Thanks to a letter to the editor, in the September 25, 2006 issue of Midwest Ag Journal, by Lee Cornell, I became aware of how the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture plans to use premise id with non-animal farms. In other words premise id for farmers who only raise crops. Here is a quote from the PDA website.

Is PAFarms Just For Animals?

No, PAFarms is not just for animal farms. Similar to PDA’s need to notify animal producers in the event of a disease outbreak in their area, PDA also needs the capability to notify non-animal farm owners of plant pathogens that may impact their area. Whether it is plum pox or some other emerging disease of commercial plants or crops, knowing what to look for, and who to notify becomes critical information. Additionally, in the event of a chemical spill or wind-borne pollutant event that can impact the safety of crops grown within an impacted area, identifying and notifying farm owners becomes a critical activity for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. From time to time waterways may experience a chemical spill incident that can impact farms many miles downstream. If PDA has the capability to rapidly identify and notify these landowners of the event, then the damage can be minimized and the agent can be contained before it enters the human or animal food supply via crops.

On the surface, these seem like good ideas to ensure public safety, especially in light of the latest outbreak of E. Coli in spinach. (Here is a link to a FAQ list about the tainted spinach.) Companies that package farm produce know where their inputs come from. It is questionable whether or not premises id would have made a difference in this case. Lot numbers from packaged food provide the traceback to the packaging facility.

The other reasons cited are interesting as well. Do emerging diseases require immediate notification, or can this be handled in a reasonable amount of time? Problem solving with chemical spills and wind-borne pollutants should be addressed in a preventative manner. Perhaps these chemicals and pollutants are too dangerous to be allowed. Should any farmer have to give up their freedom because of reckless behavior of a chemical applicator?

Speaking of wind-borne pollutants, what about BT or GMO contamination of fields? How will this system help out the farmer after the damage is done? I am suspicious because of the danger that this danger could be used by big agribusiness to go after farmers of contaminated crops. Once you, “accidentally”, have their biotechnology in your fields you are in danger of being sued – just ask Percy Schmeiser!

Beware of the double-talk and spin that is put out by the USDA and state departments of agriculture on the premises id programs. You are giving up your privacy and your rights. And, it might just land you in court!