NAIS "How To Handbook" Discovery

USDA Internal Handbook Advises Animal-Identification Staff to Address Farmers “at the Sixth Grade Level”

The USDA’s confidential “NAIS How-To Handbook,” intended for non-public distribution to Federal and State NAIS personnel, reveals an aggressive campaign to implement NAIS in the face of farmer opposition by strictly controlling communications, manipulating media coverage, concealing the original NAIS program documents, and discrediting opponents.

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.
P.O. Box 501
Canton, NY 13617

315-386-3199

mlz@slic.com


March 29, 2007

A USDA “NAIS (National Animal Identification System) How-To Handbook,” most recently revised in February 2007, instructs all State and Federal NAIS staff aggressively to promote the supposedly “voluntary” premises ID program. The goal of the campaign and the How-To Handbook is to “increase . . . premises registration results” and to promote during 2007 not only “continued growth in premises registration,” but also the “adoption of animal ID and tracing.” (Handbook, p. 1; USDA’s NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, Feb. 2007, p. 1.)

The Handbook demands uniformity and strict adherence to four “key messages” that staff are to present to audiences of farmers when promoting NAIS. As described by the USDA, these “key messages” “are organized into topic categories and supported with concise sentences. They are designed for an audience reading at the sixth grade level.” (Handbook, p. 41.)

The Handbook originally was designed for a meeting in Kansas City in late October 2006, attended by a total of 132 “State ID Coordinators, Federal ID Coordinators, and members of various livestock industry associations.” (NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, Dec. 2006, p. 1.) The meeting was designed to train all NAIS personnel to adhere strictly to “a communications campaign currently being implemented at the National level.” (Handbook, p. 3.) After the original USDA mandatory NAIS plan, set forth in the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards of April 2005, met with an unexpected level of strong opposition from farmers and animal owners, the USDA hired a public-relations firm to analyze the opposition and repackage NAIS with a more congenial-sounding message. (Presentation by Dore Mobley, USDA/APHIS information officer, at the National Institute for Animal Agriculture’s “ID Expo,” August 2006.)

The apparent upshot of the professional public-relations advice was USDA’s completely new marketing campaign for NAIS, implemented in the fall of 2006. Crucial components of the marketing campaign included the Oct. 2006 Kansas City meeting, the Handbook and related promotional materials, and the release of the “NAIS User Guide” in November 2006.

When the USDA launched its new public-relations campaign for NAIS in the fall of 2006, the agency at the same time removed from its website the original NAIS documents, i.e., the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards of April 2005. The common criticism of NAIS as “Orwellian” relies in significant part upon the USDA’s expungement of the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards from the USDA site. The November 2006 “User Guide” stated that it superseded all previous program documents for NAIS. (User Guide, front cover.)

The “new” NAIS approach: emphasize “voluntary,” but aggressively pursue the maximum number of premises IDs and prepare for individual animal ID and animal tracking. The declared purpose of the Handbook is to “increase . . . premises registration results” (p. 1). Its primary goal is to “contribute significantly toward NAIS premises registration totals,” and reach “NAIS premises registration goals” (p. 4). Animal ID staff are told to emphasize “which messages hit home,” that is, which messages increase premises registration (p. 6). Staff are told to avoid wasting effort on strongly anti-NAIS audiences and instead direct effort toward “On The Fence” or “Pro-NAIS” “targets,” to maximize the number of premises signed up (pp. 7-8). Staff are advised not to “invest[ ] time” in “Anti-NAIS producers” and instead “locate and motivate more favorable individuals” (p. 9). While staff are to tell farmers that participation in premises ID will not compel them to participate in either individual animal ID or animal tracking (Handbook, p. 42), at the same time, staff are to pursue the second and third components of NAIS, “adoption of animal ID and tracing,” during 2007. (NAIS Outreach bulletin, Feb. 2007, p. 1).

USDA promulgates a unified, monolithic message to be used by all NAIS staff. The main purpose of the Kansas City meeting, the Handbook, and the USDA-promulgated advertising and outreach materials has been to focus the NAIS State and Federal staff on a consistent strategy and to prevent staff departures from the USDA-mandated NAIS “message.” As the USDA tells Federal and State NAIS staff, “The Handbook is designed to complement a communications campaign currently being implemented at the National level” (p. 3). The goal is to “change the perceptions of individuals who may be misinformed or confused about the details of the NAIS program.” Staff must use “uniform messages” (p. 4) and carefully follow the instructions on the “APHIS-led communication and information network” (p. 5). Federal and State NAIS staff must conform to “the key messages USDA will use at the national level” (p. 12). “USDA spokespersons are using the messages provided in the Appendix [of the Handbook] to provide consistent information at the national and local level. These messages will be used in speeches, print materials, media interviews and elsewhere” (p. 14). With apparent unconscious irony, at the very time the USDA is enforcing staff adherence to the precise assigned “messages,” the agency simultaneously acknowledges that a common objection voiced by farmers to NAIS is that the program “sounds like Big Brother government” (p. 7). Should it appear that all government presentations on NAIS are beginning to sound alike -- well, they are all alike, precisely alike, and it’s by careful design.

USDA instructs Federal and State staff on how to manipulate media coverage of NAIS. The USDA makes clear to NAIS staff that spontaneous responses to the media are not acceptable. As to Federal NAIS employees, we are told, “Federal staff are not authorized to handle media interviews.” Federal staff must refer all media matters to the USDA Legislative and Public Affairs Office (p. 16). Staff are encouraged, however, to use such controlled channels as op-ed pieces, letters to the editor to correct “misinformation,” and canned interviews with experts; the USDA urges staff to rely on the “complete message control” available by communicating through a NAIS website (p. 17). The properly authorized expert communications staff are encouraged to pitch canned pro-NAIS stories to the media, to attempt to influence media editorial content through attending editorial board meetings, and to compose “opinion pieces” “to explain the value of premises registration” (p. 19).

USDA reveals results of its NAIS “Opposition Analysis” and creates standardized responses to the NAIS opposition. The NAIS How-To Handbook’s treatment of the “NAIS Opposition” carefully portrays this opposition as nameless and faceless, and avoids specifying the exact points upon which the opposition arguments are based. The USDA implies that the opposition consists of insignificant “groups and individuals” who are just somehow “mistaken”: “The opposition’s information is largely based on misinformation and misunderstanding, but their zeal and emotion appeal is real” (p. 22).

Although the USDA studiously avoids naming its NAIS opponents, in fact they include: a growing list of groups such as the Northeast Organic Farming Association, R-CALF, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, the National Family Farm Coalition, Family Farm Defenders, Community Farm Alliance of Kentucky, Rural Vermont, Cattle Producers of Washington, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association. Some of these groups have sponsored the introduction of antiNAIS legislation in at least 9 states in the 2007 legislative session. Similarly, the unspecified “individuals” opposed to the USDA’s implementation of NAIS in fact include medical doctors, information-technology professionals, financial planners, entrepreneurs, lawyers, public-interest lobbyists, and former government employees.

