Action Alert: Your comments needed on USDA's Proposed Rule for "Animal Disease Traceability"
Having dropped the plans for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), USDA is back again for Round Two. The agency has proposed a rule that would require livestock producers, related businesses, and state livestock agencies to incur significant expense tracking animals that cross state lines.
Though less sweeping than the NAIS, the proposed animal traceability rule is still burdensome and a solution in search of a problem. The USDA has again failed to identify the specific problem or disease of concern, and the real focus of the program is helping the export market. While the program will benefit a handful of large corporations, the costs and burdens will fall on producers, vets, sale barns and weigh stations, and the states. These new regulations will harm rural businesses while wasting taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on the real problems we face in controlling animal disease, food security, and food safety.
At a time when farmers and ranchers are facing significant economic problems, the last thing we need is additional burdensome rules hindering the economic viability of the small businesses of the nation.
TAKE ACTION: You can submit comments either online or by mail.
ONLINE: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=APHIS-2009-0091-0001
The government’s online system can be difficult to navigate and there is a time limit. We encourage you to write your comments and save them in a document on your computer, then copy and paste them into the online comment form. Also, although only some of the information fields are marked as being “required,” some people have experienced problems when they left fields blank. So for the fields that are not required, you may wish to put “NA” (not applicable) in them to avoid potential problems.
BY MAIL: Docket No.APHIS–2009–0091, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238
DEADLINE: Friday, December 9, 2011.
Please also send a copy of your comments to your Congressman and Senators. If you don’t know who represents you, you can find out at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
Here are talking points you can use for your comments, followed by sample comments and more detailed information.
TALKING POINTS
1) The agency should withdraw the proposed rule. If the export market would benefit from the proposed rule, as the agency claims, then the agribusinesses that export meat should pay the costs and offer economic premiums to livestock producers to encourage them to participate in a voluntary system.
2) The agency needs to identify the specific diseases of concern and analyze how to best address those diseases – including prevention measures -- rather than continuing to push a one-size-fits-all tracking program.
3) At the very least, the agency needs to make significant changes to the proposed regulation:
• Remove the new requirements for identifying chickens and other poultry. Small farmers and backyard poultry owners should not be burdened with identifying and tracking birds, and the agency has not shown any need to impose these new requirements.
• Do not apply any new identification requirements to feeder cattle.
• Do not apply new identification and paperwork requirements to direct-to-slaughter cattle, including both for custom and for retail sales.
• Recognize brands and tattoos as official forms of identification.
SAMPLE COMMENTS: Please personalize these sample comments rather than doing a form letter. The personalization can be just a few sentences at the beginning of the comments, but it does make a significant difference. And if you have time to write more detailed comments, that’s even better!
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
I am a __________________ (farmer, local foods consumer, backyard poultry owner, horse owner, etc.). I am very concerned that the proposed rule will __________ (not be workable for my farm; impose costs on my farmers that will then be passed on to me; make it prohibitively expensive for me to order baby chicks from out-of-state hatcheries; etc.)
I urge the USDA to withdraw the proposed rule. If the export market would benefit from the proposed rule, as the agency claims, then the meat packing companies that export meat should pay the costs and offer economic premiums to livestock producers to encourage them to participate in a voluntary system. For disease control, the agency needs to focus on preventative measures rather than after-the-fact tracking.
At the very least, the agency needs to make significant changes to the proposed regulation:
• Remove the new requirements for identifying chickens and other poultry. Small farmers and backyard poultry owners should not be burdened with identifying and tracking birds, and the agency has not shown any need to impose these new requirements.
• Do not apply any new identification requirements to feeder cattle.
• Do not apply new identification and paperwork requirements to direct-to-slaughter cattle, including both for custom and for retail sales.
• Recognize brands and tattoos as official forms of identification.
I urge you to prioritize family farms and our rural communities over the export interests of Agribusiness.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State Zip
MORE INFORMATION
The program is fundamentally flawed because it is not designed to address the real problems we face, and it imposes burdens on producers for the benefit of Big Agribusiness’ export markets.
