First up was Dr. John Clifford, the USDA's chief vet. He called NAIS "a long-term investment in emergency preparedness and response, competitiveness of our livestock sector in international markets, and consumer confidence in our food supply." I couldn't disagree more. He continued:
The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) of 2002 authorizes USDA to take measures to detect, control, or eradicate livestock pests or diseases in the United States. When we do detect an outbreak, we must quickly determine its source so we can stop disease spread. We must identify all infected animals and all animals exposed to them. By tracing back from the infected animal detected, we can find any other infected or exposed animals and establish quarantines to ensure that they do not move. Once we set quarantine boundaries to arrest disease spread, we concentrate on treating or removing infected or exposed animals to eliminate the disease. The faster we can trace the path of the initially detected diseased animal, the faster we can establish the quarantine-and with more precision so that we do not needlessly prevent healthy, unexposed animals from moving in commerce--and commence treatment or removal.
In other words, the USDA isn't really interested in banning agricultural practices that make us more vulnerable to disease but they sure would like to keep tabs on every single animal in the U.S. so that after infection occurs they know which animals to kill. Including people's pets.
Clifford made the point that 75% of animal diseases "can affect humans as well" (does that mean humans can catch them?) and in that way made his argument for NAIS as a program to help HUMAN health.
About making the system voluntary vs. mandatory:
Initially we envisioned a voluntary program that would eventually become mandatory. Also, we envisioned a system using standard technology. However in response to various concerns raised by some producers, small farmers, and some religious groups, then Secretary Johanns decided in August 2006 that NAIS would be entirely voluntary at the federal level. (States retained the option to make their participation mandatory, and several have done so.) Accordingly, we invested a great deal of effort-and money-in encouraging producers to voluntarily participate. I will provide more detail about those efforts later in my statement. Also, rather than establish a mandatory technology, we sought to make NAIS technology neutral, in hopes of stimulating competition that might lead to better pricing and more flexibility for voluntary participants.
If it were TRULY voluntary, I would be OK with it. But it is not. There's a bill going through that would make producers unable to slaughter animals who aren't registered for NAIS. That means only pet owners would be able to choose whether or not to register for NAIS. There's a USDA rule in the works that would require NAIS registration in order for animals to receive vaccinations. And many states are moving towards mandatory as well.
Next up was Bill Nutt from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He expressed support for a VOLUNTARY, market-driven approach to animal ID. But he's not down with a mandatory program. He said that a database of animal locations and premise locations might get into the hands of protesters who use it to make trouble, or competitors who use it to their advantage competitively. He adds that USDA doesn't have a good history in preventing leaks - and even if nothing happens by mistake, the info could get out via a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act).
He also made a good point about the cost of a tracking system to farmers. For his cows, age and source verification costs $40 to $80 per cow. Then he went on to promote use of private sector technology to keep the database, because the private sector isn't subject to FOIA requests.
Then he brought up the current rule going through the USDA:
According to APHIS, the proposed rule entitled USDA APHIS "Official Animal Identification Numbering Systems" is the next step in developing a nationally integrated, modern animal disease response system and is intended to create greater standardization and uniformity of official numbering systems and ear tags used in both official animal disease programs and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
While it would not technically require the use of the animal identification number (AIN), the rule would require that when AINs are used, only those numbers beginning with the 840 prefix will be recognized as official for use.
He said he's concerned with "the apparent fixation within USDA to control and track movements of official APHIS EID tags and the proposed rule mandating "840" tags as the only acceptable tags." Basically, it seems that the USDA's requests are "burdensome" to him but he's not expressing concerns outside of that.
Next up, the good guys. Max Thornsberry of R-CALF. He started by saying NAIS "represents a weakening of our superior disease prevention, control and eradication strategies, and... NAIS is ill-conceived, unnecessary, unworkable and un-American." HELL YEAH!
He correctly stated that disease control starts with PREVENTION. Then he gives examples why mandatory animal identification isn't effective for disease control. The U.S. requires ID on all Mexican cattle imports yet we've gotten bovine tuberculosis from Mexican cattle ANYWAY (and the USDA's testimony said that it takes on average 199 days to track down sources of bovine tuberculosis).
Next, he says that the USDA has no evidence that current disease programs are inadequate. He said the reason why the USDA is so hot to trot on NAIS is because they want to conform to international standards:
This leads us to the fact that USDA's radical NAIS concept did not originate on U.S. soil and was not predicated on a need to improve the United States' ability to control the spread of animal diseases. Instead, the impetus for NAIS was the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) goal, formulated in 1995, of facilitating international trade through the liberalization of international trade rules
He said this cause the US and other countries to abandon disease prevention in favor of disease management and tracking.
This evidence substantiates R-CALF USA's contention that the driving force behind NAIS is not a science-based determination that a 48-hour traceback, or any other component of NAIS, is needed to effectively prevent, control, and eradicate livestock diseases, but rather, it was the previous Administration's desire to lead the rest of the world toward full conformity with international trade standards regarding animal identification.
He says that he thinks NAIS is overstepping what is allowed under the law cited as the justification for it AND it imposes a "far stricter and more burdensome standard on U.S. livestock producers than USDA imposes on foreign meatpacking plants and livestock from foreign countries.
Another statement I like is "NAIS is void of practical considerations for controlling animal disease outbreaks in the United States." Oh, and "NAIS unnecessarily ignores and supplants pre-existing time-proven animal identification systems." Nice!
He makes the case that the costs of NAIS will make farmers and ranchers get out of farming. As an eater, that's where my fears are focused. I want to have sustainable animal products available to me. If NAIS pushes the good guys out of business, then sustainable products will no longer be available.
Way to go, R-CALF! Let's hope someone on the committee was actually listening. I look forward to hearing how the Congresscritters all responded to this testimony and what questions were asked. |