The USDA’s Handbook repeatedly refers to NAIS opponents' “misinformation,” but fails to specify any statement of the opponents that is other than completely accurate. The USDA’s most detailed list of “opposition” statements, on pp. 23-24 of the Handbook, dates from January through August 2006 and does not identify any specific individuals as sources for the statements. The websites from which the statements are taken permit comments and postings by visitors, and the USDA’s quotations are not attributed to random visitors, more formal opposition statements, or any other particular source. One statement, the last under “Theme 3: Civil Liberties” (p. 23), obviously refers to the Real ID Act (a common ancillary topic of discussion on many NAIS opposition sites), and not to NAIS at all. Indeed, nearly all the statements the USDA quotes under “Opposition Themes” (pp. 23-24) are in fact quite accurate for their time frame of Jan. - Aug. 2006. During those months, the operative NAIS documents were the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards, which did indeed impose a fully mandatory NAIS by 2008/2009 and did indeed require the participation of all common livestock species, the microchip or RFID individual identification of nearly all animals except factory-farm chickens and pigs, and the reporting of all animal “movements” and changes of status (birth, death, sale, purchase, slaughter, and all travel off-premises) within 24 hours. Only in subsequent documents did the USDA begin to waver as to some of the original requirements of the Draft Strategic Plan. And not until the USDA’s release of the User Guide in November 2006 did the USDA’s stated policy become “voluntary” rather than “mandatory” NAIS.

Even the USDA’s most comprehensive public-relations campaign can’t sell a bad NAIS system to justly skeptical farmers. The USDA’s Handbook, like its User Guide and its present NAIS approach generally, repeatedly speaks of needing to “correct” or adjust farmers’ attitudes or beliefs about NAIS. Why doesn’t the USDA actually examine the possible flaws in the design, the reasoning of, and the justification for NAIS, and abandon this unwanted and unwarranted intrusion of bureaucracy and technocracy into the lives of farmers and animal owners? Why is the USDA, as is so obvious throughout the Handbook, concerned only with appearance or “perception,” and not with reality?

For all that the USDA may think that farmers function “at the sixth grade level” (Handbook, p. 41), farmers seem to be just too smart to be lured by even the USDA’s most prettily baited NAIS hook. In January 2007, the USDA conducted NAIS “focus groups” in Sacramento, California, Springfield, Missouri, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, March 2007, p. 1.) The participants in the “focus groups” were all livestock producers. The purpose of the “focus groups” was to gauge farmers’ responses to elements of the unified USDA NAIS public-relations campaign, particularly, the new NAIS promotional brochures and the USDA-imposed “key messages” for promoting NAIS. These farmers thus received only the USDA pro-NAIS messages and no “opposition” information. By the USDA’s own admission, these farmers, even after intensive exposure to the USDA’s well orchestrated campaign, would not accept premises registration. The USDA’s “key findings” about the attitudes of the focus-group farmers after they had received the USDA’s (and only the USDA’s) side of the NAIS story are:

“Respondents view NAIS as unwanted government intervention.”
“Current NAIS messaging and brochures will not necessarily motivate producers to register premises.”

So, after several years and multiple millions of dollars’ worth of pro-NAIS propaganda, farmers still want no part of NAIS. Perhaps the USDA should begin to entertain the notion that farmers might not be so “misinformed” after all. Maybe farmers are simply justifiably mistrustful of a government agency that insists on treating the very people it is supposed to serve like children.

DOES GENETIC ENGINEERING HAVE GOD'S ENDORSEMENT?

Take note of this excellent article. Many of us have known that genetically modifying anything goes against God's word. Nothing good can come from it. This article says it all. Be afraid of God's wrath. Things are starting to heat up.



http://www.newswithviews.com/Ciola/greg4.htm

By Greg Ciola

March 28, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Stories about genetic engineering have been making headline news recently. For instance, rice grown with human genes has been given the green light for commercial production by the USDA. Meat from cloned animals is now okay for human consumption thanks to the FDA. The University of Nevada-Reno has created sheep that are 15 percent human at the cellular level in hopes of using these animals as human organ producing factories in the future. In scientific terms it’s referred to as xenotransplantation. On farms across North America farmers intend to plant record acreage of GM crops in 2007.

Since genetic engineering and biotechnology are now impacting our lives in so many ways, isn’t it time that it were examined from a biblical perspective? There is ample evidence from both the Bible and extra-biblical books that shows strong disapproval of genetic engineering.

The author of all life is God and according to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, He created every species to reproduce after its own kind. Thus, there is no room in God’s creation for man to step in and start modifying DNA by cross transplanting the genes from one organism or species into the DNA of another. In essence, man is now creating species variants that God never intended to exist. Such alteration of species specificity is a serious violation of God’s natural order, and I believe it to be a corruption of life and an abomination unto the LORD.

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:11-12)

Unfortunately, the biotech industry has upstaged God’s role in creation by attempting to modify every aspect of life through their dark science. The genetic codes of each species’ DNA are God’s doing. They were not put there by some random act of evolution, as most scientists would like us to believe. In effect, what they are doing is mocking God by declaring that nearly everything He made is defective and can be improved upon.

In the Old Testament books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy there are clear instructions on how the Israelites were to farm their land and grow their food.

“Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.” (Leviticus 19:19)

“Thou shall not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou has sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” (Deuteronomy 22:9-11)

Notice that if a field was plowed with an ox and an ass it was a violation of God’s law. If a field was planted with various mixed seeds, it too was a defilement and violation of God’s law. Therefore, since God is adamant about not mixing – whether it be in plowing, planting or in the clothes we wear – what do you think His thoughts would be on gene mixing? Let me assure you that when DNA genes are taken from one organism and inserted into another, it too is a defilement of the land and a violation of God’s law!

Anyone who can see this biotech time bomb with spiritual eyes will understand that genetically modified foods and genetic engineering are not about improving crops and providing better alternatives to the world. They’re about playing God and polluting His whole creation. God’s law doesn’t sanction genetic engineering and it never will, despite the best efforts of the biotech industry to try and present these altered organisms as something beneficial to the human race. It may very well be genetically modified foods and genetic engineering that finally bring the wrath of God down upon us. I personally believe that this gene altering technology is one of the most critical issues the world is now facing.

The world was already destroyed once at the time of Noah because of what the ancient Book of Jasher seems to clearly indicate was a form of genetic engineering. If scientists insist on playing God, it may not be long before such a divine destruction happens again.

While the Book of Jasher is not actually in Holy Scripture, it is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. The fact that the Bible cites it twice validates that there was such a book by this name in the early history of the nation of Israel. The book of Jasher is basically a parallel narrative of the first five books of Moses with the exception that it goes into much more detail. With regards to the story of Noah and the flood, Jasher sheds new light on some of the key events that were taking place before God destroyed the world. In light of our current discussion, one of these passages is very pertinent.

