On this page:

State Health Services proposes new regulations for dairy 

2009 Texas Legislative Session and NAIS

Proposed Rules for Raw Dairy and Cheesemaking

Other Agriculture and Animal Related Bills In the 2009 Texas Legislature

Past Texas News

Proposed Dairy Regulations

The Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) is proposing new regulations that will restrict the public's access to raw milk!  The agency already restricts Grade A licensed producers to selling directly to consumers "at the point of production," i.e. the farm.  This has caused problems for licensed farmers and their customers, and has discouraged many other farmers from becoming licensed.  Now, the agency proposes to make it even harder to get Grade A raw milk, by restricting the sale and distribution to the final consumer at the point of production, i.e. at the farm.
 
The agency should be improving access to raw milk, not restricting it!  A coalition of nonprofit organizations and individuals have asked the agency to change the regulation to allow licensed farmers to deliver milk to their customers, at their homes, designated drop points, and farmers markets.
 
Allowing the farmer to deliver the milk to their customers has many benefits:
 
1) Improves safety: A farmer who delivers milk to his or her customers can ensure that the milk is kept at a safe temperature during the transportation.
 
2) Helps the environment and saves energy:  Forcing individual consumers to drive to a farm that may be 50-150 miles away wastes gas and creates air pollution.  Having the farmer make a single trip with the product reduces traffic on our roads, reduces our dependence on oil, and keeps our air cleaner.
 
3) Respects individuals' choices:  Consumers who wish to buy raw dairy products already have to make the effort to seek out sources for their food.  They should not be penalized by the State and forced to spend both time and money simply to pick the food up, when it is safer and more logical for the farmer to deliver it. 

Go to our Action Alerts page for the latest information.

2009 Texas Legislative Session and NAIS

Read the Myths & Facts about SB 682 / HB 3322, including a response to Texas Farm Bureau

The current law in Texas allows that the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) to make NAIS mandatory any time it wants to!  The law gives the agency agency authority to mandate NAIS directly or through exisitng disease control programs or by using coercive methods to force people into a so-called voluntary program.  This law was slipped through in 2005 before any of us knew about NAIS.

Senator Eltife and Representative Kleinschmidt have filed companion bills, SB 682 and HB 3322, to remove the TAHC's authority to make NAIS mandatory.  These bills are a critical step to protecting  Texans from a mandatory NAIS!

Some talking points for calls, faxes, and testimony are below.  Make it personal!  Tell them WHY you care about stopping NAIS (as a farmer, horse owner, consumer, etc) and that it's a very important issue for you!

Talking Points:

• NAIS will hurt Texas' economy.  There has been no cost analysis.  Costs will include the cost of the tags, hardware, software, time and labor. Small farmers and ranchers cannot afford NAIS. Service providers (veterinarians, feed stores, slaughterhouses, etc.) will be harmed when the farmers and ranchers go out of business. Costs will be passed on to consumers, raising the price of food and fueling inflation.

• Neither the USDA nor the TAHC has scientific proof show that NAIS will improve disease control.  NAIS does not address the cause, treatment, or transmission of disease, in domestic or wild animals.  It does not significantly improve on current methods for identification and tracking of disease.

• NAIS is not a food safety program.  Contamination of food with e. coli and other bacteria occurs at the slaughterhouse or afterwards, while NAIS will stop before that point, when the animal dies.

• NAIS infringes on people's constitutional rights, including due process, privacy, and religious freedom.

More About the Bills: 

SB 682/ HB 3322 would limit NAIS to a voluntary program only.  The bill includes important protections;

• people must be told the program is voluntary before being enrolled
• individuals have the right to withdraw at any time
• no person -- including both government and private entities -- can require participation in NAIS as a condition for any service, license, benefit, etc.  In other words, no carrots or sticks can be used to force people into the program
• the agency cannot require NAIS premises registration or animal identification as part of other government programs, including existing disease control programs
• the agency must notify the people who are already registered that they can withdraw 

The bill includes a provision that allows the TAHC to make NAIS mandatory if and only if the USDA adopts a final rule mandating the program.  This is not ideal, but the language has been carefully limited.  Guidance documents, like the Business Plan and User Guide, would not trigger the provision, and the TAHC could not move any faster or farther than the USDA's final rule.  Ultimately, we must fight NAIS at both the state and the federal levels.  Passing SB 682 would provide important protections for Texans, and also send a signal to Congress that Texans don't want NAIS!

Download one of the flyers on our Take Action page to help spread the word!

