Statement By Jane Williams of Bluffton, Arkansas
On Behalf of the Arkansas Animal Producer's Association
Submitted at the request of Senator Lincoln to the
United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
The Arkansas Animal Producer's Association (ARAPA) was created
as a direct result of the development of the proposed USDA guidelines
for Farm Premises Identification (FPI) and the National Animal
Identification Tracking System (NAIS). Members believe that some
organizations that were suppose to be representing their interests are
not doing so on the FPI, NAIS, and COOL issues. ARAPA membership
consists of independent animal owners who rear animals as a hobby, for
their nutritional needs, and/or for income. At some point members
transport animals off of their land to sell, barter, butcher, exhibit,
secure veterinary services, go on trail rides, compete, or simply to
give an animal away.
Senator Lincoln's request for this statement, on behalf of
independent animal producers, is appreciated. It is time that our
concerns are heard and listened to by our public servants.
The proposed USDA guidelines, as published in the "DRAFT
Strategic Plan 2005 to 2009" and the "Draft Program
Standards" published April 25, 2005, would prohibit an animal
owner from taking an animal off of the owner's land unless that owner
filed an application with the USDA for a FPI and then attached or
injected an identification device in or on the animal on the farm or
at a tagging facility. The USDA tries to tell us that FPI is
voluntary. It may be voluntary today, but the USDA does not inform
animal owners that they intend to make it mandatory. FPI is
coercive - not voluntary. If you do not have a FPI, you will not be
allowed to place identification on your animals. You would thus be
prohibited from taking an animal off of your premises. On page 10, the
last sentence of paragraph one in the "NAIS DRAFT Strategic Plan
2005 to 2009" it is stated, "Premises registration and
animal identification according to NAIS standards will be required by
January 2008."
A mandatory program, as proposed by the USDA, would place such
extreme hardships on animal owners that many of them would cease to
rear animals. Presently 85% of Arkansas sale barn customers are small
producers who most likely would be forced out of business by the
proposed USDA program. The economic losses to Arkansas resulting from
a large number of animal owners going out of business would be
devastating to the Arkansas economy since the loss of customers by
sale barns, feed stores, mom and pop stores, butcher shops, farm
equipment suppliers, etc. would necessitate their closing.
Why Would FPI and NAIS Cause Independent Animal Producers To
Cease Rearing Animals?
- refusal to accept USDA jurisdiction over their farm by applying
for a FPI
- religious beliefs that prohibit animal identification as
proposed by the USDA
- costs associated with NAIS
- personal aversion to attachment or injection of devices on or
into animals
- inability or refusal to comply with the complexity of the
reporting program
Jurisdiction:
Executive Order 10998 gives the Secretary of Agriculture, when
ordered by the President, the authority to confiscate all farm
equipment, fertilizer, animal feed, and animals in the event of a
declaration of a National Emergency. Every year the President declares
a National Emergency. A USDA employee could enter a farm without
additional permission, beyond the FPI, from an animal owner and do
anything they wanted to do on a farm to or with the listed
property. The 1942 Supreme Court decision rendered in Wickard
v. Filburn states that the federal government has the right to
regulate that which it subsidizes. The USDA is subsidizing the FPI
program, thus they could regulate the activities on a farm with a FPI
or that had received federal funds.
The USDA states that their authority to implement FPI and NAIS is
derived from the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) which was a part
of the 2002 Farm Bill. Although the AHPA does not give the Secretary
of Agriculture express consent to establish NAIS, it does give the
Secretary of Agriculture unprecedented power to make warrantless
searches, arrest individuals, and issue fines for up to $500,000 for
being "about to" violate a mandate of the Secretary of
Agriculture. AHPA tramples many principles enshrined in the
Constitution. Placing such power in the hands of an appointed
individual is unprecedented in United States history. These are some
of the reasons many animal owners will not place their farms under
USDA jurisdiction by requesting a FPI.
Religious Beliefs:
Practitioners of religious faiths, such as the Amish, that prohibit
animal identification as proposed by the USDA could not comply with
USDA guidelines without violating their beliefs. Their faith does not
allow them to use automobiles, so they travel in buggies and on
horseback. Without complying with FPI and NAIS, they would be
imprisoned on their farms unless they walked to and from town and to
and from adjoining farms. Some members of these faiths are considering
selling their farms and immigrating to another country that would
guarantee them the right to freely practice their beliefs. Many
Christians see FPI and NAIS as being parallel with Revelations that
speaks of all being required to accept a "mark," which is a
sign of ownership, in order to buy and sell. These believers will sell
out before using electronic devices on their animals.
Profitability:
There are no controls over what identification devices would
cost. We are told that an electronic tag for a calf would cost about
$3.00; however, Australians were told the same thing and they are now
paying $35 to $37 per tag. In England the cost is reported to be $69
per animal. A producer could possibly absorb that cost when selling a
calf, but a sheep or a goat tag that cost that much would take most,
if not all, of the profit out of selling an animal. A weanling pig
sells for $25 to $50. If an implantable chip cost $20, the animal
owner could not make a profit when selling the pig. Combine the cost
of the implantable chip and the minimum $20 cost to have a
veterinarian draw blood to satisfy state regulations and the pig owner
is in the hole before the pig is offered for sale - even before
adding sow, boar, and pig feed costs, facility expenses, health care
expenses, and hauling expenses. Producers can not stay in business if
they do not generate a profit.
Installation of computers, software, chutes, reading devices,
etc. would be an expensive proposition for sale barns to meet the
proposed USDA guidelines for NAIS. A minimum of $80,000 would be
required for a small sale barn to install the required
equipment. These costs would be passed on to the independent producer
through increased commission charges.
