 Sorting
through the supposed reality of an emerging National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) is a whole lot like snipe hunting:
it’s supposed 3to be out there somewhere, but danged if you can
get your arms wrapped around it.
Part of the puzzlement stems from
the fact that NAIS—even under ideal circumstances, which hasn’t
been the case—would still be in its nascent stages when folks
are trying to learn their way through it.
Similarly, the sheer volume and
complexity of the beef business means that as straightforward as
the notion is to ID and track livestock, accomplishing that is
fraught with logistical potholes. Throw in the fact that USDA is
trying to accomplish NAIS across all species at the same time
and the complexity is magnified.
Mostly, though, USDA continues to
hinder the progress of the very system it champions by
steadfastly dancing around the most prominent questions that
producers have. If you ever doubted that, all you had to do was
meander through the halls and meetings of the recent ID/Info
Expo hosted by the National Institute of Animal Agriculture in
Kansas City.
Resolve for a system of identification for the sole purpose of
animal health monitoring and animal disease control remains
among those who have been most involved in shepherding the idea
to its current state. In an informal survey of the approximately
600 meeting participants, 78% believe such a system is so
imperative to protecting the livestock industry that it should
be made mandatory.
Frustration with USDA hung
heavier than a wool horse blanket in an icy creek, though. In
that same survey 81% said that NAIS progress is running behind
expectations.
The Answer Is…No Answer
This frustration is best reflected by the fact that USDA has yet
to address the possibility of a mandatory program head-on. At
the meeting Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns repeatedly
dodged questions about whether USDA’s intent was to make and
maintain NAIS as voluntary or mandatory program. He stressed
that it is a voluntary program today and that he believes a
voluntary program is preferable. Yet, USDA’s NAIS Implementation
Plan (http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais)
issued in April states in black and white that adopting
mandatory regulations is a contingency plan for producer
participation.
Johanns also demurs from
questions aimed at assessing what level of voluntary
participation is required for effective animal health
trace-back.
Similarly, Johanns will not
provide an answer about the cost of the system, other than
alluding to the $83 million USDA has already poured into it. One
reason for that may be the fact that no such estimate exists,
despite repeated requests from the industry for a cost-benefit
analysis.
In a separate one-on-one
interview, Chief Veterinary Officer, John Clifford, was more
specific, implying that producers will be responsible for
purchasing and applying NAIS tags; he pointed out no state is
currently charging producers to register their premises with
NAIS, which is a prerequisite to obtaining official NAIS tags.
On the issue of money, there was
no public mention of the common knowledge that the General
Accounting Office is currently investigating NAIS at the bequest
of a senator. Nor was any mention made of the fact that there
remains some question about whether or not the $33 million in
federal dollars earmarked for NAIS next year will be frozen
until specific answers are provided to Congress, as was approved
in one of the appropriation bill that awaits conferencing.
Other key questions still unanswered:
Who guarantees confidentiality? For obvious reasons producers
are unlikely to provide any NAIS data if they believe there is a
chance it could be accessed by anyone other than state and
federal animal health officials. Johanns said, “I agree with
livestock producers who believe information about your livestock
is your business, period.”
Again, in a separate interview,
Clifford was more specific. He explains USDA has protected
producer information from prying eyes and the Freedom of
Information Act via the Privacy Act. However, state animal
health officials and others continue to emphasize the need for
legislation at both levels aimed at protecting NAIS data,
specifically.
What about working group
recommendations? Each livestock species devised its own working
group to make NAIS recommendations to the Secretary of
Agriculture. Those from the Cattle Industry Working Group were
submitted months ago and have yet to receive approval or denial
from USDA. That means, anything beyond premises registration
remains speculation. In turn, that means few producers are
likely to begin tagging cattle with NAIS tags until
species-specific recommendations are adopted.
Is it all for all and one for
all? Cattle and swine are more advanced in NAIS development than
any of the others. Some other species are just now getting
started, while some others continue to dig their feet in against
elements of the program. It’s difficult to imagine cattle
producers embracing a program like NAIS if other species are
allowed to sit on the sidelines.
Do you know what you’re talking about? The cooperative effort
between the livestock industry and the state and federal animal
health officials charged with protecting those industries
emphasized the need for a national system for animal health
purposes. Yet, Johanns continues to harp on his belief that the
market will drive NAIS adoption, that there are already economic
incentives in the domestic and international markets to provide
ID.
It’s true that in isolated
circumstances a few producers are able to command a higher price
for source verification or other process verification tied to
ID. Even if the economic incentives were high and widespread,
NAIS isn’t about those things. It’s about the nation’s ability
to better protect its livestock industry, period.
As Clifford stressed, “We need
this type of program for state and federal animal health
authorities to be able to effectively control and eradicate
diseases, whether it’s a Foreign Animal Disease, current program
diseases or new emerging diseases that may be on the forefront
tomorrow.”
Yesterday Was Too Late
Indeed. None of the industry’s frustration is to say that a
national system for the sole purpose of animal health monitoring
and animal disease control is superfluous. The industry needs it
and has needed it. In fact, relative to risk, you can argue that
the need grows with every new case of BSE confirmed in North
America and every foiled terrorist plot aimed at western
democracies. Keep in mind that agriculture is one of a handful
of this nation’s critical infrastructures which also happen to
be among the most enticing terrorist targets.
Instead, all of this is to say that producers need to lobby
their congressional and organizational representatives to demand
that USDA start providing specific answers to the necessary
questions they’re asking about NAIS. |
