Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
that discussion and regulatory process moves forward, the USDA is trying
to use other tools to push participation in the program. In my view, a goal of
“100 percent participation” implies that the program was not voluntary at
all. Last year in my county, kids taking animals to the county fair had to be
enrolled in NAIS to participate at the fair. This is not voluntary.
If you are an industrial producer of livestock, you can take advantage of
loopholes in the program large enough to drive a Hummer through: this
group will not have to ID each animal. Someone with a single sheep in the
backyard, however, will have to have the premises registered with the govern-
ment, have that single sheep tagged with a Radio Frequency ID, and report
any movements of that lone sheep to the government. NAIS applies to all
farm animals, including horses and poultry, and the cost of the program is
prohibitive for small-scale farmers and ranchers. In other countries where
such tracking has been implemented, there have been more problems than
solutions. And the program does nothing to provide traceback for meat that
has been infected with disease organisms, such as
E. coli,
nor for providing a
traceback mechanism for animals imported into the country from overseas.
I am personally against NAIS as currently set out. So are many people
within the agriculture community whom I greatly respect. But it is very
important to learn more about the program yourself, and to make decisions
based on what you learn. Visit the USDA Web site, or the Web sites of the
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance and the “No NAIS” group (Resources) for
opposition opinions. And as the debate and regulatory process continues on,
get involved and make your voice heard. The idea of being able to respond
to animal-disease outbreaks in timely fashion is good, but as a friend of mine
said about NAIS, the devil is in the details, and as laid out today, those details
place an unfair burden on small farmers and backyard livestock owners, with-
out necessarily meeting the stated goal of protecting our food supply.
