Posts Tagged Corruption in Government

Organic farmers plead for help from USDA Secretary Vilsap

Written by: Bill Suydam, Editor, Health Spectator

This posting from the Cornucopia Institute is a video that portrays an emergency meeting of organic dairy farmers in Wisconsin pleading with U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to level the playing field against factory farms so that small farmers can survive.

One of the ironies of this piece occurs at the beginning, when an emcee approaches the refreshment stand at the fair and notes that bottled water is selling for $2.00—and milk for $0.50.

“Can farmers really be expected to sell milk for one quarter the price of water?” he asks the camera.

The farmers are protesting the fact that many large “organic” dairy farms flaunt the regulations, while “conventional” dairy farms—ironically the current term used for farms that inject their dairy cows with hormones to force them to produce twice as much milk as normal—may milk as many as 7200 cows a day.

Meanwhile, small farmers are finding it tough to survive, and more go out of business every day. This is not what we want to see if we are going to keep ourselves and our children healthy with wholesome products from small, local organic farms.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Wisconsin’s war against agriculture: Fines, imprisonment and property seizure

By Marti Oakley (Food Freedom)

Paul  Griepentrog  inside  the  greenhouseThe first thing they did when they got the authority to write rules… was to grant themselves the authority to conduct warrantless searches. Wisconsin is in the process of coercing farmers and backyard producers … into NAIS, and the accompanying Premises ID program, by threatening to withhold any of the licenses they control.” Paul Griepentrog

In the course of researching various topics, running down leads on information and ferreting out the plans behind the public propaganda used to infringe on one right after another, I sometimes stumble across someone who has so much verifiable information, I am left astounded. This was the case when I happened across a gentleman farmer named Paul Griepentrog while researching the laws and bills about Premises ID and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

I already knew the mandatory law had been bought and paid for in Wisconsin through the use of a USDA “cooperative agreement” to the tune of $35 million.

In a recent interview I asked Paul to answer a few questions about what is really happening to Wisconsin residents who are being forced onto these illegal programs:

Q: Does the Animal Health Protection Act of 2003 actually authorize the Animal Identification System or Premises ID?

A:There is nothing in that bill giving them authority to create or establish the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). That law has been misquoted saying that it is the authority for NAIS. We have repeatedly sent letters to USDA and Tom Vilsack asking him to show the section of that law that gives the authority but he refuses to answer or acknowledge the letters.

Q: Has the USDA, in collusion with the Wisconsin AG department, threatened any farms that you know of?

A: Dwayne Brander on behalf of Dr. McGraw, Assistant State Veterinarian, goes out to farms telling them that if they don’t renew or register their premises in the State of Wisconsin they will file suit against them for failing to comply, using the county DA and calling it a civil forfeiture.

Wisconsin is in the process of coercing farmers and backyard producers in an effort to force them onto NAIS and the accompanying Premises ID program by threatening to withhold any of the licenses they control and would refuse to give the license unless you signed up.

Q: Is there a part of the law in Wisconsin that allows for fines and imprisonment based on the sole allegations of these agencies or representative personnel from USDA or DATCP in Wisconsin?

A: Here is section 95 from the Wisconsin bill implementing the “voluntary” NAIS/Premises ID law:



95.23 Disease investigation and enforcement.


(1) Authorized inspectors and agents of the department may enter at reasonable times any premises, building or place to investigate the existence of animal diseases or to investigate violations of or otherwise enforce the laws relating to animal health. Any animals or materials suspected of being infected may be examined or tested. No person shall obstruct or interfere with such investigation or enforcement work, or attempt to do so, in any manner, by threat or otherwise.


(2) Upon request of an authorized inspector or agent of the department,sheriffs and police officers shall assist in the enforcement of the laws relating to animal health.

95.99 Penalties.


(1) Any person who violates this chapter, or an order issued or a rule adopted under this chapter, for which a specific penalty is not prescribed shall, for the first offense, be fined not more than $1,000; and for any subsequent offense fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both.


(2) The department may seek an injunction restraining any person from violating this chapter or any rule promulgated under this chapter.


(3) A person who violates this chapter or any rule promulgated or order issued under this chapter, for which a specific penalty is not prescribed,may be required to forfeit not less than $200 nor more than $5,000 for the first offense and may be required to forfeit not less than $400 nor more than $5,000 for the 2nd or subsequent offense committed within 5 years of an offense for which a penalty has been assessed under this section. A forfeiture under this subsection is in lieu of a criminal penalty undersub.


Q: Do citizens have the right to demand a full disclosure of the exact laws and basis under which USDA and Wisconsin have charged them? Is there any defense against these attacks?

A:There seems to be none. In the cooperative agreement it states all applicable federal laws shall apply. There are certain major State and Federal Constitutional issues that these laws are in conflict with.

Q: Who exactly is asking for this information?

A:The Department of Agriculture, State of Wisconsin administered by Assistant State Veterinarian, Dr. Paul McGraw; both knowing this has nothing to do with livestock or food safety. This comes from The World Trade Organization and their trade program OIE. World Organization Animal Health.

Q: Where is the information stored? For what purpose?

A: Initially intake is at state level, and then it moves through forms records management plan. There are different steps on how they process this information. From everything I read, a disease outbreak would give state, federal and international interest’s access.

Q: Who is storing the information?

A:Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and then to Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium with (WLIC) as final repository in Canada. The WLIC is comprised of various agriculture groups, breed associations and companies selling RFID tags.

Rep. Obey & Sen. Kohl helped to get WLIC started and moved the data base to Canada. The head of WLIC initially was Gary Tauchen who is now a Wisconsin representative and sitting on the house AG committee.

In my own case, I have been registered twice after the fire number on my property changed. Once under the original number and my name and again under the newly assigned number and my farm name; I did not register for Premises ID on either occasion and was signed up without my knowledge or consent.

Q: If the WLIC is listed as the last repository of data mined information, how did files on Wisconsin agricultural properties end up being stored in Canada?

A:WLIC with the help of Rep. Obey and Sen. Kohl although I don’t know for sure how this was accomplished. The intention was to avoid any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or open information requests until they passed the 2008 Farm Bill and included a provision in that bill saying that these files would not be available to FOIA requests.

Q. Who had access to these files when they were outside the country?

A: We don’t know. Once it was outside US jurisdiction we had no way of knowing.

Q: Are you able to get copies of your personal file from the Canadian data bank?

A: I was able to obtain the premises information pursuant to the forms records management plan. To my knowledge I am only the second person to do so.

Q: We know these programs have nothing to do with tracking animal disease and are actually meant to end competition for industrialized agricultural interests, and to seize control of agricultural lands and livestock….who are the actual players that will benefit from these programs?

A:The big corporate industrialized agriculture operators….Cargill, Tyson, Monsanto and others, because they would see the end to competition and obtain virtually full control over all agriculture.

Q: Are Wisconsin politicians either state or federal willing to speak to you about NAIS, Premises ID or the fake food safety bills?

A:On the Federal level, Sen. Kohl and Rep. Obey will not take my calls.

(*Writer’s note: I made my own calls to these offices and when I stated what I was calling in reference to, the staffers got really nasty and then hung up)

In fact Sen. Kohl’s staffer, Kim Cates’ husband is on the Agriculture Consumer Protection Citizen board. He would not even meet with John Kinsman of Family Farm Defenders to discuss the issue.

