National Animal Identification System Must Be Flexible for All Producers

USAIP serves as framework for animal health surveillance and tracking\

Washington, D.C. (March 4, 2004) – Flexibility will be a key component in an effective national animal identification system, and on-going discussion and input from all parties within animal agriculture will be essential, according to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).
 
In testimony given today before the Senate Agriculture Committee’s subcommittee on Marketing, Inspection, and Product Promotion, NCBA Vice President and Missouri cattle producer Mike John voiced support of the proposed United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) as the framework for establishing an effective livestock tracking system. 
 
“Animal identification is a confusing and complicated topic which has endured several years of debate to come to a consensus, and there is still much work to do,” John said. “The key to effective implementation is solid standards – which USAIP provides – combined with flexibility for mode of marketing, regional differences and existing programs.”
 
In the wake of the Dec. 23, 2003 BSE announcement, focus has been on animal health issues and the importance of animal identification and traceback capabilities. John emphasized, however, that identification is a tool to use in conjunction with existing animal disease surveillance and monitoring infrastructure.  “It is not a substitute for that infrastructure,” he said.
 
The USAIP represents two years of efforts to develop the framework for a national animal identification system that would aid in the identification and tracking of livestock for animal health and related purposes. Over 400 animal and livestock industry professionals, representing more than 70 associations, organizations and government agencies, have worked to develop the plan with the goal of tracking an animal or group of animals (back and forward) within 48 hours of an animal health incident.  
 
John’s testimony proposed answers to some of the tough questions surrounding animal ID, such as costs and confidentiality of information. John said cost sharing between federal and state governments and producers would be most appropriate. Costs for full implementation of the USAIP are estimated at $545 million over six years.
 
In addition, confidentiality of producer information is a concern.  “Producers are extremely concerned that the information that becomes part of an animal identification system could fall into the hands of those who would use it illicitly,” John said. “For these reasons, NCBA believes that any information provided by producers for the animal identification system should be exempt from release under FOIA. Making the Privacy Act apply to data provided under this system would add an additional layer of protection for producers privacy,” he added. 
 
NCBA leadership and members have been actively involved in representing cattle producers in the development of the USAIP, and have taken a leading role in coordinating the bovine species group.  A copy of the proposed plan and other information is posted at www.usaip.info.