What Is Animal Identification System

Animal Identification and Traceability:
Overview and Issues

Joel L. Greene
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
November 29, 2010
Congressional Research Service

7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40832
CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues
Summary
Animal identification (ID) refers to keeping records on individual farm animals or groups of farm
animals so that they can be easily tracked from their birth through the marketing chain.
Historically, animal ID was used to indicate ownership and prevent theft, but the reasons for
identifying and tracking animals have evolved to include rapid response to animal health and/or
food safety concerns. As such, traceability is limited specifically to movements from the animals
point of birth to its slaughter and processing location.
On February 5, 2010, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that USDA was revising
its approach to achieving a national capability for animal disease traceability. The previous plan,
called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), first proposed in 2002, was being
abandoned. In its place USDA proposed a new approachAnimal Disease Traceabilitythat will
allow individual states and tribal nations to choose their own degree of within-state animal
identification and traceability for livestock populations. The within-state programs are intended to
be implemented by the states and tribal nations, not the federal government. As such, any data
collection and storage would be done by state, not federal, authorities. The flexibility is intended
to allow each state or tribal nation to respond to its own producer needs and interests.
However, under the proposed revision USDA will require that all animals moving in interstate
commerce have a form of ID that allows traceability back to their originating state or tribal
nation. The Secretary of Agriculture derives the authority to regulate interstate movement of
farm-raised livestock from Section 10406 of the Animal Health Protection Act (P.L. 107-171,
Subtitle E; 7 U.S.C. 8305).
The larger program governing traceability of interstate animal movements and coordination
between different states and tribal nations will be implemented in federal regulations through the
federal rulemaking process. Since the February announcement, USDA has held a series of public
meetings for animal health officials and producers to provide opportunities for discussion and
feedback. USDA expects to issue a proposed rule in April 2011, and a final rule could be released
12 to 15 months later.
Since 2004, USDA had spent $150 million trying to get NAIS up and running. Since 2008, key
committee leaders in Congress had expressed frustration with the slow pace of NAIS
implementation and, as a result, had reduced annual funding appropriations for the program.
USDAs decision to revise NAIS was made after a series of 15 listening sessions across the
country in 2009, and after receiving thousands of comments concerning NAIS. While the poultry
and pork industries have endorsed a mandatory national animal ID program in general, certain
portions of the U.S. cattle industry have shown strong resistance to what they perceive as a costly
government intrusion in their private affairs. Participation in the initial phase of NAIS, premises
registration, reflected this same degree of interest, as very high percentages of eligible premises
were registered for most major animal speciespoultry (95%), sheep (95%), swine (80%), goats
(60%), and horses (50%)with the exception of cattle (18%). USDA stated that such a low
participation rate for cattle rendered NAIS ineffective as a tool for controlling animal disease, and
that a much higher participation rate would be necessary to respond effectively to an animal
disease outbreak. Under the new proposal, USDA anticipates much higher participation rates.
Lawmakers in the 112th Congress will continue to monitor USDAs work on animal ID and
traceability, and could propose legislation aimed at shaping its scope, design, and pace of
implementation, as well as possible federal financial support of state-level programs.
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
USDA Adopts New Approach to Animal Disease Traceability ...............................................1
Initial Steps for Animal Disease Traceability .........................................................................1
Highlights of Current Thinking on Traceability .....................................................................2
Overview of Animal Disease Costs .......................................................................................3
What Is Animal ID? ....................................................................................................................5
Data Requirements................................................................................................................6
Objectives.............................................................................................................................6
Pros and Cons of an Animal ID System .......................................................................................7
Proponents Claimed Benefits ...............................................................................................7
Opponents Claimed Criticisms .............................................................................................9
Development of a National Animal ID System .......................................................................... 10
Species Coverage................................................................................................................ 11
USDAs Involvement .......................................................................................................... 11
NAIS Business Plan...................................................................................................... 12
NAIS User Guide.......................................................................................................... 12
NAIS Program Standards and Technical Reference........................................................ 12
NAIS Goals ........................................................................................................................ 13
NAIS Program Implementation ........................................................................................... 13
Step 1. Premises Registration ........................................................................................ 14
Step 2. Animal Identification......................................................................................... 16
Step 3. Animal Tracing.................................................................................................. 17
Issues Concerning NAIS ........................................................................................................... 18
Low Participation Rates; Slow Implementation Pace ........................................................... 18
Mandatory or Voluntary?..................................................................................................... 20
Costs and Who Pays............................................................................................................ 21
Estimated Costs ............................................................................................................ 22
Estimated Benefits ........................................................................................................ 23
Liability and Confidentiality of Records.............................................................................. 24
International Traceability Requirements for Meat Imports ................................................... 24
USDA Listening Sessions ......................................................................................................... 25
Congressional Actions............................................................................................................... 25
Funding .............................................................................................................................. 25
Legislative Proposals .......................................................................................................... 26
Congressional Hearings....................................................................................................... 27
Figures
Figure 1. Animal ID Goals Expand With Level of Traceability ....................................................6
Tables
Table 1. Major International Animal Disease Outbreaks and Their Economic Costs,
Selected Incidents Since 1986 ..................................................................................................3
Table 2. U.S. Meat Exports, Ranked by Country of Destination ...................................................5
Table 3. NAIS Premises Registration Statistics, as of September 6, 2009 ................................... 15
Table 4. Estimated U.S. Animal Premises, Populations, and Premises Registration
Participation Rates by Species................................................................................................ 19
Table 5. Estimated Annual Cost Summary of NAIS Implementation by Species ........................ 22
Table 6. Congressional Funding for NAIS by Fiscal Year .......................................................... 26
Table B-1. Comparison of International Cattle ID and Traceability Programs............................. 34
Table B-2. Comparison of Cattle, Swine, and Poultry Populations by Country........................... 42
Table B-3. Comparison of Goats and Sheep, and Equidae, Populations by Country.................... 43
Table B-4. Global Beef Production and Trade Rankings by Country ......................................... 44
Table B-5. Global Pork Production and Trade Rankings by Country .......................................... 45
Table B-6. Global Poultry Production and Trade Rankings by Country ...................................... 46
Appendixes
Appendix A. Chronology of NAISs Development .................................................................... 28
Appendix B. International Animal ID and Traceability .............................................................. 32
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 47
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 47
Introduction
This report provides a summary of current developments in the U.S. Department of Agricultures
(USDAs) effort to establish a national animal traceability capacity with the intended goal of
being able to rapidly identify and respond to an animal disease outbreak. National animal
identification and traceability appear to have substantial economic value, yet federal proposals
have proven controversial among certain segments of the U.S. cattle industry. 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. National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and its
successor program, 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.
Most Recent Developments

