Order Code RL32012
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Animal Identification and Meat Traceability
Updated September 2, 2005
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
have been suggested as potentially useful tools in animal health, food safety, quality
assurance, or country-of-origin labeling programs.
No nationwide U.S. animal ID system is yet in place, although many producers
do keep records on their animals for herd management and/or as part of animal
disease programs. Interest in a comprehensive system has intensified in light of
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.
Government and industry groups have been working for several years on
establishing a national animal ID system, with animal health 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, who should operate it, the
cost, and who should pay.
Some industry groups and others have criticized USDA, which attempted to
assume the lead on animal ID in 2004, for moving too slowly. Some industry groups
also want any animal ID data repository to be established within the private, not the
public, sector, a recommendation the department now appears to favor.
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), as amended, requires 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, 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 and other
implications surrounding animal ID and meat traceability.
Animal ID bills introduced in the 109th Congress include H.R. 1254, the
National Farm Animal Identification and Records Act, H.R. 1256, to limit animal ID
information disclosure, and H.R. 3170, creating a private Livestock Identification
Board to oversee the program. In the 108th Congress, proposals to establish animal
ID programs included 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
Existing U.S. Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Development of a National Identification Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
USDA Actions and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Selected Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Foreign Trade Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Program Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Costs and Who Pays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Liability and Confidentiality of Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Industry Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Congressional Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Animal Identification and Meat Traceability
Overview
U.S. animal agriculture is seeking to improve its capability to trace the
movement of livestock from their birthplace to slaughter. Some also want such
traceability to reach all the way to the final consumer. 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 began 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 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 was not a focus of the industry-government working group).
This report focuses on animal ID and, to a lesser extent, on 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 2002 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 yet.
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; 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 product, firms

CRS-3
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) requires 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
Existing 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.
2 See CRS Issue Brief IB10082, Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues; and CRS Issue Brief
IB10127, Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues for Congress.
3 The House-passed USDA appropriation for FY2006, H.R. 2744, would prohibit funds for
implementation of COOL for meats; a pending bill (H.R. 2068) by House Agriculture
Committee Chairman Goodlatte would make COOL voluntary for meats only. See CRS
Report 97-508 ENR, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods.

CRS-4
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
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.” Other programs employing varying levels and types of traceability include
the domestic origin requirement of 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 have been 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.
Development of a National 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.
4 For more information, see the AMS website at [http://www.ams.usda.gov/].
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
A National Food Animal Identification Task Force was formed to prepare a work
plan, facilitated by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). In Ocotber
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 task force utilized more than 100
professionals from approximately 70 agencies and organizations, led by an eight-
person steering committee.
A “U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP)” published in December 2003
stated 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 has been the ability
to identify all animals and premises potentially exposed to a foreign animal disease
within 48 hours of its discovery. The plan called for recording the movement of
individual animals or groups of animals in a central database or in a “seamlessly
linked” database infrastructure. APHIS roles would be to allocate premises and
animal numbers, and to coordinate data collection, to be used for animal disease
purposes only.6
The proposed work plan envisioned by USAIP had first called 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. Among other steps in
the plan, all cattle, swine, and small ruminants were to possess individual or
group/lot identification for interstate movement by July 2005. All animals of the
remaining species/industries were to be in similar compliance by July 2006.7
As this last draft USAIP was being published, BSE was discovered in a
Washington state cow. Shortly afterward, the department stated that it would assume
a more prominent role in the animal ID effort.
USDA Actions and Funding.8 USDA had been funding animal ID pilot
projects for several years. For example, the National Farm Animal Identification and
Records (FAIR) Program, administered by the Holstein Association USA, Inc.,
developed a database identifying animals on thousands of dairy and livestock farms,
most of them in Michigan. USDA also 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
6 To view that draft plan, see the animal ID website at [http://www.usaip.info].
7 USAIP stated 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.”
8 For details on USDA activities see [http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml].
9 Bill Hawks, Under Secretary of Agriculture, March 4, 2004, testimony before the
Marketing, Inspection, and Product Promotion Subcommittee of the Senate Agriculture
(continued...)