On the state level are the continuous lies. These people will say Premises ID has nothing to do with NAIS. They say this even though they have been shown the cooperative agreement between USDA and Wisconsin DATCP outlining Premises ID as the first step. They refuse to look at or acknowledge the legal documents.

DATCP had a document on the Wisconsin Legislative information Bureau site saying that the Amish don’t have any problem with this. If the Amish don’t have a problem with it why are they suing Emmanuel Miller Jr., an Amish from Clark County?

Steve Kagen would not address our concerns and he’s on the US house Ag sub- committee that held a hearing on NAIS and is also involved in the food safety bills and won’t address our concerns even there. He is working right now to get funding to move Wisconsin into phase II of NAIS which is the mandatory chipping and tagging of all animals.

I will say that Sen. Feingold has been willing to listen to our concerns both in his Washington office and in the state office.

montages  photobucketAlthough there is a bill in Wisconsin which would restore voluntary participation I feel it is nothing more than an attempt at political redemption by the same people who passed the mandatory bill to begin with, in that they are fully aware that this bills will be sent to the House Ag committee and never see the light of day. This is merely political posturing…. The house, senate and government are all controlled by Democrats. This may be nothing more than a smoke screen while they make mandatory phase II which is the tagging and chipping, which can’t be done unless you have a Premises ID.


Paul Griepentrog shows that, in the end, what was billed and sold to Wisconsin farmers and herders as a strictly “voluntary” system turns out to be a mandatory system operated much like a police state enforcement policy. There can be no doubt, especially in light of the hyped up investigation and enforcement policies that this law in Wisconsin is less about disease and more about property seizure and forfeiture.

Wisconsin is the blueprint for the remaining states: what happens there is going to happen to all independent ranchers, farmers and producers across the country if any of these fake food safety bills, or National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is passed into law.

© 2009MartiOakley

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

NAIS Listening Sessions: Can a Monsanto Administration Really Hear?

Image at
By Rady Ananda

Scrap NAIS; decentralize the food industry

The hottest topic in agriculture is NAIS – the proposed National Animal Identification System. Using embedded microchips and mountains of paperwork, the federal government plans to create a database that tracks every animal in the nation. Independent producers and privacy advocates adamantly oppose the plan.

From May 14th thru June 30th, the USDA held “listening sessions” in fourteen cities across the nation. USDA asserted it wants “to engage stakeholders and producers to hear not only their concerns about [NAIS], but also potential or feasible solutions to those concerns.”

USDA hoped the listening sessions would provide a forum where stakeholders could help devise a NAIS that producers could live with. Instead, ranchers and farmers want the entire NAIS plan scrapped. Over 1600 people attended these sessions, with 500 testifying. Eighty-five percent of those who spoke condemned NAIS.

Listening Session Quotes

Darol Dickinson, longhorn cattleman from Ohio, believes the USDA plan is being forced on producers, despite objection.

“They’ve conveyed to us that we have no right to oppose them. They’ve told people, ‘This is going to happen.’ That doesn’t sit well with independent thinking people, especially ranchers and farmers.”

Dickinson spoke at the Harrisburg, PA listening session and conveyed on Carl Lanore’s radio show:

“I told them that their ‘option’ reminded me of being an old herd sire – being pushed down an alley with an electric prod, and somebody mentions to the herd sire, ‘How do you want to be castrated – with a dull knife, with a burdizzo or an elastic band?’ And the answer, of course, is none of the above.”

One group opposing NAIS, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, urged Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to re-focus the nation’s animal disease and food safety efforts on several alternatives including:

  • Decentralize the livestock industry and encourage local, diversified farms, which would increase animal health, food security, and food safety;
  • Increase inspections of imported animals and agricultural products and bar the entry of animals from countries with known disease problems; and
  • Improve enforcement of existing laws and inspections of large slaughterhouses and food processing facilities, including unannounced spot inspections at those large facilities.

Image at
Mike Callicrate, an independent cattle producer, is not at all happy with NAIS. He firmly believes that the best way to protect the food supply is to enforce existing laws and go back to unannounced inspections of factory farms, slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants.

“Today, USDA, in protecting the biggest and dirtiest meat plants, continues to block trace-back of pathogens to the source plant, a very easy and inexpensive measure that could improve food safety tomorrow.”

He blames the 2002 E. coli contamination of 20 million pounds of ConAgra beef on lack of inspections.

“USDA has done nothing to address the problems in the big packing plants where E. coli is systematically put into our meat daily while trusting these big profit-driven companies to self inspect under the HACCP hoax.”

HACCP is the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points plan whereby meatpackers and processing plants inspect themselves. They determine where the most likely places of contamination would occur and design mitigation techniques. The plan is then submitted to the USDA for approval, but enforcing it is left to the companies themselves.

At the Loveland, Colorado listening session, Kimmi Lewis of the Colorado Independent Cattle Growers Association said, “This country is free because we are allowed to own private property.” If it’s tracked by government, it’s not private.

At the Harrisburg, PA listening session, horse breeder Barbara Steever called the USDA “disingenuous” for saying that NAIS will be used to control the spread of disease. To make her point, Steever then asked some hard-hitting questions:

  • “Why, then, are you lowering import restrictions to allow cattle in from Mexico that has bovine TB?
  • Why are you trying to bring in cattle from Argentina that is known to have a reservoir of FMD (foot-and-mouth disease)?
  • [Why are you allowing] cattle over 30 months of age from Canada, that have a higher risk of BSE, and disallowing private businesses from testing for BSE in response to their clients’ needs?
  • Why are you moving a high security disease containment facility into the middle of cattle country?”

madcow (300 x 374)One of the strongest speakers, Rhonda Perry, operates a livestock and grain operation. She spoke on behalf of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, representing 5,600 families. Reiterating above concerns, Perry adds:

“We see industrial livestock operations all over this country that have created incredible environmental, health and food safety concerns.”

Perry points out that none of today’s food safety issues are caused by independent family farmers. She challenges the USDA to increase competition as a strategy to increase food safety. Bust the monopolies and decentralize food production, “instead of looking at this unproven, ineffective, anti-farmer, corporate-driven program of NAIS.”

Others pointed out that NAIS violates our Constitutional rights, including religion. Amish and other religious communities reject implants and biotechnology.

Several dozen videos from the NAIS listening sessions have been posted at YouTube.

Interestingly, the USDA held no listening sessions in Wisconsin, where NAIS has been made mandatory. Farmers there are furious with the bureaucracy and have been warning the rest of the nation. In NAIS Smackdown: The gloves come off, R-Calf lists a better set of food safety proposals instead of NAIS.

Biggest Danger to Food Safety is a Centralized Food System

Safe food spokesperson, Michael Pollan, has long warned us that a centralized food system is uniquely vulnerable to disease and even to a terrorist attack. Also, because concentrated animal feeding operations require the use of antibiotics to keep the herd alive, superbugs with antibiotic resistance are becoming more common.