USDA Adopts New Approach to Animal Disease Traceability
On February 5, 2010, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that USDA was
substantially revising its approach to achieving a national capability for animal disease
traceability. 1 The previous plan, called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), first
proposed in 2002, was being abandoned. In its place USDA proposed a new approachAnimal
Disease Traceabilitythat will allow individual states and tribal nations to choose their own
degree of within-state animal identification (ID) and traceability for livestock populations.2 The
flexibility is intended to allow each state to respond to its own producer needs and interests.
However, under the new Animal Disease Traceability framework, USDA will require that all
animals moving in interstate commerce have a form of ID that allows traceability back to its
originating state. The Secretary of Agriculture derives the authority to regulate interstate
movement of farm-raised livestock from Section 10406 of the Animal Health Protection Act (P.L.
107-171, Subtitle E; 7 U.S.C. 8305).
Initial Steps for Animal Disease Traceability

In the six months after the February announcement, USDA began collaboratively building on its
framework with animal health officials from states and tribal nations. USDA established a
Traceability Regulation Working Group from state, tribal nation, and Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) officials. The working group is responsible for synthesizing feedback
and making recommendations for the content of a proposed rule.
1
USDA Announces New Framework for Animal Disease Traceability, USDA news release No. 0053.10, February 5,
2010.
2
For more information, see Animal Disease Traceability, Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS),
USDA, at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/.
APHIS held a forum on March 18-19, 2010, for animal health officials from state and tribal
nations to discuss and provide feedback on the new framework for animal disease traceability. In
May, June, and July APHIS held five public meetings around the country to present the
framework and gather feedback from animal health officials and producers. Then, on August 13,
2010, USDA released two publications, Animal Disease Traceability Framework, Overview and
Current Thinking3 and Animal Disease Traceability Framework, Update and Preliminary Content
of the Proposed Rule,4 which outline USDAs current recommendations that could be
incorporated in a proposed rule. APHIS then held three more follow-up public industry forums to
provide further opportunities for animal health officials and producers to discuss and give
feedback on the framework.
Highlights of Current Thinking on Traceability

