Is the Greg Niewendorp approach to NAIS spreading? Niewendorp is the Michigan farmer who a few months ago became the first in the nation to publicly refuse to register his cows under the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Now the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture is hosting a meeting Wednesday in Madison “to discuss how to handle incidences of state residents refusing to participate in Wisconsin’s mandatory premises registration program,” according to Dairy Herd magazine. Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection brags on its site that “Wisconsin is the first state in the nation to mandate livestock premises registration…The USDA has since made our system a model for the nation.” Premises identification involves the registration of individual farms, and precedes the registration of individual livestock. The Henwhisperer blog argues that it’s all tied in to a Wisconsin scare campaign about pseudorabies, a disease that sickens farm animals, but not humans—get everyone riled up about this disease so they’ll not want to protest NAIS.
The story behind the story. In response to my BusinessWeek.com column about the new Michigan law requiring registration of nutritionists and dieticians, I received this email from Coco Newton, an Ann Arbor dietician who says things in Michigan aren’t quite as dire as they might have been. More onerous Michigan registration legislation “did not pass. I was the last person to testify on that bill and I succeeded in getting a substitute bill drafted in three days, introduced, passed, and signed by the governor on August 15, 2006. I worked with the policy analyst and attorney for the House Health Policy Committee to re-write the bill. I am a Registered Dietitian and a Certified Clinical Nutritionist (RDs call CCNs unqualified) , so I set the legislators straight with the truth about the unfairness of the original bill, that it was about turf protection not public protection, etc. I demonstrated how the education, training, and credentialing of certain other nutritionists are equal to or exceed the qualifications of the ADA registered dietitian. The legislators saw the truth and acted on it. The Sub bill does not have the ADA dominating the licensure process. This story is now used as an example among several legislators ‘how a citizen can make a difference.’…
“I am applying to serve on the Licensure Board of Nutrition and Dietetics which takes effect July 1. I want to make sure the law doesn’t get twisted by the RDs. As far as possible, I think citizens should have the choice to go to anyone that they want for nutriton advice, choosing licensed or non-licensed, even though I strongly believe that a formally credentialed nutritionist or a health professional with extensive nutrition training is superior to an entrepreneur…
“The same problem (is occurring) in Texas right now. The Texas Dietetic Association is trying to suppress all other nutritonists and they have huge money, industry backing, and lobbyist efforts. The last I heard, their bill is to be heard on monday 4/23. In all honesty, the ADA is out to suppress natural medicine and assert their sole position as the only legally recognized nutrition experts. This is a huge disservice to the public and the nutrition professionals out there who have so much to offer. For further information, please contact Gay Riley (gay@riley.net). She is an RD and CCN and is working very hard to block the TDA bill.”
Unrealistic expectations about public health? MC’s reaction to my most recent posting about raw milk in Pennsylvania (“Thank God no one got sick!”) got me thinking about an exchange here a few weeks back, when I recounted my concerns about giving raw milk to a neighbor’s child. I appreciate her genuine concern, given the experiences recounted on this site of two children having become very sick from raw milk. But implied in her remark is a fear about the possibility of illness occurring from a natural product, and further, that we should be fully protected from any such possibility of illness.
It seems to me that what Pennsylvania is doing generally makes sense—temporarily shutting down farms associated with illness or tainted milk and issuing press releases notifying the public. But there is no absolute protection that can be offered, beyond banning raw milk, and we know what happens then—people continue to get sick from pasteurized milk and those who demand raw milk go to great lengths to obtain it. What I’m getting at is that we’re dealing with belief systems here. The powers that be want us to believe that all germs are dangerous and that those authorities are ever vigilant in protecting us from the next new germ…and that we should look to them for ongoing protection. A growing minority appreciates that in the order of things, germs of all kinds are a natural occurrence, part of a fragile system that we humans can continually learn from.
Recent Comments