|
|
"The Other Side of the
Coin"
- National Animal Identification System |
There’s a lot of talk about the NAIS. Some people (especially those
in federal and state agencies, land grant university programs and some
cattle industry groups) are pushing for all ranchers to voluntarily
register premises and animals before the government makes it mandatory.
Other people (especially small farmers, family farms and ranches, and
horse owners) are skeptical or concerned about the plan and don’t want
to become involved.
WHAT IS THE NAIS?
The NAIS plan and the USDA’s strategies for implementing it can be
found on several government websites such as www.aphis.usda.gov and
www.usda.gov/nais. They will tell you the USDA initiated the plan as
part of ongoing efforts to safeguard U.S. animal health. NAIS is a
cooperative State-Federal-industry program administered by USDA’s Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The stated objective is an
information system that will enable animal health officials to respond
to emergencies such as outbreaks of foreign animal diseases or emerging
domestic diseases--with animal traceback to farm of origin within 48
hours, and a log of wherever that animal has been and what other animals
it may have exposed.
Components of the plan include premises ID (registration of every
facility, farm, ranch or home where target animals are kept, managed or
handled--and this would include sale yards, fairgrounds, veterinary
clinics, etc.), individual animal ID, and animal tracking. All cattle,
sheep, pigs, goats, captive deer and elk, equines (horses, donkeys,
mules), poultry, llamas and alpacas must be identified.
Touted as a voluntary program, USDA and individual states are
pushing for animal owners to sign up, offering incentives like free or
inexpensive registration of premises if we do it now. There are cost
sharing pilot programs to ID our animals; they tell us that if we wait
til later it will cost us more. As of March 2006, 235,000 premises (10
percent of the national total) had been registered; USDA predicts
475,000 of the 2 million premises will be registered by the end of 2006.
USDA says much of the NAIS is now operational and remaining elements
soon will be. USDA Secretary Johanns says the NAIS has been a high
priority “and we’ve made significant strides toward achieving a
comprehensive U.S. system. We recognize that this represents one of the
largest systematic changes ever faced by the livestock industry and we
have welcomed suggestions from stakeholders to ensure that we continue
to gain momentum.”
Goals were set early on. By June 2004, USDA had established
cooperative agreements with all states and tribes, and grant money was
given to them to get all premises under their jurisdictions registered.
Some states are imposing fines on animal owners who do not register.
Animal ID began in March 2006 and the AIN (Animal Individual Number)
Management System became operational; USDA began allocating AINs to tag
manufacturers to be distributed to livestock producers. Cattle must have
eartags with radio frequency ID; other animals may have implants. By
June the USDA was making cooperative agreements with private and state
animal tracking databases.
The plan is to have all databases operating by early 2007. In the
timetable for getting every premises and animal registered and
identified, USDA hopes for 25 percent of premises by January 2007, 70
percent of premises and 40 percent of the nation’s 9 billion target
animals by January 2008, and 100 percent of each by January 2009--along
with complete movement data on 60 percent of all animals older than a
year of age. After 2009, the USDA has a contingency plan to make
compliance mandatory “if participation rates are not adequate.”
HOW DID THIS
EVOLVE?
This ambitious project was spawned by the NIAA (National Institute
for Animal Agriculture), a quasi- government group made up of some of
the largest corporations in agriculture (including Monsanto, Cargill
Meat, the National Pork Producers, etc.) and many manufacturers and
marketers of high-tech animal ID equipment (Allflex, Digital Angel,
Global Vet Link, Micro Beef Technologies, etc.). Some of them have a
vested interest in a national animal ID program, either because it will
ensure more markets for their meat or for their ID equipment.
The NIAA is a self appointed, non-profit organization created some
years back to assess issues they feel are important in animal
agriculture, and brings together interested parties from government and
private industry to discuss these. The NIAA often creates action plans
for whatever it deems necessary. Neil Hammerschmidt, now Coordinator for
the NAIS at USDA/APHIS, helped develop an international program before
taking charge of the U.S. ID program. During 1998-2003 (just prior to
his present position) he chaired the ID and Information system of the
NIAA.
