Alan Guebert
When
the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture announced the discovery of the nation’s first mad
cow in late Dec. 2003, consumers and ranchers were met by a government
search-and-destroy blitz worthy of war.
Where
had this cow been born? Where had it been? Where were its siblings, herdmates,
offspring?
Contrast
that breathless effort with news March 13 that USDA had confirmed the nation’s
third case of mad cow.
USDA
was coolly professional; it knew exactly what to look for and where. Consumers
never even hiccupped while ordering their next Big Mac.
That
difference--or indifference--is being mirrored in the slog towards a National
Animal Identification System (NAIS). Four months after the 2003 mad cow made
headlines, USDA announced a nationwide program to identify all premises and
animals in “direct contact” with a “disease of concern” within 48 hours.
Back
then, USDA wanted a single, private, national database to track the births,
deaths and movement all American cattle, swine, sheep, goats, horses, poultry,
bison, deer, elk, llamas and alpacas in case of a disease outbreak.
Now,
however, that idea has been morphed into a “metadata portal,” techie talk for
an electronic door opening to a room containing the stacks of federal, state
and private animal ID databases already in existence.
Back
then, there was stern talk of mandatory registration.
Now,
however, NAIS’s first implementing step, the registration of animal “premises,”
not animals, is voluntary.
The
results reflect the changes. Despite all 50 states, five Native American tribes
and two U.S. territories urging livestock owners to register animal premises
since mid-2005, just 213,376 sites out of an estimated 2 million-plus have done
so.
The
slowdown, and USDA’s rejiggering of the ID program, has not been government
fumbling, although USDA’s lowering of the bar makes any countrywide ID program
appear less necessary.
The
bigger brake has been producers; even those and their livestock organizations
that strongly endorsed NAIS in 2003 prefer slower going now. Slower because, by
any standard of design and implementation, NAIS has the makings of a nightmare
if not done correctly.
For
example, NAIS critics and supporters alike deep-sixed USDA’s plan to create a
single, national animal ID database. They rightly pointed out that USDA wished
to re-invent databases already in existence; databases such as
federally-mandated, state-implemented brucellosis and tuberculosis programs,
state branding programs, producer group registries and the like.
Cost
is another hold-up. No one knows what producers will pay per premise, per group
of animals (as in the case of poultry) or per animal if and when national ID is
in place. So far, USDA has spent $33 million in 2004 and 2005 to set the stage
for NAIS; its ID budget for 2006 is another $33 million.
But
that’s chickenfeed compared to what a fully implemented program might cost. At
$2 per head for cattle, hogs, horses, goats, bison, and sheep, national ID
would cost-- what?--something north of $300 million to get started and untold
millions per year to maintain?
It’s
a guess because neither USDA nor the private industry NAIS supporters have
conducted a cost-benefit analysis on the program.
Moreover,
who’s going to pay for this? USDA “envisions” the cost will “be cooperatively
shared between the federal and state governments along with producers,” but
nothing, to date, has been decided or even proposed.
Worrisome,
too, is the data. Critics want state and federal governments, not private
industry as USDA suggests, to compile, manage and own it.
Even
then, however, data protection is suspect. On Feb. 15, USDA sheepishly admitted
that a private contractor working for the Farm Service Agency mistakenly
released the Social Security and tax identification numbers of 350,000
participants in its tobacco buyout program. (USDA got the data back.)
Another
question: If NAIS, then COOL? After all, national animal ID should make country
of origin labeling a snap.
Then
there’s the biggie: liability. Who will pay if traceback fingers producers for,
say, E. coli contamination? Again, nothing has been decided.
In
short, the case for national animal ID is compelling but not convincing. Too
many questions; too few answers.
© 2006 ag comm