An incident at the Colorado State Fair in Pueblo last week has spawned a firestorm of controversy related to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). NAIS is a program which seeks to register premises and livestock for the purpose of traceability and is administered by USDA.
Two young 4-H'ers, who were qualified for the livestock sale, were ejected from the fair and prevented from showing their livestock in the market show because their families had not registered their premises with NAIS. The families were given the opportunity to either register their livestock and premises on the spot, or be removed from the fair.
The ejection stems from a new rule created by the Colorado State Fair Board of Authority which stipulates that entrants in a livestock show much register their premises prior to participating in the fair. The two families involved allege that they had consulted fair officials and were allowed to list their local fairgrounds as the premises of origin for their livestock in lieu of personally registering with NAIS.
Owners of horses and breeding animals (animals not immediately destined for slaughter) are also required to register their premises, according to fair entry guidelines, but these rules were not enforced. Only those entering stock in the market show were required to adhere to the rule.
Traceability, which is perhaps the biggest new buzzword in the livestock industry, is also related to the debate over Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), and source- and age-verified beef.
As it currently stands, NAIS is totally voluntary at the federal level, and it is left up to states to decide how to administer the program. A few states have already made the program mandatory, some for different classes of livestock and in the case of Wisconsin, it is now mandatory for all animal owners to comply.
Rufino Hurtado works closely with Bruce Knight, under secretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs for USDA, who is in charge of the NAIS program.
Hurtado said that as far as individual states are concerned, it remains a voluntary program in every aspect unless state laws mandate otherwise.
"It is 100 percent voluntary at the federal and state level, and I reiterate that point," Hurtado explains. "Unless the state passes a law saying otherwise, it is absolutely voluntary. At the federal level, we avoid anything even implying 'mandatory' like the black plague," Hurtado maintains.
One of the questions which came up in relation to the incident regards whether individual groups can impose premises registration on their membership. Hurtado is certain that it is not possible.
"I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would not become mandatory for a group such as FFA or 4-H to require their members to register premises with NAIS," said Hurtado.
A number of livestock owners have already registered their premises, for varying reasons.
The primary reason to register, for a large number of producers, is for the ability to command a premium for their product. By entering the government system which proves the source of their livestock, they can adapt to changing markets which demand premium products for niche consumers. Other livestock owners have entered the program because of perceived disease concerns, while some ranchers have registered voluntarily because they fear costs or reprisals associated with the program, should it ever become mandatory.
USDA has been active in promoting NAIS, giving funds to each state for the purpose of education and promotion of the program. It has also actively engaged a number of livestock organizations by providing them with similar funding. Examples include the National FFA Organization, as well as the American Angus Association which recently received $580,000 from the federal government to promote NAIS among its membership.Some feel USDA's promotions represent unnecessary measures for a supposedly voluntary program and that the agency's efforts in 'pushing' NAIS smack of a mandatory animal or premises ID system. Many producers agree that proper brand inspections and normal record keeping are all that is necessary to provide the traceability the government wants. Their argument, too, is that the program is not only ineffective and an unnecessary burden, but that it creates too much government intervention into the lives of private citizens.
Whatever one's own personal views on the subject are, it is clear that livestock owners and government officials do not see eye-to-eye on NAIS in many cases, and this instance is no different. USDA strongly maintains that the system is voluntary at the federal and state levels.
"Not at the Colorado State Fair it isn't," said State Fair General Manager Chris Wiseman. Wiseman insists that the Colorado State Fair Board of Authority was trying to do a good thing by requiring premises registration under NAIS, and was within its rights to do so.
"By statute, the Colorado State Fair Board is allowed to create policy," says Wiseman. "[Premises] registration is not required in the open show but it is in the market show because these are terminal animals," Wiseman explains. "These are animals that are going into the food supply. We wanted to have as many safety measures in place as possible for the animals that were going to slaughter. The board made the decision earlier this year that premises ID would be required to participate... Think of it this way—if there was a disease outbreak or a terrorist attack at the fair, the Fair Board would have to answer to people asking questions about why we didn't utilize this system which we already have in place," said Wiseman.