In the film, Fresh, Missouri natural hog farmer Russ Kremer shares a personal tale of how he almost died from contracting a monster form of strep. The experience convinced him to exterminate his entire herd and start over with a natural herd.

tom-vilsackThe USDA has a long history of using regulations (like HACCP) to protect Big Ag, instead of consumers and small producers. President Obama appointed Tom Vilsack, the “biotechnology governor of the year,” as Secretary of Agriculture. Obama also appointed Monsanto’s Michael Taylor to head the new Food Safety Working Group.

Astute writers and activists caution that even if NAIS is defeated, animal tracing is being snuck into pending legislation, such as HR 2749.

Independent family farmers will have a tough row to hoe trying to convince a Monsanto Administration to do right by small farmers. As they plead with a corporate-owned federal government intent on globalization, the American people may be their best ally.

Buy fresh, locally grown food. Support free range and organic farmers. Yes, healthy food costs more up front. But you save it on the back end, needing fewer doctor visits or pharmaceutical drugs to deal with the diseases (obesity, diabetes, cancer) caused by factory food. You’ll also contribute to your local economy and a healthy environment.


Several recent documentaries discuss the difference between natural and factory food production. In addition to The World According to Monsanto, be sure to see the films below (these are my reviews):

FOOD, Inc. Exposes Horrors of a Centralized Food System
Fresh: How We’re Supposed to Eat
Our Daily Bread a Radically Silent View of Factory Farming


Rady Ananda’s articles have appeared in several online and print publications, including three books. She graduated in December 2003 from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a BS in Natural Resources.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

NAIS ~~~ the Purchase of Policy

Here is a new article by Darol Dickinson that really tells what is going on with the political payola being passed around. Shows where the bribes have gone. Funny how the people up there giving glowing endorsements to NAIS at the listening sessions are the same ones who have received large bribes, er “grants”, whatever. -K

“Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; every one loveth bribes, and followeth after rewards;” Isaiah 1-23

Political Bribery and Collusion

Here is a link to the USDA spread sheet for NAIS bribes—- sanitized as cooperative agreements. These are the funds received by tribes, states, government employees and companies who promise to enroll properties for USDA. Listed is only a scintilla of the cost. Every veterinarian, county extension agent, and ASCS office employee has been coerced to distribute NAIS literature and “speak kindly” about enrolling. The real cost is well above published data required by law. There are millions being spent monthly. Check it out at (

The National Pork Board got their trough filled with $800,000. That is why USDA tapped them for the emphatic NAIS report to the Subcommittee hearing March 11. The hogs are bought. In the funeral business these are called “rental pallbearers.” (Not about friendships, just money for the moment.)

FFA got $359,995 to sign up their kids before they could show at fairs. The hesitant children who refuse are considered rebels and malcontents.

American Angus Assn got $594,585 to hammer the horns off their members. They also used the $$ to hammer enrollments from non AAA member Angus clients of AAA members who did not surrender to NAIS.

The Holstein Assn made a bold strong testimony at the hearing. They stuck $1,754,428 in the milk bucket so they were glad to brag about NAIS before Congress. Their milk drinking political wing National Milk Producers Assn stuck $1,027,000 in the milk tank from USDA. That is why dairies were forced to enroll property or they could not sell their milk. They closed down numerous Amish dairies with this dirty heartless trick.

Indian tribes are numerous to have coins placed in their teepees? USDA cut deals with tribal leaders and automatically listed tribe members who had livestock. The cost of Indian bribes are much lower than those for the pale face; just a few bottles of fire water keeps history from changing. Once again the government shafts the Indians. (Some Indian tribes have tribal managed herds so every tribe member receives a percentage of the income. This would let every tribe member unknowingly be enrolled in NAIS.)

USDA alleged that the 2008 cooperative agreements would be calculated on achievement. There would be larger payments for more properties surrendered and less if the recipients did not perform. Oops! USDA forgot the oversight part again and each one got full amounts.

Massachusetts has a 227% property sign up. The Ag Census reports that the US has over 3,910,022 farms that qualify to enroll in mandatory NAIS. USDA says there are 1.4 million. Therefore, when they get 100% sign-up there will be another 200% left freely roaming the barn yard. By real numbers they have 9.7% signed up now, not 35% as USDA falsely, under oath, told Congress. If you removed the Indian “bribe” enrollments the USDA has about 4% of the US properties “volunteered.” How sad the USDA has become? Every one should be so ashamed of this expensive dismal branch of the government.

Bribery is not always frugal when spending other people’s money. In fact this project has wasted truck loads of tax money. The cost per person enrolled for NAIS property is a putrid fact. The sickest is Rhode Island with an expenditure of $169,520 and only 15 people surrendered. Alaskan farmers cost $3,083 each. California $708. Connecticut $1,994. Hawaii $1,085. Montana $1,452. New Mexico $695. Wyoming $1,119. Vermont $5,776. Those who spend other’s money, in the case of NAIS, have had amateur supervision from USDA with the appearance of no remorse.

The Washington DC wealth distributors have given USDA a $138,000,000 property sign up budget and more is on the way. As the spread sheet shows, some $40 million is concealed. As a fungible issue this may involve homes in the islands, company planes or “ladies of the night.”

We live in a day that bribes, campaign donations, and cooperative agreements are highly respected in nearly every association, tribe, and government office. USDA uses subject’s tax money to bribe universities and USDA outlets to demand specific performances. Few government offices have the courage to refuse a nice sweet bribe regardless of the smell of Machiavellianism.

NAIS is the farm issue of the hour. USDA has been to the vault to drink the Kool-Aid. You, the enforced ones, call your enforcers and remind them —- an election is coming. Don’t fund one penny to NAIS!! Stop this scam now!!

“In whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is full of bribes.” Psalms 26-10

Tags: , , ,

Codex Alimentarius – About Power

Found this video today and it is pretty scary to me.  Rima E. Laibow, MD tells us a bit about Codex Alimentarius, the “World Food Code” as she walks through the exhibit hall at the FAO headquarters in Rome. What is the image Codex portrays? What is the reality?

Further Explanation of Codex Alimentarius

Tags: , ,

Understanding NAIS and it’s many tentacles

Follows is a public record comment from USDA’s request for comments that are being taken until August 8th. If you haven’t submitted your comments yet, I urge you to do so but not until you read this one. This succinctly details all the problems with NAIS, all of the industry pandering, the international entanglements, etc. Once you read this you will be able to put it all together in your mind and, with all hope, you will find you have a renewed fire in your belly to fight along side us. We must get consumers to stand with us as well. If you think the prices of food are high now, just wait until they implement NAIS.

Get a cuppa and read on.

Happy 4th of July. I pray it is not our last one of independence.


Platt Land and Cattle is a large, family owned/operated cow-calf ranch with owned and leased ranches in Arizona and New Mexico. We oppose NAIS in total.

NAIS is simply an unworkable and highly intrusive bureaucratic boondoggle; it is a regulatory proposal for which a need has never been demonstrated and, more importantly, for which USDA has never provided specific citations of statutory and constitutional authority authorizing such action. NAIS should therefore be terminated in total.

More specific comments are as follows:

*1. _No need for NAIS has ever been demonstrated._*

USDA has failed to demonstrate a need for “48-hour trace back.” It has similarly failed to identify what diseases require the imposition on producers of such a costly, onerous, and intrusive program.

Producers, by their failure to register premises and their overwhelming opposition at the listening sessions, have sent a clear message: there is no need for NAIS. These producers have trillions of dollars at stake in livestock, land, equipment and water rights. Their very lives are bound up in that investment. Many have fine educations with degrees in veterinary science, law, and business.

