NAIS: A new threat to rural and personal freedom?

By DALE HILDEBRANT
The Prairie Star
Dec. 27, 2006

Initial plans for a national livestock identification program were unveiled in 20002 and almost immediately opposition to the program started to mount. In fact, some said the proposed ID program is a new threat to rural freedom.

The voices against instituting the USDA National Animal Identification System (NAIS) continue to grow louder as more elements of the plan are being put in place by USDA.

Opponents base their stand on a smorgasbord of issues ranging from the plan being unconstitutional to not fulfilling the initial goal of the program, and from an unfair economic burden on livestock producers to the infringement of their personal and religious rights.

Even though the NAIS process has advanced to the stage of voluntarily obtaining premise ID numbers, those opposed to the program hope to stop it dead in its tracks, before January 2008, when they claim USDA will make premise and animal identification mandatory.

To better understand the opposition to the plan, a little background information is first needed. The NAIS plan is basically made up of two registration components and an additional animal tracking capability.

First, every person who owns even one cow, pig, horse, sheep, bison, chicken, turkey, or virtually any livestock animal, would be required to register their location, including name, address, telephone number, GPS coordinates, in a federal database under a 7-digit “premise ID number.”

The second part would require these owners to obtain a 15-digit ID number for any animal that ever leaves the premises of its birth. This number would also be kept in a federal database. Even though these registrations are now voluntary, opponents to NAIS say it's only a matter of time until they become required and they point to recent statements by political and commodity leaders to prove that point.

Finally, once the two ID parts are in place, animal tracking will be easily accomplished.

Incoming House Ag Committee Chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., in a speech to farm broadcasters at the recently held national convention in Kansas City, said he backs mandatory national animal identification because USDA is “screwing up” the implementation of a voluntary system.

The National Pork Producers Council President Joy Philippi has indicated the pork industry has always believed mandatory animal ID was the way to go.

“We want to see it mandatory,” Philippi said. “We believe the best thing that can happen is that if it's a mandatory law people have to register their premises, because if we can have that 48-hour trace-back, we protect our herd.”

Some states have already taken the lead, with Texas one of the first to propose a mandatory state-level premise ID. Dr. Bob Hillman, executive director of the Texas Animal Health Commission, has urged state officials to “mandate Šcomponents of NAIS prior to the USDA proposed timeline” and to make sure the states had authority to charge fees to animal owners for premises and animal ID and animal tracking programs.

Other states such as Wisconsin, Vermont, Maine and Washington are aggressively pursuing mandatory programs.

Since opponents claim they can prove these regulations will eventually become mandatory, they give some of the following arguments in opposing NAIS:

€ NAIS is an assault on some of our basic freedoms - Opponents claim the mandatory implementation of NAIS violates the Constitutional rights of citizens guaranteed by the First (freedom of religion and right to demand government change in policies), Fourth (right for citizens to be secure in their persons, houses and freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures), Fifth (bars government from arbitrarily depriving anyone of life, liberty or property) and Fourteenth (all citizens are entitled to due process) Amendments.

Just for these constitutional reasons, those against NAIS feel the program, which was never passed by Congress, should be rejected. They say the government was given wide latitude on matters like these after the terrorist attacks on 9-11, resulting in the passage of the Patriot Act.

Vermont farmer Walter Jeffries has emerged as one of the leaders in the fight against NAIS. The idea that he will be forced to register every single animal that might come into contact with other animals outside his land concerns him.

“It comes down to, at the most fundamental level, a violation of our Constitutional rights and privacy,” Jeffries said. “There's no need for the government to know what livestock we have. We shouldn't have to report to the government when we slaughter our animals.”

Concern has also been raised over privacy issues and how the information contained in the database will be used. USDA has assured livestock producers that the information collected will be secure, but Jeffries said he has little comfort in their promises, especially in light of a glitch at the USDA a few months back that released the social security numbers of 350,000 farmers.

€ It is a costly program that does nothing to assure food safety - At the present time, USDA is spending around $50 million each year to advance the NAIS program, but opponents claim once the process is fully implemented, it could add up to $15 billion per year to the nation's food cost, according to studies completed by opposition groups.

Critics not only claim it will be a costly program, they also note that it will do little to advance food safety.

The organization “NoNAIS” notes that virtually all food contamination happens after the farm, when animals are slaughtered at the processing plant or later. They counter the best protection for the food supply is for USDA to do its job inspecting and enforcing regulations already in existence, rather than making up complex and costly new regulations.

€ NAIS will put the supply in the hands of a few big producers - Critics make the argument that NAIS began as a way to open up foreign meat markets, especially Japan and the European Union, for the large beef exporters. Since then USDA, sensing a need for a more broad-based appeal, has changed its justification for the program to be one of preventing disease.

NoNAIS claims the big meat producers will be the ultimate winners if NAIS is implemented. They stand to see a surge in profits from meat exports to foreign countries.

The annual fees and costs associated with the program, along with potential enormous fines for an incorrect report and failure to track, are going to push small farmers out of the livestock business, according to NoNAIS. They point to other countries that have already adopted a similar program and most small livestock producers were forced out of business.

This concentration of livestock production to just a few large operations will be a delight to terrorists, according to critics, who say a factory farm with 100,000 animals is a hot target for terrorists.

€ NAIS infringes on religious freedom - The charge is also made that NAIS violates America's tradition of respect for the religious freedom of members of minority faith communities, many of which raise their own food animals and use animals in farming and transportation because their beliefs require them to live this way.

Such people, according to Mary Zanoni, another leader in the anti NAIS movement, obviously cannot comply with the USDA's computerized, technology dependent system. Zanoni is a graduate of Yale Law School, has served as a law clerk to several federal District and Court of Appeals judges, and currently lives in rural upstate New York.

Still others take it to the next level, claiming that the proposed ID system directly conflicts with the Bible's book of Revelation, where chapter 13 warns, “The Beast also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.”

William Jud, writing in Maine's Magic City Morning Star, said “The convergence of NAIS and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags enables the Beast Computer to place its mark on every item of commerce. If the Beast Computer does not, will not, or is instructed not to recognize its identifying mark the Beast will not let you buy or sell.”

To further enforce this notion, Zanoni points out that since early 2006, the State Department started putting RIFD chips in all U.S. passports and the chips are also slated to become standard fare in many state's drivers' licenses.

“It seems the USDA isn't the only government agency that's obsessed with surveillance, and it's not only the cattle that might be tracked from birth to whatever,” she said.

€ Systems already in place that serve us well - Another argument against NAIS is the claim there are systems in place in that are already accomplishing the main objective of NAIS, which is animal traceability in the event of a disease outbreak.

One such system is the registered hot-iron brand, which is employed in just about every state west of the Mississippi River as a means of proving livestock ownership. Another is the recorded ear tag numbers of animals that are vaccinated for brucellosis on a nationwide basis.

Those who work with both systems say they offer the ability to accurately trace back, often within a 24-hour time frame, and maybe as soon as eight hours, according to Wade Moser, executive vice president of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association.

Forces opposed to NAIS say the system can be stopped, but it will take good citizens to notice, to care and then to act decisively to end what they term the sneak attack on private property and Constitutional rights.

Those wanting more information on the negative aspects of NAIS can go to the websites http://www.nonais.org or http://www.stopanimalid.org .

Those wanting more information on the negative aspects of NAIS can go to the websites http://www.nonais.org or http://www.stopanimalid.org