• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A Legal View of NAIS

A

Anonymous

Guest
Some Comments on NAIS
from Roger McEowen, Leonard Dolezal Professor in Agricultural Law

Reprinted with permission from his article
“Legal Issues Associated With National Animal Identification Plan”
November 2006 issue of Kansas Farm and Estate Law

The original push for a nationwide animal identification program came from the national Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), a private membership group consisting of major agribusiness and pharmaceutical corporations (and their lobby groups at the state and national level) including Cargill Meat Solutions, Monsanto Co., Pfizer Animal Health, Ltd., and the National Pork Producers Council. In 2002, the NIAA organized a task force composed of approximately 70 representatives from more than 30 stakeholder groups to produce a National Identification Work Plan.

Confidentiality of information. A primary concern of livestock owners is the degree and scope of access to confidential records that would be collected with respect to livestock on a particular farm or ranch. The major question is whether collected records could be accessed by other government agencies (such as the IRS), animal rights extremists, or even other livestock owners. The USAIP does not answer this question. Instead, the USAIP merely states that “only essential information will be reported to the central database” and that “only sate and federal officials will have access to the premises animal identification information when performing their duties to maintain the health of the national herd.” Neither USAIP nor APHIS discloses how the program will restrict access to certain federal and state officials or identify the safeguards necessary to protect the data from public disclosure.

Producer liability. Another significant issue is whether a national identification program will increase the possible legal exposure of livestock producers for events that occur after the livestock leave the farm. While livestock producers are responsible for the livestock they produce, and the USAIP does not change any existing liability rules, enhanced traceability may provide the ability to more readily track problems quickly and provide documentation to determine whether appropriate methods and measures were followed to avoid disease contamination. That could result in greater potential liability at the producer level. Conversely, enhanced record keeping and documentation of events concerning livestock can make it easier to defend against baseless charges.

First Amendment concerns. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. While recognized limits apply to the free exercise of religion, particularly when criminal activity is involved, mandatory identification program would conflict with the religious beliefs of numerous groups (most notably the Amish) that participation in government programs violates Scripture teachings. These groups could challenge a mandatory identification program on Constitutional grounds unless exempted from participation.

Fourth Amendment concerns. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed surveillance of every premises where even a single animal of any covered livestock is kept and the requirement of RFID of every animal raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns. Indeed, the “premises” that USDA plans to subject to GPS satellite surveillance and RFID includes the private homes of citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot use sense-enhancing technologies to invade the privacy of citizens’ homes. Likewise the Court has ruled that the sanctity of the home is entitled to greater privacy protections than are industrial complexes. In an agricultural context, the question of what is the “home” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment involves how far the “cartilage” of the home extends. Caselaw illustrates that cartilage can include farm buildings, outbuildings, and associated land areas – anywhere there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Consequently, a mandatory identification program, unless smaller-sized, non-industrialized family farming operations and hobby farms are exempted, could be challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds.

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The proposed NAIS is the first attempt by the federal government at forced registration in a large, permanent federal database of individual citizens’ real property (the homes and farms where animals are kept) and personal property (the animals themselves). Presently, the only general systems of permanent registration of personal property in the United States involve systems for motor vehicles and guns - two items that are highly dangerous if misused. It is difficult to imagine any acceptable basis for the USDA to subject the owner of an animal (except, perhaps, those that are highly dangerous) to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun or automobile. But, even with respect to a gun, an owner can use the gun on his own property without notifying the government. However, under the proposed identification program, the government would require the reporting within 24 hours and any instance of an animal’s leaving or returning to the registered property. Almost assuredly, a mandatory identification plan could be successfully challenged on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds in situations involving the constant surveillance of a premises where the owner is only attempting to raise food for the household or for a limited local area and has no intention of distributing the food on a wider scale.

Conclusion. The proposed mandatory animal identification program is fraught with numerous potential legal problems. Perhaps the most fatal flaw of the proposed NAIS is its blatant disregard for fundamental constitutional rights – the right to free exercise of religion, the right of property ownership, and the right to be free from unreasonable governmental searches. Without significant modification of the proposal, the NAIS appears doomed legally. What remains amazing at the present time is the seeming lack of organized protest by the agricultural sector against such government intrusion into private business operations and attack on private property rights.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
I undersand the fundamental differnces between the US and Canadian cultures as far as litigation. But why not be proactive instead of reactive and set up a system based on the CCIA system where all imformation is confidential and the imformantion is only allowed to be acessed only in the case of a disease trace back. The CCIA is a stand alone agency thus no privacy or property rights problems. No problems so far up here . Sometimes the simplest solution is the right one. Look at a system that is working and try to improve on it. Afterall if you guys don't have a ID system how can you say you don't want produce from a country that doesn't have because they don't have one either? ( south american countries) Kinda hypocritical.
 

cutterone

Well-known member
OK - let's get real and rational here!

