New USDA Guide—Alleged Benefits
by Karin Bergener, Judith McGeary & Randy Givens

The User Guide repeats the same claims of disease control we’ve been hearing all along. Now, though, the Guide says NAIS is necessary for animal owners to “receive timely information” of disease threats (pages 2, 17, and 25). Will USDA employ a phone bank of people to call everyone in the affected area or use automated email?

Since they now claim NAIS is voluntary, and we know a lot of people will refuse to enroll in NAIS, their database will not contain the names and phone numbers of a large percentage of animal owners in any given area. Even if NAIS were mandatory, experience dictates that some people will refuse to comply with the law, so agency personnel would still have to “drive up and down rural roads” (page 12) if they want direct contact with each individual animal owner.

Radio, TV, and newspaper already offer an effective way to inform animal owners of a disease problem in their area. We don’t need NAIS to tell animal owners about an imminent threat of animal disease.

The User Guide trots out claims that the export market benefits all producers (page 11): “To maintain and protect prices for domestic commodities, it is crucial for international markets to stay open.” Yet USDA’s own statistics show that the United States imports three to eight times more beef than it exports. While international markets obviously affect prices, the benefits potentially gained from a tracking system to aid in the export of meat are not self-evident and require careful calculation, not vague claims.

The User Guide at least admits this (page 12): “USDA plans to have a cost-benefit analysis conducted that will help us more precisely forecast the potential economic benefits of NAIS.” Even though they have spent many years and tens of millions of dollars developing NAIS, USDA has never conducted a cost-benefit analysis to see whether or not this thing makes sense from an economic perspective.

Just as critical as what USDA says is what it omits. Nowhere does USDA indicate any interest in exploring more cost-effective and less intrusive means of obtaining the same alleged benefits. Any goal may be reached in many ways, yet USDA has decided NAIS is the only option, without scientific support or an analysis of the alternatives.

Conclusion
Don’t be fooled. The New User Guide appears to offer feel-good relief, but if you look into the details, it gives us no guarantee against a mandatory NAIS, unless and until we have a statute stopping it. Until Congress explicitly limits USDA’s authority and provides meaningful oversight, we remain subject to the whims of bureaucrats who have already shown that their concern lies with the industrial agriculture and technology companies, not with the vast majority of Americans who own animals.

Karin Bergener is an attorney in Freedom, Ohio. Judith McGeary is an attorney in Austin, Texas. Randy Givens of Paige, Texas, is a retired Army colonel. All three are livestock owners and cofounders of Liberty Ark Coalition established to defeat NAIS. Their article appeared in the Winter 2007 issue of Rural Heritage.