At first glance it looks like the NAIS plan began in 2002 in the
wake of the terrorist attack on 9/11 when the NIAA met with various
industry groups to present information on current means of ID including
microchips, retinal scans, etc. The plan was spurred into reality after
the “mad cow disease” scare in late 2003, but the idea for the plan
actually began much earlier. It took root in the late 1990’s, partly as
an alternative action (suggested by some of the big meat packers who
utilize cheap foreign beef) to the proposed country-of-origin labeling
for meat products in the U.S.
Some of the big players in the livestock/meat packing industry want
a strong foreign market for our beef and a lion’s share of the domestic
market. Cargill and Wal-Mart are some of the big guns who helped design
the NAIS. After the BSE scare, NIAA began lobbying USDA for a national
registration and tracking system. A National Identification Development
Team had been formed, which included more than 100 animal and livestock
industry professionals, representing more than 70 groups and government
agencies.
In late 2003 the first draft of a National Animal ID plan was
presented to the USAHA (U.S. Animal Health Association), a group that
had been emphasizing the need for modernization of animal ID to make it
more effective in case of a national emergency such as Foot and Mouth
Disease. The draft plan was accepted and USDA was asked to make the
standards official, which they did; their Draft Strategic Plan and Draft
Program Standards were released on April 25, 2005. According to this
plan, any animal classified as agriculture must be identified--including
fish, chickens, llamas and horses. Groups of fish and poultry could be
identified with a lot number; larger animals would need individual
identification.
The National Identification Development Team had already decided
they needed working groups within each species to tell USDA what is
unique about identification in their species, to figure out the best way
to have each type of animal fit into the NAIS. The Cattle Industry
Working Group submitted recommendations on July 15, 2004, with additions
submitted in April 2006.
WHY MANY CATTLE
PRODUCERS ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE PLAN
The international trade market is partly what’s driving the NAIS
plan. In 2003 our beef exports brought $7.5 billion. This market crashed
after the first cow with BSE was discovered in the U.S. (a cow that came
originally from a Canadian herd); in 2005, beef exports were down to
$1.22 billion because some countries, like Japan, refused to take our
beef. So packers and their trade associates (and many beef producers who
hope that a better export market will strengthen the price they get for
their animals) want something that will help restore and enhance the
export market.
Most feedlots and packers want traceability of animals (since many
foreign markets demand it) and some are paying stockmen higher prices
for source and age verified cattle. The people pushing for compliance
with NAIS are telling producers they’ll get more money, and it’s
starting to happen. USDA hopes for market-driven upsurge in compliance.
Some of the largest domestic markets for beef are also demanding
traceability. McDonalds claims traceability for 10 percent of their meat
and wants 100 percent; Wal-Mart demands 100 percent. These demands put
pressure on meat processors who then want feeders and producers to
provide traceable products.
But as more electronically-identifyable cattle enter the system,
added value for these cattle may shrink; if nearly everyone is doing it,
buyers won’t need to offer more money to get cattle with ID
traceability. Most of the tagging being done right now is by producers
participating in value-added programs; some are getting an extra $5 a
hundredweight or more for their cattle, making it worth the effort to
tag. But many feel they may lose that price edge if everyone is required
to tag. In the meantime, non-verified cattle may bring lower prices--a
hardship on small farmers or ranchers who don’t want to comply with NAIS.
Some of the livestock industry is pushing ahead, trying to take
advantage of possible market premiums and to not be “left behind” with
low prices. For instance, stockmen in George County, Mississippi are
selling cattle through the sale barn of Lucedale Livestock Producers,
Inc.--an 800 member cooperative that volunteered to have the first ID
feeder cattle sale in Mississippi in September 2005. This first sale was
requested as a “test” by Cargill (the giant international food and ag
products company that helped forge the original NAIS plan). Many large
feedlots are already telling producers that within 2 years they won’t be
buying any unidentified calves.
WHAT WILL IT COST
AMERICA?