CRS-6
After the BSE discovery, Agriculture Secretary Veneman announced, on
December 30, 2003, a series of initiatives aimed at restoring public and foreign
confidence in the safety of U.S. beef and cattle. One of these initiatives was to be the
accelerated implementation of a verifiable system of national animal identification
— the “framework” for which was published on April 27, 2004.
During FY2004, USDA transferred $18.8 million from its Commodity Credit
Corporation account to APHIS to begin implementation. On June 16, 2004, USDA
provided nearly $12 million of the total for cooperative agreements with states and
tribal governments, to begin registering premises and to conduct research and data
collection. USDA asked Congress for, and received, $33 million more for its animal
ID activities in FY2005. On June 21, 2005, USDA announced that it was accepting
applications to disburse another $14.3 million to continue premises registration.
The Administration requested another $33 million for FY2006, and both the
House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the appropriation (H.R. 2744) would
provide this money. The House committee report said that it expects APHIS to
submit quarterly progress reports that cover data usage, confidentiality, and cost
issues; the Senate committee report expects APHIS to consult with private industry
and to include industry components in a national ID program, among other things.
The House also directs that no less than $2 million be provided for a cooperative
agreement with the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, and no less than
$600,000 for the Farm Animal Identification and Records (FAIR) program, both to
work in support of a national system. The Senate version also directs funds to the
Wisconsin and FAIR programs, and to animal tracking in Washington state, among
other items. The bill was awaiting full Senate action in late June 2005, after which
a conference committee likely will be asked to iron out differences between the two
versions.
Recent Developments. According to USDA’s website on its National
Animal Identification System (NAIS), “The NAIS builds upon aspects of the USAIP
and is the program that USDA is moving forward with in implementing national
animal and premises identification. USDA will continue to seek industry input as the
NAIS progresses.” As of late August 2005, 49 states, two territories, and five tribal
organizations had the capability of registering premises, and nearly 106,000 had been
registered, according to USDA. States are using standards based on the so-called
Standardized Premises Registration System initially developed by the Wisconsin
Livestock Identification Consortium.
On May 5, 2005, USDA released for public comment a draft strategic plan,
including timelines, for achieving a nationwide program.10 For example, the draft
proposed requiring stakeholders to identify premises and animals according to NAIS
standards by January 2008, and requiring full recording of defined animal movements
9 (...continued)
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.”
10 The availability of the strategic plan was published in 70 Federal Register 23961.

CRS-7
by January 2009. USDA noted that formal rulemaking would precede any mandatory
program. Comments on this draft were due by July 5, 2005.
APHIS projected that all states would have the capability to register individual
premises (but not yet animals) by this year (2005), and that individual animal
numbers would also become available in 2005. Critics, among them some consumer
and industry groups, have complained that USDA is progressing too slowly. For
example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer advocacy
group, charged that lack of a cattle ID program had made it difficult for USDA to
find the herd of origin of what has become the first U.S. cow to test positive for BSE.
CSPI called for faster implementation.11 (Interestingly, animal ID originally was
viewed as a tool for tracking and controlling mainly contagious diseases. BSE is not
contagious, but the issue continues to fuel interest in a program.)
Some industry groups also expressed concern about the implementation pace.
In addition, these groups, and some Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
called on USDA to implement a private sector-based system. Complaining that the
department had so far failed to consider such a system, these members noted: “This
is unfortunate because experience suggests that private-based systems have allowed
other nations to implement ID systems swiftly and inexpensively while still
maximizing the benefit to producers and the utility for government regulators.”12
Apparently responding to producer concerns, Secretary Johanns on August 30,
2005, announced four “guiding principles” for a national ID system:
! It must be able to allow tracking of animals from point of origin to
processing within 48 hours without unnecessary burden to producers
and other stakeholders;
! Its architecture must be developed without unduly increasing the size
and role of government;
! It must be flexible enough to utilize existing technologies and
incorporate new identification technologies as they are developed;
! Animal movement data should be maintained in a private system
that can be readily accessed when necessary by state and federal
animal health authorities.
11 Reuters, “Beef-loving U.S. shrugs at finding second mad cow,” June 26, 2005. This U.S.
cow had first tentatively tested positive (“inconclusive” in USDA’s parlance) in November
2004, and then was ruled negative for the disease in follow-up confirmatory testing.
However, USDA in June 2005 announced that retesting, using a different laboratory method,
had found the cow to have BSE. The seven-month delay between the animal’s slaughter and
the new confirmatory tests, and mix-ups at the rendering plant where the cow was located
added to the initial uncertainties about its identity and the whereabouts of any related
animals (its remains never entered the food or feed supply, however). Also see discussion
of the issue later in this report. For additional background on BSE see CRS Issue Brief
IB10127, Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues for Congress.
12 July 20, 2005, letter to Secretary Johanns signed by Agriculture Chairman Goodlatte and
six other Committee Members. At the same time, the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association (NCBA) was proposing to establish a privately operated system that it said
could be fully operational by October 2006.

