As I reported after returning from the NIAA (National Institute for Animal Agriculture) meeting last August, rumors of the death of NAIS have been greatly exaggerated. (Read http://nonais.org/2009/09/05/ding-dong-nais-is-not-dead/) The USDA has finally admitted that they have too much negative publicity surrounding the name NAIS, and that they actually have to do what they tried to do in the first place: get the states to do their bidding on 'animal identification' and 'traceability' according to World Trade Organization standards. So yippee. They are only going to exercise their rule-making authority to control interstate commerce. Well, that's all they had the authority to do at the outset. So we should be giddy with excitement that they are openly proclaiming they will do just that now.

Should we be happier than a pig in a puddle because they openly stated that they will leave animals which never exit the state out of the new plan? They never had the authority to deal with those animals anyway…unless, of course, you take money from the USDA. Otherwise, that authority rests with your state. The USDA will continue to fund the states and work in a 'collaborative' way with states and industry (continuing the Public Private Partnership otherwise known as fascism) to develop the "minimum standards" that must be followed in order to participate in interstate commerce.

So, as many conversations with my compatriots in the fight against NAIS have alluded to, at last the USDA is pulling the commerce clause out and holding it up as their hammer for "minimum standards" that will be required by forthcoming regulations for 'disease traceability'. And why has the USDA taken to calling it 'disease traceability' instead of 'animal identification'? Because they only HAVE authority over the diseases! The FDA has authority over live animals on the farm (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114752.htm), even though the majority of people don't know this, and it is a very useful poker chip in the globalization game. It is called misdirection, and those of us who have been deeply involved in the fight against the NAIS are very aware of this agency's use of misinformation, disinformation, subterfuge and general sneakiness in foisting upon us their WTO driven desire that will create captive supply for export of the entire domestic livestock population.

The only official document available on the "NAIS not NAIS" program is a seven page Q and A available at the new page for "NAIS not NAIS" called Animal Disease Traceability(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf). It's only 7 pages, so if you have read the previous 1200 pages of USDA documents on this program, it's a walk in the park.

One of the first questions that one asks when told "NAIS is Dead!", (aside from "what's it's new name?") is "What about all the people who are in the Premises Database with PIN's already?" According to the 7-page document, they stay in that database. How about animals that are already identified with the "840" tags for NAIS? They also stay in the database. What about the "840" tags themselves? Well, the USDA and States will keep using them.

Are they going to halt further registrations into the NAIS database? Heck no! They'll keep registering properties and will also be using a 'unique location identifier' for this kinder, gentler NAIS that the States will run for us.

Why are they re-using the first two prongs of NAIS? Aside from the unstated fact that they are using them because they have to use them to be compliant with OIE (World Animal Health Organization) guidelines, they say it's because of the tremendous amount of money spent developing NAIS already even though it is un-Constitutional.

How much money? It's government math, so it's likely done by consensus as opposed to literal whole numbers that add up- you know, like 2+2=4. Consensus would make it possible for 2+2 to equal 5. Anyway, figures cited by various officials are anywhere from $120 million to $180 million. Less than 60¢ per person, so almost nothing when compared to the monstrous 107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities we are currently carrying. Believe me, when I say I am not for government waste at all, but when an agency has spent this much time and money on an unfruitful program, isn't it better to simply fully knock it in the head instead of changing the name and playing "Hide and Go Seek" with the people who have adamantly opposed this program? Why couldn't the USDA do the only truly Constitutional thing with this international-trade driven program and let those who want to deal in international markets do this to themselves through the Export Verification Services department of the USDA? Well, if they did that, not only would they have to actually be fully open and transparent, they would need to let the public in on the big secret that the United States is no longer in charge of its own policies, rather they are obligated to follow the Sanitary PhytoSanitary (SPS) directives of the World Trade Organization agencies, namely Codex Ailimentarius, the OIE and the IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention).

And we still have the very real issue of the massive database for premises registration (or the unique location allocator) having no public or verifiable oversight to check whether or not people who have been told they were removed were in fact removed from that database. So if NAIS is dead, why not allow the database to be annihilated? Obviously, they are still following the plan.

What about the states that have passed legislation designed to constrain NAIS from becoming mandatory within their boundaries? How will this new disease traceability program affect them? Well, since this is NOT NAIS and the regulations aren't yet written, the states will have to wait to find out what requirements they MUST MEET in order to participate in interstate commerce. There's your hammer.

So how powerful is the interstate commerce clause? Pretty dang powerful. And if people who dealt in the local food movement fully understood Wickard vs. Filburn, (http://conservapedia.com/Wickard_v._Filburn) they would feel no consolation whatsoever from the USDA's statement that they are not interested in regulating livestock that stay within the state. In a nutshell, this 1942 Supreme Court case found that since Filburn had accepted money as part of the Agricultural Adjustments Act and then grew wheat to feed his own livestock, that he was not only subject to the regulation of the USDA by accepting that money, but also, since he grew wheat, he hadn't purchased it, and had he not grown it, he would have had to purchase wheat which would have likely come through interstate commerce. Therefore, his planting of wheat affected interstate commerce and solidified the USDA's jurisdiction over his actions.

If you transplant "tomato" for wheat you can see how sinister this ruling truly is. If you grow tomatoes, you won't be buying them, so if you don't buy them, and since the store bought tomatoes likely cross state lines in their movement, you are affecting interstate commerce by growing tomatoes….This is precedent, and it is a very, very dangerous precedent. So taking money or help from the USDA to establish your local farmer's market is going to put you into a relationship that is highly precarious for freedom.

