As I sat in a basement meeting room in Jefferson City witnessing one of the most amazing populist movements since the late nineteenth century, I was struck by one speaker in particular.Most of the NAIS-sayers who took the podium were passionate about the issue but a little over the top, driven by the depth of their feelings.The concept of an animal identification program of the scope proposed by the USDA was so foreign to their basic beliefs about the role of government that some were near tears in their condemnation.A few were so worked up that it was difficult to understand their words if rather easy to understand their convictions.
Then Rhonda Perry of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center stood up and calmly brought the crowd to its collective boot-shod feet by politely telling Tom Vilsack that NAIS wasn’t worth a sack of fresh, steaming cow patties. Two thoughts immediately crossed my mind. (1) I never want to go head-to-head with this woman, and (2) she distilled the anti-NAIS argument into a tight, three-minute exposition.William Jennings Bryan, who delivered the rousing “Cross of Gold” speech at the 1896 Democratic Annual Convention, would have been proud.
So I tracked her down.She was at her office in Columbia, Missouri and she agreed to answer a few questions.One that I didn’t ask – Has there ever been an issue that’s stirred the family farmer quite as much as NAIS since the battle over the gold standard that was summed up by Bryan when he said “Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
Q. Rhonda, you're with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. Give me some background on that organization and the issues they see as in crisis.
A. The Missouri Rural Crisis Center (MRCC) is a statewide farm and rural organization founded in 1985. Our constituency is made up of farmers and rural citizens who are feeling the cumulative impacts of corporate control over our food supply. Through our policy programs, we challenge the industrialization of agriculture. At the same time we develop sustainable, family farm alternatives, such as Patchwork Family Farms, an MRCC program that direct markets family farm raised pork to restaurants, supermarkets and directly to consumers.
Some of the issues MRCC is currently working on include: National Animal Identification System (NAIS); holding corporate, industrial livestock operations accountable for the negative impacts they have on rural economies; citizen health and our natural resources; improving competition in livestock markets; challenging taxpayer subsidies to corporate agri-business; supporting local food production for local markets, and rural healthcare.
Q. What led you to the work that you're doing today? Have you always been involved in agriculture?
A. I grew up on a diversified farm in Chillicothe Missouri. Currently, my husband and I raise livestock and grain on an 800 acre farm in Howard County Missouri. During the farm crisis in the 80s, I realized that in order to make farming a viable option for future generations, farmers and rural citizens had to come together and fight for our way of life. As industrial agriculture began to gain a stranglehold on rural America, and our "fair" marketplace began to disappear because of corporate agri-business' control of markets, I, along with many farmers like me, began to fight back. That is how MRCC started, and that is why I am still here today.
Q. I attended the USDA's NAIS listening session in Jefferson City. It was, to say the least, an emotional event for many of the speakers. A few of them were near tears as they talked. Your comments, though, were delivered calmly but firmly. Would you frame this issue as you see it?
A. MRCC opposes NAIS and is urging Secretary Vilsack to reject this irrelevant and unnecessary regulatory scheme.
NAIS is a solution in search of a problem, and one that will have a severely negative impact on independent family farmers and will do nothing to improve food safety and animal health. If USDA is sincere in its attempt to protect livestock producers, consumers and animal health, it would focus its resources where the problems have been well documented.
We have seen millions of pounds of meat recalled due to unsanitary conditions and a lack of USDA oversight at slaughter plants. These problems are due to no fault of the producer, and this is one place we should be calling for increased scrutiny. The attempt to push liability from the huge corporate packers onto the farmer will not make our food safer. NAIS will not solve our food safety issues.
Also, USDA has continued to allow imports of livestock from countries with known disease problems. Corporate controlled factory farms are polluting our water, creating documented health problems and creating consumer concerns about food safety. And there is a severe lack of competition, especially within the livestock marketplace, such that we have never seen in our history.
The livestock industry is at risk as a result of USDA not addressing these "very real" problems, while instead they insist on pursuing this radical and colossal creation of corporate-driven, government bureaucracy. There are a lot of things USDA can do right now to help producers, and NAIS is not one of them.
