Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
September 21, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40832
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Summary
Many countries that participate in international markets for livestock and animal products have in
place some form of animal identification (ID) and traceability system. Initially, animal ID and
traceability programs were designed to protect animal health, but in several countries they have
been extended to encompass food safety concerns, or have been subsumed by such concerns. A
new and emerging concern is that animal ID and traceability may soon become not just an animal
health and food safety management tool, but a market access requirement as well.
In the United States, livestock industry groups, animal health officials, and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) have been working to establish a nationwide animal ID system capable of
tracking animals from birth to slaughter, in order to respond quickly to animal disease
outbreaks—thereby limiting their economic impact—and to satisfy foreign market specifications.
A draft plan, first released in 2002, has evolved into the current national animal ID system
(NAIS). NAIS is being undertaken in three steps: first is premises registration, second is animal
identification, and third is animal tracing from origin to point of slaughter. Currently, NAIS is
implemented on a voluntary basis. While certain states and private organizations already have
their own animal ID programs, NAIS is intended to harmonize procedures, record-keeping, and
databases across animal species and state borders, and to extend the program nationwide.
In several other countries with large animal populations—for example, Australia, Canada, the
European Union (EU), Japan, and South Korea—animal ID and traceability is mandatory.
Furthermore, several of these same countries—the EU, Japan, and South Korea in particular—
have extended the traceability component of the national animal identification systems to include
traceability of animal products from the point of processing (or slaughter) to the consumer. As a
result, animal ID and traceability is treated as both an animal health and a food safety tool in
these countries. The possibility of similar information requirements for animal products traded in
international markets appears to be increasing.
Not all U.S. livestock producers support the evolving new program, fearing it will be costly and
intrusive. The poultry and pork industries have endorsed a mandatory national animal ID program
in general, while certain portions of the U.S. cattle industry have shown strong resistance to what
they perceive as government intrusion in their private affairs. Participation in the initial phase of
the NAIS—premises registration—reflects this same degree of interest, as very high percentages
of eligible premises are registered in the NAIS for most major animal species—poultry (95%),
sheep (95%), swine (80%), goats (60%), and horses (50%)—with the exception of cattle (18%).
USDA has stated that such a low participation rate for cattle renders NAIS ineffective as a tool
for controlling animal disease, and that a much higher participation rate is necessary to respond
effectively to an animal disease outbreak. As a result, USDA has argued that Congress should
either expand incentives to increase the NAIS participation rate for cattle or to consider making
the program mandatory.
Recently, key committee leadership in Congress has shown its own frustration with the slow pace
of NAIS implementation and has reduced annual funding appropriations for the program.
Lawmakers in the 111th Congress continue to monitor USDA’s work on the program and could
propose legislation aimed at shaping its scope, design, and pace of implementation.
Congressional Research Service
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Contents
Introduction and Overview.......................................................................................................... 6
What Is Animal ID? .................................................................................................................... 8
Data Requirements................................................................................................................ 9
Objectives............................................................................................................................. 9
Pros and Cons of an Animal ID System ..................................................................................... 10
Proponents’ Claimed Benefits ............................................................................................. 10
Opponents’ Claimed Criticisms ........................................................................................... 12
Development of a National Animal ID System .......................................................................... 14
Species Coverage................................................................................................................ 15
USDA’s Involvement .......................................................................................................... 15
NAIS Business Plan...................................................................................................... 15
NAIS User Guide.......................................................................................................... 16
NAIS Program Standards and Technical Reference........................................................ 16
NAIS Goals ........................................................................................................................ 16
Current NAIS Program ....................................................................................................... 17
Step 1. Premises Registration ........................................................................................ 17
Step 2. Animal Identification......................................................................................... 20
Step 3. Animal Tracing.................................................................................................. 21
USDA Listening Sessions ................................................................................................... 22
Pending Issues .......................................................................................................................... 23
Low Participation Rates; Slow Implementation Pace ........................................................... 23
Mandatory or Voluntary?..................................................................................................... 24
Costs and Who Pays............................................................................................................ 25
Estimated Costs ............................................................................................................ 26
Estimated Benefits ........................................................................................................ 28
Liability and Confidentiality of Records.............................................................................. 28
International Traceability Requirements for Meat Imports ................................................... 28
Congressional Actions............................................................................................................... 29
Funding .............................................................................................................................. 29
Legislative Proposals .......................................................................................................... 31
Congressional Hearings....................................................................................................... 31
Figures
Figure 1. Animal ID Goals Expand With Level of Traceability .................................................. 10
Tables
Table 1. Major International Animal Disease Outbreaks and Their Economic Costs,
Selected Incidents Since 1986 .................................................................................................. 6
Table 2. U.S. Meat Exports, Ranked by Country of Destination ................................................... 8
Table 3. NAIS Premises Registration Statistics, as of September 6, 2009 ................................... 19
Congressional Research Service
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Table 4. Estimated U.S. Animal Premises, Populations, and Premises Registration
Participation Rates by Species................................................................................................ 23
Table 5. Estimated Annual Cost Summary of NAIS Implementation by Species ........................ 27
Table 6. Congressional Funding for NAIS by Fiscal Year .......................................................... 30
Table B-1. Comparison of International Cattle ID and Traceability Programs............................. 38
Table B-2. Comparison of Cattle, Swine, and Poultry Populations by Country........................... 46
Table B-3. Comparison of Goats and Sheep, and Equidae, Populations by Country................... 47
Table B-4. Global Beef Production and Trade Rankings by Country ......................................... 48
Table B-5. Global Pork Production and Trade Rankings by Country .......................................... 49
Table B-6. Global Poultry Production and Trade Rankings by Country ...................................... 50
Appendixes
Appendix A. Chronology of NAIS’s Development .................................................................... 32
Appendix B. International Animal ID and Traceability .............................................................. 36
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 51
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 51
Congressional Research Service
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Introduction and Overview
Major outbreaks of harmful animal diseases—including avian influenza (AI), foot and mouth
disease (FMD), and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease)—have led to
the slaughter of millions of commercial animals and caused billions of dollars in economic
damages (Table 1). The economic harm from these disease outbreaks first hits the farm enterprise
that suffers direct loss of its animals and its livelihood. But it also extends well beyond the farm
place to disrupt domestic and international markets, causing losses all along the marketing chain
and ultimately hitting consumers.
Table 1. Major International Animal Disease Outbreaks and Their Economic Costs,
Selected Incidents Since 1986
Year
Disease
Species
Location
Economic Cost Resultant Livestock Cull
1986-1988 BSEa
Cattle
United Kingdom ~$6 billion
3.7 million cattle
1997 FMDb
Swine
Taiwan
~$7 billion
3.8 million hogs
1997
Classical swine feverc Swine
Netherlands
$2.3 billion
12 million hogs
1998 Avian
Influenzad
Poultry
Hong Kong
na
Entire poultry population of HK
2000
Classical swine fever
Swine
United Kingdom na
9 million hogs
2001
FMD
Cattle, Sheep, Swine United Kingdom $6.7 billion
10 million cattle, hogs, & sheep
2003-2006 Avian
Influenza
Poultry
Asia,
Africa,
na ~250
million poultry
Middle East,
Europe
Source: Compiled by CRS from various sources.
Note: na = not available. This table is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of al outbreaks, but focuses
instead on selected incidents relevant to livestock production activities in the United States.
a. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, is a fatal,
neurodegenerative disease in cattle that causes a spongy degeneration in the brain and spinal cord. BSE-
contaminated meat consumption has been linked to a human variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, according
to the World Health Organization.
b. Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), or hoof-and-mouth disease (Aphtae epizooticae), is a highly contagious and
sometimes fatal viral disease of cloven-hoofed animals, including domestic animals such as cattle, water
buffalo, sheep, goats, and pigs, as well as antelope, bison and other wild bovids, and deer. It is caused by
foot-and-mouth disease virus. FMD does not transmit to humans.
c. Classical swine fever (CSF), or hog cholera is a highly contagious disease of pigs and wild boar.
d. Avian influenza (H5N1), commonly known as bird flu, refers to influenza caused by viruses adapted to birds.
Of greatest concern is highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). Avian influenza (H5N1) can infect and kill
humans from bird-to-human contact.
To date, the United States has been fairly fortunate in avoiding a catastrophic animal disease
outbreak of the nature of the FMD events that occurred in Taiwan in 1997 or the United Kingdom
in 2001. Were a similar FMD outbreak to hit the United States, the economic consequences could
be staggering—possibly in the range of $30 billion to $100 billion in cost to the U.S. cattle
industry alone, according to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson in remarks
Congressional Research Service
6
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
made at a March 11, 2009, hearing by the subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry to
review animal identification systems.1
The economic consequences of major animal disease outbreaks that occurred during the 1990s
and early 2000s provided the impetus for the development and implementation of animal
identification (ID) and traceability systems in many countries.2 The motivation and nature of
these programs varies across countries, ranging from voluntary programs focused on animal
health as in the United States, to mandatory programs focused on both food safety and animal
health as in the European Union (EU), Japan, and South Korea (Figure 1).3 More recently, some
major importers of animal products, Japan and South Korea in particular, have begun to discuss
the possibility of requiring traceability on imported meat products, which, if undertaken, would
add a further dimension—market access—to animal ID and traceability programs.
Any developments that occur in domestic or international markets with respect to animal health,
food safety, and import standards have potentially significant economic importance for U.S.
livestock industries because the United States is a major producer and exporter of livestock and
animal products (Table 2). The United States is the world’s leading producer of beef and poultry
and ranks third in pork production behind China and the EU (see tables in Appendix B). With
respect to trade in animal products, the United States is the world’s leading exporter of pork, the
second-leading exporter of poultry (behind Brazil), and the third-leading exporter of beef, while
ranking first as the world’s leading importer of beef. In addition to these global rankings, U.S.
exports of animal products account for substantial portions of total use of domestic production—
17% for both pork and poultry, and 6% for beef, in 2007 and 2008.4
This report provides background on animal ID and traceability in general, and the development of
the current U.S. system of animal ID and traceability in particular. In addition, it reviews the
claims and counter-claims of proponents and opponents of a national animal ID system, and
describes many of the unresolved issues related to program development. Finally, two appendixes
offer a brief chronology of the development of the U.S. NAIS, and a brief description of the
major international organizations involved in setting standards and rules for animal health and
trade in animal products, along with summary descriptions of animal ID and traceability
programs found in other major livestock producer and consumer countries.
1 Public hearing to review animal identification systems, House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry held a March 11, 2009; http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/index.html.
2 For examples of animal disease outbreaks and their impact on international trade see “Economic Effects of Animal
Diseases Linked to Trade Dependency,” Amber Waves, Vol. 4, Issue 2, Economic Research Service (ERS), USDA,
April 2006; CRS Report R40575, Potential Farm Sector Effects of 2009 H1N1 “Swine Flu”: Questions and Answers ,
by Renée Johnson; CRS Report RS21709, Mad Cow Disease and U.S. Beef Trade, by Charles E. Hanrahan and
Geoffrey S. Becker; or “How Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1) Has Affected World Poultry-Meat Trade,”
LDP-M-159-02, Fawzi A. Taha, ERS, USDA, October 2007. For an analysis of the potential economic costs of an
FMD outbreak see Economic Impacts of Foreign Animal Disease, Econ. Research Report No. 57, Philip L. Paarlberg,
Ann H. Sietzinger, John G. Lee, and Kenneth H. Mathews, ERS, USDA, May 2008.
3 International animal ID programs are discussed in the appendix of this report.
4 U.S. beef exports accounted for 9% of total disappearance during the five years prior to the discovery of a BSE-
infected cow in the U.S. cattle herd in December 2003.
Congressional Research Service
7
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Table 2. U.S. Meat Exports, Ranked by Country of Destination
(average for calendar years 2007 and 2008; $ millions)
Beef and Veal
Pork
Poultry
Rank Country
Million $
%
Country
Million $
%
Country
Million $
%
1 Mexico
$774 32%
Japan
$1,317
38%
Russia
$798 21%
2 Canada
$644 27%
Canada
$508
15%
Mexico
$531 14%
3 Japan
$292 12%
Mexico
$398
12%
Canada
$426 11%
4
South Korea
$201
8%
South Korea
$225
7%
China
$395
11%
5 Taiwan
$117
5%
Russia
$247
7%
EU-27
$131 4%
6 Vietnam
$77
3%
China
$176
5%
Ukraine
$138 4%
7
EU-27
$74
3%
Hong Kong
$160
5%
Cuba
$109
3%
8
Hong Kong
$38
2%
EU-27
$95
3%
Hong Kong
$74
2%
9
Russia
$28
1%
Australia
$80
2%
Taiwan
$73
2%
10
Dominican Rep.
$18
1%
Taiwan
$28
1%
Turkey
$61
2%
11
U.A.E.
$17
1%
Philippines
$30
1%
Angola
$90
2%
12
Philippines
$14
1%
Honduras
$21
1%
Guatemala
$59
2%
13
Bahamas
$13
1%
Guatemala
$12
0%
South Korea
$52
1%
14
Saudi Arabia
$11
0%
New Zealand
$12
0%
Georgia
$41
1%
15
Jamaica
$9
0%
Cuba
$9
0%
Japan
$40
1%
Other
$87
4%
Other
$118
3%
Other
$717
19%
U.S. Total
$2,413 100%
U.S. Total
$3,435
100%
U.S. Total
$3,734 100%
Source: USDA, ERS, FATUS Export Aggregations.