Other Bills of Interest

In addition to the anti-NAIS bills, FARFA is supporting the following bills this session:

SB 1027 (Senator Watson) and HB 1840 (Representative Kleinschmidt) - Relating to the establishment of an interagency farm-to-school coordination task force.  Click here for more information on these bills.

HB 378 (Representative Miller) - Relating to non-veterinary horse dentistry.  Click here for more information on this bill.

And there are many more other agriculture-related and animal related bills currently before the Texas Legislature.  Clicke here for more information, updated March 29, 2009  

Hundreds of agriculture-related and animal-related bills have been filed this session.  This document lists the ones that we think are potentially of interest to our members, highlighting those we are tracking.  To learn more about any of the bills, go to the Texas Legislature Online site.  Type the bill number into the box, click the circle next to "bill number," and then click "go." 

Proposed Rules for Raw Dairy and Cheesemaking

In March, the Texas Department of Health released draft rules governing milk and dairy products in Texas.  For several years, raw milk farmers in Texas have struggled with the restriction that raw milk may be sold directly to the consumer “only at the point of production, i.e. at the farm.”  The draft rule would have made it even harder, by requiring that the farmer “offer for sale and distribute raw milk directly to the final consumer only at the point of production, i.e. at the farm.”  This new provision would prevent people from picking up their milk through carpools, agent arrangements, etc.  The draft rule would have also required raw milk farmers to turn over a list of their customers to the government, and prevented people from even possessing raw milk that is not labeled and graded outside of their home.   The draft rules also create extensive permitting and regulatory burdens on family farms making farmstead cheeses. 

Over 800 comments were submitted in response to these draft rules, and the agency has postponed its formal rulemaking process to provide time to review all of the comments.  Together with other organizations, FARFA submitted comments to the agency (read here) and then met with agency officials in March to discuss the issues.  Stay tuned for more information!

  Texas Elections

Check out the candidates' positions on NAIS.  If you don't see your candidates listed on that page, call and ask them for their position on NAIS!  Email us the information at Info@FarmAndRanchFreedom.org and we'll post it on the website.

Mandatory Tagging of Dairy Cows Went Into Effect March 2008

In May 2007, the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) proposed a regulation to require that all dairy cattle be identified with an "official device or device approved by the Commssion."  FARFA sent out an action alert and submitted comments to the agency opposing adoption of the regulation. At the September TAHC meeting, the Commissioners voted to approve the regulation despite the objections raised by FARFA and dozens of Texans. After additional protests, implementation was delayed until January 1. 

FARFA filed a petition to change the rule, but TAHC denied the petition at its September 2007 meeting.  The agency did extend the deadline for implementation until March 30, 2008.  Although the agency is stating that it will allow multiple forms of identification to be used, the rule leaves the decision as to what type of tag to require entirely within the agency's discretion, and they can change their minds anytime they want to.  
 
We can petition and comment to the agency, but the agency is under no legal duty to do anything different than what they have planned.  The bottom line is that we need the Texas Legislature to rein in the agency's legal authority through legislation.  The next legislative session is 12 months away, but the Senate and House Committees on Agriculture will hold hearings during 2008 on a variety of issues.  So it's a good time to tell your elected officials that you want them to take action to deal with TAHC.

More Information

"What's the downside?"  That's the question I put to the Commissioners at the meeting. If the agency is telling the truth, and it has no intention of using the regulation to require electronic tagging and premises registration in the future, then why not make the language of the regulation reflect the stated intention?  It would be a step in the right direction in regaining the trust of Texas animal owners, and would do the agency no harm.  Yet not one Commissioner spoke up in favor of considering a change to limit the agency's authority to impose electronic tagging.  It's clear that the agency's agenda has not really changed since they tried to impose mandatory NAIS in February 2006 - they've simply decided to do it piecemeal and in disguise.
 
Thank you to Stayton Weldon, Regional Director for R-CALF USA!  He made a long drive to Austin to testify to the Commissioners that cow/calf owners oppose NAIS, and that R-CALF supported FARFA's petition to change the dairy cow rule 100%.  Even though the Commissioners disregarded both our testimony, this type of unity is what we need to succeed in the long run.
 
Unfortunately, only one dairyman showed up to testify.  He was not there to support the petition to limit the agency's authority.  Instead, he put forward a proposal for a tag to be issued by the agency with a code on it that only the agency would be able to link to the original owner. 
 
