A Preliminary Analysis of the USDA’s NAIS User Guide of November 2006

Copyright 2006 by Mary Zanoni. The following article may be distributed solely for personal and non-commercial use without prior permission from the author. Non-commercial distribution and posting to assist in disseminating information about NAIS is, in fact, encouraged, so long as proper credit is given and the article is reproduced without changes or deletions. Any other distribution or republication requires the author’s permission in writing and requests for such permission should be directed to the author at the address/phone/e-mail address below.

A Preliminary Analysis of the USDA’s NAIS User Guide of November 2006

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.

P.O. Box 501

Canton, NY 13617

315-386-3199

mlz@slic.com

The following are preliminary points meant to contribute to the early and continuing discussion of this newly released (as of November 22, 2006) USDA document concerning the National Animal Identification System. I plan to write further on some of the key issues related to the User Guide in the near future. At the close of the discussion is a list of suggestions for further action.

1. The only real “difference” from this year’s prior Implementation Plan documents is the absence of stated dates for certain target levels of participation. The document still envisions making everyone comply with NAIS eventually. (See, e.g., User Guide, p. 5, “The goal is to establish a complete record of all locations, or premises, in the United States that manage or hold livestock and/or poultry.”) (Emphasis added.)

2. Note that Rep. Collin Peterson (D. Minnesota, 7th Dist.), expected to chair the House Agriculture Committee in the next Congress beginning in January 2007, lately has been quoted as favoring a “mandatory” NAIS. (Presumably Rep. Peterson does not yet understand the harms NAIS will cause to small farmers and animal owners, and the unfair boon it will be to the multinational meat industry and tech industry. Let’s help him realize the true state of affairs by contacting his office and pointing out the harms of NAIS.)

The USDA’s increased (but misleading) emphasis on “voluntary” may well be nothing more than an attempt to shift blame to Rep. Peterson and some of his fellow party members for a “mandatory” plan that the present administration’s USDA really hopes will be implemented.

3. Note that the User Guide was released late in the day on Thanksgiving eve. This is a typical tactic for actions that bureaucrats hope might escape too much notice. Further, unlike the release of the Implementation Plan of April 2006, the release of the User Guide was not accompanied by a well-publicized news conference by Secretary Johanns.

4. The User Guide subtly reveals some new tactics the USDA is planning to employ for imposing “creeping mandatory” NAIS on animal owners who do not actually “volunteer.” Note the following passage from p. 8 of the Guide:

“USDA believes participation in the main components of NAIS can occur as a result of standard business practices. For example, in order for producers to obtain official identification devices, they first need to register for a premises identification number. Accordingly, the success of the premises registration component would be achieved through the participation of producers in longstanding disease management programs and compliance with interstate movement regulations.”

Translation of the above bureaucratic verbiage: If you want to buy, sell, or move animals in interstate transactions, or if you participate in a required (e.g., for many dairy producers) or voluntary disease program such as TB or brucellosis testing or calfhood vaccination, the USDA is going to force you to use NAIS Animal Identification Numbers (AINs) for these programs, and will also force you to get a premises ID as a prerequisite to getting the forced AINs.

5. The USDA propaganda machine really went into high gear to produce the User Guide. The main propaganda objective is falsely to paint any NAIS non-participants as somehow “antisocial.”

Of course, the real facts are that people opposed to NAIS base their opposition on their positive religious, spiritual, social, and ethical values, and they want to create a more just world for all. NAIS opponents want a local, human-scaled economy that supports true family farming, offers fair compensation for producing food and other basic needs, and discourages greed, excessive commercialism, and materialism. In contrast, the pushers of NAIS -- originally multinational meatpackers and tech corporations -- are driven by greed for undeserved profit and power. In particular, the tech corporations will happily microchip your grandmother or your baby if they think they can make a buck doing it -- these corporations absolutely do not care about the obviously negative spiritual, social, and political consequences of their behavior.

