|
<Back
| Home | Basics |
Departments | Get
Involved | Site Map | What's
New
Protecting Access to Our Food Supply:
Update on the National Animal Identification System and Related Issues
By Judith McGeary
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a program developed
by agri-business and technology companies in the 1980s and 1990s. In
2002, an industry trade organization, the National Institute for Animal
Agriculture (NIAA), took the plan to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), which has been working on it ever since.
The NAIS applies to everyone who owns even one livestock animal, including
a chicken, horse, cow, sheep, goat, pig, or bison. It would require
each person to: (1) register their property; (2) individually identify
each animal, in most cases with electronic identification; and (3) report
“events” to a government-accessible database within 24 hours.
The NAIS has the potential to drive many farmers out of business, due
to both the government intrusion and the practical burdens that will
be imposed. For WAPF-oriented consumers, this means increased cost and
reduced availability of healthy, local foods. Stopping this program
will require both farmers and consumers speaking out.
The last few months have seen a lot of developments in the fight against
NAIS: the NIAA’s annual conference, panels at other conferences
(including the Weston Price conference), and a new document issued by
the USDA. With each event or development, three issues predominate:
whether NAIS is mandatory or voluntary, what are the expected benefits,
and what are the costs.
Is the NAIS mandatory or voluntary?
On November 22, USDA published a new plan entitled: “National
Animal Identification System (NAIS): A User Guide and Additional Information
Resources.” You can find it online at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/userguide.shtml.
The User Guide was clearly written in response to the grassroots criticism
of the NAIS. Unfortunately, when one cuts through the bureaucratese,
it appears that the USDA has not changed much, if any, of the substance
of the NAIS.
The USDA’s new User Guide states repeatedly that the NAIS is
voluntary at the federal level. Before pointing out all of the holes
in this claim, it’s worth acknowledging that this is an improvement.
Many states have claimed that they “must” implement the
NAIS because it is a “federal mandate” – essentially,
they need to do it before the feds implement the program. Pro-NAIS forces
now have lost that argument. It is now absolutely clear that the NAIS
is not a federal mandate and that the state legislators
and agencies need to take responsibility for their own actions.
But despite repeating ad nauseum that NAIS is voluntary at
the federal level, USDA notes that it has authority to make the NAIS
mandatory if it decides to (p.4). The same people who tried to make
NAIS mandatory for several years now want us to trust that they have
changed their minds and that NAIS is, and will remain, a voluntary program
-- unless they change their minds again. Perhaps more importantly, even
if USDA never adopts regulations making the NAIS mandatory at the federal
level, it can still effectively establish a mandatory program. USDA
can, and still is, encouraging and funding mandatory programs at the
state level. The User Guide allows states to impose mandatory animal
identification and premises registration programs. USDA Secretary Johanns
has stated that funding mandatory state programs does not conflict with
a “voluntary” federal program.
The same day that USDA released its new User Guide, it also announced
the availability of over $14 million in funds for States and Indian
Tribes to implement NAIS. The Work Plan for applicants reiterates the
USDA’s goal of “full participation by 2009” –
in other words, the registration of every single person who owns even
one head of livestock and the identification of hundreds of millions
of animals. The USDA will withhold part of the funds until the state
shows that it has reached specified results.
At the state level, we have seen a variety of responses to this federal
pressure. Some states, such as Wisconsin and Indiana, have adopted mandatory
regulations under a state-level NAIS statute. Other states are using
existing programs to force people to comply with NAIS; for example,
New York has rolled the information from the scrapie program into the
national NAIS database. And yet other states have developed so-called
voluntary programs, without going through the normal rulemaking procedures,
that involve various coercive methods: telling people that they will
not be able to participate in events or sell at sales barns if they
don’t register, linking farm assistance programs to registration,
etc.
Michigan provides a particularly instructive example about the realities
of the NAIS program. Michigan is using its tuberculosis program to require
that all cattle be tagged with Radio Frequency Identification Devices
by March 2007. At the NIAA Conference, a representative for the Michigan
program urged state officials to follow their example and implement
mandatory programs, as the best (or only) way to reach the USDA’s
goals for the NAIS. We do not have any protection against mandatory
or coercive programs until both Congress and state legislatures adopt
legislation reining in the agencies.
What is the basis for this program? What are the benefits?
