What Is The National Animal Identification System (NAIS)?
By www.farmandranchfreedom.org

The Highest Quality Natural Health Products And
Purest Herbs In The World...And We Can Prove It!

History

The concept of electronic tracking of animals was raised at cattlemen’s meetings in the early 1990s. The concept culminated in the U.S. in 2002, when the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) proposed that the USDA develop a “national animal identification system” (NAIS). While NIAA may sound like a public interest organization, its membership reads like a who’s who in industrial agriculture and technology, including entities such as Cargill Meat, Monsanto, National Pork Producers Council, and Global Vet Link.

Over the course of three years, USDA and NIAA worked together to develop the NAIS and inform the large-scale livestock producer community, while ignoring hundreds of thousands of people who will be affected.

The Federal Plan

After it took up the task from NIAA, the USDA developed the plan through working groups, made up of representatives from government agencies, large agribusinesses, and technology companies. Notably absent from these workgroups were any significant representatives of pet owners, recreational animal owners, and small farmers and ranchers.

On April 25, 2005, the USDA published “Draft Program Standards” (“Standards”) and a “Draft Strategic Plan” (“Plan”) for the NAIS in the Federal Register. While these documents used to be available online, USDA appears to have removed them.

The Standards and Plan have no authority in law. The USDA has stated that the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 is the source of its authority. (Plan at 9.) But that statute addresses only the import and export of animals, interstate travel, quarantines areas, and related programs. Two Congresses have tried but failed to pass legislation that would amend the Act to provide for a mandatory electronic tracking system for individual head of livestock. USDA is operating without authority from Congress.

USDA, various state agencies, and many private companies who have vested financial interests in seeing NAIS adopted have tried to present an image of the NAIS as a sensible, practical plan to address animal disease. A review of the government’s plan, however, shows quite the opposite.

The NAIS Plan provides:

Premises Registration: Every person who owns even one horse, cow, pig, chicken, sheep, goat, deer, elk, bison, or virtually any livestock animal, will be forced to register their home, including owner’s name, address, and telephone number, and keyed to Global Positioning System coordinates, in a government database under a 7-digit “premises ID number.” (Standards, pp. 3-4, 10-12; Plan, p. 5.)

Animal Identification: Every animal will have to be assigned a 15-digit ID number by the government. The form of ID will most likely be a tag or microchip containing a Radio Frequency Identification Device, designed to be read from a distance. (Plan, p. 10; Standards, pp. 6, 12, 20, 27-28.) The plan may also include collecting the DNA of every animal and/or a retinal scan of every animal. (Plan, p.13.) Some animals such as pigs and poultry, owned by large producers, may have a “group” identifier assigned instead of an individual number for each animal, as described below.

While some state agencies and industry actors have pointed to the provision for “group numbers” for poultry and swine, small farmers do not manage their animals in ways that would qualify. Group or lot identification can only be used where groups of animals are managed together from birth to death and never commingled with other animals. (Standards pp.5-6.) This provision is tailored for confinement poultry operations, not pastured poultry operations. If animals do not meet the requirements for group identification, they will have to be individually identified.

Animal Tracking: The owner will be required to report: the birthdate of an animal, the application of every animal’s ID tag, every time an animal leaves or enters the property, every time an animal loses a tag, every time a tag is replaced, the slaughter or death of an animal, or if any animal is missing. Also, every time an animal goes onto or off of another person's premises, a report would be required, showing that the tagged animal had been on each of these other premises. Such events must be reported within 24 hours. (Standards, pp. 12-13, 17-21.)

Third parties, such as veterinarians, will be required to report “sightings” of animals who do not have ID numbers. (Standards, p. 25.) In other words, if a farmer or rancher calls a vet to their property to treat an animal, and the vet finds any animal without the mandatory 15-digit computer-readable ID, the vet may be required to report that non-compliance.

As an example of what can be expected as far as enforcement, the proposed Texas regulations for mandatory premises registration provided for fines of up to $1,000 per day and criminal penalties. The timeline in the Plan included the adoption of federal regulations in July 2006.

2006 Developments

On April 6, 2006, USDA released a press release and additional documents relating to the implementation of NAIS, including “Strategies for the Implementation of NAIS” (“Strategies”) and “Administration of Official Identification Devices with the Animal Identification Number” (“Administration”). These documents have not been published in the Federal Register, unlike the Draft Plan and Draft Strategic Standards from 2005.

These documents provide that the NAIS information will not be kept in a federal database. Rather, NAIS will be implemented by the states and private entities, and USDA will have access to the information through a metadata portal. Animal owners face exactly the same burdens, only now both the government and a private entity will have access to the information on their homes, animals, and movements.