Large animal producers could market their animals by lots and use
only one tag per house of animals whereas the small producer would
need to tag every animal. The cost of a tag for fowl might well exceed
the value of the bird. The small producer would need to tag every
bird. Thousands of factory housed chickens or pigs could be
slaughtered under one tag. This provision of NAIS establishes an
unfair economic advantage for large producers.
Complexity:
The complexity of the proposed reporting of every birth, death,
farm exit, farm entry, lost tag, etc. would be a bureaucratic
nightmare. Each reporting would also have a cost attached to it that
once again would hit the independent producer in the pocket book. The
number of proposed required reports for the entire nation would be
staggering. Recently predators attacked a 300 head herd of cattle
causing them to stampede through fences onto the farm of a statistical
analyst who maintained 60 head of cattle. It took days of riding on
horseback through many farms to round up the 300 head and separate
them from herds they had joined. Under the proposed USDA guidelines,
this stampede would have initiated 1800 required reports, according to
the statistical analyst. Most independent animal owners would not be
willing to do such reporting much less have the time to file such
reports. On large ranches with rough terrain, it is impossible to
check all livestock on a daily basis. Animals are only accounted for
at round up time.
Need for FPI And NAIS:
Out breaks of disease within the United States in animals is
common. Serious diseases such as brucellosis, cholera, pseudo rabies,
as well as avain influenza have been resolved without an elaborate and
expensive FPI and NAIS. Rest assured selling an animal that bangs out
results in immediate contact by a state veterinarian. We have an
inexpensive cattle tracking system that works. This system could be
continued, if needed, and thus there is no need for an expensive and
complicated program called NAIS.
Dependability Of NAIS:
Reports from England, Canada, and Australia are detailing extreme
expenses by producers for a system that is inefficient in tracing
animals through the purchasing chain. Reports have also been published
that electronic tags can get viruses that can infect and destroy the
data system. Electronic tags can be modified by hackers and lost by
animals. The proposed system has been proven to be unreliable in other
countries. There is no reason to believe that it will be dependable in
the United States.
Terrorists:
Supporters of NAIS tell us that FPI and NAIS would prevent or help
track terrorist activities that might occur in the animal
industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. A national animal
data base would pin point the exact location and species of animals
for terrorists. As independent animal owners across the nation went
out of business because of NAIS, animal ownership would be
concentrated in fewer locations and most likely in larger
concentrations or in confinement facilities. These concentrated animal
locations would make much easier and desirable targets for terrorists
than many small farms scattered across the nation.
Imports And Exports:
So many independent animal producers have been forced out of
business by low profitability and excessive state regulations that
United States agriculture can no longer supply the meat demands of the
United States public. The United States currently imports almost twice
as much meat as it exports. Reducing meat imports would create more
profitability for the farmer and thus encourage people to return to
livestock production and thus increase the domestic meat supply. Meat
exports are not a concern of small, independent livestock
producers. Imports are a major concern, since the United States
producer has greater production costs than foreign producers. Imported
meat hurts United States producers, while the major packers benefit
from brokering imports and purchasing meat at a lower price. In the
grocery store, there is presently no differentiation in price between
United States meat and foreign meat. Once again the small, independent
producer in the United States is placed at a disadvantage as a result
of the excessive tonnage of imported meat. Reducing imports would also
reduce the possibility of foreign diseases being introduced into the
United States. This nation should never become dependent on other
nations for its food supply.
Responsibility And Liability:
Independent animal owners work hard to maintain healthy
animals. Those who market their livestock and those who consume their
own livestock insure they produce healthy animals in healthy
surroundings. Once an animal is sold, the original producer has no
control over the nutrition, living conditions, or health care of the
animal. It is the responsibility of packers to insure that the animals
they slaughter are healthy and slaughtered in a sanitary fashion. They
should be held liable when they process unhealthy animals. The
proposed USDA tracking system seems to place emphasis, identification
costs, and most of the responsibility on the farm of animal origin.
Misinformation:
Animal owners no longer trust the USDA because their literature
about FPI and NAIS is misleading and in many instances
contradictory. "A Guide for Small-Scale or Non-Commercial
Producers" that the USDA published on June 2, 2006, does not
indicate that it supersedes the "DRAFT Strategic Plan 2005 to
2009." It was not entered into the Federal Register as an
official document, nor as a document for which comments were to be
accepted. Since it contradicts the "DRAFT Strategic Plan 2005 to
2009," one must assume that it is basically a press release or a
propaganda document and not a change in the USDA "DRAFT Strategic
Plan 2005 to 2009."
Recommendation; FPI and NAIS:
The Arkansas Animal Producer's Association requests the
members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
to recommend de-funding of the USDA FPI and NAIS programs. If the
market actually determines that a NAIS is needed, then let those who
wish to participate in such a program fund and operate that
program. FPI and NAIS should never become federal mandates.
Recommendation; AHPA:
The Arkansas Animal Producer's Association requests the
members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
to implement legislation to repeal the unconstitutional delegation of
authority given to the Secretary of Agriculture in the Animal Health
Protection Act.
Recommendation; Country of Origin Labeling:
The Arkansas Animal Producer's Association fully endorses
Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). We encourage the members of the
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to go to any
sale barn or any meat market and ask the customers if they support
Country of Origin Labeling on meat. Undoubtedly you will receive a
99.99 plus positive response for COOL on all meat products. The
producers of meat products and consumers of meat products demand
immediate COOL implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the concerns of
independent animal producers to the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry.
| Back |
|