Confidentiality of information. A primary concern of livestock owners is the degree and scope of access to confidential records that would be collected with respect to livestock on a particular farm or ranch. The major question is whether collected records could be accessed by other government agencies (such as the IRS), animal rights extremists, or even other livestock owners. The USAIP does not answer this question. Instead, the USAIP merely states that “only essential information will be reported to the central database” and that “only sate and federal officials will have access to the premises animal identification information when performing their duties to maintain the health of the national herd.” Neither USAIP nor APHIS discloses how the program will restrict access to certain federal and state officials or identify the safeguards necessary to protect the data from public disclosure.

1. I believe you just filled out both tax forms and a agricultural census form and both give uncle sam all the info on you that this quote contains.

Producer liability. Another significant issue is whether a national identification program will increase the possible legal exposure of livestock producers for events that occur after the livestock leave the farm. While livestock producers are responsible for the livestock they produce, and the USAIP does not change any existing liability rules, enhanced traceability may provide the ability to more readily track problems quickly and provide documentation to determine whether appropriate methods and measures were followed to avoid disease contamination. That could result in greater potential liability at the producer level. Conversely, enhanced record keeping and documentation of events concerning livestock can make it easier to defend against baseless charges.

2. This is for tracablity for disease control, to support COOL and American produced promotion, and if you have nothing to hide then you don't have liability issues.

First Amendment concerns. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. While recognized limits apply to the free exercise of religion, particularly when criminal activity is involved, mandatory identification program would conflict with the religious beliefs of numerous groups (most notably the Amish) that participation in government programs violates Scripture teachings. These groups could challenge a mandatory identification program on Constitutional grounds unless exempted from participation.

3. This is really stretching - there is a lot of religious language used in the production of livestock but raising and procucing livestock is not connected to religion other that kosher meats.

Fourth Amendment concerns. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed surveillance of every premises where even a single animal of any covered livestock is kept and the requirement of RFID of every animal raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns. Indeed, the “premises” that USDA plans to subject to GPS satellite surveillance and RFID includes the private homes of citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot use sense-enhancing technologies to invade the privacy of citizens’ homes. Likewise the Court has ruled that the sanctity of the home is entitled to greater privacy protections than are industrial complexes. In an agricultural context, the question of what is the “home” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment involves how far the “cartilage” of the home extends. Caselaw illustrates that cartilage can include farm buildings, outbuildings, and associated land areas – anywhere there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Consequently, a mandatory identification program, unless smaller-sized, non-industrialized family farming operations and hobby farms are exempted, could be challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds.

4. Anyone who actually knows anything about RFID knows that a proximity reader (that has a range of inches to a few feet) can read a tag and no satellite can. The tag has no transmitter! As far a search - any gov't offical, sheriff, conservation officer, or FBI agent can serch your property with justifiable cause.

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The proposed NAIS is the first attempt by the federal government at forced registration in a large, permanent federal database of individual citizens’ real property (the homes and farms where animals are kept) and personal property (the animals themselves). Presently, the only general systems of permanent registration of personal property in the United States involve systems for motor vehicles and guns - two items that are highly dangerous if misused. It is difficult to imagine any acceptable basis for the USDA to subject the owner of an animal (except, perhaps, those that are highly dangerous) to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun or automobile. But, even with respect to a gun, an owner can use the gun on his own property without notifying the government. However, under the proposed identification program, the government would require the reporting within 24 hours and any instance of an animal’s leaving or returning to the registered property. Almost assuredly, a mandatory identification plan could be successfully challenged on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds in situations involving the constant surveillance of a premises where the owner is only attempting to raise food for the household or for a limited local area and has no intention of distributing the food on a wider scale.

5. Read #1 and to the best of my knowledge you do not have to report movment but if an animal goes to.. say a show - the records of what animals attended would be on record so that if an outbreak were to occur it could help trace the originator.

COOL and the NAIS program may be the only way we as producers can break the strangle hold that the same packers we bash have on us and improve trust and sales to the consumer.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
A lot of cattle country already has a system that works.

Please explain this system. A herd brand alone will not insure traceability.

