Order Code RL32012
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Animal Identification and Meat Traceability
Updated July 2, 2004
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Animal Identification and Meat Traceability
Summary
Animal identification (ID) refers to marking individual or groups of farm
animals so that they can be tracked from birth to slaughter. Animal ID is one
segment of meat traceability, generally the tracking of identifiable products through
the entire marketing chain to the ultimate consumer. Animal ID and meat traceability
are not programs in themselves; rather, they may be useful tools in animal health,
food safety, quality assurance, or country-of-origin labeling programs.
No nationwide comprehensive U.S. animal ID system is in place, although many
producers do keep records on each of their animals for herd management purposes
and/or as part of animal disease programs. Interest in a comprehensive system has
intensified in the wake of such developments as discoveries of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”) in several North American cows, debate
over mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meats and other products, and
ongoing concerns about bioterrorism.
A government-industry group has been working for several years on a national
animal ID system, with animal health and disease control its primary purpose. A key
goal is the ability to identify all animals and premises potentially exposed to a foreign
animal disease within 48 hours of its discovery. Policy issues have revolved around
whether it should be mandatory, privacy issues, program cost, and who should pay.
There is also some interest in a more extensive system that could trace meats to their
birth animals, where concerns also include the economic impacts on producers and
those who process and market meat products. After the December 2003 U.S. BSE
case, USDA promised to accelerate work on animal ID, for which it has provided
$18.8 million in FY2004, and is seeking $33 million for FY2005.
In the first session of the 108th Congress, much of the debate over expanded
animal ID had occurred within the context of COOL. The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-
171) required many retailers to provide country-of-origin information on a number
of raw products, including fresh and ground beef, pork, and lamb, starting September
30, 2004. The consolidated FY2004 omnibus appropriation (P.L. 108-199, H.Rept.
108-401) postpones mandatory COOL for two years for all covered commodities,
except farmed fish and wild fish, to September 30, 2006.
In reviewing COOL, lawmakers have learned more about how animal ID can be
used for other purposes, most notably to deal with animal diseases like BSE. They
also have become more aware of trade implications surrounding animal ID and meat
traceability. A number of proposals to establish animal ID programs are pending in
the second session, including S. 1202/H.R. 3546, the Meat and Poultry Products
Traceability and Safety Act of 2003; S. 2007/H.R. 3714 [Section 5(b)], the Ruminant
Identification Program; S. 2008, the National Farm Animal Identification and
Records Act; H.R. 3787, also titled the National Farm Animal Identification and
Records Act; H.R. 3822, the National Livestock Identification Act, and S. 2070/H.R.
3961, the United States Animal Identification Plan Implementation Act. This report
will be updated if events warrant.

---

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What Are Animal Identification and Meat Traceability? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Reasons for Animal Identification and Meat Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Commercial Production and Marketing Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Animal Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Food Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Country-of-Origin Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Current U.S. Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Development of a National Identification Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
U.S. Animal Identification Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
USDA Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
USDA-Funded Pilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foreign Trade Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Beef Export Verification Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
U.S. Needs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Foreign ID Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Other Selected Issues
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Program Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Costs and Who Pays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Confidentiality of Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Industry Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Congressional Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix: Comparison of Selected Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

---

Animal Identification and Meat Traceability
Overview
U.S. animal agriculture is seeking to improve its capability to trace the
movement of livestock and meat products from their sources through the marketing
chain. Is a national system needed? Should it be mandatory? What would it cost,
and who pays? The livestock and meat industries have discussed these questions for
some time, and an industry-government working group has been developing a
national animal identification (ID) plan for livestock disease tracking purposes. It
has stated that the health of U.S. herds “is the most urgent issue ... and therefore, is
the most significant focus” of its proposed plan.1
National interest has intensified in the wake of such recent developments as the
discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”) in
several North American cows, and ongoing concerns about bioterrorism.
Implementation of a new mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law for
meats and other products also has fueled interest in increased animal ID capabilities
(but is not a focus of the industry-government working group).
This report focuses on animal ID and meat traceability. However, traceability,
and the somewhat different but related concepts of “identity preservation” and
“product segregation,” also pertain to other agricultural products (e.g., grains) and
issues (e.g., genetically modified, or GM, crops; the labeling of GM foods; and the
production and labeling of organic foods). Several sources cited below, including the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service (ERS) and
Choices articles (see footnote 1) and a recent Sparks study (see footnote 5), cover
traceability in more breadth.
What Are Animal Identification and Meat Traceability?
Animal ID refers to the marking of individual farm animals, or a group or lot
of animals, so that they can be tracked from place of birth to slaughter. Many
producers already know, and keep records on, the identities of each animal. In
addition, many animals have been identified as part of official disease eradication or
control programs. However, no nationwide U.S. marking system, backed by
universal numbering and a central data registry, is in place.
1 National Identification Development Team, U.S. Animal Identification Plan, December 23,
2003, p. 2. Other sources for portions of this report include USDA Economic Research
Service (ERS), “Traceability for Food Marketing & Food Safety: What’s the Next Step?”
in the January-February 2002 Agricultural Outlook; Elise Golan and others, “Traceability
in the U.S. Food Supply: Dead End or Superhighway?” in the June 2003 Choices magazine;
and interviews with various USDA and animal industry officials.

