NAIS All Over Again

My primary source of income comes from an outside job. I work as a produce manager for a moderately sized grocery store that is part of a moderately sized chain. My earthly love is our small farm. I am telling you this so that you might have an understanding of where I am coming from.

A few days ago, I received an email at work from our supplier in Springfield, Mo. This email was forwarded from them and originated from the FDA. This is the first time, for the record, that I have gotten an email from a federal agency. What struck me about this was the language in it. I will share some of it with you.

They wrote: "The FDA has amended the nutrition information requirements for raw fruits and vegetables as well as fresh fish as of January 1, 2008. Retail stores are requested to voluntarily post the nutrition information in proximity to the relevant foods immediately." (emphasis is mine.)

The letter goes on to state that the FDA will begin surveying stores starting March 1, 2008. This is to determine if there is "...sufficient voluntary compliance." (Emphasis mine). And, "...and avoid mandatory regulation." It also states that if volunteer participation drops below 60%, the FDA has the right to mandate nutrition labeling. (Again, emphasis mine.)

There are things in this email that state, "...to encourage retail stores to participate...", "...voluntary point-of-purchase nutrition information program." "...post immediately...", "...remain posted indefinitely...", "avoid mandatory regulation...".

But I entitled this piece about the NAIS, didn't I? For those that might not know, NAIS stands for National Animal Identification System, and I am against it. What strikes me about this email, is that the language is terribly similar to that of the USDA (henceforth known as the USDuh!) language used in their plans to implement the NAIS. They seem to paint a pretty picture of a voluntary system, you know, one that you don't have to participate in if you don't want to, yet there is nothing about the NAIS that is voluntary. The USDuh uses the same language about mandatory compliance if you don't comply. Isn't this circular reasoning?

What I don't understand is, what part of "regulation" actually means "law"? Is a regulation a law? Folks, I believe that words mean things, and these are, clearly, two different words. I will comply with the FDA because my employer will require it. But to comply with the USDuh and its ideals goes against the very fiber of my American being. I urge you to carefully consider the language of the written plan the USDuh has published for the NAIS and how this will affect you and your ability to grow food fit to eat for your community and the ability of your fellow producers to do the same. Click on the link at the right to read more on this subject; www.nonais.org and start getting vocal. Do your part. Don't let the federal government take away your right to have and produce animals for the benefit of giant agribusiness. (Agribusinesses run by a schmo who never set foot on a farm in his life, by the way.)