WASHINGTON   –  U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (MO-08) this week pressed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack about plans to implement a National Animal Identification System she says would be harmful to ranching operations in the Southern Missouri congressional district she represents.

“Yes, USDA has indicated it is changing course, but we still have to be on guard that the outcome of any rules they publish do not result in a mandatory or compulsory burden for livestock operations,” Emerson said. “I remain concerned about the implementation of rules that will create a privacy concern and a financial hardship for the cow/calf operations in Southern Missouri who have a right to be very concerned about these prospective rules.”

In the hearing of the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, Emerson told the Secretary, “My producers are just so concerned about a mandatory traceability system, whatever the name is.  They are concerned about the reporting requirements, they are concerned about the record-keeping, they are concerned about civil and criminal liabilities, and they are concerned probably more than anything to what they perceive as an underlying threat to their privacy.  And changing the name from NAIS and requiring the states to enforce rules written in Washington, DC, is not going to change their concerns.”

Emerson also noted that well over $100 million has been spent on the program without so far bridging the gap between producers’ concerns and a workable voluntary system.

Emerson’s exchange with Secretary Vilsack follows, and a full video version is available on Emerson’s official website, www.house.gov/emerson:

Emerson: As a Representative from a state that is very hostile to NAIS in any form whatsoever (we have many, many, many cow/calf operations, I think we’re third in the country, but we have very few feedlots so there are a lot of interstate sales) couldn’t this then because of that, number one, be considered a mandatory requirement for our producers or our operators in Missouri? And secondly, what would be USDA’s reaction or response to a state which refuses, and I mean seriously refuses by statute, to implement a traceability system at all? 

SECRETARY VILSACK:  Well, I think first and foremost it’s important to understand why we need this.  If there is a disease outbreak the ability to determine where it is and to confine it is certainly not just beneficial to that producer but it’s beneficial to the entire market.  And every producer in your state of Missouri could potentially be negatively impacted if we do not have a system in place that would allow us to focus on disease traceability that allows us to get to the heart of the matter which is how do we identify and react and respond to a disease outbreak. 

What we are interested in is having a system that works far better than the one we had.  When only 35 percent of producers are participating on the cattle side it’s fairly clear that this is not a system that is going to be particularly helpful in that ultimate goal which is to be able to identify a disease outbreak and be able to contain it.  I think as people recognize that what we are proposing is first and foremost a limitation on what livestock are impacted, as you mentioned, that certainly is a part of a  reaction to the concerns that were expressed.  That if I am just producing something for my neighbor or myself we shouldn’t have to do this.  We understood that.  We also understand that we want to work with the states to create a system that states are satisfied with and happy with.  We want to engage them in responding to a number of the questions.  So for example, we don’t forsee that the federal government will be the data collector.  We don’t see that is necessarily something that is our role. 

We think the data can be maintained in their respective states.  We don’t think we should be the arbitrator of what technology works because different states have different requirements or different states feel different technologies would be more appropriate or less appropriate.  Our view is that there are probably some very significant low cost technologies that would work just fine to allow us to do what we need to do with this system. 

We think there needs to be a conversation on liability but we recognize that the states are going to have some input on that and we didn’t want to prejudge what that input would be.  So what we committed to was a comment that we are going to take that old system and put it aside we are going to put a new system in place but we’re going to have partnerships with states. 

My hope would be, and I’m not trying to avoid your question, but my hope would be that we wouldn’t have a state after all is said and done and after this is all fleshed out that would say we are simply not going to do this because they would recognize that it’s in their best interest to be able to have some capacity to identify at least what state a disease outbreak may have occurred in, that would allow us to contain it, to allow us to respond to it, and allow us to make sure it doesn’t harm the market any further than it might and that is what this is all about. In some livestock operations this isn’t an issue. 

In pork and poultry I think there is a greater acceptance but in the cattle industry there was not and we need to figure out how to do a better job.