We are left, however, with the preposterous proposition that government, academia, a few veterinarians, and tag/tech manufacturers with no corresponding stake in livestock, land, equipment and water rights know what is best for producers’ livestock herds.

The concept of “48-hour trace back” is from OIE’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Article 4.2.2, Performance Criteria, which suggests, as a measure of effect animal ID, that “all animals can be traced to the establishment of birth within 48 hours of an enquiry.”

USDA’s use of the word “premises” also comes from the OIE code. The glossary defines “establishment” as used in connection with 48-hour traceback as “the premises in which animals are kept.”

The purpose of the OIE Code is one of assuring “*the sanitary safety of international trade* in terrestrial animals and their products, (emphasis added) and in his May 6, 2009, editorial, OIE’s Director General Bernard Vallat proudly proclaims, “One World, One Health.

During the gathering of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners in Vancouver in September, 2007, former USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Bruce Knight, was queried as to why USDA was making such a push for premises registration. His response: “It is quite simple. We want to be in compliance with OIE regulations by 2010.”

In short, USDA has been less than transparent and honest with American cattle producers. It has been pushing an animal ID system to benefit industrialized agriculture—those involved in international trade. There can be absolutely no doubt on this point.

On June 11, 2009, Rosa DeLauro, Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture issued a press release on the committee’s fiscal year 2010 bill which included the following statement :

*The bill eliminates funding for the National Animal Identification
System (NAIS).* After receiving $142 million in funding since fiscal year 2004, APHIS has yet to put into operation an effective system that would provide needed animal health and *livestock market benefits.* USDA is currently conducting a public listening tour around the country for several months to hear from stakeholders. *Until USDA finishes its listening sessions and provides details as to how it will implement an effective ID system, continued investments into the
current NAIS are unwarranted. *(Emphasis added.)

At the NAIS listening sessions a welcoming video is shown featuring Secretary Vilsack. He asserts that “we will all agree that we need to *protect the livestock markets* and the livelihood of producers” and then continues:

I don’t want us to get to the point where Congress says they will not continue to fund the system. If that were to happen, I would doubt the *reliability of our market* and that’s not where we want to be. (Emphasis added.)

Apart from the fact that his nation is a net importer of beef, what markets are demanding NAIS? If indeed there is such a demand, cannot exporters work privately with producers on an export/ID program? USDA never answers such questions. The fact is that “markets” are not concerned about NAIS. They are concerned about exports which contain Canadian product.

The Korean meat export protocols list as ineligible,

1. Beef and beef products derived from cattle imported from Canada for immediate slaughter ….

2. Beef and beef products derived from cattle imported from Canada that were resident in the U.S. less than 100 days prior to slaughter….

In a June 10, 2003, letter from Toshikazu Ijichi, Japan’s Animal Health Division Director, Dr. Peter Fernandez, Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services for USDA-APHIS was advised that Japan had “deleted Canada from the list of countries which are eligible to export” beef to Japan “in light of confirmation of a single case of BSE in Canada.”

Dr. Fernandez was further advised that *In order to protect Japan from possible introduction of BSE, I* would like to *ask you again* *not to export beef* and its product which is derived *from* the [sic] cattle born, raised or slaughtered in the
*countries with indigenous BSE cases…to Japan through your country*. Therefore, *I would* like to *ask you again* *to indicate the country of origin *where the cattle from which the exported meat product to Japan was produced were born, raised and slaughtered…. (Emphasis added.)

The notion that export markets are clamoring for the imposition of NAIS is simply not supported by the factual record. Of ironic interest in light of the above letter is USDA’s delay in the implementation—and its frustration of the clear intent—of COOL.

One thing is very clear from the listening sessions: producers, the owners of the animals USDA would ostensibly protect, overwhelmingly reject NAIS and the claimed need therefore. There is a great irony of paternalism—government knows best—vis-à-vis the producer rejection of NAIS in the “listening sessions” and their failure to register their “premises.”

USDA never mentions OIE, its Terrestrial Animal Health Code, and the Codex Alimentarius except by implication when it asserts that NAIS is needed to protect “markets,” a euphemism for trade. It has simply been disingenuous at best, as it panders to industrialized agriculture and ignores its statutory obligation to rural agriculture.

Such pandering has come at great cost to rural producers. Examining USDA
data for the period from 1984 through 2006, farm/ranch share of income
distribution from trade declined by 28% while services’ share doubled
and trade/transportation’s share increased nearly 52%!

Using the period 1982 – 1984 as the base, and adjusting for inflation,
the price of slaughter steers/heifers has declined 57% since 1947 while
the retail beef price index has increased 3%! Today, the United States
is a net importer of beef, some 17% of domestic supply is of foreign
origin. USDA has failed those it was established to serve.

Qui bono? NAIS burdens producers with costs and intrusive regulations to
benefit industrial agriculture and global trade. There are no benefits
for producers in NAIS. Being in the business of accumulating and
wielding power, Government is a beneficiary; the tag and technology
companies will earn increased profits; meat packers will mine data and
industrial agriculture engaged in international trade will likewise
enjoy increased profits.

This is a simple issue of “follow the money.” USDA’s 2005 Strategic Plan
for NAIS states that

In 2002, the National Institute of Animal Agriculture

(NIAA) *initiated meetings that led to* the development of the U.S.

Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). That work provided the

foundation data standards for the National Animal Identification

System (NAIS). (Emphasis added.)

An examination of NIAA’s membership list discloses a lengthy list of
tag/tech companies including AgInfoLink, Allflex, Brock’s Cattle-Identi
Company, Cattle-Traq, Destron Fearing, EZ-ID/AVID ID systems, Farnam,
Fort Supply technologies, Meta Farms, Inc., Micro Beef Technologies, and
National Band and Tag, to name a few. The meat packing industry is
represented by Cargill and AMI.

The head of NIAA’s Animal ID committee is from Allflex.

NCBA also appears as a member; however, it entered into a cooperative
agreement with APHIS, taking money to promote premises registration.

The producer bears all the costs and derives none of the benefits. That,
simply, is the reason for the overwhelming rejection of NAIS by
producers. The listening sessions, if USDA will listen, make that point
beyond cavil.

The existing combination of hot brands, brand inspection, health papers,
auction back tags, and border interdiction of disease has served this
nation well for 100 years. Brucellosis, TB and other livestock diseases
have been effectively controlled while FMD has been unknown in the
country since 1929.

On its website, USDA/APHIS acknowledges that existing “programs have
achieved significant success over the years in reducing animal disease”
but then asserts that “animal disease remains a reality in the U.S. as
illustrated in the following examples.” The two bovine diseases used to
illustrate USDA’s assertion are BSE and TB.

This is overreaching at its best. BSE has an extended incubation period.
BSE is spread not animal to animal but rather by the use of contaminated
feed. The United States has not had a domestic case of BSE: the two
reported U.S. cases were both atypical which is characterized by an
absence of the spongiform changes in the brain caused by typical BSE.
(Fact Sheet: Atypical BSE, published by NCBA and the Beef Checkoff.)

