NAIS—not economically sound
by Karin Bergener

No one, federal or state, has done a cost-benefit analysis for premises or animal identification programs. If we look at the costs, though, the benefits would have to be far greater than any figures USDA has come up with. The costs aren’t just the tag; they include the tags, hardware, software, time, and labor. The totals are staggering. Estimating 100,000,000 cattle in the country, with an average cost of $50/head (other countries’ costs range from $37 in Australia to $69 in the United Kingdom) the cost would be $5,000,000,000 just for cattle.

Our economy can’t absorb such costs, whether they are funded privately through increased food costs or through taxes. If the government funds it, the costs will likely be more, because no market control will drive down costs. Even if the costs were eventually reimbursed or funded, many small farmer and ranchers cannot afford the upfront outlays.

Many of us have full-time off-farm jobs, and the added time needed to tag, track, and report would drive us out of the livestock business. This loss of small-scale farmers would affect service providers, including veterinarians, feed stores, auction houses, and meat processors, who will lose customers. The few remaining farmers will pass the costs on to consumers, fueling inflation.

Reduced Local Food Supply—That all of this leads to reduced local food production is no longer theoretical. In the last week of February this year, before microchipping of cattle became mandatory in Michigan on March 1st, slaughterhouses and auction houses in the state reported a significant increase in business. People were dumping their cattle. In an article published on April 20, 2007, by the Green Bay Press Gazette entitled “Amish farmers balk at farm ID numbers,” plain farmers in Wisconsin stated they will go out of business rather than register their farms.

As farmers go out of business, sources of locally grown food are reduced. People have to buy their food somewhere, so business will increase for the giant integrated agribusinesses. Basic economics tells us that, as competition decreases, prices are less responsive to the consumer.

A reduction in locally produced foods brings up health concerns, as well as economic concerns. The contamination of animal and human food with melamine sickened dogs and cats nationwide, and tainted pork (Washington Post, April 21, 2007 “Criminal Probe Opened in Pet Food Scare”). What would happen if the contamination of pork had gotten to the market and people were sick and dying all over the country? The pork industry is highly integrated, leaving few independent sources of pork products. If local producers no longer exist, where can consumers go for uncontaminated food?

The contaminated food was imported from China. While imports are supposed to meet United States standards for food safety, only a tiny fraction of them are actually inspected to ensure that safety.

Some politicians and industry officials have proposed making NAIS part of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), the purpose of which is to allow consumers to choose to buy high-quality domestic foods. COOL would thus allow Americans to buy American, even in the grocery store. Consumers will expect they are helping American farmers by buying food that was raised, slaughtered, and processed within this country. Unfortunately, if NAIS is implemented, the local American farmer won’t exist. NAIS undermines the goals of COOL.

Extraordinary Costs—In Texas, for reasons unknown, the elk industry decided to completely implement premises registration and animal tagging and registration. Immediately thereafter, according to testimony before Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas House Committee on Agriculture and Livestock, the elk market plummeted in Texas. Similarly, cattle dumping occurred in Michigan when premises registration and animal tagging went into effect. Such events suck the marrow out of rural America.

Folks who live in cities and suburbs may not appreciate how much rural America relies on agriculture. If independent farmers go out of business, and their suppliers lose customers, many people lose the ability to make a living.

In his article “Below-Cost Feed Crops; An Indirect Subsidy for Industrial Animal Factories,” published by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Dennis Olson states that multinational agribusinesses purchase their supplies from all over the world, sometimes below cost. You know they won’t turn to local grain producers to feed their animals. We’re not being extremist to consider farmers going on public assistance so they can feed their families, when before NAIS they would have fed themselves, as well as others, from their farms.

Export Markets—Proponents of NAIS have argued that it will help our export market and therefore benefit everyone in agriculture. But age- and source-verification is already available through the USDA’s Process Verified Program. Under this program, meat packers pay farmers and ranchers a premium for going through the extra work and expense of raising traceable animals. If NAIS is implemented, and every animal must be traced because of government regulations, the meat packers will be able to get their age- and source-verified meat without paying any premiums. The only benefit will be to the exporters, not to the people raising the animals.

Back to: Where We Are

Karin Bergener of Freedom, Ohio, is an attorney and a cofounder of the Liberty Ark Coalition dedicated to defeating NAIS. This article appeared in the Spring 2007 issue of Rural Heritage.