The USDA User Guide attempts to turn these true values of things upside down. Consider the following statement from the Guide (p. 2):

“There are a number of reasons for producers to participate in NAIS. One of the most important reasons is to better protect animal health. People who own or work with animals, or depend on them for income, understand how absolutely important this is -- for themselves, their neighbors, and their surrounding communities.”

Thus the USDA spinmeisters falsely paint NAIS opponents -- who in reality are religiously and socially dedicated people sacrificing their own time and money to promote a better future for all people, all animals, all of creation and nature -- the USDA falsely paints these dedicated people as somehow not sufficiently attentive to “neighbors” and “communities.”

Curiously, the USDA never seems to have anything bad to say about the CAFOs and CAFO-dependent multinational meatpackers who pollute our air and water, create dangerous resistant bacteria by overuse of antibiotics, squander immense amounts of fossil fuels to produce and transport their products, treat animals like fungible “units of production” to be kept in total confinement, pay displaced foreign workers substandard wages, and drive family farmers and small local entrepreneurs out of business.

Suggested Actions

The issuance of the User Guide should not change the planned actions of NAIS opponents; rather, the Guide’s misleading propaganda should inspire NAIS opponents to continue their socially responsible work.

-- Do not rely on expressing your opinions to NAIS Working Groups or other “insiders” such as extension agents or government animal-health workers. Instead, make your opposition to NAIS known where it counts -- to your U.S. Congressman and U.S. Senator and to state senators and representatives.

-- Seek an end to all federal funding of NAIS. Good organizations to support in this regard are the National Independent Consumer and Farmer Advocates Fund (NICFA) and the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA) -- check them out at www.vicfa.net.

-- Work for state legislation to prohibit acceptance of USDA NAIS funds by state agriculture and animal health departments, and legislation prohibiting state involvement in premises ID/animal ID/animal tracking.

-- Demand animal products produced without participation in NAIS.

-- Avoid purchasing industrially-produced animal products and encourage others to boycott such foods.

-- Obviously, do not sign up for any “voluntary” aspects of NAIS. Avoid any actions that might trigger “forced voluntary” NAIS, such as need for interstate shipping permits or participation in “voluntary” government-sponsored animal-related programs.

-- Avoid attending any animal-related fairs or shows that require NAIS premises ID or animal ID. Instead, arrange your own animal-related events with trusted neighbors or friends.

-- Oppose any attempts by the USDA or state agriculture departments to obtain statutory exemptions from freedom-of-information laws for NAIS information. Remember, bureaucrats will be unable to implement NAIS if they cannot get FOIA exemptions for their databases.

-- Work to repeal the already-mandatory premises ID in Wisconsin and Indiana, and the soon-to-be-mandatory RFID tagging for cattle in Michigan. Help your friends and family from these states to relocate, if necessary.

-- Refuse to buy any land that has a premises ID or any animals that have NAIS animal identification numbers.

Animal IDs will not be mandatory - More of the USDA Shell Game

This news sounds so good if taken at face value, but it is simply not the whole truth. I want to encourage everyone - farmers, homesteaders, hobbyists and, consumers - to read the new plan so that you will not be lulled into a false sense of victory. When studying NAIS you must put each word under the microscope of Washington Bureaucratese to ken the true meaning. Link to the new plan, a pdf.

What the USDA has done is to say that the program will remain "voluntary at the Federal level" while foisting the responsibility onto the States. The States already took the grant monies, so they are going to have to pay up by moving forward with mandatory programs. They're just paying the state agencies to write the rules and implement it for them.

Look at Wisconsin and Indiana, for example. Will they reverse the state's mandatory aspect of NAIS? Will Massachusetts purge the information they illegally procured from other programs, like the Scrapie program? Will Pennsylvania delete the information they obtained about Amish farmers who are against "marking their beasts" on Biblical principles? They can't. There are no opt-out options build into NAIS.

From the Leaf Chronicle in Tennessee:

Beginning New Year's Day, cattle and hay producers can apply for 35 percent cost share assistance, up to $3,500, toward the construction of a new hay storage structure, or an addition to an existing structure. To be eligible, farmers must be Tennessee residents and operate farms or agri-businesses located in the state with at least 10 head of cattle or 50 acres of hay.