---

CRS-2
Animal ID is one component of meat traceability. Traceability is the more
comprehensive concept of tracking the movement of identifiable products through
the marketing chain. An extensive form of meat traceability is the ability to follow
products forward from their source animal (i.e., birth or ancestry), through growth
and feeding, slaughter, processing, and distribution, to the point of sale or
consumption (or backward from the consumer to the source animal). Traceability
can be used to convey information about a product, such as what it contains, how it
was produced, and every place it has been.
Animal ID and meat traceability are not themselves food safety, animal disease
prevention, quality assurance, or country-of-origin labeling programs. However, they
may be important components of such programs.
Reasons for Animal Identification and Meat Traceability
Commercial Production and Marketing Functions. Animal producers
and food suppliers already have at least some capacity for tracing products. Many
farmers and ranchers keep track of individual animals and how they are being raised.
Traceability can help them to identify and exploit desirable production
characteristics, such as animals that can grow more rapidly on less feed or that yield
a better cut of meat. Universal bar codes on processed food, including many meats,
are widely used for tracking. Traceability helps to coordinate shipments, manage
inventories, and monitor consumer behavior. Some consumers prefer meat (or eggs
or milk) from animals raised according to specified organic, humane treatment, or
environmental standards. Traceability can help firms to separate, and keep records
on, these unique products to verify production methods. However, in the commercial
market, producers benefit (and will provide such products) only to the extent that
demand exists.
Animal Health. Animal ID can help to track down more quickly the source
of diseases in U.S. herds (or flocks) in order to eradicate them and prevent their
spread. In the growing global marketplace, surveillance and containment, aided by
a traceability system, can both reassure foreign buyers about the health of U.S.
animals and help to satisfy other countries’ sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) import
requirements. When used in animal health programs, ID and tracing systems are
likely to have both commercial and regulatory dimensions. USDA’s Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is the lead federal agency charged with
protecting U.S. animal populations from diseases and pests. APHIS works
cooperatively with foreign and state animal health authorities and with the private
sector in such efforts.

Food Safety. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is
responsible for protecting the public against unsafe meat and poultry. The Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the safety of all other foods and also regulates
animal feeds. Both collaborate with APHIS and other federal and state agencies to
protect the food supply from the introduction, through animals, of threats to human
health, such as tuberculosis and brucellosis; the four major bacterial foodborne
illnesses, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli O157:H7; and the human
form of BSE, a very rare but fatal one known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
(vCJD). Generally, when local health officials can link an illness to a particular

---

CRS-3
product, firms and their regulators have been able to trace that product back to the
processor and/or slaughter facility. It is more difficult and costly, though technically
feasible, to determine which particular animals, herds, or flocks were the source of
the problem. A rigorous traceback and animal ID system would not prevent safety
problems (process controls, testing, and other science-based food safety regimes are
intended to do that), but it could facilitate recalls, possibly contain the spread of an
illness, and help authorities stem future incidents, according to some analysts.
Besides building public confidence in the U.S. food safety system, improved
traceability may enable firms to limit their legal and financial liabilities, it has been
argued. Thus food safety also has both commercial and regulatory dimensions.2
Country-of-Origin Labeling. Section 10816 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-
171) required many retailers to provide country-of-origin information on a number
of raw products, including fresh and ground beef, pork, and lamb (produce, seafood,
and peanuts also are covered). USDA was to implement the requirement by
September 30, 2004; until then COOL was voluntary. However, the consolidated
FY2004 omnibus appropriation (P.L. 108-199, H.Rept. 108-401) postpones
mandatory COOL for two years for all covered commodities, except farmed fish and
wild fish, to September 30, 2006. Under the COOL law, meats labeled as U.S. origin
must come from animals that are born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States.
The COOL law prohibits USDA from establishing a mandatory ID system to verify
country of origin, but it does permit USDA to require persons supplying covered
commodities to maintain a “verifiable audit trail” to document compliance. Some
analysts have concluded, therefore, that COOL could spur efforts to trace red meats
back to their birth animals. (Poultry is not covered by the COOL law.)3
Current U.S. Programs
Animal ID dates back at least to the 1800s, when hot iron brands were used
throughout the West to indicate ownership. The methods of (and reasons for)
identifying and tracking animals and their products have evolved since then and, as
noted, are employed for both commercial and regulatory purposes.
By the mid-1900s, APHIS and its predecessor agencies were using tags, tattoos
and brands more widely, mainly to identify, track, and remove animals affected by
disease outbreaks. Current ID methods include ear, back, and tail tags; neck chains,
freeze brands, and leg bands. Some producers use radio frequency ID (RFID)
transponders with information that is read by scanners and fed into computer
databases. For interstate swine movements, mandatory ID requirements have been
in place since 1988 for disease control purposes. Most hogs are tracked by group, not
individually, and most slaughter plants can identify the owners of the animals under
this system. Sheep moved across state lines also are required to be identified.
Brucellosis is a highly contagious and costly disease mainly affecting cattle,
bison, and swine. Once it was common in the United States, and uniquely numbered
2 See CRS Issue Brief IB10082, Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues; and CRS Issue Brief
IB10127, Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues for Congress.
3 See CRS Report RS97-508 ENR, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods.

