Raw Milk Use Share to be Tested this Week

You have to ask yourself why the gubermint is so all over people who are just trying to feed themselves in a healthy manner and at the same time allowing cattle to be imported from Canada and allowing cloned meat and milk (shudder...eew) to be sold into the human food chain without labeling. That's right, cloned meat is deemed to be the same as traditionally bred animals and as such, says USDA, needs no special labeling. Read about it here.

Anyway, this is what I wanted to notify you about, especially if you live in New York. If you live near Albany or Waterloo please make the effort to attend one of these hearings. The gubermint believes we aren't awake or paying attention. It is time for them to be proven wrong.

For more background information about the fight for our right to drink raw milk, please visit The Complete Patient.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PLEASE

Meadowsweet LLC

c/o Steve and Barbara Smith,

2054 Smith Rd.,

Lodi, NY (607-582-6954)

email:dairy@meadowsweetfarm.com

January 16, 2008

Raw Milk Use Share to be Tested this Week

In March 2007, dairy farmers Steve and Barbara Smith of Seneca County, NY dropped their raw milk dealer's license in order to start an innovative cow share program. In an era where the pressures of agribusiness and state regulation threaten the viability of family run farms, the Smiths, who have more than 12 years experience at dairy farming, find themselves at odds with the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF), a national organization set up to defend farmers and consumers from government interference, has taken on the Smiths' case. The Smiths' struggles with the Department of Agriculture and Markets will serve as a test case to determine if the State's regulatory power extends to a group of private citizens who produce and consume their own food of their own choice.

The Smiths reorganized their dairy into a limited liability company, Meadowsweet Dairy LLC (Meadowsweet) in March, 2007. The dairy delivers raw milk, yogurt, butter and buttermilk to the members of the cow share.

The newly formed LLC has only one asset, a herd of dairy cows. Meadowsweet members have an agreement with the Smiths to tend to, manage and house the herd for the benefit of the LLC. The equity interest for the LLC's 110 members is in the form of raw milk and raw dairy products produced by the cow herd and processed by the Smiths. This is accomplished without permits or licenses. However, the State of New York, through the Department of Agriculture and Markets, is challenging the new farming model.

Since the inception of the cow share, the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets has pressured the Smiths and Meadowsweet LLC. Citing their responsibility to protect public health, the regulatory arm of the agency is being used to harass the dairy. The state agency has conducted numerous inspections, seized products, ordered the destruction of 260 pounds of raw dairy products, attempted to search the Smith’s house, issued letters threatening fines and penalties. And now the Department of Agriculture and Markets has ordered the Smiths and Meadowsweet Dairy LLC to appear in Albany and show cause why the Department should not shut down the operation and levy fines.

Over the next two weeks, Meadowsweet will confront the Department of Agriculture and Markets in two separate hearings. The first hearing will be at the Department offices in Albany on JANUARY 17 at 11AM. This is an administrative hearing within Department of Agriculture and Markets. The Department will consider ordering the Smiths to CEASE AND DESIST from providing milk to its cow share members.

The second hearing is set for JANUARY 22 at 1:30PM in Seneca County Court in Waterloo, NY. At this hearing, the Court Judge will consider issuing a preliminary injunction against the Department of Agriculture and Markets to keep the agency from further harassing the Smiths until the dispute between the newly formed cow share program and the Department is resolved.

January 17, 11 AM
Department of Agriculture and Markets
10B Airline Drive
Albany, NY
(Right next to the airport)

January 22, 1:30 PM
Seneca County Court
48 West Williams Street
Waterloo, NY

For more information contact: Steve and Barbara Smith, 2054 Smith Rd., Lodi, NY (607-582-6954) email:dairy@meadowsweetfarm.com

USDA Releases Business Plan and New User's Guide

The draft NAIS Business Plan has been released. It was published in the December 19 Federal Register.

And, as if it couldn't get any worse, a New Users Guide also has been released. Isn't the USDA genius with their timing, just around the holidays when they figure everyone is too busy to pay attention?

Just one more tidbit for you. This change was found in the Senate version of the Farm Bill, the one they passed.

Strike Section 10305 of Livestock title and replace with this section: (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations consistent with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, et seq., regarding the disclosure of information submitted by farmers and ranchers who participate in the National Animal Identification System. The regulations promulgated, which shall be subject to a public comment period before finalizing, should address the protection of trade secrets and other proprietary and/or confidential business information that farmers and ranchers disclose in the course of participation in National Animal Identification System.

Listen up, you people. You better wake up before you find that there is no local food available. WAKE UP!!!

Farm Bill News

Yesterday the House Agriculture Committee farm bill and amendments were filed with the Rules Committee. Floor action is expected to begin tomorrow and continue until complete. The "compromise" negotiated between National Farmers Union (NFU) and the anti-COOL coalition has been finalized.