Producers with livestock must also register their premises with the National Animal Identification System.
(emphasis mine)

There is a general sense that the New Plan suggests that if you don't volunteer, your animals will be eradicated if disease occurs. Also, if you don't have a premises registration number you will not be able to buy or sell animals (whoops, starting to sound like Mark of the Beast again). Recently a woman on one of the anti-NAIS groups told a story about how her vet told her that he could not test blood samples from her goats because she did not have a premises registration number. So, voluntary all right. Just try to get medical services for your animals if you "choose" not to volunteer. This is counter productive to the scheme.

Even though soon to be ex-Secretary of Agriculture Steve Kerr said back in August that Vermont had taken premises registration off the table, the New NAIS Plan has the URL to online Premises Registration here in Vermont. It is an active page, not something in an archive. More conflicting messages which should give a hint of things to come.

As a reminder, NAIS was crafted by USDA, Inc along with their agribuddies in the National Institute of Animal Agriculture not to protect the National Herd from disease, but to grow the meat export business. I went to the NIAA's ID Expo in Kansas City last August where the take home message was this: they mean to tag and track every livestock animal in this country. Have they had a sudden change of heart? Unless they are no longer greedy for the profits they stand to make with global export of meat and from the sale of RFID tags, scanners, etc., they mean to march on with their plan. They just didn't imagine there would be an outcry of protest from we, the people, as they were crafting their scheme.

No, nothing has changed about the intent of NAIS. They have only changed tactics. We need to remain active in our efforts to stop this draconian program. It will kill small/private farms, homesteaders, hobbyists and horse owning here in Vermont. Can Vermont stand to take that kind of economic hit?

People, farmers and consumers alike...you've been hearing about all manner of our Constitutional rights that are being taken away. Now is the time to do something about it. If enough people write and call their representatives in Washington, they are bound to hear us by the sheer numbers.

A bit of Thanksgiving gravy from the USDA

Looks like two press releases and a new NAIS User Guide came out yesterday.

Knight Vows NAIS Will Never Become Mandatory from Brownfield Network
and

USDA Pledges Livestock ID Program To Remain Voluntary from Cattle Network

Then the New NAIS User Guide (pdf).

I have only read 14 of the 74 pages, so I can't give a detailed report about it yet. It does seem as though they have foisted the responsibility for it onto the States, there are many "assurances" that the information will be kept confidential because that's the Federal law (law, smaw, they are notorious for losing private information), and they don't define voluntary.

None the less, just understanding that we, the people, have made an impact which has caused USDA, Inc. to re-write their plans is worth the frustration. I sincerely doubt that when those boys sat down in the late 90s to write this scheme they ever imagined that they would ever have to rewrite things because some of we, the people, were awake enough to smell this rat.

To use the words of a good friend, " NAIS is actually about more than control of food, it’s control the land, control the food, control the people." Don't forget that. Ever.

USDA Shell Game

The USDA Shell Game on
"Voluntary" versus "Mandatory"
Participation in NAIS

By Randy Givens

November 16, 2006

---

Recently, the USDA changed the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) web page to infer that it is now USDA policy and position that NAIS will be a voluntary system instead of the mandatory system that they have been pushing for several years. However, what is written and what they intend for you to believe are two entirely different things.

As the change is written, it is designed to lead the reader to believe that USDA has changed its policy and position to oppose the mandatory imposition of NAIS. However, that is NOT what their written words mean. Their statement is carefully cloaked in Washington Bureaucratese, designed to keep the average citizen from determining exactly what the bureaucrats intend.

The exact reasons for that inferred change in policy and position have never been publicly stated. However, the nationwide rising tide of anger and grassroots opposition to NAIS, as animal owners realize the magnitude of government interference being foisted on them, probably had much to do with it. The fact that it was occurring in an election year may have also influenced that decision.

The purported change has been expressed in several ways, all designed to convince the uninitiated that they now do not have to worry that NAIS will be forced on them as a mandatory system. By doing so, USDA apparently hopes to defuse the growing opposition to NAIS. Do not be bamboozled by their fancy tap dancing with words. The following analysis will show you what they wrote, and what they probably mean to have you live with.

