{"id":19,"date":"2009-07-05T18:28:33","date_gmt":"2009-07-05T22:28:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/?p=19"},"modified":"2023-02-08T14:59:02","modified_gmt":"2023-02-08T18:59:02","slug":"understanding-nais-and-its-many-tentacles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/?p=19","title":{"rendered":"Understanding NAIS and it’s many tentacles"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>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.<\/p>\n

Get a cuppa and read on.<\/p>\n

Happy 4th of July. I pray it is not our last one of independence. <\/span><\/p>\n

APHIS-2009-0027-0469.1[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

More specific comments are as follows:<\/p>\n

*1. _No need for NAIS has ever been demonstrated._*<\/p>\n

USDA has failed to demonstrate a need for \u201c48-hour trace back.\u201d It has similarly failed to identify what diseases require the imposition on producers of such a costly, onerous, and intrusive program.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019 livestock herds.<\/p>\n

The concept of \u201c48-hour trace back\u201d is from OIE\u2019s Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Article 4.2.2, Performance Criteria, which suggests, as a measure of effect animal ID, that \u201call animals can be traced to the establishment of birth within 48 hours of an enquiry.\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/www.oie.int\/eng\/normes\/mcode\/en_chapitre_1.4.2.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

USDA\u2019s use of the word \u201cpremises\u201d also comes from the OIE code. The glossary defines \u201cestablishment\u201d as used in connection with 48-hour traceback as \u201cthe premises in which animals are kept.\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/www.oie.int\/eng\/normes\/mcode\/en_glossaire.htm#sous-chapitre-2<\/a><\/p>\n

The purpose of the OIE Code is one of assuring \u201c*the sanitary safety of international trade* in terrestrial animals and their products, (emphasis added) http:\/\/www.oie.int\/eng\/normes\/en_mcode.htm?e1d10<\/a> and in his May 6, 2009, editorial, OIE\u2019s Director General Bernard Vallat proudly proclaims, \u201cOne World, One Health.
\nhttp:\/\/www.oie.int\/eng\/edito\/en_lastedito.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

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: \u201cIt is quite simple. We want to be in compliance with OIE regulations by 2010.\u201d http:\/\/www.r-calfusa.com\/news_releases\/2009\/090507-nais.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

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\u2014those involved in international trade. There can be absolutely no doubt on this point.<\/p>\n

On June 11, 2009, Rosa DeLauro, Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture issued a press release on the committee\u2019s fiscal year 2010 bill which included the following statement :<\/p>\n

*The bill eliminates funding for the National Animal Identification
\nSystem (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
\ncurrent NAIS are unwarranted. *(Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

At the NAIS listening sessions a welcoming video is shown featuring Secretary Vilsack. He asserts that \u201cwe will all agree that we need to *protect the livestock markets* and the livelihood of producers\u201d and then continues:<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t 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\u2019s not where we want to be. (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

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 \u201cmarkets\u201d are not concerned about NAIS. They are concerned about exports which contain Canadian product.<\/p>\n

The Korean meat export protocols list as ineligible,<\/p>\n

1. Beef and beef products derived from cattle imported from Canada for immediate slaughter \u2026.<\/p>\n

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\u2026.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.fsis.usda.gov\/Regulations_&_Policies\/Republic_of_Korea_Requirements\/index.asp<\/a><\/p>\n

In a June 10, 2003, letter from Toshikazu Ijichi, Japan\u2019s Animal Health Division Director, Dr. Peter Fernandez, Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services for USDA-APHIS was advised that Japan had \u201cdeleted Canada from the list of countries which are eligible to export\u201d beef to Japan \u201cin light of confirmation of a single case of BSE in Canada.\u201d<\/p>\n

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
\n*countries with indigenous BSE cases\u2026to 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\u2026. (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.r-calfusa.com\/Animal_Health\/080618Exhibit1-LetterToNewYorkTimes-JapanAnimalHealthLetter.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

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\u2019s delay in the implementation\u2014and its frustration of the clear intent\u2014of COOL.<\/p>\n

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\u2014government knows best\u2014vis-\u00e0-vis the producer rejection of NAIS in the \u201clistening sessions\u201d and their failure to register their \u201cpremises.\u201d<\/p>\n

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 \u201cmarkets,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

Such pandering has come at great cost to rural producers. Examining USDA
\ndata for the period from 1984 through 2006, farm\/ranch share of income
\ndistribution from trade declined by 28% while services\u2019 share doubled
\nand trade\/transportation\u2019s share increased nearly 52%!<\/p>\n

Using the period 1982 \u2013 1984 as the base, and adjusting for inflation,
\nthe price of slaughter steers\/heifers has declined 57% since 1947 while
\nthe retail beef price index has increased 3%! Today, the United States
\nis a net importer of beef, some 17% of domestic supply is of foreign
\norigin. USDA has failed those it was established to serve.<\/p>\n