“And the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.” (Jasher 4:18)

It’s also rather interesting to note that when Jesus’ apostles asked Him what it would be like before His return He said it would be like the time of Noah. Might He have been referring to events similar to those cited in the Book of Jasher? Is modern genetic research simply a replay of ancient history? The evidence is certainly enough to make one stop and think.

Notice how God describes the destruction He was about to bring to the world during Noah’s time in the book of Genesis.

“And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:7)

No doubt there were many reasons why it repented the LORD that He made man, but one of the most significant ones appears to deal with genetic modification. It is obvious from both Genesis and Jasher that the whole world had become altered because of the genetic technology that was taking place.

“The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon earth.” (Genesis 6:11-12)

After much deliberation and research, it is my belief that genetically modified foods and genetic engineering as a whole may be leading up to a final battle between good and evil. The biotech companies have drawn a line in the sand and are determined to fight with all of their resources to implement this technology on a global scale. Despite past protests against GM foods in Europe and a growing juggernaut here in America, genetic engineering plods relentlessly forward – apparently unstoppable! Yet if God’s word can be trusted – and it can – then it’s just a matter of time before He steps in to put a halt to this outrage. These huge multinational biotech companies may in fact be getting into a battle that’s more than they bargained for.

If you don’t think food is a critical issue in the eyes of God, let me remind you that it was the consumption of a forbidden food in the Garden of Eden that led to the fall of man. Adam and Eve broke God’s very first commandment and ate the food from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Do you really think Satan would forego a strategy that worked so well for him back in the beginning? Might he now also have the whole world breaking God’s food laws and eating the wrong food in the form of GMOs? And just remember one very important thing, Satan doesn’t care whether you know it or not. As long as he can stand before our Heavenly Father and accuse us to Him, that’s all that matters. (See Revelation 12:10)

If you are still not convinced that genetic engineering violates God’s law, there is yet another powerful Bible reference that seems to speak directly to the issue of genetically modified foods. It comes from the Book of Matthew in the New Testament. Jesus relates a parable that, to me, is very applicable to the subject.

“And another parable put he forth unto them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, did not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy has done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let them both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:24-30)

For those of you who don’t know what tares are, they are the next best comparison to a genetically engineered version of wheat. Tares are a counterfeit form of wheat. They look exactly like wheat and when they are growing side by side next to good wheat there is no way to tell the difference until they reach harvest time. When tares reach their peak they turn black on the top, the grain is not edible, and the seeds from them in many cases cannot be replanted just like Terminator seeds.

Doesn’t this parable fit our genetic engineering story to a T? God created the world and sowed good seed (with His DNA blueprint) in the earth. But while we were all sleeping, an enemy came and sowed counterfeit crops (GMOs) in our fields. They may look just like the real deal, even when growing side by side with God’s food. (Doesn’t genetically modified corn look exactly like regular corn?) But they’re not the same – no more than the wheat and the tares are the same. Genetically modified crops are counterfeit crops sown and grown by God’s enemies.

Jesus went on to explain the interpretation of this parable.

“He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 13:37-43)

Do you see now how pertinent this parable really is? I think it proves rather convincingly that biotechnology is satanically inspired. In my estimation, the multinational biotech companies are playing with fire and they may very well get burned. Through their DNA modification research, these corporations have now crossed over into the realm of the supernatural. Our world will never be the same again as a result of the alterations they are making to nature. Regrettably, GMOs have now been released into the environment and there is no turning back.

Even if the biotech industry stopped growing genetically modified food tomorrow, it would be impossible to totally purge their long-lasting side effects from the earth. The hard, plain truth is that all of the farms in America and around the world growing crops that contain GMOs are already defiled in God’s eyes. Planting crops free of GMOs on the same land that once grew them would also defile and corrupt the new crops. To be purified, the land must be made to rest for a considerable period of time – a highly unlikely scenario when you consider the financial impact such an action would have. Yet, only such a long rest of the land will make the ground once again acceptable to God. There appears to be no easy way out of the crisis we have created. In light of the seriousness of the situation, might the following quote from Habakkuk have anticipated the coming genetic engineering apocalypse?

“Though the fig tree may not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines; though the labor of the olive may fail, and the fields yield no food; though the flock be cut off from the fold, and there be no herd in the stalls – Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.” (Habakkuk 3:17-18)

The following passage from the New Testament should serve as the final warning to the biotech industry as they plod forward proliferating gene-spliced crops:

“Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” (Matthew 15:13)

© 2007 Greg Ciola - All Rights Reserved

Vermont Public Hearing Re: H.522 - THE VIABILITY OF VERMONT AGRICULTURE

This is a bill that is sorely needed here in Vermont. I hope you, dear reader, understand the wisdom of buying and consuming locally grown food considering the food recalls of the last year.

There will be a Public Hearing on 4 April at the State House in Montpelier, Room 11, 10 o'clock to noon. If you are a Vermonter, please come. Let's show our support for for this bill and for on-farm poultry slaughter.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/H-522.HTM

Download this document in MS Word format

---

BILL AS INTRODUCED

2007-2008

H.522

Introduced by Committee on Agriculture

Date:

Subject: Agriculture; long-term goals, policies, and actions

Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to assure the long-term viability of Vermont agriculture by establishing goals for the state, stating legislative findings outlining the problems and possibilities for the agricultural industry and the legislative intent behind the act.

The bill also authorizes the agency of agriculture, food and markets to establish systems for the state to purchase local food and dairy products, develop proposals for developing additional in-state dairy processing facilities, establish an alternative dairy pricing system that assures Vermont dairy farmers a stable and equitable price for their milk, suggest ways to lower farm workers’ compensation insurance, study establishing a state farm energy purchase program, and review state statutes with an eye to improving effectiveness in the development and delivery of farm programs. In addition, the bill clarifies that a producer may process without inspection up to 999 birds (on the farm) to be sold from the farm, at a farmers’ market, or to a restaurant with required consumer labeling. The bill enables the secretary to authorize mobile processing units, exempts the units from Act 250, and includes them in the accepted agricultural practices statute. Wineries would be exempt from Act 250 before their grapes mature if the wineries will use grapes principally grown on the farm. New farms on land with an Act 250 permit would be exempt from Act 250 and local zoning.

AN ACT RELATING TO THE VIABILITY OF VERMONT AGRICULTURE

It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

Sec. 1. GOALS

The goals of this act are for Vermont to:

(1) Support programs and policies that foster the development of a diversified agricultural sector that:

(A) offers farmers an opportunity to sell their products to a marketplace that pays them a reasonable rate of return for their labor and capital investments;

(B) offers the public nutritious and safe foods;

(C) produces, markets, and distributes agricultural products in a sustainable manner that conserves energy and the environment;

(D) fosters on-farm renewable energy production and its infrastructure that maximizes energy conservation and efficiency and limits greenhouse gases;

(E) provides economic stability to preserve the necessary infrastructure of the agricultural industry;

(F) expands the market opportunities for farm-raised poultry and other meat products.

