RE: NAIS
Posted on 05/06/2006 12:52:29 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Shortly after another "mad cow" was discovered in Alabama, there was a rash of articles in the press citing the event as convincing evidence that the USDA's National Animal Identification System should move forward as quickly as possible. Nowhere did any of the articles mention that the NAIS will do nothing to prevent, control or even slow the disease.
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, widely known as "mad cow disease," is a chronic, degenerative disease affecting the central nervous system of cattle. BSE takes years to develop in cattle, not days or weeks. Moreover, the disease is not contagious. The USDA says: "It's important to note that [BSE and related diseases] are not communicable diseases – they do not spread easily like viruses."
If this disease, promoted as justification for the NAIS program, is not contagious, why, then, is it necessary for the USDA to construct this massive program to register every premises that houses any farm animal, tag each animal with an electronic monitoring chip, and track every off-premises movement of every animal through a centralized database?
The idea that BSE is justification for the NAIS is thoroughly debunked in a paper prepared by Judith McGeary, a founder of the Liberty Ark Coalition and executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. She says, "NAIS will not benefit cattle, farmers or consumers. Rather, NAIS will create profits for the companies that make the microchips and radio tags, while American consumers will see the price of their beef rise, without any additional safety."
There is no legitimate need for the USDA to launch this massive tracking system. Brand laws, ear tags and sales records already provide an adequate trace-back system that has been used successfully for years. If the goal of the USDA is truly to protect the food supply chain, then the focus should be placed on the packing industry, not on the producer.
Domestic producers are already required to produce a health certificate supplied by an authorized veterinarian at the point of sale. The risk occurs in the feedlots and factories where imported animals and animal products may be added. Meat packers may incorporate imported meat products into hamburger and other non-choice cuts and still receive the USDA stamp of approval. So far, the meat industry has been able to block all efforts to label such imported meats with even the country of origin, to say nothing of any health certification.
Not only is there no need for the NAIS, if it is implemented, it will have devastating effects on producers, consumers and ultimately, on every American. As currently designed, the program will require that every 4H child, Future Farmer and every other rural household that has a single cow, horse, chicken, goat, pig or any other animal that the USDA deems appropriate to register the premises, tag the animals with an electronic chip and then report any movement off premises within 24 hours. The animal owner is forced to pay the costs and could be subject to serious fines or criminal penalties for non-compliance.
Rodeos will be a thing of the past. County fairs will evaporate. The bureaucracy, the cost and the risk of running afoul of the law simply is not worth the effort for small farmers and ranchers. The corporate giants who dominate the major trade associations, pay expensive lobbyists and fill the campaign coffers of politicians are the real instigators of the NAIS. These are the only people who will benefit from this program by streamlining their vertical integration of the marketplace. In the end, it is the consumer who will pay the increased costs at the supermarket.
There is another, more serious negative effect. If the NAIS can be constructed to trace the origin of animal diseases that may threaten human life, why not use the system to trace human diseases that most certainly threaten human life? Why not require an electronic chip to be placed in every AIDS victim, or every flu victim, or every released felon? A system that can trace the movements of every animal in the nation could surely just as easily trace the movement of every person in the nation.
Don't laugh or think for a moment that there are not those who believe this kind of system would be a major improvement over the disorderly "freedom" that Americans enjoy. Political uproar would block the program in an instant were it being openly developed for people. But once the program is developed for animals, the next step is a very small step, indeed.
Henry Lamb MEGA PING!!
Henry Lamb bump!
Good to see you, sir!
RE: NAIS
I was not aware of this. No wonder I have found myself preferring only actual meat cuts.
Not mentioned in the article: that this is a direct assault on private property rights. Animals are property.
Well, it's May, the wild birds are back, and gee, no "bird flu". Not surprisingly, I saw a blurb last night that announced that the "experts" have now changed their minds and decided that wild birds aren't the problem. Now they're worried about the "movement" of imported "animals"?
NAIS is nothing more than a thinly veiled plan to put the small farmer, homesteader, etc., out of business. Lamb's comments are mild in comparison to the reality of what would happen *if* the implementation of this boondoggle is allowed to continue.
The attempt by the USDA to "sneak" this program into existance has back-fired big-time. Fortunately, "grass-roots" opposition is increasing, hence the constant "repostitioning" of excuses for the "need".
ping
The NAIS's main objective is to maintain the public's and foreign country's confidence in the safety of beef. Window-dressing, but nice curtains help sell the house.
Secondarily, it will allow the industry to prove BSE cases are not the result of systematic problems, such as an entire herd being fed contaminated feed. It allows the industry to confirm new cases are just the sporadic type.
And further secondarily, it is not BSE that is the primary concern, there are many other cattle deseases and genetic line tracing that will benefit from the NAIS. It allows buyers (packers, breeders and feedlots) to have confidence that they are buying the animal they thought they were buying (ie higher confidence, higher prices.)
Touching on the article from the other day.
"The NAIS's main objective is to maintain the public's and foreign country's confidence in the safety of beef. Window-dressing, but nice curtains help sell the house."
NAIS will not keep bone out of meat. And them's mighty expensive "curtains" for smallholders that do not produce for the "national herd".
"Secondarily, it will allow the industry to prove BSE cases are not the result of systematic problems, such as an entire herd being fed contaminated feed. It allows the industry to confirm new cases are just the sporadic type."
Existing "trace-back" programs have already proved effective.
"And further secondarily, it is not BSE that is the primary concern,..."
Funny how that keeps changing. ;)
"...there are many other cattle deseases and genetic line tracing that will benefit from the NAIS. It allows buyers (packers, breeders and feedlots) to have confidence that they are buying the animal they thought they were buying (ie higher confidence, higher prices.)"
Then it should only apply to those producers that are selling to these buyers. More like "higher costs, higher prices".
Sorry, regardless of the quality of what goes in, I'll never have any confidence in what comes "out" of Tyson, Cargill, ADM, etc. ;)
While your "soundbite" makes the program sound fairly innocuous, I suggest you read the "fine print", which makes it nearly impossible for for the smallholder to comply.
And then there's that bothersome little document called the Constitution. ;)
Your papers pleeze! (your dogs papers too, pleeze)
Very well put. Nail meet hammer.
Long time, No freep. (I neglected the < sarcasm > tag...) I need to get better at this stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.