Qui bono? NAIS burdens producers with costs and intrusive regulations to
\nbenefit industrial agriculture and global trade. There are no benefits
\nfor producers in NAIS. Being in the business of accumulating and
\nwielding power, Government is a beneficiary; the tag and technology
\ncompanies will earn increased profits; meat packers will mine data and
\nindustrial agriculture engaged in international trade will likewise
\nenjoy increased profits.<\/p>\n

This is a simple issue of \u201cfollow the money.\u201d USDA\u2019s 2005 Strategic Plan
\nfor NAIS states that<\/p>\n

In 2002, the National Institute of Animal Agriculture<\/p>\n

(NIAA) *initiated meetings that led to* the development of the U.S.<\/p>\n

Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). That work provided the<\/p>\n

foundation data standards for the National Animal Identification<\/p>\n

System (NAIS). (Emphasis added.)
\nhttp:\/\/wlsb.state.wy.us\/brands\/Premises\/brochure\/NAIS_Draft_Strategic_Plan_42505.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

An examination of NIAA\u2019s membership list discloses a lengthy list of
\ntag\/tech companies including AgInfoLink, Allflex, Brock\u2019s Cattle-Identi
\nCompany, Cattle-Traq, Destron Fearing, EZ-ID\/AVID ID systems, Farnam,
\nFort Supply technologies, Meta Farms, Inc., Micro Beef Technologies, and
\nNational Band and Tag, to name a few. The meat packing industry is
\nrepresented by Cargill and AMI.
\nhttp:\/\/animalagriculture.org\/aboutNIAA\/members\/memberdirectory.asp<\/a><\/p>\n

The head of NIAA\u2019s Animal ID committee is from Allflex.
\nhttp:\/\/animalagriculture.org\/aboutNIAA\/committees\/AIDIS\/animalid.asp<\/a><\/p>\n

NCBA also appears as a member; however, it entered into a cooperative
\nagreement with APHIS, taking money to promote premises registration.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.cattlementocattlemen.org\/watcPremisesRegistration.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www-mirror.aphis.usda.gov\/newsroom\/speeches\/content\/2007\/02\/NatlCattlemen2-1-07.shtml<\/a><\/p>\n

The producer bears all the costs and derives none of the benefits. That,
\nsimply, is the reason for the overwhelming rejection of NAIS by
\nproducers. The listening sessions, if USDA will listen, make that point
\nbeyond cavil.<\/p>\n

The existing combination of hot brands, brand inspection, health papers,
\nauction back tags, and border interdiction of disease has served this
\nnation well for 100 years. Brucellosis, TB and other livestock diseases
\nhave been effectively controlled while FMD has been unknown in the
\ncountry since 1929.<\/p>\n

On its website, USDA\/APHIS acknowledges that existing \u201cprograms have
\nachieved significant success over the years in reducing animal disease\u201d
\nbut then asserts that \u201canimal disease remains a reality in the U.S. as
\nillustrated in the following examples.\u201d The two bovine diseases used to
\nillustrate USDA\u2019s assertion are BSE and TB.
\nhttp:\/\/animalid.aphis.usda.gov\/nais\/why\/animal_disease.shtml<\/a><\/p>\n

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

USDA, through extended litigation with R-CALF USA, fought to open the
\nU.S. border to Canadian cattle including those over 30-months of age.
\nCanada does have a BSE problem. USDA further litigated with Creekstone
\nFarms to prevent that business from voluntarily testing its cattle for BSE.<\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s Food Inspection Agency has acknowledged that feed cohorts from
\nknown BSE animals were exported to this country for slaughter. For
\nexample, the CFIA announced that five cohorts of the November, 2008, BSE
\nHolstein dairy cow were \u201cexported for slaughter.\u201d According to CFIA,
\n\u201cinvestigation showed\u201d the feed cohorts \u201cconsumed the same potentially
\ncontaminated feed.\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/www.inspection.gc.ca\/english\/anima\/heasan\/disemala\/bseesb\/bccb2008\/15investe.shtml<\/a><\/p>\n

Given USDA\u2019s i) laissez-faire attitude toward the importation of BSE
\nfrom Canada, ii) its asserted position that its risk assessments and the
\nremoval of SRMs result in a de minimis risk to consumers, and iii) its
\ninsistence that U.S. producers cannot voluntarily test for BSE, the
\ncontention that BSE is a disease that must now be managed with NAIS is
\nsimply disingenuous.<\/p>\n