We have asked USDA for data showing where the problems are in tracking animals currently. Rather than provide that data, USDA hand-picked a few anecdotes, out of the millions of animals in this country. But the agency’s unsupported claims do not justify imposing broad new tracking requirements. Small farms are not the source of most disease problems in this country, yet the proposed rule will burden them unfairly.
POULTRY: Small-scale, pastured, and backyard poultry will be particularly hard hit by the proposed rule. While the large confinement operations will be able to use “group identification,” the definition of the term does not cover most independent operations. Since thousands of people order baby chicks from hatcheries in other states, these birds cross state lines the first day of their lives. Even if the farmer or backyard owner never takes the bird across state lines again, they will have to use individually sealed and numbered leg bands on each chicken, turkey, goose, or duck to comply with the language of the proposed rule.
Even if the definition of “group identification” were changed to cover small operations, the result would be new paperwork requirements on almost every person who owns chickens, turkeys, or other poultry. The agency has entirely failed to justify imposing these burdens on poultry owners.
CATTLE: Along with new identification requirements imposed on all breeding-age cattle, the proposed rule would require identification and paperwork on calves and young cattle (“feeder cattle”), even though there’s no evidence that such requirements will help disease control. In addition, veterinarians and sale barns will have to keep records for 5 years, even though many of these cattle will have been consumed years earlier, creating mountains of useless paperwork.
Producers will only be able to use brands or tattoos as identification if their States enter into special agreements. State agencies will have to build extensive database systems to handle all of the data, creating problems for States’ budgets.
HORSES: The proposed rule also requires that horse owners identify their animals before crossing state lines. Although most, if not all, horses that are shipped across state lines are already identified in some fashion, the proposed rule creates a new complication: Whether or not a physical description is sufficient identification will be determined by the health officials in the receiving state, leaving vets and horse owners struggling with significant uncertainty as they have to anticipate what will be allowed.
SHEEP, GOATS, and HOGS: The draft rule also covers sheep, goats, and hogs that cross state lines, essentially federalizing the existing programs which have been adopted state-by-state until now.
You can read the proposed rule at www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/2011/Proposed%20Rule.pdf
August 26: FARFA and 48 other organizations request an extension to the public comment period
Summary: USDA Proposed Rule for Traceability of Livestock Moving Interstate
Below is an outline of some of the key provisions and definitions from USDA's new proposed rule. References are to the section numbers in the proposed rule.
Basic rule: No person may move covered livestock interstate or receive such livestock moved interstate unless the livestock meet the requirements of new Part 90. (Sec. 90.2)
General exemptions:
• Movement occurs entirely on Tribal land and Tribe has its own traceability system; or
• Movement is to a custom slaughter facility for preparation of meat for personal consumption (not for sale) (Sec. 90.2)
Recordkeeping requirements:
• States, tribes, vets, and anyone else who “distributes official identification devices” must maintain records of the names and addresses of the people they were distribute to for 5 years;
• Sales barns and other “approved livestock facilities” must keep interstate certificates of veterinary inspection (ICVIs) of any covered livestock that enter their facility for 5 years. (Sec. 90.3)
Cattle and Bison
Idenfication is required anytime a cow is moved interstate, except:
• commuter herd, under an approved agreement;
• moved directly from State A through State B and back to State A;
• moved directly to an approved tagging site and are identified at that site before commingling;
• moved with another form of ID (including brands, tattoos, and breed registry certificates) if the shipping and receiving states have an agreement
• In Phase 1, may be moved directly to slaughter with a USDA-approved back tag (Sec. 90.4(b)(1))
Phase 1: Covered cattle and bison include:
• All sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months or older
• Dairy breed cattle of any age (includes both males and females)
• Cattle and bison used for rodeos, exhibitions, or shows
Phase 2: After an evaluation by USDA and an advisory body, all cattle and bison will be included in the program.
