Jolley: Five Minutes With Sharon Zecchinelli & Doreen Hannes

Cattle Network
1/11/8
Original Article Here

I wrapped up 2007 with a series of interviews with people who are backing NAIS. It was an interesting and well-read series – even if I do say so – that explained in detail all the reasons that make animal identification a good idea. Sharon Zecchinelli contacted me, though, and demanded that the scales be balanced. “There are reasons it is not a good idea,” she said.

Here is the salient point: NAIS is a controversial subject, a coin with at least two sides. On close examination, we might even have to count the edge of the coin and call it a three-sided argument.

There are contingencies of small farmers and hobbyists who don’t like the idea. Not one bit. They see it as an unnecessary intrusion on their rights as private citizens - as a money grab by big business at the expense of the little guy - maybe even creeping socialism. One person harrumphed about the insanity of trying to ear tag chickens – she was stretching a point to make her point, of course.

But not to be tagged myself (as a slanted journalist, not an NAIS chicken), I invited Zecchinelli to stand in for the anti-NAIS groups and speak her piece. She agreed and invited her friend, Doreen Hannes, to participate. Their answers were impassioned, detailing the reasoning behind their position. Read on. It’s interesting stuff, whether you’re for it or ‘agin it’

Q: Sharon, let's establish your credentials, first. You're a retired chef who lives in Vermont with your husband, 'a flock of hens, the occasional freezer lamb or pig, horse and two dogs.' You're also an outspoken critic of NAIS. Other than the proud owner of a small farmstead in God's favorite part of the country, what qualifies you to join in the national debate on NAIS?

Sharon: In as much as the USDA calls me a stakeholder and has said my animals are a part of the National Herd, that should qualify me to join in the national debate. I do believe my voice and the voices of all small/private farmers, homesteaders, hobbyists and casual horse owners should be heard, so thank you Chuck, for this opportunity. I speak for thousands of others who are opposed to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

My husband and I moved to Vermont in 2001 with the idea that we would raise animals for our own use and consumption. We eventually made the choice to grow meat animals because we wanted to stay out of the industrialized agriculture system. In these days there is no guarantee of clean food, certainly not like it used to be.

The main thing, though, that qualifies me to join the national debate is that I have read every document, press release and all the Federal Register documents that USDA has issued with regard to NAIS. I even attended, at my own expense, NIAA's ID Expo in 2006 to learn firsthand about the program. It was there that Dr. John Weimers told me personally that he would drive every back road to find every backyard flock and tag each chicken. It was also there that Indiana's State Vet Dr. Jennifer Greiner said to me she couldn't sleep at night thinking I would be eating diseased meat, that being my own sheep.

Q. Doreen, tell me about your background and what are your qualifications to enter this fracas?

Doreen: We own a homestead in South Central Missouri, and raise livestock for our own pleasure and consumption as well as for sale in the open market. We began to build up a dairy goat show herd and raise calves, and pigs on the extra milk, and then the ugly specter of NAIS reared up and stopped the dream of a family venture into quality show stock cold in its tracks. Because our faith will not allow us to take this type of mark in order to be able to buy or sell, we cannot and will not engage in NAIS in any way shape or form.

One thing that helps qualify me to join the national debate is that I have actually read the documents… from the international SPS and TBT and OIE guidelines and discussion drafts down to all of the USDA docs; both the PR firm releases and Federal Register documents as well as the definitions of the terms used in the documents, to be sure that I understand what is being said.

Q: Breaking down the debate into some of its component parts – NAIS has been promoted as voluntary. Can you accept it as a voluntary program or are you drawing a line in the sand and saying 'Not now, not ever?'

Sharon: While the often repeated mantra is "voluntary at the federal level" the fact that USDA has bought most of the states (though I am glad to say that Vermont is not one of them) tribes and industry organizations via generous cooperative agreement monies to coerce participation and at the same time stepped up enforcement of the various disease eradication compliance programs effectively stopping all interstate sales, it hardly seems voluntary.

On page 25 of the Traceability Business Plan under the heading of Harmonize Animal Identification Programs it says in regard to sheep and goats, "regulation modifications and increased emphasis on enforcement could bring an estimated 90% of the sheep and goats industries into 90% compliance with NSEP (National Scrapie Eradication Program) requirements." How can the word enforce come up in an all voluntary program?

I don't think the Amish in Michigan, Wisconsin, or New York would say that NAIS is voluntary. Neither do the hobbyists or casual horse owners in Massachusetts. (It is interesting to note that on 12/11/07 Massachusetts had 1,685 premises registered or 47.4%. but on 12/31/07 the number jumped to 8,064 premises registered or 226.8 %.) In many of those instances farmers have been issued premises registration numbers behind their backs.

Shortly in Wisconsin, DATCP means to promulgate rules that will authorize DATCP to register livestock premises or renew a premises registration on behalf of an individual that is not in compliance. DATCP has been registering livestock premises on behalf of operators who have religious objections to registering themselves on the grounds of not wanting to take the Mark of the Beast as foretold in Revelation. In a country founded on religious freedoms and agriculture, how they can dismiss religious exceptions is beyond me. And even if DATCP registers a person without their permission, the person can still face fines for non-compliance.