NAIS was stripped from the farm bill! That's why my horse (wearing a mask for anonymity) is smiling.

That pesky Section 123 that would have stripped states of their rights was stripped from the bill weeks ago!

If you feel moved to do so, please call House Ag Committee Chairman Representative Collin Peterson and Representative Bob Goodlatte (Virginia) and thank them for their hard work.

It isn't over yet, not by a long shot. It goes to the full House for debate tomorrow. Anything could happen there. After that we start all over with the Senate.

The whole Farm Bill is over 600 pages. I doubt anyone has read every word of every page. DownsizeDC.org has been pushing for the Read the Bills act for sometime. If there really were a law like that, nothing could get done in Congress.

Sorry I haven't posted in a couple of months. I've been fighting NAIS for 2 years and was starting to become discouraged. This news sees me perked up.

NAIS in Missouri

Mike Johnson, National Cattlemen's Beef Association testified before the Missouri House Ag Policy Committee last Thursday:

those opposed to this program (NAIS) are mostly animal rights activists, environmental extremists, or people with diseased animals.

Yeah, Mike, that's what we are. . .not! What we are is aware of the unconstitutionality of NAIS and how you big agribiz guys have a large financial stake in the outcome so you will say anything to make NAIS happen.

Dr Taylor Woods, State Vet of Missouri testified for "information purposes" on Thursday's House Ag Policy Committee chaired by John Quinn. He said, "Two or three weeks ago in Sacramento, Dr. John Clifford of the USDA told us that if we didn't have this animal id in our state we would lose our brucellosis, tuberculosis and pseudorabies virus free status and have to test everything." But of course, this is a "voluntary with a capital V program"!!

Here is an update about NAIS in fight in Missouri from Doreen Hannes:

What? NAIS in Missouri
Where? Jefferson City Capitol Building-Hearing room area in basement
When? May 1st, Tuesday at 8:30am
Why? Because Chairman Quinn will not allow SB428 out of committee as it passed the Senate 29-2.....If you care at all, now is the time to take action.

On Tuesday morning, May 1st we absolutely must be in Jefferson City to hit every reps office with a simple, solid message regarding NAIS. That message is:

"We need No NAIS in the state of Missouri. No "voluntary", no mandatory and definitely no "State" NAIS. Bring Senate Bill 428 to the floor as it passed the Senate 29-2 and let the people be represented."

Here is the plan...We will meet in the basement Hearing Room area at 8:30 am and will have a brief meeting and split up the offices of the reps between those who show up. Then we will meet with every rep possible face to face and let them see that we are serious about this and do not want anything to do with it. Your rep is only one of those who makes laws that affect you. Every representative is your representative.

We must let them see that people are concerned enough about this to show up. Every single person represents many times themselves. Please show up. You can't have anything better to do than to fight for your own ability to feed yourselves. Remember less than 2% of the national population is involved in agriculture and this will take care of all but corporate ag, which
will then quickly go south of the border in search of cheap labor.

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.

The Many Headed Beast of the USDA

USDA to close BSE lab is headline on MeatingPlace article this morning. I think the USDA is suffering from multiple personality disorder.

Where's the Beef?

Where's the Beef?

by Doreen Hannes

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation along with the House Ag Committee Chair Colin Petersen (D-MN) seem to think that we must "preserve our export markets" by trading our real liberty for other nation's false sense of security through mass registration of our livestock and property under the National Animal Identification System or NAIS. It's common for beef magazines to lament about the new "voluntary" approach to the NAIS as being harmful to our economy.

Finding this an interesting argument, I decided to research the actual numbers to find out the truth of the importance and value of our beef export market.

Oddly enough, what I found out first was that the USDA does not publish all pertinent information in a single document that jibes with other documents. They also don't publish the information necessary to ascertain solid facts about import/export in an apple to apple comparison, but consistently compare apples to oranges. For instance, one report on exports will address the amount of beef imported in millions of tons with no indication of whether this is live weight, carcass weight, or dressed weight, and then the amount of exported beef will be given in dollar amounts. After digging extensively through USDA documents this shouldn't come as any kind of a surprise, but it certainly is an aggravation. In order to be terrifically generous to the USDA , I decided to simply address all weights as dressed beef based on an average dress out of 770 pounds per carcass which seemed to be a fairly agreed upon average between industry magazines and university studies as well as government reports. So let's count the cattle.

In 2005, the consumption of beef in the United States was 27.8 billion pounds. This breaks down to 36,103,896.1 or 36.1 million head. The total poundage of imported meat from all sources was given in one report as 6.6 million tons, another report as 6.2 million tons and yet another as 4.8 million tons. Which was it? Who knows? The USDA obviously doesn't… which raises some terrifically interesting questions that may be addressed in other articles, but for our purposes we'll just use the average so we can't be accused of being unfair.