---

CRS-4
brucellosis ID tags were routinely found on animals, with information that they had
been vaccinated and/or tested. Today brucellosis has largely been eradicated in
commercial U.S. herds. APHIS also has eradication or control programs for
tuberculosis, scrapie in sheep, pseudorabies in swine, Texas fever and scabies in
cattle, and several poultry diseases, including Exotic Newcastle Disease (END). In
each of these programs, APHIS has established rules and procedures to identify and
track animals, herds, or flocks back to their origin, if necessary.
Government-coordinated programs have been established for other purposes
besides animal health. For example, a voluntary process verification program
operated by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) “provides livestock and
meat producers an opportunity to assure customers of their ability to provide
consistent quality products by having their written manufacturing processes
confirmed through independent, third party audits,” according to AMS. USDA
Process Verified suppliers can have marketing claims such as breeds, feeding
practices, or other claims verified by USDA and marketed as “USDA Process
Verified.” Seven firms were participants in 2003, including Premium Standard
Farms, one of the nation’s largest pork producer-processors (which can trace its
meats back virtually to birth). Other programs employing varying levels and types
of traceability include the domestic origin requirement imposed on all suppliers of
USDA-purchased commodities and products used in such programs as school lunch
and food distribution to needy families and institutions, and the national organic
certification program.4
Together, such activities might be viewed as a national ID system, but there are
significant gaps. Generally, as disease programs succeed, fewer animals receive tags.
For example, the animal ID working group reported that fewer than 4 million U.S.
calves (about 10% of the total) are vaccinated for brucellosis and tagged (only female
calves are vaccinated). Also, current ID programs may provide only limited
information — for example, not all of an animal’s locations between the farm and
slaughterhouse may be documented.5 None of the programs are set up to denote
place of birth, analysts say.
Although U.S. regulators and producers usually can locate where a product was
processed or the movements of many farm animals, it can be tedious and time-
consuming, taking weeks or months in some situations. That’s because the different
animal ID and traceability systems now in place have been implemented
independently of each other, may be “paper trails” which take time to follow, have
divergent and sometimes conflicting purposes, and collect disparate types of
information, according to industry experts.
4 For more information, see the AMS website at [http://www.ams.usda.gov/]. Also see
“Foreign Trade Considerations,” below, for information on AMS’s Beef Export Verification
Program.
5 National Identification Work Plan (November 2002 version). Also see Sparks Companies,
Inc., Linking the Food Chain: Sharing Information and Verifying Sources, Materials, and
Processes Across Traditional Boundaries, November 2002 multi-client study.

---

CRS-5
Development of a National Identification Plan
U.S. Animal Identification Plan. To help fill perceived gaps, industry and
government officials began in early 2002 to draft a national system to identify and
follow animals from birth to slaughter. A National Food Animal Identification Task
Force (the working group) was formed to prepare a work plan, facilitated by the
National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). On October 22, 2002, the plan
was accepted by the U.S. Animal Health Association (USAHA, representing state
veterinarians and allied industry groups). USAHA asked APHIS to organize a
government-industry team (now named the National Identification Development
Team) to develop a more detailed animal ID system, using the work plan as a guide,
including a timetable, for presentation at and approval by the USAHA meeting in
October 2003. The working group utilized more than 100 professionals from
approximately 70 agencies and organizations, led by an eight-person steering
committee.
The U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) (December 23, 2003 version)
states in part: “Maintaining the health of the U.S. animal herd is the most urgent issue
for the industry and is the focus of the plan.” A key goal is the ability to identify all
animals and premises potentially exposed to a foreign animal disease within 48 hours
of its discovery. The plan calls for recording the movement of individual animals or
groups of animals in a central database or in a “seamlessly linked” database
infrastructure. APHIS would oversee animal ID activities in cooperation with state
animal health authorities and producers for this disease tracking purpose.6
The first major step in the proposed work plan was for all states to have a
premises identification system by July 2004. Such a system could identify individual
animal premises (e.g., farm, feedlot, auction barn, assembly point, processing plant)
and provide each with a unique ID number. Many observers do not expect this first
objective to be met, although the USAIP website still recommends that date. Other
steps in the plan include:
! unique, individual or group/lot numbers to be available for issuance
by mid-2004;
! all cattle, swine, and small ruminants to possess individual or
group/lot identification for interstate movement by July 2005;
! all animals of the remaining species/industries to be in similar
compliance by July 2006.7
The APHIS roles are to allocate premises and animal numbers, and to coordinate
data collection, to be used for animal disease purposes only.
6 To view the most recent draft plan, see the animal ID website at [http://www.usaip.info].
7 USAIP states that animal ID should be available for “all animals that will benefit from
having a system to facilitate rapid traceback/traceout in the event of disease concern.
Currently Working Groups are developing plans for Cattle/Bison, Swine, Sheep, Goats,
Equine, and Camelids (Llamas and Alpacas).”

---

CRS-6
USDA Activity. At a December 30, 2003, press conference, Agriculture
Secretary Veneman announced that USDA would accelerate implementation of a
verifiable system of national animal identification and would make available its
information technology infrastructure for the effort (see “Other Selected Issues” for
more on USDA’s perspective). On April 27, 2004, the Secretary announced what she
called “the framework for implementation” of the national ID plan, in three phases.
Under Phase I, USDA is to evaluate current federally funded animal ID systems (see
below) and determine which system(s) should be used; “further the dialogue with
producers and other stakeholders on the operation” of a national program; identify
staffing needs; and develop any needed regulatory and legislative proposals.
Phase II would involve “implementation of the selected animal identification
system at regional levels for one or more selected species, continuation of the
communication and education effort, addressing regulatory needs and working with
Congress on any needed legislation.” Phase III would take the selected system(s) to
the national level.
The Secretary provided no timetable, but did note that $18.8 million was being
transferred from USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation to begin implementation.
On June 16, USDA said it was making $11.6 million of the total available for
cooperative agreements with states and tribal governments, to begin registering
premises and to conduct research and data collection. It also is holding animal ID
“listening sessions” around the country this summer.8
USDA-Funded Pilots. USDA already has been funding other animal ID pilot
projects. For example, the National Farm Animal Identification and Records (FAIR)
Program, administered by the Holstein Association USA, Inc., has developed a
database identifying animals on approximately 8,000 dairy and livestock farms, most
of them in Michigan. So far, USDA has provided $1.8 million and the Holstein
Association $1.9 million for the project, the group says. USDA has funded ID pilots
in Michigan for cattle tuberculosis; in Wisconsin for the Animal Identification and
Information System (“A-II”) for all species; and in several other states.9
Foreign Trade Considerations
After the May 2003 Canadian BSE discovery (but before the U.S. case seven
months later), Japanese officials said they would require proof that beef shipped from
the United States was not of Canadian origin. Japan has been the number one foreign
market, purchasing 36%-37% of all U.S. beef exports in recent years (USDA data).
Korea, which purchased 21%-24% of all U.S. beef exports in recent years, also asked
for origin verification. (Japan also is the top importer of U.S. pork.) Japan’s
impending requirement had complicated U.S. deliberations on whether and when to
8 For details on USDA activities see [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/nais/nais.html].
9 Bill Hawks, Under Secretary of Agriculture, March 4, 2004, testimony before the
Marketing, Inspection, and Product Promotion Subcommittee of the Senate Agriculture
Committee. Also, National Farm Identification and Records, “National FAIR Traces
Animals from Birth to Slaughter, Critical to Future of Livestock Industry,” December 30,
2003, press release; and undated “National FAIR Fact Sheet.”

