The Emotional Side of NAIS

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) raises lots of emotion, if the comments about my BusinessWeek.com article (accompanying the article, and on this site) are any indication.

Four points stand out to me:

1. The idea that NAIS discriminates against small farms because large farms don’t have to register all their animals. This is a good point, and one I probably should have addressed. Here is what the USDA says: “If your animals 'stay together' and are raised as a group, and travel through the production chain that way, you may want to consider group/lot identification, rather than individual identification. When animals 'stay together' as a group, individual identification of each animal in the group is not necessary because it does not enhance disease response efforts.” In other words, advantage, factory farm.

2. The gulf between farmers and city dwellers because of misconceptions about farm subsidies. One reader, Chris Dorr, says in a comment accompanying my article, "I have no 'beef' with their refusal to install RFID tags. But then I expect them to refuse ALL government handouts." Many city folk tend to see farm subsidies the way they see welfare—as a gravy train—when in fact the subsidies tend to go to large farms. There’s an interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle  about release of data as to which farmers receive how much of the $16.5 billion handed out in agriculture subsidies this year; one source quoted says the data will show that large farms receive the bulk of the money.

3. Not all owners of small farms are oppposed to the NAIS, because they worry about disease. Larry Liepold says accompanying the article, "I am a small farmer, (120 sows farrow to finish- 2500 marketed conventionally). If a foreign animal disease breaks in an area I want to know where it came from, is spreading to, and what the risk is that I may contract it in my herd." My question is: Why not broadcast such information on the Internet and on the radio, and provide advice to area farmers on preventive actions to take? The reason is that the government wants to be able to come in and slaughter all animals in a geographic area, regardless of their susceptibility or likelihood of falling victim.

4. The general sense of outrage, as in, “How could the government be doing this to us? And do it so calmly and deliberately? And plow ahead despite opposition from not only small farms, but a number of states?" Lisa Imerman probes related issues in a comment accompanying the article: "Interesting that even if Mr. Clark isn't going to participate he is already issued a US-PIN and is in the USDA system (according to the letter you posted). That seems like serious infringement of property rights, especially since the USDA says it is voluntary, yet they are registering people without permission. I wonder how the State of Michigan managed to link their current program to the NAIS without prior notice?"

Maybe the truth is just staring us in the face: the government would be just as happy if small farms went away, since factory farms are more "cooperative."

Fortunately, the marketplace may forestall such efforts. A new article at BusinessWeek.com about the celebration of the farmer at places ranging from Whole Foods to Wal-Mart provides some encouraging statistics about the growing number of farmers markets and farms. And it reports that Whole Foods is pushing its stores harder than ever to order more local products--all this apparently in response to PR concerns and shopper preferences.  

I'd say the emotions are there for a reason. Our government has given us lots of reasons to be fearful about its real intentions when it claims to be trying to protect us.

Separately, The Ethicurean blog does a nice job of summarizing media reports about food. The latest Digest includes a couple of kudos for yours truly, though it is slightly off when it says I will be writing a regular BusinessWeek.com column; I’ve been writing a regular column for a few years, just not as frequently and not as heavily about health issues as over the past year.

Comments

[Mary Beth Westcott]