Based on the experiences of some producers, individual groups may be going against written laws and good judgement by requiring members to become NAIS compliant. John Reid of Ordway, CO, is leading the charge against repealing mandatory NAIS premises registration among 4-H and FFA members in Colorado where there is a significant movement to change the controversial requirement at the State Fair.
"We're an ad-hoc group which has come together in response to the premises identification requirements imposed on our youngsters and their families at the State Fair," explains Reid. "We know that the Fair Board doesn't have the authority to do this, but we also feel that it goes against good ethical judgement to require it as well," says Reid.
Reid continued, "According to USDA and the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), it's a totally voluntary process. That's fine with us. There are a number of producers out there who have reasons to get on board with the program. As far as USDA and CDA are concerned, it is up to the producers to decide whether to enroll, based on the merits of the program. Now 4-H and the Fair Board have decided that it's now up to the producer to enroll based on whether they want their child to be able to participate in 4-H programs. It's not right."
Wiseman also stated in earlier claims that part of the reason for enforcing the requirement on market stock only is because certain packers only accept NAIS animals. He also refuted claims made by those involved in the incident that suggested the use of security was threatened to escort the families from the fairgrounds.
"That is not true," Wiseman stated, which goes against accounts from those families directly involved.
"[Fair] officials did indeed threaten to call the sheriff on at least one family involved if they did not either comply by registering their premises with NAIS or leave the fair and remove their animal in the process," stated one source.
A press release was issued on Aug. 28 by the Colorado State Fair highlighting the successful implementation of NAIS/premises ID enforcement at this year's event. The release contains a quote by Wiseman mentioning the incident, as well as an explanation for how an agreement was reached with the offended parties. "A replacement animal was chosen for those animals dropped from the Junior Livestock Sale. Those families unable to sell their livestock will be compensated for their travel expenses and also given the same amount the replacement animal is sold for," the release said.
Wiseman confirmed that this was the case, saying that alternate entrants were admitted to the show, and that the price the alternate animals brought in the sale would be matched and given to the families involved.
A source in close contact with the families indicated that they took the compensation and in exchange, signed a contract in which they agreed not to seek action against the Colorado State Fair Board. Hurtado claimed that this type of thing is not supposed to happen.
"If they bought off the families after they had refused to sign up for NAIS, that's wrong," said Hurtado. "If that is indeed the case, it is certainly in no way, shape or form something authorized under the program."
Reid says he still doesn't understand the reasoning, but says that things will move forward.
"There was one family with a daughter who had a market steer for which an NAIS premises registration was required. But the son in the same family had a breeding heifer going to the show and there was nothing required of that animal. It seems to me that if the issue was disease control, then they had things kind of backwards. Besides, there hasn't been a disease traceback issue at the Colorado State Fair for about as long as I can remember," said Reid.
"There were a number of families who didn't attend this year's State Fair because of the rule," Reid continued. "It's probably going to get fairly ugly next year if they don't remove this requirement. There are a lot of really angry parents out there right now. To put parents and youngsters in that position just doesn't make sense."
Reid said that the families involved would receive a hearing with the Colorado State University/4-H review board in September. The Fair Board will have until that time to decide who to place the blame on, says Reid.
"They're just trying to pass the buck. Nobody wants to take responsibility for making this rule," he said.
Calls made to other government officials in charge of administering the program were either not returned or met with responses of "no comment." Still, Wiseman insists that the Fair Board was trying to act in the best interest of the participants and that they felt they were acting in proper fashion by rejecting the entrants.
"We did give them the opportunity to register their premises with NAIS, which other families did do. It was my determination to provide them with compensating funds and I felt it was only fair," says Wiseman. "I can understand that these families are passionate about premise ID, but I have to enforce the rules, plain and simple." — Tait Berlier, WLJ Editor
Is this law any more restrictave than some brand laws that you and OT seem to think are the perfect ID.