Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity
  • Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:18:47 -0700


The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity
by Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.
P.O. Box 501 Canton, NY 13617
315-386-3199 mlz@slic.com
January 11, 2007

Like many small-farm advocates, I have been fielding questions over the
past
few weeks about the above survey being sent out by the National
Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS). Many people ask if there is any relationship
between the survey and the data being collected (often without the
knowledge
or consent of farmers) for the National Animal Identification System
(NAIS).
As we shall see, although USDA personnel wont admit it, NASS data is the
foundation of the USDAs aggressive pursuit of NAIS.

To my great surprise, in this morning's mail I myself received a 2006
Agricultural Identification Survey (2006 AIS). I say "to my great
surprise,"
because I am not and never have been engaged in any type of commercial
agriculture whatsoever. I have never before received any type of
communication from NASS.

The envelope states in very large letters, "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY
LAW." The envelope further states that the due date is January 29, 2007. As
explained below, it is clear that many people receiving this form are not
in
fact "REQUIRED BY LAW" to answer it. Further, a recipient has only a couple
of weeks between the receipt of the form and the purported deadline, and it
would be impossible for the average non-lawyer to do enough research within
that time to figure out whether he/she is or isn't actually required to
respond.

The form itself begins with several general questions, such as Do you own
or
rent any land? Do you grow vegetables, hay or nursery stock? Do you receive
government payments? The questions appear deliberately designed to imply
that anyone who would answer yes is among those REQUIRED BY LAW to fill out
this form. The USDA is thus casting a very wide net in this particular
intrusion into the lives of American citizens, because, frankly, just about
everyone who is not homeless owns or rents real estate; some 75 million
people in the United States grow vegetables; and some 60 million people
receive government payments. (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United
States, Table 1226 (vegetable gardening); Table 528 (government transfer
payments).)

Now, perhaps it is possible that this wide net might not be as intrusive as
it appears. After all, maybe NASS has only sent this form to people
reasonably assumed to be farmers. But in fact it was distressingly easy to
confirm that intrusiveness and deliberate over-inclusiveness are the
hallmarks of the NASS approach. This morning, I called the information
number listed on the form and spoke to a woman at the USDAs Helena, Montana
call center. According to her, the call center is being swamped with calls
from people who live in cities and have nothing to do with agriculture. She
stated that the call center employees really have no idea of why or how all
these people have been sent the 2006 AIS. When asked for some conjecture as
to how so many unnecessary people could have been included in the mailings,
the woman explained that, for example, anyone who had ever subscribed to a
horse magazine might have been included in the database.

Now, that raises interesting questions. How is the USDA/NASS getting the
sub*****ion lists of horse magazines? Why and how are horse magazines, or,
for that matter, any rural-life publication, any breed association, feed
store, or private or public livestock or horticultural enterprise
whatsoever, giving their member/subscriber/customer lists to the government
without telling their members, subscribers, or customers?

Or, worse yet, how is the government accessing such lists or databases
without the awareness of the businesses or organizations in question?
During
times when the Executive Branch of the United States Government has
secretly
gathered the records of most peoples incoming and outgoing phone calls, and
the President asserts a right to open your mail and my mail without a
warrant, this is not a trivial question.

Returning to the first page of the form, we see the wide net growing ever
wider. The form states: Many people who dont consider themselves farmers or
ranchers actually meet the definition of a farm or ranch and are important
to agriculture. We need your completed form even though you may not be
actively farming, ranching, or conducting any other type of agricultural
activity. Finally, the first page of the form reinforces the threat of the
REQUIRED BY LAW language of the envelope:

Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.
(Emphasis
in original.) (Note the single-double quotation marks the threat actually
is
in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-grade stylistic conceit of
quoting something to make it appear extra-important.) One senses evasions
aplenty here -- the form has referred to the definition of a farm or ranch
but nowhere tells us that definition. It suggests that anyone receiving a
form has a legal obligation to answer it, even though their enterprise may
not meet the definition of a farm.

Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions about the
definition of a farm and the possible legal penalties for not responding to
the 2006 AIS. Specifically, I asked if my understanding of the definition
of
farm as an operation with at least $1000 in sales from agriculture was
correct. (See 2002 Census of Agriculture, FAQs,
www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agriculture/frequently_asked_questions/index.asp
#1.)
Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC 2204g (d) (2), namely,
that a person . . . who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question
.
. . . shall be fined not more than $100, I noted that, insofar as the 2006
AIS actually contains 42 separate questions, it could be important to know
whether there was a separate $100 fine for each unanswered question, or
just
a single $100 fine for not answering the entire 2006 AIS. These questions
were beyond the purview of the call-center woman, so she made a note of the
questions, referred them to a member of the NASS professional staff, and
promised that the NASS staff member would call me with the answers.