So imported beef is roughly 5.8 million tons (give or take a few million head depending on the stats) or11.6 billion pounds for 2005. That breaks down to over 15 million head of cattle.

Surprisingly, the revered export market had the same stats in many places. That is 272,000 tons of beef translating into 706,493 head.

Doing the math then, we find that for less than 2 percent of our total consumption we are told we must "get with the rest of the world" and implement an onerous program that will drive small farmers out of business and consolidate the production of food to corporate growers.

Even more incredibly, we are only producing 56% of the beef we consume including the paltry amount we export. So we have a 44% shortfall in production, which means we should be raising another 15.7 million head before we even think about exporting the first cow!

Other statistics indicate that 66% of our cattle herds have less than fifty cattle. Some say 80%, but never mind that, we'll stick with the most accepted percentage. For a herd of 50 cows it would cost $34.52 per cow to get into the NAIS system, or $1726. That is assuming that a laptop can be purchased for $123, which would be a wonder. I don't think I'd want that laptop myself. When you take into account that the average age of the cattle grower is nearing 60 years of age (55.3 nationwide) you have to wonder if people will want to jump through all these hoops just to keep making a few dollars a year. Now, let's have a little more fun with numbers and look to the 2002 Ag Census for some info.

In the 2002 Census, it shows that we have over 1,018,359 farms that produce cattle. Yet the USDA adjusted their estimate of the number of premises down from 2.1 million to 1.4 million last fall. Intriguing, isn’t it? Busting out the calculator again, if you add the total number of farms with less than 50 head of cattle you come up with 671,425 farms. Presuming those with less than fifty head won't find the idea of coughing up $1700 in order to keep their cows a financially brilliant move, many would probably quit. It's way too much of a headache with all the reporting and such. If those farmers bail, taking their thirty percent of the beef production with them, it means we would need to import an additional 10.8 million head. Hmm. If they all stayed in business, that 10.8 million head would translate into $372.8 million for the identification and technology companies. Finally, we see that someone will benefit from this system!

If USDA statistics are trustworthy, and we actually have 1.4 million premises that should be registered under the NAIS, then every sale barn, vet clinic, livestock hauler and backyard chicken raiser must grow another 11.26 head of cattle in order to meet our consumption. So the next time someone tells you we must preserve our export market, you should probably slap 'em upside the head.*******

sources:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
www.calbeef.org/index/pdf/About%20the%20Beef%20Business.pdf

ffas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/2004/04-10LP/beefoverview.pdf

www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/lsmkt/docs/mon111805.pdf
http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_bigger_cheaper/
stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2007/a/pages/nais.html
- 21k -
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/livestockfarm.html

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/index2.htm



http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:W_QXpkGbStsJ:www.beef.org/uDocs/Econ%2520Impact%2520Beef%2520v2.doc+percent+production+herds+less+than+50+head&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us

Farm Food Voices 2007 Recap

A Very Brief Letter from Farm Food Voices DC 2007

Greetings dear wonderful activists,

It was great!!!

We will post a more full account of Farm Food Voices DC 2007 on the NICFA and VICFA websites when the aftermath flurry has settled a bit, but here is a 'note' for now. I imagine others who were there will post letters from the event--I know Sharon Zechenelli--who drove down from Vermont in the snow with Sally Beckwith--sent a "postcard" last night that Walter Jeffries has already posted (http://www.nonais.org), and Kathryn Russell, of VIrginia, has posted a brief write-up on several e-groups, including Americans_Against_NAIS@yahoogroups.com and sayno2nais@yahoogroups.com.

Our purpose for holding this event was for us, the local/sustainable/independent farmer/consumer world, to become real to the legislators in Washington, and we accomplished that. As Joel Salatin said in his inspiring talk, this marked the beginning of this "movement."

As best as we can figure, we had about 250-300 visit the reception. It was a somewhat mobile crowd, as is the nature of that type of reception, but it looked like about HALF of the people were legislative staff and congressmen. That's pretty amazing! A veteran DC lobbyist friend of mine who joined us said there were about 3 times as many people there as he had expected on a day like yesterday--in addition to the weather it was a very busy legislative day on the Hill (Capitol HIll). We suspect that probably five, or more, times as many of our people would have been there if the freak weather had not bound them in. Those who were able to come included folks from, Arkansas, Tennessee, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey and Florida, that we know of. Sid Sargent from Arkansas took a 31 hour bus ride to come, and waited in the Cannon Office Building from 8:00 a.m. until she could in to the reception; Karen Sylvester from Tennessee arrived by bus in DC yesterday morning at 4:00, stayed in the bus station until she could get in to the Cannon Building, then had to get back on the bus at 1:00 p.m. for her return home. Both Sid and Karen walked the halls delivering copies of the Talking Points to all the legislators. Thank you Sid and Karen!! We are hugely grateful for all the efforts everyone made to participate in this in any way. Every effort, from every person, matters. Those who did so much in preparation, only to be thwarted by a rare ice storm, need to know their presence was felt, even if their bodies were not there.