What Is Animal ID?
Animal identification (ID) refers to keeping records on individual farm animals or groups (e.g.,
flocks or herds) of farm animals so that they can be more easily tracked from their birth through
the marketing chain. Historically, animal ID was intended to indicate ownership and prevent
thievery. Today, animal identification has been expanded to include information on the animal’s
origins (e.g., birthplace, parentage, sex, breed, genetics) as well as traceability—the ability to
trace an animal product back through the marketing chain to its source, while identifying those
other animals or animal products with which it has come into contact.
In essence, a national database of animal ID combined with traceability, accessible via a high-
speed computer network, is considered the ideal system to permit quick response to news of an
animal disease outbreak or the discovery of tainted food so as to limit threats to human or animal
health and to minimize commercial damage. Versions of animal ID systems currently exist in
several countries, with differences based primarily on the amount and type of information
collected and the extensiveness of the traceability system.
Congressional Research Service
8
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Data Requirements
At a minimum, information is collected and stored concerning the animal’s place and date of
birth, the name and address of the owner, the date and location of movements between the
animal’s origin and its place of slaughter, and the date and location of slaughter. More elaborate
animal ID systems include information on the sex, breed, and parentage of an animal, the names
of all feeds and pharmaceuticals used in raising the animal, and the movement of specific animal
products from the processing plant to the retail consumer.
Objectives
The reasons for identifying and tracking animals and their products have evolved and include
rapid response to animal health and/or food safety concerns, as well as verification of recognized
premium commercial production processes as specified on qualifying product labels.
In the United States, the current focus of animal ID is animal health. As such, traceability is
limited specifically to movements from the animal’s point of birth to its slaughter and processing
location. In other countries such as the European Union (EU), Japan, and South Korea, the focus
of animal ID is both animal health and food safety (Figure 1). As a result, those countries have
more comprehensive traceability systems that extend beyond the processing plant and follow
animal products (marked with an animal-specific bar code) to the retail consumer.
Increasingly, international buyers of U.S. animal products are demanding better information on
those products’ history—for example, where and how the animals were raised, how the products
were prepared, and what is the nature of the marketing chain the products followed to reach their
consumer markets. Traceability responds, in part, to these demands.
Congressional Research Service
9
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Figure 1. Animal ID Goals Expand With Level of Traceability
• Premises Identification
• Animal Identification
Food
Animal
Safety
Health
&
• Animal Movements
Market
– Origin to Processing Plant
Access
• Animal Movements
– Processing Plant to Consumer
Source: Assembled by CRS.
Pros and Cons of an Animal ID System
As a national animal ID and traceability system has evolved in the United States, so too have its
proponents and critics. This section briefly highlights the potential benefits of a national animal
ID and traceability system as cited by its proponents, and the criticisms that have been raised by
program opponents.
Proponents’ Claimed Benefits5
Proponents argue that an animal ID and traceability system:
1. Enhances animal health surveillance and disease eradication.
According to USDA, animal ID would facilitate early detection of dangerous and costly animal
disease outbreaks, while a traceability system would help to identify the source as well as those
animal populations that were exposed to the disease, and to contain them via zoning or
compartmentalization. Together, USDA claims that a national animal ID and traceability program
would likely reduce animal producers’ disease testing costs by controlling and/or eradicating
animal diseases at both regional and national levels.
5 The list of proposed benefits is taken from Overview Report of the Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal
Identification System, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USDA, April 2009, pp. 7-13.
Congressional Research Service
10
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
2. Minimizes economic impact of an animal disease outbreak.
Regionalization or compartmentalization is a disease management tool that contains a disease
outbreak to a specific zone, while leaving the remaining areas outside of that zone free of the
particular disease and not at risk for international trade restrictions. Rapid identification and
compartmentalization of a disease outbreak limits both the spread of commercially harmful
diseases and, thereby, the number of animals that would otherwise have to be destroyed or
removed from marketing channels. Compartmentalization also facilitates re-establishing
international market access and the reopening of lost export markets. The more rapid the response
to a disease outbreak, the more limited the economic damage.
3. Increases domestic marketing opportunities.
Many farmers and ranchers already keep track of individual animals and how they are being
raised, in order to identify and exploit desirable production characteristics—such as “organic” or
“grass-fed” or “hormone-free”—that can command substantial price premiums in certain retail
markets. Universal bar codes on processed food, including many meats, are widely used by
processors and retailers to manage inventories, add value to products, and monitor consumer
buying. When consumers seek meat, eggs, or milk from animals raised according to specified
organic, humane treatment, or environmental standards, ID and traceability can help firms verify
production methods.
Government-coordinated programs also have been established for these purposes. For example, a
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 and feeding practices, and so label them, under this
voluntary, fee-for-service program.
Other programs employing varying levels and types of traceability include the domestic origin
requirement for USDA-purchased commodities used in domestic feeding programs; the national
organic certification program, which AMS also oversees; and the mandatory country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) program.
4. Provides a valuable management tool for producers.
A traceability program that follows animal products to consumers would provide post-mortem
information on cattle with respect to success of various production techniques (e.g., feed types,
feed-pasture ratios, or genetics). Similarly, an ID system would be ideally suited for tracking the
performance history, along with other relevant criteria, of racing or show animals. It would also
increase transparency in the supply chain from producers to consumers; thereby reducing the risk
of unfounded liability claims against livestock producers. Finally, an animal ID and traceability
program would help producers maintain records on animal movements and health, breed
registries, and other marketing activities.
5. Addresses food safety and national security concerns.
Federal and state food safety agencies collaborate with APHIS to protect the food supply from the
introduction, through animals, of threats to human health, such as tuberculosis, and foodborne
Congressional Research Service
11
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
illnesses from bacteria like Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7.6 Generally, when local health
officials can link an illness to a particular product, firms and their regulators have been able to
trace that product back to the processor and/or slaughter facility. It has been more difficult to
determine which particular animals, herds, or flocks were involved. Some believe that a more
rigorous traceback and animal ID system would facilitate food recalls, possibly contain the spread
of a foodborne illness, and help authorities stem future incidents.7 Others, particularly many
within the food industry, strongly disagree, countering that such a system would not be based on
sound science, and would be technically unworkable and costly.
6. Enhances foreign marketing opportunities for animal products.
In the global marketplace, animal disease programs, aided by traceability systems, are used both
to reassure buyers about the health of U.S. animals and to satisfy foreign veterinary and/or food
safety requirements. In addition, they assist in assuring credible attributes of animal products with
consumers, thus improving opportunities for capturing value-added niche markets by certifying
production processes—that is, for export programs that ensure certain aspects of the animal
production process such as hormone- or antibiotic-free production.
After BSE appeared in North America in 2003, USDA’s AMS developed an export verification
(EV) program for U.S. plants seeking to meet the differing beef import specifications of various
countries like Japan, a key foreign market for U.S. beef (Table 2). AMS establishes the standards
that U.S. suppliers must follow if they want to ship beef to these countries, and certifies that the
proper procedures are in place. While EV is “voluntary,” it also has become a prerequisite for
access to the Japanese, Korean, and other foreign markets.
USDA contends that establishing an internationally recognized system of traceability is likely to
enhance the competitiveness of U.S. exports of animals and animal products. In fact, the lack of a
standardized, national animal identification system was one factor that prevented the United
States from receiving “negligible risk” status (the best status possible under the rating system) for
BSE from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Receiving negligible risk status
would likely enhance the United States’ ability to compete internationally, but USDA contends
that it would also support U.S. domestic price structures, so that all producers—regardless of their
interest in international marketing—would benefit when the United States expands its export
markets.
7. Enhances animal welfare in response to natural disasters.
In the event of a national disaster, such as a hurricane or major flood, an animal ID system could
be used to locate and rescue at-risk animal populations.
Opponents’ Claimed Criticisms
Opponents argue that an animal ID and traceability system:
6 For more information see CRS Report RL32521, Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness, by Jim Monke.
7 Traceability requirements related to food safety likely would be within the purview of USDA’s Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS), which regulates meat and poultry products under, respectively, the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.). See also CRS Report
RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background and Selected Issues; and CRS Report RS22955, Country-of-
Origin Labeling for Foods.
Congressional Research Service
12
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
1. Constitutes an invasion of privacy.
One of the primary concerns cited by opponents or critics of a national animal ID program is that
the collection of personal identification information and production methods represents a
government invasion of privacy and could potentially result in the public disclosure of proprietary
information. These critics claim that personal data held by government authorities is not secure
and may ultimately be released to the broader public.
2. Increases costs and technical complexity.
Other critics cite the likelihood of increased producer-level costs of implementation with no
guarantee of any market benefit. This concern was at least partially born out by a USDA-funded
benefit-cost analysis of animal ID implementation in the United States (discussed in detail in a
later section of this report) which found that over 90% of the annual cost of such a program
would fall upon the cattle sector.8
In addition, the as-yet-unknown technology requirements (e.g., computer hardware/software,
record keeping, radio frequency recording, etc.) could potentially increase the complexity of
operations and could easily exceed an operator’s capability.
3. Rewards vertical integration at the expense of family farms.
Studies have shown that the cattle industry is expected to bear the brunt of the costs of
implementing a national ID program, in large part because each individual animal will have to be
tagged, unlike in the large, vertically integrated pork and poultry industries, where animals are
usually raised and moved in lots. Critics claim that this added cost factor would unfairly
disadvantage cattle producers in domestic and international meat markets. For small operators
who are unable to spread such new costs over large operations, ID costs would likely erode an
already thin profit margin.
4. Disadvantages family farms with a lack of market power in price structure.
It has also 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.
5. Is objectionable on religious grounds.
Certain religious groups claim that a government program marking individual animals is an
apocalyptic sign of the world’s end and should therefore be avoided.
6. Other potential reasons for producer push-back.
Although the issue is unstated, some producers are likely concerned that greater transparency at
the farm level as a result of more thorough counting and reporting of livestock numbers and sales
may increase both income and property tax liabilities, particularly for those producers who
previously provided less than full disclosure of animal numbers and farm operations.
8 NAIS Benefit-Cost Research Team, APHIS, USDA, Benefit-Cost Analysis of The National Animal Identification
System, January 14, 2009; available at the APHIS, NAIS website at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais.
Congressional Research Service
13
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Development of a National Animal ID System
At the national level, an animal ID and traceability program has emerged and evolved over the
years from various state and national animal disease eradication and pest control programs.9 For
example, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—the federal agency that
oversees animal health in consultation with state veterinary authorities—directs several programs
for animal disease eradication and control that include animal identification components
effectively requiring ID and tracking.10 As part of a brucellosis eradication program, uniquely
numbered brucellosis ID tags were routinely attached to animals, noting that they had been
vaccinated or tested.11 The program was successful, and brucellosis has largely been eradicated
from U.S. commercial herds; as a result, animal ID became less common as the program wound
down.
In addition to ID requirements under selected APHIS programs, certain classes of livestock must
be officially identified before entering interstate commerce. For example, the official disease
programs for pseudorabies in swine and scrapie in sheep require that both of these species be
officially identified before entering interstate commerce.12 Often state laws or breed association
rules require animals of these and other species, like cattle and horses, to be identified to
participate in shows or races. But these various programs are not national in scope and vary in
their manner of animal identification, record keeping, and data management.
U.S. animal ID limitations were noted after bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad
cow disease) was discovered in the United States (in a Canadian-born dairy cow) in December
2003. A number of trading partners that had quickly closed their borders to U.S. beef reportedly
were reluctant to reopen them, due in part to U.S. difficulties in tracing the whereabouts of other
cattle that had entered the United States with the BSE-infected cow; similar difficulties arose in
determining the whereabouts and/or herd mates of the two later U.S.-born BSE cases.13
Today’s national animal identification system (NAIS) program has attempted to build on and
learn from these earlier programs, and although it is administered by USDA’s APHIS, NAIS is
based on a state-federal-industry partnership that provides the opportunity for producers who are
not part of a disease program to voluntarily participate in national animal health safeguarding
efforts. Certain states already have mandated some components of animal identification such as
premises registration; however, at the federal level, NAIS is a voluntary program.14
9 See Appendix A for a brief outline of the historical development of animal ID and traceability in the United States.
10 For more information, see the APHIS website at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/.
11 Brucellosis is a highly contagious and costly disease mainly affecting cattle, bison, and swine (once common in the
United States).
12 Pseudorabies is a viral disease most prevalent in swine, often causing newborn piglets to die. Scrapie is a fatal,
degenerative disease affecting the central nervous system of sheep and goats. For more information, refer to the
“Animal Diseases” website of APHIS, USDA at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/.
13 See CRS Report RL32199, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or “Mad Cow Disease”): Current and
Proposed Safeguards, by Sarah A. Lister and Geoffrey S. Becker.
14 For example, Michigan (http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-48096_48149—,00.html), Indiana
(http://www.in.gov/boah/2328.htm), and Wisconsin (http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/premises/index.jsp).