BSE cannot be managed or prevented by NAIS following its importation.
\nBSE should never be imported period. Dr. Stanley Prusiner, Nobel Prize
\nwinner for his work in the discovery of prions, the cause of BSE states:<\/p>\n

Regardless of whether the tonsils and distal ileum have been removed
\nfrom cattle \u2013 and in the case of cattle 30 months of age and older, the
\nbrain, eyes, spinal cord, and trigeminal ganglia as well \u2013 these
\nmeasures are unlikely to be sufficient to ensure the safety of the meat
\nwe consume. *The only reliable way to minimize the risk of humans
\ndeveloping vCJD from BSE-infected cattle is to eliminate BSE-infected
\ncattle from the food chain. *(Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.r-calfusa.com\/BSE\/081117-Exhibit%207,%20Prusiner%20Declaration.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

NAIS will do nothing to eliminate BSE from the food chain. USDA
\ncontinues to allow the importation cattle from Canada which undeniably
\nhas a BSE problem. Dr. Prusiner further states that \u201cactive testing in
\nthe EU has shown that BSE-infected cattle may display no signs even
\nthough they harbor substantial numbers of prions that can be identified
\nusing a rapid test for BSE.\u201d _Id_.<\/p>\n

There is no rapid testing done in the United States and, as previously
\nmentioned, USDA employed litigation to prevent Creekstone farms from
\nvoluntarily testing cattle. To assert that NAIS is now needed to manage
\nBSE is an absurdity at best: either USDA with its risk assessments
\ncoupled with the removal of SRMs is correct and there is no BSE risk;
\nor, Dr. Prusiner is correct and BSE should never be introduced into the
\nfood chain via imported cattle. In either case, NAIS is of no value.<\/p>\n

With regard to TB , Audit Report, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
\nService\u2019s Control Over the Bovine Tuberculosis Program, U.S. Department
\nof Agriculture, Report No. 50601-0009-Ch, September, 2006. Section 2,
\npage 19, states:<\/p>\n

*Between FYs 2001 and 2005, 75 percent (205 of 272) of the TB cases
\ndetected through slaughter surveillance were determined by APHIS to have
\noriginated from Mexico*. In response, *APHIS has worked with Mexico *to
\nimprove their TB eradication program; *however, these efforts are
\nundermined by the disease\u2019s 3 to 12 month incubation period. Cattle may
\ntest negative for the disease prior to export, but develop TB and infect
\nU.S. cattle after import. *Although the majority of TB-infected cattle<\/p>\n

found by slaughter surveillance in the United States are from Mexico,
\n*APHIS has not developed controls to restrict the movement of cattle, or
\nrequire additional testing to compensate for the disease\u2019s incubation
\nperiod. Until additional controls are added, APHIS cannot reasonably
\nexpect to achieve its goal and *<\/p>\n

*eradicate TB when it is being imported into the United States each
\nyear.* *\/ \/*(Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

Page 19 of the Report further noted that Mexico annually \u201cexports 1
\nmillion cattle to the United States\u201d; that Mexico has \u201ca higher
\nprevalence of the disease\u201d such that Mexican cattle \u201care more likely to
\nbe infected with TB\u201d; that *Mexico has \u201cno accredited-free states\u201d and
\nin 2004 \u201creported over 2,000 TB-infected herds\u2026compared to just 10
\npositive herds reported by the United States\u201d; and that \u201c99 percent of
\nthe cattle imported from Mexico spend time on U.S. premises prior to
\nslaughter\u201d with such time generally ranging from \u201c5 to 14 months.\u201d
\n*(Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

Page 20 of the Report states that \u201cdespite the higher prevalence of
\nTB-infected cattle in Mexico, APHIS has not established additional
\nimport controls or requirements to test or restrict the movement of
\nMexican cattle after importation to the United States\u201d and that the
\ncattle so imported \u201csimply become part of the U.S. herds.\u201d The lack of
\ncontrols over Mexican cattle \u201chas resulted in infected cattle being
\ndetected in 12 states over the last 5 years.\u201d A chart on page 20 of the
\nReport shows the states and numbers of TB cases traced to Mexico for FYs
\n2001-2005. That chart shows 2 in New Mexico and 5 in Arizona.<\/p>\n

Page 22 of the Report set forth the conclusion that \u201c*APHIS was under
\nutilizing\u2026high risk herds\u201d as a tool to \u201ctarget testing to questionable
\nareas.\u201d *(Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

In short, USDA\u2019s contention that TB must be managed by NAIS while we
\ncontinue to import the disease from Mexico is, like its similar BSE
\nargument, most disingenuous.<\/p>\n

Foot and mouth is another disease which Homeland Security and USDA have
\nused as a scare tactic. Given USDA\u2019s efforts to regionalize Argentina
\nand the announced relocation of the Plum Island facility to Kansas,
\nAmerica\u2019s heartland, the assertion that producers must now embrace NAIS
\nto combat a potential FMD outbreak is untenable.<\/p>\n