What sort of identification must be used? (Sec. 90.4(a)(1))
• Official eartag (see definition of "official eartag" below), or
• Group ID
Cattle and bison moving interstate must be accompanied by an ICVI, unless
• Moved directly to slaughter and accompanied by an owner-shipper statement;
• Moved directly to an approved livestock facility with an owner-shipper statement and do not move interstate from that facility unless accompanied by an ICVI;
• Go to the vet and come back without change in ownership;
• Moved directly from State A through State B and back to State; A;
• Commuter herd under approved commuter herd agreement
• If under 18 months of age, can be moved with other documentation (e.g. brand inspection certificate) as agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving states
• Official ID number must be recorded on ICVI unless:
o Moved directly from approved facility to slaughter, or
o Under 18 months of age or steers or spayed heifers (but this does not exempt any diary cattle, or any cattle used in shows, rodeos, exhibitions)
Poultry
Poultry moving interstate must be officially identified prior to interstate movement or identified as agreed upon by the States or Tribes involved in the movement (Sec. 90.4(b)(5))
What sort of identification must be used? (Sec. 90.4(a)(3))
• A sealed and numbered leg band, or
• Group ID (see definition of group ID below)
Poultry moved interstate must have an ICVI, unless
• From an NPIP-participating flock & accompanied by the appropriate documentation for the NPIP
• Moved directly to slaughter
• Moved to vet care and back to the farm without change of ownership, or euthanized at the vet facility
• Moved directly from State A through State B and back into State A
• Moved with a VS Form 9-3 or other documentation as agreed by the shipping and receiving states
• Moved under a permit under Chapter 82 (Sec. 990.5(g))
Horses
Horses must be identified when moved interstate or per an agreement among the States/Tribes “involved in the movement” (Sec. 90.4(b)(4))
• If being commercially transported to slaughter, must be identified in accordance with part 88
What sort of identification must be used? (Sec. 90.4(a)(2))
• Physical description “sufficient to identify” the horse, “as determined” by “a State or Tribal animal health official in the State or Tribe of destination or APHIS representative”, or
• Electronic ID that meets ISO standards, or
• Digital photographs, or
• If going to slaughter, a device approved under part 88
An ICVI is required whenever a horse is moved interstate (Sec. 90.5(f)
• Can be other documentation as agreed to by the shipping and receiving “States or Tribes involved in the movement”
Sheep, goats, and hogs: The new rule refers back to the existing scrapie and swine programs, essentially “federalizing” the requirements that USDA has urged states to adopt state-by-state.
Key definitions: (Sec. 90.1)
• Approved livestock facility: A stockyard, livestock market, buying station, concentration point, or any other premises under State or Federal veterinary inspection where livestock are assembled and that has been approved under §71.20 of this chapter
• Commuter herd: a herd of cattle or bison moved interstate during the course of normal livestock management operations and without change of ownership directly between two premises, as provided in a commuter herd agreement
• Commuter herd agreement: A written agreement between the owner(s) of a herd of cattle or bison and the animal health officials for the States or Tribes of origin and destination specifying the conditions required for the interstate movement from one premises to another in the course of normal livestock management operations and specifying the time period, up to 1 year, that the agreement is effective. A commuter herd agreement may be renewed annually.
• Covered livestock: Cattle and bison, horses and other equine species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids.
• Dairy cattle: all cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use, that are of a breed(s) typically used to produce milk or other dairy products for human consumption
• Directly: without unloading en route if moved in a mans of conveyance and without being commingled with other animals, or without stopping, except for stops of less than 24 hours that are needed for food, water, or rest in route if the animals are moved in any other manner
• Group/lot identification number (GIN): The identification number used to uniquely identify a “unit of animals” of the same species that is managed together as one group throughout the preharvest chain.
• Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI): An official document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian at the location from which animals are shipped interstate. Full definition includes a long list of items that must be on the ICVI
• Livestock. All farm-raised animals.
• Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears an official identification number for individual animals. Beginning [Insert date 1 year after effective date of final rule] all official eartags applied to animals must bear the U.S. shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal.
• Official identification device or method. A means approved by the Administrator of applying an official identification number to an animal of a specific species or associating an official identification number with an animal or group of animals of a specific species or otherwise officially identifying an animal or group of animals.
• Official identification number. A nationally unique number that is permanently associated with an animal or group of animals and that adheres to one of the following systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES).
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Location-based number system.
(4) Flock-based number system.
(5) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for the official identification of animals.
• Officially identified. Identified by means of an official identification device or method approved by the Administrator.
Check back in early September for additional analysis and sample comments.