new nais strategy & small farm n ranch lobby day in dc

beagler1776(z6MD)February 16, 2010

Hi all,

Just thought I'd pass along an email I just got from a friend who's worked hard in VA for small farmers and against NAIS. I asked her for the real deal on the NAIS backdown - what follows is her reply, a doc from someone else I don't know, and a call to action.

I hope many of you will put your time n efforts where your heart n mouth are and attend the lobbying day Wed., March 10 in DC. Details to follow soon.

"NAIS is NOT over, just renamed and reformatted. Article attached.

Also, the "food safety" bill(s) would require complete "traceability" (that's their new word which is code for NAIS) which would mean NAIS for EVERYTHING. "NAIS is over" just means they have more back door ways to try and force this thing.

We are having our 4th annual national small farm and ranch lobby day in dc on wed. march 10. HOPE YOU WILL COME THIS YEAR!!!

Planning to do a "webinar" on lobbying before that. Will let you know.

Just back in from pm chores. Baby goats VERY VERY cute. My does decided that a raging blizzard was a good time to kid.... Most born during it..... " :-)

Here's a link she sent. I hope it works. (I haven't checked it out yet tho)

Easter Bunny Reports "NAIS is Dead!!!!"

Doreen Hannes

February 8, 2010

As I reported after returning from the NIAA (National Institute for Animal Agriculture) meeting last August, rumors of the death of NAIS have been greatly exaggerated. (Read The USDA has finally admitted that they have too much negative publicity surrounding the name NAIS, and that they actually have to do what they tried to do in the first place: get the states to do their bidding on 'animal identification' and 'traceability' according to World Trade Organization standards. So yippee. They are only going to exercise their rule-making authority to control interstate commerce. Well, that's all they had the authority to do at the outset. So we should be giddy with excitement that they are openly proclaiming they will do just that now.

Should we be happier than a pig in a puddle because they openly stated that they will leave animals which never exit the state out of the new plan? They never had the authority to deal with those animals anywayÂunless, of course, you take money from the USDA. Otherwise, that authority rests with your state. The USDA will continue to fund the states and work in a 'collaborative' way with states and industry (continuing the Public Private Partnership otherwise known as fascism) to develop the "minimum standards" that must be followed in order to participate in interstate commerce.

So, as many conversations with my compatriots in the fight against NAIS have alluded to, at last the USDA is pulling the commerce clause out and holding it up as their hammer for "minimum standards" that will be required by forthcoming regulations for 'disease traceability'. And why has the USDA taken to calling it 'disease traceability' instead of 'animal identification'? Because they only HAVE authority over the diseases! The FDA has authority over live animals on the farm (, even though the majority of people don't know this, and it is a very useful poker chip in the globalization game. It is called misdirection, and those of us who have been deeply involved in the fight against the NAIS are very aware of this agency's use of misinformation, disinformation, subterfuge and general sneakiness in foisting upon us their WTO driven desire that will create captive supply for export of the entire domestic livestock population.

The only official document available on the "NAIS not NAIS" program is a seven page Q and A available at the new page for "NAIS not NAIS" called Animal Disease Traceability. (http://www.aphis. publications/ animal_health/ content/printabl e_version/ faq_traceability .pdf). It's only 7 pages, so if you have read the previous 1200 pages of USDA documents on this program, it's a walk in the park.

One of the first questions that one asks when told "NAIS is Dead!", (aside from "what's it's new name?") is "What about all the people who are in the Premises Database with PIN's already?" According to the 7-page document, they stay in that database.

How about animals that are already identified with the "840" tags for NAIS? They also stay in the database. What about the "840" tags themselves? Well, the USDA and States will keep using them.

Are they going to halt further registrations into the NAIS database? Heck no! They'll keep registering properties and will also be using a 'unique location identifier' for this kinder, gentler NAIS that the States will run for us.

Why are they re-using the first two prongs of NAIS? Aside from the unstated fact that they are using them because they have to use them to be compliant with OIE (World Animal Health Organization) guidelines, they say it's because of the tremendous amount of money spent developing NAIS already even though it is un-Constitutional.

How much money? It's government math, so it's likely done by consensus as opposed to literal whole numbers that add up- you know, like 2+2=4. Consensus would make it possible for 2+2 to equal 5. Anyway, figures cited by various officials are anywhere from $120 million to $180 million. Less than 60¢ per person, so almost nothing when compared to the monstrous 107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities we are currently carrying. Believe me, when I say I am not for government waste at all, but when an agency has spent this much time and money on an unfruitful program, isn't it better to simply fully knock it in the head instead of changing the name and playing "Hide and Go Seek" with the people who have adamantly opposed this program? Why couldn't the USDA do the only truly Constitutional thing with this international-trade driven program and let those who want to deal in international markets do this to themselves through the Export Verification Services department of the USDA? Well, if they did that, not only would they have to actually be fully open and transparent, they would need to let the public in on the big secret that the United States is no longer in charge of its own policies, rather they are obligated to follow the Sanitary PhytoSanitary (SPS) directives of the World Trade Organization agencies, namely Codex Ailimentarius, the OIE and the IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention).