While the press release and Strategies document repeatedly discussed how NAIS is a “voluntary plan,” they include a novel definition of the word “voluntary.” The Strategies states:

USDA will evaluate whether the participation levels are increasing at rates that will achieve full participation by 2009. Based on that analysis, USDA will determine if the market-driven incentives, along with industry “buy-in” for improved animal disease programs, is resulting in adequate participation and growth rates for NAIS to be successful by the established target dates.

If participation rates are not adequate, the development of regulations through normal rulemaking procedures will be considered to require participation in certain aspects of the program. (Strategies, p.3, emphasis added.) There is no definition for “adequate participation” or “growth rates.” USDA set the following benchmarks:

January 2007: 25% of premises registered
January 2008: 70% of premises registered
40% of animals registered
January 2009: 100% of premises registered
100% of “new” animals identified (“New” is defined as animals born in the last year)
60% of animals < 1 year of age have complete movement data

(Strategies, p.3) “These benchmarks are participation levels APHIS believes are necessary for the industry, State, and Federal partnership to successfully achieve the goals and objectives of NAIS.” (Strategies, p.3.) Consistent with the goal of 100% participation, the Administration document states: “To have a successful animal disease management program, all producers and affected industry segments will have to participate eventually.” (Administration, p.1, emphasis added.)

In other words, the USDA contends that 100% of premises must be registered by January 2009, and that all animals born after January 2008 will have to be individually identified, to meet its goals. And if those goals are not met, we can expect there to be federal regulation. Indeed, by setting the intermediate benchmarks, if USDA does not think that there is adequate “growth rates,” it may issue proposed regulations even before 2009.

Overall, the April 6th announcements present a small victory, while still showing how much work is in front of us. We have gained precious time, and no longer face the imminent threat of regulations. Yet the USDA has not changed the true substance of NAIS. Rather, we face a fight in every state to prevent burdensome and pointless regulations, while still facing the threat of federal regulation if USDA believes that there is insufficient progress.

Disease Issues

The alleged rationale for this program is to protect against animal disease by providing 48-hour traceback of all animal movements. The proponents raise the specter of Mad Cow, foot and mouth, avian flu, and other “foreign animal diseases.” There are many flaws with this rationale.

The first flaw is that the threat of disease cannot justify every intrusion into citizens’ privacy and burdens on their property rights. Disease, both human and animal, has been part of our existence for thousands of years.

The 9/11 hijackers used box blades to hijack the planes, but most citizens would object to regulations requiring every person to register their tools and report to the government whenever they took their tools off the property. The government’s and industry’s attempt to use fear to deprive us of our rights is unacceptable.

Second, even when viewed solely from the perspective of animal disease problems, the NAIS is unnecessary, ineffective, and even counterproductive. The government already has established systems and processes, including surveillance, tracking, and quarantines, for controlling the spread of animal diseases.

In contrast to the established systems, this new program is impractical; the technology is flawed, the database would be unmanageable, and the logistics of actually tagging and tracking the animals would dwarf any government program in existence. The costs will roll downhill to the smallest producer and individual animal owner. There are no provisions for USDA to offset the staggering costs of this national program.

Moreover, the tracking of animal disease 48 hours later does little to address either the prevention of diseases or the safety of our food supply. If we want to protect Americans from Mad Cow disease, for example, the answer is simple: stop feeding animal parts to cattle and test animals that are slaughtered before they enter the food chain. The problems of salmonella and e. coli in our food supply can also be best addressed by prevention and proper inspection of slaughterhouses. Tracking will not solve these problems.

The idea that a one-size-fits-all tracking program could address the issue of animal disease shows a complete lack of understanding of biology and animal management. As is well documented in the scientific literature, the susceptibility of animals to disease and the likelihood of transmission differ greatly depending on the conditions under which the animals are kept.

Yet the NAIS makes no distinction between farmers raising a small herd of sheep and cattle on carefully-tended pastures and a feedlot with hundreds of animals crowded into small pens, hock-deep in manure; there is no distinction between a pastured poultry operation where the birds are moved daily and sunlight kills any pathogens and confinement operations with 10,000 chickens living in an unsanitary, crowded building. This program is precisely the opposite of what is needed to prevent and control disease.

Indeed, NAIS will probably increase the spread of livestock diseases by creating a new black market. If these new regulations are adopted, it is inevitable that some people will not comply – whether for religious reasons, economic reasons, or unwillingness to allow the government intrusion. Since they will be acting illegally, they will be far less likely to seek a veterinarian’s help should a disease problem arise.