If USDA has the legitimate intention of addressing issues affecting producers in our country, it should use its political capitol to address things that really matter, and can make a real difference to family farmers and rural communities, such as:
-enforcing anti-trust laws to the fullest extent possible to address corporate captive supply of livestock.
-increasing oversight, inspections and testing at packing plants.
-stopping imports from countries with known disease problems.
-regulating industrial livestock operations, and stopping taxpayer subsidies from going to these bad actors.
-supporting and improving on disease control programs that are proven and effective, instead of wasting millions of dollars on an unknown, unproven and unwanted program.
Q. Several comments I heard after I wrote about the meeting tied MCOOL and NAIS together. To quote one person, "Most of the people who are against NAIS are pro-MCOOL. Can't they see they can't have one without the other?" Should those two programs be linked?
A. NAIS and Country of Origin Labeling should not be (and do not have to be) linked to each other. They have two totally different purposes. The intention of COOL is to provide information to consumers that enable them to choose whether to buy US or foreign meat products--hopefully with the result of providing American farmers and ranchers with economic rewards for raising food in this country. It is certainly not necessary to have mandatory NAIS in order to have COOL. In fact, NAIS provides no information of any kind to consumers and ends all tracking at the packing plant.
Q. Rosa DeLauro, chairwoman of the House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, marked up the subcommittee’s fiscal year 2010 bill with no money earmarked for NAIS. A press release on her web site said this,“The bill eliminates funding for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). After receiving $142 million in funding since fiscal year 2004, APHIS has yet to put into operation an effective system that would provide needed animal health and livestock market benefits. USDA is currently conducting a public listening tour around the country for several months to hear from stakeholders. Until USDA finishes its listening sessions and provides details as to how it will implement an effective ID system, continued investments into the current NAIS are unwarranted.”
She left the door open to adding those funds back to the bill. With the overwhelming sentiment at these listening sessions being strongly against NAIS, do you think the USDA will be able continue to promote the program?
A. Representative DeLauro is certainly right about one thing: This program has been a waste of taxpayer money, and had little chance of achieving its purpose. If the goal of the program is, in fact, 48 hour traceback of all livestock, then the program would have to mandatory with 100% compliance. The question USDA should be asking: Is this is a useful, relevant and appropriate goal? According to hundreds of farmers, ranchers and consumers at the listening sessions, the answer is a resounding no.
Unfortunately, Secretary Vilsack and USDA are facing incredible pressure from Congress, and not just from Rosa DeLauro, but also from Ag and Appropriations Committee leadership. However, Secretary Vilsack needs to take a stand, throw out the program and be fully prepared to justify his position. There are more effective ways to address animal health, food safety and livestock marketing opportunities, and Secretary Vilsack should move forward immediately on implementing the "real" solutions.
Q. At the risk of being too simplistic, there seems to be two separate and distinct camps on the NAIS issue. Small family farms stand on one side, larger ranching operations and packers on the other. It makes for an interesting test of wills. What do you see as the main drivers behind each group's positions?
A. It appears that those representing industries, which are rapidly vertically integrating and becoming increasingly corporate controlled such as pork and dairy, have been vocally supportive of NAIS. However, it has been very difficult for organizations that have even a minute semblance of accountability to their producer members to support NAIS. Even large production operations who voluntarily use NAIS or other identification programs have opposed making NAIS mandatory.
It is clear why packers would be supportive of NAIS, because it takes the spotlight off of their bad practices and subsequent food safety concerns, and attempts to move the liability to the producers. The bottom line is: independent livestock producers who have to make a living from their production and marketing efforts are adamantly opposed to NAIS. At the first nine listening sessions, oral testimonies given to USDA clearly demonstrated the opposition—based on participant reports: 337 testified against NAIS, 20 testified for a voluntary program and 33 testified for a mandatory program. The people have spoken clearly on the issue of NAIS.