Congressional Research Service
14
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Species Coverage
NAIS is intended to cover all major commercial livestock and poultry species raised in the United
States, including beef and dairy cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, chickens, and turkeys, as well as large
animal species raised and kept for sports and/or recreation, most notably horses. This is a new
development in the United States, as there has never been a nationwide animal ID system for all
animals of any given species.
Household pets are excluded from NAIS. Only animals that enter commerce or that commingle
with animals at other premises (like sales barns, state or national fairs, or exhibits) are identified.
Also, animals that typically are moved in groups—such as hogs and poultry—could be identified
as part of their group rather than individually.
USDA’s Involvement
Because NAIS is voluntary, and because much of its implementation occurs at the local and state
levels, USDA’s involvement has been focused on popularizing the program, ensuring that
adequate information is available to all participants (both actual and potential), and addressing the
following general issues:
• prioritize implementation by species/sectors, taking into account where the
greatest disease concerns and traceability opportunities exist;
• harmonize animal ID programs;
• standardize data elements of disease programs to ensure compatibility;
• integrate automated data capture technology with disease programs;
• partner with states, tribes, and territories;
• collaborate with industry; and
• advance ID technologies.
To ensure that NAIS participants and other interested stakeholders have access to pertinent
information about the program, USDA has published a series of reports that provide participant
guidance, technical standards, and implementation strategies. Three reports in particular
(described below) provide detailed information about the current status of NAIS, how to
participate in the program, including the necessary technical details, and the future direction of
program implementation.15
NAIS Business Plan16
A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability details recommended strategies and
actions to enable existing state and federal regulated and voluntary animal health programs,
industry-administered animal health and marketing programs, and various animal identification
techniques to work in harmony to enhance animal disease traceability.
15 All three reports are available on the NAIS website at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais.
16 A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability, Version 1.0, APHIS, USDA, September 2008.
Congressional Research Service
15
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
NAIS User Guide17
The NAIS User Guide, first published in November 2006, provides guidance to producers and
owners of animals, as well as other sectors involved in the animal agricultural industry, on how to
participate in NAIS and how participation will benefit them.
NAIS Program Standards and Technical Reference18
As a supplement to the User Guide, the Program Standards and Technical Reference document
establishes data standards for NAIS, including:
• the data element formats for premises identification numbers, animal
identification numbers, and group/lot identification numbers, which are needed to
ensure compatibility across information systems;
• standards for official identification devices that utilize the animal identification
number; and
• information on technology standards published by the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) that are utilized in NAIS.
Use of these standards by states, tribes, industry organizations, identification device
manufacturers, and other entities involved in NAIS helps to ensure that the system is effective.
NAIS Goals
The primary goal of NAIS is to protect the commercial interests involved in U.S. agriculture from
the potential harm associated with the outbreak of an animal disease. NAIS is not intended to
serve as a food safety program per se, although there may be positive public safety effects from
the successful implementation of NAIS.
USDA identifies the following specific goals of NAIS:19
• Increase the United States’ disease response capabilities.
• Limit the spread of animal diseases.
• Minimize animal losses and economic impact.
• Protect the livelihoods of animal producers.
• Maintain market access.
To accomplish these goals, USDA’s long-term goal is to achieve the ability to identify and trace
animals of interest within 48 hours of an animal disease problem. To meet this time frame, animal
health officials must have rapid access to reliable and complete data on both animal ID and
movement history.
17 National Animal Identification System (NAIS)—A User Guide and Additional Information Resource, Version 2.0,
APHIS, USDA, December 2007; hereafter referred to as NAIS User Guide (2007).
18 NAIS Program Standards and Technical Reference, Version 2.2, APHIS, USDA, February 2008.
19 This list is available at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/about/nais_components.shtml.
Congressional Research Service
16
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Current NAIS Program
When a disease outbreak occurs, animal health officials need three key pieces of information in
order to contain the outbreak and limit its commercial damage.
• Which animals are involved in a disease outbreak?
• Where are the infected animals currently located?
• What other animals might have been exposed to the disease?
NAIS is designed to meet these three data needs so as to facilitate quick traceback from the point
of discovery of an animal disease at any point in its commercial marketing chain back to its
original premises, while noting all other animals that came into contact with the diseased animal.
To collect the requisite information, NAIS is composed of three sequential components—
premises registration, animal identification, and animal tracking.
Step 1. Premises Registration20
The first phase of NAIS involves registering the geographic location (i.e., the farm or ranch)
where the livestock or poultry are raised, housed, or boarded. To meet USDA’s data standards for
premises registration, states and tribes collect and maintain “at a minimum” the following pieces
of information:21
• premises identification number (PIN);
• name of entity;
• contact person for premises;
• mailing address or latitude/longitude coordinates of the premises;
• contact phone number;
• operation type;
• date activated, date retired, and the reason retired (to determine whether animals
still exist at the location); and
• alternative phone numbers.
The PIN is a unique seven-digit number that is permanently assigned to a location. The PIN does
not change following a change of ownership. It is possible for a producer or owner to have
multiple PINs based on the nature and type of operations (e.g., if a single producer has distinctly
different animal production activities taking place at different locations).
Premises are registered at one of the state (or tribal) animal health authorities. Premises
registration is free and does not require participation in the following two steps. USDA maintains
20 For more information on premises registration, see http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/premises_id/index.shtml.
21 NAIS User Guide (2007), p. 17.
Congressional Research Service
17
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
the premises information in a National Premises Information Repository, but declares that it will
protect individuals’ private information and confidential business information from disclosure.22
According to USDA, premises information ensures that producers will be notified quickly when a
disease outbreak or other animal health event might harm their operations. In an emergency,
animal health officials will be able to quickly locate at-risk animals and take precise actions to
address the situation, minimize hardships, and speed disease eradication efforts as much as
possible.
In late 2006, the goal was to have all premises registered by 2009. However, as of
September 6, 2009, only about 37% of premises (excluding horses) were registered under the
NAIS out of an estimated 1.4 million U.S. animal and poultry operations (Table 3). USDA has
stated that much higher levels of participation are needed to successfully implement NAIS.
22 Ibid., p. 18.
Congressional Research Service
18
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Table 3. NAIS Premises Registration Statistics, as of September 6, 2009
State Premises
Premises
Registered
Percent
Massachusetts 3,555 8,082
>100.0%
Wisconsin 51,373
62,802
>100.0%
Indiana 34,790
35,200
>100.0%
Idaho 18,754
18,752
100.0%
New York
25,559
22,441
87.8%
Utah 12,460
10,184
81.7%
Michigan 29,011
22,447
77.4%
Pennsylvania 42,302
30,749
72.7%
North Dakota
14,085
8,904
63.2%
Nevada 2,522
1,485
58.9%
Nebraska 30,841
17,606
57.1%
Iowa 47,273
26,741
56.6%
West Virginia
17,670
9,509
53.8%
Illinois
30,046 15,094 50.2%
Delaware 1,553
661
42.6%
Colorado 22,951
8,650
37.7%
North Carolina
36,142
13,491
37.3%
Minnesota 44,193
15,593
35.3%
Alaska 354
117
33.1%
South Carolina
16,120
4,976
30.9%
Tennessee 68,010
20,577
30.3%
Hawai 1,391
406
29.2%
Virginia 37,673
10,619
28.2%
New Mexico
11,250
3,102
27.6%
Arizona 5,170
1,425
27.6%
Florida 28,731
7,826
27.2%
Alabama 35,538
9,284
26.1%
Kentucky 61,251
15,565
25.4%
Arkansas 37,614
9,501
25.3%
South Dakota
22,356
5,549
24.8%
California 32,500
7,763
23.9%
Mississippi 29,312
6,751
23.0%
Wyoming 8,227
1,840
22.4%
Kansas 39,346
8,430
21.4%
Ohio 48,073
9,995
20.8%
Maryland 7,837
1,559
19.9%
New Jersey
5,315
1,041
19.6%
Missouri 79,018
15,166
19.2%
Texas 187,118
33,022
17.6%
Oklahoma 71,420
12,184
17.1%
Louisiana 19,677
3,307
16.8%
Georgia 35,431
5,108
14.4%
Maine 4,213
444
10.5%
Oregon 28,634
2,877
10.0%
Washington 22,155
2,131 9.6%
Vermont 4,438
389
8.8%
Montana 19,708
1,699
8.6%
Connecticut 2,539 164
6.5%
Rhode Island
504
15
3.0%
New Hampshire
2,277
61
2.7%
Subtotal
1,438,280
531,284
36.9%
Territories & Tribes
1,577
Grand Total
532,861
Source: NAIS website, APHIS, USDA.
Note: Includes cattle, goats, poultry, sheep, and swine; does not include horse premises. In cases where
participation exceeds 100%, eligible premises were being undercounted.
Congressional Research Service
19
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Step 2. Animal Identification23
The second phase of NAIS involves assigning each individual animal or each specific group of
animals a unique number from a uniform numbering system. A group ID is best suited for
animals, such as swine or poultry, that are raised in confined lots and move through the
production chain as one group.
Animal Identification Number (AIN)
An animal identification number (AIN) is a unique, 15-digit number, where the first three
numbers are the country code and the following 12 digits are the animal’s unique identifying
number.24 The first three numbers of an AIN issued in the United States will always be 840. As a
result, tags, radio frequency identification devices, and other ID devices that comply with the 15-
digit AIN numbering system are often referred to as 840 devices.
Animal ID is accomplished by obtaining USDA-recognized numbering tags or devices from
representatives of authorized manufacturers. AIN devices include the traditional visual ear-tag or
tattoos that are read by physical viewing, or the radio frequency identification (RFID) tags as well
as injectable transponders, which may be read electronically from a moderate distance and
without direct line of sight.25 USDA has not designated any specific identification technologies
beyond the minimum requirements for official identification that have been identified in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
In recent years, the use of RFID devices and injectable transponders with information that is read
by scanners and fed into computer databases is becoming more common, because these devices
allow for faster, easier access to ID information. Because they can be read electronically, RFID
and electronic transponder devices eliminate the need to approach or restrain animals, thereby
reducing stress and increasing the quality of the data obtained.
Some animals do not need to be identified under NAIS, specifically animals whose movement
poses a low risk of disease spread or exposure. Such cases include animals that never leave their
birth premises (e.g., that die and are buried at their birthplace) or are only moved directly to
custom slaughter for personal consumption. However, USDA encourages all animal owners to
register their premises, regardless of the number of animals present, because many animal
diseases (such as avian influenza, foot-and-mouth disease, and vesicular stomatitis) can be spread
whether an animal leaves its home premises or not.
The person responsible for the care of the animal chooses when to place the ID on the animal.
Some producers may want to attach ID devices shortly after birth; others may choose to attach a
device later. However, USDA contends that an animal should have an ID attached before it moves
from its current premises to another producer’s premises, a livestock market, or a feedlot, among
other locations. If the animals cannot be tagged at their current premises, producers might elect to
have their animals tagged at an auction market that provides tagging services when they are ready
to market their animals. In such cases, when the animals are unloaded, they would be tagged
23 For more information on animal identification see http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal_id/index.shtml.
24 NAIS User Guide (2007), p. 22.
25 APHIS provides more information on AIN devices at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/
guidelines/NAIS_ID_Tag_Web_Listing.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
before they are commingled with animals from other premises. In some areas, tagging services
are available. Producers who purchase animals (whether from a domestic or foreign source) and
bring them into their operation are expected to maintain the official identification already on the
animal—no additional identification or change of identification of those animals is needed.
Group Identification Number (GIN)
Animals that typically move through the production chain as a group of animals of the same
species can be identified by group/lot identification numbers (GINs), rather than individual
numbers. This practice is most common in the poultry and pork industries. However, group/lot
identification may be an option for other species when they move through the production chain as
a group. The GIN is a 15-character number consisting of the seven-character PIN; the six-digit
date (MMDDYY) that the group or lot of animals was assembled; and a two-digit number (01 to
99) to reflect the count of groups assembled at the same premises on the same day. Since the GIN
is “self-generated” by the producer (not assigned by USDA) the GIN of each group is maintained
at the premises by the producer in his or her management records.
The ID remains with the animal for its lifetime. The uniform numbering system links each
producer’s livestock or poultry flock to the animal’s birthplace or premises of origin. The actual
identification protocol is sensitive to the unique qualities of different species groups, and the way
they are raised, moved, commingled, and processed.
Step 3. Animal Tracing26
The third phase of NAIS involves access to timely, accurate animal movement records in order to
quickly locate at-risk animals in the event of a disease outbreak, and to limit the disease to a
clearly defined region or compartment. Under this third step, a producer selects one of the NAIS-
compliant animal tracking databases (ATDs) maintained by states and private industry (i.e., not
the federal government) to which the producer can report the movement of animals that are
shipped from or moved into their premises. Under NAIS, only the minimum, standardized tracing
information is necessary for participation. The minimum traceback information includes:27
• the national premises identification number (PIN);
• the animal ID number (AIN) or group ID number (GIN);
• the date of the event; and
• the event itself (e.g., move-in to a new premises or move-out of the current
premises).