CRS-8
Focusing on the last point, Secretary Johanns stated: “We are eager to work
closely with industry as they develop and maintain databases that contain animal
movement information. After hearing the confidentiality concerns of producers, we
envision a system that allows these databases to feed a single, privately held
animal-tracking repository that we can access.”13
Not everyone endorsed this approach. R-CALF United Stockgrowers of
America, representing some cattle producers, issued an August 31, 2005, statement
noting its disappointment with the decision, and asserting that protecting U.S. animal
health has national security and public accountability dimensions that should not be
ceded to the private sector.
Selected Policy Issues
Foreign Trade Concerns. Improved traceability is viewed as important for
maintaining foreign market access. 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.”
After the May 2003 Canadian BSE discovery (but before the first U.S. case
emerged seven months later), Japanese officials said they would require proof that
beef shipped from the United States was not of Canadian origin. Japan had been the
number one foreign market, purchasing 36%-37% of all U.S. beef exports in recent
years (USDA data). Korea, which had purchased 21%-24% of all U.S. beef exports,
also asked for origin verification. (Japan also has been the top importer of U.S.
pork.) This Japanese requirement had complicated U.S. deliberations on whether and
when to reopen its own border to Canadian beef and/or cattle and other ruminants.
Hoping to satisfy Japanese demands for verification of origin, 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) could apply for BEV
certification from AMS.14 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 many countries suspending
imports of U.S. cattle, beef, and related products.
Since then, U.S. negotiators have been working to regain the Japanese market.
According to an October 23, 2004, joint statement on resuming two-way beef trade,
the United States agreed, among other things, to establish a marketing program —
a modified version of the BEV program. It would certify that only beef from cattle
13 “Johanns Announces Key Component of Animal I.D. System.” August 30, 2005, press
release.
14 For details, see [http://www.ams.usda.gov/bevprocedures.pdf].

CRS-9
of 20 months or younger is shipped.15 As of September 2005, the Japanese still had
not approved the resumption of U.S. beef imports. At any rate, some observers
believe that the U.S. meat industry may have difficulty satisfying the Japanese
requirements. Roughly 70% of the 35 million U.S. cattle each year are 20 months of
age or younger, but verifiable age records may only be available for anywhere from
10% to 25% of cattle, according to estimates by USDA and others.
Separately, an international team that had examined Canada’s BSE response
emphasized the need for mandatary ID, and the team 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.
U.S. officials faced their own problems when the first BSE case appeared in the
United States. The animal was a Holstein dairy cow with a metal ear tag containing
an identifying number. That helped authorities to more quickly 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.16
Another international panel, asked by USDA asked to review its own handling
of the first U.S. 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 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.”17
Announcing the end of an investigation into the second U.S. BSE case (in a
Texas-born cow that died in November 2004), Secretary Johanns again lamented the
lack of a national ID system: the investigation “would have taken far less than two
months” if a system were in place, a significant matter “because a number of trading
partners have been reluctant to make decisions until the investigation is complete.”18
15 See “Joint Press Statement for the Resumption of Trade in Beef and Beef Products,” by
the Government of United States and the Government of Japan, October 23, 2004, accessed
on the internet through [http://www.usda.gov/]; and also CRS Issue Brief IB10127.
16 USDA press release, “Final BSE Update — Monday, February 9, 2004.”
17 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.
18 Transcript of August 30, 2005, technical briefing with Agriculture Secretary Mike
(continued...)