Identifying and monitoring movement of every cow, sheep, chicken,
horse, etc. will create a huge new government bureaucracy at taxpayer
expense. The USDA is not sure what those costs will be. They have
already spent $18.8 million on developing the identification system, and
requested an additional $33 million last year. According to a public
affairs specialist with USDA/APHIS, the USDA will have spent close to
$85 million by the end of 2006, for this system.
Concerned about the amount of money already spent on the NAIS,
Congress has not even come close to fully funding it. In June 2006 a
Farm Bureau spokesperson said the price tag for the NAIS could run as
high as $100 million each year, yet if the government wants and expects
producers to participate voluntarily, adequate funding is a must. But is
this something taxpayers are willing to finance?
Ultimately, there will be billions of dollars spent on things that
do little to actually protect us from diseases or add value to food. The
NAIS will merely add to our food cost, partly because a monopoly in food
production will evolve. Big players will push small ones out of the
marketplace. What will the cost be to our country if thousands of small
family operations cease growing livestock and if their supply
infrastructure (feed stores and other local businesses) go broke after
losing much of their clientelle? As one cattle breeder in Mississippi
observed, many older farmers have said that when they are forced to
comply, they will sell out. This means he’ll lose part of his
market--since he sells purebred seedstock to these farmers. Many people
don’t want the additional work and record keeping that will be involved
to own animals.
No one knows how much the program will cost individuals who must
comply. The original plan was for livestock owners and government to
share costs. The USDA would fund infastructure costs and animal owners
would pay for premises registration fees, animal ID and the costs of
reporting movement. The states have various programs on fees for
premises registration. For instance, Texas was registering them for free
until July 1, 2006 and after that it would be mandatory, with a fee of
$20 every 2 years for renewal. Texas planned to impose a $1000 fine on
anyone who did not register. But livestock owners protested so loudly
that the Texas Animal Health Commission postponed their date for
mandatory premises registration.
All states have begun registration programs, which vary from state
to state. The USDA granted money directly to state agencies to fund
premises registrations (circumventing state legislatures where the
program might have been voted down). For instance, the Texas Animal
Health Commission received $1 million to implement the program in Texas.
Premises ID has been required in Wisconsin and North Carolina (Wisconsin
has completed the sign-up) and becomes mandatory in Indiana in September
2006. At this point it’s still voluntary in most states, with various
fees (no fees in Kansas).
When all phases of the program are in place, animal owners will be
responsible for the cost of identity devices and will be required to
provide the necessary records to databases. This means they must
purchase RFID (radio frequency identification) reading devices and
computer software to report information. You’ll have to own a computer
and pay for internet access, to own an animal.
RFID ear tags cost $2 to $5, but if we’re required to put them in
at birth, an animal may lose its tag several times before it goes to
market (many cattlemen would prefer to install tags just before the
animal is sold). Implanting chips into animals is not cheap, either. The
chip itself may cost only $3 to $5, but it will cost $20 to $50 to have
a veterinarian put it into the animal.
WHY NOT KEEP IT
VOLUNTARY?
The systems already in place for tracking animal diseases and
animal movements in this country have been working. Brand laws, health
certificates, control programs for brucellosis, TB, etc. have done a
good job. We haven’t had a case of Foot and Mouth Disease in the U.S.
since 1929. BSE is a non-contagious disease that takes years to develop
and is caused by cattle eating feed containing body parts of cattle with
BSE. The sale of feed supplements containing rendered animal parts was
banned in the U.S in 1997. The only way we can ever get it is by
importing cattle from other countries. The best defense against foreign
animal diseases is monitoring of imported animals, not making every U.S.
animal owner ID their livestock.
If some people want the export market’s supposed premiums, they
could voluntarily use animal and premises ID--just as some producers
already participate in voluntary added-value programs like
preconditioning calves before selling them to feedlots that are willing
to pay extra for those calves. Participation in a national ID system
should be voluntary or limited to animals most likely to be included in
international commerce. Why not let an innovative market create a
voluntary system that brings a premium for cattle enrolled in an ID
program, without government imposing an intrusive system on every
premises that has a farm animal?