Other animal-specific data (e.g., age, species, sex) that support NAIS in traceback situations are
also standardized, but are not necessary for participation.
The traceback information is read and recorded each time that a notable movement between
locations occurs.28 Movements within a production unit for management purposes (e.g., from
26 For more information on animal tracing, see http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal_track/index.shtml.
27 NAIS User Guide (2007), p. 32.
28 For specific examples of reportable and non-reportable animal movement scenarios, see NAIS User Guide (2007),
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
pasture to pasture) are not considered to impact disease spread, and therefore are not necessary to
report relative to NAIS.
The voluntary animal tracing component of NAIS is a public/private partnership. Both industry—
through private systems—and states operate and maintain ATDs, which contain the animal
location and movement records that producers report to help safeguard animal health. In other
words, the federal government does not maintain the ATDs; states and privates entities do. Having
states and industry maintain these ATDs is part of USDA’s plan to assure confidentiality for
participants. On the federal side, USDA operates a portal system that will enable animal health
officials to submit requests for information to the administrators of the ATDs when investigating
an animal disease event. This system is known as the Animal Trace Processing System (ATPS).
When there is a disease outbreak or other animal health event, the ATDs are designed to provide
timely, accurate reports that show where potentially exposed animals have been and what other
animals have come into contact with them. USDA defines retrieval of traceback data within a 48-
hour window as optimal for efficient, effective disease containment.
State and federal animal health officials will use the system only in the following situations:29
• an indication (suspect, presumptive positive, etc.) or confirmed positive test for a
foreign animal disease;
• an animal disease emergency as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture
and/or state departments of agriculture; or
• a need to conduct a traceback/traceforward to determine the origin of infection
for a program disease (brucellosis, tuberculosis, etc.).
USDA Listening Sessions
Between April 15 and June 30, 2009, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack undertook a series of
public listening sessions around the country to hear from livestock producers and other interested
parties concerning their views of the NAIS.30 Secretary Vilsack said that he hoped to use the
listening sessions to gather feedback and input that will assist him in making decisions about the
future direction of animal ID and traceability in the United States.
Since early 2004, USDA has committed nearly $142 million to the development of NAIS,
providing many of the funds to states and tribal organizations for research, database systems, and
startup of premises registration. It was unclear as of late September 2009 what, if any, changes
the Obama Administration would propose in the design or implementation of the program.
(...continued)
pp. 35-36.
29 Ibid., p. 30.
30 For more information, see “Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Seeks Dialogue with Producers and Stakeholders on
National Animal Identification System,” USDA News Release No. 0108.09, April 15, 2009; and the NAIS-APHIS
website for a listing of the public listening sessions at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/feedback.shtml.
Congressional Research Service
22
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Pending Issues
Low Participation Rates; Slow Implementation Pace
As of September 2008, about 40% of potential premises in the United States had been registered
(Table 4), although there is substantial variation in participation across species and states (Table
3). Poultry and sheep registration is estimated at 95%, swine at 80%, goat at 60%, horse at 50%,
and cattle at 18%.
On September 6, 2009, APHIS reported that 531,284 animal premises (excluding horses) had
been registered in one of the available databases (Table 3).31 This represents 36.9% of the
estimated 1.4 million livestock and poultry farms (with animal product sales of at least $1,000) in
the United States.32
Table 4. Estimated U.S. Animal Premises, Populations, and Premises Registration
Participation Rates by Species
Estimated Animal
Estimated Number of
Percent of Premises
Species
Population
Premises
Registered
Poultrya 1,911,625,000 162,800 95%
Sheepb 5,747,000
69,000
95%
Swine
67,218,000
65,540
80%
Goat
3,070,000
91,000
60%
Cattlec 94,491,000
1,046,000
18%
Subtotal 2,082,151,000
1,438,280 36%
Horse
5,800,000
570,000
50%
Total 2,087,951,000
2,004,340 40%
Source: Estimated total number of premises and total percent registered (excluding horses) is from “Premises
Registration Statistics,” NAIS website, APHIS, USDA. Estimated number of premises by species (including
horses) is from A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability, APHIS, USDA, Version 1.0, September 2008.
Estimated percent of premises registered by species is compiled by CRS from various APHIS documents.
a. Poultry populations are from the Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS),
USDA, 2002.
b. Sheep and goat population estimates are from Sheep and Goats, NASS, USDA, January 30, 2009.
c. Cattle population estimates from Cattle, NASS, USDA, January 30, 2009.
To achieve an effective response to an animal disease outbreak, a certain level of participation is
necessary. According to USDA, NAIS must achieve a “critical mass” level of participation to
achieve its long-term goal of 48-hour traceback. USDA estimates that 70% of the animals in a
31 An additional 1,369 premises (not included in the total above) have been registered in U.S. territories and 208 in
tribal areas; available at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/premises_id/prem_stat_files/NAIS_Prem_Stat_Report.pdf.
32 The NAIS Business Plan (2008) breaks this total into an estimated 1.046 million cattle premises, 66,000 hog
premises, 163,000 poultry premises, 69,000 sheep premises, and 91,000 goat premises. In addition, the Business Plan
estimates there are 570,000 premises for horses in the United States.
Congressional Research Service
23
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
specific species and/or sector need to be identified and traceable to their premises of origin to
achieve the necessary “critical mass.”33 Dr. John Clifford, USDA’s Chief Veterinary Officer for
animal health, has also cited a participation rate of 70% of the animals in a specific species—that
could be both identified and traceable to their premises of origin—as necessary to provide an
effective measure of traceability.34 However, Dr. Clifford suggests that a much higher
participation rate, perhaps as high as 90%, would be necessary to ensure the full benefits of the
system.
Some animal ID program supporters have criticized USDA for moving too slowly and/or not
setting a clearer path toward universal ID. A July 2007 report by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) concluded that a number of problems had hindered effective implementation of
animal ID, such as no prioritization among the nine animal species to be covered to focus on
those of greatest disease concern; no plan to integrate NAIS into existing USDA and state animal
ID requirements; and no requirement that some types of critical data be provided to the databases,
such as species or age.35 USDA’s NAIS Business Plan (2008) was intended to respond to several
of the GAO criticisms.
Others believe that USDA’s progress simply reflects the wide differences among producers and
other interests over many unresolved issues.
Mandatory or Voluntary?
NAIS is presently operated as a voluntary program. However, USDA officials have expressed
concern that participation rates are currently too low for NAIS to be effective at achieving its 48-
hour traceback window. These officials have publicly called for Congress to address the low
participation rates either by increasing the incentives to participate or by making the program
mandatory.36
Others, including many state animal health officials, have already made similar requests. The
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), which represents more than 78,000
veterinarians across the United States, has addressed Congress on its support for mandatory
participation in NAIS.37 At meetings in October 2006, the National Assembly of State Animal
Health Officials and the U.S. Animal Health Association’s livestock committee each approved a
recommendation that, as a step toward a national system, USDA make animal ID mandatory for
all U.S. breeding cattle. Consumer advocacy groups also have pressed for a mandatory national
system. Among livestock industry groups, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC),38 the
33 NAIS Business Plan, Version 1.0, APHIS, USDA, September 2008, p. 11.
34 Dr. John Clifford, Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services, APHIS, in testimony given on the National Animal
Identification System at a joint hearing for the Committees of Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and
Poultry and the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and
Science and Technology on May 5, 2009.
35 National Animal Identification System: USDA Needs to Resolve Several Key Implementation Issues to Achieve Rapid
and Effective Disease Traceback, GAO-07-592, July 2007.
36 Dr. John Clifford, in remarks made during the question and answer session at the May 5, 2009, hearing mentioned in
an earlier footnote.
37 Testimony of Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, DVM, MBA, Chief Executive Officer, AVMA, at a hearing on NAIS by the
House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, March 11, 2009.
38 See the NPPC website position paper on NAIS at http://www.nppc.org/issues/mais.htm.
Congressional Research Service
24
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF),39 and the American Meat Institute (AMI)40 have
announced their support for a mandatory animal identification system. Both the chairman of the
House Committee on Agriculture, Collin Peterson, and the chairwoman of the House Committee
on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rosa DeLauro, have expressed their interest in
seeing NAIS implemented as a mandatory program as a way to avoid devastating losses from
virulent diseases.
In contrast, groups opposed to a mandatory NAIS are primarily associated with the cattle
industry, including the Rancher’s-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF),41 the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA),42 and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.43 Some
opponents reportedly have been working to block mandatory and/or even voluntary programs in
various states.44 The cattle groups fear that high costs for equipment to carry out the system will
favor continued concentration in the industry to the disadvantage of small, independent
producers, and they question whether USDA can keep the information confidential. Several
members of Congress from districts and states with large cattle industries have echoed the cattle
industry’s concerns.45
There is some uncertainty over the degree of authority that a U.S. Secretary of Agriculture has in
determining by decree whether NAIS will be a voluntary or mandatory program. However, in
August 2006, then-Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns responded to the growing concerns of
the cattle industry by announcing that USDA would continue to implement NAIS as a voluntary
program. Proponents of a mandatory NAIS program now argue that, with a change in
administration, Secretary Vilsack should have the same authority to reverse Secretary Johanns’s
earlier determination and announce that participation in NAIS would be mandatory for the U.S.
livestock industry.
Costs and Who Pays
An animal ID system will impose a variety of costs, such as for tags or other identifying devices
and their application, and data systems to track animals. As the extent of traceability increases, so
do likely costs. Cost estimates of a national system have varied broadly, and are not directly
comparable, a reflection of estimators’ differing assumptions and of the varying designs of
proposed programs. A related policy question is who should pay—the industry (and ultimately
consumers), government, or both? USDA’s current thinking calls for expenses to be shared (e.g.,
database costs funded by government and the identifying devices by producers).
39 Testimony of Dr. Karen Jordan, D.V.M., on behalf of NMPF, at a hearing on NAIS by the House Committee on
Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, March 11, 2009.
40 http://www.meatami.com/ht/d/ArticleDetails/i/3252.
41 http://www.r-calfusa.com/animal_id/animal_id.htm.
42 http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/animalidleavebehind.pdf.
43 http://www.ftcldf.org/aa/aa-13feb2009-2.htm.
44 The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, in particular, has taken an active role in blocking any forward
momentum in national animal identification. For example, see http://www.ftcldf.org/aa/aa-13feb2009-2.htm.
45 For examples, see “McCaskill Helps Struggling Independent Producers in Missouri: Measures will increase dairy
prices and protect against mandatory national animal identification program,” Senator McCaskill press release, August
5, 2009; and “Johnson Shares Concerns of South Dakotans with Ag Secretary,” Senator Johnson press release,
March 19, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
25
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
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.”46
On April 29, 2009, APHIS released a study, the KSU Benefit-Cost Study (2009), of the economic
benefits and costs of adopting USDA’s NAIS.47 The research was conducted by economists at
Kansas State University in collaboration with researchers from Colorado State University,
Michigan State University, and Montana State University. The report represents the researchers’
best estimate of what they anticipate would result from the adoption of NAIS across multiple
species and at varying participation rates. Key study assumptions concerning individual versus
group ID tagging included the following: all cattle are individually ID tagged; all swine are group
ID tagged, except for cull breeding animals, which require individual ID tagging; and all poultry
are uniquely group ID tagged. The results for a 100%-participation scenario are summarized in
Table 5.
Estimated Costs
The KSU Benefit-Cost Study (2009) showed that annual estimated costs for implementing NAIS
throughout the livestock (i.e., food animal) industries would be approximately $228 million (at
2009 prices) for full pre-harvest traceability with 100% participation (Table 5). The cost expands
to $304.2 million when horses are included. The cost estimates are less for lower levels of
participation and for more limited traceability features. Over 90% of the food animal industry
costs for such a system would be associated with the cattle sector, which equates to $5.97 per
animal marketed. This is largely due to the individual animal ID required, whereas swine, sheep,
goats, and poultry can often be sufficiently traced using premises and group lot information.
Identification tags and tagging cattle accounted for 75% of the cattle sector’s annual adoption
costs. The estimated tag and tagging costs varied among cattle producers from $3.30 to $5.22 per
animal, depending on current identification practices. In comparison to the cattle industry’s $5.97
average cost per marketed animal, the average per animal cost for other livestock sectors was
$0.059 per swine, $1.39 per sheep, $0.0007 per broiler, $0.002 per turkey, and $0.0195 per layer.
46 “Meat Traceability: Its Effect on Trade,” Iowa Ag Review, Winter 2002.
47 The study, hereafter referred to as the KSU Cost-Benefit Study (2009), is available at the APHIS, NAIS, website at
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais.