---

CRS-7
reopen its own border to Canadian beef and/or cattle and other ruminants. The U.S.
border was closed to such imports after the BSE case was confirmed. It has since
been reopened to some products, like boneless beef from younger animals, that
USDA determined were of lower risk.
Beef Export Verification Plan. Hoping to satisfy Japanese (and Korean)
demands, the Department unveiled in August 2003 a new “Beef Export Verification”
(BEV) program as a voluntary, user-fee funded service. Exporters desiring to sell
beef to Japan (or any other country that may request similar documentation) can
apply for BEV certification from AMS after satisfying a list of requirements so that
the agency can verify that their beef is from U.S. cattle.10 As noted, BEV is
considered voluntary, even though at the time it was widely viewed as a minimum
prerequisite for retaining access to the Japanese and perhaps other foreign markets.
After the December 23, 2003, announcement of a U.S. BSE cow, Japan was among
the first of many countries to suspend some or all imports of U.S. cattle, beef, and
related products, so the future of BEV is unclear.
U.S. Needs? Russell Cross, Vice President of DuPont Food Industry
Solutions and a former FSIS administrator, has called the lack of mandatory national
animal ID the United States’ “greatest weakness.” He had predicted the loss of the
Japanese and Korean markets unless the United States moved quickly and
aggressively. Separately, an international team examining Canada’s BSE
investigation emphasized the need for mandatary ID, and observed that the lack of
such a system prior to Canada’s adoption of one in 2001, “contributed to the need for
extended [herd] depopulations.” Some 2,800 animals were killed. Cattle Buyers
Weekly commented: “One can only shudder at how long a BSE investigation in the
U.S. might take with no national ID system, say observers.”11
In fact, the first U.S. BSE case was a Holstein dairy cow with a metal ear tag
containing an identifying number. That enabled authorities within several days to
trace its likely movements and origin, to a herd in Alberta, Canada. Dairy farmers
often have more extensive information about individual animals for milk production,
breeding, feeding, and related purposes.
However, U.S. authorities announced on February 9, 2004, that they were
ending their BSE field investigation after identifying only 28 of 80 cows that had
entered the United States from Canada with the BSE cow. “We feel confident that
the remaining animals represent very little risk. Even in countries like the United
Kingdom where the prevalence of BSE has been very high, it is very uncommon to
find more than one or maybe two positive animals within a herd,” they explained.12
An international panel of experts that USDA asked to review its handling of the
BSE case agreed that the number of infected cattle from that imported herd was
probably small. The panel added that USDA’s failure to find every animal “is a
10 For details, see [http://www.ams.usda.gov/bevprocedures.pdf].
11 Cattle Buyers Weekly, June 16, 2003.
12 USDA press release, “Final BSE Update — Monday, February 9, 2004.”

---

CRS-8
problem faced by all countries which do not have an effective animal traceability
system.” It encouraged “the implementation of a national identification system that
is appropriate to North American farming.”13
According to the November 2002 version of the National Identification Work
Plan, “Other countries are rapidly developing systems that are already being used as
technical barriers to trade. These systems are rapidly becoming the world standard.
To avoid the loss of international markets, the United States needs to be consistent
with the animal tracking systems of our international trading partners.... As our
export potential grows, the need to quickly trace suspected foreign or emerging
diseases will be more important than ever.”
Foreign ID Systems.14 The European Union (EU), where BSE cases have
been concentrated (most in the United Kingdom), now has extensive mandatory
programs. All cattle born or moved across EU state lines as of 1998 must be tagged
with a unique registration number. EU states must maintain computerized databases
that note births, movements, and deaths, among other information. As of January 1,
2002, all EU beef products must have labels indicating the country or countries
where the animal was born, raised, and processed, including reference numbers tying
the meat to an animal or group of animals, and to individual slaughterhouses.
Other obstacles already keep most U.S. beef out of Europe. However, other
beef importers and exporters are moving toward national ID, and some toward meat
traceability, generally starting with cattle. Japan instituted full traceability for its
domestic beef industry, largely in response to a 2001 BSE outbreak there. Beginning
in December 2001, Japan began tagging all beef and dairy cattle and developed a
database to track each animal’s birth and movement. Current Japanese country
labeling already identifies U.S. beef in stores (Japan’s newer demands require more
rigorous documentation).
Canada can identify most individual cattle. Although Canadian cattle
movements per se do not have to be documented, each animal must receive a unique
tag when it leaves its herd of origin, which is collected at slaughter. The compulsory
animal ID program, which applies to all bovine and bison, began in 2001. Officials
assert that their program provided much of the information on Canadian cattle
movements in both the Canadian and U.S. BSE investigations (although some critics
argued that data gaps made the program less effective than it could have been in
identifying all suspect animals).15
13 Secretary’s Foreign Animal and Poultry Disease Advisory Committee’s Subcommittee.
Report on Measures Relating to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the United
States. February 2, 2004. Animal ID was one of a number of its policy recommendations.
14 Sources: Roxanne Clemens and Bruce Babcock, “Meat Traceability: Its Effect on Trade,”
in the Iowa Ag Review, winter 2002; and Sparks, Linking the Food Chain. Under Secretary
Hawks’s March 4, 2004, testimony also contains more information on foreign ID programs.
15 The program is administered by the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, a nonprofit
industry agency, with oversight by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Website:
[http://www.canadaid.com/]. A Canadian Sheep ID Program began January 1, 2004.