USDAs traceability framework is still developing, but one of the key underlying principles of the
framework is that managing a traceability program is the responsibility of states and tribal
nations. Under this revised framework, states may choose to have no mandatory animal ID and
traceability capability, or to rely on existing ID systems already in place to fight brucellosis,
tuberculosis, and other contagious animal diseases, or to develop their own version of a more
detailed birth-to-market ID system as originally proposed under NAIS. The within-state programs
are intended to be implemented by the states and tribal nations, not the federal government. As
such, any data collection and storage would done by state, not federal, authorities.
The federal rules will apply only to livestock that move in interstate commerce. The rules will
require livestock that move interstate have some type of official identification and an Interstate
Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (ICVI). Exemptions for identification and ICVI requirements
will be defined in the rules. For example, cattle moving directly to slaughter would be exempt.
Types of acceptable official identification will be defined in federal regulations through the
rulemaking process.
The animal disease traceability capacity of each state and tribal nation will be evaluated
according to performance standards that are defined through rulemaking. The Traceability
Regulation Working Group, in conjunction with state and tribal animal health officials, will
define performance standards that will describe a desired outcome but not the method for
achieving the outcome. The method will be left up to the states and tribal nations.
Each state and tribal nation will have detailed traceability cooperative agreements with APHIS
that describe the cooperators objectives. Whatever federal funding is available will be provided
through annual cooperative agreements. Although the agriculture appropriations bill for FY2011
is not finalized, no funding is designated for animal traceability in the bill. However, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations report indicates that funding could be considered after needs are
identified under USDAs new initiative. 5
3
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, Animal Disease Traceability Framework, Overview and Current
Thinking, Washington, DC, August 13, 2010, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/Handout%202.pdf.
4
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, Animal Disease Traceability Framework, Update and
Preliminary Content of the Proposed Rule, August 13, 2010, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/
Handout%203.pdf.
5
U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administraiton, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2011, S. 3606, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 111-221 (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 34.
The program governing animal disease traceability of interstate animal movements and
coordination between different state identification and traceability programs will be
implemented through federal regulations and the federal rulemaking process. USDA will define
animal disease traceability with a new section in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
USDA has indicated that a proposed rule could be published in April 2011 with a 60- to 90-day
comment period. According to USDA , once the proposed rule is published, it likely would be 12
to 15 months before the final rule is released.
Overview of Animal Disease Costs

Major outbreaks of harmful animal diseasesincluding 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,
Middle East,
Europe
na
~250 million poultry
Source: Compiled by CRS from various sources.

Note: na = not available. This table is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of all 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. BSEcontaminated 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 staggeringpossibly 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
made at a March 11, 2009, hearing by the subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry to
review animal identification systems. 6
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.7 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).8 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 dimensionmarket accessto 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 worlds 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 worlds leading exporter of pork, the
second-leading exporter of poultry (behind Brazil), and the third-leading exporter of beef, while
ranking first as the worlds 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 2008.9
6
Public hearing to review animal identification systems, House Committee on Agricultures Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry held a March 11, 2009; http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/index.html.
7
For examples of animal disease outbreaks and their impact on international trade see USDA, Economic Research
Service (ERS), Economic Effects of Animal Diseases Linked to Trade Dependency, Amber Waves, vol. 4, issue 2
(April 2006); CRS Report R40575, Potential Farm Sector Effects of 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu: Questions and Answers,
by Rene Johnson; CRS Report RS21709, Mad Cow Disease and U.S. Beef Trade, by Charles E. Hanrahan and
Geoffrey S. Becker; or Fawzi A. Taha, How Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1) Has Affected World PoultryMeat Trade, LDP-M-159-02, ERS, USDA, October 2007. For an analysis of the potential economic costs of an FMD
outbreak, see Philip L. Paarlberg, Ann H. Sietzinger, John G. Lee, and Kenneth H. Mathews, Economic Impacts of
Foreign Animal Disease, Econ. Research Report No. 57, ERS, USDA, May 2008.
8
International animal ID programs are discussed in Appendix B of this report.
9
U.S. beef exports accounted for 9% of total disappearance during the five years prior to the discovery of a BSEinfected cow in the U.S. cattle herd in December 2003.
Table 2. U.S. Meat Exports, Ranked by Country of Destination

(average for calendar years 2007 and 2008; $ millions)
Beef and Veal

Rank
Country
Pork
Million $
Country
Mexico
$774
32%
Japan
Canada
$644
27%
Japan
$292
12%
South Korea
$201
Taiwan
Poultry
Million $
Country
Million $
$1,317
38%
Russia
$798
21%
Canada
$508
15%
Mexico
$531
14%
Mexico
$398
12%
Canada
$426
11%
8%
South Korea
$225
7%
China
$395
11%
$117
5%
Russia
$247
7%
EU-27
$131
4%
Vietnam
$77
3%
China
$176
5%
Ukraine
$138
4%
EU-27
$74
3%
Hong Kong
$160
5%
Cuba
$109
3%
Hong Kong
$38
2%
EU-27
$95
3%
Hong Kong
$74
2%
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%
$118
3%
$717
19%
$2,413
100%
$3,435
100%
$3,734
100%
U.S. Total
Other
U.S. Total
Other
U.S. Total
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 animals
origins (e.g., birthplace, parentage, sex, breed, genetics) as well as traceabilitythe 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 highspeed 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.
Data Requirements
At a minimum, information is collected and stored concerning the animals place and date of
birth, the name and address of the owner, the date and location of movements between the
animals 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 animals 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.
Figure 1. Animal ID Goals Expand With Level of Traceability
Premises Identification
Food
Animal
Safety Health
&
Market
Access
Animal Identification
Animal Movements
Origin to Processing Plant
Animal Movements
Processing Plant to Consumer
Source: Assembled by CRS.
Increasingly, international buyers of U.S. animal products are demanding better information on
those products historyfor 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.
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 Benefits10