There may well be an outbreak of FMD. Unfortunately, it will likely be a
\ndirect result of government action: a leak from the new Kansas facility,
\nsimilar to the recent breach at the Surrey facility in England; or, it
\nwill come across our border which USDA refuses to secure and in fact
\nworks to make more porous. NAIS will neither prevent nor mitigate the
\ndamage that will occur under either scenario.<\/p>\n

The Canadian Veterinarian Journal, Vol. 50, January, 2009, contained a
\n60-page report on the containment of England\u2019s 2001 FMD outbreak.
\nEngland has long had an animal ID system; however, that system and
\n\u201ctraceback\u201d was not the key to FMD containment in 2001.<\/p>\n

The 2001 FMD outbreak was handled by throwing up perimeters and then,
\nwith locals, working in from the perimeter. Similarly, states have
\nexisting plans for handling emergencies which would include a FMD
\noutbreak. Such an outbreak would be handled as it was in England: a
\nperimeter would be established with no movement inside the perimeter as
\nthe necessary epidemiology work would then be done from the perimeter
\ninward.<\/p>\n

Animal ID was not utilized to contain the 2001 FMD outbreak nor would it
\nbe of any meaningful benefit were this nation to suffer an outbreak.
\nFurther, it would not identify vehicles and individuals who have been in
\ncontact with contaminated herds; hence, the establishment of a perimeter
\nwith work then directed inward.<\/p>\n

Even with TB, a perimeter is established and work is then done inward.
\nUSDA\u2019s handling of the current TB situation in Nebraska well illustrates
\nthis point. NAIS would not alter the course of the investigation.<\/p>\n

USDA claims that NAIS is vital in the case of TB as some investigations
\nhave taken up to 160 days. Again, the current Nebraska situation is
\ninstructive. A perimeter is established and herds are investigated
\nwithin that perimeter.<\/p>\n

What have been possible contacts with the infected herd and what has
\nhappened in the last 12 \u2013 24 months with neighboring herds and cohorts?
\nUSDA postures that the livestock industry has no records, no idea of
\nwhere calves may have been sold or cull cows sent.<\/p>\n

USDA adduces no evidence to support that assertion beyond its claim of
\nan investigation of up to 160 days in length. USDA never details what it
\ndid in that 160 period and how much investigative time was on issues for
\nwhich NAIS would have been of no benefit.<\/p>\n

Producers have records and so do states. Arizona is a brand state. It
\nhas a record of every animal that has left our ranch, where it went, and
\nwho the trucker was. We have similar records. USDA is simply
\nmisrepresenting the state of the livestock industry.<\/p>\n

Border interdiction of disease and running a closed herd\u2014which we do in
\nour operation\u2014are the two best defenses against the introduction of
\ndisease. NAIS is of no benefit to us as producers.<\/p>\n

*2. _USDA has neither statutory nor constitutional authority for the
\nimposition of NAIS; indeed, NAIS represents the implementation of the
\nOIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the Codex Alimentarius, the
\nadaptation of which is a treaty action never ratified by the Senate as
\nrequired by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution._*<\/p>\n

USDA has received repeated requests from multiple organizations for a
\nspecific citation of authority for NAIS. It has never responded, beyond
\na generic reference to the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 coupled
\nwith a broad assertion of authority to “carry out operations and
\nmeasures to protect the health of American Agriculture.”<\/p>\n

That assertion is apparently from 7 USC 8308 and has been taken
\ncompletely out of context. That section authorizes USDA to \u201c*carry out*
\noperations and measures to *detect, control, or eradicate* any pest or
\ndisease of livestock (*including the drawing of blood and diagnostic
\ntesting* of animals), including animals at a slaughterhouse, stockyard,
\nor other<\/p>\n

point of concentration.\u201d (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

The statutory examples of \u201coperations and measures\u201d are of _overt action
\nby USDA _ such as drawing of blood and diagnostic testing, all directly
\nintended to \u201cdetect, control, or eradicate\u201d pests or diseases. The
\nstatutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis and noscitur a
\nsociis require the general terms \u201coperations and measures\u201d to be
\nconstrued in light of the specific terms \u201cdrawing of blood and
\ndiagnostic testing.\u201d<\/p>\n

