Mad Sheep: A Vermont Farm Family Challenges National Animal Identification

By Linda Faillace

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is the latest in a series of Orwellian schemes developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to promote corporate agriculture while weakening, if not destroying, small farms across America. The stated goal of the program is, “to establish a system that can identify all premises and animals that have had direct contact with a foreign animal disease or a domestic disease of concern within 48 hours of discovery.” Anyone who owns poultry, deer, elk, horses, goats, sheep, cattle, llamas, alpacas, pigs, and/or fish will be impacted by the proposed program.

Twenty years ago, the United States maintained the treasured reputation as having the safest food supply. Yet today, more and more American agricultural products are banned from export. What happened? Along with destroying the organic standards, the USDA has repeatedly pushed unwanted products and technologies on the public, everything from irradiation and bovine growth hormone treatments to GMOs. Not only are these forced on American consumers, but the USDA uses them worldwide as political weapons.
When Europe experienced outbreaks of various animal diseases (bovine spongiform encephalopathy [mad cow disease] and foot and mouth disease) and a variety of food safety scares (tainted soft drinks and dioxin in pork), the European governments worked hard to restore consumer confidence in the food supply. The first thing which improved was communication. Committees comprised of government officials, university scientists, industry researchers, farmers, and producers were created to review current research and help develop government policy which would increase animal health and ensure the safety of food products.

In response to the “mad cow” scare, Europe established an EU animal identification program which is able to trace an animal throughout its life, a surveillance program to monitor animals on farms for signs of the disease, and an extensive testing program (any bovine over 30 months of age is tested for BSE before being approved for human and/or animal consumption). As a result of these actions, consumer confidence increased as did sales of meat products.

So why would this system not work in the United States? As Thomas Jefferson said, “When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear their government there is tyranny.” The United States government has lost the trust of the American people, and in particular, the USDA has lost the trust of consumers worldwide in its ability to provide a safe, nutritious food supply. This is a direct result of Washington's “revolving door” policy. Lawyers, advocates, and lobbyists for large corporations and/or special interest groups leave their positions to work for the U.S. government where they are able to push through legislation for issues they worked on, and then return to their positions, perhaps to do another round at a later date. The doors have been revolving for many decades, but with the Bush Administration it practically came off its hinges. More than 100 top officials in the Bush administration are now swinging through the doors.

As noted in Philip Mattera's report “How has Agribusiness Hijacked Regulatory Policy at the U.S. Department of Agriculture:” In its early days, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was dubbed the“People's Department” by President Lincoln, in recognition of its role in helping the large portion of the population that worked the land. Some 140 years later, USDA has been transformed into something very different. Today it is, in effect, the “Agribusiness Industry's Department,” since its policies on issues such as food safety and fair market competition have been shaped to serve the interests of the giant corporations that now dominate food production, processing, and distribution. We call it USDA Inc.
According to Carol Tucker Foreman, former USDA assistant secretary under President Carter, “Whether it's intentional or not, USDA gives the impression of being a wholly owned subsidiary of America's cattlemen. Their interests rather than the public interests predominate USDA policy.” Our family's battle with the USDA was a prime example of this bureaucracy doing the bidding of those they were supposed to be overseeing.

My husband, Dr. Larry Faillace, and I worked with the USDA for years to import purebred European dairy and meat sheep. When the animals arrived in Vermont in 1996, they were the first to be enrolled in USDA's “Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program (VSFCP).” Scrapie is a disease of sheep from the same family of diseases as BSE, has been documented for more than 200 years, and is endemic in the United States. Once animals had been monitored for five years without any signs of the disease, a flock was certified “free” of scrapie. However, when we completed all the requirements, instead of giving us our certification, the USDA put our farm under quarantine, machinated false test data in an attempt to justify seizing our animals, stole our entire flock seventeen days before our scheduled Second Circuit Court hearing, killed every single animal, and then illegally quarantined our farm for five years—for a disease which does not exist.

The United States lagged woefully behind the rest of the world in testing cattle for BSE. By seizing our sheep, the USDA thought they would be perceived as aggressively preventing BSE from occurring in the United States, and because of our enrollment in the scrapie program, we were an easy target. But even Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” pointed out the fact that the USDA in its zeal to keep mad cow disease out of the country went after sheep—not cows.

When BSE was finally discovered in American cows, the USDA was suddenly whistling a different tune. All the animals on the cattle farms did not have to be destroyed, the farms did not have to be quarantined, and business could continue as usual. But business did not go on as usual. Japan, the United State's largest export market for beef ($4 billion), quickly shut the doors on American beef. Since Japan tests every single animal sent to slaughter, they wanted the USDA to guarantee that any animal destined for the Japanese market was also tested. The USDA refused. In fact, when Japan finally succumbed to political pressure and re-opened the export market to the United States, the USDA announced the following day that testing of American cattle for BSE would be reduced by 90 percent. Now less than .001 percent of all cattle slaughtered in the United States are tested for BSE.

Just as the scrapie program began as a voluntary program and a few years later became mandatory, the NAIS is being touted as voluntary, but the USDA said it may “move toward a requirement for mandatory premises and animal identification for all species included in the system. If the USDA does decide to make all or parts of the NAIS mandatory, we will follow the normal rulemaking process. The public will have the opportunity to comment upon any proposed regulations.” Yet when the USDA first allowed public input for NAIS, the period lasted a mere eight weeks, from July 14, 2004 to September 13, 2004 (note that it was at a time when farmers are at their busiest).

And how seriously does USDA take public input? In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA.” The arrogance of the agency has only grown. During a press briefing on April 27, 2004 regarding NAIS, Jim Phillips of Progressive Farmer Magazine asked of Bill Hawks, the USDA Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulating Programs, “Does the USDA currently have authority to establish a mandatory system in the animal ID, or must you wait for one of the bills that are currently proposed in Congress to be passed for that mandatory authority?”

Secretary Hawks responded, “Yeah. If you weren't such a good person I'd answer you real curtly and say, yes, we do. But since you're such a great guy I'm going to go ahead and tell you why. The Animal Health Protection Act gives us broad authority to take measures that will address animal health issues and a very easy read of that is we do have the authority to address the animal ID system in a mandatory fashion if we so chose.”

It is critical that this program, and ultimately the agency, be stopped. Government officials have mastered using fear as a weapon—urging us to trust them to protect ourselves—and few issues are more important than the safety of our food supply. Buying local and supporting our neighbor farmers is one step, but identifying elected officials who will work towards the goal of supporting a local food system is imperative. The NAIS is a nonpartisan issue. With elections right around the corner, ask all the candidates for their stand on the NAIS and vote for those who are opposed to it.

Linda Faillace is the author of the recently released book Mad Sheep: The True Story behind the USDA's War on a Family Farm, published by Chelsea Green Publishing.