Congressional Research Service
26
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Table 5. Estimated Annual Cost Summary of NAIS Implementation by Species
(scenario assumes 100% participation)
Adoption
Total Cost
Premises
Tags &
Reading /
Total
Cost per
per Animal
Species
Registration
Tagging
Tracking
Cost
Animal
Marketed
—————————$1,000—————————
———$ per head———
Cattle
4,474
157,326
47,270
209,070
4.97
5.97
Beef Cow/Calf
3,516
126,277
9,971
139,764
4.22
4.91
Dairy
318
22,288
8,832
31,438
3.43
6.21
Backgrounder
236
3,722
8,115
12,073
0.71
0.71
Feedlot
404
5,038
8,120
13,563
0.51
0.51
Auction Yard
-
-
8,765
8,765
0.23
0.23
Packing Plant
-
-
3,467
3,467
0.10
0.10
Swine
304
1,437
4,680
6,422
0.06
0.06
Farrow-to-Wean
28
616
905
1,549
0.03
0.02
Farrow-to-Feeder
20
296
520
836
0.03
0.03
Farrow-to-Finish
95
525
1,871
2,492
0.13
0.12
Wean-to-Feeder
24
-
382
407
0.01
0.01
Feeder-to-Finish
138
-
854
991
0.01
0.01
Packers
-
-
147
147
0.00
0.00
Sheep
327
2,091
1,246
3,664
1.07
1.39
Al operations
327
2,091
1,214
3,632
1.06
1.06
Packers
-
-
32
32
0.01
0.01
Poultry
644
-
8,469
9,113
0.001
0.001
Layers
456
-
2,036
2,492
0.020
0.020
Broilers
148
-
5,911
6,060
0.001
0.001
Turkeys
39
-
521
560
0.002
0.002
Subtotal
5,750
160,854
61,666
228,269
Equine
2,690
34,524
38,682
75,896
13.09
na
Total
8,440
195,378
100,348
304,166
Source: “Benefit-Cost Analysis of The National Animal Identification System,” NAIS Benefit-Cost Research
Team, January 14, 2009; hereafter referred to as the KSU Benefit-Cost Study (2009), available at
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/plans_reports/Benefit_Cost_Analysis_NAIS.pdf
Notes: Some of the per animal costs were derived by CRS from available data. na = not available.
Congressional Research Service
27
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Estimated Benefits
The study also found that the economic benefits from NAIS with 100% participation easily
exceeded the costs. Benefits included:
• substantial federal and state government savings in connection with
administration of animal disease control and eradication programs due to the
reduction in disease outbreaks;
• economic benefits from quickly re-establishing markets following a disease
outbreak, plus possible expanded market access in the international marketplace;
• avoidance of significant losses—as great as $1.32 billion per year over a 10-year
period—due mostly to lost export market access; and
• increased consumer demand resulting from higher confidence in food products.
By evaluating the cost-benefit effects over a range of participation levels, the study found that
implementation of NAIS becomes more cost-effective as participation levels increase, and that
NAIS may not be economically viable at lower participation levels.
Liability and Confidentiality of Records
Some producers are concerned that they will be held liable for contamination or other problems
over which they believe they have little control after the animal leaves the farm. On the other
hand, documentation of management practices, including animal health programs, can help to
protect against liability because it can prove where animals originated and how they were raised.
Also at 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 misuse information gained through FOIA, or that the data collection might
reveal proprietary information. However, FOIA exempts access to certain types of business
information, such as trade secrets, commercial or financial information, or other confidential
material that might harm the provider.48
In the 110th Congress, conferees deleted a provision (Sec. 10305) in the Senate-passed version of
H.R. 2419, the omnibus 2008 farm bill enacted as P.L. 110-246, that would have required USDA
regulations addressing “the protection of trade secrets and other proprietary and/or confidential
business information” disclosed due to participation in an animal ID system.
International Traceability Requirements for Meat Imports
A South Korean agriculture official recently reported that his government intends to impose
traceability requirements on imported beef as soon as December 2010.49 Currently the EU
requires individual identification and traceability for all suppliers, domestic and foreign.50
48 For more discussion of liability and confidentiality issues, see National Agricultural Law Center, Animal
Identification—An Overview, at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/animalid/.
49 Brett Stuart, “S.Korea Traceability Requirement,” CattleFax Update, vol. 41, issue 28, July 10, 2009, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
28
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Presently, Japan does not specifically require traceability for imported beef, although imported
beef is subject to several other specifications including a 20-month age limitation. The opposition
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has declared that, if elected, it will work toward early passage of
both an existing “BSE Measures Law” and a “Beef Traceability Law” in order to subject
imported beef to the same traceability requirements as domestic beef.51 On August 30, 2009, the
DPJ won 308 seats in the Japanese Diet. The DPJ hopes to forge a coalition with two minor
parties that would give it a two-thirds majority, enabling it to force through legislation.52
However, as the DPJ is involved with setting up its new administration and prioritizing its
agenda, it is unlikely that the issue of a traceability requirement on imported meat will be
addressed as an early priority.
The only top tier beef exporter in the world besides the United States without a traceability
system is India, which exports very low-valued canned/cooked beef. According to CattleFax
analyst Brett Stuart, “While few U.S. producers are willing, or expected, to implement a system
voluntarily with little direct benefit, we may be rapidly approaching a future where beef
traceability is the price of admission into the global beef world.”53
The WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures applies rules
to the use of non-tariff trade barriers (e.g., traceability and identification requirements) to restrict
market access. The implementation of traceability measures applied to imports must meet two
requirements.54 First, any traceability requirements must be scientifically justified based on an
assessment of risk to human, animal, or plant health. Second, they may be equivalent to, but not
more rigorous than, the standards applied to domestic industry.55
Congressional Actions
Funding
From FY2004 through FY2009, approximately $142 million has been appropriated for NAIS,
including $14.5 million in FY2009 (Table 6). However, in the past year Congress has expressed
growing frustration with the slow pace of NAIS implementation relative to the funding outlays.
The explanatory language that accompanied the FY2009 USDA appropriation (P.L. 110-8,
Division A), explicitly directed APHIS “to make demonstrable progress” to implement the
program, and to meet a number of specific objectives (regarding 48-hour traceback ability) that
were in the agency’s 2008 traceability business plan.
(...continued)
50 Ibid.
51 “Beef Trade With Japan in Rough Political Waters This Summer,” Oklahoma Farm Report, July 15, 2009.
52 “Banzai! A landslide victory for the DPJ in Japan,” The Economist, August 31, 2009.
53 “Beef Trade With Japan in Rough Political Waters This Summer,” Oklahoma Farm Report, July 15, 2009.
54 The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, WTO, Cambridge University
Press©2009.
55 Articles 4 and 5, Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, The Legal Texts, WTO,
Cambridge University Press©2009.
Congressional Research Service
29
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Table 6. Congressional Funding for NAIS by Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Actual Funding
Statute
2004 $18,796,000
CCC
Fundsa
2005 $33,197,000
P.L.
108-447
2006 $33,340,000
P.L.
109-97
2007 $33,107,000
P.L.
110-5
2008
$ 9,750,000
P.L. 110-161
2009 $14,500,000
P.L.
111-8
2010 Pendingb
Sum to date
$142,687,000
Source: Compiled by CRS from various statutes as cited.
a. Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds were disbursed by then-Secretary of Agriculture Veneman
using her administrative authority.
b. H.R. 2997 as passed by the House (July 9, 2009) eliminates funding for NAIS; the Senate-passed version
(August 4, 2009) provides for $7.3 million in funding for NAIS. The difference will be reconciled in
conference later in the year.
The Administration has proposed increasing the funding for the NAIS slightly to $14.6 million in
FY2010. However, on June 11, 2009, the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee voted
to eliminate funding for USDA’s NAIS from the FY2010 appropriations bill (H.R. 2997).
Subcommittee chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, along with Collin Peterson, chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee, both of whom have expressed interest in seeing a mandatory animal ID
program passed into law, have also expressed frustration with the slow pace of national sign-up
for NAIS. The full committee’s report (H.Rept. 111-181) observes:
After receiving $142 million in funding since FY2004, APHIS has yet to put into operation an
effective system that would provide needed animal health and livestock market benefits. Until
USDA finishes its listening sessions and provides details as to how it will implement an effective
ID system, continued investments in the current NAIS are unwarranted.56
The Senate version of H.R. 2997 (originally S. 1406) originally provided for the entire $14.6
million proposed by the Administration. An amendment to zero out Senate funding for NAIS
failed to pass in committee in July; however, another floor amendment (S.Amdt. 2230; introduced
by Senators Tester and Enzi) was passed on August 3, 2009, that reduced the FY2010 funding to
$7.3 million. The successful amendment explicitly restricts use of FY2010 funds to ongoing
NAIS activities and purposes related to rulemaking for the program. The Senate version of H.R.
2997, as amended, was passed by the full Senate on August 4, 2009. House and Senate
differences in NAIS funding for FY2010 are being resolved in conference.
56 H.Rept. 111-181, “Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2010,” June 23, 2009, p. 24.
Congressional Research Service
30
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Legislative Proposals
USDA has claimed it has existing authority, under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
8301 et seq.), to implement an animal ID program. In the 110th Congress, several bills were
proposed (but not adopted) aimed at clarifying USDA’s authority or spelling out what type of
program should be established. They included H.R. 1018, prohibiting USDA from carrying out a
mandatory program and also seeking to protect the privacy of producer information under a
voluntary system; H.R. 2301, establishing an industry-led Livestock Identification Board to
manage a national ID system; and S. 1292, requiring USDA to implement a more comprehensive
farm-to-consumer animal ID and meat traceability program. H.R. 3485 would have required
comprehensive new traceability systems both for USDA-regulated meat and poultry and for other
foods regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In the 111th Congress, the broader food traceability provisions of H.R. 814 (DeGette) and S. 425
(Brown) both include the requirement that FSIS establish, within one year, a system that can trace
each animal to any premises in which it was held at any time prior to slaughter, and each carcass,
carcass part, or meat/poultry product from slaughter through processing and distribution to the
ultimate consumer. The bills also would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to require records
to be maintained and to provide access to them for purposes of traceability.
Traceability provisions have been incorporated into food safety legislation (H.R. 2749) approved
by the House and into a bill (S. 510) expected to be the markup vehicle in the Senate, but these
provisions would apply to FDA-regulated foods and not to FSIS-regulated meat and poultry
products.
Congressional Hearings
The 111th Congress has held two hearings on the national animal ID system (NAIS), both in the
House. On March 11, 2009, the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Livestock,
Dairy, and Poultry held a public hearing to review animal identification systems. Then on May 5,
2009, the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry held
a joint public hearing with the Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology to review the National Animal Identification
System. Previous Congresses have held public hearings on issues related to animal ID, including
animal health and disease matters, as well as bio-security and agro-terrorism.
Congressional Research Service
31
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Appendix A. Chronology of NAIS’s Development
Early U.S. History
Use of animal ID in the United States dates back at least to the 1800s, when hot iron brands were
used throughout the U.S. West to identify ownership and prevent thievery.
1940s
During the 1940s, the APHIS predecessor at USDA initiated an extensive program to identify
cattle vaccinated for brucellosis. The official brucellosis vaccination tag and ear tattoo provided
USDA with a highly successful animal ID program for cattle for decades. However, since
brucellosis has neared eradication in the United States, the system of tagging and ID has been
phased out.
1950s-1980s
Individuals associated with animal industries recognized that finding potentially sick or exposed
animals early in a disease outbreak was essential to containing the disease quickly. USDA slowly
began piecing together plans for a national animal identification system.
1986-1988
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or “mad cow disease”—a fatal neurological disease—
is first identified in the United Kingdom’s cattle and dairy herds. BSE is believed to be
transmitted mainly by feeding infected cattle parts back to cattle (a practice widespread in the UK
at the time). Subsequent testing found BSE to be widespread in the UK’s cattle population and
resulted in the slaughter of 3.7 million cattle.
1997
An outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in swine in Taiwan cost $6.9 billion in losses and
eradication costs, including the slaughter of 3.8 million pigs, and decimated its previously strong
pork export market. Similarly, a major outbreak of Classical Swine Fever in the Netherlands
resulted in the destruction of 12 million hogs and direct economic losses totaling $2.3 billion.
2001
An outbreak of FMD in cattle in the United Kingdom ultimately led to the forced slaughter of
over 10 million sheep and cattle and cost an estimated $7.9 billion in losses and eradication costs.
2002
APHIS officials working with the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, the U.S. Animal
Health Association, and other organizations helped to draft an early version of an animal ID plan.
Congressional Research Service
32
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
2003
The preliminary work plan was expanded by a group of approximately 100 state, federal, and
industry representatives—the National Identification Development Team—which produced an
initial draft of the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP).
December 2003
A draft “U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP)” is published calling for recording the
movement of individual animals or animal groups in a central database. APHIS’ role was to
design an ID numbering system, then allocate numbers to premises (e.g., farms, feedlots, auction
barns, processing plants) and to animals or groups of animals. Finally, APHIS was to coordinate
the data collection. The work plan envisioned by the USAIP had first called for all states to have
an animal premises ID system by July 2004, with farm animals of all major species identified by
July 2006. As the draft USAIP was being published in December 2003, the first case of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease) was detected in the United States.
Among the initiatives USDA quickly announced to shore up confidence in the beef supply was
accelerated implementation of a verifiable national animal ID system including action taken by
then-Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman who used her emergency authority to transfer $18.8
million of Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds to APHIS for this purpose.
April 27, 2004
Secretary Ann Veneman announced the framework for implementing the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS). The outlines of the program have been periodically revised since
then in response to changing circumstances and input from industry participants.
