Spending a few hours chatting with the locals at the Jessamine County Fair’s sheep show earlier this week reminded me that county fairs are in full swing across much of the US. For the many young people who will be readying livestock for local exhibition, that means readying necessary paperwork as well. In my home state of Wisconsin, that paperwork includes livestock premises ID numbers.
Keeping track
Whether backyard hobby or thousand-cow dairy, Wisconsin has required livestock owners housing everything from fowl to fish to register with the state since mandatory premises identification became law about five years ago. Today, the state has more total registered premises than any other in the nation.
But for most of the US, premises identification—like individual or group tracking of animals—still remains an opt-in process, at least presently. And it seems many would like to keep it that way.
US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack went on record earlier this spring noting that much work had taken place in the past five years in development of the proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in a way that producers could feel comfortable supporting.
"However, many of the issues and concerns that were initially raised by producers, such as the cost, impact on small farmers, privacy, and confidentiality and liability, continue to cause debate,” he says. Vilsack called for frank and open conversations about NAIS, and the need to work collaboratively to resolve concerns and move forward with animal traceability.
As part of that discussion, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) recently wrapped up a series of listening sessions on the proposed rule regarding official animal identification numbering systems published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 8, pp. 1634-1643). In addition, the agency continues to take general feedback on NAIS through its website.
"I recognize many groups have provided input into the system previously," says Vilsack. "But we know more today (about) what kind of system will work than when NAIS was first envisioned.”
Having their voices heard
Not surprisingly, individual producers have voiced concerns with cost and privacy issues. And many say the program duplicates existing efforts at a price tag that is particularly burdensome for operations like those found in western states.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) urged its members to participate in the listening sessions and relate what impact the proposed system would have on them as individuals. As an association, NCBA has gone on record in favor of a voluntary program but has strong reservations about any mandatory system because of both economic and privacy concerns. It states in its background paper on animal identification that NAIS is designed to track animal movement and location in the event of an animal disease outbreak, but can’t prevent disease nor is it a food safety tool.
Not all are opposed to the idea of a mandatory national animal ID system, however. Back in March, National Pork Producer Council President Don Butler told the House Ag Committee’s Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry that a mandatory animal identification system is necessary to maintain the viability of the U.S. pork industry and all of animal agriculture.
Former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne says animal trace back shouldn't be abandoned over cost concerns.
“The goal of an ID system is trace back of an animal to its farm of origin within 48 hours of the discovery of a disease,” Butler told the panel. “This will allow a disease to be brought under control and eradicated more quickly, thereby saving taxpayer dollars and animals and keeping foreign markets open to our exports.”
Livestock commodity groups are not the only ones throwing themselves into the debate. Consumer groups of all sizes and strengths have been watching the national animal identification system debate unfold for years, including the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Foundation which has urged opposition to NAIS.
“The government’s own numbers show that a small farmer will pay at least twice, and in some cases nearly three times, the costs per animal to participate in NAIS as will the operators of the large confined animal feeding operations (CAFO),” says Acting Foundation President Pete Kennedy.
Pay now or...
But former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne sees such objections as misplaced.
I chatted with Byrne a few weeks ago about the issue when he was in Lexington, Kentucky, USA, to be honored for his work in food safety at the annual Alltech Symposium. Byrne served at his post as commissioner from 1999 till 2004, and has been credited with establishing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Center for Disease Control (ECDC), and introduction of legislation to combat foot-and-mouth disease. He also led the adoption of the first European Food Law and framework on GMOs, and played a pivotal role in implementing comprehensive risk analysis and risk management strategy.
I asked him about the controversy in the US surrounding mandatory animal identification and how it relates to the need for improved food safety measures. “A voluntary system will not work,” he told me without hesitation. “You need to have a rule or law in place that applies to everybody. Because there is cost involved, some are going to comply and some are not. A voluntary system undermines the value. It has to be in place for everybody.”
He argues that concerns over the cost-to-benefit ratio are often short-sighted when it comes to looking at what costs might be in a major disease outbreak or food safety issue involving livestock. “If we had not put in a mandatory system, we would not have contained the disease,” he says, speaking of his years as commissioner dealing with BSE in Europe. “Citizens demanded it. Very often, crisis is what produces the stimulus for change.”
But will consumers pay?
He says the US is on the right track, but can’t let worries over cost derail efforts. If a crisis means entire herds have to be slaughtered, he says, there is really more cost in the end when a mandatory system is not in place. “Identification allows you to track accurately,” Byrne states, adding that faulty systems often lead to the extremes of over-reaction where too much safe product is inevitably destroyed or inaction because awareness of the source of a problem continues to go undetected for too long or because there is no incentive for corrective measures.
“We went through this 10 years ago in Europe,” Byrne says. “Costs need to be looked at not from the standpoint of what it takes to put into place, but the cost of not having traceability in place. Traceability will pay for itself if you get into trouble.”
But even producers who understand the high cost of an outbreak are looking for practical solutions to their potential out-of-pocket expenses should mandatory individual animal identification come into play.
McDonald’s Corporation, the largest US beef buyer, has called for a national animal trace back system, basing its position on consumer demand. While most consumers feel strongly about the ability to trace food for food safety reasons, few see it as an added value they are willing to pay for—something Byrne says needs to change. “If there is additional cost of production, that will have to be passed on to the consumer,” he states just as firmly as he stated his belief in the need for mandatory identification.
Editor's Note: Laurie Weaver is the publisher and editor of Feeding the Globe. What is your position on a national animal identification system? What are the pros and cons of voluntary and mandatory systems? Is animal identification a matter of food safety? Weaver welcomes your viewpoints. Call her at 608.333.6477 or e-mail her: feedingtheglobe@gmail.com, Editor@AgEXEC.com