The language most certainly does not confer broad authority to mandate
\n_overt action by producers_ in the form of an animal ID system designed
\nto track livestock movement; that does not directly and actively
\n\u201cdetect, control, or eradicate\u201d pests or diseases; and which certainly
\nis not a measure such as \u201cdrawing of blood and diagnostic testing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Any fair reading of the Act does not permit the assertion of authority
\nby USDA for NAIS. Further, USDA\u2019s assertion of broad authority cannot be
\ncountenanced under any fair reading of the United States Constitution.
\nThe powers of Congress are not implied, plenary, and inherent, but
\nrather express, limited and enumerated. USDA\u2019s assertion that Congress
\nhas delegated and granted it broad powers which are implied, plenary and
\ninherent flies in the face of the clear intent of Article 1, Section 8,
\nof the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

USDA is an administrative agency under the Executive branch of the
\nfederal government and enjoys no powers beyond those expressly granted
\nit by Congress, acting in turn under the express, limited, and
\nenumerated powers granted under Article 1, Section 8.<\/p>\n

As noted above, USDA is essentially seeking to implement OIE\u2019s
\nTerrestrial Animal Health Code and the Codex Alimentarius by
\nadministrative fiat. Both Codes are a complex web of international
\nagreements and actions by numerous countries.
\nhttp:\/\/www.oie.int\/eng\/OIE\/en_histoire.htm?e1d1<\/a>;
\nhttp:\/\/www.oie.int\/eng\/OIE\/organisation\/en_structure.htm?e1d1<\/a>;
\nhttp:\/\/www.oie.int\/eng\/OIE\/actes\/en_accords.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

The net effect of an implementation of NAIS by administrative fiat would
\nbe the enforcement upon American producers of international standards
\nagreed to by various countries. Those standards are, in essence,
\ntreaties much like the free trade agreements which required the consent
\nof the Senate. That body has never considered the agreements comprising
\nthe two codes.<\/p>\n

The very fact of disagreement between producers and USDA over the
\nnecessity of NAIS underscores the need for transparent debate,
\ndeliberation, and consideration by the Senate.<\/p>\n

Even if the two codes are not construed as treaties, they are most
\ncertainly a regulation of commerce with foreign nations, a power
\nreserved to Congress, not to USDA as an administrative agency under the
\nexecutive branch of government. USDA simply has no power, statutorily or
\nconstitutionally, to mandate NAIS.<\/p>\n

*3. _The regulatory and enforcement provisions of NAIS are unknown and
\nits underlying premise is suspect._*<\/p>\n

Inherent in NAIS is the assumption of an errorless system; i.e., that i)
\nno cattle will ever lose ear tags, ii) that the tags will always
\nfunction and not succumb to the effects of weather and sun, iii) that
\nall dead and missing cattle can be accounted for, iv) that all movements
\nof cattle can and will be accurately scanned, v) that the data so
\nscanned will always be properly registered, vi) that the data so
\nuploaded will always be properly received vii) that the data so received
\nwill be always be properly recorded and viii) that the data will always
\nbe retrievable.<\/p>\n

USDA has no concept of the conditions under which cattle producers
\noperate, how cattle are handled, what facilities will actually be
\nrequired to read and scan tags, of weather\u2014heat, cold, wet, dry,
\ndust\u2014under which NAIS would function. It has no concept of a lack of
\ninternet access to upload information. The errorless system envisioned
\nby USDA is simply not a real world scenario.<\/p>\n

There is no duplication or redundancy as is the case in our present
\nsystem. The concept of 48-hour trace back, while beguiling, is actually
\ninferior to the present system due to the duplication and redundancy in
\nthe existing system.<\/p>\n

England has experienced problems with its ID program with a cow herd
\nthat is substantially smaller than the U.S. herd. According to a
\nNovember, 2003, House of Commons Report, the entire population of
\ncattle, sheep and pigs in England was a mere 25 million. In contrast,
\nthere are nearly 100 million cattle in the United States.<\/p>\n

The livestock industry in England is on a much smaller scale than in the
\nU.S.; yet, according to the October 12, 2008, issue of the \/Telegraph\/,<\/p>\n

In a situation described as udder chaos, officials at the Department for
\nEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) admitted in Parliamentary
\nquestions that 20,979 of the animals had been mislaid.<\/p>\n

The livestock should have been logged on Defra’s Cattle Tracing System,
\ndevised to protect public and animal health after the BSE and foot and
\nmouth epidemics.<\/p>\n

However the cattle have disappeared from the system, while another 1039
\nare believed to have been loaded onto cattle trucks and never heard of
\nagain, according to the Daily Star.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/newstopics\/howaboutthat\/3182720\/Defra-admits-losing-20000-cows-in-Britain.html<\/a><\/p>\n

The same article noted that Britain\u2019s Ministry of Defence had lost a
\ncomputer hard drive containing the private details of 100,000 members of
\nthe Armed Forces and that the Home Office had lost a memory stick
\ncontaining data on 84,000 prisoners in England and Wales.<\/p>\n

