|
Science, Politics, and Animal Health Policy Fellow Cris Young, DVM
Current Status The project is gathering useful information that will facilitate the development of a national system. Since the beginning of the F.A.I.R. Pilot Project, some 100,000 dairy animals have been identified in the system. Outside of the project, nearly one and a half million dairy animals have been identified with AIN. This represents approximately 13% of the dairy animals in the U.S. The acceptance of the AIN system is growing rapidly (two beef programs have also securred blocks of AIN numbers). A survey conducted by Dairy Today in February 2001 showed 71% of dairy producers support a mandatory national animal identification program. From discussion with key database providers in the beef industry, it is estimated that between eight and ten million beef cattle, or approximately 10-13% of the national herd, now have information recorded on electronic databases. One and a half to three million cattle (2-4%) are identified in detailed audit trails from birth to slaughter. In these systems an animal can be pinpointed much the same way a parcel can be traced by UPS or Federal Express. Projections are for fifteen to twenty million animals to be so identified within three years. This will represent 20-30% of the national herd depending on the rate of decline in overall cattle numbers that has occurred since the peak in 1996. At the January 2001 annual convention of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association a decision was made to endorse the use of the AIN system for beef identification programs. In the "post-pseudorabies" era, the primary concern for the swine industry is the identification of cull sows and boars. The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has conduct a "tag-along" tag project that showed far superior results to the current backtag system. In this system each sow or boar is identified and as the blood sample is taken at the packer the tag is removed and sent along with the blood. In species where animals move as a unique lot to harvest or to the next phase of production individual animal identification is not necessary. In these cases a premise id is sufficient and the swine industry is working to develop a premise identification number (PIN) that would be assigned by the state veterinarian. The swine industry is poised to introduce these systems nationwide but assistance is needed from the USDA (primarily APHIS) to finalize the alphanumeric numbering system, the barcode, and a symbol for the tags to indicate the tag is part of a surveillance system. Other species industries are also moving in the direction of a national identification system. The equine industry is exploring the use of high tech methods to provide fraud resistant identification. The sheep industry is getting ready to begin a national campaign to eradicate scrapie in domestic flocks, and individual animal identification systems and methods will be required by USDA to support this effort. Among allied industry and commodity groups a full range of activities are occurring related to animal identification. Some have position statements, some have committees, and many have no activity at all occurring at this time. Are Existing Levels of Identification Sufficient? What about food safety issues? For traceback of a violative residue, 95% or greater of animals sent to harvest must be identified. In the most recent year of available data a little more than 2000 violative residue cases in cattle were detected and greater than 95% of those were traced to the farm of origin. We must also consider the disease. The incubation period, the age of the animal at which the disease is detectable, and how the disease is transmitted (vector borne, vertically, horizontally, etc) are all factors. Currently, and historically our animal identification programs have been based on disease eradication programs. As the United States’ livestock disease eradication programs are nearing completion a true void in identification will occur. Brucellosis will soon join the list of diseases no longer found in the country. Tuberculosis and pseudorabies will not be far behind. Three years after Canada successfully completed their brucellosis eradication program, the level of cattle identification dropped from over 90% to around 10%. In the U.S., many brucellosis free states are already dropping calfhood vaccination requirements, and organizations such as the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) and United States Animals Health Association have proposed resolutions to curtail calfhood vaccination for brucellosis. These efforts will reduce the number of calfhood vaccination tags applied. At the present time, the number of calfhood vaccination tags ordered from the APHIS Kansas City warehouse has not significantly declined in recent years. According to USDA program managers, since 1997, 4.6 to 4.8 million heifer calves are vaccinated annually against brucellosis. USDA-APHIS VS anticipates, however, that in the next several years, there will be a national void in cattle identification unless there is a policy shift. Factors that influence national termination of the brucellosis vaccination program include concern in western states over the Yellowstone bison issue, state laws requiring vaccination, and state import requirements. Tagged heifers that are retained in the breeding herd represent a primary method of identification in beef cattle. There is already a void in certain areas of the country where calfhood vaccination is being cut back. Liability A strong argument can be made that a combination of good record keeping of the management practices employed by an operation coupled with individual animal identification will strengthen the defense against liability. National Cattleman’s Beef Association’s legal counsel wrote: "The key element of this legal doctrine (strict liability) is the requirement that the plaintiff establish that the defendant caused the harm at issue in the case. The misuse, alteration or modification of the product by the user or a third party may be the central cause of the alleged injury and, thus, absolve the defendant of the liability". As a national identification project advances, legislation may need to be enacted that would for instance shorten the statute of limitations or enact some other change that would allay the fears of producers concerning liability issues. In January 2001, producers proposed NCBA investigate the feasibility of a liability insurance system for producers. What is the view internationally? Where do we go from here? The issue of liability has been discussed previously. While it is an extremely emotional issue there is really no new burden. Still, some measures may need to be taken to relieve the fears of producers. The companies developing identification and data collection systems need to come together to adopt standards. These standards also need to harmonize with international standards. The data needs to be readily accessible by producers and certain items of the data need to be available to government agencies. Many companies are working feverishly to position themselves to provide this service. On the governmental side it should be a fairly straightforward transition to utilize individual animal identification instead of a brucellosis tag number or some other program tag. NIAA stands poised to facilitate the necessary meetings to come to consensus among involved parties. On the issue of cost, ideally, the program should be producer driven because the greatest potential value lies in the transfer of management data and the resulting changes that can be made at the producer level with that data. Another source of value is the marketing differential for source verified/process verified production. In a voluntary producer driven system the market will dictate what the value is for identification and the data collected and cost of implementation. Any number of scenarios can be imagined for how producers will pay for that data as well as other organizations that desire access to the data. The potential may even exist for a base level of funding from the federal government since they must have individual identification. This would most likely be less than one dollar per animal identified. The USDA is willing to allow three to five years for the industry to adopt an identification program that will satisfy its needs. Producers must recognize that we have mandated the USDA to perform a job and they must have the tool necessary to carry out that mandate. So long as a voluntary program meets their needs they will not have to step in with a mandatory program. Over the past year there has been a real change occurring in the beef industry with respect to animal identification. In February 2001, Feedstuffs reported on a survey conducted at the NCBA meeting which showed 32% of beef producers believe participation in an identification program should be mandatory. This high percentage is quite a surprise and may indicate a response to the issue not just from the respondent’s perspective as a producer but also from their perspective as a consumer. Certainly, as the issue continues to move forward the potential exists for unforeseen obstacles to arise. However, producers have a priceless opportunity at this moment to direct the development of an identification program that will serve their needs and satisfy the requirements of the USDA. This opportunity may not exist tomorrow. The introduction of a foreign animal disease, new research into existing diseases or some other reason may dictate that the USDA take immediate action to protect our livestock industries. With this in mind and a short list of major impediments, a great deal of optimism should exist that the development of an identification program is imminent.
Associations contacted for position statements or
committee activity status: Position statements for organizations that have them are included as appendices. *Denotes organization that currently has no position statement of committee activity.
Appendix 4: United States Animal Health Association
Resolutions Appendix 5: American Veterinary Medical Association Position Statement Appendix
6: National Pork Producers Council Position Statement Appendix 7: Equine Identification: The State of the Art from AAEP Proceedings 2000 Appendix
8: Factsheet from USDA concerning Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
and the Appendix 9: American Farm Bureau and Kentucky Farm Bureaus Policy Statements Appendix 10: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Policy Statement. Appendix 11: National Institute for Animal Agriculture Resolutions and Position Statements |
