There is an excellent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times this morning by small farmer Shannon Hayes of upstate New York which explains precisely how and why the National Animal Idenitifcation System (NAIS) will hurt small farms and benefit industrial agriculture. NAIS, of course was proposed as a way to limit the spread of diseases like Mad Cow, and allow traceability within the global food system.
I'll let you read the original to get the details, but the arugment revolves around two key points.
First is the classic "cost of entry" argument: industrialized farming is already high tech and standardized, and animals are handled en masse, so the addition of a little record keeping is a minimal intrusion. But for small diversified producers it can cost an added 10% or more of sales, and take 10% of the farmer's time. That's just not supportable.
Second is that, as Shannon points out, these controls are unnecessary -- the same way that organic certification is unnecessary -- when food is produced and sold locally. Neighbors can see the farm, and know how the products were raised; if there is a problem it fairly quick and easy to solve. To include these kinds of local, quick feedback systems in a system designed for global production is a classic kind of "category error" and drives the market, and the food system inevitably toward more centralization -- just as we are discovering the weaknesses of that system.
We may need large, nationally distributed food production to feed the cities, but we shouldn't herd community-based farmers and farming into the slaughter shute in the process. A system like NAIS makes sense for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and for exporters but not for small farmers. The hearings before the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommitee of the Agriculture Committee in the House today (10:00 AM Longworth 1300) need to find a way to balance those two realities.
Shannon Hayes is also author of the Grassfed Gourmet Cookbook.
Comments