Along with reassuring statements about the voluntary nature of the
NAIS, the User Guide claims that there will be many benefits to the
program for everyone, ranging from animal health to the livestock market.
Nowhere does the User Guide provide any hard facts or even theoretical
models to support its claim.
The real purpose behind NAIS is international trade and consumer confidence.
At the NIAA conference, USDA Secretary Johanns stated that he became
convinced that animal identification was needed while on a trade
mission to Japan. Speaker after speaker at the conference focused
on the supposed need for NAIS to improve international trade. No one
addressed the fact that the U.S. imports three to eight times as much
beef as it exports. No one addressed the fact that farmers who direct-market
their products are not affected by the international market. No one
discussed alternatives to NAIS, such as testing all exported cattle
for BSE. And no one discussed the ethics problems with imposing a program
on every animal owner in order to benefit a handful of meat packing
companies.
Rather, the industry and government officials keep trying to sell the
NAIS as an animal health program. One would expect that a disease control
program would be designed based on scientific studies and epidemiological
models addressing such issues as high-risk versus low-risk situations,
the impact the program would have on disease, and comparisons to alternative
approaches. None of these appear to exist for the NAIS.
At the NIAA conference, I asked Neil Hammerschmidt, the USDA official
in charge of implementing the NAIS, for the scientific basis for the
design of the NAIS. His response was that he was in charge of the practical
implementation of NAIS and was the wrong person to ask for the scientific
underpinning. In other words, the government official in charge of the
program does not have a grasp of the science that supposedly supports
the design of that very program! He recommended I speak with Steve Weber
in USDA’s Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Weber stated
that he knew of only one specific study (which he was a co-author on)
that supported the design of NAIS. He said that the design of the NAIS
was based on a variety of studies, along with looking at what other
countries have done. He promised to email me the citation for his article,
and ask around to see if other people in the USDA knew of other specific
studies. I have never received any information from him.
I have also spoken about this issue with Dr. Wiemers, the head vet
for USDA on NAIS, and multiple industry representatives. Each conversation
has provided a central message: “trust the experts.” Even
if one were inclined to do so, the lack of any scientific support for
their program destroys their credibility. And the pro-NAIS forces appear
oblivious to the concept that a farmer might have a better grasp of
what is needed for animal health than a desk jockey with a degree.
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance has filed a Freedom of Information
Act request on this issue. If and when we receive a response from the
government, we’ll provide an update in the WAPF Journal.
What are the costs?
Many people would object to the NAIS even if it imposed no monetary
costs, because of the government intrusion into people’s lives
and businesses. And it’s obvious that the NAIS will also impose
significant tangible costs.
In the latest User Guide, USDA purports to provide an estimate of the
costs. But they seem to have simply pulled numbers out of thin air.
As just one example, according to USDA, a horse owner would pay “just
a few dollars” for a microchip. But even for those implanting
the chips themselves, just the microchip and syringe costs around $18.
With a vet’s assistance, the cost can be anywhere from $35 to
$70. Those quotes do not include the cost of hauling the horse to the
vet, or paying the barn-visit fee. Fees for other animals may differ,
of course, but the cost of electronic tagging if not cheap for any species.
USDA also fails to include the costs of RFID readers, computers or
other means required for reporting to the NAIS database, and the untold
hours of labor involved with tagging animals, record keeping, and reporting.
Estimates from the Australian Beef Association place the total cost
of tagging and tracking at $37 to $40 per animal, on average. A British
parliamentary report estimated the costs for the British system at $69/head.
Since people who own one or just a few animals usually pay more than
large producers, because of economies of scale, these averages understate
the probable cost for most individuals.
Interestingly, I presented these numbers at a panel discussion on the
NAIS at the Carolina Farm Stewardship Conference. After the panel discussion,
Neil Hammerschmidt and both state vets (North and South Carolina) quietly
cornered me to try to convince me to stop talking about these numbers.
Of all of the challenges I raised to the NAIS, this one seemed to bother
them the most. They claim that the numbers are wrong and we wouldn’t
see those costs in the U.S. Yet when I asked them to show me any analysis
they had done to support their claim that the NAIS would not cost this
much, they couldn’t.