(2) Maintain the state’s prominence as a major milk producer in the region, and;

(A) assure a continued supply of high quality milk to processors and consumers in the region;

(B) enable Vermont dairy farmers, processors, and retailers and their supporting infrastructure to achieve a positive return on their labor and investment;

(3) Enable agricultural operations of diverse sizes producing a wide array of products to prosper in Vermont and contribute to the state and regional economy.

(4) Support initiatives such as the development of a mobile slaughtering unit to serve Vermont poultry farmers and the building and modernization of approved slaughtering facilities.

(5) Assure continued stewardship of the land with respect for the environment and efficient use of energy.

Sec. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

The general assembly finds:

(1) A viable agricultural sector in Vermont represents part of a secure regional food supply, which in turn lends itself to energy and economic efficiencies.

(2) The general public is increasingly interested in locally produced food.

(3) The benefits of local food systems to local communities include open land, jobs, nutritious and safe foods, and youth education opportunities.

(4) Farms are an integral part of Vermont’s overall economy.

(5) Vermont agriculture is dependent upon a reliable and affordable supply of electrical energy, fuel, feed, and other supplies.

(6) Vermont agriculture is dependent upon the availability of a competent work force; the shortage of willing and knowledgeable workers is detrimental to farm operations.

(7) Current workers’ compensation insurance rates account for a significant portion of farmers’ payroll expenses.

(8) Succession, or the transfer of farms from one generation to the next, is a critical part of a viable future for Vermont agriculture.

(9) Vermont is the leading producer of fluid milk in New England, but only about five percent of its production is consumed in Vermont.

(10) The current federal milk pricing system does not allow a reasonable return on labor and investment for most Vermont dairy farmers.

(11) Regional marketing arrangements such as the Northeast Interstate Compact for Dairy Pricing have provided a positive operating margin without taxpayer subsidies or support.

(12) The general assembly finds that dairy processing facilities in Vermont are crucial to both Vermont dairy farmers and the promotion of the Vermont name.

(13) The “Vermont” name evokes a positive image for people and contributes to the marketing of Vermont products.

(14) Value-added products offer profit potential and economic opportunity for Vermont producers and nonfarmer entrepreneurs alike.

(15) Many factors affect the ability of businesses to process value-added food products, including shortage of capital, lack of design and engineering expertise, and issues relating to multi-layered state and federal regulation such as permitting, zoning, and inspection.

(16) Institutional purchasers in Vermont have difficulty sourcing locally raised good quality products, including proteins such as meats and poultry.

(17) There is a shortage of slaughter and meat processors as well as a lack of training opportunities for industry personnel.

(18) Federal restrictions prevent interstate shipment of state-inspected meat from amenable species, although Vermont standards are equal to or exceed federal standards.

(19) Relationship-based food systems such as farm-to-school programs, community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, farmers’ markets, and

pick-your-own operations are increasingly popular and offer areas of opportunity for new farmers.

Sec. 3. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

The general assembly intends:

(1) To support and develop a more robust and self-sustaining agricultural sector.

(2) That the policies and programs of the state will support and promote the Vermont agriculture industry as a vital component of the state’s economy and essential steward of our land.

(3) That current policies and programs pertaining to the viability of Vermont’s agricultural industry be reviewed and confirmed or changed in order to assure the long-term economic prosperity of the industry.

(4) That Vermont will cooperate and coordinate with other northeastern states to assure stable and fair prices for milk sold in the northeastern market.

(5) That Vermont will promote processing and consumption of dairy products bearing the Vermont seal of quality.

* * * Local Food Procurement * * *

Sec. 4. FOOD AND DAIRY PROCUREMENT

(a) The agency of agriculture, food and markets in cooperation with the secretary of administration and the department of buildings and general services shall establish a system whereby the state will follow its own “buy local” campaign by purchasing local food and dairy products. In so doing, the agency shall determine:

(1) The amount of food and dairy products purchased annually by the state and state-funded entities, other than primary and secondary schools, and the associated costs.

(2) The number and type of government and state-funded entities that purchase food and dairy products and the quantities and varieties purchased by each.

(3) The person or persons with authority to make food and dairy purchasing decisions within each entity and the scope of that authority.

(4) The implications of a program that directs “local” purchasing.

(b) The agency of agriculture, food and markets, the agency of administration, and the department of buildings and general services shall:

(1) Establish a system for local producers and processors to market their products to state purchasing entities.

(2) Establish a system for state purchasing entities to advertise to and connect with local producers and processors.

(3) Establish a program in the agency of agriculture, food and markets to provide strategic and technical assistance to local producers and processors for creating or enlarging the facilities necessary to produce or process food for sale to the state or other expanded markets.

(4) Establish a system for the purchase of local food and dairy products at all levels of state government, other than primary and secondary schools, and at state-funded entities, other than primary and secondary schools.

(5) Draft rules, policies and procedures for this section and report their findings with respect to feasibility, cost and progress to the joint agriculture committees on or before November 1, 2007.

(c) All rules, policies, and procedures necessary to implement this section shall be adopted on or before October 1, 2008.

* * * Dairy Processing * * *

Sec. 5. INSTATE PROCESSING FACILITIES

(a) Legislative finding. The general assembly finds that dairy processing facilities in Vermont are an integral part of the infrastructure of both Vermont agriculture and the entire Vermont economy. These facilities provide jobs and create income that is spent multiple times in Vermont.

(b) The secretary of agriculture, food and markets shall:

(1) Determine ways to attract and retain dairy processors to the state;

(2) Determine ways to increase the numbers of producers processing their own milk;

(3) Calculate the additional costs and benefits to dairy producers that may result from these additional processors;

(4) Develop proposals for developing additional instate processing facilities. These proposals and any recommendations for legislative action shall be presented to the house and senate committees on agriculture on or before November 1, 2007.

Sec. 6. DAIRY PRICING INITIATIVE

The secretary of the agency of agriculture, food and markets shall endeavor to reestablish the Northeast Interstate Compact for Dairy Pricing or establish an alternative regional pricing system that assures Vermont dairy farmers of a fair, stable, and equitable price for their milk. The secretary shall collaborate with Vermont’s Congressional delegation, the governor’s dairy task force, the coordinated milk pricing group, the region’s dairy cooperatives, and the Congressional delegations and state legislatures of the other states in the region to take such steps as necessary to assure the continued viability of dairy farming in the northeast and to assure consumers of an adequate, local supply of pure and wholesome milk.

* * * On-farm Poultry Processing and Labeling for Sale * * *

Sec. 7. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AGENCY OF AGRICULTURE,

FOOD AND MARKETS REGULATIONS

The department of health shall amend Regulation 5-204(1)(X) (requirement of agency of agriculture, food and markets or United States department of agriculture inspection of poultry) so that the regulation does not require inspection of poultry that is exempt from inspection under 6 V.S.A.

§ 3312(b).