SHORTCOMINGS OF
THE RFID SYSTEM BEING USED
Every animal must have individual ID, a 15 digit number provided by USDA
(the first 3 digits being a country code). For cattle it’s supposed to
be an ear tag with an RFID chip that can be scanned. For horses, the
Equine Species Working Group recommends a microchip implanted by your
vet, with the 15 digit number. The NAIS stipulates use of the ISO
(International Standards Organization) 134.2 kilohertz (kHz) frequency
chips--the type used in many European countries.
There are several kinds of microchips, however. Some horse owners
(and pet owners) already use chips for ID--to help prevent theft and
locate missing animals. More than 800,000 horses in the U.S. (including
90 percent of horses in Louisiana, in conjunction with their Coggins
tests) and many more dogs and cats are already implanted with 125 kHz
chips, with a reliable private tracking system that’s been in place for
15 years. After hurricane Katrina, for instance, 363 horses were
gathered and all but one were returned to owners because they had
microchips. A private database network gives horse owners immediate
assistance when an animal is missing. The ISO scanners, however, can’t
read these chips. The USDA is hurrying to put their ISO type scanners
into the field but it will take awhile to get enough out there, and
unless the new scanners are dual readers, any 125 kHz chips already in
horses or other animals won’t be detected.
The 125 kHz system is an American system that’s been in use for
more than 15 years. Many countries, including the U.S. and most of South
America, have never used the ISO system that the NAIS wants us to use,
because the latter is an open system and easily compromised. It was
originally developed in Russia to identify tractor parts and commodities
for an international European market. A scanner in Germany or France,
for instance, could “read” a chip on an Italian part and know what it
was. The 134.2 kHz chip has a 15 digit number, the first 3 digits being
a country code.
Because the ISO system is open (in the public domain) there is no
legal way to stop production of unsanctioned chips. The problem with
using this type of chip for disease trace-back, bio-security or unique
ID for ownership recovery or theft prevention is there is no guarantee
of uniqueness of ID codes. There are several ways the ID codes can be
easily counterfeited in any open standard like this one. Chips can be
ordered factory programmed with desired numbers and some manufacturers
are selling reprogrammable chips that are indistinguishable from factory
programmed chips. Some chips can be reprogrammed as many times as you
want, even after they’re in an animal. An implanted chip’s number can be
“read” by an inexpensive small hand-held device that can then be used to
put that number on another chip, in a different animal. This opens the
way for all kinds of misuse for fraud, if the “open system” ISO 134.2
kHz chips take the place of the more secure 125 kHz system being used
for dependable ID in valuable animals.
Duplicate numbers weren’t a problem in the original setting for
which the ISO system was developed (machinery parts and commodities, to
make sure certain types of paper products made by different companies
would fit your printer, for instance), or for individual ID in a dairy
herd (to be able to feed a certain cow a certain ration at a certain
stage of her lactation). But it won’t work for a national database or
for valuable animals that need a unique ID to prevent theft or
animal-switching. A look-alike could be made to pose for a more valuable
animal. And an animal from another country could appear to be one from
the U.S. or vice versa.
People pushing for the ISO 134.2 kHz chips required by NAIS tell us
this is an international standard and we must comply. But they’re not
telling us this standard is hanging on by a thread; this system is the
result of political compromise and has many flaws regarding performance
and technical feasibility. Many countries are dissatisfied with it and
some have asked that this standard be repealed. There were so many
complaints that the matter was recently put to a vote, and 50 percent of
the voting nations in the ISO group voted to have the standard repealed
or revised. Thus it is not the universally accepted technology some
people claim it to be, and definitely not a good system upon which to
base a national animal ID program. There are suspicions that this system
was chosen mainly because of the market advantage it will give certain
players who helped construct the NAIS.