One industry claim is that RFID tags will be sold for $2.75, and that
that will include “lifetime reporting.” Compared to the
costs reported for existing programs in Australia and Britain, this
claim is difficult to believe. A conversation with one of the board
members of the U.S. Animal Identification Organization (USAIO) cleared
up the confusion. USAIO was created in 2006 by Farm Bureau, National
Cattlemens Association, and others, to manage the “industry-led
animal movement database.” Apparently, USAIO’s plan is to
develop contracts with slaughterhouses and sales barns to fund part
of the cost of the databases. So, instead of paying for reports directly,
animal owners will pay indirectly every time they take an animal for
processing or sale. And whatever shortfall is not covered by the levies
on the tags and services will presumably be made up in our tax dollars.
USDA repeatedly says that competition in the market will keep reporting
fees down for animal owners. However, the User Guide does not say how
these costs will be controlled or minimized. The technology companies
and industrial-agriculture associations have played a key role in developing
the plans for the NAIS; they will undoubtedly work to maximize their
profits from it, which will not keep costs down for farmers.
These are just specific examples of an overarching problem: the USDA
has no idea what it is talking about, when it comes to either the costs
or the benefits of NAIS. The User Guide even admits this: “USDA
plans to have a cost-benefit analysis conducted that will help us more
precisely forecast the potential economic benefits of NAIS.” Even
though they have spent years and tens of millions of dollars developing
NAIS, USDA has never conducted a cost-benefit analysis to see if this
thing makes sense or not.
What you can do about NAIS
The government and industry officials have spent over a decade developing
their plans for NAIS. The grassroots movement opposing NAIS just started
to gain momentum over the last year, and has a long way to go –
most US citizens still don’t even know NAIS exists. If we want
to stop it, we have to do more!
Writing your state legislators and Congressmen is a great first step.
You can multiply your effectiveness by helping to build a bigger grassroots
movement. Hand copies of this article or other information about NAIS
to your neighbors. Put stacks of flyers at your local feed stores and
auction barns. Help to organize a local meeting and bring in a speaker.
You can download materials and information at both www.libertyark.net
and www.farmandranchfreedom.org.
If you don’t have internet access, you can call the Farm and Ranch
Freedom Alliance at 1-(866) 687-6452.
Sidebar Article
Other Regulatory Issues
Food Chemical News hosted a conference on Food Law & Regulation
in October.
Registration under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002
The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 requires that “domestic and foreign
facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food for human or
animal consumption” in the United States must register with FDA
by the end of 2006. The statute exempts both “farms” and
“private residences.” Unfortunately, the FDA adopted rather
unclear regulations and their help desk – run by an independent
contractor – told people that they had to register their farms
if they sold anything off of it. At the conference, Leslye Fraser, Director
of the FDA Office of Regulations and Policy, stated that sales directly
from the farm do not trigger the registration requirement.
FDA’s guidance document can be found at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ffregui4.html
Food and Drug Administration’s priorities
Michael Landa, Deputy Director for Regulatory Affairs, spoke about
current events at the FDA. A great deal of his talk centered around
the FDA’s need for funding. Disparate interests, including both
consumer groups and pharmaceutical interests, have formed the “Coalition
for a Stronger FDA” to try to increase FDA’s resources.
See http://www.fdacoalition.org/
for more information on that effort. Despite the FDA’s lack of
resources, they place both raw milk and egg safety high on their list
of priorities, above shellfish safety, foodborne viruses, allergens,
and chemical contaminants. FDA does not appear to be paying any attention
at all to biotech foods; in fact, Dr. Landa labeled them as merely a
“perception” issue! FDA is considering new regulations addressing
egg safety and labeling, so we need to be vigilant to ensure that they
do not place onerous burdens on pastured egg farmers.
Uniformity for Food Act
The Uniformity for Food Act, HR 4167 and S3128, would radically change
the traditional allocation of authority over food safety among the local,
state, and federal authorities. The National Association of State Departments
of Agriculture has been actively opposing the Act. The bill would pre-empt
all local and state regulation of food. The meaning of the provision
is not completely clear, but it could pose a threat to state laws allowing
for the sale of raw milk or local laws that provide greater protection
against genetically modified foods. The bill was passed in the House
without a hearing; the Senate held a hearing in July, but did not invite
several key players in the debate. The bill is currently still in committee
and is not expected to pass before Congress recesses. We will monitor
the next Congress to see if it is introduced again.
About the Author
<Back
| Home | Tour
| Calendar | Contact
Us | Funding | Join
Now
|