The Congressmen we know attended included Ron Paul, of Texas, who spoke with eloquence and passion; Virgil Goode, of Virginia, who proudly wore a VICFA button; Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, who also spoke briefly--and who has been talking openly with us about this since last summer; a congressman from New Jersey; and Congressman Salazar of Colorado. We are pretty sure there were others, so if anyone who was there knows who they were, pls. let me know. As mentioned before, there were dozens of staff aides and legislative assistants, representing their respective Congressmen and Senators. We had a great talk w/Curtis Ellis, aide to Rep. Steve Kagan (D-WI, member of the Ag. Committee) who asked us about the Farm Bill, and he sent us a copy of a press release Kagan put out last night that included the following: "The solution to our health care crisis will come from our farms and our diet as well as our hospitals and research laboratories. We must help our small farmers maintain their way of life." I don't know for a fact that our event was an influence, but I'm inclined to believe it was. Pete Thomson, aide to Bob Goodlatte, will become famous when we post our picture of him drinking raw milk (I must confess, I handed him a cup and said, "Drink this while we take your picture," and he did, squawking a bit after when I told him what it was, but since he later ate raw milk maple ice cream--all provided by the Amish farmers who came, I didn't feel so bad...).



Many folks had made appointments with their state legislators, and we would like very much to hear back from those folks!!!

The food was awesome. Jon and Nina White came down from New Jersey w/their artisanal raw, aged cheeses and fresh breads, and we overflowed with superb offerings from Weston A. Price folks in the DC area and dishes others drove in with from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and perhaps elsewhere. A group of about ten Amish farmers from the Lancaster, PA, area came with their exquisite raw milk, cream, butter, yogurt and ice cream. They blessed by their presence, as well as their food.

There is much more to tell. Planning is already started for next year....

Deborah Stockton, Editor
VICFA Voice

USDA announces a new Cooperative Agreeement aimed at breed registries

And they have $6,000,000 to fund it. Is there no bottom to their pocket?


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/02/NAISRFP.shtml

USDA ANNOUNCES PLANS TO EXPAND NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2, 2007--The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced a request for proposals (RFP) from nonprofit livestock and poultry industry organizations that wish to enter into cooperative agreements with USDA to advance the development of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). These cooperative agreements will support the efforts of such organizations to promote NAIS and, specifically, increase participation in premises registration--the foundation of the program.

“We have met our goal of having twenty-five percent of the Nation’s premises by the end of January, but there’s obviously a lot more work to be done,” said Bruce Knight, undersecretary of USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs. “Producer organizations are the key to securing the level of producer participation we need to make the premises registration component of the system fully functional for everyone. Making sure we have what amounts to an emergency contact list is the backbone of an emergency response system; we want this system to be there for producers when and if an animal health emergency arises.”

USDA will make up to $6 million available for the cooperative agreements, subject to the availability of funding.

Premises registration ensures the availability of a nationwide communications network to assist livestock owners and animal health officials in the case of a disease event. With the coordinated efforts of state, industry and federal partners, more than 350,000 premises nationwide have been registered to date.

Organizations that receive these cooperative agreement funds will not be responsible for the actual administration or processing of premises registration applications. Rather, the agreements will be limited to outreach and promotional efforts that result in new premises registrations. Cooperating groups will promote premises registration to producers and increase their respective sector's level of registration in secure databases maintained by state and tribal authorities. [My emphasis added. Breeder registries will be turned into USDA marketing arms. I am so glad I don't belong to a registry. Some are calling for a boycott of breeder registries who apply for the grant money. I support them.)

In order to qualify for one of the new cooperative agreements, an organization must qualify as one of the following:

• A nonprofit, nationally-based organization representing the livestock or poultry industry;
• A nonprofit tribal organization or association that did not receive funding from the NAIS for fiscal year (FY) 2007 through a cooperative agreement;
• An authorized agent working on behalf of a tribe, group of tribes, or inter-tribal council that received funding for FY 2007 to conduct premises registration, but that wishes to expand its existing outreach;
• An 1890 historically black land-grant college or university;
• A 1994 tribal land-grant institution.

The RFP can be found at www.grants.gov. The RFP gives more detail about the cooperative agreements, including the process for developing and submitting proposals and the amount of funding available. USDA encourages all interested organizations to submit proposals for consideration. Additional information about the NAIS program, along with a link to the RFP, is available at www.usda.gov/nais.