USDA, through extended litigation with R-CALF USA, fought to open the
U.S. border to Canadian cattle including those over 30-months of age.
Canada does have a BSE problem. USDA further litigated with Creekstone
Farms to prevent that business from voluntarily testing its cattle for BSE.

Canada’s Food Inspection Agency has acknowledged that feed cohorts from
known BSE animals were exported to this country for slaughter. For
example, the CFIA announced that five cohorts of the November, 2008, BSE
Holstein dairy cow were “exported for slaughter.” According to CFIA,
“investigation showed” the feed cohorts “consumed the same potentially
contaminated feed.”

Given USDA’s i) laissez-faire attitude toward the importation of BSE
from Canada, ii) its asserted position that its risk assessments and the
removal of SRMs result in a de minimis risk to consumers, and iii) its
insistence that U.S. producers cannot voluntarily test for BSE, the
contention that BSE is a disease that must now be managed with NAIS is
simply disingenuous.

BSE cannot be managed or prevented by NAIS following its importation.
BSE should never be imported period. Dr. Stanley Prusiner, Nobel Prize
winner for his work in the discovery of prions, the cause of BSE states:

Regardless of whether the tonsils and distal ileum have been removed
from cattle – and in the case of cattle 30 months of age and older, the
brain, eyes, spinal cord, and trigeminal ganglia as well – these
measures are unlikely to be sufficient to ensure the safety of the meat
we consume. *The only reliable way to minimize the risk of humans
developing vCJD from BSE-infected cattle is to eliminate BSE-infected
cattle from the food chain. *(Emphasis added.),%20Prusiner%20Declaration.pdf

NAIS will do nothing to eliminate BSE from the food chain. USDA
continues to allow the importation cattle from Canada which undeniably
has a BSE problem. Dr. Prusiner further states that “active testing in
the EU has shown that BSE-infected cattle may display no signs even
though they harbor substantial numbers of prions that can be identified
using a rapid test for BSE.” _Id_.

There is no rapid testing done in the United States and, as previously
mentioned, USDA employed litigation to prevent Creekstone farms from
voluntarily testing cattle. To assert that NAIS is now needed to manage
BSE is an absurdity at best: either USDA with its risk assessments
coupled with the removal of SRMs is correct and there is no BSE risk;
or, Dr. Prusiner is correct and BSE should never be introduced into the
food chain via imported cattle. In either case, NAIS is of no value.

With regard to TB , Audit Report, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service’s Control Over the Bovine Tuberculosis Program, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Report No. 50601-0009-Ch, September, 2006. Section 2,
page 19, states:

*Between FYs 2001 and 2005, 75 percent (205 of 272) of the TB cases
detected through slaughter surveillance were determined by APHIS to have
originated from Mexico*. In response, *APHIS has worked with Mexico *to
improve their TB eradication program; *however, these efforts are
undermined by the disease’s 3 to 12 month incubation period. Cattle may
test negative for the disease prior to export, but develop TB and infect
U.S. cattle after import. *Although the majority of TB-infected cattle

found by slaughter surveillance in the United States are from Mexico,
*APHIS has not developed controls to restrict the movement of cattle, or
require additional testing to compensate for the disease’s incubation
period. Until additional controls are added, APHIS cannot reasonably
expect to achieve its goal and *

*eradicate TB when it is being imported into the United States each
year.* */ /*(Emphasis added.)

Page 19 of the Report further noted that Mexico annually “exports 1
million cattle to the United States”; that Mexico has “a higher
prevalence of the disease” such that Mexican cattle “are more likely to
be infected with TB”; that *Mexico has “no accredited-free states” and
in 2004 “reported over 2,000 TB-infected herds…compared to just 10
positive herds reported by the United States”; and that “99 percent of
the cattle imported from Mexico spend time on U.S. premises prior to
slaughter” with such time generally ranging from “5 to 14 months.”
*(Emphasis added.)

Page 20 of the Report states that “despite the higher prevalence of
TB-infected cattle in Mexico, APHIS has not established additional
import controls or requirements to test or restrict the movement of
Mexican cattle after importation to the United States” and that the
cattle so imported “simply become part of the U.S. herds.” The lack of
controls over Mexican cattle “has resulted in infected cattle being
detected in 12 states over the last 5 years.” A chart on page 20 of the
Report shows the states and numbers of TB cases traced to Mexico for FYs
2001-2005. That chart shows 2 in New Mexico and 5 in Arizona.

Page 22 of the Report set forth the conclusion that “*APHIS was under
utilizing…high risk herds” as a tool to “target testing to questionable
areas.” *(Emphasis added.)

In short, USDA’s contention that TB must be managed by NAIS while we
continue to import the disease from Mexico is, like its similar BSE
argument, most disingenuous.

Foot and mouth is another disease which Homeland Security and USDA have
used as a scare tactic. Given USDA’s efforts to regionalize Argentina
and the announced relocation of the Plum Island facility to Kansas,
America’s heartland, the assertion that producers must now embrace NAIS
to combat a potential FMD outbreak is untenable.

There may well be an outbreak of FMD. Unfortunately, it will likely be a
direct result of government action: a leak from the new Kansas facility,
similar to the recent breach at the Surrey facility in England; or, it
will come across our border which USDA refuses to secure and in fact
works to make more porous. NAIS will neither prevent nor mitigate the
damage that will occur under either scenario.

The Canadian Veterinarian Journal, Vol. 50, January, 2009, contained a
60-page report on the containment of England’s 2001 FMD outbreak.
England has long had an animal ID system; however, that system and
“traceback” was not the key to FMD containment in 2001.

The 2001 FMD outbreak was handled by throwing up perimeters and then,
with locals, working in from the perimeter. Similarly, states have
existing plans for handling emergencies which would include a FMD
outbreak. Such an outbreak would be handled as it was in England: a
perimeter would be established with no movement inside the perimeter as
the necessary epidemiology work would then be done from the perimeter

Animal ID was not utilized to contain the 2001 FMD outbreak nor would it
be of any meaningful benefit were this nation to suffer an outbreak.
Further, it would not identify vehicles and individuals who have been in
contact with contaminated herds; hence, the establishment of a perimeter
with work then directed inward.

Even with TB, a perimeter is established and work is then done inward.
USDA’s handling of the current TB situation in Nebraska well illustrates
this point. NAIS would not alter the course of the investigation.

USDA claims that NAIS is vital in the case of TB as some investigations
have taken up to 160 days. Again, the current Nebraska situation is
instructive. A perimeter is established and herds are investigated
within that perimeter.

What have been possible contacts with the infected herd and what has
happened in the last 12 – 24 months with neighboring herds and cohorts?
USDA postures that the livestock industry has no records, no idea of
where calves may have been sold or cull cows sent.

USDA adduces no evidence to support that assertion beyond its claim of
an investigation of up to 160 days in length. USDA never details what it
did in that 160 period and how much investigative time was on issues for
which NAIS would have been of no benefit.

Producers have records and so do states. Arizona is a brand state. It
has a record of every animal that has left our ranch, where it went, and
who the trucker was. We have similar records. USDA is simply
misrepresenting the state of the livestock industry.

Border interdiction of disease and running a closed herd—which we do in
our operation—are the two best defenses against the introduction of
disease. NAIS is of no benefit to us as producers.