May 2005
USDA issued a “Draft Strategic Plan” that included timelines for a mandatory program by
January 2009.
August 2005
USDA announced the Draft Program Standards with a new set of “guiding principles.”
April 2006
USDA unveiled a new plan—“Implementation Strategies”—that set a timeline for full
implementation by 2009. The plan stated that the program was voluntary with a contingency that
USDA would consider regulations that would require participation if voluntary participation
levels were not adequate to have an effective program.57
57 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
33
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
August 2006
NAIS program was initially designed with a vision of ultimately transitioning from a voluntary
program to a mandatory program. However, in response to various concerns raised by some
producers, small farmers, and religious groups, then-Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
announces that NAIS would be entirely voluntary at the federal level.
November 2006
USDA distributed a draft “user guide” as “the most current plan for the NAIS [which] replaces all
previously published program documents, including the 2005 Draft Strategic Plan and Draft
Program Standards and the 2006 Implementation Strategies.” This user guide first identifies the
proposed three-step approach—premises registration, animal ID, and traceability—to
implementing a national animal ID program. The user guide sought to assure livestock producers
that the program would remain voluntary, and that it is bound by law to protect individuals’
private and confidential business information.
December 2007
USDA’s APHIS released the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)—A User Guide and
Additional Information Resource.58
April 2008
USDA’s APHIS released A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability in draft form.
This same report is currently available with a September 2008 date.59 The Business Plan
attempted to further clarify current implementation strategies. It provided benchmarks to guide
the NAIS’ progress towards the long-term goal of 48-hour traceback of affected or exposed
animals in the event of an animal disease outbreak. One of seven key strategies would be to
prioritize species, with the primary commercial food animals in “Tier 1,” along with horses that
need a health certificate or test when moved. All other livestock and poultry would be in a lower-
priority Tier 2. Another key objective would be to bring 70% of the cattle breeding herd into
NAIS by the end of 2009.60
January 13, 2009
APHIS published a proposed rule entitled, “Official Animal Identification Numbering System,”
(Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096) in the Federal Register for comment through March 16, 2009.
The proposed rule would establish the seven-character PIN as the standard location identifier.
58 Available at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/NAIS-UserGuide.pdf.
59 Available at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/plans.shtml.
60 This plan, released in draft form in April 2008 and currently bearing a September 2008 date, is A Business Plan to
Advance Animal Disease Traceability available at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais.
Congressional Research Service
34
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
April 15, 2009 to June 30, 2009
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack undertook a series of public listening sessions—with a
variety of stakeholders representing the full spectrum of views on the NAIS—around the country
to gather feedback and input to assist Secretary Vilsack and USDA in making decisions about the
future direction of animal identification and traceability in the United States.
April 29, 2009
USDA’s APHIS released the results of a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis—KSU Cost-Benefit
Study (2009)—of the NAIS.
Congressional Research Service
35
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Appendix B. International Animal ID and
Traceability
Organizations and Standards
The United States participates with its trading partners in several important international
organizations that are involved in animal health, food safety, and trade in livestock and animal
products including the CODEX alimentarius, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE),
and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In addition to U.S. participation in these international
organizations, U.S. livestock and animal products are often subject to “export certification”
standards imposed by importing countries.
As a member of the WTO, the United States agrees to abide by a set of international trade rules
that seek to harmonize participation in international commerce and to provide for a framework for
dispute settlement. In contrast, both the CODEX alimentarius and the OIE are designed to
recommend scientifically-based standards for food safety and animal health, respectively, but
such standards are not international laws; rather, they are intended as guidelines for countries
when they are developing their own standards.61
World Trade Organization (WTO)
In response to concerns that market access may be limited by use of non-tariff trade barriers, the
WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures explicitly restricts
the implementation of traceability measures applied to imports to two requirements. First, any
traceability requirements must be scientifically justified based on an assessment of risk to human,
animal or plant health. Second, they may be equivalent to, but not more rigorous than, the
standards applied to domestic industry.62
CODEX
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by two United Nations’ organizations
—the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)—to
develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint
FAO/WHO Food Standards Program.63 The main purposes of this program are protecting health
of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination
of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and nongovernmental
organizations.
61 For more information on the relationship of U.S. participation in both the CODEX and OIE, see CRS Report
RL33472, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Concerns in Agricultural Trade, by Geoffrey S. Becker.
62 Articles 4 and 5, Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, The Legal Texts, WTO,
Cambridge University Press©2009.
63 For more information refer to the CODEX alimentarius website at http://www.codexalimentarius.net.
Congressional Research Service
36
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)
Founded in 1924 as the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) and renamed in 2003 as the
World Organization for Animal Health, the OIE is an intergovernmental organization responsible
for improving animal health worldwide.64 In its capacity as a leading international standard-
setting organization for animal identification and traceability, the OIE helps its member countries
and territories to implement animal identification and traceability systems in order to improve the
effectiveness of their policies and activities relating to disease prevention and control, animal
production food safety, and certification of exports.
In March 2006, the OIE’s Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission established a first
series of guidelines on identification and traceability on behalf of OIE Members, which
democratically adopted them in May 2007 as official OIE standards in the Terrestrial Animal
Health Code.65 Chapter four of the OIE’s Terrestrial Code includes two sections on animal
identification and tracing: section 4.1 which defines general principles, and section 4.2 which
provides general guidance on the design and implementation of systems.66 In April 2008, the
Director General of the OIE (Bernard Vallet) called for progressive implementation of animal
identification and product traceability systems from the “farm to the fork” be progressively
implemented worldwide.67 Under internationally recognized OIE standards, robust animal
identification and tracing systems would allow compartmentalization and regionalization of a
disease outbreak so that trade could continue for animal products from other parts of the country.
The OIE’s Terrestrial Code includes two sections that deal with compartmentalization: section
4.3 which defines general principles of zoning and compartmentalization, and section 4.4 which
discusses application of compartmentalization.68
Export Certification
Certification is frequently part of export verification processes imposed by importing countries.
In the United States, certification is handled by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS).69 Although each specific country can have its own specific beef importing requirements,
certification generally refers to the idea that animal production methods and processing plants
comply with the importer’s veterinary, animal health, and sanitary standards. This often involves
sanitary sampling and plant inspection by the importing country. The OIE contributes to
harmonization of international certification standards through its various programs and via the
promotion of transparency and reliance on scientific information as a basis for evaluation.
Chapter 5 of the OIE’s Terrestrial Code presents the general obligations related to certification as
well as certification procedures.70
64 More information on the OIE’s organization and structure is available at http://www.oie.int.
65 Available at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_mcode.htm.
66 Available at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_chapitre_1.4.1.pdf and http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/
en_chapitre_1.4.2.pdf.
67 “Animal identification and product traceability from the farm to the fork must be progressively implemented
worldwide,” Bernard Vallat, July 15, 2008; available at http://www.oie.int/eng/Edito/en_edito_apr08.htm.
68 Available at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_chapitre_1.4.3.pdf and http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/
en_chapitre_1.4.4.pdf.
69 For more information, see “Regulations & Policies: Import Information,” Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS),
USDA, at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/import_information/index.asp.
70 Available at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_chapitre_1.5.1.pdf and http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
37
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Foreign Animal ID and Traceability Programs
Many of our international trading partners and competitors, including Argentina, Australia,
Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and Uruguay, have
adopted national animal identification systems with traceability capabilities (Table B-1). 71
Table B-1. Comparison of International Cattle ID and Traceability Programs
Identification
Animal
Retire
Date
Individual
Group or
Electronic
Movement
Animal
Country
Begun Premises Animal
Lot
RFID
Traceability Number
Mandatory
Argentina 2007
M M
V
V
M V
Australia
2002
M
M V M M M
Canada 2002
V M
Not
Al owed
M V M
EU 1997
M
M
V
V
M
M
Japan 2003
M
M V V M
M
South Korea
2004
M
M
V
V
M
M
Uruguay 2006
M M V M M M
Voluntary
Brazila 2001
M/V
M/V V V V V
Mexico 2003
V V V V V V
New Zealandb 1999 M/V
M/V
V
V
V
V
United States
2004
V
V
V
V
V
V
Source: The primary sources are M. B. Bowling, D. L. .Pendell, D. L. Morris, Y. Yoon, K. Katoh, K. E. Belk, and
G. C. Smith, “Review: Identification and Traceability of Cattle in Selected Countries Outside of North America,”
The Professional Animal Scientist 24 (2008): 287-294; Review of Selected Cattle Identification and Tracing Systems
Worldwide, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Information Paper No: 2009/03; and New Zealand Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, February 2009, plus CRS additions from various other source materials.
Notes: M = mandatory; V = voluntary. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list, but focuses on major
producer, consumer, and trading nations.
a. Brazil’s program is mandatory for beef being exported to markets that require origination information such
as the EU.
b. New Zealand’s animal ID program is mandatory for cattle as part of a tuberculosis eradication program.
(...continued)
en_chapitre_1.5.2.pdf.
71 For more information, readers are referred to the following three articles from the volume 24, 2008 issue The
Professional Animal Scientist. “Review: Identification and Traceability of Cattle in Selected Countries Outside of
North America,” M.B. Bowling, D.L.Pendell, D.L.Morris, Y.Yoon, K.Katoh, K.E. Belk, and G.C. Smith, pp. 287-294;
“Review: Swine Traceability Systems in Selected Countries Outside of North America,” J.L.Meisinger, D.L.Pendell,
D.L.Morris, K.E. Belk, and G.C. Smith, pp. 295-301; and “Review: Sheep Traceability Systems in Selected Countries
Outside of North America,” P.D.Bass, D.L.Pendell, D.L.Morris, J.A. Scanga, K.E. Belk, T.G. Field, PAS, J.N. Sofos,
J.D. Tatum, and G.C. Smith, pp. 302-307.
Congressional Research Service
38
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Canada
The Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA)72 is a federally incorporated, nonprofit,
industry-led organization that manages, administers, and develops policy for Canada’s national
individual identification, tracking, and trace-back system for the Canadian cattle and bison
industry. The CCIA is led by a Board of Directors made up of representatives from several sectors
of the Canadian livestock industry.73 The government’s Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
is a non-voting board member of the CCIA. Agri-Food and Agriculture Canada (AAFC)—
Canada’s USDA counterpart—works closely with the CCIA to ensure that funding requirements
for development and enhancement initiatives are met.
Animal identification for cattle in Canada was initially a voluntary program when first established
in 2001, but was phased into a mandatory program on July 1, 2002. Initially, identification was
based on traditional CCIA-approved ear tags. However, in 2003 the Canadian cattle industry
committed to transitioning to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). Since September 1, 2006,
all cattle leaving their farm of origin must be tagged with a CCIA-approved RFID tag consisting
of a transponder with encoded chip and antenna. According to the CCIA, RFID benefits include
exceptional tag retention and readability, increased data integrity, ability to read at a distance
without line of sight, and future capabilities of full animal movement tracking.
CCIA executive director Kerry St. Cyr, estimated that, as of March 2009, the nationwide
compliance rate for Canadian cattle ID was between 99-100%.74 With respect to privacy issues,
St. Cyr stated that all personal information associated with ear tag number is securely maintained
within the national database and is only accessed by authorized personnel in the event of an
animal health issue. CCIA’s repository—the Canadian Livestock Traceability System (CLTS)—
houses the national ID and traceback systems for a variety of industry and species groups
including dairy, beef, bison, sheep, pork, and poultry. The Canadian sheep and hog identification
programs gained mandatory status in 2004 and 2008, respectively.
Australia
The National Livestock Identification System (NLIS)75 is Australia’s system for identification and
traceability of livestock. NLIS is a permanent whole-of-life system that allows individual animals
to be identified electronically and tracked from property of birth to slaughter. A mandatory system
for cattle has been in place since July 1, 2005, while a tracing system has been operational for
sheep and goats since January 1, 2009. Similar tracing systems are under development for pigs
and alpacas.76
72 The CCIA official website is at http://www.canadaid.com/.
73 For a list of industry groups and individual board members, see http://www.canadaid.com/about_us/about_us.html.
74 Testimony provided by Mr. Kerry St. Cyr (CCIA executive director) to the House Committee on Agriculture’s Sub-
Committee on Livestock and Horticulture, March 11, 2009; available at http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/
statements.html.
75 The NLIS official website is at http://lwx.dpi.qld.gov.au/lwx/nlis/pages/externalhome.htm.
76 Testimony provided by Dr. Rob Williams, Agriculture Counselor, Embassy of Australia, Washington, D.C., to the
House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, March 11, 2009; available at
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/statements.html.
Congressional Research Service
39
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Australia began its animal identification system in the early 1960s in coordination with a national
program to eradicate bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. A mandatory property identification
system for cattle was started in 1967 that identified herds in relation to a parcel of land; these
were referred to as Property Identification Codes (PICs)—an eight-digit number that identifies the
state, region, and specific location of a property—and provided the ability to trace all cattle back
to their last property of residence. In the mid-1990s, the established visual-read-only PIC system
was converted to an electronic (using Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFIDs)) whole-of-
life individual cattle identification system on the grounds that it was only a matter of time before
such a system would be needed to ensure biosecurity, food safety and market access. In 1998, in
response to a trading partner, individual identification was made compulsory for producers
supplying the European Union (EU) market to provide meat from Hormone Growth Promotant-
free cattle. In 1999, the NLIS was introduced.