#

Fields of Fire - In memory of the millions of animals destroyed by the ‘cure’ for Foot and Mouth Disease, 2001

This is quite long, a whole book on a website. My interest in it particularly is to find a counter balance to the propaganda that our Vermont State Vet and his crack team in the Vermont Agency of Agriculture put forth during the public hearings about premises registration last year.

I have no doubt that should a rogue notion about AI or FMD come to the surface in the USDA, this is exactly what will happen on our shores.

The following paragraph is from the Introduction:

It should be made clear that, from the start, it was an economic and political decision to cull all the animals, and not a scientific one. In an ideal world, foot and mouth disease would have been allowed to run through the herds and flocks to build up immunity, with relevant treatment and culling only in cases where animals were suffering badly. As a compromise, a combination of vaccinating and allowing the disease to maintain a presence could have been used – or else, perhaps the more popular choice, culling infected animals and ring vaccinating in each relevant area. If this had been done at the start, things would have been back to normal long ago and we would not now be seeing the destruction of farming families, empty fields, rural industries in ruins, pollution of our land through funeral pyres and burial pits – and the complete devastation of our beloved countryside.

Wake up.

Much to talk about today

First, I watched Freedom to Fascism last night. It was extremely depressing. Now I understand for sure that this country is doomed to serfdoom unless the people rise up. The premise of Freedom to Fascism is that Aaron Russo, a Hollywood movie producer, was trying to find the law that requires us to pay income tax. He couldn't find it, it doesn't exist. In the course of doing the research for the movie -and as I understand it, you can rent it on Netflix, he found out a bunch of other things about the Federal Bank.

---

The following is from Downsizer-Dispatch:

Percy Bysshe Shelley said that, "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." Shelley was, of course, a poet, so it's understandable that he got it wrong. Who are the real "unacknowledged legislators?"

American bureaucrats.

No one elected them. Hardly anyone can fire them. Mostly nobody knows what they're doing. And yet, they have the figurative power of life and death over individuals and whole industries. They can makes laws, and dispense with obeying the law, at a moments notice, on the merest whim, without fear of consequence.

Case in point . . .

State governments are balking at complying with the bureaucratic requirements of NAIS -- the National Animal Identification System. So, the bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture are contemplating the creation of a new law, which they euphemistically, if not poetically, call a regulation. This new regulation/law would . . .

. . . p rohibit interstate movement of cattle that isn't officially tagged under the NAIS requirements.

But this law, that they call a regulation, would not even be called a regulation, let alone a law. It would be promulgated as an "interim rule."

Interim rules are a neat little trick unacknowledged legislators can use to force people to do their bidding, because "interim rules" can be enacted with no prior opportunity for public comment, let alone Congressional oversight or agreement. (Remember, your elected legislators are too busy not reading their bills to have time to worry about such details)

This particular rule would be difficult for state governments to resist, because it would leave their agricultural businesses isolated from the national market. In other words, a small farmer in Texas couldn't sell his cow to a meat packer in Chicago, unless he complied with NAIS, even if farmers in Texas are not legally required to do so by either state or federal law.

Yes, Alice, we are through the looking glass, and deep into Wonderland.

The result would be that everyone would be forced to comply with NAIS through a back-door means.

Who's pushing for this new law/regulation/interim rule? The U.S. Animal Health Association. And who is that? A society of poets perhaps? Not hardly. They represent big agri-business, which will benefit from NAIS by driving the small farmer OUT of business. Big corporate farms will have special rules that will make it cheap and even beneficial for them to comply with NAIS, while small farms will work under especially special rules that will make their cost of complying prohibitive.

In short, big corporate farms can use one NAIS chip to identify and track a whole herd, while small farms most use individual chips for each individual animal.

Do you begin to see the rhyme and reason behind this bureaucratic poetry?
Here's the kicker. The federal government is prohibited from making such impositions on the states by the 10th Amendment, and on interstate trade by the Commerce Clause, which was intended to prevent the erection of trade barriers between the states. So where do the feds think they get the power to do this? From the Commerce Clause, of course, which they have turned on its head.

Black is white, and free interstate trade really means prohibited interstate trade.

What can we do about this? Well, send Congress a little poetry asking them to stop the enforcement of NAIS. You can do so here.

And if you need some more rhyme-and-reason on this "interim rule" thing you can find it here.

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

---

A new anti-NAIS website http://www.naissucks.com/

Report of the Committee on Livestock Identification of the U.S. Animal Health Association (USAHA)

This is an alert by Mary Zanoni.