But cattle tags using this technology don’t work as well as
planned. The ISO standard RFID being used (more appropriate for
inventory checking of commodities in stores than for cattle ID) don’t
have enough “read range” to be practical for cattle. They must be
confined in a chute to get close enough for accurate scanning. In field
tests, a high percentage of tags don’t “read” well with scanners (with
lots of “no reads”), such as when cattle are checked as they come off a
truck or go through a sale ring. The scanners being installed in sale
barns can’t pick up these low- frequency tag chips, expecially if cattle
bunch up (if the chute is too wide or someone is unloading them
quickly). One sale yard reported “read rates” as low as 47 percent for
feeder pigs and 66 percent for sheep. Rates for cattle varied, but were
closer to 80 percent. Other yards reported lower read rates, closer to
50 percent. Some sale barn owners are worried that the complications of
the ID system will lead more stockmen to sell directly to feedlots or
packers, rather than go through a sale barn.
The cattle industry is currently working to address some of these
issues, trying to find ways around shortcomings. They want independent
studies to test the chips and scanners. An appendix to the Cattle
Industry Working Group Report recommended that an independent authority
be established to serve as a national testing laboratory to which RFID
equipment makers would submit their chips and scanners. The cattle group
listed criteria needed, and pointed out that the guidelines of the
International Committee on Animal Recording (ICAR) fall short regarding
recommended standards for read rate (percent of accurate readings of
chips) and distances.
Many things interfere with read accuracy even at close range.
Motors, such as those used in auction environments, interfere with
scanning and reading the tags. Studies are underway to find out which
environmental factors interfere with performance of the 134.2 frequency
RFID tags, and scanners compliant with that standard. A study at Kansas
State University, for instance, is looking into this problem and also
trying to calculate how much money sale yards and other facilities would
have to invest to address environmental concerns and assure that their
RFID systems function efficiently. KSU students are analyzing 15 sale
yard markets in Kansas to determine the amount of electromagnetic
interference, and will also study differences in successful read rates
relating to position of tags in the ears. They’ll also be reading tags
at meat processing plants operated by Cargill, National Beef and Tyson
Foods.
Livestock producers using electronic tags in their cattle are
getting premium prices, but technology in these tags is not working in
saleyards that put 1000 or more cattle an hour through the ring. A few
saleyards, including some of the biggest ones, have tested the tags with
mixed success. For instance, Equity Livestock (an operation with 13 sale
barns in Iowa and Wisconsin) moves more than a million animals through
their yards each year. They spent $70,000 for scanners, software and
extra labor to test electronic ID at one of the yards, but feel this
cost would be hard to justify in smaller operations.
NAIS = GOVERNMENT
INTRUSION INTO OUR PRIVATE LIVES AND CONTROL OF ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
The great advantage America has over most other countries is
personal freedom for its citizens and a free market system. Government
involvement in free enterprise has always been detrimental, except when
it is needed to ensure consumer and workplace safety and fair
competition. But the NAIS, created to protect international markets and
give unfair advantage to certain players, is being forced upon us in the
guise of disease prevention. We were doing a good job of that already.
The NAIS is not fair (nor necessary), and it is un-American to
impose a mandatory ID system on every person who owns a farm animal. In
essense this creates a tax on animal agriculture, or requires us to “buy
a licence” to own an animal, since it would be illegal to not comply.
Centralized control of agriculture is dictatorship, not free enterprise.
The NAIS intrudes on our free enterprise system, personal privacy,
property rights, and in some instances religious freedom. There are
religious groups who own animals for their own use and livelihood that
do not believe in using modern technology such as microchips and
computers.
THE QUESTION OF
PRIVACY IN DATABASES
There is concern about the security of information collected by the
government, since other parties might have access to it via the Freedom
of Information Act. Thus USDA now plans to use private databases--a
central metabase that would be a portal for information from multiple
sources (like breed registries and other private databases, state animal
health agencies, etc.) The U.S. Animal Identification
Organization, a consortium of industry representatives organized early
this year, is part of this process, gearing up to handle a high volume
of information.
There are concerns about private databases as well, however. USDA
lawyers are looking into legality issues of whether the USDA has
authority to require livestock producers to report information and
animal movements to a private entity. Private databases will also make
the system more expensive to animal owners, since a private database
holder will want to make a profit from the system. It could also result
in the same abuses we see now in the private databases of financial
institutions (sale of personal data without a client’s knowledge, and
trading this information around).
