An animal identification system using ear tags could protect livestock from a disease outbreak and keep the nation’s beef supply from risk. Some owners said they see the program as an invasion of privacy.
The government tried to make a mandatory National Animal Identification System using ear tags, but because some livestock producers fear Big Brother, the program is voluntary in most states.
“Part of our industry would view it as something that would protect them from a foot and mouth disease outbreak while others primarily see it as an invasion of privacy,” said Chris Richards, assistant professor and extension and research beef cattle specialist.
If a disease outbreak occurred in the United States, animal agriculture and the nation’s food supply would be at risk.
“If terrorists decided to use bioterrorism by introducing foot and mouth or anthrax in our public domain, it could severely harm animal agriculture and our food supply,” said J. Robert Kropp, animal science professor.
The ID system is for all food animals and horses. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is hoping to implement an animal identification system to have the ability to trace back the original home of an infected animal and locate animals that have been in contact with that animal. The idea is to quarantine a herd or a small number of animals instead of the entire U.S.
Each state decided whether the program is voluntary. Wisconsin and Michigan are the only two states that have a mandatory program.
“[Michigan and Wisconsin] have some disease issues they are using [the ID system] to help with,” Richards said.
Most people see the program staying voluntary until an outbreak occurs.
“In my opinion, it will take an unfortunate event to make people realize that ‘oops we should have done something to prevent this,’” said Glenn Selk, extension animal reproduction specialist.
Some livestock producers see the system as a government invasion of privacy.
“Ranchers being asked about how many cattle they own or acres they farm would be like asking a person how much money is in their bank account,” Richards said.
Although many livestock producers see it as an invasion of privacy, surveys indicate most animal producers think there needs to be some kind of program.
“With some survey work a graduate student did, 70 percent of the producers think we need some kind of program,” Richards said.
Oklahoma is focused on trying to implement the first component of the identification system, premise registration. This step requires producers to submit their name, address and type of animals they have. This phase does not require livestock producers to submit how many acres or cattle they own.
“As of Feb. 5, 2008, 8,206 premises have been registered in Oklahoma, which is about 11.5 percent,” Richards said. “Out of those surveyed, about half have not registered either because they are too busy, unfamiliar with the program, or don’t know how.”
OSU is an education unit; therefore it has an unbiased opinion about the issue, Richards said.
“Our role is to educate livestock producers about the voluntary federal and state program,” Richards said. “We do not promote either for or against, simply educate and provide information. We have been actively conducting education activities related to the topic over the last two years through local and county producer meetings and regional and statewide conferences. We do maintain a Web site with information at http://www.okanimalid.com.”
OSU uses low radio frequency tags to manage their herds better.
“We are using the LRF ear tags primarily for simplifying management of our herds,” Richards said. “A handheld computer device will read the tag when we vaccinate so we can automatically pull up the cows’ records and update them.”
Although many livestock producers see the ID system as government intervention and an invasion of privacy, it is a form of Homeland Security.
“We think about a plane flying into a building and weapons of mass destruction, but the fear of a major disease being introduced into our animal agriculture puts a whole new light on Homeland Security,” Kropp said.
“South American countries have animal diseases that are not currently present in the U.S. These diseases can be carried by humans on their shoes, clothing and even their hair. If someone somehow gets across the Rio Grande and into Texas carrying a major disease and contaminating the U.S. animal population, then we would be in trouble.”
The ID system is meant to protect our nation and food supply, but many livestock producers said they are still afraid of an invasion of privacy.
“Logically, the traceability of disease to a primary premise is the right thing to do, but I don’t know whether producers will ever buy into a mandatory regulation,” Kropp said. “Currently, the policy is a voluntary program.”
Loading ...
All Articles
Questions for Gary Wilson NAIS coordinator for the ODA
1. Either the USDA Business Plan or the technology document it references discuss reporting a “move-in” and a “move-out” event. Am I correctly interpreting this as meaning that animals will be scanned when they arrive and when they leave?
