My in-laws are at the farm this week helping us (doing most of the work) finish up the last few inside projects before the newly instituted loan deadline. What that means for me though is that I now have a couple new issues of the “Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman”. Below you will find some quotes from an editorial that I found rather interesting. I have left out a few words so as not to give away the subject right away, but it might work to put the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in the place of the missing words…
“Several ??? groups, and the lawmakers who support them, are using the passage of ballot initiatives as launching pads to impose even stricter rules on how farmers care for livestock.”
“While the proposed rules are always couched as better for animals, the long-term goal appears to be placing burdensome and unreasonable restrictions on livestock farmers.”
“That would raise costs and reduce production of meat and other animal products, ultimately making those products less available and less affordable for consumers.”
“That, in turn, would help to promote the goal of many of the ??? groups…”
“In the end, these groups truly want Americans to throw away a food system that is the envy of the world because it provides abundance, wholesomeness and diversity at an affordable price.”
Now, if you haven’t figured it out already this editorial writer is talking about specifically about the humane livestock laws (or whatever they are calling them) that have recently passed in places like California. But, I think all of those quotes could have easily been referencing the much talked about NAIS …
Why won’t the Iowa Farm Bureau, and other organizations like them, speak out against the NAIS loudly? It is set-up to trample on the rights of farmers and citizens of the United States just as much as this legislation that I have seen them right about alot in the pages of their publications…
Did organizations like the Iowa Farm Bureau bother to speak out against the “humane livestock” ballot initiative before they were approved by California voters? Or, were they afraid of being unfairly portrayed as being in favor of animal cruelty if they stated their concerns about the unintended (or intended) consequences if the ballot initiatives were approved? Was a rational debate about the “humane livestock laws” even possible?
How many “grass-based” farms and their advocates applauded the passage of the California ballot initiative? Did they realize (either then or now) what the goals of the initiative actually were?
Now, with the NAIS being sold as a “food safety” law, isn’t the same sort of atmosphere being created? How do you argue against NAIS without being seen by the general public as a monster that is willing to risk poisoning children in the pursuit of profits?
The next proposal will be a “carbon tax” or “livestock emission tax”, with no debate once again. How do you argue against a “carbon tax” on your livestock when 3rd graders are testifying before Congress that the world is going to end due to global warming because farmers only care about profit?
It would be nice to actually have an intelligent public debate on these types of subjects, to help explain and expose the implications and hidden agendas of proposals. Of course, that would make it harder to pass these types of proposals into law (and that is the last thing “we” want).
Rich – I don’t know about other organizations, but the Iowa Farm Bureau (and maybe the National Farm Bureau) did speak out against the ballot initiative in California. In fact I heard about it quite a bit through different sources (both sides of the debate).
You are right that there are many that applaud “humane” laws like the one passed in California … we will see what the next step is, or if there is a next step.
Hasn’t there already been a proposal for a “livestock emission tax”. Open debate … sometimes it sounds like a pipe dream, but I was encouraged to get different feedback from non-farmers after the Epi-Log post on NAIS. Maybe there is hope on this one.