So, no, it's not voluntary.

Doreen: NAIS cannot, by design, be a voluntary program. It must be compulsory at the point of sale. Remember we are talking about 48 hour traceability on everything from clams to cattle, which of a necessity will require 24 hour reporting. QSA, PVP, and EVS can be voluntary, but NAIS cannot and will not work without it being compulsory to buy or sell in the open market through certificates of health and mandatory disease control program identification.

So, yes, No NAIS, not now, not ever.

Q: One of the strengths of NAIS, according to proponents, is its ability to trace back in case of a disease outbreak within 48 hours. In my interview with Bruce Knight, he defined it this way: "NAIS is a modern, streamlined information system that helps producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal disease events in the United States." The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture promotes the program with a website - "Locate in 48" - to highlight that capability. Do you see that as an asset to the U.S. in its efforts to improve its world agricultural trade or is it a straw dog?

Sharon: The USDA has spent big money to market NAIS under the "Locate in 48 program" in many states, but the fact remains that the reason to locate livestock in 48 hours is to kill them to prevent the spread of disease. No, I won't use the euphemism depopulate or as they said in the Traceability Business Plan 'sacrifice'.

The kill zone, by the way, is 12.4 miles in diameter. That means everything inside that kill zone is going to be destroyed, wooden structures will be burned, fields sprayed to prevent spread, quarantine zones, people displaced out of their homes, dead animals buried or burned. It might show the US as a real player in the global agricultural market but at what price?

Right now the EU has an FMD vaccine bank offering at least some protection against all known FMD strain types and is regularly updated. I see the reluctance to use vaccinations as an industry problem. While the dairy industry doesn't have a problem using rBST or spent distiller grains that are causing e-coli problems, they do seem to have a problem using known vaccines now to prevent a future FMD outbreak.

Is this because they are concerned about the public perception of vaccines? I don't understand the disconnect. But why should I understand that? I know my animals, I see them every day, my animals and soil are healthy, and my animals do not live in crowded filthy conditions so I wouldn't expect them to be a vector for disease.

One other thing. Remember last year when they used NAIS to locate the cows during the blizzard? That was not allowed by their own Draft Plan. The stated purpose of NAIS is to protect against disease. A blizzard isn't a disease. What other purposes will USDA rationalize they can use NAIS for?

Doreen: It's really more of a "straw disease". 48 hour trace back to every location in a life is an Orwellian dream. It can't be done without drastic reduction of the numbers of livestock locations. Just because an animal is the first to show symptoms of a disease doesn't mean that animal is the originator of the disease. In England and Australia the numbers of phantom cattle are astronomical and the cattle population is tremendously lower than ours in this country.

We don't need to enhance our ability to export, we need to be able to meet our own consumption and not strive to compete for third world wages to accomplish that. In reality, we have become net importers of many agricultural products and have no need to implement a massive and expensive program to create captive export supply of the entire livestock population. NAIS is like preconditioning for corporate entities positioning themselves to financially benefit with its implementation. There is a great deal of money to be made in the tagging, tracking, and data handling, and the costs will be borne by the producers and destroy the smaller operations in very short order.

Also, if you look at the effects that free trade agreements have had on our nation you will find that nearly all of the effects have been negative to the total economy of the country.

This will be no different.

According to OIE docs, traceability can be achieved through third party verification, which means that private companies who want to sell to a country that likes the idea of 48 hour traceback would be able to set up their own programs with people who want to jump through those hoops and actually possibly profit off of the 'premiums' they might get.

In Nebraska's Locate in 48 website the question of liability is answered stating that if you follow QSA management practices you shouldn't have any increased liability under NAIS. QSA is a program to garner premiums. If we all have to do the same thing, there will be no premium.

Q: NAIS proponents talk a lot about protecting the 'national herd.' Opponents square off with talk about the small farmer and the hobbyist; two very different interest groups, of course. Is there room for compromise? For a program like NAIS, can we develop it for one group and not the other?

Sharon: No, there's no room for compromise. If industry wants NAIS, let them do it and fund it themselves without any interference, intervention or help from USDA/NIAA or any federal or state branch or agency. My animals are not a part of a national herd nor do they go into global commerce. Anyone who has read all of USDA's documents, as many of us have, knows that NAIS is about industry, the global marketplace and normalizing trade. And while USDA is cramming NAIS down our throats they have recently approved a rule that allows imported beef from Canada with higher risk for mad cow disease into our country. Do you ever ask yourself whose side they are on?

Doreen: Just the term 'national herd' should raise the hackles of those who value freedom. NAIS will protect and enlarge corporate interests and bureaucratic coffers. It is a boondoggle. It can't be implemented in a fashion that will benefit independent producers of any size. The pooh-poohing of the level of objection to NAIS from small producers is indicative of disdain for both history and economies of scale. Invariably, those who are pro NAIS stand to gain financially from its implementation and those against do not.

