In April, FARFA sent a letter to USDA, signed by 2,070 nonprofits, farms, ranches, livestock businesses, and individuals, urging USDA to drop its latest plan for mandatory electronic Animal ID.

You can read our letter here

For decades, multinational meatpacking corporations, high-tech companies, and the USDA have pushed mandatory electronic identification for livestock, particularly cattle.  They claim it’s an animal health measure, with veiled claims that it also supports food safety, but neither is true.

The real story is that it is to promote international trade, thus maximizing the meatpacking companies’ profits, while the high-tech companies will make millions selling tags, readers, and all the related infrastructure … all at the expense of farmers and ranchers.

The proposal for electronic ID was defeated in 2010 by massive opposition, from organic farmers, conventional ranchers, livestock sale barns, horse owners, homesteaders, and consumers who want to buy from American producers.  But Agribusiness and its allies in the USDA are now trying to bring it back.

On January 18th, 2023, USDA published a proposed rule (Docket No. APHIS-2021-0020), “Use of Electronic Identification Eartags as Official Identification in Cattle and Bison.”

Mandatory electronic animal identification is a solution in search of a problem.  The industry’s claims that it will help with animal health don’t hold water because the current, low-tech methods are working effectively.  And it doesn’t do anything at all for food safety, since the tracking ends at the slaughterhouse.

The real reason for mandatory electronic animal identification is to satisfy monopolistic meatpacker interests to increase their exports markets, their profits, and their control of the U.S. cattle industry.

Mandatory electronic animal identification is a step in the wrong direction, especially at a time when the negative impacts of corporate consolidation of our food supply are becoming ever clearer, with shortages and skyrocketing prices (while the corporations’ profits also skyrocket).

Read more about why USDA's proposal is bad for small farmers AND anyone who cares about a resilient food system.