Sec. 8. 6 V.S.A § 3312 is amended to read:

§ 3312. INSPECTION; EXCEPTION EXCEPTIONS

(a) Inspection shall not be provided under this chapter at any establishment for the slaughter of livestock or poultry or the preparation of any livestock products or poultry products which are not intended for use as human food, but these products shall, prior to their offer for sale or transportation in intrastate commerce, unless naturally inedible by humans, be denatured or otherwise identified as prescribed by rules of the secretary to deter their use for human food. These licensed establishments shall be subject to periodic review.

(b) Inspection shall not be required for the slaughter or preparation of poultry products of the producer’s own raising on the producer’s own farm, whether or not they are intended for use as human food if fewer than 1,000 birds are slaughtered annually and no birds are offered for sale or transportation in interstate commerce, and the poultry products are only sold from the farm, at a farmers’ market, or to a food restaurant licensed by the commissioner of health, or are for personal use.

(c) All poultry sold pursuant to the exemption in subsection (b) of this section shall be labeled with the following information:

(1) Name of farm and name of producer;

(2) Address of farm;

(3) Exempted per 6 V.S.A. § 3312(b): NOT INSPECTED.

(d) The department of health shall establish labeling requirements for all poultry products exempt from inspection pursuant to subsection (b) of this section and sold at a food restaurant licensed by the department. Labels shall include safe handling and cooking instructions and shall identify the poultry grower for purposes of traceability. The requirements shall be effective November 1, 2007.

(e) Poultry sold to food restaurants under the exemption in subsection (b) of this section shall also include the following on the label:

Any menu item that includes this poultry must clearly state the name of the farm and have the words “poultry processed on the farm and not inspected” on the menu in proximity to the menu item.

(f) The poultry producer, upon first selling poultry to a food restaurant, must procure a signed statement from the food restaurant stating that the food restaurant is aware that the poultry is exempted from inspection under subsection (b) of this section, and that the menu of the food restaurant must have the information required by subsection (d) of this section. The poultry producer must keep the signed statement on file as long as the producer is selling poultry to the food restaurant under this section. The poultry producer must have a signed statement on file from each food restaurant to which poultry is sold under this section.

* * * Authorizing Mobile Processing Units * * *

Sec. 9. 6 V.S.A. § 3302 is amended to read:

§ 3302. DEFINITIONS

As used in this chapter, except as otherwise specified, the following terms shall have the meanings stated below:

* * *

(42) “Mobile slaughter and processing establishment” means any transportable structure used for slaughtering or processing of meat or poultry products on farm or an agricultural fairground registered pursuant to section 3902 of Title 20.

Sec. 10. 6 V.S.A. § 3305(17) is added to read:

(17) authorize and recognize mobile slaughter and processing establishments as official establishments or exempt them under subdivision 3305(13) of this section.

* * * Definition of Farming for Act 250 * * *

Sec. 11. 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22)(E) is amended and (H) is added to read:

(E) the on-site storage, preparation and sale of agricultural products principally produced on the farm or to be principally produced on the farm in the case of orchard lands planted to fruit-producing trees, bushes, or vines which are not yet of bearing age; or

(H) the on-farm or agricultural fairground, registered pursuant to section 3902 of Title 20, inspection, slaughter, processing, and preparation of meat and poultry products produced on farms using a mobile slaughtering and processing establishment authorized by the secretary of agriculture, food and markets pursuant to 6 V.S.A. § 3305(17).

* * * Vermont Seal of Quality * * *

Sec. 12. 6 V.S.A. § 2964(e) is amended and (f) is added to read:

(e) As used in this chapter, "agricultural products" means any product of a farming operation as defined in 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22)(A), (B), (C) and ,(D), and (H).

(f) The secretary shall annually review the effectiveness of the identification program for increasing the value of Vermont agricultural products.

* * * Mobile Processing Units Comply with AAPs * * *

Sec. 13. 6 V.S.A. § 4810(a)(1) is amended to read:

(1) "Accepted Agricultural Practices" (AAPs) shall be standards to be followed in conducting agricultural activities in this state. These standards shall address activities which have a potential for causing pollutants to enter the groundwater and waters of the state, including dairy and other livestock operations plus all forms of crop and nursery operations and on-farm or agricultural fairground, registered pursuant to section 3902 of Title 20, livestock and poultry slaughter and processing activities. The AAPs shall include, as well as promote and encourage, practices for farmers in preventing pollutants from entering the groundwater and waters of the state when engaged in, but not limited to, animal waste management and disposal, soil amendment applications, plant fertilization, and pest and weed control. Persons engaged in farming, as defined in section 6001 of Title 10, who follow these practices shall be presumed to be in compliance with water quality standards. AAPs shall be practical and cost effective to implement. The AAPs for groundwater shall include a process under which the agency shall receive, investigate, and respond to a complaint that a farm has contaminated the drinking water or groundwater of a property owner.

* * * Farming by Land Covered by Act 250 Permit * * *

Sec. 14. 10 V.S.A. § 6081(s) is added to read:

(s) No permit or permit amendment is required for activities which constitute farming as defined in subdivision 6001(22) of this title.

Sec. 15. FARM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE

The secretary of the agency of agriculture, food and markets shall consult with the department of labor; the department of banking, insurance, securities, and health care; and representatives of the farm community to determine what can be done to lower the cost of workers’ compensation for agricultural employers. The secretary shall report with recommendations to the house and senate committees on agriculture on or before November 1, 2007.

Sec. 16. FARM ENERGY PURCHASE REPORT

(a) Legislative findings. The general assembly finds that state-government buildings use 4.2 megawatt hours of electricity each year.

(b) The agency of agriculture, food and markets shall study establishing a farm energy purchase program. The program could purchase renewable energy attributes from farm-based renewable energy projects to support a portion of state-government electrical usage and ensure a market for farm produced energy. The agency shall report to the house and senate committees on or before November 1, 2007 with any legislative proposals.

Sec. 17. AGENCY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND MARKETS REVIEW

(a) The agency of agriculture, food and markets in consultation with the legislative council shall jointly review existing state statutes as they pertain to public or quasi public entities created to provide and promote services to the Vermont agriculture sector. The review shall consider the relevancy of the statutes as they relate to economic conditions in which Vermont agriculture is operating today. The review shall include recommended changes in authorizing language to improve effectiveness in the development and delivery of programs designed to enhance the long-term viability of Vermont’s agriculture industry.

(b) The agency of agriculture, food and markets with the legislative council shall report their findings back to the house and senate committees on agriculture no later than November 1, 2007.

Sec. 18. EFFECTIVE DATE

This act shall take effect upon passage.

---

Published by:

The Vermont General Assembly
115 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont

www.leg.state.vt.us

And I'm back...

After a couple of weeks of being busy, traveling and having the flu twice in a month, I'm ready to post again. Thanks to those of you who wrote asking where I have been.

I'm so far behind. There is much to report, but I think I'll just plunge on from today.

New blogger, Animal Waitress. Dreen is a student of NAIS and the international entanglements. Bookmark her blog and visit it often.