The interstate commerce clause was not designed to hammer states into submission to federal or international agency trade objectives, it was to stop states from unfairly discriminating against each other and to enable us to be a strong union of sovereign states that could actually feed itself and prosper. The only thing to do is to keep fighting with full knowledge and to get the States to exercise their duty to protect the Citizens from an overarching Federal government. We need states to completely free up direct trade between farmers and consumers and we need states to work together to create their own criteria for exchange of goods across state lines.

Do we have to 'stay engaged' in conversations with the USDA on this "New Not NAIS"? Yes, to keep telling them to go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here, thank you. They should tend the borders, control and actually inspect the imports, run the disease programs that worked and were not massive consolidations of power in federal hands, and for cryin' out loud INSPECT the packing plants and stop trying to make consumers believe that farmers and ranchers are responsible for sloppy slaughtering!

Also, go ahead and leave a bunch of the milk chocolate rabbits for us. Chocolate is one thing we probably should import, but certainly not at the cost of our freedom and sovereignty.

As many of you read, on February 5, 2010, the USDA announced that “it will revise the prior animal identification policy and offer a new approach to achieving animal disease traceability”. Articles and postings on the internet immediately proclaimed “NAIS is dead!” But is it or is it NAIS with a new name? I urge everyone to take a moment and review the USDA’s Fact Sheet titled “Questions and Answers: New Animal Disease Traceability Framework”: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf The new program website is: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability.

On page 1 of this document, the USDA states "Animal disease traceability, or knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they’ve been, and when, is very important to make sure that there can be a rapid response when animal disease events take place.” Is that not the same rationale they used for NAIS? What has changed is the "framework" or approach to meet this objective. They state they “will partner with States and Tribal Nations to create the framework for the new approach and plan to reestablish a Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Animal Health with representatives from States, Tribal Nations, industry groups, local farms, organic farmers, and underserved communities to assist us in evaluating commodity-based animal disease traceability approaches, along with State-by-State and Tribeby- Tribe animal disease traceability efforts."

On page 2, the USDA states "Everyone will need to play an important role in developing the animal disease traceability framework. USDA will take the initial steps to create a basic framework and publish a new animal disease traceability section in the Code of Federal Regulations that includes clear criteria and performance measures. However, the framework ultimately will be led and administered by the States and Tribal Nations, with Federal support."

To avoid the problems we had in the past, we must get involved and not leave this to the racing industry and American Horse Council to decide, as was done with NAIS, which is more than a bit like expecting Dean Foods to represent the small dairy farmer. This time the information is NOT being deliberately withheld from the average horse owner as was done by the American Horse Council and the Equine Species Working Group. We must not allow history to repeat itself! This time we have the opportunity to provide actual input.

While the USDA will create the basic framework, the program will be administered by the states. That means contacting your state Dept of Agriculture and offering to get involved. The USDA further states that they "will not mandate a one-size-fits-all approach to animal disease traceability. The system will not be mandatory in the sense that all producers are required to participate or that all States and Tribal Nations must implement one approach. What is certain is that animal disease traceability will be required for animals moving in interstate commerce." This plus other statements regarding "normal marketing" and statements about programs for cattle have lulled many horse owners into believing that this program will not apply to horses. Nothing could be further from the truth! What is “interstate commerce”? I am NOT an attorney but the legal dictionary defines it as “commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution. The federal government can also regulate commerce within a state when it may impact interstate movement of goods and services, and may strike down state actions which are barriers to such movement under Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).” I have gone back through some of the Supreme Court decisions related to agriculture and interstate commerce have found several cases where the actions above have been upheld. An additional case worth looking at is the 1942 US Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 121 (1942) (describing development of Commerce Clause jurisprudence). This will prove to you just how much power they have to regulate inter and intrastate commerce.

The term “commerce” can, and is, often more loosely defined as "involved in a commercial venture" or the "intent" to make a profit, as we have seen with DOT issues regarding horse trailers. It is important to remember that this does not mean actually making a profit – all that is required is the “intent” to make a profit! Running a boarding, breeding or training stable; hauling horses for show, racing, sales, training, or for any other compensation are examples of what can be considered commercial enterprises. Prize money and showing to increase the value of the horse can also be interpreted as profit. Shipping semen or embryos is also “interstate commerce”. Short of presenting this to the US Supreme Court for a decision, it is safe to assume that most of us will, in fact, be participating in “interstate commerce” at some point with our horses. The result is that the USDA’s Animal Disease Traceability Program DOES apply to horses.

If you live in a state that passed legislation prohibiting a mandatory NAIS, the USDA states: "It's important to remember that the new animal disease traceability framework the USDA is announcing is not NAIS. This framework will set forth criteria that States and Tribal Nations must meet for their animals to be able to move interstate. States and Tribal Nations will have the flexibility to decide what methods they will use." By changing the name, they have effectively prevented this new program from being prohibited under that legislation.
While their focus in this document is primarily cattle, we must not forget that the original NAIS plans required microchipping our horses and purchasing scanners to enter their movement information into the NAIS database. We now have the power to change this, IF we get involved! Microchipping one’s horse should be a personal decision, not a state or federal mandate. All of us who own registered horses have our horses identified by a variety of measures per our breed registry requirements. Current coggins testing and electronic CVI's utilize digital photos to identify horses, which should suffice for those who enter interstate commerce.

Our system for disease traceback in horses has worked for decades. With the advent of the electronic CVI (health certificate), it is even more efficient. The recent outbreaks of CEM, piroplasmosis and EHV-1 have proven that our current system works. We must now get involved and remind our state Dept of Agriculture and the USDA officials that the current system works!

Karen Nowak owns, breeds and shows Hackney horses in upstate NY. She has been following the inclusion of horses into NAIS since late 2005 and has published several articles on this subject. For permission to reprint this article, please contact Karen Nowak at: KNowak5170@aol.com