In Missouri, the average herd size of cattle is 33 head, these are not 'hobbyists', but people who contribute heavily to the rural economy and the well being of the state. We are second in the nation in cow calf production and have already seen the consolidation of the dairy industry harm our local economies tremendously. Those who managed to stay on the farm moved to beef cattle and now will be pushed off the farm due to NAIS. Smaller operations in the beef sector supply a third of the beef in this nation. The loss of these small operations will be felt in both quality and price at the check out counter by all consumers.

As I said before, I don't see any way to compromise on NAIS. If there is to be a 48 trace back system to increase trade, it should be funded and run by private entities meeting Export Verification Services requirements, not by federal agencies holding state's hostage at the point of interstate commerce requirements.

Q: I interviewed Mary Zanoni, another critic of NAIS, who said, "It is difficult to imagine any acceptable basis for the (USDA) to subject the owner of a chicken to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun."

Notwithstanding that a conversation about gun control can ignite a whole other political firestorm, her real point seems to be fueled by a basic distrust of governmental programs – can we say 'intrusions' here? Many opponents are saying 'it's a matter of property rights - the government doesn't need to know that much about our business.' Philosophically speaking, are the rifle in the hall closet and the chicken in the back yard at the core of the argument?

Sharon: If you're talking about our guaranteed Constitutional rights, the answer is yes. To paraphrase a quote by James Madison, it is not a just government nor is property secure under it, when that property is arbitrarily seized by one class of citizens for the use of the rest. This is exactly what’s happening under NAIS by forcing small/private farmers, homesteaders, hobbyists, casual horse owners or even grannies with a few laying hens into this over-reaching program that is by its own design for industry.

Doreen: Yes and no. The rifle is an enumerated right in the Second amendment, and the chicken would never even have occurred to our founding fathers as it is included in the right to life. Can you imagine Washington's men following him barefooted and starving through the snows of Valley Forge so an agency could require birth certificates and residence information on a goat? Not likely.

Q: There are a lot of major organizations behind NAIS. USDA has forged direct relationships with the American Angus Association, IDairy, The U.S. Animal Identification Organization (USAIO), The National Pork Board, IMI Global, American Sheep Industry and the National FFA Organization. Most of the major animal agricultural associations have taken positions that at least encourage the expansion of a national animal identification program. With that kind of power and influence arrayed against you and others who are against NAIS, aren't you fighting a losing battle?

A: Well, sometimes we do feel like Davy fighting Goliath. We still have the Constitution to stand on because the last time I checked the Constitution wasn't totally dead. USDA has played dirty pool by buying out those mentioned organizations and more. You forgot to mention how the 4-H was also given grant money. Next year when it's time for the state fairs those 4-H children are going need to convince their parents that a premises registration number is worth the price of the prize they may get for winning or they will not be allowed to show, at least in Colorado, Illinois, and now there is talk of it in North Carolina. 4-H and FFA children are being exploited to sign up their parent’s property. Children don't have any legal authority to sign contracts and yet this is what USDA is asking them to.

I am convinced that once Mr and Mrs Consumer learn about NAIS they too will be angry. My research indicates that consumers are more interested in knowing the country of origin of the food they are eating. Once more consumers are educated about what NAIS will mean to them as the costs are passed on in the grocery stores, as locally grown foods get harder to find because so many people have stopped raising chickens, sheep, goats, etc., they will be angry enough to let their voices be heard.

Remember the Victory Gardens during WWII? It was those locally grown and produced foods that saved many communities from starvation. Let's pretend for a moment that NAIS is in effect and many more small/private local farmers have already been driven out. All the food comes from the grocery store. Now there is a so-called foreign disease outbreak. USDA uses NAIS to find and stamp out all of the affected cows, sheep and pigs in this example. There are no meat or dairy products in the stores. Where is the protein going to come from?

It is a scenario just like this that proves to me that USDA and its industry partners have not thought NAIS through, certainly not beyond their anticipated revenues.

If you will look at the associated industries like RFID chips, readers, etc., and then connect the dots, you will see that NAIS is solely about making more money in the global market for the industry partners. Let's take a look at the numbers. There are approximately 100 million head of cattle in the U.S., and the NAIS-compliant RFID tags for these animals would cost approximately $300 million. The approved device for horses is an implantable microchip with an average cost of $25 each. In 2006, the USAIO predicted a charge of 30-cents per entry into its database. Someone is going to make an awful lot of money and I guarantee it isn't going to be the stakeholders.

Doreen: The USDA has -purchased- those organizations participation with federal grant money and lies to the public about "voluntary" participation in NAIS. You forgot to mention the Humane Farm Animal Care organization, which is an animal rights group that has also received money to promote NAIS. Under the table, these groups have agreements to make NAIS mandatory for breed registration, fair and show participation, as well as sales outlets in the case of the pork producers.

As to the 'power and influence' arrayed against us…Don't forget that the 2005 Documents called for mandatory NAIS in January of 2008, and mandatory with enforcement on all aspects in January of 2009, so we have been effective despite lack of representation, media, funding, and lack of organization. We are not fighting a losing battle because we are right in standing against NAIS, and right always prevails in the end.