Such experiences are not unique to England. USDA itself has had similar
\nincidents.<\/p>\n

In 2007, USDA inadvertently published the social security numbers of
\n63,000 people on the internet.
\nhttp:\/\/www.technewsworld.com\/story\/security\/57029.html?wlc=1243391840<\/a><\/p>\n

Also in 2007, USDA had computers stolen containing sensitive information
\nabout farmers. http:\/\/seclists.org\/isn\/2007\/Mar\/0060.html<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2006, USDA\u2019s office of Inspector General, in its annual audit,
\nconcluded that the \u201cAgriculture Department continues to suffer from
\ninadequate management and monitoring of IT security controls, both at
\nthe department-level and in its agencies.\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/gcn.com\/articles\/2006\/10\/20\/usda-security-improvements-still-not-effective-ig.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n

Indeed, USDA has been given the lowest possible marks for 5 straight
\nyears on federal computer report card grades by the House Government
\nReform Committee. http:\/\/www.internetnews.com\/security\/article.php\/3615831<\/a><\/p>\n

John Carter, former chairman of the Australian Beef Association and
\nwhose family holds the oldest registered brand in that country, reports
\nthat 20% of the cattle in the NLIS data base are missing; that a
\npersonal audit of his NLIS data base shows that less than 50% of the
\nanimals he has sold are so reflected in the data base; than a \u201ctrace
\nback trial\u201d of 300 head of cattle could track only 75% and that the
\nremaining 25% could be tracked only through Australia\u2019s traditional
\n\u201cpaper trail.\u201d* * Carter states that NLIS has \u201cproduced a shambles.\u201d<\/p>\n

The notion that NAIS is a technologically feasible means of tracing 100
\nmillion head of cattle is not supported by existing evidence. USDA\u2019s own
\nrecord with computers, theft, hacking and other security breaches
\ncoupled with animal ID experiences in England and Australia well
\ndemonstrate that it is a system that should be rejected.<\/p>\n

What will happen when cattle movements are not accurately scanned,
\nregistered, transmitted, or received? There will be discrepancies and
\nirregularities in data. How heavy handed will USDA be in such instances?
\nMost producers have experience with federal agencies and in many cases,
\nit is not favorable.<\/p>\n

In our own experience, dealing with TB in New Mexico, we have found the
\nagency and its rules to be heavy handed with demands which, by its own
\nadmission, have no rational basis.<\/p>\n

USDA has given no indication to producers of how NAIS will be enforced
\nand discrepancies\/irregularities handled. If England is any indication,
\nproducers can expect heavy-handed enforcement.<\/p>\n

According to London\u2019s \/Telegraph\/, Cheshire dairyman David Dobbins had
\n567 head of dairy cattle destroyed by DEFRA as a consequence of ID
\npaperwork \u201cirregularities\u201d notwithstanding that DEFRA \u201cfailed to explain
\nhow many or what these were.\u201d Prior to the destruction of the animals.
\nMr. Dobbins records were seized by DEFRA, negating his ability to even
\nrespond to DEFRA\u2019s noncompliance assertions.
\nhttp:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/uknews\/1545862\/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html<\/a><\/p>\n

One fears that NAIS will bring similar events upon the heads of this
\nnation\u2019s cattle producers<\/p>\n

*4. _USDA has spent well in excess of $140 million promoting premises
\nregistration and NAIS. This expenditure is most irresponsible at a time
\nwhen this nation is\u2014in essence\u2014bankrupt. This nation simply cannot
\nafford any more such frivolous expenditures._*<\/p>\n

In the face of the hundreds of billions and indeed trillions of dollars
\nwhich the Federal Government has thrown about the last several months,
\nUSDA\u2019s NAIS expenditures are minuscule. Nevertheless, it is an
\nexpenditure of money which the federal government simply does not have.<\/p>\n

The May 30, 2009, issue of \/USA Today\/ reported numbers previously
\ndiscussed in various sources by David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller
\nGeneral who resigned in disgust following Congressional inaction on his
\nannual report to Congress. The total unfunded liabilities of the Federal
\nGovernment now total a record $63.8 trillion, a sum equal to $546,668
\nfor every U.S. household!<\/p>\n

Estimates are that only around 1% of U.S. households have a net worth
\nsufficient to pay their proportionate share of the $63.8 trillion in
\ndebt. In short, this nation is bankrupt.<\/p>\n

Continued spending on NAIS, a program for which, as discussed above, no
\nneed has ever been demonstrated is simply irresponsible given this
\nnation\u2019s financial condition.<\/p>\n

NAIS should immediately be terminated and not a single additional dollar
\nspent thereon.<\/p>\n