---

CRS-9
Australia, like Canada another major exporter and U.S. competitor, has a
largely voluntary but universal system that identifies all cattle, and uses carcass and
boxed meat labeling procedures that can trace meat back to the animal’s origin.
Australia is moving toward a fully integrated (and mandatory) program linking
animal electronic ID devices, product barcoding, and a central electronic database.
New Zealand began steps toward mandatory cattle ID in 1999.
Other Selected Issues
Program Characteristics. USDA officials have said on several occasions
that they would prefer a voluntary system. The USAIP draft plan has not explicitly
called for a mandatory program, but several of those who have participated in the
plan’s development believe that a compulsory system likely will become both
necessary and inevitable. The USAIP website states in part: “Ultimately there needs
to be full compliance for the system to work as effectively as it should.” USDA has
noted only that as the voluntary system takes shape and is tested, it “will reassess the
need for making some or all aspects of the program mandatory.”16
Among the many questions are how quickly a system might be implemented,
which species it should cover (e.g., cattle, swine, poultry), and whether only higher-
risk animals within a species (e.g., dairy cows, breeding animals, or older livestock)
would need to be identified, at least initially. (The 2002 farm law prohibits USDA
from implementing a mandatory ID system for COOL purposes.)
USDA has not expressed a preference for any specific plan. As noted, it has
both funded a number of pilots and participated in the USAIP group. In his March
4, 2004, Senate testimony, Under Secretary Hawks outlined USDA’s several “key
objectives” for animal ID. Producers should have the flexibility to use current ID
systems or adopt new ones, and to utilize new technologies as they become available.
The system should “use and build upon the excellent data standards” developed by
the USAIP, including confidentiality of data (see below). It should be compatible
with current management programs for animal health and quality. Finally, any
animal ID system should not “unduly increase the role and size of the government,”
Hawks stated.
While the Administration’s testimony seems to imply support for the USAIP
structure, that might not necessarily be the case. Some lawmakers, for example, have
expressed a preference for the National FAIR system in part because it already is
tested and in place, whereas USAIP, while more broadly based, would take longer
to implement. Divergent approaches are reflected in the different proposed bills
mandating ID programs (see Appendix).
Observers generally agree that the type and rigor of any system should depend
upon its purpose. Whereas an animal ID system might be sufficient for disease
management, a more extensive, compulsory program might be needed if
policymakers should decide to address food safety concerns, some believe. USDA
and most animal industry leaders have emphasized that the forthcoming system
16 Source: [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_ahnais.html].

---

CRS-10
should be primarily if not solely for animal health and disease management. Some
lawmakers have expressed an interest in using animal ID for other purposes such as
food safety.
Regardless of its purpose, an ID system is viewed as just one potential
component of a scientifically defensible and well-managed program to achieve
whatever objective is being articulated. For example, to keep BSE out of the country
and to keep it from spreading if it appears, the United States regulates what cattle can
be fed, which countries can import product, and how animals are screened and tested
for presence of the disease. And an extensive inspection program under the purview
primarily of FSIS already exists to ensure the safety of meat and poultry products
destined for human consumption.
Costs and Who Pays. An animal ID system could incur a variety of costs,
such as for tags or other identifying devices and their application; data systems to
track animals; and any government administrative expenses. To date, cost estimates
of a national system have varied broadly — and are not directly comparable. This
disparity is a reflection of estimators’ differing assumptions and of the varying
designs of the programs being considered.
For example, a USAIP draft estimated that once a national ID program is fully
in place, costs might be approximately $122 million annually, with ID tags
accounting for nearly $100 million of that amount. In the earlier years of the plan
during the implementation phases, system development costs would be higher, but
ID tag expenses lower.17 These estimates apparently are for the cost of a multi-
species plan. Elsewhere, the “National FAIR Fact Sheet” estimates that its cattle
program would cost $540 million over a five-year period. This would include the
costs of initial tagging of all newborn bovines and subsequent tagging of animals as
movements warrant. The first-year cost would be $175 million, FAIR also
estimated.18
As the extent of traceability increases, so do likely costs. Animal ID prior to
slaughter, and product tracking after slaughter and processing, generally now are
within practical reach, most industry observers agree. However, the meat industry
essentially has argued, notably in the context of COOL, that linking the two systems
will be difficult and costly. Industry officials said new costs will be incurred in
identifying and segregating animals, physically reconfiguring plants and processing
lines, and labeling and tracking the final products.
Several studies have estimated total industry COOL costs for the cattle and beef
sectors alone at between $1-$3 billion; others have estimates above and below this
range.19 One company estimated a minimum investment of $20-25 million per plant
17 USAIP, December 23, 2003, table, p. 45.
18 Communication to CRS, March 30, 2004.
19 Testimony of Keith Collins, USDA Chief Economist, before the House Agriculture
Committee, June 26, 2003.

