Page 93 - Summer 2017 Journal

Legislative Updates
DÉJÀ VU—IS ANIMAL ID MAKING A RETURN? By Judith McGeary, Esq.
Twelve years ago, American farmers started to hear about a federal program called the Na- tional Animal Identification System (NAIS). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) documents called for every person who owned even one livestock or poultry animal to register his or her property, individually identify each animal (in most cases with electronic ID like microchips or radio-frequency identification [RFID] tags), and report their movements to a database. At first, many people didn’t pay much attention, some because the program was labeled as “voluntary at the federal level” and others because it seemed too absurd to be taken seriously.
And then we took a closer look. The paper trail revealed a decade of planning by agribusi- ness groups. They had developed the plan for an international system of tracking animals in order to grease the wheels for exports and im-
ports. The goal was to throw open the border so that when there was a disease outbreak in a country they could claim that they could safely continue exports because they could supposedly guarantee that the exported animals or meat had not had any contact with sick animals. The huge market for RFID tags and database management meant that technology companies eagerly joined the push for this massive program.
The agribusiness interests that had devel- oped the program had included provisions for group ID for animals that were owned by the same entity, and not commingled with others, from birth to death. The way it was written, the vertically integrated meat packers—companies like Tyson and Cargill who control every stage of production in poultry and swine operations —would face minimal costs. And the vast dif- ferences between the costs of individual ID for independent producers and group ID for such
Judith McGeary
is the Austin, Texas, chapter leader, an attorney and
small farmer, and the executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. She has a B.S. in biology from Stanford University and a J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin. She and her husband
run a small grass-based farm with sheep, cattle, horses, and poultry. For more information, go to farmandranchfree- dom.org or
call (254) 697-2661.
ACTION ITEM
In addition to the public meetings, USDA is accepting written comments. You can submit them online at https:// https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=APHIS-2017-0016-0001 until July 31 at midnight.
SAMPLE COMMENT FOR CONSUMERS: Extensive new animal ID requirements could have significant impacts on our agricultural and food system.
I buy my food from small farmers who would be particularly hard-hit by the cost and burdens associated with electronic ID. I do not want to see the farmers who provide food for my family and me burdened by requirements for the benefit of those who are exporting to other countries. A local food system is vital to our health, economy and food security, and I urge USDA to prioritize the needs of small farmers.
SAMPLE COMMENT FOR PRODUCERS: Any action by USDA should be limited to the question of whether young cattle should be required to be identified when crossing state lines. That is the issue that USDA committed to reviewing when it adopted ADT just a few years ago.
(Add any comments or experience you have with animal ID requirements. Have you shipped cattle or poultry across state lines? Have you been involved with a traceback? What would be the impact on you if young cattle [under 18 months] had to have individual identification? What would be the impact if electronic ID were required? If you live in Michigan, which already requires electronic ID, what have been the impacts?)
SUMMER 2017
Wise Traditions 93