If you are a dairy cow owner, and you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing, then next time you need to show up and testify.  FARFA will always stand up for your rights, but we can have a much greater impact if concerned individuals also come to hearings and tell the Commissioners and legislators that this is an important issue to them. 
 
Regardless of who you are, please take a few minutes now to tell your legislators that you are against NAIS, including this back-door method of implementing it incrementally species-by-species.
 

2007 --- Old News: HB 461 is dead for this session  

Texas currently has a law that allows the state agency to implement NAIS on a mandatory basis at any time. HB 461 would have removed the agency’s authority to make NAIS mandatory and the civil and criminal penalties that are in the current statute, along with protections against misleading information or coercion being used to force people into NAIS.  The House voted to approve it, 88-57, and the Senate Committee on Natural Resources approved an amended version.  But Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst did not bring the bill to the floor for a vote. 

So, for now, TAHC keeps its authority to make NAIS mandatory.  We will be watching the agency closely in the nineteen months between now and the next legislative session.
 
There are legislators and organizations we need to thank -- and many others that we need to hold responsible for not representing the interests of Texans.
 
But we'll leave the discussion of the who's and why's for a little later.  Right now, despite out disappointment and anger, let's look at what we accomplished.  The political insiders said we'd never get our bill out of the House, and certainly never get it through the Senate committees.  We fought every step of the way, and we got further than the proponents of NAIS (and even some of our friends) ever thought we would.
 
Just over a year ago, most Texas legislators had no idea what NAIS even was.  Now, a majority of the House voted to strip the TAHC of its authority to make NAIS mandatory, and we had a majority of the Senate who would have voted for the bill, if given the chance.  And those who blocked the bill know we will not go away quietly - our calls yesterday showed them that!
 
Thank you to all of the people who called and wrote their legislators, who supported FARFA by becoming members, and who came to the Texas Independence Day rally to show the legislators how much the people of Texas care about independent agriculture.  You truly made a difference.
 
The industrial agriculture interests and technology companies have spent almost 20 years developing their plans for NAIS.  In the space of 1 year, we've made them and the legislators sit up and take notice of us.  We won't give up.  We can, and will, win this fight in the long run.

Stay tuned for an analysis of the who's and why's of what happened, along with plans for where we go from here.  Our fight to protect independent agriculture has just begun!

HB 461 was approved by the House of Representatives on April 24, 2007

 A floor amendment was also approved that included the protections from HB 637, to insure that "voluntary" really means voluntary.  HB 461, as approved, would: (1) require the agency to give full disclosure and get informed consent before registering anyone; (2) allow a person to withdraw from the program at any time; and (3) forbid any person (which includes government agencies) from conditioning "any service, benefit, license, payment, or permit on participation" in the program.  In other words, people would be free to buy and sell animals, get feed, go to a veterinarian or a show, without being part of NAIS. The bill even requires the TAHC to notify those people already registered, and inform them that they have the right to withdraw.

BACKGROUND - 2007

The current law in Texas gives the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC)  the authority to implement NAIS on a mandatory basis, including the power to impose civil and criminal penalties if people do not comply.  See section 161.056 of the Agriculture Code here.

Texas Representatives introduced three bills that would amend section 161.056 to limit NAIS.  HB 461 originally insered the word "voluntary" into the statute, and remove the civil and criminal penalties.  HB 637 had additional protections to insure that "voluntary" really means voluntary.  HB 3573, introduced on March 9, would delete section 161.056, and replace it with the pre-2005 version that provided for identification of exotic animals and limits such identification to a voluntary program. 

On March 12, HB 461 was approved by the House Committee on Agriculture by a unanimous, 7-0 vote.  On April 24, HB 461 was amended to include the protections from HB 637, and then approved by the Texas House.

Report on the House Committee Hearing on HB 461 (2007)

Chairman Miller provided a committee substitute for HB 461 that incorporated all of the protections from HB 637: (1) full disclosure before anyone is signed up; (2) the right to withdraw at any time and have one’s information deleted; and (3) a non-discrimination clause that states: “A person may not condition a service, benefit, license, payment, or permit on participation in a program under this section.”  In other words, private companies and the government could NOT force anyone to sign up for NAIS in order to buy feed, be in 4-H, go to a sales barn, get a veterinarian’s help, etc.

The Committee heard several hours of testimony on the bill, and ultimately left the bill pending for another meeting.  For more details on the hearing, keep reading.  As we keep repeating, please contact your own Representative and Senator to ask for their support.