---

CRS-11
to ensure compliance.20 Others challenge these costs; a recent study estimated COOL
recordkeeping costs for all covered commodities (produce, seafood, and peanuts as
well as meats) at $70-$193 million annually — less than one-tenth of a cent per
pound based on U.S. consumption.21
A related policy question is who should pay. Producer groups suggest that
government should share costs with industry. Without at least some public support,
the burden could be passed to farmers and ranchers in the form of lower prices for
their animals, and/or forward to consumers in the form of higher meat prices, they
argue, adding that the industry would become less competitive. USAIP observes:
It is well acknowledged that costs associated with the USAIP will be substantial
and that a public/private funding plan is justified. Significant state and federal
costs will be incurred in overseeing, maintaining, updating, and improving
necessary infrastructure. Continued efforts will be required to seek federal and
state financial support for this integral component of safeguarding animal health
in protecting American animal agriculture.22
The Administration’s FY2005 budget proposal, sent to Congress on February
2, 2004, includes $33 million to accelerate development of an animal ID system. As
noted, USDA has made $18.8 million available for the current fiscal year, FY2004.
On the other hand, some might argue that the need to reduce the U.S. budget deficit
should take precedence over public funding for an animal ID program, and that the
industry should shoulder most if not all of the costs. Several of the proposed bills
would authorize appropriations for a program; some also would provide financial
assistance to producers to help them comply (see Appendix).
In Canada, which has far fewer cattle than the United States, the cattle ID
program was developed and implemented for less than $4 million (Canadian dollars),
according to an official there. The total annual cost of the program since then has
been approximately C$1 million per year, including database management,
communications, and other administrative costs. Producers buy the tags from
retailers of farm supplies, veterinarians, and other industry organizations, and pay for
their own tagging and recordkeeping. The cost of bar-coded ID tags has ranged from
C$0.80 to C$1.60 each. However, Canada is moving to an RFID system, with a
projected cost of approximately C$2.00 per animal.23
20 Testimony of Ken Bull, Vice President for Cattle Procurement, Excel Corporation, before
the House Agriculture Committee, June 26, 2003.
21 VanSickle, J., and others, Country of Origin Labeling: A Legal and Economic Analysis,
International Agricultural and Trade Policy Center, University of Florida, May 2003.
However, the analysis assumed that documentation only of imported products is required
by COOL; domestic products would be presumed to be of U.S. origin.
22 USAIP, December 23, 2003, p. 2.
23 Personal communication with Julie Stitt, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, January
12, 2004. Canada had 13.4 million cattle in early 2003, compared with 96.1 million in the
United States.

---

CRS-12
Liability. Some producers are concerned they will be held liable for
contamination or other problems over which they believe they have little control once
the animal leaves the farm. On the other hand, documentation of management
practices, including animal health programs, can help to protect against liability
because they can prove where animals came from and how they were raised.24
Confidentiality of Records. Another issue is whether producers can and
should be protected from public scrutiny of their records. On the one hand, the
federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) entitles members of the public to obtain
records held by federal agencies. Some producers are concerned, for example, that
animal rights extremists might use FOIA to gain information collected by USDA to
find and damage animal facilities. On the other hand, the law exempts from FOIA
access to certain types of business information, such as trade secrets, commercial or
financial information, or other confidential material that might harm the private
provider of that information. The evolving USAIP would limit APHIS’s role to
disease information only. Nonetheless, many in the industry worry about government
intrusion into their business practices generally. Some have suggested that a private
third party, rather than USDA, should collect and maintain animal data.25 Several of
the proposed bills explicitly shield animal ID data from public scrutiny (see
Appendix).
Industry Structure. How might traceability costs affect the industry’s ability
to produce an economically competitive product, and which segments could bear
most of the costs? It has been argued that, as more tracing requirements are imposed,
large retailers and meat packers will exercise market power to shift compliance costs
backward to farms and ranches, making it even more difficult for the smaller,
independent ones to remain in business. Larger, more vertically integrated operations
are more likely to have the resources and scale economies to survive, some have
argued. On the other hand, if traceability costs forced big meat plants to reduce line
speeds, “... smaller plants with slower fabrication speeds may be better equipped to
implement traceability to the retail level and may find niche market opportunities,”
Clemens and Babcock wrote.
Congressional Role
In the 107th Congress and the first session of the 108th Congress, much of the
debate over the costs and benefits of expanded animal ID and meat traceability
occurred within the context of COOL. Panels of both the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees held hearings on COOL implementation. In reviewing the
COOL issues, lawmakers have learned more about how animal ID systems can be
used for other purposes, most notably to find and eradicate animal diseases like BSE.
They also have become more aware of the trade implications surrounding animal ID
in particular and meat traceability in general.
24 Clemens and Babcock.
25 Kiplinger Agriculture Letter, July 11, 2003, p. 1.