Give us more info in detail. Please?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
N stands for national SH, there is not a national brand registary in the US. How do you trace a non-branded animal, you do know some do not brand. Brands are good for herd identification not individual animals, so yeah an animal from a branded herd you know it came from a certain herd but a simple EID tag and record keeping is more specific. I still do not know why all the resistance to a system basesd on the CCIA.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
A lot of cattle country already has a system that works.

Please explain this system. A herd brand alone will not insure traceability.

Give us more info in detail. Please?

It has so far in Brand Inspection areas.

An herd brand only, that may be duplicated in another state or county, does not insure traceability of any individual animal.

Now if a unique individual animal brand PLUS a unique herd brand is employed you might convince me a little easier.

By the way, I have been in compliance for years by the use of ear tattoos.

I have a unique herd brand in one ear with a unique (never duplicated) animal brand in the other ear.

But just a brand identifying the herd of origin on the animal may or may not be traceable.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I realize that not everybody brands. They're the ones who need to do something different, not the guys who do brand. Fix what is broken.

Yes, I also realize a brand is not an individual marker. But, we're being told we need NAIS to stop the spread of transmissible disease like FMD. In that case, they're going to be looking at the entire herd anyway and any other herd that any individual animal from an infected herd or area came in contact with. It won't matter whether it was #756, or #989 - all that matters is that it came from a suspect herd and in that case a brand does the trick.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I realize that not everybody brands. They're the ones who need to do something different, not the guys who do brand. Fix what is broken.

Yes, I also realize a brand is not an individual marker. But, we're being told we need NAIS to stop the spread of transmissible disease like FMD. In that case, they're going to be looking at the entire herd anyway and any other herd that any individual animal from an infected herd or area came in contact with. It won't matter whether it was #756, or #989 - all that matters is that it came from a suspect herd and in that case a brand does the trick.

You're smarter than that. 100 calves may go 100 different ways after the sale, and some may be sold again after they catch a disease during only one of the stopping points.

You're only asking for more of a headache in having to find every animal that came from any one ranch that year.

What will you do then? Put an ad in a paper with a picture of the brand and tell every feedlot or stocker to call them if they have an animal with that brand?

What if #756 came in contact with a disease in route and #989 had been nowhere close to the disease? Do you kill them both?

Traceability is much more complex than ya'll make it out to be.

A herd brand alone won't work. It will take a unique identifying numbers/letters with recorded movements to do the job.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Gee that kinds sounds farmiliar mike. If you go to sell an animal in canada it requies a CCIA eid tag and manifest for brand inspection.
Hey SH what happens if 2 black calves from 2 different states come into a feedlot they have the same brand, but the feedlot is in a state that doen't have brand inspection how do you tell which calf came from where, yeah i know they could be DNA'ed but would not a $2 Eid tag be less costly. The reality is that canada isn't the only country with a tracking system and it is evenutally going to be required to export cattle, it is consumer demand driven. So it is a matter of time . Why not be proactive and form an agency like the CCIA so the program is the most effective and efficient afterall when the government sets something up it tends not to be.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
blatant disregard for fundamental constitutional rights – the right to free exercise of religion, the right of property ownership

The "right of property ownership" bothers me more than anything. Especially with talk of a global currency in about 2024. If the country defaulted on a currency loan, the UN would much rather own agriculture land than some rocks and timber.

We keep thorough records of our cattle, DOB, ear tag #'s, I usually get breed back dates even because we (hubby or I) see them everyday. I think they could come up with an ID that doesn't involve all this tracking. Who cares if it spent 2 week or 2 months in pasture A,B,C, or D? All I want is to know what country its coming from. The consumer doesn't care if comes from Alabama or Oregon. I had a fella tell me a few weeks ago, he's been inundated with a bunch of NAIS literature and he says they are even planning to use it for grains and hay.

A country that refuses to keep imports safe for its own people wants to impose regulations like this???? I'm not afraid to eat our own American food, its the imports I don't want.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
For the 4th time i ask what is wrong with a system like the CCIA. A stand alone agency that keeps everything confidential. The only way to get imformation is for an animal to have a disease like tb, FAM or BSE and be confirmed then the approriate agency gets the number to the agency and they release the original owner's name and location so to do a trace out. At least up here records are kept and the producer produces a manifest as to what market the animal went then the market has to supply a record of the buyer and where the animal went . There is paper work to track the animal's life. Why oppose this type of system? I haven't heard a reason that stands up yet. R-CALFer's know the acency in canada won't release imfo unless it is a disease situation remember the Van Dyke issue this spring. It is so simple yet solves alot of problems. What are you guys afraid of? what are you trying to hide?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
We keep thorough records of our cattle, DOB, ear tag #'s, I usually get breed back dates even because we (hubby or I) see them everyday. I think they could come up with an ID that doesn't involve all this tracking. Who cares if it spent 2 week or 2 months in pasture A,B,C, or D? All I want is to know what country its coming from. The consumer doesn't care if comes from Alabama or Oregon. I had a fella tell me a few weeks ago, he's been inundated with a bunch of NAIS literature and he says they are even planning to use it for grains and hay.

