The future of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is clarifying itself much more quickly than I ever could have imagined.
One of the premises of the article I recently co-authored for The Nation about NAIS is that the identification program is ultimately about enabling industry to keep tabs of genetic information—for potentially huge intellectual property riches—as cloning and transgenics take hold.
I thought that prediction was years into the future—and that the shorter-term purpose of NAIS is to enable agribusiness to consolidate its chokehold on our food supply, at the expense of small sustainable farms.
Yet here were are less than two weeks after the article came out, and the long-term predictions are already beginning to be realized. Two companies responsible for producing most of the cloned animals in the U.S. are proposing to market cloned products, using the NAIS as their tracking system.
No, there’s no mention of NAIS in the national news media announcements of the companies’ “voluntary” programs to begin marketing, and the national media don’t yet get the connection, but that’s what the companies are talking about.
Very cleverly, the biotech companies behind the new initiative—Trans Ova Genetics and ViaGen—have positioned it as “a voluntary effort” that will enable consumers to identify, and thereby avoid, cloned products. But consider this language in The Wall Street Journal article, which talks about “a tracking program” that “will have cloning companies give each cloned animal a quarter-size radio-frequency identification tag. The tag number would be entered into a registry accessible by those in the supply chain…”
The Washington Post article uses similar language: “The system calls for all cloned farm animals to be registered in a central tracking system and requires farmers who raise them to sign affidavits promising to keep them out of the food supply or to segregate their meat and milk so that other foods can be reliably labeled as ‘clone-free.’" (Interestingly, neither of the companies, Trans Ova or ViaGen, has an announcement about the program posted on its web site.)
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t given final approval to cloned meat and milk, but look for that next, and probably sooner rather than later.
The NAIS’s dark, big-brother, steal-from-the-little guy underpinnings, and the immensely strong and sometimes heroic grass roots opposition to it, have done little to slow its progress so far. But those are the makings of a hugely important story that, if told loudly and widely, would shift the tide.
Regarding the bald lie that the NAIS is voluntary: Voluntary registrations have been way, way below government projections–so low that the effectiveness of the NAIS as a tracking system is virtually nil. To meet even its stated objectives, it MUST become mandatory. Every government and business NAIS insider knows and understands that.
This ugly and dangerous program stands as an emblem for so much of what is wrong in modern America. I hope that media can bring it out into the light for a complete sanitization, and that the process of doing so will catalyze a complete rethinking of our directions.
As for NAIS remaining voluntary, I see a way for that to be used to put out of business those who decline. All that has to be done is to pass laws (or merely promulgate regulations at the agency level) making it illegal to market products from unregistered animals.
farmers,ranchers,homesteaders,consumers from all across the country united and "mad as hell" should raise a few eyebrows.
With that said, there IS an alternative that would do what the government claims NAIS is supposed to do, yet would remain voluntary, and I believe implementation of such a program is what we should concentrate on.
Dave Milano commented above that, "To meet even its stated objectives, it MUST become mandatory." That is almost, but not quite, correct.
A program modeled after Underwriters Laboratories certification program for manufactured electrical items would fulfil the stated goals of NAIS, yet would be 1. truly voluntary, and, 2. user paid for (no tax money). Those producers that wish to serve a market that demand a "ceretification" rgarding food "safety" could participate in the program, just as some manufacturers participate in the UL certification program. Those producers, mostly small, who don’t sell to a "market", but rather a group of regular customers, could opt out. Their customers would rather assure that they are receiving a quality product by knowing and trusting their farmer on a personal basis than by a government "certification" anyway.
This would accomplish three things that are desireable:
First, it would cut the legs out from under the government buraucrats (sp) who demand a way to keep food "safe" for markets that demand sone sort of certification, as it would provide that.
Second, it would allow those same government officials to save face without having to back down completely, giving them the certification program they want.
Third, it would preserve freedoms for the small, sustainable agriculture producer by letting him opt out, finding his customers in another manner.
I would strongly suggest that the lobbying side of the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund ( http://www.ftcldf.org ) consider pushing this alternative to NAIS. (are you listening Steve, Pete, and GAry?) By the way, ANYONE who claims to be in support of the right to have nutritionally healthy foods available, should put their money where their mouth is and join the FTCLDF. It’s $50.00 annually for consumers and $125.00 annually for producers. It’s the best dollar you will ever spend in defense of your right to make your own food choices without government regulation.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat’s milk dairy…owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler
What you propose sounds like what they are trying to destroy. In other words, I believe that it is the intent of the Monsanto/USDA/States to put you out of business because they don’t want anyone to have alternatives to corporate milk, period. What you describe is basically ‘free trade’: those who wish to bow down to the state and be certified will do so, and the state will not attempt to regulate the rest of us. What we read here tells us that the state does not intend to permit free trade. The state no longer serves the citizens, but rather the corporations’ profits. Our freedoms are now perceived as a threat to the state, and will not be permitted under this new regime of corporate rule.
Did I read it here, or on one of the other milk blogs that the conventional milk producers are envious of the fact that sustainable raw milk dairies can earn 3x the price for their milk? This is a huge threat to Monsanto. Using the power of the government to assert control of the market in service to corporations is an integral part of the agenda since 2001. They do not believe in the free market. They believe in tilting the playing field to the advantage of the corporate benefactors. It’s a ‘pay to play’ world now.
NAIS is going to be mandatory through the regulation of commerce. The new User Guide and Business Plan are extremely clear in those regards. Those hwo are in Scrapie will be rolled on in, as well as Brucellosis, Tubercolis, PRV, and EIA (Coggins), so if you want to Buy or Sell, you will NAIS’ed. The USDA also alludes to the Interstate Commerce Clause as part of their mechanism of enforcement.
As near as I can tell, the only way to stop this is through a block of states, based on it’s un Constitutionality as well as a perversion of the aforementioned commerce clause. There is also the current lack of legimate authorization for the program that is an issue.
Persoanlly, I find cloning creepy and don’t want to eat anything cloned that has blood. merging NAIS and cloned critters is a perfect monster marriage.