Personal information could also be used against an animal owner.
For instance, Cargill announced a couple years ago in Canada that they
would refuse to knowingly purchase cattle owned by members of R-CALF USA
(Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund - United Stockgrowers of America,
an independent non-profit group representing the grass roots cattle
producer). Cargill thus demonstrated it would willingly use information
related to cattle ownership for purposes of discrimination. Also, the
bottom line is that no database (federal or private) is safe from
hackers and identity thieves; witness instances of information stolen
from numerous government agencies (such as the Veterans Administration).
CAN USDA MAKE US
DO IT?
A growing number of people are taking an in-depth look at the NAIS
plan, questioning not only whether it will work or be cost effective,
but whether it is legal. Mary Zanoni, PhD (an attorney and executive
director of Farm For Life, a nonprofit group supporting small-scale
farmers and people who raise crops and livestock for their own food)
says the plan is not constitutional, has no valid reasoning for the
program, and did not consider cheaper and more easily administered
alternatives.
Dr. Zanoni says NAIS may violate the Fourth Amendment because USDA
wants surveillance of every premises where even a single animal of any
livestock species is kept, and wants to require RFID for every animal.
There are millions of people who own a few chickens or raise a lamb or
steer for themselves or have a horse. In these instances the premises
the USDA wants to target with GPS surveillance are homes. Government is
not permitted to use sense- enhancing technology to invade the privacy
of citizens’ homes. NAIS would be intrusive to people who have done
nothing more than own an animal, which is their right, under U.S. law.
Forcing registration and having information about your private property
(premises and animals) in a huge database is also a violation of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, according to Zanoni.
Property rights are protected by our Constitution; no one can be
deprived of property without due process of law. But the NAIS says USDA
can remove untagged animals from a premises, with no mention of
compensation for the owner. According to the Constitution, government
does not actually have the right to come onto your property to inspect
or tag your animal.
Other questions abound, like those raised by Senator Tom Harkin
(Democrat, Iowa) who requested in November 2005 that the GAO (Government
Accouting Office) look at the NAIS in terms of 1. Cost of implementation
and maintenance; 2. Effectiveness of cooperation between agreements
among USDA, states and tribes; 3. Protection of proprietary information
in databases; 4. Who USDA is consulting in developing NAIS and whether
USDA is seeking balanced views; 5. Whether principles of current disease
eradication programs are being incorporated into NAIS; and 6. Whether
NAIS contributes to the vertical integration (involvement of all levels
in an organizational hierarchy in production) of the livestock sector.
Some of the states are starting to drag their feet on the NAIS plan.
Representative Frank Nicely (Republican, Tennessee) has introduced a
bill that would let Tennessee opt out of the RFID cattle tracking
system; he said that the NAIS is not a good idea except for the people
who are manufacturing radio chips. The USDA may not be as confident now
about making all the states implement the program, even with bribes, and
has decided to address the NAIS in the 2007 Farm Bill. USDA Secretary
Johanns claims that the USDA has the authority to make the system
mandatory, even without Congress passing legislation to that effect.
WILL THE NAIS
ACTUALLY PROTECT US AGAINST SPREAD OF ANIMAL
DISEASES?
This question is raised by people who feel USDA is going about it
in the wrong manner, maybe for the wrong reasons. While USDA and others
are pushing for the NAIS, border vigilence and testing programs are
being relaxed. Since our greatest risk comes from imported animals, our
import controls and monitoring should be diligent rather than decreased.
Vaccinations and other disease control methods should have high
priorities. In many disease situations, traceback is the second line of
defense, not the first; traceback is often too late to make a big
difference.
Why are we relaxing our first line of defense? Our current
regulations have provided the U.S. cattle industry with excellent
protection against introduction of foreign animal diseases from
countries where such diseases are known to exist, yet the USDA is
working aggressively to relax and weaken those regulations. Many
farmers, ranchers and comsumers also wonder why country of origin
labeling for beef (passed by Congress) has not been implemented.
