By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A farmers’ advocacy group last Thursday filed a motion for reconsideration of its lawsuit against the USDA and Michigan Dept. of Agriculture (MDA) regarding the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and the state’s electronic animal tracking system.

On July 23 Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia District Court dismissed the case brought by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) against the USDA and MDA, stating that the proper venue for such a lawsuit was the state courts in Michigan. The farmers’ group started the lawsuit nearly a year ago on behalf of six Michigan farmers opposed to the state’s NAIS-like program, on religious and other grounds.

Its position is that the USDA is coercing MDA into adopting NAIS by using its authority over states’ Bovine tuberculosis(TB) status.
Collyer disagreed, stating that the USDA’s electronic ear tagging system is voluntary and that the mandatory system is Michigan’s alone.

A lower TB status would mean more expense to the state both in additional tax dollars spent monitoring and testing for TB as well as money lost to ranchers who weren’t able to move and market their cattle.

According to the MDA, the electronic livestock ID pilot project was launched in Michigan in November 2001 as part of the state’s TB eradication plan. Michigan is one of only a handful of states to use electronic animal ID on a regular basis. The MDA believes that the technology is increasingly important in light of emerging diseases such as avian influenza, BSE or Mad Cow Disease as well as TB. The MDA believes that the need to track livestock - from farm to market - as quickly as possible is essential to protect both animal and human health and ensure the safety of the country’s food supply.

The legal group and the farmers it represents believe there should, at least, be exceptions for people of faith for whom the electronic tagging system represents something evil or even satanic. Pete Kennedy, president of the FTCLDF, was disappointed in the judge’s decision. “The judge said we didn’t have standing, because there was no coercion, because Michigan implemented the premises ID on its own initiative,” Kennedy said. “She just glossed over it and didn’t give a lot of weight to (the arguments). We should have been allowed more discovery.”

Kennedy said the group wanted to be able to present evidence that the MDA was being coerced into enacting a mandatory NAIS program. The plaintiffs, in their motion filed last week, reiterated their belief that this coercion is taking place:

“The evidence contained in the administrative record and in the exhibits attached to papers filed with the Court demonstrates that USDA took key steps to implement its allegedly ‘voluntary’ National Animal Identification System (NAIS) as a mandatory program through its interactions with MDA. Plaintiffs alleged that it was USDA’s actions that directly influenced the decision and actions of MDA, the state regulatory agency.”

In its original complaint filed Sept. 8, 2008, the FTCLDF and its farmer plaintiffs stated that “USDA/APHIS is using the state of Michigan as a puppet to implement NAIS in the state of Michigan under the guise of eradicating TB ...”

Kennedy said that there is written evidence that MDA believed that, unless it pursued an electronic animal tracking system, it would lose its TB status.

If the group isn’t successful in its latest legal maneuver, it still would have other options. These include appealing the decision to a higher court or filing a claim against Michigan in a state court.