Page 73 - Winter2008

istrative procedures required to create enforce- authorities, state animal health authorities, People who
able regulations when it issued this new step in and private veterinarians who are accredited
NAIS. And, indeed, even the proponents of NAIS for federally regulated diseases (p.1); refuse to
have apparently realized the lack of authority for • Any veterinarian who is accredited for a voluntarily
this latest step. The U.S. Animal Health Associa- federally regulated disease is subject to the register their
tion, while supporting a mandatory NAIS, has USDA’s edict to involuntarily register his
passed a resolution calling on the USDA to show or her clients: “A PIN is required for activi- properties
its legal authority for the memo. The American ties performed at a premises by a State or in NAIS will
Horse Council, another NAIS proponent, has Federal animal health authority or an ac- be registered
tried to reassure horse associations that the credited veterinarian for any disease that
memo doesn’t really mean what it says. The AHC is regulated through Title 9 of the Code of against their
claims the memo was about what would happen Federal Regulations.” (p.4); will.
in the future—despite the clear, present tense of • The listed disease programs for which a
the memo’s language. Some USDA field offices PIN will be required include programs that
and state animal health authorities have claimed cover every species of animal, from tuber-
ignorance of the memo’s contents, while others culosis and brucellosis programs in cattle
have said that it will not be enforced. to the scrapie program for sheep and goats
Regardless of its implementation or enforce- to equine infectious anemia in horses (p.5);
ability, however, the memo reveals USDA’s plan and
for NAIS. Here are some excerpts: • The activities that will result in being regis-
tered in NAIS include vaccinations, diagnos-
• USDA is requiring NAIS premises regis- tic tests, certifications (other than certificates
tration “as the sole and standard location of veterinary inspection), and the application
identifier” for activities relating to any dis- of official eartags or backtags (p.5).
ease regulated through the Code of Federal
Regulations, for emerging or re-emerging As they have done throughout the implemen-
disease, and for foreign animal diseases tation of NAIS, USDA officials and pro-NAIS
(p.1); industry groups are yet again saying: “We didn’t
• People who refuse to voluntarily register really mean what the document says.” First it’s
their properties in NAIS will be registered mandatory, then it’s voluntary, then it’s up to the
against their will: “If the person responsible states, then the states have to do what USDA says,
for the premises chooses not to complete then it’s mandatory again, then it’s voluntary.
the form to register his/her premises, either Over and over, the USDA issues documents,
the animal health official or an accredited and then claims that the public is overreacting
veterinarian will collect the defined data to what those documents clearly state. It is long
fields.” (p.2); past time for Congress and the President to rein
• The memo applies to federal animal health in this agency.

LAWSUIT AGAINST USDA AND MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

In Michigan, the USDA and Michigan Department of Agriculture pushed ahead with the second stage of NAIS. Michi-
gan has an active tuberculosis (TB) program, due to a recurring TB problem that most government authorities attribute to
continued re-infection from wild animals. But USDA decided that the answer was to change the form of identification used
for cattle. Under pressure from USDA, and using federal funding, the MDA made a policy determination in 2007 that the
only form of identification that would be allowed under its existing tuberculosis program was NAIS-compliant radio fre-
quency identification devices (RFID). And since such RFID tags are only sold to people who have registered their property
in NAIS, the agency effectively mandated the first two stages of NAIS without any new statutes, rules or opportunity for
public involvement. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund filed suit against USDA and MDA in the district court in
the District of Columbia in September of this year. USDA responded with a motion to dismiss, disclaiming responsibility for
the implementation of NAIS in Michigan. The parties are in the process of filing briefs on the issue. For more information
on the Fund and the lawsuit, go to www.FarmtoConsumer.org.

WINTER 2008 Wise Traditions 73