HOW do you AUDIT a package of COOL beef at US. Retail back to its origin which is from across the border? CCIA can't. Their is only one company that can do it . Can you Guess?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
I realize that not everybody brands. They're the ones who need to do something different, not the guys who do brand. Fix what is broken.

Yes, I also realize a brand is not an individual marker. But, we're being told we need NAIS to stop the spread of transmissible disease like FMD. In that case, they're going to be looking at the entire herd anyway and any other herd that any individual animal from an infected herd or area came in contact with. It won't matter whether it was #756, or #989 - all that matters is that it came from a suspect herd and in that case a brand does the trick.

You're smarter than that. 100 calves may go 100 different ways after the sale, and some may be sold again after they catch a disease during only one of the stopping points.

You're only asking for more of a headache in having to find every animal that came from any one ranch that year.

What will you do then? Put an ad in a paper with a picture of the brand and tell every feedlot or stocker to call them if they have an animal with that brand?

What if #756 came in contact with a disease in route and #989 had been nowhere close to the disease? Do you kill them both?

Traceability is much more complex than ya'll make it out to be.

A herd brand alone won't work. It will take a unique identifying numbers/letters with recorded movements to do the job.

If some disease like FMD was found in a feed lot, they would be looking into where all the animals came from. An individual tag wouldn't matter, they're checking where ALL of the animals came, regardless of tag/no tag. When they find where the suspect animal came from, they'll be looking at ALL the animals in that herd and ALL animals that ANY from that herd came in contact with. Individual numbers aren't going to mean anything.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Yeah nobody wants to know where the first cases of a disease outbreak comes from or figure out where it started :roll: Yeah and NAIS won't help finding out where cattle came from when 20 head show FAM in a 50000 hd feedlot that only feeds black angus cattle and none of the infected animals have brands. Where did they come from? no way to know just wait it out until more show up? My god man this is no way to operate. i guess common sense is not so common :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Yeah nobody wants to know where the first cases of a disease outbreak comes from or figure out where it started :roll: Yeah and NAIS won't help finding out where cattle came from when 20 head show FAM in a 50000 hd feedlot that only feeds black angus cattle and none of the infected animals have brands. Where did they come from? no way to know just wait it out until more show up? My god man this is no way to operate. i guess common sense is not so common :roll:

You've identified the problem again, the minority that don't have a brand.
 

Mike

Well-known member
If some disease like FMD was found in a feed lot, they would be looking into where all the animals came from. An individual tag wouldn't matter, they're checking where ALL of the animals came, regardless of tag/no tag. When they find where the suspect animal came from, they'll be looking at ALL the animals in that herd and ALL animals that ANY from that herd came in contact with. Individual numbers aren't going to mean anything.

How would you find ALL the animals if you didn't have movement records from the originating ranch and where those individual animals' were and which animals had the same movements to prove contact?

Face it, a herd brand alone won't work. To be able to prove where an animal DIDN'T come from, you must be able to prove where it DID come from.

Would be easy enough to brand a unique number on a cows hip...

There are some guys that do it down here now. Personally, I prefer the ear tattoo.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
If some disease like FMD was found in a feed lot, they would be looking into where all the animals came from. An individual tag wouldn't matter, they're checking where ALL of the animals came, regardless of tag/no tag. When they find where the suspect animal came from, they'll be looking at ALL the animals in that herd and ALL animals that ANY from that herd came in contact with. Individual numbers aren't going to mean anything.

How would you find ALL the animals if you didn't have movement records from the originating ranch and where those individual animals' were and which animals had the same movements to prove contact?

Face it, a herd brand alone won't work. To be able to prove where an animal DIDN'T come from, you must be able to prove where it DID come from.

Would be easy enough to brand a unique number on a cows hip...

There are some guys that do it down here now. Personally, I prefer the ear tattoo.

In brand areas, you do have records of where all the cattle went.
 
Top