And we still have the very real issue of the massive database for premises registration (or the unique location allocator) having no public or verifiable oversight to check whether or not people who have been told they were removed were in fact removed from that database. So if NAIS is dead, why not allow the database to be annihilated? Obviously, they are still following the plan.

What about the states that have passed legislation designed to constrain NAIS from becoming mandatory within their boundaries? How will this new disease traceability program affect them? Well, since this is NOT NAIS and the regulations aren't yet written, the states will have to wait to find out what requirements they MUST MEET in order to participate in interstate commerce. There's your hammer.

So how powerful is the interstate commerce clause? Pretty dang powerful. And if people who dealt in the local food movement fully understood Wickard vs. Filburn, ( they would feel no consolation whatsoever from the USDA's statement that they are not interested in regulating livestock that stay within the state.

In a nutshell, this 1942 Supreme Court case found that since Filburn had accepted money as part of the Agricultural Adjustments Act and then grew wheat to feed his own livestock, that he was not only subject to the regulation of the USDA by accepting that money, but also, since he grew wheat, he hadn't purchased it, and had he not grown it, he would have had to purchase wheat which would have likely come through interstate commerce. Therefore, his planting of wheat affected interstate commerce and solidified the USDA's jurisdiction over his actions.

If you transplant "tomato" for wheat you can see how sinister this ruling truly is. If you grow tomatoes, you won't be buying them, so if you don't buy them, and since the store bought tomatoes likely cross state lines in their movement, you are affecting interstate commerce by growing tomatoesÂ.This is precedent, and it is a very, very dangerous precedent. So taking money or help from the USDA to establish your local farmer's market is going to put you into a relationship that is highly precarious for freedom.

The interstate commerce clause was not designed to hammer states into submission to federal or international agency trade objectives, it was to stop states from unfairly discriminating against each other and to enable us to be a strong union of sovereign states that could actually feed itself and prosper. The only thing to do is to keep fighting with full knowledge and to get the States to exercise their duty to protect the Citizens from an overarching Federal government. We need states to completely free up direct trade between farmers and consumers and we need states to work together to create their own criteria for exchange of goods across state lines.

Do we have to 'stay engaged' in conversations with the USDA on this "New Not NAIS"? Yes, to keep telling them to go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here, thank you. They should tend the borders, control and actually inspect the imports, run the disease programs that worked and were not massive consolidations of power in federal hands, and for cryin' out loud INSPECT the packing plants and stop trying to make consumers believe that farmers and ranchers are responsible for sloppy slaughtering!

Also, go ahead and leave a bunch of the milk chocolate rabbits for us. Chocolate is one thing we probably should import, but certainly not at the cost of our freedom and sovereignty.

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

This is extraordinarily well written and appreciated, because it finally makes sense why NAIS was initially planned to be so far-reaching into areas where such a plan would have negligible impact.

There used to be 'right-to-farm' implications in agricultural state laws, both written and implied. The demise of family farms, to factory farms made those laws all but archaic and useless by imposing constrictive regulations favoring corporate operations over independent ones. So with typical American self-motivation and to fill demand from consumers, small producers and farmers markets again spring to life only to face forces designed to smash them before they pick up speed.

You want transparent food supply? It doesn't get any more transparent then the guy who lives and farms down the road. You want to export to a global economy? You deal with getting permits for agricultural items by permit per shipment like the floriculture industry does.

You do not micro-manage when you can't even afford to inspect what comes over your borders now. Lead contamination in toys, ash beetles, melamine in gluten, e. coli in produce. So, sit on us harder. It's rich.

    Bookmark   February 17, 2010 at 3:57PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Well, I work on BIG daries, I own my own beef cows, and my past is in beef operations of all sizes... I can say that producers of all sizes are against the NAIS in any form they choose to present it.
For my big dairy customers: It is all they can do to get employees who can write down numbers acuarately enough to use a simple numbered eartag system with any accuracy much less reporting the results to the USDA. No matter what I am trying to look at when I deal with records on big dairies I expect to see a ten-percent margin of error due to employees making mistakes... The USDA has not come up with a way to overcome that and their system won't work until they do.
As far as my small beef herd: The hassles of just having the herd itself are almost not worth it. It would just take a little bit of government to get me to throw up my hands and tear out the pasture and plant citrus.
As far as my past with beef operations: Ain't no way in **** the USDA is gonna track those animals! I used to help on a ranch whose strategy to control inbreeding was to ride out into the backcountry and shoot every bull over three years old that didn't have a brand... The country was so tough that they couldn't even gather all of their cattle to work them. There are more ranches like that than we realize and they can't survive if they are expected to track every single animal.

    Bookmark   February 19, 2010 at 7:08PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Another septic/well water question...
We have well water which has been tested (not all that...
Need Spark Plug Wire
I have an old Stihl chansaw (041AV) that my dad bought...
Rat proof chicken feeder
Been having a few problems with rats (no doubt the...
Raw Milk
Where Can I find Raw milk in western washington?
Making a little money on the farm?
I realize that much of an enterprises success depends...
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™