---

CRS-13
A number of proposals to establish animal ID programs are pending in the
second session, including S. 1202/H.R. 3546, the Meat and Poultry Products
Traceability and Safety Act of 2003; S. 2007/H.R. 3714 [Section 5(b)], the Ruminant
Identification Program; S. 2008, the National Farm Animal Identification and
Records Act; H.R. 3787, also titled the National Farm Animal Identification and
Records Act; H.R. 3822, the National Livestock Identification Act; and S. 2070/H.R.
3961, the United States Animal Identification Plan Implementation Act. (See
Appendix.)
Other policy options might emerge from the work of the national animal ID
work group, or from ongoing meetings among animal industry lobbyists, who,
although they generally agree in concept on the need for a national plan, continue to
seek consensus on its key elements. Any new policy options could entail requests for
new legislative authority and/or public funding.
Both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees held hearings in early
March on animal ID. The House committee chairman said in late March 2004 that
additional hearings would be held. Whether the committees will mark up and report
legislation this year remains to be seen. New developments regarding the BSE
situation, unforeseen outbreaks of some other potentially devastating animal disease,
or some act of bioterrorism are examples of events that might propel further action
in the 108th Congress.

---

CRS-14
Appendix: Comparison of Selected Bills
S. 1202 (Schumer)/
S. 2007 (Durbin)/
S. 2008 (Specter)
H.R. 3787
H.R. 3822
S. 2070 (Hagel)
H.R. 3546 (DeGette)
H.R. 3714 (DeLauro)
(C. Peterson)
(McCollum)
H.R. 3961 (Osborne)
Title
Meat and Poultry
Ruminant Identification
National Farm Animal
National Farm Animal
National Livestock
United States Animal
Products Traceability
Program
Identification and
Identification and
Identification Act
Identification Plan
and Safety Act of 2003
Records Act
Records Act.
Implementation Act
Amends
Title I of Federal Meat
Title I of Federal Meat
Animal Health
Animal Health
Animal Health
Animal Health
Inspection Act (21
Inspection Act (21
Protection Act (7
Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
Protection Act (7
USC 601 et seq.) and
USC 601 et seq.)
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.)
8301 et seq.)
8301 et seq.)
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.)
Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21
USC 467(e))
System Type/
Capability
Traceability (“ability to
Ruminant ID program
Electronic nationwide
Electronic nationwide
Electronic nationwide
Plan to be developed by
retrieve the history,
capable of tracing
system to require ID of
system to require ID of
system to require ID of
the “National Animal
use, and location of an
within 48 hours “any
individual livestock
livestock able to trace
individual livestock able
ID Development Team”
article through a
reportable animal
able to trace within 48
animals within 48 hours
to trace within 48 hours
that includes
recordkeeping and
disease or any
hours to “enhance the
to “enhance the speed
to “enhance the speed
operational: (1) national
audit system or
condition that can
speed and accuracy” of
and accuracy” of
and accuracy” of
premises ID allocation
registered
cause” human disease.
USDA’s response to
USDA’s response to
USDA’s response to
system; (2) certification
identification”) system
Specifies “nationally
animal disease
animal disease outbreaks
animal disease outbreaks
system to certify State
enabling Secretary to
recognizable uniform
outbreaks
premises and their
trace each animal to
numbering system”
animal number
any premises or other
with ID numbers for
allocation systems; (3)
location where the
producer premises and
national premises
animal was before
for individual or groups
repository; (4) national
slaughter, and each
of animals as
ID database
carcass and their
determined by
products forward from
Secretary
slaughter to final
consumer

---

CRS-15
Appendix: Comparison of Selected Bills
S. 1202 (Schumer)/
S. 2007 (Durbin)/
S. 2008 (Specter)
H.R. 3787
H.R. 3822
S. 2070 (Hagel)
H.R. 3546 (DeGette)
H.R. 3714 (DeLauro)
(C. Peterson)
(McCollum)
H.R. 3961 (Osborne)
Coverage
All stages of
Birth to slaughter for
Birth to slaughter for
Birth to slaughter for
Birth to slaughter for
Beef and dairy cattle
production, processing,
all cattle, sheep, goats,
individual livestock
livestock (defined in
individual livestock
over 30 months by not
and distribution of
bison, deer, elk, “any
(defined in AHPA as
AHPA as “all
(defined in AHPA as
later than 60 days after
meat/meat food
other ruminant species
“all farm-raised
farm-raised animals”);
“all farm-raised
enactment; all other
products of cattle,
intended for human
animals”)
applies to all U.S. and
animals”)
beef and dairy cattle
sheep, swine, goats,
consumption”
imported livestock
within 90 days; other
horses, mules, and
movements in interstate
ruminate livestock
other equines, and
and intrastate commerce
within 180 days; all
poultry/ poultry food
other livestock (AHPA:
products for human
“all farm-raised
food in interstate
animals”) within one
commerce
year
Mandatory/
Discretionary
Secretary shall
Secretary shall
Secretary of
Secretary shall establish
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary shall establish
establish; presumes that
establish; presumes that
Agriculture shall
no later than 90 days
shall establish no later
(subject to availability
producers must
producers must
establish no later than
after enactment; requires
than 90 days after
of appropriations and
participate
participate
90 days after
producers to participate
enactment; may assume
cost-share agreements)
enactment; may assume
(but is not explict) that
within above time
(but is not explict) that
producers must
frames
producers must
participate
participate
State Participation
Not addressed
Not addressed
States shall provide
Secretary shall
Not addressed
Secretary may enter
information for and
cooperate with States to
into agreements with
have access to the ID
collect information (as
States (or third-party
system
authorized under section
vendors) to collect
10411(a) of AHPA), and
information
provide States with
access to ID system