When HB 461 came up, Chairman Miller handed over Chairmanship of the Committee to Vice-Chair Anderson.  Representative Miller then explained why he was sponsoring HB 461.  He gave a wonderful discussion about why NAIS is not needed, speaking at length about all of the tracking and disease control programs that we have already.

Vice-Chair Anderson then started the public testimony phase of the hearing by calling FARFA to speak.  After FARFA, several other organizations and individuals testified, mostly in favor of the bill and limiting NAIS.  Below is more information on all the testimony.  I apologize in advance if I spell anyone’s name wrong or don’t hit all of the points they think should be mentioned from their testimony!  This discussion is just based on my notes from the day.

FARFA kicked off the morning testimony by testifying for the bill.  Our testimony addressed (1) the lack of scientific support for the program; (2) the costs in both money and our freedoms; (3) the problems Australia has experienced; (4) and what USDA and other states are doing.  The written copy of the testimony is at http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/HB461-testimony-2.27.06 

Exotic Wildlife Association testified for the bill.  Their speaker made some excellent points about what happened to the elk market when NAIS was required for them last year.  Elk bulls that had been selling for $1,200 or $1,300 weren’t selling at all, while cow prices dropped from $500 or $600 to $100.  Many people simply decided to stop buying or selling elk because of the regulations, which have since been changed.  She also spoke to the problems with tagging every animal, since some species simply won’t tolerate being confined in a chute or handled that way.

Diane and George Moore both testified against the bill because it isn’t a full repeal of the program.

Tony McClenny testified for the bill, even though he wants a complete repeal.  He is the Farm Bureau director in Coryell County and spoke about the way the FB resolutions have been happening.  He described them as being driven from the top down. 

The afternoon testimony can be watched at http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/broadcasts.php?session=80&committeeCode=020

Dr. Don McLeod kicked off the afternoon session by testifying for the bill.  He spoke about his long experience as a veterinarian with the existing mechanisms for addressing disease, and the Texas traditions of freedom and independence.  Like many, he too wants a full repeal but supported the bill.

Then we got to the pro-NAIS people.  Jay Gray, Texas Farm Bureau, testified against the bill.  Chairman Miller posed some very hard questions to him about why Farm Bureau is opposed to the bill, since they claim to be in favor of a voluntary program.  Ultimately, the answer appeared to be that they want the “flexibility for it to be mandatory at some point in time.”  Both Chairman Miller and Vice-Chair Anderson asked hard questions about how the policy had been made and whether Farm Bureau had polled its members.

Josh Gardner, Cattle Feeders Association, testified against the bill. He claimed that Texas would “lose the safeguards we already have in effect” because the bill would prevent any type of mandatory identification, even for existing programs such as scrapie.  Chairman Miller told him that it just wasn’t so.  As with Farm Bureau, Chairman Miller asked Cattle Feeders about how the decision to support NAIS (and oppose this bill) had been reached.  When Gardner admitted that it had been the Board of Directors, and not the members, who developed the policy, both Chairman Miller and Vice-Chair Anderson said they were members of Cattle Feeders and they did not agree with the policy! 

Dr. Bob Hillman then testified for the Texas Animal Health Commission.  The agency can’t testify for or against a bill, only “on” it, but Dr. Hillman was clearly opposed to it.  Like the Cattle Feeders, he claimed that it will stop the already-existing disease control programs, and he and Chairman Miller went back and forth over that issue for quite a while.

Jimmy Gaines, Texas Landowners Council, testified for the bill.

Pam Cantwell testified for the bill as an individual.  She gave a passionate speech about freedom, including her father’s service in the military, and what NAIS would mean for horse owners.

Brad Stufflebeam, Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, testified for the bill.  He painted a compelling picture of the importance of small farmers and local foods, and the harm that NAIS would cause.  Both Brad and Pam said they want a full repeal, but support the bill.

Texas Eagle Forum filed an affidavit to support the bill.  Randy Givens, Mary Beth Westcott, Mike McGeary, and Jeremiah Griffin all filed affidavits as individuals supporting the bill without testifying.

The Texas Association of Dairymen and the Texas Public Policy Foundation filed affidavits “on” the bill.

Last, Ken Hodges, Texas Farm Bureau’s lobbyist, stood up to try to address Chairman Miller’s questions to the previous Farm Bureau speaker, basically saying that they were simply following their policy that supports the current statute.  He noted that the Texas Farm Bureau’s first policy on NAIS was adopted in 2004, supposedly in response to the 1st case of BSE.