In the main part of their NAIS web page USDA states:

NAIS is currently a voluntary program. To ensure the participation requirements of NAIS not only provide the results necessary to maintain the health of the national herd but also is a program that is practical for producers and all others involved in production, USDA has adopted a phased-in approach to implementation. Although the draft strategic plan references mandatory requirements in 2008 and beyond, to date no actions have been initiated by USDA to develop regulations to require participation in NAIS. APHIS will publish updates to the implementation plan as recommendations are received and evaluated by the NAIS Subcommittee and the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases.

A bit further down the page, USDA added the following statement at the end of October 2006:

The NAIS is a voluntary program and the USDA has no intention of considering regulations at the federal level. The April 2006 Implementation Plan that referenced a contingency option for regulations if participation levels did not reach adequate levels has been discarded to reflect the policy and position of USDA.

In the first part, note that they state that "NAIS is currently a voluntary program." If USDA did not want to leave the door open for you ultimately having to live under a mandatory program, all they had to do was delete the word "currently." As written, what they mean is, "NAIS is currently being sold as a voluntary program, but that does not block us from later turning it into a mandatory program."

Continuing in that same first part, USDA tries to throw the reader off by saying that "Although the draft strategic plan references mandatory requirements in 2008 and beyond, to date no actions have been initiated by USDA to develop regulations to require participation in NAIS." That doesn't mean anything. Bureaucrats establish a program first, then they write the regulations to implement it later on. All this statement shows is that they did not get around to writing any regulations.

Their "out" on a later change to mandating participation is hidden in the following phrase, when they state: "APHIS will publish updates to the implementation plan as recommendations are received and evaluated by the NAIS Subcommittee and the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases." What that statement means is that they will initially try and sell NAIS as a "voluntary" program. When they get full authorization and funding for that part, and get the machinery up and running nationwide, they will then get more "findings and recommendations" from their chosen experts, which will then cause them to "reevaluate" their program and make a new finding that, "to protect us," NAIS must become a mandatory program. Among Washington insiders, this ploy is known as "The Truth Changes." When you protest that NAIS was supposed to be purely voluntary, they respond with "Yes, but we have new information and The Truth Changes."

The second part of the web page quoted above hides even more bureaucratic chicanery.

"The NAIS is a voluntary program and the USDA has no intention of considering regulations at the federal level. The April 2006 Implementation Plan that referenced a contingency option for regulations if participation levels did not reach adequate levels has been discarded to reflect the policy and position of USDA."

This phrasing hides the fact that the USDA's plan – before the April 2006 Plan – specifically called for federal regulations to be proposed last summer, in 2006, to establish a mandatory program throughout the U.S. They then changed the plan to call for a "contingency option" of establishing a mandatory program. As opposition built, and they realized they had no real Congressional approval for such a plan, they decided to use the "Golden Rule" to impose their will upon us. In this ploy, they use federal funding to entice state agencies to do exactly what the federal agency wants, without having to potentially put the feds in the hot seat of having to defend offensive federal regulations. That way, they never have to write federal regulations at the federal level, and they get the state agencies to do their dirty work for them. They probably distribute "model" mandatory rules to state agencies at meetings USDA convenes and pays for. Evidence of this strategy showed up in Texas, when the Texas Animal Health Commission tried to impose rules for a mandatory program. That effort was delayed. Along with Texas, several states have begun to implement mandatory state programs. Included among them are Wisconsin and Indiana which passed regulations for mandatory premises registration. Michigan has the first mandatory RFID tagging system, which is acknowledged to be a precursor to the NAIS in that state, and to be funded with federal money. Many other states, have started to wave the sabre of their broad authority to "protect animal health," and aren't bothering with statutes. All of these states get federal funding, based on how many farms are "voluntarily" registered. This way, the feds get what they want, but will claim it was all the states' doing.