*2. _USDA has neither statutory nor constitutional authority for the
imposition of NAIS; indeed, NAIS represents the implementation of the
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the Codex Alimentarius, the
adaptation of which is a treaty action never ratified by the Senate as
required by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution._*

USDA has received repeated requests from multiple organizations for a
specific citation of authority for NAIS. It has never responded, beyond
a generic reference to the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 coupled
with a broad assertion of authority to “carry out operations and
measures to protect the health of American Agriculture.”

That assertion is apparently from 7 USC 8308 and has been taken
completely out of context. That section authorizes USDA to “*carry out*
operations and measures to *detect, control, or eradicate* any pest or
disease of livestock (*including the drawing of blood and diagnostic
testing* of animals), including animals at a slaughterhouse, stockyard,
or other

point of concentration.” (Emphasis added.)

The statutory examples of “operations and measures” are of _overt action
by USDA _ such as drawing of blood and diagnostic testing, all directly
intended to “detect, control, or eradicate” pests or diseases. The
statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis and noscitur a
sociis require the general terms “operations and measures” to be
construed in light of the specific terms “drawing of blood and
diagnostic testing.”

The language most certainly does not confer broad authority to mandate
_overt action by producers_ in the form of an animal ID system designed
to track livestock movement; that does not directly and actively
“detect, control, or eradicate” pests or diseases; and which certainly
is not a measure such as “drawing of blood and diagnostic testing.”

Any fair reading of the Act does not permit the assertion of authority
by USDA for NAIS. Further, USDA’s assertion of broad authority cannot be
countenanced under any fair reading of the United States Constitution.
The powers of Congress are not implied, plenary, and inherent, but
rather express, limited and enumerated. USDA’s assertion that Congress
has delegated and granted it broad powers which are implied, plenary and
inherent flies in the face of the clear intent of Article 1, Section 8,
of the U.S. Constitution.

USDA is an administrative agency under the Executive branch of the
federal government and enjoys no powers beyond those expressly granted
it by Congress, acting in turn under the express, limited, and
enumerated powers granted under Article 1, Section 8.

As noted above, USDA is essentially seeking to implement OIE’s
Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the Codex Alimentarius by
administrative fiat. Both Codes are a complex web of international
agreements and actions by numerous countries.;;

The net effect of an implementation of NAIS by administrative fiat would
be the enforcement upon American producers of international standards
agreed to by various countries. Those standards are, in essence,
treaties much like the free trade agreements which required the consent
of the Senate. That body has never considered the agreements comprising
the two codes.

The very fact of disagreement between producers and USDA over the
necessity of NAIS underscores the need for transparent debate,
deliberation, and consideration by the Senate.

Even if the two codes are not construed as treaties, they are most
certainly a regulation of commerce with foreign nations, a power
reserved to Congress, not to USDA as an administrative agency under the
executive branch of government. USDA simply has no power, statutorily or
constitutionally, to mandate NAIS.

*3. _The regulatory and enforcement provisions of NAIS are unknown and
its underlying premise is suspect._*

Inherent in NAIS is the assumption of an errorless system; i.e., that i)
no cattle will ever lose ear tags, ii) that the tags will always
function and not succumb to the effects of weather and sun, iii) that
all dead and missing cattle can be accounted for, iv) that all movements
of cattle can and will be accurately scanned, v) that the data so
scanned will always be properly registered, vi) that the data so
uploaded will always be properly received vii) that the data so received
will be always be properly recorded and viii) that the data will always
be retrievable.

USDA has no concept of the conditions under which cattle producers
operate, how cattle are handled, what facilities will actually be
required to read and scan tags, of weather—heat, cold, wet, dry,
dust—under which NAIS would function. It has no concept of a lack of
internet access to upload information. The errorless system envisioned
by USDA is simply not a real world scenario.

There is no duplication or redundancy as is the case in our present
system. The concept of 48-hour trace back, while beguiling, is actually
inferior to the present system due to the duplication and redundancy in
the existing system.

England has experienced problems with its ID program with a cow herd
that is substantially smaller than the U.S. herd. According to a
November, 2003, House of Commons Report, the entire population of
cattle, sheep and pigs in England was a mere 25 million. In contrast,
there are nearly 100 million cattle in the United States.

The livestock industry in England is on a much smaller scale than in the
U.S.; yet, according to the October 12, 2008, issue of the /Telegraph/,

In a situation described as udder chaos, officials at the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) admitted in Parliamentary
questions that 20,979 of the animals had been mislaid.

The livestock should have been logged on Defra’s Cattle Tracing System,
devised to protect public and animal health after the BSE and foot and
mouth epidemics.

However the cattle have disappeared from the system, while another 1039
are believed to have been loaded onto cattle trucks and never heard of
again, according to the Daily Star.

The same article noted that Britain’s Ministry of Defence had lost a
computer hard drive containing the private details of 100,000 members of
the Armed Forces and that the Home Office had lost a memory stick
containing data on 84,000 prisoners in England and Wales.

Such experiences are not unique to England. USDA itself has had similar

In 2007, USDA inadvertently published the social security numbers of
63,000 people on the internet.

Also in 2007, USDA had computers stolen containing sensitive information
about farmers.

In 2006, USDA’s office of Inspector General, in its annual audit,
concluded that the “Agriculture Department continues to suffer from
inadequate management and monitoring of IT security controls, both at
the department-level and in its agencies.”

Indeed, USDA has been given the lowest possible marks for 5 straight
years on federal computer report card grades by the House Government
Reform Committee.

John Carter, former chairman of the Australian Beef Association and
whose family holds the oldest registered brand in that country, reports
that 20% of the cattle in the NLIS data base are missing; that a
personal audit of his NLIS data base shows that less than 50% of the
animals he has sold are so reflected in the data base; than a “trace
back trial” of 300 head of cattle could track only 75% and that the
remaining 25% could be tracked only through Australia’s traditional
“paper trail.”* * Carter states that NLIS has “produced a shambles.”

The notion that NAIS is a technologically feasible means of tracing 100
million head of cattle is not supported by existing evidence. USDA’s own
record with computers, theft, hacking and other security breaches
coupled with animal ID experiences in England and Australia well
demonstrate that it is a system that should be rejected.

What will happen when cattle movements are not accurately scanned,
registered, transmitted, or received? There will be discrepancies and
irregularities in data. How heavy handed will USDA be in such instances?
Most producers have experience with federal agencies and in many cases,
it is not favorable.

In our own experience, dealing with TB in New Mexico, we have found the
agency and its rules to be heavy handed with demands which, by its own
admission, have no rational basis.

USDA has given no indication to producers of how NAIS will be enforced
and discrepancies/irregularities handled. If England is any indication,
producers can expect heavy-handed enforcement.

According to London’s /Telegraph/, Cheshire dairyman David Dobbins had
567 head of dairy cattle destroyed by DEFRA as a consequence of ID
paperwork “irregularities” notwithstanding that DEFRA “failed to explain
how many or what these were.” Prior to the destruction of the animals.
Mr. Dobbins records were seized by DEFRA, negating his ability to even
respond to DEFRA’s noncompliance assertions.

