NAIS—No Scientific Evaluation
by Judith McGeary

NAIS has one, and only one, goal: 48-hour traceback of all animal movements. NAIS does not address the prevention of disease. Instead, the USDA continues to propagate the myth that proper nutrition and low-stress livestock management make no difference to the incidence of disease.

NAIS does not address the diagnosis or detection of sick animals. Instead, the USDA continues to allow thousands of uninspected agricultural shipments across our borders, avoids using field tests for rapid diagnosis of illnesses, and fails to provide the training necessary for most veterinarians to recognize foreign animal diseases.

And NAIS does not address treatment of sick animals. Instead, the USDA’s plan if foot and mouth disease occurs in the United States is to draw 10-kilometer kill zones around infected animals and kill every susceptible animal within those zones. Can you imagine the public outcry if the FDA suggested that the best way to reduce the economic losses each year from incidence of flu was to avoid the spread by killing people who got sick? That is, in essence, the USDA’s answer to animal disease.

Instead of considering other possible means for addressing animal disease, USDA is pushing a program focused solely on traceback. With this goal in mind, government and industry officials have repeatedly stated they must have “100% participation” for the NAIS to be effective. Every person who owns even one laying hen, Shetland pony, milk cow, or pot-bellied pig must be in the system, just like the companies who own hundreds of thousands of poultry and swine or who operate huge feedlots of cattle.

We all know that not every situation poses the same risks. Scientists studying the spread of human diseases develop mathematical models and perform studies to determine the different levels of risk posed by different situations. In most business situations, the 80/20 rule is followed. It maintains that 80% of the “problem” will be managed if you address 20% of the cause. So where is it written that we need 100% registration of farms and animals to address disease control?

Other epidemiological questions include: Why is 48-hours the magic number for traceback? What types of movement are actually relevant? What kind of tracing do we need for air-borne diseases versus diseases spread by direct contact, versus diseases with little to no contagion risk (such as prion diseases)?

The first logical stop to seek answers is the USDA. After all, they’re the ones telling everyone the NAIS will control disease. Accordingly, I asked Neil Hammerschmidt, the USDA coordinator for the NAIS, who admitted he was not familiar with the studies and recommended I speak with Steve Weber in USDA’s Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health.

Weber told me he knew of only one specific study (which he co-authored) supporting the design of NAIS. He said the design is based on a variety of studies, along with looking at what other countries have done. He promised to send me the citation for his article, and to ask other people in the USDA if they know of other specific studies. He has never sent me any information.

I have also spoken with Dr. Wiemers, the head vet for USDA on NAIS, and multiple industry representatives. Each conversation has provided the same central message: {trust the experts.} Even if you were inclined to do so, the lack of any scientific support for their program destroys their credibility. And the pro-NAIS forces appear oblivious to the concept that a farmer might have a better grasp of what is needed for animal health than a desk jockey with a degree.

• No Cost Analysis
• We Must Do More

Judith McGeary is an attorney in Austin, Texas, and the executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, an organization representing independent farmers, ranchers, livestock owners, and homesteaders. This article appeared in the Winter 2007 issue of Rural Heritage.