At the end of 2003, discovery of a case of mad-cow disease in the United States sent shock waves through the livestock and meat industry. Some 50 importers banned U.S. products, and sales still have not recovered in some markets. Overseas sales fell 80 percent in 2004.
This experience convinced many industry experts that it was essential to trace future U.S. outbreaks to their source very quickly to contain industry losses and dangers to livestock and consumers. For example, in the 2003 case, most herdmates of the infected cow -- which may have shared rations, the likely source of the disease -- were never identified.
In response, the Bush administration launched its National Animal Identification System. It proposed to track millions of cattle and hogs, among other animals, using electronic ear tags and tiny beneath-the-skin transponders. This high-tech system was expected to locate an animal's home farm within 48 hours, instead of the weeks or even months normally required. Australia, Canada, Japan and the European Union have such systems, and they are mandatory.
USDA thought a voluntary approach was better, although many in the meat industry wanted it mandatory. USDA's approach was supported by many large producers of milk, chickens and hogs. However, it was bitterly opposed by many ranchers and small farmers for reasons ranging from the program's cost and concerns about future liability, privacy to religious concerns by some producers. Only about 500,000 producers registered with USDA, 36 percent, far below the 90 percent or so federal officials thought was needed.
The new administration heard quickly from opponents of the program, and last month Secretary Vilsack announced that USDA would start over. His new idea was what he called a "mandatory program" but with a twist. It is only mandatory for animals that cross state lines. And, it would be run by state and tribal governments, not the feds. In addition, he said that much still must be decided about the program, including its funding source. Already, critics are suggesting the new approach will fall short of its goals.
For example, the program exempts animals slaughtered in states where they are raised, even if the meat goes into interstate commerce. Meatpacking executives say this approach will fail to satisfy importing countries who may, once again, shut down their borders when animal diseases occur. A second concern is that program requirements will vary widely from state to state, making tracing both cumbersome and slow.
For their part, state authorities are worrying publicly that this new responsibility may be unwelcome, especially if the feds don't fund it fully. "At best, this is going to be a patchwork system that takes us back to where we were a decade ago," said Scott Stuart, managing director of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, a Colorado Springs, Colo., nonprofit group of livestock interests.
So far, it appears that the administration's new approach has not ended the debate about how to meet consumer and industry expectations. Last week in hearings on USDA's budget proposal, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, D, Conn, chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Agriculture severely criticized Secretary Vilsack's proposal. She expressed frustration about the lack of progress to show for the $147 million USDA already has spent on its earlier programs, and "doesn't plan to agree" to its request for an additional $11 million for FY2011, on the grounds that she doesn't see how the program would work, and doesn't believe that it will.
So, prospects seem far from bright for USDA new, de-centralized sort-of mandatory livestock ID system. Secretary Vilsack says USDA plans extensive meetings with state and industry officials and other stakeholders. Cynics are suggesting that there still is a very long way to go before agreement can be expected on both what is needed, and how it should be organized, Washington Insider believes.
online.dtn.com
Source: newsroom - meattradenewsdaily.co.uk
Back to News Headlines