Notice at the end of that segment, USDA states: "... has been discarded to reflect the policy and position of USDA." That is intended to make you believe that a new USDA policy and position opposes mandatory NAIS. However, that is NOT what they wrote. Note that they have not published the "policy and position of USDA." That's because what they intend is to sneak in a nationwide mandatory NAIS, one state at a time, with the dirty work being done by the state agencies. It's the old "Take the King's coin, do the King's bidding!" Even if they do publish such a new policy, remember "policy" is written by bureaucrats, not Congress, and it can be changed back by the bureaucrats at any time.

Part of their deception plan is to have you believe that new political appointees in USDA are making those changes. Remember, many people have gone to Washington, intent on cleaning up that mess, and have failed. Even if it were true that the new guys really want to set up a truly voluntary NAIS, the reality is that USDA is still infected with the bureaucrats who have been trying to shove a mandatory NAIS down our throats for several years. Leopards generally do not change their spots, even if there is a new cat in the jungle – and USDA had not really changed its intention that NAIS be mandatory in every state in the union. They're just paying the state agencies to write the rules and implement it for them.

Do not be misled by soothing words by government officials. Statements by government officials are not enforceable, do not have the effect of law, and are not worth the paper on which they are not written.

---

Wanted: Agricultural Saviour

EDITORIAL
Wanted: agricultural savior

Written by Ethan Dezotelle
The County Courier
Thursday, 16 November 2006

It was announced late last week that after four years, Vermont’s Secretary of Agriculture, Steve Kerr, would resign from his post, effective Friday, Dec. 15. David Lane, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, is now Acting Secretary.

Kerr’s resignation comes at an interesting and tumultuous time for Vermont’s agriculture industry, and the man or woman picked to replace him in the long term faces trials that could break the back of many a Vermont farmer, as well as opportunities that could propel the state’s agrarians into a very fruitful future.

One of the first challenges before the next Ag Secretary is how to involve him or herself in the milk price support payment program overseen by the State. On the heels of high fuel prices, low milk prices, and uncooperative weather, the Legislature and Gov. Jim Douglas in July agreed to dole out $8.5 million to Vermont farmers in the form of monthly, emergency payments. This decision was made to stem the lack of support given to farmers by the Bush administration. Of that promised sum, $6.1 million has been distributed. Of the remaining $2.4 million, the Douglas administration has its sights set on distributing only $225,000 in total, over this month and next. The next Ag Secretary must work both to ensure that promised monies get distributed, and pressure Washington, D.C., to do its part.

Another challenge our new Ag Secretary will face is cleaning up the mess left behind by Kerr. When he leaves office Dec. 15, he leaves behind a legacy of mistrust, obfuscation and doublespeak. Perhaps the most glaring example of this is the series of meetings held around the state last summer concerning premises registration. Charged with educating the public about this controversial plan, the Agency of Agriculture proceeded to sidestep that request, instead holding hearings and flat-out promoting the plan. Pressed about the educational component and the intent of the hearings, it seemed at times that no two agency employees could provide the same answer. In the end, Kerr reversed his position on the plan and took it off the table, citing concerns about privacy at the federal level. This came after weeks of denying that premises registration and federal plans for a National Animal Identification System were linked. In the end, he admitted to the County Courier, “The thing’s all balled up.”

Kerr also created a split in Vermont’s agricultural community, due in part to his connections with the nation’s corporate ag industry. These connections led to an atmosphere of mistrust and divisiveness, not just between Kerr and certain farmers, but between farmers, in general.

This is why the next Ag Secretary must be someone firmly entrenched in Vermont’s agricultural way of life, someone who understands the past while also having a firm grasp on where the state’s farmers can and should go in the future.

This person must be as much a teacher as a leader, as much a listener as a speaker, as much a farmer as a bureaucrat.

This person must understand that for a good number of farms in Vermont, it is a matter of change-or-die. He or she must realize that in 21st century Vermont, farming involves more than growing corn, baling hay and milking cows. Yes, this is the idyllic vision in our mind’s eye, but reality bears out much more than that. Dairy farming, organic farming, bio-engineered crop farming, turkey farming, cheese making, sugaring, agritourism, subsistence farming, and more – the next Ag Secretary must have a mind that can grasp the diversity of Vermont’s agricultural lifestyles.

