The USDA claims that the NAIS is “technology neutral.” But the USDA’s Draft Program Standards call for all cattle to be identified with Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) tags in their ear. The Equine Species Working Group (ESWG) has recommended a specific type of microchip be used to identify horses. And the entire system is premised on the functioning of massive databases. This emphasis on electronic technology extends back for over a decade – in 1994, a group of industry officials held a conference and discussed what type of microchip to use and who would manage the database.
The microchips are subject to multiple problems and cannot guarantee unique identification.
Like any technology, RFIDs and microchips have inherent problems. Electronic devices become obsolete very quickly. Yesterday’s $2,000 personal computer is now a piece of worthless junk that cannot run modern software. While many animals are slaughtered within a couple of years, breeding stock may be kept for 10 years or longer. Will people have to re-chip their animals every few years?
RFID technology, like any electronic device, is subject to problems that do not exist with traditional identification methods such as branding or tattoos. Depending on the security of the technology used, one can clone microchips, destroy and replace them, or even infect them with computer viruses. The specific type of microchip recommended by the USDA and working groups, the ISO 11784/11785 chip, is designed to be programmed in the field before they are applied to the animals, and the same technology even allows them to be reprogrammed after they are in the animal. It is impossible to reliably trace an animal if someone can change its identity at any time. The opportunities for avoiding true identification are legion.
Significantly, the ISO 11784/85 chip is not the type of microchip that has been generally used in horses, dogs, or cats in the United States for private purposes, and it emits on a different frequency, 134.2 kHz, rather than standard 125 KHz. Thus, most of the scanners and microchip readers in the U.S. today would not read or even detect these ISO chips. Every animal handling facility will have to buy expensive new scanners in order to comply with the USDA- and ESWG-recommended technology.
The readers are inefficient and expensive
The issue of the readers raises yet more flaws with this program. The ISO standard reflects a “compromise” that incorporates two mutually incompatible technologies within the transponders. Readers for ISO-compliant transponders must be able to read both types of transponders. In essence, this will require two readers in one box. The result is a reader that is both slower and less reliable under moving conditions, such as trying to read tags on animals moving though a sales barn. Moreover, because the reader must include two technologies, it is more expensive.
The databases are unmanageable and impractical
The problems with the microchips and readers are only the beginning. The USDA has set out its vision of multiple public and private databases, capturing all of the reportable “events” for every animal, with the USDA creating a metadata portal to use for its purposes.
Establishing these databases will be a monumental task. There are over a hundred million cattle in the U.S., and millions more horses, chickens, sheep, goats, pigs, deer, elk, bison, and other livestock animals. These animals are taken to local shows, sold in auction houses, sold in private transactions between individuals, slaughtered, and otherwise moved for a multitude of reasons. The technological aspects of setting up such huge databases are daunting. And the databases are only as good as the information that is entered. There will be literally hundreds of millions of opportunities for human error in this system.
USDA’s plans also assume that all people covered by the NAIS will have computers and internet access to report within 24 hours after a reportable event. The truth is that large numbers of farmers and ranchers do not even own computers. USDA, and the implementing state agriculture departments, will have to take written reports, mailed to their agencies, or telephone reports, which will be transcribed. These cannot possibly meet the 24-hour reporting requirements. They will also introduce another significant failure point in the system: human input of data.
The technology companies and those entities that plan to operate the databases could make billions of dollars under NAIS. Yet, given the multiple failure points in the design, implementation and maintenance of the proposed database, there is no evidence that they could deliver 48-hour traceback of unique animal identification.