2. Boarding facilities where livestock is owned by many different owners. Would that premises have one number and report all arrivals regardless of who owned the animals? Or is it up to the owner of the animal to report the movement?
3. I do not have 24 hour surveillance of the coming and going of my boarders. What is my liability if a boarder takes her horse to an event and fails to (a) notify me or (b) to make a report?
4. How do I tell a boarder he/she will have to chip his/her horse and submit to government surveillance without losing him/her as a customer?
5. As the owner of a boarding facility am I required to purchase an RFID reader?
6. How is reporting in the 24 hour time frame accomplished?
7. Will I be required to have an internet connection to report movements?
8. What is the cost of the internet connection?
9. What software will be required for the reader to interface to the computer and reader?
10. What will be the expected cost of the software?
11. Who is going to compensate me for the cost of software, hardware, and time to manage the comings and goings of my boarders?
12. Since the database is in private hands, will there be a service charge for reporting?
13. If the database is in government hands, will there be a service charge for reporting?
14. If a horse owner did not keep any livestock at his/her residence, would his/her residence need premises ID #?
15. What happens when a premises does NOT have a Premises ID number and therefore is not required to report any arrivals, yet the arrival animal has a NAIS Animal ID #?
16. If a vet comes to my farm to do Coggins tests, would he be required to record the Premises ID # of that location, regardless of who owns the animals or is paying for the tests?
17. Animal Id #’s go with the animal. Ownership information attached to that number changes when a sale occurs. Who is responsible for updating the system? Who pays for the updated information?
18. Suppose a state like Oklahoma or Massachusetts becomes a mandatory Premises ID state, that is, no horses can enter the state or move around within the state unless they are coming from a location with a Premises ID#. Does this fact mean that no horses coming to the Grand National or the New England Morgan Show can participate unless they are coming from a location that has Premises ID #? Now how is my participation voluntary?
19. Is the premises ID# something completely new or will NAIS be using the numbers assigned to farms under the USDA FSA (Farm Service Agency) program?
20. Has there been or will there be and impact study before implementation considering the already depressed condition of the equine from the loss of secondary market, the down economy, the rising cost of fuel, and the recent and ongoing droughts?
21. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. While recognized limits apply to the free exercise of religion, particularly when criminal activity is involved, a mandatory identification program would conflict with the religious belief of numerous groups (most notably the Amish) that participation in government programs violates Scriptural teachings. Will these groups have an exemption from participation?
22. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed surveillance of every premises where even a single animal of any covered livestock is kept, and the requirement of RFID of every animal raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns. Indeed, the “premises” that USDA plans to subject to GPS satellite surveillance and RFID includes the private homes of citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot use sense-enhancing technologies to invade the privacy of citizens’ homes. Likewise the Court has ruled that the sanctity of the home is entitled to greater privacy protections than are industrial complexes. In an agricultural context, the question of what is the “home” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment involves how far the “curtilage” of the home extends. Caselaw illustrates that curtilage can include farm buildings, outbuildings, and associated land areas — anywhere there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the Fourth Amendment will smaller-sized, non-industrialized family farming operations and hobby farms be exempted form a mandatory NAIS?
23. The proposed NAIS is the first attempt by the federal government at forced registration in a large, permanent federal database of individual citizens’ real property (the homes and farms where animals are kept) and personal property (the animals themselves). Presently, the only general systems of permanent registration of personal property in the United States involve systems for motor vehicles and guns — two items that are highly dangerous if misused. It is difficult to imagine any acceptable basis for the USDA to subject the owner of an animal (except, perhaps, those that are highly dangerous) to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun or automobile. But, even with respect to a gun, an owner can use the gun on his own property without notifying the government. However, under the proposed identification program, the government would require the reporting within 24 hours of any instance of an animal’s leaving or returning to the registered property.