Otherwise, in the not-too-distant future, we may not need an Agriculture Secretary at all.

Read Mad Sheep in 24 hours like I did

I ordered Mad Sheep from Amazon and it came on Friday. I finished reading it on Saturday night. It is that kind of book, could hardly put it down. And nearly burst out crying in a couple of places.

Mad Sheep is the story of the Faillace family of Warren, Vermont. They imported, with the full cooperation of the USDA, special sheep of a certain type known for it's milking. The USDA decided it needed a "scape goat" to make it look like Corporate Agribusiness was really doing something to combat BSE, that is Mad Cow.

While what happened to the Faillace's and the people they sold sheep to was in the media for awhile, the whole story wasn't told. For one thing, sheep don't get BSE, though they can get Scrapie. The breeds they brought to the US never had one case of Scrapie, ever. The USDA made every effort to make it look like the sheep had been exposed to disease, though, interestingly the only time the sheep could have been exposed to BSE tainted grain was when the sheep were housed in a USDA quarantine facility. The Faillace's helped start the Scrapie program here in Vermont and in the end, the USDA ignored it all.

If you want a clear and consise look into the future under NAIS, read Mad Sheep. Here is the link to the publisher.

Vermont's Agency of Agriculture Steve Kerr Resigns

In an apparent parting of the ways, Steve Kerr gave his resignation to Governor Douglas yesterday. It was a mutual decision as the Burlington Free Press reported this morning. David Lane will stay on as interim secretary, though he has not decided if he will seek the position permanently. Kerr's last day, according to the media reports, is 15 December.

As one person wrote to me, it is better to sleep with the devil you know than one you do not know. I agree, but in this case, I am glad we are rid of Steve Kerr. I hope the Governor will seek out a more moderate secretary and one without agribusiness ties.

Mark Bosma, who was the Public Information Officer, seems to have changed jobs as well with his name and Vermont Emergency Management showing up in a byline in the newspaper. Could Dr. Kerry Rood and Carl Cushing be far behind? One can only pray and hope that the whole of the Agency be turned over like you might do to a field, making way for good roots to grow, not bad ones.

I understand that Arkansas' Phil Wyrick may lose his job. Another excellent choice judging by the crap he wrote in justification of ID chips in horses. His logic is faulty and what he proved is that this whole id'ing and chipping of animals just makes more avenues for criminals to get away with things. It also turns regular people who just want to live their lives in peace into criminals.

Ta-ta Steve Kerr. We won't miss you. I will be interested to discover where you land next. Will you show up in the belly of the USDA/NIAA beast?

Do you know how many Genetically Modified Organizisms your are consuming?

I'm a label reader and of late am getting more and more distressed with the ingredients I am seeing in food. Just a couple of weeks ago I realized that there are more GMOs in ordinary food than I realized. Any corn, including high fructose corn syrup, and soy (including soy meal, soy oil) and canola (oil), unless labeled Organic is all GMO. How in the world did it sneak into the food supply without our knowledge. Why don't the companies have to label GMO ingredients?

By they way, did you know that just because a product like potato chips says it has Zero grams of trans fats, they are telling a lie? The FDA approved 2.2 grams of trans fats as Zero grams.

Here is a bigger list of GMOs:

canola, corn, including popcorn and sweet corn but not blue corn, cotton, flax, papaya, potatoes (Atlantic, Russett Burbank, Russet Norkatah, and Shepody), red-hearted chicory (radicchio), soybeans, squash (yellow crookneck), sugar beets, tomatoes, including cherry tomatoes

Sugar beets!!!! This is simply unbelievable, but true. For this reason I have switched to pure cane sugar, a bit more expensive but not GMO.

Click here to review a big shopping list of common prepared foods that contain GMOs. Baby food is on the list. Pet foods contain GMOs. Have you ever wondered what animal digest is? Look it up.