One fears that NAIS will bring similar events upon the heads of this
nation’s cattle producers

*4. _USDA has spent well in excess of $140 million promoting premises
registration and NAIS. This expenditure is most irresponsible at a time
when this nation is—in essence—bankrupt. This nation simply cannot
afford any more such frivolous expenditures._*

In the face of the hundreds of billions and indeed trillions of dollars
which the Federal Government has thrown about the last several months,
USDA’s NAIS expenditures are minuscule. Nevertheless, it is an
expenditure of money which the federal government simply does not have.

The May 30, 2009, issue of /USA Today/ reported numbers previously
discussed in various sources by David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller
General who resigned in disgust following Congressional inaction on his
annual report to Congress. The total unfunded liabilities of the Federal
Government now total a record $63.8 trillion, a sum equal to $546,668
for every U.S. household!

Estimates are that only around 1% of U.S. households have a net worth
sufficient to pay their proportionate share of the $63.8 trillion in
debt. In short, this nation is bankrupt.

Continued spending on NAIS, a program for which, as discussed above, no
need has ever been demonstrated is simply irresponsible given this
nation’s financial condition.

NAIS should immediately be terminated and not a single additional dollar
spent thereon.

* *

*5. _USDA has no credibility with producers and there is no on the
ground support for NAIS, without which it simply cannot succeed._*

At all of the listening sessions—through Albuquerque on June 16—two
salient facts emerged: there is widespread mistrust of USDA among
producers and there is virtually no producer support for NAIS. A chasm,
a gulf exists between USDA and producers.

NAIS was never intended to be voluntary. Several comments in the 2005
Strategic Plan underscore this:

— NAIS must be implemented/ /(USDA Secretary Mike Johanns)

— We have been working on an animal identification plan here at

USDA…over a number of years now, and our goal

has remained consistent—to be able to track animals within a 48-

hour period. We are prepared to roll up our sleeves and get this

implemented…. NAIS is a top USDA priority. (William “Bill”

Hawks Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs)

— [W]e move forward to implement NAIS. (John R. Clifford, Deputy

Administrator Veterinary Services)

(Page 2, Strategic Plan)

The Plan claimed that “stakeholders provide broad support for national
animal identification” and in its timeline listed January, 2009, as the
target date by which “Reporting of defined animal movements [will be]
required; [and the] entire program [becomes] mandatory.”

USDA pulled out all stops. In Colorado, 4-H children were prohibited
from showing livestock at the state fair unless their parents had
registered their “premises.” Money was given to FFA in the hope of
cajoling parents.

The Plan was changed to become “voluntary” and NAIS morphed from an
animal health plan to a marketing tool; then it became a means of
assuring consumers that their beef is wholesome—a food safety issue;
finally, the trump card of bio-terrorism was played.

Four years later, and following some $140 million to register
“premises”—much of it bribe money handed out to “partners” in an effort
to enlist their support—only some 30% of “premises” have been registered.

In many states, however, when dairies, feeding, hog and poultry
operations, are excluded, less than 10% of cattle producers have
registered. Missouri is such an example.

Having played all its cards of crisis, USDA’s plan had nevertheless run
amuck. There was no “stakeholder” support. USDA, fond of the term
“stakeholder” had forgotten that the only real “stakeholders” were those
producers on the ground who actually owned the cattle that were to be
the subject of NAIS.

USDA apparently assumed that producers were red-necked bumpkins who
could be coached into compliance by smooth talking bureaucrats in Brooks
Brothers suits singing the soothing song of the voluntary nature of NAIS.

USDA’s next target for bamboozlement was Congress. At the March 11 NAIS
hearing earlier this year before the House Agricultural Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, USDA stacked the deck. The first “panel”
consisted of but a single individual: APHIS’ Dr. John Clifford who was
given over one hour to advocate for NAIS.

There was but a single independent cattle producer invited to give
testimony, R-CALF’s Dr. Max Thornsberry, who was afforded a mere five
minutes of time.

All other panel members were* *representatives of government (Dr.
Williams and Mr. St. Cry); were representatives of groups who were had
taken, directly or indirectly, bribe money from USDA to promote NAIS*
*under the euphemism of “co-operative agreements” (Mr. Nutt, Dr. Jordan,
and Mr. Butler); or were former USDA/APHIS employees (Dr. Ron DeHaven.)

Chairman Scott, during a brief discussion on foot and mouth, seized on a
reference to the highly contagious nature of bovine FMD and a mention of
potential airborne contamination to try and connect human health with
bovine FMD. Specifically, Chairman Scott suggested that NAIS was
necessary to protect humans from contracting bovine FMD. USDA’s Dr.
Clifford did nothing to correct Chairman Scott’s misapprehension.

There is a human form of FMD which is “a common viral illness of infants
and children” but it is “*not related*” to the bovine disease. (See the
website for the Center for Disease Control and its discussion of the
human form


Misconception manifested itself again when Representative Conaway asked
Dr. Clifford about the triggering event for a 48-hour traceback under
NAIS. Representative Conaway’s question was in the context of a boy in
Philadelphia who becomes ill after he has eaten a hamburger.

Traceback of live animals has nothing to do with traceback of E. coli,
which was underlying Representative Conaway’s question. There is
presently no traceback system from the consumption of meat to the
processing facility or meat packing plant which would be the source of
contamination. NAIS does nothing to change this: traceability would stop
at the processing plant door.

As he had done with Chairman Scott and the misconception on FMD and a
perceived risk to human health, Dr. Clifford did nothing to correct
Representative Conaway’s erroneous conception that NAIS had something to
do with tracing of E. coli in contaminated meat. In short, Dr. Clifford
allowed the erroneous conception that NAIS was a human health and food
safety issue to go unchallenged.

Having engaged in such misleading conduct, USDA initiated listening
sessions, handing out materials including a May 7 “Dear Participant”
letter under the signature of John Clifford. There are interesting
phrases in that letter:

n We need to work *collaboratively* to resolve concerns *and move
forward with animal tracebility*

n NAIS is a *cooperative effort*

n Much more work is needed to *fully implement NAIS*

n *Together* we can develop a system that we an all support.

Inherent in those phrases is a determination on the part of USDA to
proceed with NAIS, notwithstanding total producer opposition thereto.
Producers will be spun as rejecting the reasonable overtures of a wise
USDA. The platitude of wanting to listen and hear producer input is a
velvet glove masking an iron fist.

Several states have statutes prohibiting a mandatory NAIS. How will that
be handled? In a system of federalism, does USDA really have ultimate
authority over livestock? Does Article 1, Section 8, of the federal
Constitution in fact negative much of the Animal Health Protection Act
relied on by USDA? At the Albuquerque listening session, one Navajo
speaker suggested that the tribes may not accept a mandatory NAIS. How
will the issue of tribal sovereignty be resolved? Does USDA really wish
to force a constitutional confrontation on these points?

USDA may mandate NAIS but in the process will further alienate
producers. The existing gulf will become an unbridgeable chasm.
Enforcement will make criminals of law abiding citizens as producers are
jailed and their property subjected to confiscatory fines to coerce
compliance. Is this what USDA truly desires?

In our operation, we will simply not comply with NAIS, even if it is
made mandatory. We are weary of an intrusive government and the fights
associated therewith. Rather than continuing to submit to intrusive,
heavy-handed regulation, we would choose to exit the business. There is
no joy in serfdom on one’s own land and with one’s own animals.

