk side 🙂 The requirement for smaller farms to ID individual animals while larger groups of livestock get a group status seems influenced by powerful corporations.
C2
NAIS is about money, pure and simple, and it is at bottom about Mad Cow and beef. When Johannes was ag sec he stated repeatedly, over and over, that his number one priority was re-opening foreign markets to American beef, which had quite rightly been banned by a number of countries in the wake of the discovery of Mad cow in the US.
A big part of re-opening those markets was demonstrating a move toward a national id which was and is required by many foreign countries. The big meatpackers want to put the burden of that system on producers. The big producers want to shift the burden to the little producers, and have the power to write that into the legislation. Thus the CAFO exceptions. The little producers – who don’t ironically, ever export beef, they only serve local markets as a rule – pay the freight, have no one to shift the burden to, don’t reap ANY benefit from the re-opening of foreigh markets, and have to deal day-to-day with regulations so onerous and time-consuming (the average cow in this scenario would have to have its movcements monitored much more closely than any sex offender in this country) that many would be forced out of business. Or would not find it worth the headaches to continue.
This of course would be a vicious circle: fewer producers, giving consumers fewer choices, and allowing the big producers to control the food supply even more dangerously.