Speaking of NAIS:

On February 13, 2007, Mrs. Emerson, with Mr. Boozman, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Duncan, introduced H.R. 1018:

To amend the Animal Health Protection Act to prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from implementing or carrying out a National Animal Identification System or similar requirement and… (Introduced in House)

http://nonais.org/index.php/2007/03/23/bill-to-castrate-nais/

Sounds good, but then in Section II "voluntary" raises its ugly head again. I am concerned that Ron Paul is a co-sponsor on this bill, but, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he's signed on to keep an eye on it and mayhaps to write an amendment to strip out the second section.

Finally, for today, the Almond Board in California will begin pasteurizing almonds, even raw ones, in the fall of 2007. That means that raw almonds aren't going to be raw, not really. Why are "they", industrialized agriculture, so bound and determined to kill our food supply? Remember, it was the almond growers in California that killed millions of acres of honey bees a few years ago with an over application of pesticide.

FDA Rules Override Warnings About Drug

[As I was googling for the source of the following article, I came across this site: People over Profits. It looks like an interesting Grass roots activist site, though I haven't researched who is behind them.]

The government is on track to approve a new antibiotic to treat a pneumonia-like disease in cattle, despite warnings from health groups and a majority of the agency's own expert advisers that the decision will be dangerous for people.The drug, called cefquinome, belongs to a class of highly potent antibiotics that are among medicine's last defenses against several serious human infections. No drug from that class has been approved in the United States for use in animals.



The American Medical Association and about a dozen other health groups warned the Food and Drug Administration that giving cefquinome to animals would probably speed the emergence of microbes resistant to that important class of antibiotics, as has happened with other drugs. Those super-microbes could then spread to people.



Echoing those concerns, the FDA's advisory board last fall voted to reject the request by InterVet Inc. of Millsboro, Del., to market the drug for cattle.



Yet by all indications, the FDA will approve cefquinome this spring. That outcome is all but required, officials said, by a recently implemented "guidance document" that codifies how to weigh the threats to human health posed by proposed new animal drugs.



The wording of "Guidance for Industry #152" was crafted within the FDA after a long struggle. In the end, the agency adopted language that, for drugs like cefquinome, is more deferential to pharmaceutical companies than is recommended by the World Health Organization.Cefquinome's seemingly inexorable march to market shows how a few words in an obscure regulatory document can sway the government's approach to protecting public health.Industry representatives say they trust Guidance #152's calculation that cefquinome should be approved. "There is reasonable certainty of no harm to public health," Carl Johnson, InterVet's director of product development, told the FDA last fall.



Others say Guidance #152 makes it too difficult for the FDA to say no to some drugs.



"The industry says that 'until you show us a direct link to human mortality from the use of these drugs in animals, we don't think you should preclude their use,' " said Edward Belongia, an epidemiologist at the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation in Wisconsin. "But do we really want to drive more resistance genes into the human population? It's easy to open the barn door, but it's hard to close the door once it's open."



The FDA knows how hard it can be to close that door. In the mid-1990s, overriding the objections of public health experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the drug agency approved the marketing of two drugs, Baytril and SaraFlox, for use in poultry. Both are fluoroquinolones, a class of drugs important for their ability to fight the bioterror bacterium that causes anthrax and a food-borne bacterium called campylobacter, which causes a serious diarrheal disease in people.



Before long, doctors began finding fluoroquinolone-resistant strains of campylobacter in patients hospitalized with severe diarrhea. When studies showed a link to poultry, the FDA sought a ban. But while Abbott Laboratories, which made SaraFlox, pulled its product, Baytril's manufacturer, Bayer Corp., pushed back.



"They fought this tooth and nail. It took years," said Kirk Smith, an epidemiologist at the Minnesota Department of Health.



Finally, late in 2005, Bayer gave up, but not before fluoroquinolone resistance had spread even further.


A Question of Resistance


Microbes are constantly mutating, and some of those mutations happen to confer immunity to one drug or another. Exacerbating the problem, bacteria constantly exchange bits of DNA with each other, spreading that resistance.


Given those realities, experts agree that all antibiotics should be used judiciously.



"If a drug is used less, then less resistance emerges," said Patricia Griffin, chief of intestinal disease epidemiology for the CDC.



Prudence is especially important for medicines of last resort, which is why the cefquinome application stirred such a storm.



Cefquinome is a fourth-generation cephalosporin, the most recent of several steadily improving versions of the cephalosporin family of antibiotics. Only one medicine from that family has been approved in the United States -- a powerful human drug called cefepime (brand name Maxipime), which is the only effective treatment for serious infections in cancer patients and a reliable lifesaver against several other nearly invincible infections.



InterVet developed cefquinome to treat bovine respiratory disease, the most common disease in cattle. Recognizing the potential public health implications of using a close cousin of cefepime in animals, the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, which oversees animal drug approvals, convened its expert advisers in September.



One of the first things the group learned was that more than a dozen medicines are already on the market for the respiratory syndrome, and all are still effective.



"If we have no susceptibility problem, why do we need one more new drug?" asked James E. Leggett Jr., a professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, whom the FDA brought in as a consultant on the cefquinome question.



The panel also learned that the disease would be a relatively minor issue but for the stressful conditions under which U.S. cattle are raised, including high-density living spaces and routine shipment on crowded trains for hundreds or thousands of miles. Those "production dynamics" suppress the animals' immune systems, explained feedlot consultant Kelly Lechtenberg of Oakland, Neb., and virtually guarantee that bovine respiratory disease will be a major problem.



Yet Stephen Sundlof, head of the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Center, told the panel members that under agency rules they should ignore those issues and consider only the language in Guidance #152.


Flaws Seen in Rules


Guidance #152 is essentially a checklist of points to consider when weighing the potential human impact of a new animal drug.



After the Baytril debacle, the public health community embraced the idea of a guidance document. A formalized risk-assessment process promised to minimize the chances of making a bad regulatory call.



But a struggle ensued when the FDA hosted meetings to spell out the criteria to be used for measuring risk, often with veterinarians and veterinary drug companies on one side and doctors and public health experts on the other.



When differences could not be resolved after repeated drafts and months of work, the agency sidestepped some tough issues and adopted language that both sides agree can block approval of the most worrisome drugs -- those such as Baytril that are put in animal feed or water, and so are easily overused. But public health experts say the wording tilts the playing field toward industry for other kinds of drugs. They want to see it revised.



Most glaring, they say, is that the guidance makes it almost impossible to say no to a new animal drug unless it is likely to threaten the effectiveness of an antibiotic that is a critical player against food-borne illnesses. By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends saying no if approval would spur resistance to any antibiotic that is important for fighting "serious human disease" -- not just food-borne illnesses.



Cefquinome's primary threat is that it may undermine the usefulness of the closely related human drug, cefepime. But as it turns out, the FDA does not consider cefepime a front-line drug against food-borne infections. So although it is a highly important drug in human medicine generally -- and although the Infectious Diseases Society of America even recommends it against some food-borne bacteria -- that risk does not count under the terms of Guidance #152.