---

CRS-16
Appendix: Comparison of Selected Bills
S. 1202 (Schumer)/
S. 2007 (Durbin)/
S. 2008 (Specter)
H.R. 3787
H.R. 3822
S. 2070 (Hagel)
H.R. 3546 (DeGette)
H.R. 3714 (DeLauro)
(C. Peterson)
(McCollum)
H.R. 3961 (Osborne)
Existing Technology
& Systems
Not addressed
Should augment, not
Secretary may use
Secretary may use
Secretary may use
Not addressed
supplant, current
technology developed
technology developed
technology developed
national systems such
by private entities prior
by private entities prior
by private entities prior
as for scrapie
to act
to act
to act
Recordkeeping
Secretary may require
Secretary may require a
Not addressed
Not addressed
Not addressed
Secretary may only
each person, firm and
producer to maintain
collect data necessary
corporation to maintain
records for period TBD
to establish and
accurate records for
by Secretary
maintain the ID plan
period TBD by
Secretary
Access to
Records/Privacy
An affected person,
Producer must allow a
Not addressed
ID information exempt
Not addressed
Secretary must
firm, or corporation
representative of
from FOIA disclosure;
maintain confidentiality
must allow a
Secretary to examine
and may not be released,
of producer
representative of
and copy records at all
shall not be considered
information; ID plan
Secretary to examine
reasonable times
in the public domain,
exempt from Freedom
and copy records at all
and shall be considered
of Information Act
reasonable times
privileged and
(FOIA)
confidential commercial
information, except:
(1) Secretary may
release it to a person if it
involves livestock
threatened by disease or
pest, if the release of the
information is related to
animal ID activities

---

CRS-17
Appendix: Comparison of Selected Bills
S. 1202 (Schumer)/
S. 2007 (Durbin)/
S. 2008 (Specter)
H.R. 3787
H.R. 3822
S. 2070 (Hagel)
H.R. 3546 (DeGette)
H.R. 3714 (DeLauro)
(C. Peterson)
(McCollum)
H.R. 3961 (Osborne)
under this new law, and
if the requestor needs it
for public health and
safety purposes of the
ID system;
(2) Secretary shall
release information on
particular livestock to
person who owns or
controls the livestock
upon their request; to
Attorney General for
law enforcement; to
Secretary of Homeland
Security for national
security; to relevant
courts; and to a foreign
government if necessary
to trace livestock
threatened by disease or
pest, as determined by
Secretary of Agriculture.
Federal disclosure
provisions take
precedence over state
law in interstate or
foreign commerce; state
law takes precedence for
intrastate commerce in
that state.
(Note: H.R. 4005 by C.
Peterson also exempts

---

CRS-18
Appendix: Comparison of Selected Bills
S. 1202 (Schumer)/
S. 2007 (Durbin)/
S. 2008 (Specter)
H.R. 3787
H.R. 3822
S. 2070 (Hagel)
H.R. 3546 (DeGette)
H.R. 3714 (DeLauro)
(C. Peterson)
(McCollum)
H.R. 3961 (Osborne)
certain animal ID
information from FOIA
disclosure.)
Financial Assistance
Not addressed
Not addressed
Secretary may provide
Secretary shall provide
Secretary may provide
Secretary may provide
financial assistance to
financial assistance to
financial assistance to
financial assistance to
help producers comply
help producers comply
help producers comply
help producers comply
to extent funds are made
available; ensure smaller
producers not at a
financial disadvantage
Funding/
Appropriations
Not addressed
Not addressed
$50 million authorized
$175 million authorized
$50 million authorized
$50 million authorized
to be appropriated for
to be appropriated (no
to be appropriated for
to be appropriated for
FY2004 of which $25
fiscal year specified)
FY2005 of which $25
FY2004 of which at
million must go for
million must go for
least $25 million must
producer assistance
producer assistance
go for producer
assistance; also
Secretary may use up to
$50 million in CCC
funds if less than that
amount is appropriated
Enforcement/
Prohibitions
Secretary may prohibit
Secretary may prohibit
Not addressed
Not addressed
Not addressed
Not addressed
or restrict slaughter of
or restrict slaughter of
any animal not properly
any animals without an
identified. Makes it
ID. Makes it unlawful
unlawful for those
for a producer to

---

CRS-19
Appendix: Comparison of Selected Bills
S. 1202 (Schumer)/
S. 2007 (Durbin)/
S. 2008 (Specter)
H.R. 3787
H.R. 3822
S. 2070 (Hagel)
H.R. 3546 (DeGette)
H.R. 3714 (DeLauro)
(C. Peterson)
(McCollum)
H.R. 3961 (Osborne)
keeping records to
falsify, misrepresent,
falsify, misrepresent,
alter or destroy any
alter, or destroy any
information
information
Other Provisions
Not addressed
Ruminant ID is Sec.
Secretary may appoint
Secretary may appoint
Secretary may appoint
HHS Secretary (FDA)
5(b) of the bills, which
an international panel
an international panel of
an international panel of
shall monitor
also contain: new
of scientific experts to
scientific experts to
scientific experts to
implementation of
restrictions to ensure
review USDA’s
review USDA’s
review USDA’s
current rule (21 CFR
that many imported
response to livestock
response to livestock
response to livestock
589.2000) prohibiting
products do not harbor
disease outbreaks
disease outbreaks
disease outbreaks
certain animal proteins
BSE infectivity; a ban
in ruminant feed;
on such articles in
annually evaluate rule’s
interstate or foreign
effectiveness and report
commerce if they
to Congress; implement
contain specified risk
an enforcement plan for
materials from
the rule
ruminants; new
procedures for FDA
oversight of animal
feed; new programs for
prion disease
monitoring/testing

---