Hello,
I am a consumer of sustainable foods and friend to many small farmers who fear that NAIS will put them out of business. After reading all of the hearing testimony, it seems to me that the primary motivation behind NAIS is for our export markets.
It seems that NAIS is detracting from attention on prevention, inspection, and testing for animal disease, and instead using our resources for tracking, which is only good AFTER we have disease already here. I'd prefer to see us prioritize on prevention FIRST (for example, keeping all downer cows out of livestock feed) and then work on testing (like testing > 0.1% of cows for BSE). Without doing those two things first, in the case of BSE, it seems like we would be allowing a problem to form and grow for a long time before we would discover it and then use an animal ID system to track down the sick animals.
If a national animal ID system IS in fact necessary for our export markets, why can't we make it mandatory for farmers who export live animals or animal products but truly voluntary for all others. The problem is that there are two food systems in this country - the industrialized, mainstream one, and the small, sustainable local one - but we are making policy that only works for the mainstream system. Those of us who are trying to improve our health and our safety (not to mention our environment and our communities) by opting out of the industrialized system and buying from local farmers should not be punished with one-size-fits-all laws. It seems to me that if NAIS is to benefit an export market, then we are putting the needs of the international community above the needs of U.S. citizens and I find that unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Jill