A related problem is that the guidance's definition of "food-borne" is conservative, said Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science policy advocacy group. For example, most urinary tract infections are caused by intestinal bacteria acquired from food, and cefepime is prescribed for those infections. If the FDA counted those infections as food-borne, then the guidance's formula would call for rejecting cefquinome for cattle.



"But FDA didn't do that," Mellon said. "That restricted the analysis right there."



Moreover, the guidance does not take into account that when microbes become resistant to fourth-generation cephalosporins, they often gain resistance to third-generation versions, too.



Third-generation cephalosporins are among the only effective therapies for serious gastrointestinal diseases in children and are the sole therapies for many cases of meningitis. That means the emergence of resistance to fourth-generation cephalosporins "could have a much more far-reaching effect" than is considered under the terms of Guidance #152, John H. Powers, a medical officer at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told the agency's panel of experts.


How Great a Risk?



Richard Carnevale, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Animal Health Institute, which represents veterinary drugmakers, said critics should not presume that a dozen drugs effective against bovine respiratory syndrome are enough.



"It's not a question of whether there is a need or not," Carnevale said. "The answer is, there's always a need."



The institute contends that the risk to human health posed by animal antibiotics has been overblown.



Officials at InterVet declined several requests to be interviewed. In a statement, the company said it "fully supports the prudent use of antibiotics in animals."



The statement also said that in Europe, fourth-generation cephalosporins similar to cefquinome have been used in animals for the past decade "without compromising the interests of public health."



Yet recent European data indicate that resistance against this class of antibiotics is on the rise.



An analysis of E. coli bacteria in pigs and other animals in Spain, published in December, found high levels of the resistance that renders fourth-generation cephalosporins useless. A January report from Britain documented similar resistance patterns emerging at 10 farms.



Microbes resistant to fourth-generation cephalosporins have also begun to pop up in European patients. Such resistance is virtually unknown in the United States, where fourth-generation cefepime has been used in patients since 1997. That suggests that the resistance emerging in Europe is a result of veterinary use, said Steve Roach of the Food Animal Concerns Trust, a Chicago public interest group.



Roach says he is concerned that history is about to repeat itself. U.S. cattle were free of bacteria resistant to third-generation cephalosporins in 1997, but by 2003 one of every five samples was resistant. "This is exactly what should be avoided with cefquinome," he said.


Merely Suggestions



At the FDA advisory meeting in September, the agency's experts defied Guidance #152 and voted 6 to 4 against approval of cefquinome. But that day, and in follow-up interviews, Sundlof, the agency's veterinary chief, made it plain that the vote was "not binding."



"I think we all agreed . . . that Guidance for Industry #152 would be the criteria against which we would base our decisions on safety," Sundlof said at the meeting.



Concerned that the FDA is poised to approve cefquinome, Congress's only microbiologist recently wrote to the agency.



"Given the recent outbreaks of E. coli and other food borne illnesses across the nation, it is hardly the time to ignore the advice of scientists, and potentially impair our ability to treat deadly infections," wrote Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who chairs the House Rules Committee.



Yet, being realists, the FDA advisers in September said more than just no. They told the FDA that if it approves cefquinome, then it should at least impose limits to minimize the potential consequences. One suggestion was to explicitly preclude "off label" use of the drug -- that is, to tell veterinarians that it can be used only for bovine respiratory disease.



But Sundlof said that, under FDA rules, those decisions must be left up to veterinarians unless there is clear evidence that wider use is causing harm.



"We have to take a fairly legal interpretation," Sundlof said in an interview. "If we have no evidence of a problem, or sparse evidence, we would not be able to make the prohibition prior to approval."



However, raising a point that opponents do not find very reassuring, he noted: "As soon as we have the first glimpse of evidence that off-label use of a drug is causing resistance, we have the authority to prohibit off-label use."



The advisers also urged that as a condition of approval, the FDA should demand that InterVet provide annual reports on how much cefquinome was used and in which animals -- data that would help scientists detect links between the drug's use and patterns of resistance that emerge in people.



"Without reliable, meaningful data on the quantity of use, the purpose of use, the type, number and location of animals treated, it will be exceedingly difficult to interpret fluctuations in rates of resistance," said Susan Prolman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.



But Sundlof offered little hope for that outcome.



"That is information that would be useful to have," he said. But the agency does not have the authority to demand it.


By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer

Farmer's Head to Washington

Issue #19.09 :: 02/27/2007 - 03/05/2007

Farmers head to Washington Vocal locals oppose national animal I.D. system

BY MEG MCEVOY

In 2005, a law was passed that said Albemarle farmer John Coles couldn’t sell his unpasteurized goat cheese anymore. Coles now makes his living selling vegetables, grown at his farm off Route 29 about eight miles north of Fashion Square Mall, and gives away pounds of cheese on a donation-only basis. Like many small farmers, he’s opposed to more regulations on what he can and can’t do with his homegrown products. Coles is also not a fan of a law that would require all farms with livestock to register and tag animals with radio transmitters. Albemarle goat farmer John coles traveled to Washington, D.C. with other local farmers to lobby against a national animal I.D. system that would require electronically tagging all livestock. The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) (www.usda.gov/nais) has aimed to do just that. A measure supported by the agricultural industry as a way to prevent and track the spread of disease among herds, NAIS has the small farming community in an uproar. In February, local farmers brought their opposition to Washington. The Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA) (www.vicfa.net) joined with similar groups from surrounding states at a reception and lobbying event at the Cannon House Office Building. “We had a small army of volunteers,” says Deborah Stockton, editor of the VICFA VOICE newsletter. The group faxed invitations to every member of Congress and laid out a spread of locally grown food. They had eight congressmen turn out, plus several dozen more congressional staffers and aides. Among those at the reception was Virginia’s 5th district representative Virgil Goode, who sported a VICFA button and sipped on raw milk. Though small farmers face many issues, VICFA’s main beef is with NAIS. “The reason they’re doing this is to prevent mad cow disease and avian flu,” says Coles. “But these are problems that only exist in [big] agro-business.” Originally, the federal government announced NAIS would be mandatory by 2009. Due to grassroots opposition, according to Stockton, the USDA has turned their attention to the state level, awarding grants to state departments of agriculture who require animal tagging and premises registration. The national website now emphasizes that the program is “voluntary.” Stockton says February’s event was a good start towards battling NAIS, and they’re already planning another event for next year. “The biggest problem facing us it that we are not real to [legislators],” she says. “They legislate according to industrial agriculture.”

Update on the Henshaw's

This is the latest update, provided by sayno2nais@yahoogroups.com

04 March 07
Good morning all,

As of this moment Danny and Cindi are on their way back to Colorado and very tired because of this trip. They were supposed to land in Richmond 830 PM Thursday night, but due to severe storms, did not land until 330 AM Friday morning and had to be in court at 11 AM.. They are living in a borrowed 31 foot trailer in an RV park. They both have jobs now and are working many hours trying to recover both mentally and physically from this whole chain of events since the 12 September 2006 raid on their property.