After reading this article I thought about why I feel so emotional about NAIS. Several reasons came to mind:
- I see no benefit for me in the program. I see only hassles. Part of ranching is the simple basic life. NAIS would change that life. I know what my cattle are eating and what other livestock they share fences with. They are healthy and eat a natural diet from grass pastures as do the neighbors' cattle. They all have names and although they have tags, I don't need a tag to distinguish them from each other. I also feel for my neighbors who are mostly elderly, don't have computers, don't understand NAIS and would not be able to comply even if they were forced to. If any of our cattle are sick we talk to each other. We don't need the USDA to come in and say to us that our neighbor's cattle, premise # 35947684 (next door?), have a contagious disease. Believe me there are no secrets when you live in the country. We have a sense of community that somehow the USDA thinks they can handle better with technology.
- The USDA and Texas Animal Health Commission respond to any valid concerns voiced by those who oppose NAIS with a pat "you are MISINFORMED and have been MISLED". Excuse me but I am well informed and it is all there in black and white. Unfortunately the NAIS terms lack definition and the verbiage changes to manipulate the situation. The government documents are the ones that are misleading. Yes, it is frustrating, insulting and emotional to be placated in this manner over and over.
- The USDA does not have my trust. In no way do I feel they are concerned for me or my livestock. I have had one dealing with the USDA/APHIS and they bullied their way onto our property, insisted on rounding up and dipping our cattle for fever ticks injuring several head and drenching our ground with chemicals. Afterwards they simply stated they had the wrong cattle and left us in a mess. Our cattle tags did not match those they were looking for but they didn't check the tag numbers until the end. Somehow I feel lucky they didn't eradicate them - shoot first and ask questions later.
- Since fear is an emotion - I do fear a future where I can't get veterinary care for, buy supplies for, sell or buy or have my cattle processed without being forced into the NAIS program.
- The USDA wants to protect the national herd from a major disaster. In my view, NAIS is the disaster far worse than any other and it reeks of government loyalty to big business instead of to its citizens.

Mary Beth Westcott
Gonzales, Texas

[John Bonitz]

I'm a son of a small dairy farmer, I keep a few meat goats, and I live on my parents' farm. Moreover, I am trained in policy analysis, and I oppose NAIS.

I have tried to learn under what legislative authority the USDA is attempting to promulgate the NAIS rules, and I am coming up empty-handed.

I am so grateful to you for reporting on this subject. It is not an easy subject to convey, as vague and confusing as the USDA's rules are.

Frankly, the only way we will be able to moderate or stop NAIS is if more people understand that it will 1) limit consumer choices, 2) reduce the number of small- and medium-scale farmers in our country, and 3) make our agricultural food production systems LESS safe by destroying their robust diversity.

(For more on this matter of robust diversity, I urge readers to consider the "Statement of Concern re: NAIS" by the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. http://www.albc-usa.org/ Then look for the NEWS link on the right.)

I encourage and urge you to continue reporting on NAIS. Your inforamtion does a great service to American enterprise, consumers choice, and the welfare of small and medium scale farmers.

Sincerely,

John Bonitz
Silk Hope, NC

[miguel]

The most disturbing aspect of NAIS is the prevailing belief in the USDA that the reservoirs of disease exist among wildlife and small farm livestock. When disease occurs in the huge farms they will use NAIS to trace the disease back to smaller farms.An honest look at those huge farms will reveal that keeping animals in such conditions is not only a threat to the health of those animals,but also a source of disease for the wildlife and livestock in the immediate area.Of course disease is always present in such conditions,that is why those animals need regular medication to keep them alive.If my dairy cows were all finished their productive lives at 6 years old,I would have to consider making some big changes in the way they are managed.
The USDA believes that cows on pasture that graze the same grass as deer are more at risk of contracting a disease from the deer than cows that are confined for their life inside a building with 2000 other cows.Maybe we should eliminate all of the healthy livestock to protect the chronically ill ones from any risk. After the small farms are depopulated to protect the big,it will be obvious that those big farms cannot keep their animals alive even in isolation.When that system inevitably collapses,what will the people have to eat?

[Steve Bemis]

Miguel's point about reservoirs of disease has been proved in Africa by a UN scientist who determined that it was more effective to eradicate the disease reservoirs, than to try to track down and vaccinate/kill/whatever all the individual animals that may be sick. See the Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2006 by Zamiska, "Attack Plan: After Fighting Cattle Disease, Vet Turns to Birds." The Doctor's name is Roeder. This also obviously confirms the fact that the confined operations are where the diseases start in the first place. Conclusion? NAIS is not only intrusive, unnecessary, expensive and controlling, but it's fundamentally bad science.