Some producers think the NAIS was conceived by the companies who
have large international dealings (and cheap beef supplies in other
countries) as an alternative to counter country-of-origin meat labeling.
Much of the meat sold in U.S. grocery stores has a USDA stamp but comes
from other countries--that don’t have food safety standards as high as
ours. The country-of-origin meat labeling bill was introduced in the
1990’s and passed in 2002, but was never implemented due to “lack of
funding”. It would have allowed consumers to choose between American
grown and foreign meat. But the large meat packers who sell the foreign
meat didn’t want to give consumers that choice and risk losing money.
Their alternative plan is the NAIS (much more costly than implementing
country-of-origin labeling). The NAIS is supposedly going to make our
food safer, while ignoring non-traceable foreign meat.
Why is the government pushing for the NAIS and resisting
implementation and enforcement of our primary lines of defense for both
preventing the introduction of diseases into the U.S. and for quickly
identifying foreign meat and foreign cattle--which are obviously the
means of transmitting foreign animal diseases?
R-CALF POSITION ON
THE NAIS
R-CALF USA published a Position Paper in 2005. This group believes
that animal ID (to allow for traceback and source verification) can be
an important component of disease control and eradication, but is
concerned about the way the program is being implemented. They feel it
should build on the strength of ID systems already in existence (state
brand programs, market driven source-verification, pilot animal ID
projects and studies). The effectiveness of current state and regional
animal health identification methods that may already meet the intended
purpose of a national animal ID program (or that may be easily
assimilated into a national plan at little or no cost) should be
evaluated.
In earlier comments before the House Ag Committee, a South Dakota
rancher and member of R-Calf stated that “many states already have the
ability to identify cattle premises as well as trace the origins of
cattle. Through brand inspection, health certificates, sales receipts
and truckers’ log books, the cattle industry can trace movement of
cattle very quickly. Our brand inspection system in South Dakota tracks
cattle and horses every time they are sold or transported out of the
brand inspection areas. In May 2003 when Canada discovered a case of BSE,
our brand inspector received a call from the Montana Department of
Livestock asking for help in tracing several Canadian bulls that had
traveled from Canada, through Montana, and into South Dakota, and were
known to be siblings of the BSE-infected cow from Canada. Through the
use of our brand inspection records, our chief brand inspector was able
to trace and report the movement of those bulls within the state of
South Dakota, within 3 hours.”
He pointed out that brands are the only truly permanent mark of
identification, and can’t be removed. Electronic tags and microchips can
be removed or shift to where they are no longer readable by a scanner.
Electronic tags are impractical in a ranch situation, since ear tags are
easily lost and cattle are often in large areas where they are not
accessible for tagging or scanning. If existing methods could be
integrated into a national ID program, the cost to producers could
remain relatively low.
R-CALF USA is not convinced that a mandatory system is needed, but
if it becomes mandatory they feel it should be publicly funded. The
costs are likely to be substantial, and producers should not have to
bear the brunt of costs for a system created for public benefit. They
are also concerned about the security of databases that could be
manipulated for private ends; “It is essential that the privacy of such
data be fully protected and only accessed for the legitimate health and
safety objectives of the program.” R- CALF wants assurance that the
industry be fully informed of the expected costs and benefits of any
proposed program and that producer input be taken into account and
weighed fully before any mandatory system is created.
[For more information on the NAIS and various concerns about it, check
out these websites: www.aphis.usda.gov;
www.usda.gov/nais;
www.animalagriculture.org (the NIAA website);
www.rfidnews.com (for info
on the ISO development process and its shortcomings);
www.r- calfusa.com
(for the views of R-CALF USA), and for groups opposed to NAIS, these
websites: www.libertyark.net;
www.stopanimalid.org;
www.nonais.org;
www.farmandranchfreedom.org;
www.noanimalid.com;
www.nationalpropertyowners.org;
www.Care2.com;
www.FreeToFarm.com] |
|
Click here
to email this page to a friend. |
|
