PASSED....
MISSOURI SECTION 267.168
The State of Missouri may support a voluntary animal identification program. The act prohibits the Missouri Department of Agriculture from mandating premises registration under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Animal Identification System (NAIS) program unless the Department is specifically statutorily authorized to do so.

Participants in the NAIS may withdraw from the program at any time and all of their personal information shall be deleted at the time of withdrawal unless a participant is part of an ongoing disease investigation.

The Governor may waive the provisions of this section if the provisions interfere with the marketing of Missouri livestock.



"Under NAIS, a program created by the United States Department of Agriculture, and being implemented by each state individually, anyone who has even one of 29 species (of animals) would register his home, farm, apartment, or other place where the animal is held." ~ Liberty Ark

National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

For latest updates about NAIS in Missouri - visit Missourians Against NAIS

USDA Issues NAIS Benefit-Cost Analysis - 4/29/2009            Read the Full Report
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service today released the results of a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The study, commissioned to provide comprehensive, objective economic information for producers, was completed by Kansas State University, with assistance from Colorado State University, Michigan State University and Montana State University.

The objectives, as defined by the research team, were to estimate the benefits and cost of adopting NAIS by the livestock and poultry industries, as well as to determine how net benefits are likely to be allocated among industry sectors, consumers and government.

Some of the study's findings include:
* Economic benefits in both the domestic and international marketplace resulting from enhanced traceability may be greater than the cost savings realized during animal disease control and eradication efforts.
* For industry, the effect of not implementing some aspects of NAIS (maintaining status quo) may result in significant losses -- up to $13.2 billion annually due to reduced export market access.
* Implementation of NAIS becomes more cost effective as participation levels increase and actually may not be economically viable at lower participation levels.
"We've always known what the traceability benefits of NAIS are, and now, with this study, we can better delineate the economic benefits and costs of adopting NAIS," said APHIS acting administrator Kevin Shea. "NAIS is a long-term investment in not only emergency preparedness and response but also in our ongoing animal disease control and eradication programs, the competitiveness of our livestock in international markets and in consumer confidence in our food supply."


WHAT IS NAIS?
NAIS is another expensive, large government program that discriminates against small farmers. Proposed by the USDA,

NAIS imposes on all livestock and animal owners a high-tech, high-cost livestock backtrack system requiring:
a. Registration of any premises where even one animal, a chicken, pet donkey, etc� is kept, in a database accessible to many agencies and foreign governments.
b. Radio Frequency ID (RFID) microchipping or tagging of every animal.
c. Reporting and recording each animal�s movements within 24 hours, under threat of severe penalty, including confiscation of animals and fines of $1000 per day, per infraction.

WHY WE OPPOSE NAIS
1. It will not work. In Australia and Canada, where it has been tried only on cattle, error rates are in the millions. USDA promises of efficacy are both premature and inaccurate. It will be a database nightmare, bogging the entire food system down in a quagmire of undeleted and unentered data.
2. Manipulation potential. With the significant data breaches that have occurred, especially in government systems, the temptation and/or propensity for price and market manipulation from global and industrial interests with this data is virtually unquantifiable.
3. Moving objective. Since first conceived, NAIS has been touted for disease prevention, then as a marketing technique. Proponents do not have a clear justification. USDA encouraged feeding dead cows to cows for 40 years until mad cow--so much for the trustworthiness of expert scientists.
4. Discriminatory toward community-based food systems. The requirements and infrastructure are highly prejudicial against small producers and local food systems. The provisions favor industrial and global producers and processors. To saddle small producers with industry problems is unconscionable.
5. Veterinarian-farmer enmity. County fairs, local abbattoirs, hatcheries, and veterinarians who have always been farmers' friends will become the new enforcement points. The ensuing mistrust and circumvention will destroy strength and safety.
6. Cost. So far, costs estimates vary from 40 cents per animal to $30 per animal--including chickens. The alleged cure is far worse than the disease. The paperwork alone, along with bureaucratic harassment, will force many small farmers to throw up their hands in surrender.
7. Unnecessary. Current prevention and tracking techniques are working well. Anyone who wants this type of tracking can already have it. A market driven and paid-for system accomplishes all the security necessary.
8. Government involvement means mandatory NAIS. USDA officials have made it clear that efficacy demands 100 percent participation. Any government program will soon morph into a mandatory one. Industry operated and funded is fine.
9. Faith. Ultimately, as with all government programs, this boils down to a matter of trust. Community-based food commerce engenders trust inherently with relationship transactions that are more accountable than bureaucraticallyoperated systems.
10. Historically unprecedented. For the first time in civilization, virtually every Little Red Hen must be registered in order to deliver one egg to her caretaker. Such licensing should surely give every American pause.

MANDATORY?
Due to massive opposition around the country, the USDA and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson appear to have changed their original position that NAIS be made mandatory at the federal level. Yet the USDA is giving large grants to State Agriculture Departments to push NAIS in each state, demanding that they achieve �full participation.� In earlier documents, USDA said that without �100% voluntary participation� registration will become mandatory. A few states have already required premises registration. Other states coerce registration when state programs, like 4-H and fairs, require registration to participate. Livestock markets are also under pressure, or taxpayer funded financial incentive, to require premises registration, and some have done so, forcing livestock owners to comply or suffer the loss.

PREVENT DISEASE?
NAIS does not prevent disease, or prevent disease from entering the food supply.

WE SUPPORT legislation that would defund NAIS.