Article Continued In Next Column

Your Health Freedom May Be At Risk! Check Our CODEX/Activism Section | Main Articles Page |

Back To Top

Follow the Money

Given that NAIS will do little or nothing to address disease problems, one has to look for the true reasons for this program. In searching for the truth, it is helpful to look at who is advocating the program.

First, the large industrial agriculture entities, such as Cargill Pork and Tyson, are on the working groups that developed this program. These entities will reap all of the benefits from the enhanced export market, without bearing the costs that will be imposed on the people actually raising the animals and/or taxpayers.

Moreover, by creating such a burdensome program, the industrial agriculture can rid itself of the small, but rapidly-growing, local foods movement that threatens its monopoly and its ability to complete the vertical integration of our food supply.

Indeed, the USDA has itself pointed to the export market as one of the main driving forces for NAIS. Yet a voluntary program would suffice to address exports. Such a program would allow the market to determine how valuable it is to track animals from birth to death. Any farmer that wishes to export animals or food to other countries could enroll in the program; in turn, these exporters could refuse to buy from anyone who was not also enrolled in the tracking program.

There is no reason to impose the heavy burdens of NAIS on the thousands of farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, and companion animal owners who have no interest in being part of the international commercial chain.

Second, various technology companies also stand to profit from this program. Global Vet Link, Micro Beef Technologies, and Digital Angel are all members of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture and involved in the working groups developing the details of the plans. Such companies not only make the microchips and radiotags, but charge for software and related equipment necessary to function.

Third, the large associations support this program, even though most of their members are opposed. While this is puzzling at first, it is yet again an issue of following the money. The USDA has stated that the database with all of the NAIS information will be privately-held, to avoid Freedom of Information Act issues. In fact, it appears that NAIS will actually consist of many databases. The large associations already operate significant databases with information on livestock animal owners, and are perfectly positioned to become contractors and subcontractors for the NAIS databases.

Last, there are those who are being paid to promote NAIS. In response to an Open Records Request, the TAHC provided the names of five entities that were issued contracts on December 6, 2005, in connection with NAIS federal cooperative funds from the USDA, for “outreach, training, and premises registration activities.” When someone tries to convince you that NAIS is a good thing, check whether they are getting paid to say that!

Several companies applied for, and were granted, contracts with the Texas Animal Health Commission to promote NAIS. Below is the Commission’s response to an open records request.

OUR REQUEST: provide the: (1) start and ending dates of contracts issued from RFP 554-6-059; (2) contract amount for each contract; and (3) total amounts paid to each vendor so far during the contract period.

ANSWER: First, in the event that you have not read RFP 554-6-059, an electonic copy is attached to this email in PDF format. All contracted goods/services must be within the scope of the RFP requirements.

Second, the contract period is the same for the five contracts which issued - December 6, 2005 through August 3, 2006; the contract termination dates coincide with the availability of NAIS federal cooperative funds from USDA and may be extended or renewed pending availability of renewed or continued funding from USDA.

Third, most of the contracts include outreach, training, and premises registration activities for which the contractor/vendor is reimbursed (and invoices for reimbursement may allow vendor to be reimbursed for any voluntarily premises registration fee that it paid on behalf of those individuals or entities it registered).

Finally, one of the contractors/vendors - the Texas Cattle Feeders Association - indicated that it may not invoice its reimbursable costs per the contract, but might instead, provide those services outlined in its contract at no cost to the contract instrument.

The information you requested is as follows:

Texas Cooperative Extension,
Texas A&M University System
2147 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843
Contract Number: 554-6-193
Contract Period: 12/6/2005 - 8/3/2006
Contract Amount: Not to Exceed $91, 850.00
Amounts Paid: $3,536.93 so far

Cattle Technology
PO Box 24056
Waco, TX 76702
Contract Number: 554-6-194
Contract Period: 12/6/2005 - 8/3/2006
Contract Amount: Not to Exceed $167,591.00
Amounts Paid:$939.95 so far

Texas Cattle Feeders Association
5501 I-40 West
Amarillo, TX 79106
Contract Number: 554-6-196
Contract Period: 12/6/2005 - 8/3/2006
Contract Amount: Not to Exceed $27, 600.00
Amounts Paid: No invoices received to date

***Note: We have been informed that the Texas Cattle Feeders Association intends to cancel its contract

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
1301 W. 7th Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Contract Number: 554-6-197
Contract Period: 12/6/2005 - 8/3/2006
Contract Amount: Not to Exceed $190,076.00
Amounts Paid: No invoices received to date

ViaTrace LLC
3523 McKinney Avenue
Dallas, TX 75204
Contract Number: 554-6-198
Contract Period: 12/6/2005 - 8/3/2006
Contract Amount: Not to Exceed $42,500.00
Amounts Paid: No invoices received to date

Negative Impacts of NAIS

This "feel good" program will do virtually nothing to safeguard animal health, its alleged purpose. Rather, NAIS will do all of the following:

Eradication of Small Farms - People with just a few meat animals or 40-cow dairies are already living on the edge financially. The USDA plan will force many of them to give up farming.