The next day, January 12, 2007, I received a call from Jody Sprague, a NASS
statistician. First we addressed the question of the farm definition. Ms.
Sprague conceded that someone whose property or operation did not meet the
farm definition would have no obligation to answer the 2006 AIS. She also
conceded that the basic definition of a farm as an operation with at least
$1000 in agricultural sales was correct, but explained that in addition to
the gross sales figures, NASS also assigns certain point values for
particular agricultural activities. If the points add up to 1000, your
operation would meet the definition of a farm. When asked for an example of
how the point values work, Ms. Sprague explained that 5 equines would equal
a farm but 4 would not. (Subsequently, she explained that each equine
equals
200 points.) When asked how many cattle equal a farm, Ms. Sprague said she
did not know. At one point Ms. Sprague said that NASS wanted, through the
2006 AIS, to determine if they could delete people who should not be on
their mailing list. But for the most part she contended the opposite, e.g.,
that she would advise anyone who had received the form to fill it out; and
that even a person with one horse should complete the questionnaire,
although she previously had conceded that someone with fewer than 5 horses
would not meet the definition of a farm and therefore would not be required
to fill out the survey.

We next turned to the issue of how NASS may have compiled its mailing list
for the 2006 AIS. First Ms. Sprague maintained that the sources of the NASS
mailing list are confidential. I noted the call-center womans reference to
a
sub*****ion to a horse magazine as a source of names, and asked for some
other possible sources. Ms. Sprague said that growers associations, such as
the Wheat Growers Association and Barley Growers Association, were examples
of sources. I asked for more examples but she was reluctant to give any,
claiming that some are confidential and some are not confidential. She
explained the overall process of list building thus: as NASS comes across
lists where there are possibilities of agricultural activity, NASS
incorporates those names into its mailing list.

We returned to the subject of point values for different livestock.
Explaining that many people were likely to have questions about this, I
asked if Ms. Sprague could find out for me the point values of cattle or
other non-equine livestock. She put me on hold for a long while.
Subsequently, she gave me the following point values: beef cattle, 310
points per head; dairy cattle, 2000 points per head; goats and sheep, 50
points per head. (I wanted to ask about chickens, but I was getting the
distinct sense that I might be pushing my luck.)

Ms. Sprague stressed that she did not want people to be concentrating on
the
point values. For example, she noted that people should not say they have 4
horses if they really have 5 horses, because it wouldnt be ethical. (But
apparently under the NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those
Choicepoint-type consumer profiles to track your reading habits is
perfectly
ethical. And, as we shall see, the NASS moral code also permits forking
over
your data to states that are in hot pursuit of the NAIS
premises-registration quotas imposed as a condition for the states
continued
receipt of federal NAIS grant money.)

We went on to the question of the $100 non-compliance fine. Ms. Sprague
assured me that a farmers failure to answer any or all of the 42 total
questions on the 2006 AIS would only result in a single $100 fine. She also
said that the fine is rarely enforced and that if any producer chooses not
to report, no one from NASS would seek them out.

Finally, I asked Ms. Sprague if there were any relationships between NASS
and the APHIS NAIS program, and she said, Absolutely none. I asked her if
any other agency, state or federal, would ever be allowed to use NASSs
database to solicit premises IDs for NAIS, and she said, Absolutely not.
And
indeed, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2204g (f) (3), Information obtained [for NASS
surveys] may not be used for any purpose other than the statistical
purposes
for which the information is supplied.

Several weeks ago, Missouri antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series
of
questions about Missouris solicitation of NAIS premises IDs to Steve Goff,
DVM, the Animal ID Administrator of the Missouri Department of Agriculture
(MDA). Dr. Goff provided written answers on December 20, 2006. When asked
where the MDA had obtained addresses for its solicitation of NAIS premises
IDs, Dr. Goff stated: the mailing was done through a contract with the USDA
National Agricultural Statistics Service.

I wont answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey. Instead, I will send
a copy of this article to my Congressman and my two United States Senators.
I will ask them to have the House and Senate Agriculture Committees
investigate the rampant and shameful abuses of federal law and common
morality inherent in NASSs compilation of its mailing lists and use of
those
lists to promote the APHIS National Animal Identification System. Why will
I
do this? Because I dont live by the USDAs false code of ethics; I answer to
a higher authority.

--
M. Lillian Branga
Troy, New Hampshire
Farm: www.OthalaAcres.com
Shop: www.TygerLily.com






  • [Livingontheland] The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity, TradingPostPaul, 01/18/2007

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page