* *<\/p>\n

*5. _USDA has no credibility with producers and there is no on the
\nground support for NAIS, without which it simply cannot succeed._*<\/p>\n

At all of the listening sessions\u2014through Albuquerque on June 16\u2014two
\nsalient facts emerged: there is widespread mistrust of USDA among
\nproducers and there is virtually no producer support for NAIS. A chasm,
\na gulf exists between USDA and producers.<\/p>\n

NAIS was never intended to be voluntary. Several comments in the 2005
\nStrategic Plan underscore this:<\/p>\n

— NAIS must be implemented\/ \/(USDA Secretary Mike Johanns)<\/p>\n

— We have been working on an animal identification plan here at<\/p>\n

USDA\u2026over a number of years now, and our goal<\/p>\n

has remained consistent\u2014to be able to track animals within a 48-<\/p>\n

hour period. We are prepared to roll up our sleeves and get this<\/p>\n

implemented\u2026. NAIS is a top USDA priority. (William \u201cBill\u201d<\/p>\n

Hawks Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs)<\/p>\n

— [W]e move forward to implement NAIS. (John R. Clifford, Deputy<\/p>\n

Administrator Veterinary Services)<\/p>\n

(Page 2, Strategic Plan)
\nhttp:\/\/wlsb.state.wy.us\/brands\/Premises\/brochure\/NAIS_Draft_Strategic_Plan_42505.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

The Plan claimed that \u201cstakeholders provide broad support for national
\nanimal identification\u201d and in its timeline listed January, 2009, as the
\ntarget date by which \u201cReporting of defined animal movements [will be]
\nrequired; [and the] entire program [becomes] mandatory.\u201d<\/p>\n

USDA pulled out all stops. In Colorado, 4-H children were prohibited
\nfrom showing livestock at the state fair unless their parents had
\nregistered their \u201cpremises.\u201d Money was given to FFA in the hope of
\ncajoling parents.<\/p>\n

The Plan was changed to become \u201cvoluntary\u201d and NAIS morphed from an
\nanimal health plan to a marketing tool; then it became a means of
\nassuring consumers that their beef is wholesome\u2014a food safety issue;
\nfinally, the trump card of bio-terrorism was played.<\/p>\n

Four years later, and following some $140 million to register
\n\u201cpremises\u201d\u2014much of it bribe money handed out to \u201cpartners\u201d in an effort
\nto enlist their support\u2014only some 30% of \u201cpremises\u201d have been registered.<\/p>\n

In many states, however, when dairies, feeding, hog and poultry
\noperations, are excluded, less than 10% of cattle producers have
\nregistered. Missouri is such an example.<\/p>\n

Having played all its cards of crisis, USDA\u2019s plan had nevertheless run
\namuck. There was no \u201cstakeholder\u201d support. USDA, fond of the term
\n\u201cstakeholder\u201d had forgotten that the only real \u201cstakeholders\u201d were those
\nproducers on the ground who actually owned the cattle that were to be
\nthe subject of NAIS.<\/p>\n

USDA apparently assumed that producers were red-necked bumpkins who
\ncould be coached into compliance by smooth talking bureaucrats in Brooks
\nBrothers suits singing the soothing song of the voluntary nature of NAIS.<\/p>\n

USDA\u2019s next target for bamboozlement was Congress. At the March 11 NAIS
\nhearing earlier this year before the House Agricultural Subcommittee on
\nLivestock, Dairy and Poultry, USDA stacked the deck. The first \u201cpanel\u201d
\nconsisted of but a single individual: APHIS\u2019 Dr. John Clifford who was
\ngiven over one hour to advocate for NAIS.<\/p>\n

There was but a single independent cattle producer invited to give
\ntestimony, R-CALF\u2019s Dr. Max Thornsberry, who was afforded a mere five
\nminutes of time.<\/p>\n

All other panel members were* *representatives of government (Dr.
\nWilliams and Mr. St. Cry); were representatives of groups who were had
\ntaken, directly or indirectly, bribe money from USDA to promote NAIS*
\n*under the euphemism of \u201cco-operative agreements\u201d (Mr. Nutt, Dr. Jordan,
\nand Mr. Butler); or were former USDA\/APHIS employees (Dr. Ron DeHaven.)<\/p>\n

Chairman Scott, during a brief discussion on foot and mouth, seized on a
\nreference to the highly contagious nature of bovine FMD and a mention of
\npotential airborne contamination to try and connect human health with
\nbovine FMD. Specifically, Chairman Scott suggested that NAIS was
\nnecessary to protect humans from contracting bovine FMD. USDA\u2019s Dr.
\nClifford did nothing to correct Chairman Scott\u2019s misapprehension.<\/p>\n