We respectfully urge Secretary Vilsack to close down shop with NAIS and
to began a new dawn of rebuilding bridges with producers, working with
us rather than with industrialized agriculture, to fulfill USDA’s
express statutory mandate and be about the business of improving “the
quality of life for people living in the rural and nonmetropolitan
regions of the nation.” 7 USC 2204 (a).

That mandate is a true cooperative effort, one that can be achieved
without the expenditure of vast sums of money, without onerous
regulations but rather by simply working to rehabilitate commodity
markets, restoring them as true markets where prices reflect supply and
demand and not the oligopsonistic bargaining power and market
manipulation by industrialized agriculture coupled with speculation by
hedge funds and individuals who have never and will never own a cow.

As producers, our livelihood is more dependent on fixing broken domestic
markets than it is on expanding foreign markets and implementing an ID
system that provides a false sense of security for herd health.

Stop NAIS now and actually help producers do what they do best: produce.
Currently, USDA’s policies would castrate and bid the gelding be fruitful.

Tags: , ,

NAIS ~~~ to Own a Politician

by Darol Dickinson 7-1-09

Let’s call him Mr. B. He was a very auspicious Texas businessman and Mr. B planned to stay that way. His success had come hard, taking the highest risks, and no half pint politician was going to pass some bleeding heart law to thwart his achievements. Mr. B volunteered to serve as Republican Fund Raising Chairman and consistently rolled in the donations. He was highly respected by Texas candidates because he sucked in the bucks. With no small shock to many, here he is on TV, at a Democratic rally, right next to the podium by the featured speaker. What is going on? To cover all bases, he was also the leading contributor to the Democratic party. Mr. B. said, “I must know for certain that when I need special things, no matter who wins, I can make one phone call and — I own them.”

As business giants find politicians invading their inner most profit sanctuaries, control and cost of control is the universe. The closer one stands to the guillotine, the higher the purchase cost. The longer one’s hand is on the rope, is even better.

Mike Johanns, politicking in Nebraska, was elected governor in 1998. His millions for election funding came from interesting names such as ConAgra Foods, Farm Bureau, Kellogg Co., Tyson Foods, Monsanto Co., Archer Daniels Midland, and Cargill Inc. When President Bush was advised to tapped him for US Secretary of Agriculture his big donors from the agriculture world were pleased. He was already a “friend.” In less than four years he abruptly walked away from the cushy head job at USDA to campaign and become a Nebraska Senator. When Cargill contributes to a Johanns campaign, it may be a good buy, but also has proven to be a moving and unpredictable target.

Johanns left USDA and was replaced by Ed Shafer who served only a year. The Obama appointment, Tom Vilsack hasn’t lasted a year yet. With one bad call the top man’s head can roll and a new shirt fills the throne. As agriculture giants like Perdue, Allflex, and Monsanto consider “contributions” the lack of longevity is an investment decision issue. No matter how influential the “gift” it is not a wise purchase if the recipient heads out of Dodge for greener pastures the first time his feet touch the fire.

Neil Hammerschmidt, Coordinator, NAIS, USDA/APHIS Enforcement Services has placed his Kansas boots on the USDA marble halls since Nov. 2003. Prior to APHIS he was Executive Director of Marketing & Dairy Herd Services for the Holstein Assn. of the USA. He was with the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium starting in April, 2002 where he received from USDA a research grant for $653,000. He has also retained “business” connections with the Angus Association since speaking at their National Conferences.

When Hammerschmidt was employed at APHIS his excellent recommendations and resume from previous jobs was a compelling factor. Once he was on the job, the Holstein Assn. USA Inc. received over $1,754,400 in special grants from USDA. The National Milk Producers Federation, “udderly connected” was kindly rewarded with $1,027,000. Wisconsin Identification Consortium and the Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture divided up a sweet $10,223,995 grant. After he spoke at the American Angus Assn., that organization was also provided a $594,585 grant from USDA to help with premises enrollment in NAIS.

A trend is now in place. Established bureaucrats are a better investment than those who may evaporate with the next election. Bureaucratic bean counters can be bought for less money and have proven to provide more longevity for muscle organizations. And, how convenient, the hired help doesn’t have the election fund raising oversight requirements. Their career forges on from Republican or Democratic control, training newly elected novices, writing speeches for the appointed leaders and continuing the global plan. The bureaucratic team must hold down the fort while those with the uncertainty of four year jobs spend their waking hours working on reelection funding.

A good purchase would be Jerry R. Gillespie, DVM, Ph.D. (Unlike many USDA veterinarians, he spent a full year in veterinary practice.) He was tapped for the U. S. House of Representatives to testify about the positives of NAIS, May 5, 2009. He was one of five hand picked DVM’s financially prepared to shellac the suited elite with high dollar quasi barn yard verbalization well above their heads. His lifetime career of administering millions of dollars in grants through Kansas State University, and University of California at Davis could be near the top for federal money rivers. His authority of dispensing Homeland Security coins in over 34 states may be a record. His current lair, U of C has enjoyed grants of more than $5,000,000 direct from the NAIS budget of USDA. Kansas State has enjoyed more than $4,000,000, with almost no oversight. With two years of his indoctrination spent in USDA world headquarters, he has been a target investment for years. When ask to leave U of C and fly to Washington for a Congressional briefing, he was obligated to oblige.

The first USDA listening session on May 13, 2009 was observed by L to R. Neil Hammerschmidt, Jere Dick and Dr. John Wiemers, all staff of USDA. Their lack of appreciation of over 95% of the speakers in opposition to NAIS mandatory was obvious.

The first USDA listening session on May 13, 2009 was observed by L to R. Neil Hammerschmidt, Jere Dick and Dr. John Wiemers, all staff of USDA.  Their lack of appreciation of over 95% of the speakers in opposition to NAIS mandatory was obvious.

The first USDA listening session on May 13, 2009 was observed by L to R. Neil Hammerschmidt, Jere Dick and Dr. John Wiemers, all staff of USDA. Their lack of appreciation of over 95% of the speakers in opposition to NAIS mandatory was obvious.

Other “connected” ones are a cast of thousands: Dr. John C. Wiemer, Dr. David C. Smith, Dr. John Clifford, Tom McGinn, Jere Dick, Dr. Ron DeHaven, Dr. David Morris, etc.

As NAIS funds were “invested” now totaling more than $150,000,000, they were sanitarily named “cooperative agreements.” USDA’s trusted staff cut deals with states, tribes, universities, associations and state government branches to enroll regional NAIS premises with the utmost fervency. Many of the above mentioned employees “did the deals” and passed out millions like a Vegas dealer would shuffle the cards. Could this picture resemble hungry dogs watching other dogs eat chickens—with no master in sight?

Federally speaking, some things just don’t make sense? In that case, there is hidden money involved. What is it worth to the world’s leading ear tag manufacturer for the USDA to force NAIS mandatory and a hundred million cattle would be, by law, required to wear a $3 tag? What would the manufacturers of NAIS compliant computers earn if it were the law for over four million livestock facilities to purchase a computer, and readers, and programs? Then, after the USA sets the example, the whole world would have to follow; more purchases around the world?

Is it time for a self defense recommendation? The restaurants have a proven method that works. Start now, and hire bureaucrats, Senators and Congress members for $1 per hour… tips!

More on NAIS,

Tags: , , ,