They do not have a computer line at the trailer (no phone), so being on line at this point is not a priority. Cindi has to go to the library if she wants to read any mail. Not much time to do that . Eventually, she will answer all e-mails sooner or later as time permits.

I speak to them weekly so if anyone has a message for them , please drop me a note and I will pass it on.
Becky

They asked me to thank everyone
who have shown loyal support to them during this trying time. To those who have offered advice, made phone calls, showed up at the protest rally, attended first trial, and all the people who offered encouragement in any way, we thank them from them bottom of our hearts. Please keep us in your prayers. We are very grateful to family, our friends and to all the people, whom we might never had met, if this had not happened. It has helped restore out faith in humanity. Thank you so much. We also are sending along a Special thanks to members of VICFA.
_____________________________________________________________________
I am sending you all this memo with permission of Danny and Cindi.
_____________________________________________________________________

We went to court with Danny on March 02, 2007 and once again I am totally discussed with the justice system.

There was much talking between Dan, his lawyer and the Commonwealth Atty. Bell alone, prior to going into the courtroom, Danny refused to plead guilty.

End result:
Appeals : Denied ( presented at the first trial)
Pled not guilty--------verdict guilty.......... Fined $250.00 ( suspended with conditions)
Court costs......$66.00
Fined total $1500.00......... to repay for the Agents hog kills ( 3 ), prior to the raid, #500.00 each.
Nothing like kicking someone when they are down HUH???

Everything was done up at the bench, so we could not hear the exchange of words very well..

Dick and I went outside to wait and Norman, Dan's Lawyer came out, while we waited for Danny to make arrangements to pay fines and etc.

The person that Dan had to talk to after, really had an ego attitude for sure. We noticed it when we were in the courtroom. Danny came out with his blood pressure about to explode.. This gal, I guess, treated Dan like a common criminal asking all kinds of personal questions and telling him he would have to be drug tested, go for counseling, report to her every two weeks and all kinds of unnecessary things, which in fact did not apply to his case. According to the Judge, all he had to do was arrange payment of fines by 01 June, 2007.

Norman was not aware this was going on at all and was a bit peeved. He figured that Dan would just have to make arrangements to make payments or whatever. Norman was not happy with this sort of treatment.

Finally, the gal called over the Commonwealth Atty. Bell and said Danny was being un-co operative. Bell spoke to the gal and finally settled it, I guess. Danny was not happy with her attitude at all.

While we were talking to Norman, he pointed out the laws that were sited on the original warrant. ( there were several quoted on the original papers) and Norman found, after a great deal of study, there was no law at all that pertained to this case, especially how it was carried out with no notice or warning to correct the problem, if in fact one existed. Basically the bottom line is Danny was convicted on laws that do not even exist. SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE....

My personal thought is this: The Powers to be, can take any written law and mold it to suit their own purpose, especially when they know that the way this whole event was carried out, was WRONG. Even the Deputies outside the Courtroom (Sheriffs) agreed that it was all wrong and should have been handled a lot different, to late for that HUH?

Moral of my story ; Just my personal opinion

TAKE A DECENT HUMAN BEING, WHO HAS NO RECORD OF ANY KIND AND TURN HIM INTO A CRIMINAL...ALL because a bunch of BIG BROTHER'S Agents decided that Danny Henshaw was breaking the law, by owning a Hunting Club, and set out to make an example of him. This event was set up as a training session for those involved, for future raids.

No warning, No human decency, NO nothing, except their AUTHORITY, IN MY MIND, THEY, the USDA AND OTHERS WERE THE CRIMINALS HERE, AND GOT AWAY WITH IT!!!!!!!!

What is really sad, is this is happening all over this country! Not just to Danny and Cindi, but to many people, who have chosen the FARM way of life, the very people who for generations have built this country from the ground up.

Folks, BEWARE, you could be next, and now we know, they do not even have to have good reason. Be prepared, if they decide to come to your home and property.

Please feel free forward to anyone, please use the entire message as written, as I do not have e-mail addresses of all people who have been interested in this.
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
Becky

PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AND BE PREPARED.

You could be next!!!!

"Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is SUCCESS."

-- Henry Ford

March on Austin - Don't Tag Texas

By some accounts, there were 20,000 people there. The parade stretched out for 8 blocks.

Protestors rally over threats to farmland

By WAYNE STEWART
The Palestine Herald
AUSTIN — With the shout, “Texas is not for sale,” thousands of people from across the state made their way up Congress Avenue to the Texas Capitol to tell lawmakers to stop the Trans Texas Corridor and the National Animal Identification System. (read the rest)

NAIS Has Its First Official Resister

Michigan has a hero in Greg Niewendorp. Our hope is that more Michigan farmers will do likewise, resist and stand with Greg.

From The Complete Patient

NAIS Has Its First Official Resister--Michigan Responds with a Farm Quarantine and Threat of Jail

It’s been only a few hours since the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) made its voluntary-to-required debut in Michigan, and already a farmer is challenging its underpinnings. The Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) quickly responded by quarantining his farm.

Here is what happened: Greg Niewendorp, owner of a 160-acre farm in East Jordan in the northern end of the lower peninsula, made good on his pledge, stated in my “Farmers Say No to Animal Tags” BusinessWeek.com article in December, to resist all MDA orders related to NAIS. So when MDA reps came around a few weeks back to test his 19 cows for bovine tuberculosis, he refused to allow the testing.

Since MDA has justified its requirement that all cattle wear radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to comply with NAIS on the basis of using the national program to fully eradicate bovine TB, Niewendorp decided that the time had come to make his stand. “Michigan is being used as a model to implement NAIS,” he told me.

“I have been under a whole-herd (TB) test program for six years,” he said. “This year I refused it.”

Why this year? "I made a decision I was going to refuse to comply, and bring this to a focal point and show that there are those of us who are not going to go along with" the government's agenda. The quarantine doesn’t have a practical effect on Niewendorp’s farm business, since he doesn’t trade cattle and thus doesn’t have animals leaving and arriving. He breeds his own cattle, and sells meat directly to consumers.

But the quarantine could have a huge legal impact on him, since non-compliance with the bovine TB test can lead to a felony charge, with conviction resulting in a jail sentence of up to five years and a fine up to $50,000.

Niewendorp responded to the MDA’s action with a five-page letter in which he demands that the MDA provide evidence that bovine TB is contagious, and that his particular farm is at risk.

He also warns MDA “that your department is not to enter onto my farm without a properly executed search warrant since any entry by your department would be to obtain criminal evidence which mandates a search warrant.”

He expresses concern that his cattle could be placed at risk by the bovine TB test for actually contracting the disease. “I require clear scientific evidence showing that there is no risk to any of my cattle of such experimental injections and an agreement by the state to indemnify and hold me harmless from any unseen or unintended consequences arising from such injection…”

Niewendorp is clearly a man of his word. One question: Will other farmers take a similar stand?