In a 2004 audit of the NLIS—the National Livestock Tracing Audit—all of the animals identified
using NLIS were traced to their property of origin within 24 hours.77 In contrast, only 41% of
cattle without NLIS tags were located within 24 hours. In 2005, NLIS expanded to mandatory
animal identification for all cattle leaving their property of birth, and all stock movements must
be read at points of transfer including saleyards and slaughterhouses.
In Australia, at slaughter each individual animal is assigned a unique ID number that is attached
to a bar code. As a result, individual animal ID information is linked not only to live animals, but
can also be linked to carcasses, hides, and byproducts of each animal. However, unless specific
agreements are reached between producers and harvesting facilities, the animals are generally
grouped into lots by harvest date and time, and the individual animal information (carcass data) is
not available.
Australia’s NLIS is a joint commitment and working partnership between the Australian
Government at federal and state levels and Australian industry. However, the Federal government
has an overall policy coordination role and supplies funding to underpin the national system.
State governments have legal jurisdiction over the movement and health of livestock. The state
governments work with industry in joint management committees to develop and implement
legislation that underpins the animal identification program. This committee in each state
coordinates extension and producer education programs such as demonstration sites, an assistance
hotline and industry seminars that assist producers with on-farm use of technology. The state
governments have established a registry of PICs, are responsible for ordering of identification
devices and have assisted with establishing the reading infrastructure and more recently auditing
device performance and monitoring compliance with legislative requirements.
A private industry company, Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA),78 currently administers the
database for NLIS. As a result, data collected through the NLIS are protected from Australian
Freedom of Information (FOI). Privacy and “commercial-in-confidence” provisions of the
Australian FOI Act offer additional protection via exemptions for this type of data.
77 Report of findings from a review of the operation of the National Livestock Identification System,
PricewaterhouseCoopers as prepared for the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, December
22, 2006, p. 18.
78 MLA is a producer owned company, working in partnership with industry and government, to achieve a profitable
and sustainable red meat and livestock industry. It provides research and development and marketing services to the red
meat industry.
Congressional Research Service
40
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
European Union
The European Union (EU) explicitly classifies animal identification as part of its “food safety”
programs and has mandatory programs in place for the major commercial animal species.79 The
basic objectives for EU rules on the identification of animals are the localization and tracing of
animals for veterinary purposes for the control of infectious diseases. EU species-specific ID
systems have evolved over time in response to particular disease events including the outbreaks
of classical swine fever in 1997 and foot-and-mouth disease in 2001, as well as the 1997 BSE
crisis. As the various animal ID systems evolved within the EU, they have each incorporated trace
back and general traceability as a system goal along with animal identification.
In April 1997, in response to the BSE crisis, the Council of the European Union implemented a
mandatory system of permanent identification of individual bovine animals enabling reliable
traceability from birth to death. All bovine animals were required, by January 1, 2000, to be
identified with double ear tags that identify individual animals, a register must be maintained at
each animal location (farm, market, etc.), cattle passports to record movements, and a
computerized electronic national database includes both ID and tracking information.80 On July
17, 2000, an additional regulation was passed that fully implemented and made mandatory the
bovine ID and traceability system that is currently in place in the EU.81
In addition to tracking animals from birth through harvest, the EU regulations stipulate the
labeling of meat products in the following way: 1) a reference number that links the meat product
to the animal or animals of origin; 2) identification of the member state where the meat was
harvested and processed; and 3) the harvesting or fabrication facility’s approval number(s).82
Mandatory food traceability has been a part of the general food law of the EU since January 1,
2005.83
Since July 1, 2000 it is compulsory for all equidae moving within the EU to be accompanied by a
passport during their movements (on foot and during transport).84 A mandatory identification
system for porcine animals went into effect on August 28, 2008.85 Initially adopted in December
2003, the EU’s ID system for ovine and caprine animals was entered into in full force in July
2005.86
79 More information on EU individual species identification and trace back programs is available at http://ec.europa.eu/
food/animal/identification/index_en.htm.
80 Regulation (EC) No. 82/97, 21 April 1997.
81 Regulation (EC) No. 1760/2000, 17 July 2000.
82 M. B. Bowling, D. L. Pendell, D. L. Morris, Y. Yoon, K. Katoh, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith, “Review:
Identification and Traceability of Cattle in Selected Countries Outside of North America,” The Professional Animal
Scientist 24 (2008): 287-294.
83 “EU Traceability Guidelines,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), GAIN Report Number E35012, January
21, 2005.
84 Commission Decision 2000/68/EC, 22 December 1999.
85 European Council Directive 2008/71/EC, 15 July 2008.
86 Council Regulation (EC) 21/2004 (of 17 December 2003), later amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
933/2008 (of 23 September 2008).
Congressional Research Service
41
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Japan
Japan has a mandatory bovine ID and traceability system (in place since December 1, 2004) that
identifies and tracks individual domestic animals from birth through the production chain until
purchased by consumers. Imported beef is presently not subject to the same traceability
requirements as domestically produced beef. However, political pressure for such a requirement
appears to be building.87
In response to a series of food safety crises in the early 2000s, including the discovery of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Japan’s domestic cattle herd and a series of labeling
scandals, the Japanese government implemented a series of animal traceability regulations and
food safety oversight.88 The first phase began in July 2002 when the Law Relating to Special BSE
Countermeasures was enacted. As part of this new law, Japan implemented a set of bovine animal
traceability and identification laws that required traceability of domestically produced beef from
farms to slaughterhouses by December 1, 2003. In the second phase, Japan’s Diet passed the Food
Safety Basic Law on May 23, 2003, establishing the Food Safety Commission.89 Then, in June
2003 the Beef Traceability Law was enacted that required traceability be extended from
slaughterhouses to processors, distributors, and retailers by December 1, 2004.90 As a result,
Japanese retailers and restaurants now display animal identification numbers to allow consumers
to reference information about the domestic beef that they buy and eat.
In June 2003, Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) also announced a
new Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) program to certify the traceability of imported beef.91 To
gain certification, exporters must be able to provide all the same information required under the
Law Relating to Special BSE Countermeasures—date of birth, sex, breed, name and address of
owner, location of fattening, date fattening commenced, and slaughter date—plus the names of all
feeds and pharmaceuticals used in producing the animal.
South Korea
South Korea has a mandatory domestic Beef Traceability System (BTS). Initiated in 2004 as a
voluntary program, the BTS became mandatory for domestically produced beef in 2009. The BTS
requires individual identification and registration in a central database system (known as the Beef
Traceability database). 92 The BTS operates as a whole-of-life traceability system, tracking each
individual animal from birth to the consumer. For domestic beef produced under the BTS, Korean
consumers can access a range of animal-specific information including the sex, breed, quality
87 “Beef Trade With Japan in Rough Political Waters This Summer,” Oklahoma Farm Report, Agricultural News, July
15, 2009.
88 Roxanne Clemens, “Meat Traceability in Japan,” Iowa Ag Review, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
(CARD), Iowa State University, fall 2003, pp. 4-5.
89 “The Food Safety Basic Law,” Food Safety Commission of Japan, available at http://www.fsc.go.jp/sonota/
fsb_law1807.pdf.
90 “Update: Japan’s Beef Traceability Law,” USDA, FAS, GAIN Report Number JA4094, December 29, 2004.
91 “Meat Traceability in Japan,” by Roxanne Clemens, Iowa Ag Review, CARD, Iowa State University, Fall 2003, pp.
4-5.
92 M. B. Bowling, D. L. Pendell, D. L. Morris, Y. Yoon, K. Katoh, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith, “Review:
Identification and Traceability of Cattle in Selected Countries Outside of North America,” The Professional Animal
Scientist 24 (2008): 287-294.
Congressional Research Service
42
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
grade, location of birth and subsequent premises, owner’s personal information, feed
administered, medications given, location and date of slaughter, date of inspection, and location
of processing.
In July 2009, a South Korean Agriculture official reported that the South Korean government
intends to impose traceability requirements on imported beef as soon as December 2010. 93
New Zealand
New Zealand does not have a fully functioning national animal ID system. In August 2004, the
Animal Identification and Traceability Working Group (AITWG) was established when industry
approached the government to work together to improve animal traceability in New Zealand. In
March 2006, an Animal Identification and Traceability Governance Group (AITGG) was
established to oversee the development of a new animal ID system under the name NAIT
(National Animal Identification and Tracing). As of early 2009, NAIT still exists more as a
project under development than as a functioning system.
Currently New Zealand has several partial systems that allow for traceability at herd levels but
fail to provide effective traceability for individual animals. In addition, these partial systems leave
substantial coverage gaps at the national level. The current focus is on developing traceability for
cattle and deer populations. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) has stated that the
addition of other species—whether flock/group or individual identification—to the NAIT system
should only be considered once the system is up and running for cattle and deer.94
New Zealand’s existing animal ID systems began under the Bio-security Act of 1993 which
provided for two systems of partial bovine animal ID: the Management Information System for
Dairy Administration (MINDA) and the National Bovine Tuberculosis Identification Program
(NBTIP). MINDA is a voluntary livestock and herd management system that has very high dairy
herd participation (97%) in New Zealand. However, MINDA was not designed and does not
function well for animal traceability. In contrast, the NTBIP is a mandatory, herd-based system
that requires the identification of cattle and deer before movement from their property of origin.
In addition to these two systems, several other private and governmental traceability databases are
available for producers’ use on a voluntary basis. A new mandatory animal identification system
for cattle and possibly deer is proposed to be in place by June 2011.95 The inclusion of deer is
dependent on confirmation of the in-field performance of radio frequency tags.
Brazil
In 2001, Brazil created the Brazilian Bovine and Buffalo Identification and Certification System
(SISBOV, now renamed ERAS) as a farm-level identification system for cattle. 96 In September
93 Brett Stuart, “S. Korea Traceability Requirement,” CattleFax Update, vol. 41, issue 28, July 10, 2009, p. 4.
94 “Position of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) on NAIT”, undated, available at http://www.maf.govt.nz/
mafnet/maf-positon-on-nait.pdf.
95 “Animal Identification and Tracing – NAIT timeline,” MAF, New Zealand, available at http://www.maf.govt.nz/
mafnet/animal-identification-and-tracing.htm.
96 M. B. Bowling, D. L. Pendell, D. L. Morris, Y. Yoon, K. Katoh, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith, “Review:
Identification and Traceability of Cattle in Selected Countries Outside of North America,” The Professional Animal
Scientist 24 (2008): 287-294.
Congressional Research Service
43
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
2006, SISBOV was extended to include the entire beef chain rather than just producers. Initially,
SISBOV was intended as a mandatory program for identification of individual animals with a
target date of 2008 for mandatory national participation; however, Brazil’s domestic market had
little demand for origination information and Brazilian cattle producers resisted adoption. As a
result, SISBOV remains a voluntary program focused primarily on those premises engaged in
providing animals to slaughterhouses that supply products destined for foreign markets that
require origination information—most notably the EU which was Brazil’s largest beef export
market at that time and which requires substantial identification and traceability criteria for
imported animal products. In addition, instead of identifying individual animals, animal
classification has been by group lot under SISBOV. The EU has accepted individual tags for each
group of cattle sold to export slaughterhouses.
Since 2003, successive audits of SISBOV conducted by the EU’s Food and Veterinary Office
(EU/FVO) have found severe shortcomings in Brazil’s animal identification and traceability
system.97 In 2008, the EU imposed a near-total ban on beef imports from Brazil, unless they were
sourced from farms that had been approved by Brussels.98 However, in a report released on
August 4, 2009, the EU/FVO suggests that the situation in Brazil was getting worse. Europe has
two major concerns: a lack of robust information, and the fear that foot-and-mouth disease could
inadvertently enter the EU from Brazil.
Argentina
In 2003, Argentina established a limited mandatory system of animal identification and
traceability—the Argentine Animal Health Information System (SGS)99—directed at animal
products destined for the EU. 100 The Argentine system included farm-of-origin information and
permits that document cattle movements including whether the animals have been in areas
exposed to FMD.101 However, as in Brazil, Argentina operates its animal identification system
primarily for identifying cattle (generally in group lots) destined for export markets.
Starting in 2007, official ID tagging has been required for all calves born after September 2007.
The compulsory cattle identification program will facilitate tracking cattle from birth to slaughter;
however, the entire Argentine beef herd is not expected to be tagged until 2017.
Because Argentina has traditionally been unable to control disease outbreaks—particularly foot
and mouth disease (FMD)—its beef exports to the United States have been primarily restricted to
thermo-processed beef (heated to a specific temperature for a specified amount of time).102 These
97 Review of Selected Cattle Identification and Tracing Systems Worldwide, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
Information Paper No: 2009/03, prepared by the MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, February 2009; available at
http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/review-cattleident-systems-worldwide.pdf.