There is a human form of FMD which is \u201ca common viral illness of infants
\nand children\u201d but it is \u201c*not related*\u201d to the bovine disease. (See the
\nwebsite for the Center for Disease Control and its discussion of the
\nhuman form http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/ncidod\/dvrd\/revb\/enterovirus\/hfhf.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

)<\/p>\n

Misconception manifested itself again when Representative Conaway asked
\nDr. Clifford about the triggering event for a 48-hour traceback under
\nNAIS. Representative Conaway\u2019s question was in the context of a boy in
\nPhiladelphia who becomes ill after he has eaten a hamburger.<\/p>\n

Traceback of live animals has nothing to do with traceback of E. coli,
\nwhich was underlying Representative Conaway\u2019s question. There is
\npresently no traceback system from the consumption of meat to the
\nprocessing facility or meat packing plant which would be the source of
\ncontamination. NAIS does nothing to change this: traceability would stop
\nat the processing plant door.<\/p>\n

As he had done with Chairman Scott and the misconception on FMD and a
\nperceived risk to human health, Dr. Clifford did nothing to correct
\nRepresentative Conaway\u2019s erroneous conception that NAIS had something to
\ndo with tracing of E. coli in contaminated meat. In short, Dr. Clifford
\nallowed the erroneous conception that NAIS was a human health and food
\nsafety issue to go unchallenged.<\/p>\n

Having engaged in such misleading conduct, USDA initiated listening
\nsessions, handing out materials including a May 7 \u201cDear Participant\u201d
\nletter under the signature of John Clifford. There are interesting
\nphrases in that letter:<\/p>\n

n We need to work *collaboratively* to resolve concerns *and move
\nforward with animal tracebility*<\/p>\n

n NAIS is a *cooperative effort*<\/p>\n

n Much more work is needed to *fully implement NAIS*<\/p>\n

n *Together* we can develop a system that we an all support.<\/p>\n

Inherent in those phrases is a determination on the part of USDA to
\nproceed with NAIS, notwithstanding total producer opposition thereto.
\nProducers will be spun as rejecting the reasonable overtures of a wise
\nUSDA. The platitude of wanting to listen and hear producer input is a
\nvelvet glove masking an iron fist.<\/p>\n

Several states have statutes prohibiting a mandatory NAIS. How will that
\nbe handled? In a system of federalism, does USDA really have ultimate
\nauthority over livestock? Does Article 1, Section 8, of the federal
\nConstitution in fact negative much of the Animal Health Protection Act
\nrelied on by USDA? At the Albuquerque listening session, one Navajo
\nspeaker suggested that the tribes may not accept a mandatory NAIS. How
\nwill the issue of tribal sovereignty be resolved? Does USDA really wish
\nto force a constitutional confrontation on these points?<\/p>\n

USDA may mandate NAIS but in the process will further alienate
\nproducers. The existing gulf will become an unbridgeable chasm.
\nEnforcement will make criminals of law abiding citizens as producers are
\njailed and their property subjected to confiscatory fines to coerce
\ncompliance. Is this what USDA truly desires?<\/p>\n

In our operation, we will simply not comply with NAIS, even if it is
\nmade mandatory. We are weary of an intrusive government and the fights
\nassociated therewith. Rather than continuing to submit to intrusive,
\nheavy-handed regulation, we would choose to exit the business. There is
\nno joy in serfdom on one\u2019s own land and with one\u2019s own animals.<\/p>\n

We respectfully urge Secretary Vilsack to close down shop with NAIS and
\nto began a new dawn of rebuilding bridges with producers, working with
\nus rather than with industrialized agriculture, to fulfill USDA\u2019s
\nexpress statutory mandate and be about the business of improving \u201cthe
\nquality of life for people living in the rural and nonmetropolitan
\nregions of the nation.\u201d 7 USC 2204 (a).<\/p>\n

That mandate is a true cooperative effort, one that can be achieved
\nwithout the expenditure of vast sums of money, without onerous
\nregulations but rather by simply working to rehabilitate commodity
\nmarkets, restoring them as true markets where prices reflect supply and
\ndemand and not the oligopsonistic bargaining power and market
\nmanipulation by industrialized agriculture coupled with speculation by
\nhedge funds and individuals who have never and will never own a cow.<\/p>\n

As producers, our livelihood is more dependent on fixing broken domestic
\nmarkets than it is on expanding foreign markets and implementing an ID
\nsystem that provides a false sense of security for herd health.<\/p>\n

Stop NAIS now and actually help producers do what they do best: produce.
\nCurrently, USDA\u2019s policies would castrate and bid the gelding be fruitful.<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[7,477,8],"class_list":["post-19","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-nais","tag-corruption-in-government","tag-nais","tag-oppose-nais"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":430,"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19\/revisions\/430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/amishinternet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}