A mandatory identification plan would be in violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in situations involving the constant surveillance of a premises where the owner is only attempting to raise food for the household or for a limited local area and has no intention of distributing the food on a wider scale. Will there be an exemption based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
24. Producer liability: Another significant issue is whether a national identification program will increase the possible legal exposure of livestock producers for events that occur after the livestock leave the farm. While livestock producers are responsible for the livestock they produce, and the USAIP does not change any existing liability rules, enhanced traceability may provide the ability to more readily track problems quickly and provide documentation to determine whether appropriate methods and measures were followed to avoid disease contamination. That could result in greater potential liability at the producer level. In other words every step in the supply chain will share the same level of liability. How do you propose to shield the individuals in the supply chain from harm while pursuing the individual who is responsible?
25. Whether any eventual national animal identification plan is voluntary or mandatory may determine whether the collected information can be obtained by the general public. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows access to government agency records that are maintained by agencies with the executive branch of the federal government. Agency records that are subject to disclosure under the FOIA are those that are either created or maintained by an agency and under agency control at the time the FOIA request is made.
In addition, it is possible that private records could be accessed via litigation pursuant to a court’s subpoena power. Even if particular information is exempt under the FOIA, it may still be obtained through the discovery process in a legal proceeding if the party’s need for information exceeds the government’s need for confidentiality. That said what protection does my information have?
26. Under what circumstances will premises registration, horse identification, and recording of all movements off premises become mandatory relative to horses?
History of the development of a National Animal Identification Plan
The original push for a nationwide animal identification program came from the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), a private membership group consisting of major agribusiness and pharmaceutical corporations (and their lobby groups at the state and national level) including Cargill Meat Solutions, Monsanto Co., Pfizer Animal Health, Ltd., and the National Pork Producers Council. In 2002, the NIAA organized a task force composed of approximately 70 representatives from more than 30 stakeholder groups to produce a National Identification Work Plan. The plan was promoted as a way to ensure the health of the nation’s animal herd, improve the ability to respond to biosecurity threats, add value to meat products, and compete with international trading partners. The work plan was drafted and accepted by the United States Animal Health Association, which also passed a resolution requesting USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to establish a national animal identification development team. The resolution requested further that the development team establish a national plan using the work plan as a guide. As a result, in the spring of 2003, the development team completed a 74-page United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). 2 November 2006
The USAIP’s objective is to develop a traceback system that can identify all animals and premises exposed potentially to a diseased animal within 48 hours after discovery. The animal species included in the plan are domestic cattle, bison, swine, sheep, goats, cervids (deer and elk), equine, poultry, game birds, aquaculture, camelids (llamas, alpacas, etc.), and ratites (ostriches, emus, etc.). USAIP envisions that APHIS will administer the program, but recommends governance as a joint federal-state responsibility with industry input. Implementation of USAIP is scheduled to take place in three phases: Phase I involves premises identification and began in the summer of 2004, and is to be completed by the end of 2006. Required in this phase is the establishment of standardized premises identification numbers for all production operations, markets, assembly points, exhibitions, and processing plants. Phase II is designed to enable individual or group/lot identification (animal registration) for interstate and intrastate commerce, and is to be completed by the end of 2007. Phase III involves retrofitting remaining processing plants and markets and other industry segments with appropriate technology to enhance traceability of animals throughout the livestock marketing system (i.e., movement of livestock off a registered premises can be traced). Phase III is to be completed by the end of 2008. Mad Cow Disease Used as a Rationale for a National Animal Identification Plan
In late 2003, a Holstein cow infected with Mad Cow disease was detected at a dairy in Washington State. Attempts to trace the origins of the infected Holstein and the 80 cows that entered the United States with it were delayed and subjected the USDA to criticism. Allegedly hampering the investigators was the lack of a modern tracking and identification system. So, USDA began to openly and aggressively promote implementation of a national animal identification program as a major policy priority for mad cow disease prevention. In reality, however, USDA had already been working with the meatpacking industry for more than the prior year to develop standards for a verifiable nationwide animal identification system.