Loss of the True Security of Organic and Local Foods - The NAIS is touted by the USDA and agricorporations as a way to make our food supply secure against diseases or terrorism. However, most people instinctively understand that real food security comes from raising food yourself or buying from a local farmer you actually know.

The USDA plan will only kill off more local sources of production, which are our best defense in the event of adulteration of the food supply by terrorists. These small producers also represent the community of organic and sustainable agriculture farmers and ranchers, which provide food sources in increasing demand.

Destruction of Personal Property Rights as We Know Them - Legally, livestock animals are a form of personal property. The NAIS plan refers to a national herd (Plan p.8) which clearly indicates the government's vision: private ownership rights will be destroyed, and no one will be allowed to birth, hatch, own, or transfer any head of livestock without government permission. We can take our shotguns and walk over our neighbor's property, but if children ride their ponies to their neighbors, or a farmer gives a couple chickens to a neighbor, that will have to be registered with the government.

Extreme Damage to Personal Privacy - It is unprecedented for the United States government to conduct large-scale computer-aided surveillance of its citizens simply because they own a common type of property. (The only exceptions are registration of motor vehicles and, in some locales, guns,)

A gun owner will be able to transport their gun almost anywhere they want to go, without reporting such movement to anyone. But, if you take a chicken to a livestock show, you will have to report it. The NAIS would actually subject the owner of a chicken to far more surveillance than the owner of a gun.

Insult to Animal Welfare - The NAIS is the ultimate objectification of higher level living creatures, treating individual animals as if they were cans of peas with a bar code. Many people who raise their own animals or buy from small, local producers do so because they are very troubled by industrial-scale production of chickens, cattle, sheep, and pigs. These people will be forced either to sacrifice their personal privacy to government surveillance, or to stop raising their own food by humane standards.

Burden on Religious Freedom - Many religious sects require their members to raise their own food animals and use animals in farming and transportation because their beliefs require them to live this way. Such people obviously cannot comply with the USDA's computerized, technology-dependent system. The NAIS will force these people to violate their religious beliefs.

Extraordinary Costs without Value - The database will cost far more than it will deliver. The disease control claims are specious, as they ignore that disease control methods must be designed based on the species and disease involved, and the vectors of transmission. One system, even if it was useful for one species, will not fit all.

The numbers of annual reports and the size of the database will dwarf any other database the federal government has; if it cannot track aliens with expired visas, how will it track 300,000,000 annual reports of movement or tagging of chickens? In other countries, costs have multiplied to twelve times the original fees per animal. Our economy cannot absorb these costs, when American citizens will reap no measurable benefit.

A Technological Nightmare - While the technology companies claim that they can deliver the technology called for under NAIS, this technology carries many problems and dangers of its own. RFID chips can be reprogrammed or even infected with viruses.

Want to place the blame for a sick animal on someone else? Just reprogram the tag. Want to create chaos at a livestock auction? Infect the tags with viruses. Want to steal a horse? Simply destroy the microchip embedded in the horses' neck and insert a counterfeit one of your own.

Your Health Freedom May Be At Risk! Check Our CODEX/Activism Section | Main Articles Page |

Back To Top

COPYRIGHT 2000-2008
GREATEST HERBS ON EARTH©
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Text, Graphics and HTML Code are protected by U.S. and International Copyright Laws, and may not be copied, reprinted, published,
translated, hosted, changed or otherwise distributed by any means without explicit permission of Greatest Herbs On Earth© or Nature's Sunshine Products™.
Contact Us:

(The above is NOT a link. It is a graphic. We do this to combat spambots. You will need to type in the address)
We attempt to answer E-mails as quickly as possible. However there are times where the volume of E-mails may cause a delay.
If you do not hear from us within 72 hours, try re-sending your E-mail.
Our normal hours are: Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM Pacific Time
(USA West Coast, same time as Los Angeles, San Francisco or Seattle).
Closed Most US Holidays.

Disclaimer: The information compiled within this page has been gathered for the benefit of our visitors. The purpose is to provide information & ideas to our visitors.
Publications and products should in no way be taken as medical advice or recommendations.