Page 87 - Summer2008

Arnot added that people who believe that things enough to not be punished?” was the major topic. Back to Level 1
animals are sentient beings then substitute or add on Kohlberg’s scale!

in all animals for “human beings” in Kohlberg’s Meanwhile, small farmers and opponents of connement agriculture
hierarchy, and that the animal rights movement remain at levels 5 and 6. We raise food and buy it based on its ability to
is operating at the sixth level. Animal rights nourish ourselves and the land and to minimize harm. We go to bed at
activists believe that doing the “right thing” for night knowing our animals are living as well as they can, as close to how
animals’ welfare outweighs the fact that animal they would live naturally, and still produce food. Some of the things we
agriculture’s methods are still legal (level 1) or do to animals—de-horning, for example—might be judged improper by

can be scientically shown to be healthy. animal rights activists, but in general, the way we raise our animals would
Most of us would argue those methods aren’t meet with approval from many city and suburban dwellers unfamiliar
healthy, but what’s interesting here is that Arnot with farm life. As Arnot said, we own that moral high ground, and we
was speaking to his constituency, and they didn’t should capitalize on it. He recommended farm tours and educating people
“get it.” Arnot also posited a theory of “social regularly on how we handle our animals in order to avoid the attacks that
license” which allows animal agriculture to oper- are leveled at industrial animal agriculture.
ate as it has until it breaches these higher-level
ethical values held by the larger community. MORAL DILEMMA

The point of all the speakers together was, “if So, do these insights apply to ghting NAIS? After witnessing the
you don’t recognize the fact that this movement blind spot on animal rights—the same speakers have been making animal
is shaping the way the general populace will agriculture industry presentations for at least the last  ve years—it wasn’t
require you to operate and voluntarily change a surprise to hear the following comments from state agriculture of cials
your practices, then you will get regulated into on NAIS:
it.”
Predictably, during the remainder of the • “The only problem was how they presented it. They shouldn’t have just
conference, discussion centered on the moral jammed it down people’s throats.” In other words, it’s not the program

dilemma of connement agriculture. “How can I that’s a problem but how you present it.
continue to operate the way I want, just tweaking • “It never occurred to me that people would be against it.” This state-

HOT NEWS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
By Judith McGeary

The fight against NAIS has shifted to a new level! In May, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund issued a Notice
of Intent to Sue letter to the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture over the agencies’ illegal implementation
of the National Animal Identification System. The 25-page letter describes the history behind the development of NAIS,
the reasons why NAIS violates several provisions of federal and Michigan law, and cites the specific provisions of law that
have been violated. The arguments range from the environmental impacts of the program, to its economic impacts on
small businesses, to the impact on religious freedoms, and also include the complete failure to show that NAIS has any
rational relationship to actually addressing the problem of animal disease. Although the Notice of Intent includes some
claims that are specific to Michigan, many of the arguments are relevant to the NAIS program nationwide.
The letter requests that all funding, implementation and further development of NAIS immediately halt or appropriate
action will be taken, and gives the agencies 30 days to respond. Given the amount of money they have spent already on
NAIS, and their continued claims that the program is critical to animal health, it is very unlikely that the agencies will stop
implementing NAIS. This Notice is a necessary first step towards filing suit against the USDA. So stay tuned!
You can find out more information by going to www.FarmToConsumer.org or call the Legal Defense Fund at (703)
208-FARM (3276). The Fund will need everyone’s support in its fight against NAIS, so please consider joining the Fund
or giving a tax-deductible donation to its sister organization, the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation, www.farmtoconsumer-
foundation.org.

Judith McGeary is an attorney and small farmer in Austin, Texas, the Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom
Alliance, and a local chapter leader of WAPF. She has a B.S. in Biology from Stanford University and a J.D. from The Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin. She and her husband run a small grass-based farm with Quarter Horses, cattle, sheep and heritage
breeds of poultry. For more information about NAIS and what you can do to stop it, go to www.farmandranchfreedom.org
or call 1-866-687-6452.

SUMMER 2008 Wise Traditions 85