98 Dan Buglass, “Ban on Brazilian Beef Urged as EU finds Multiple Failings,” TheBeefSite.com, August 5, 2009.
99 Sistema de Gestion Sanitara or SGS in Spanish.
100 Review of Selected Cattle Identification and Tracing Systems Worldwide, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
Information Paper No: 2009/03, prepared by the MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, February 2009; available at
http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/review-cattleident-systems-worldwide.pdf.
101 Michael McConnell and Ken Mathews, Jr., “Global Market Opportunities Drive Beef Production Decisions in
Argentina and Uruguay,” Amber Waves, April 2008.
102 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
44
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
export limitations provide ample incentive for Argentina to improve its animal identification and
traceability system.103
Uruguay
Uruguay is very dependent on external markets for selling a large portion of its annual domestic
production. An estimate 68% of Uruguay’s annual beef production was sold in foreign markets
during the 2004-2008 period. As a result, Uruguay has a strong incentive to provide animal
identification and traceability information as demanded by foreign buyers; however, it is only
since late 2006 that Uruguay has been able to institute a comprehensive national program.
On September 1, 2006, Uruguay’s Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries (MAGyP)
implemented a mandatory animal identification system called the National Livestock Information
System (SNIG).104 Under SNIG, all individual animals must be identified (i.e., tagged) before 6
months of age or before they are transported from their property of birth. Two tags are required
for all cattle, one highly visible and one electronic, e.g., an RFID device. In addition, the
appropriate paperwork that tracks cattle from birth to slaughter must accompany each animal. The
Uruguayan government plans to have all herds registered and all cattle tagged by 2010. At that
point, the government will require traceability be extended, not just to the point of slaughter, but
also to all cuts of beef back to specific animals at their farm of origin.
SNIG builds on Uruguay’s national premises identification system (DICOSE)—established in
1973—which, for participating producers, provided information on each individual animal in
their herds. Private individuals or companies registered within SNIG must be used for movement
notification. Termination records are recorded by MAGyP. The SNIG database then includes
premises and animal identification, movements, and termination data. SNIG does not yet mandate
further traceability to consumers, although this is under consideration. The Uruguayan
government currently pays for the ID tags, although it plans to shift the cost to the producers at
some point in the future.
Countries Not Implementing Animal ID Programs 105
Not all countries with large animal populations have on-going animal ID programs—examples
include Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Russia. Reasons for the non-existence of animal ID
programs in these countries include the following. Many of these countries have large land
masses consisting of mainly agrarian populations that are not technologically advanced. Also,
several of these countries lack national distribution chains for animal products, instead relying on
local production and marketing processes. Alternately, in many poorer countries of the world,
consumers are simply unable financially to be overly discriminating in their choice of animal
products. As a result, many lower-income consumers are not willing to pay a premium for food
that is identified and traceable.
103 Ibid.
104 M. B. Bowling, D. L. Pendell, D. L. Morris, Y. Yoon, K. Katoh, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith, “Review:
Identification and Traceability of Cattle in Selected Countries Outside of North America,” The Professional Animal
Scientist 24 (2008): 287-294.
105 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
45
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Table B-2. Comparison of Cattle, Swine, and Poultry Populations by Country
(data for 2007)
Cattle
Swine
Poultrya
Rank Country
Million %
Country Million % Country
Million %
1 Brazil
200 15%
China
426 46%
China
4,815 26%
2 India
177 13%
EU-27
162 18%
United
States 2,322 12%
3
United States
97
7%
United States
62
7% EU-27
1,448
8%
4 EU-27
90 7%
Brazil
36 4%
Indonesia
1,275 7%
5 China
82 6%
Viet
Nam
27 3%
Brazil
1,144 6%
6 Argentina
51 4%
Russian
Fed. 16 2%
India
560 3%
7 Ethiopia
43 3%
Mexico
16 2%
Mexico
501 3%
8 Sudan
41 3%
Canada
15 2%
Iran
423 2%
9 Mexico
32 2%
India
14 2%
Russian
Fed. 368 2%
10 Pakistan
31 2%
Philippines
13 1%
Turkey
350 2%
11
Australia
28
2%
Japan
10
1% Japan
289
2%
12
Colombia
27
2%
South Korea
10
1% Pakistan
263
1%
13
Bangladesh
25
2%
Thailand
8
1% Thailand
209
1%
14
Russian Fed.
22
2%
Ukraine
8
1% Bangladesh
207
1%
15
Tanzania
18
1%
Myanmar
7
1% Malaysia
190
1%
Other
514
38%
Other
90
10% Other
4,316
23%
World Total
1,357
100%
World Total
918 100% World Total 18,679 100%
Source: Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), United Nations, FAOSTAT; August 7, 2009. FAO’s
database includes data for 188 countries.
a. Includes chickens, geese, guinea fowl, and turkeys.
Congressional Research Service
46
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Table B-3. Comparison of Goats and Sheep, and Equidae, Populations by Country
(data for 2007)
Goats and Sheep
Equidaea
Rank Country
Million %
Country
Million %
1
China
426
22%
China
18
16%
2
India
162
8%
Mexico
13
11%
3
EU-27
62
3%
United States
10
9%
4
Sudan
36
2%
Brazil
8
7%
5
Australia
27
1%
Ethiopia
6
6%
6
Nigeria
16
1%
Pakistan
5
4%
7
Pakistan
16
1%
EU-27
5
4%
8
Iran
15
1%
Argentina
4
4%
9
Bangladesh
14
1%
Colombia
4
3%
10
Ethiopia
13
1%
Egypt
3
3%
11
New Zealand
10
1%
Mongolia
2
2%
12
Turkey
10
1%
Iran
2
2%
13
South Africa
8
0%
Niger
2
2%
14
Mongolia
8
0%
Mali
2
2%
15
Somalia
7
0%
Morocco
2
1%
Other
1,089
57%
Other
28
25%
World Total
1,917
100%
World Total
113
100%
Source: FAO, United Nations, FAOSTAT; August 7, 2009. FAO’s database includes data for 188 countries.
a. Horses, mules, and donkeys.
Congressional Research Service
47
Table B-4. Global Beef Production and Trade Rankings by Country
(data are carcass-weight averages for calendar years 2007 and 2008)
Production
Exports
Imports
% of
% of
1,000
% of
1,000
% of
Dom
1,000
% of
Dom
Rank Country mt
prod.
Country mt
Exp.
Prod.
Country mt
Imp.
Cons.
1
United States
12,130
21%
Brazil
1,995
26%
22%
United States
1,268
18%
10%
2
Brazil
9,164
16%
Australia
1,404
18%
65%
Russia
1,084
16%
45%
3
EU-27
8,144
14%
United States
753
10%
6%
Japan
673
10%
57%
4 Chinaa
6,131
10%
India
652
9%
27%
EU-27
553
8%
6%
5
Argentina
3,225
5%
New Zealand
515
7%
82%
Mexico
406
6%
16%
6
India
2,442
4%
Argentina
478
6%
15%
South Korea
302
4%
57%
7
Mexico
2,216
4%
Canada
476
6%
37%
Venezuela
253
4%
38%
8
Australia
2,166
4%
Uruguay
373
5%
66%
Egypt
249
4%
42%
9
Russia
1,343
2%
Paraguay
214
3%
49%
Canada
236
3%
32%
10 Canada
1,282
2%
EU-27
171 2% 2%
Philippines
156
2%
41%
11
Pakistan
1,105
2%
Colombia
160
2%
19%
Malaysia
146
2%
86%
12
Colombia
830
1%
Vietnam
110
1%
45%
Chile
140
2%
56%
13
So. Africa
679
1%
China
70
1%
1%
China
120
2%
2%
14
New Zealand
626
1%
Mexico
42
1%
2%
Vietnam
115
2%
22%
15
Uruguay
564
1%
Ukraine
37
0%
7%
Taiwan
103
1%
95%
Other
6,674
11%
Other
158
2%
Other
1,178
17%
World
58,718 100%
World
7,604
100%
13%
World
6,978
100%
12%
Source: USDA, Foregion Agricultural Service (FAS), Production, Supply and Demand (PSD) data base, Aug. 12, 2009 Data Release
Notes: Totals include only those countries that make up USDA’s official PSD database. This means totals do not encompass total global production, consumption, and
trade, but rather the sum of those countries reported in USDA’s database, which represents the most important players in the world meat PSD situation. In an attempt to
capture these major players, the list of countries reported changes periodically.
a. China includes Hong Kong data.
CRS-48
Table B-5. Global Pork Production and Trade Rankings by Country
(data are carcass-weight averages for calendar years 2007 and 2008)
Production
Exports
Imports
% of
% of
1,000
% of
1,000
% of
Dom
1,000
% of
Dom
Rank Country mt
Prod.
Country mt
Exp.
Prod.
Country mt
Imp.
Cons.
1 Chinaa
44,639
46%
United States
1,771
31%
17%
Japan
1,239
23%
50%
2
EU-27
22,694
23%
EU-27
1,501 27%
7%
Russia
974 18%
33%
3
United States
10,281
11%
Canada
1,081
19%
57%
China
638
12%
1%
4
Brazil
3,003
3%
Brazil
678 12%
23%
Mexico
493
9%
32%
5
Russia
1,985
2%
China
287
5%
1%
South
Korea
439
8%
29%
6
Canada
1,907
2%
Chile
145
3%
28%
United
States
408
7%
5%
7
Vietnam
1,841
2%
Mexico
86
2%
7%
Canada
183
3%
18%
8
Japan
1,250
1%
Australia
51
1%
14%
Ukraine
160
3%
22%
9
Philippines
1,218
1%
Vietnam
15
0%
1%
Australia
147
3%
32%
10
Mexico
1,156
1%
South Korea
12
0%
1%
Singapore
94
2%
85%
11
South Korea
1,050
1%
Serbia
5
0%
2%
Croatia
50
1%
46%
12
Taiwan
910
1%
Croatia
3
0%
4%
Angola
50
1%
61%
13
Ukraine
575
1%
Taiwan
3
0%
0%
EU-27
45
1%
0%
14
Chile
511
1%
South Africa
3 0% 0%
Philippines 36
1%
3%
15
Australia
367
0%
Norway
2
0%
1%
New
Zealand
36
1%
41%
Other
3,186
3%
Other
12
0%
Other
533
10%
World
96,571 100%
World
5,650
100%
6%
World
5,502
100%
6%
Source: USDA, FAS, PSD data base, Aug. 12, 2009 Data Release
Notes: Totals include only those countries that make up USDA’s official PSD database. This means totals do not encompass total global production, consumption, and
trade, but rather the sum of those countries reported in USDA’s database, which represents the most important players in the world meat PSD situation. In an attempt to
capture these major players, the list of countries reported changes periodically.
a. China includes Hong Kong data.
CRS-49
Table B-6. Global Poultry Production and Trade Rankings by Country
(data are ready-to-cook-equivalent averages for calendar years 2007 and 2008)
Production
Exports
Imports
% of
% of
1,000
% of
1,000
% of
Dom
1,000
% of
Dom
Rank Country mt
Prod.
Country mt
Exp.
Prod.
Country mt
Imp.
Cons.
1
United States
19,123
26%
Brazil
3,278
38%
29%
Russia
1,268
16%
46%
2
Chinaa
11,620
16%
United States
3,196
38%
17%
EU-27
784
10%
8%
3
Brazil
11,153
15%
EU-27
812 10%
8%
Japan
717
9%
37%
4
EU-27
10,215
14%
Thailand
340
4%
29%
China
706
9%
4%
5
Mexico
2,759
4%
China
322
4%
3%
Mexico
625
8%
23%
6
India
2,365
3%
Canada
73
2%
15%
Saudi
Arabia
490
6%
47%
7
Russia
1,505
2%
Argentina
145
2%
11%
UAE
264
3%
91%
8 Iran
1,424
2%
Kuwait
65 1% 149%
Venezuela
258 3% 25%
9
Argentina
1,370
2%
Chile
51
1%
10%
South
Africa
247
3%
22%
10
Japan
1,259
2%
UAE
30
0%
83%
Vietnam
206
3%
26%
11
Canada
1,184
2%
Australia
26
0%
4%
Ukraine
196
2%
36%
12
Thailand
1,095
1%
Mexico
14
0%
0%
Iraq
194
2%
72%
13
South Africa
1,045
1%
Singapore
12
0%
28%
Kuwait
171
2%
223%
14
Colombia
968
1%
Saudi Arabia
10
0%
2%
Angola
154
2%
95%
15
Malaysia
938
1%
South Korea
8
0%
0%
Cuba
151
2%
93%
Other
6,916
9%
Other
39
0%
Other
1,438
18%
World
74,937 100%
World
8,518
100%
11%
World
7,866
100%
11%
Source: USDA, FAS, PSD data base, Aug. 12, 2009 Data Release
Notes: Totals include only those countries that make up USDA’s official PSD database. This means totals do not encompass total global production, consumption, and
trade, but rather the sum of those countries reported in USDA’s database, which represents the most important players in the world meat PSD situation. In an attempt to
capture these major players, the list of countries reported changes periodically.
a. China includes Hong Kong data.
CRS-50
Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
Author Contact Information
Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov, 7-4277
Acknowledgments
This report builds upon and replaces CRS Report RS22653, Animal Identification: Overview and Issues, by
Geoffrey S. Becker.
Congressional Research Service
51