Interestingly, 2 weeks before the USDA’s announcement of the presence of BSE in the United States, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the USDA’s motion to dismiss a challenge to a USDA regulation that permitted meat from downed livestock to be used for human consumption after passing post-mortem inspection. The plaintiff, a beef consumer, claimed that the USDA policy violated the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act on the basis that those laws define “adulterated” food as any product of a diseased animal, and that the USDA regulation was, therefore, impermissibly broad in that it allowed meat from downed livestock to enter the human food chain by not designating the meat from such animals as “adulterated.” During the litigation, the USDA maintained that there was no evidence of the presence of BSE in the United States and that it was never likely to enter the United States. The court, however, disagreed and pointed out that the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service, in a Think Paper, had acknowledged that BSE-infected animals may pass the required post-mortem examination and be offered for human consumption in the United States.
So, instead of ensuring that the regulatory process was adequate to keep BSE-infected animals out of the food supply, the USDA continued to maintain that BSE was never likely to enter the United States. Once BSE showed up in the Washington state Holstein, however, the USDA used the Mad Cow incident to begin pushing for a mandatory identification system.
The USDA, despite all the protests from farmers/ranchers/horse owners/Amish who realize what a ridiculous program this is, is forcing this program on those who do not want or need it just to bring you so-called “food safety” through NAIS! They may claim it is voluntary but they are doing what they can to make it mandatory.
There are those who have actually read and researched the NAIS documents and see all the holes and unfair provisions in it. The USDA claims letters just like I am writing are spreading misinformation. But we are in strong disagreement with NAIS and can prove that this program will not be good but the USDA prefers to dismiss us as kooks or “misinformed”!
This program that will put more surveillance on livestock owners than on illegal aliens/drug dealers/child molesters, etc, It will also usurp property rights.
If NAIS is such a great program, why are there so many anti-NAIS websites popping up using the NAIS documents to show how NAIS will not be a good thing simply by reading the NAIS document? The GAO is currently running an investigation into all the problems in NAIS, even though they missed the most obvious one, like the fact the majority of the American livestock owners, who, when they find out about NAIS, overwhelmingly DO NOT want it!
p.s. the USDA said they wanted our input. We did and they came out with a booklet on how to handle those against NAIS! How d’ya like them apples?
NAIS is trying to be a one-size-fits-all program yet there is a huge difference between granny’s back yard hens, a pot belly pig in suburbia and the multi-billion dollar corporate ag and factory farms, which this program was ultimately made for.
The debate as to whether the National Animal Identification System should be mandatory or continue to be voluntary shall come an end when the export markets for livestock and livestock products shall dictate. The recent trade war between the Irish Farmers Union and Brazil demanding the European Commission to impose a total ban on Brazilian livestock products imports into the Europan Union on the ground of there being no credible livestock traceability system in Brazil (as per their claims). Brazil and other meat exporting countries tothe European Union and other niche markets demanding total traceability had to comply with the traceability requirement and thus have mandatory national livestock identification systems to ensure global unique identification as per GS-1 and EAC-UCC. As the United States is amongst the major meat exporting countries in the world exporting to the Europe, Japan, Middle East and Far-East Asian countries she has no option other than joining the bandwagon of adopting compasory national animal ldentification system atleast for the food animals unless otherwise they wish to loose that market which will be a blow to the US economy.The on-going debate in the US on NAIS will finally be decided by economic hard facts.
Polish typographical errors and missing words-
line 2 the word ‘to’ is missing between come and an
Sentence number 2 is hanging-insert after the bracket before the fullstop -is a good case in point supporting the adoption of compulsory unique national animal identification system.
EAC-UCC is EAN-UCC
Run check spelling -the spelling for compulsory is wrong at some places
Please make the corrections and thanks for posting my comments