Buy and eat local food...it is your only chance to eat healthy.

www.metrologymedic.com

Vermont Vote 2006 - Vote with your head not your feelings

Just a few days away, what a relief it will be to have this election be over. I've watched with awe the way the players have changed their issues to match up with what the various National Committees have deemed to be important, which has nothing to do with We, the people. When asked the really important issues, like how the candidate means to combat the further and more devestating loss of our Constitutional rights in favor of global economy (NAIS for one) the best they can answer is "...an undue burden...".

There is still time to ask questions and expect answers from your candidates. Vote for the candidate that supports the Constitution and not, as a friend of mine said, because they are a "nice person". Ack.

www.metrologymedic.com

First comment I have ever promoted to an entry

1 Comments:

At 11:52 PM, Tina Richards said...

I'm Tina Richards, the campaign manager for Veronica Hambacker. Who is she? She is running against Jo Ann Emerson. She started a petition a couple of months ago on her website telling people about this and the bait and switch Jo Ann Emerson and Jim Talent are pulling. Please go to HambackerforUSCongress.com and sign our petition. Then please tell everyone you know in Missouri. I don't know where Claire stands on this issue, but I know Veronica hates it. She will fight hard to ensure there is checks and balances restored to our government.
Thank You

From Veronica Hambacker's website:

Proposed legislation, S 3862 offered by Senator Jim Talent of Missouri and HR 6042 offered by Representative Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri as an attempt to curry favor with agrieved livestock producers in Missouri, offers a classic bait and switch to all U.S. farmers. These bills will allow exempting animals who never leave a farm from a national licensing system, but will codify full requirements at sale barns, butcher shops, or private neighbor-to-neighbor transactions. Obviously, this situation actually is worse than an exemption because it places the NAIS into a Congressional law while it had been only agency law from the USDA.

VICFA (Virginia Independant Consumers and Farmers Association) says the Talent-Emerson bill would allow the USDA to regulate meatpackers, processors, veterinary or other services farmers must use so that farmers would be required to participate in the identification program to have access to these services. Anyone who did not volunteer could be forced into “volunteering” or face ruin. “If this bill were to become law, the USDA could effectively EXEMPT us and PUT US OUT OF BUSINESS at the same time,” says VICFA spokesman and farmer Joel Salatin.

Identification System (NAIS) as a voluntary compliance program for farmers, it will prohibit buying, selling or moving any of their animals away from their premises. At the same time, it will allow the USDA to regulate meatpackers, processors, veterinary or other services farmers must use so that farmers will be required to participate in the identification program to have access to these services. Anyone who doesn't volunteer will be forced into volunteering or face ruin. I personally believe they are the equivalent to closing the barn door long after the mule is out and has gone, preventing his ever getting back into the barn.

Join me in telling Jo Ann Emerson and Jim Talent we don't want your "bait and Switch" legislation.

The one click form below will send your personal message to all your government representatives selected below, with the subject "Save our Family Farms: Tell Senator Talent and Jo Ann Emerson No to NAIS (National Animal Identity System)." At the same time you can send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper if you like.

To complete the petition click here

Metrology Medic

metrologymedic.com

Metrology Medic

www.metrologymedic.com
Click through for Solutions to Improve your Productivity, a viable alternative to high priced of discontinued OEM service for the following machines.

Nanometrics 8000 XSE/AFT, Nanometrics 8300 XSE/AFT, Nanometrics 9100 XSE/AFT,
Nanometrics 9200 AFT, Nanometrics 9000 Inline AFT, Nanometrics 6150 AFT,
Nanometrics 6000 AFT, Nanometrics 4150 AFT, Nanometrics 4000 AFT, Nanometrics 3000 AFT,
Nanometrics 210 AFT, Nanometrics 180 AFT\Micro gauge, Nanoline CD IV/V/50-2/50-2C,
Nanospec Model 100 Analytical Microscope, Nanometrics Cwikscan SEM,
Nanometrics Legacy system, AFT, Automated Film Thickness, Kensington, robots,
Wollham, ellipsometers, Wvase, software, metrology, silion wafer