The following document is the Report of the Committee on Livestock Identification of the U.S. Animal Health Association, from a meeting on October 17, 2006. Present at the meeting were USDA Undersecretary Bruce Knight, Dr. John Clifford, Dr. John Wiemers, and Neil Hammerschmidt.

http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2006/report-id-2006.pdf

On p. 14 of this document we have a hint about a very dangerous game that the USDA may be intending to play with our way of life and our ability to keep livestock. The last paragraph on page 14 describes a recommendation that this Committee of the USAHA has made to the USDA. The Committee has recommended that, prior to July 1, 2007, the USDA should promulgate an "interim rule" that would prohibit interstate movement of cattle from any state that fails to REQUIRE THAT ALL BREEDING AGE CATTLE BE OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED at each change of ownership. Such an "interim rule" would make it impossible for any state to resist, because it would become economically isolated. Also note that an "interim rule" can be promulgated WITH NO PRIOR OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

Is the USDA planning to follow this Committee recommendation and force NAIS upon the entire nation by means of a dictatorial "interim rule"? It is bad enough that the USDA has been killing off American agriculture for decades; don't let them kill off democracy.

Please send a copy of this message to your U.S. Congressman and your two U.S. Senators. This scheme must be stopped in its tracks.

Mary Zanoni

The USDA must be stopped. Who is responsible for the oversight of the USDA? Is the USDA the mafia? Something is very wrong with this picture. And, imagine this, this is just one tiny thing that is happening behind the scenes, without our knowledge. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

To see what other people are saying about this, click through to Nonais.org.

Localvore Project - Even if you aren't in Vermont you can do it locally

Click here for the Eat Local Winter 2007 Survival Guide.

The Winter Challenge is Coming!

January 29 to February 4, 2007

After the great success of our September '06 challenge, the Mad River Valley Localvore Project is excited to announce a Winter Challenge. The Eat Local Challenge is an event where participants pledge to eat only locally grown and produced foods - this time in the middle of the winter - an even greater challenge!

For the winter challenge participants will have the option of choosing to pledge for a meal, a day, or the entire week. We've posted a special page of recipes which can be made from locally available foods in the winter, as well as a list of where to find local ingredients in the Mad River Valley.

Indiana Senate Bill 0486 - Another NO NAIS bill

Senate Bill 0486

2007 Regular Session

Latest Information

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Termination of farm animal tracking agreement. Provides that the state may not participate in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) or any component of animal tracking. Places restrictions on private systems for premises registration and animal identification. Provides that the state and units of local government may not provide any special consideration or other incentives to benefit any participant in an animal identification or premises registration based solely on participation in a private system for premises registration and animal identification. Provides that rules adopted by the state board of animal health and any agreements entered into by the state under NAIS are void.

Texas opts for a voluntary NAIS, totally predictable

80R2228 MSE-F

By: Hughes H.B. No. 637

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to making participation in an animal identification
program voluntary.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 161.056, Agriculture Code, is amended by
amending Subsections (a), (c), (d), and (e) and adding Subsections
(a-1), (j), and (k) to read as follows:
(a) In order to provide for disease control and enhance the
ability to trace disease-infected animals or animals that have been
exposed to disease, the commission may develop and implement a
voluntary animal identification program that is, to the extent
required by federal law, consistent with the United States
Department of Agriculture's National Animal Identification System.

Click here to read the rest of it.

Did we fight for over a year and a half against any government NAIS just so that Texas, under the leadership of LibertyArk, FARFA, Judith McGeary, Karin Bergener and the rest of the so-called steering committee could sell out to all the people that they suckered in? It was in Sept. 06 that Judith McGeary testified before TAHC that FARFA was for a voluntary program. That set more than a few of us on edge. And then they got their fingers into the Talent/Emerson Bill and that would have opened up a whole new can of worms making NAIS something legitimate for Congress to do. I think it was about that time when I and others resigned our state coordinators posts with LibertyArk because we could see they were not what they seemed to be. Now, I have a term for LibertyArk and FARFA - controlled opposition. They have been for NAIS all along.

There can be no government mandated National Animal Identification System. Period. Anyone who is for an even voluntary system is evil.

If I were a paying member of LibertyArk or FARFA, man, I'd get all over them. They are going to march your state right into the hands of the Farm Bureau and NAIS.

Washington state files no NAIS bill

Activists in the State of Washington have put forth a House Bill 1151 to stop NAIS.

Read the text of the bill here (note it is a PDF file and you'll need Adobe Reader to view it).

Contact your state representatives to support them to vote for this bill.

Virginia files no NAIS bill

HOUSE BILL NO. 1990
Offered January 10, 2007
Prefiled January 5, 2007
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 3.1-14.4, relating to the National Animal Identification System.
———-
Patron– Wittman
———-
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
———-

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section
numbered 3.1-14.4 as follows:

§ 3.1-14.4. National Animal Identification System.

The Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall ensure that the Department does not participate in or provide any assistance to the establishment of the National Animal Identification System or any substantially similar program.

Make sure you call your state reps and support them to vote for this bill.

Missouri files a no NAIS bill

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 422

94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

---

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES WHORTON (Sponsor), SMITH (150), KUESSNER,
WALLACE AND DOUGHERTY (Co-sponsors).

Read 1st time January 16, 2007 and copies ordered printed.

D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

1156L.01I

---

AN ACT

To amend chapter 267, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the national animal
identification system.

---

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 267, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 267.165, to read as follows:

267.165. The department of agriculture shall not participate in the national animal
identification system (NAIS) administered by the United States Department of Agriculture
absent specific statutory authorization for such participation.

-MO House Bill 422

If you live in Missouri, call your state reps and give them support for the bill.

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

Copyright 2007 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.

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

by

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

P.O. Box 501

Canton, NY 13617

315-386-3199

mlz@slic.com

January 17, 2007

Like many small-farm advocates, I have been fielding questions over the past few weeks about the above survey being sent out by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Many people ask if there is any relationship between the survey and the data being collected (often without the knowledge or consent of farmers) for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). As we shall see, although USDA personnel won’t admit it, NASS data is the foundation of the USDA’s aggressive pursuit of NAIS.

To my great surprise, in this morning's mail I myself received a 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey (2006 AIS). I say "to my great surprise," because I am not and never have been engaged in any type of commercial agriculture whatsoever. I have never before received any type of communication from NASS.

The envelope states in very large letters, "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW." The envelope further states that the due date is January 29, 2007. As explained below, it is clear that many people receiving this form are not in fact "REQUIRED BY LAW" to answer it. Further, a recipient has only a couple of weeks between the receipt of the form and the purported deadline, and it would be impossible for the average non-lawyer to do enough research within that time to figure out whether he/she is or isn't actually required to respond.

The form itself begins with several general questions, such as “Do you own or rent any land?” “Do you grow vegetables, hay or nursery stock?” “Do you receive government payments?” The questions appear deliberately designed to imply that anyone who would answer “yes” is among those “REQUIRED BY LAW” to fill out this form. The USDA is thus casting a very wide net in this particular intrusion into the lives of American citizens, because, frankly, just about everyone who is not homeless “owns or rents” real estate; some 75 million people in the United States “grow vegetables;” and some 60 million people receive “government payments.” (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 1226 (vegetable gardening); Table 528 (government transfer payments).)

Now, perhaps it is possible that this “wide net” might not be as intrusive as it appears. After all, maybe NASS has only sent this form to people reasonably assumed to be farmers. But in fact it was distressingly easy to confirm that intrusiveness and deliberate over-inclusiveness are the hallmarks of the NASS approach. This morning, I called the information number listed on the form and spoke to a woman at the USDA’s Helena, Montana call center. According to her, the call center is being swamped with calls from people who live in cities and have nothing to do with agriculture. She stated that the call center employees really have no idea of why or how all these people have been sent the 2006 AIS. When asked for some conjecture as to how so many unnecessary people could have been included in the mailings, the woman explained that, for example, anyone who had ever subscribed to a “horse magazine” might have been included in the database.

Now, that raises interesting questions. How is the USDA/NASS getting the subscription lists of “horse magazines”? Why and how are “horse magazines,” or, for that matter, any rural-life publication, any breed association, feed store, or private or public livestock or horticultural enterprise whatsoever, giving their member/subscriber/customer lists to the government without telling their members, subscribers, or customers?

Or, worse yet, how is the government accessing such lists or databases without the awareness of the businesses or organizations in question? During times when the Executive Branch of the United States Government has secretly gathered the records of most people’s incoming and outgoing phone calls, and the President asserts a right to open your mail and my mail without a warrant, this is not a trivial question.

Returning to the first page of the form, we see the wide net growing ever wider. The form states: “Many people who don’t consider themselves farmers or ranchers actually meet the definition of a farm or ranch and are important to agriculture.” “We need your completed form even though you may not be actively farming, ranching, or conducting any other type of agricultural activity.” Finally, the first page of the form reinforces the threat of the “REQUIRED BY LAW” language of the envelope:

“ ‘Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) (Note the single-double quotation marks – the threat actually is in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-grade stylistic conceit of “quoting” something to make it appear extra-important.) One senses evasions aplenty here -- the form has referred to the “definition of a farm or ranch” but nowhere tells us that definition. It suggests that anyone receiving a form has a legal obligation to answer it, even though their enterprise may not meet the definition of a “farm.”

Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions about the definition of a “farm” and the possible legal penalties for not responding to the 2006 AIS. Specifically, I asked if my understanding of the definition of “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in sales from agriculture was correct. (See 2002 Census of Agriculture, FAQs, www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agriculture/frequently_asked_questions/index.asp#1.) Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC § 2204g (d) (2), namely, that a “person . . . who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question . . . . shall be fined not more than $100,” I noted that, insofar as the 2006 AIS actually contains 42 separate questions, it could be important to know whether there was a separate $100 fine for each unanswered question, or just a single $100 fine for not answering the entire 2006 AIS. These questions were beyond the purview of the call-center woman, so she made a note of the questions, referred them to a member of the NASS professional staff, and promised that the NASS staff member would call me with the answers.

The next day, January 12, 2007, I received a call from Jody Sprague, a NASS statistician. First we addressed the question of the “farm” definition. Ms. Sprague conceded that someone whose property or operation did not meet the “farm” definition would have no obligation to answer the 2006 AIS. She also conceded that the basic definition of a “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in agricultural sales was correct, but explained that in addition to the gross sales figures, NASS also assigns certain “point values” for particular agricultural activities. If the points add up to 1000, your operation would meet the definition of a “farm.” When asked for an example of how the point values work, Ms. Sprague explained that 5 equines would equal a farm but 4 would not. (Subsequently, she explained that each equine equals 200 points.) When asked how many cattle equal a “farm,” Ms. Sprague said she did not know. At one point Ms. Sprague said that NASS wanted, through the 2006 AIS, to determine if they could delete people who should not be on their mailing list. But for the most part she contended the opposite, e.g., that she would “advise” anyone who had received the form to fill it out; and that even a person with one horse should complete the questionnaire, although she previously had conceded that someone with fewer than 5 horses would not meet the definition of a “farm” and therefore would not be required to fill out the survey.

We next turned to the issue of how NASS may have compiled its mailing list for the 2006 AIS. First Ms. Sprague maintained that the sources of the NASS mailing list are “confidential.” I noted the call-center woman’s reference to a subscription to a “horse magazine” as a source of names, and asked for some other possible sources. Ms. Sprague said that growers’ associations, such as the Wheat Growers’ Association and Barley Growers’ Association, were examples of sources. I asked for more examples but she was reluctant to give any, claiming that some are “confidential” and some are “not confidential.” She explained the overall process of list building thus: as NASS comes across lists where there are “possibilities of agricultural activity,” NASS incorporates those names into its mailing list.

We returned to the subject of “point values” for different livestock. Explaining that many people were likely to have questions about this, I asked if Ms. Sprague could find out for me the point values of cattle or other non-equine livestock. She put me on hold for a long while. Subsequently, she gave me the following point values: beef cattle, 310 points per head; dairy cattle, 2000 points per head; goats and sheep, 50 points per head. (I wanted to ask about chickens, but I was getting the distinct sense that I might be pushing my luck.)

Ms. Sprague stressed that she did not want people to be concentrating on the point values. For example, she noted that people should not say they have 4 horses if they really have 5 horses, “because it wouldn’t be ethical.” (But apparently under the NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those Choicepoint-type consumer profiles to track your reading habits is perfectly “ethical.” And, as we shall see, the NASS moral code also permits forking over your data to states that are in hot pursuit of the NAIS premises-registration quotas imposed as a condition for the states’ continued receipt of federal NAIS grant money.)

We went on to the question of the $100 non-compliance fine. Ms. Sprague assured me that a farmer’s failure to answer any or all of the 42 total questions on the 2006 AIS would only result in a single $100 fine. She also said that the fine is “rarely enforced” and that if any “producer” “chooses” not to report, no one from NASS would seek them out.

Finally, I asked Ms. Sprague if there were any relationships between NASS and the APHIS NAIS program, and she said, “Absolutely none.” I asked her if any other agency, state or federal, would ever be allowed to use NASS’s database to solicit premises IDs for NAIS, and she said, “Absolutely not.” And indeed, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2204g (f) (3), “Information obtained [for NASS surveys] may not be used for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which the information is supplied.”

Several weeks ago, Missouri antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series of questions about Missouri’s solicitation of NAIS premises IDs to Steve Goff, DVM, the Animal ID Administrator of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA). Dr. Goff provided written answers on December 20, 2006. When asked where the MDA had obtained addresses for its solicitation of NAIS premises IDs, Dr. Goff stated: “the mailing was done through a contract with the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.”

I won’t answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey. Instead, I will send a copy of this article to my Congressman and my two United States Senators. I will ask them to have the House and Senate Agriculture Committees investigate the rampant and shameful abuses of federal law and common morality inherent in NASS’s compilation of its mailing lists and use of those lists to promote the APHIS National Animal Identification System. Why will I do this? Because I don’t live by the USDA’s false code of ethics; I answer to a higher authority.