FOOD Animal Identification Does Not Equal Food Safety Fact Sheet • July 2009 onsumers get a lot of information about the things they buy, whether it’s monitoring the progress of a package making its way across the country or the label in a shirt that says where the fabric was made and the final product assembled. Many farmers and ranchers don’t want anything to do with this program because industry and the USDA seem intent on taking tracking to a ridiculous level, with the potential to force small farmers to track every chicken, or require someone who keeps a horse or a couple of goats to register them with the government. To make matters worse, Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the rules for the program are geared towards the largest and big meat companies are trying to use consumers as producers, who use confinement and other methods that their cover for pushing a livestock tracking system that make animals easier to track and benefit from economies could permanently change the structure of the meat indus- of scale for purchasing electronic tracking devices and try, and not for the better. equipment. USDA estimates show that among livestock producers that don’t currently tag their beef cattle, the The tracking program is the National Animal Identificasmallest producers — those with less than 50 head of cattle tion System (NAIS), a registry for livestock and for the — would incur the highest costs. premises where animals live or visit. The stated purpose of the system is to aid government responses to outbreaks USDA and the meat industry — while always officially of animal disease, and pressure for the program increased careful to characterize NAIS as an animal health program after the discovery of mad cow disease in the United — tend to invoke improving meat safety as a selling point States. Supporters of the program point to a demand for for the program. But NAIS does not offer consumers any “traceability” by export customers in countries like Japan assurances of food safety. and Korea. Right now, the federal government says the program is voluntary, but some states have forced livestock Why NAIS Doesn’t Mean Safer Meat producers into the system against their will, and state governments and trade associations are putting tremendous Tracking Ends at the Slaughterhouse. As recalls pressure on producers to sign up. of millions of pounds of meat become a regular feature of the nightly news, a tracking system might seem worth the effort. But the tracking capability of NAIS stops at the slaughterhouse, so it doesn’t help the government or retailers track contaminated meat back to its source. So should consumers expect any less when it comes to food? Everything from public opinion polls to the explosive growth of programs that connect consumers directly to farmers show that consumers don’t want mystery meat — they want to know what they’re eating and whether it is safe. Consumer groups have actually been calling on USDA for years to do a better job tracing what happens to meat when it leaves the slaughterhouse and goes out to thousands of smaller plants to be ground into hamburger or further processed. Contamination with E. coli happens during the slaughter process. So when contamination is found at plants that don’t slaughter animals, but only process meat, chances are that there is other product out there that came from the same source and might be contaminated. But USDA often refuses to trace back to the slaughtering plant, even though the agency already has the authority to do so. C Focus on Response Instead of Prevention. Diseases like mad cow disease, avian influenza or tuberculosis not only have a tremendous economic impact for the meat industry, but could also put consumers at risk. But NAIS is only intended to respond to these diseases — not prevent them. State and federal disease prevention programs already exist for animal diseases. Others, like avian influenza and mad cow disease, are tied to practices used by large industrialized operations that confine thousands of animals together and use feed that has been tied to mad cow disease. Ironically, while USDA and the beef industry devoted a lot of effort to reassuring consumers after mad cow disease was discovered in the United States in 2003, many of the practices that could strengthen prevention efforts, such as testing cattle for the disease and enforcing rules for removal of risky materials from cattle carcasses, are still not in place. Puts Small Producers at a Disadvantage. More and more consumers are looking for meat and poultry produced without growth hormones, antibiotics, or thousands of animals being confined together. Often it is small, independent producers who are meeting this consumer demand. But these are the farmers and ranchers most likely to suffer under the NAIS program. No Consumer Information. While USDA has spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars promoting a program many farmers and ranchers have no interest in joining, agency leadership has been sabotaging a program that consumers and producers have worked for years to get – country-of-origin labeling (COOL). The agency has used every tactic at its disposal, including inflating cost estimates and abusing its discretion in rulemaking, to undermine the mandate from the last two farm bills for mandatory country-of-origin labeling on meat and poultry. COOL benefits consumers every time they shop. NAIS does not. Track Contaminated Meat. If USDA wants to track something that is useful to consumers, it should track contaminated meat. The agency should make it a priority to conduct trace-back investigations when adulterated meat is found through testing at processing plants or because consumers get sick. The agency needs to be more aggressive in making sure that all the potentially contaminated product gets taken out of commerce, not just the small amount that may have been found in one downstream plant. Focus on Prevention, Not Just Response. There are lots of things USDA can do to prevent animal diseases, ranging from increasing the amount of testing done for mad cow disease, ending the import of high-risk cattle from Canada, and funding existing state and federal animal health programs. The agency should also research the risks of animal disease posed by different types of livestock production and should crack down on factory farms with conditions that are ripe for spreading animal diseases like avian flu. Close Loopholes in COOL. Right now, USDA’s standards for mandatory country-of-origin labeling allow lots of pork and other meat to go without labeling because it is considered to be “processed” and therefore exempt. USDA should tighten its rule so that labeling requirements cover more types of meat. The NAIS program is so fatally flawed that it helps no one except corporate livestock companies. Instead of offering any assurance to consumers, NAIS forces family famers into a program that many object to and few can afford. It’s time for USDA to stop trying to force farmers and ranchers into a broken program, and devote its resources to preventing animal disease and enforcing food safety standards. There Are Better Ways for USDA to Spend Our Money If USDA was as devoted to protecting consumer health as it seems to be to promoting NAIS, the agency would be spending its effort and its money on different things. Instead of continuing to promote a failed program, USDA should: Enforce Standards At Slaughterhouses. USDA needs to make sure that the ranks of USDA meat inspectors are filled and that inspectors are able to enforce sanitation rules and standards for pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella. And the agency should make sure that rules for removing risky nervous system materials from cattle are properly enforced in slaughterhouses to make sure that any undetected cases of mad cow disease don’t spread to people. For more information: web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org email: info@fwwatch.org phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA) Copyright © July 2009 Food & Water Watch