CRS-10
The European Union (EU), where BSE cases have been concentrated (most in
the United Kingdom), now has extensive mandatory programs.19 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 its first BSE cases. In December 2001,
Japan began tagging all beef and dairy cattle and developed a database to track each
animal’s birth and movement.
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).20
Australia, like Canada another major exporter and U.S. competitor, has a
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 has been
moving toward a fully integrated (and mandatory) program linking animal electronic
ID devices, product barcoding, and a central electronic database. New Zealand has
implemented cattle ID.
Program Characteristics. The USAIP draft plan did not explicitly call for
a mandatory program, but several who participated in its development believe that
a compulsory system likely is 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’s approach has been to first work on a voluntary
system and then reassess the need for making some or all aspects of it mandatory.
18 (...continued)
Johanns and others, accessed at [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/bse.html].
19 Sources for this section: 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.
20 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-11
Among the many questions have been how quickly a system could 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.
As noted, USDA has both funded a number of pilots and participated in the
USAIP group, and it has been building upon aspects of the USAIP in designing the
national plan. But officials have frequently stressed the need for flexibility to use
current ID systems or adopt new ones, and to utilize new technologies as they
become available. They also want any program to be compatible with current
management programs for animal health and quality, among other things. Some
lawmakers 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,
could take longer to implement.
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
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. (The 2002 farm law prohibits USDA from implementing a mandatory
ID system for COOL purposes.)
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.21 These estimates apparently are for the cost of a multi-
species plan. Elsewhere, the “National FAIR Fact Sheet” estimates that its cattle
21 USAIP, December 23, 2003, table, p. 45.

CRS-12
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.22
As the extent of traceability increases, so do likely costs. Animal ID prior to
slaughter, and product tracking after slaughter and processing, generally are available
(and are often used), 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.23 One company estimated a minimum investment of $20-25 million per plant
to ensure compliance.24 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.25
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 observed:
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.26
As noted, the Administration requested and received $33 million to work on
animal ID in FY2005. Its FY2006 budget requests the same amount, and both the
House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the USDA money bill (H.R. 2744)
22 Communication to CRS, March 30, 2004.
23 Testimony of Keith Collins, USDA Chief Economist, before the House Agriculture
Committee, June 26, 2003.
24 Testimony of Ken Bull, Vice President for Cattle Procurement, Excel Corporation, before
the House Agriculture Committee, June 26, 2003.
25 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.
26 USAIP, December 23, 2003, p. 2.

CRS-13
would provide that level. It could also be argued that the need to control federal
spending should take precedence over public funding for an animal ID program, and
that the industry, a primary beneficiary, should shoulder most if not all of the costs.
Certain animal ID bills introduced into the 108th and 109th Congress propose
appropriations for a program; some also propose financial assistance to producers to
help them comply.
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 has been moving to an RFID system, with
a projected cost of approximately C$2.00 per animal.27
Liability and Confidentiality of Records. 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.28
Another issue is whether producers can and should be protected from public
scrutiny of their records. 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. However, 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 ID system 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. This appears to be the approach the department is now supporting (see
Secretary Johanns’s comments on pages 7-8). Several proposed bills have called for
explicitly shielding animal ID data from public scrutiny.29
Industry Structure. How might traceability costs affect the industry’s ability
to produce an economically competitive product, and which segments could bear
27 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.
28 Clemens and Babcock.
29 For more discussion of the liability and confidentiality issues, see The National
Agricultural Law Center, Animal Identification — An Overview, A National AgLaw Center
Reading Room, at [http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/animalid/].

CRS-14
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. Also in the 108th Congress, both
agriculture committees held hearings on animal ID specifically.30
A number of proposals to establish animal ID programs were introduced in the
108th Congress but not passed, 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.
As of late September 1, 2005, three animal ID bills had been offered in the 109th
Congress. H.R. 1254 is virtually identical to a measure introduced in 2004 (H.R.
3787; see Appendix for a description). Another (H.R. 1256) would amend the
Animal Health Protection Act to exempt certain information collected under an
animal ID program from FOIA disclosure. Meanwhile, H.R. 3170 would establish
a privately governed Livestock Identification Board to create and implement a
mandatory system.
Other policy options, including previous legislative proposals, could emerge.
Although most animal industry lobbyists generally appear to agree in concept on the
need for a national plan, a consensus on its key elements is still evolving. 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 109th Congress.
30 See Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Development of a National
Animal Identification Plan
, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Hrg. 108-606; and House Committee
on Agriculture and the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, The Development of
USDA’s National Animal Identification Program
, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., Serial No. 108-24.