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.
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 characteristicssuch as organic or
grass-fed or hormone-freethat 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 USDAs 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
10
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.
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
illnesses from bacteria like Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7.11 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.12 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 processesthat 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, USDAs AMS developed an export verification
(EV) program for U.S. plants seeking to meet the differing beef import specifications of various
11
For more information see CRS Report RL32521, Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness, by Jim Monke.
Traceability requirements related to food safety likely would be within the purview of USDAs 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-ofOrigin Labeling for Foods.
12
countries like Japan, a key foreign market for U.S. beef. 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 producersregardless of their
interest in international marketingwould 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:
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.13
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 operators 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
13
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.
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 worlds 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.
Development of a National Animal ID System

At the national level, an animal ID and traceability program emerged and evolved over the years
from various state and national animal disease eradication and pest control programs.14 For
example, USDAs Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)the federal agency that
oversees animal health in consultation with state veterinary authoritiesdirects several programs
for animal disease eradication and control that include animal identification components
effectively requiring ID and tracking.15 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.16 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 have
long had official identification requirements 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.17 Often state laws or
breed association rules require animals of these and other species, like cattle and horses, to be
14
See Appendix A for a brief outline of the historical development of animal ID and traceability in the United States.
For more information, see the APHIS website at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/.
16
Brucellosis is a highly contagious and costly disease mainly affecting cattle, bison, and swine (once common in the
United States).
17
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/.
15
10
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.18
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) program, first proposed in 2002, attempted to
build on and learn from these earlier programs, and, although administered by USDAs APHIS,
was based on a state-federal-industry partnership that provided the opportunity for producers not
part of a disease program to voluntarily participate in national animal health safeguarding efforts.
Certain states have mandated some components of animal identification, such as premises
registration; however, at the federal level, NAIS was a voluntary program.19
USDAs February 5, 2010, decision to replace NAIS with a more flexible, state-based program
that mandates traceability only for livestock moving in interstate commerce responds to strong
criticism of NAIS from the U.S. cattle sector, in large part because the burden of cost and
implementation would fall most heavily on cattle producers.
The following discussion refers primarily to the now-outdated NAIS system, but is useful in that
many aspects of NAIS remain highly relevant to the potential implementation of the new, as-yetunnamed system to take its place.
Species Coverage
NAIS was 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 was
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 were 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) were to be
identified. Also, animals that typically are moved in groupssuch as hogs and poultrycould be
identified as part of their group rather than individually.
USDAs Involvement
Because NAIS was voluntary, and because much of its implementation was to occur at the local
and state levels, USDAs involvement was focused on popularizing the program, ensuring that
18
See CRS Report RL32199, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or Mad Cow Disease): Current and
Proposed Safeguards, by Sarah A. Lister and Geoffrey S. Becker.
19
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).
11
adequate information was available to all participants (both actual and potential), and addressing
the following general issues:
prioritizing implementation by species/sectors, taking into account where the

greatest disease concerns and traceability opportunities exist;
harmonizing animal ID programs;
standardizing data elements of disease programs to ensure compatibility;
integrating automated data capture technology with disease programs;
partnering with states, tribes, and territories;
collaborating with industry; and
advancing ID technologies.
To ensure that NAIS participants and other interested stakeholders had access to pertinent
information about the program, USDA published a series of reports that provided participant
guidance, technical standards, and implementation strategies. Three reports in particular
(described below) provided detailed information about the status of NAIS, how to participate in
the program, including the necessary technical details, and the future direction of program
implementation.20
NAIS Business Plan21

A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability detailed 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.
NAIS User Guide22

The NAIS User Guide, first published in November 2006, provided 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 would benefit them.
NAIS Program Standards and Technical Reference23

As a supplement to the User Guide, the Program Standards and Technical Reference document
established data standards for NAIS, including:
20
21
All three reports are available on the NAIS website at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais.

A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability, Version 1.0, APHIS, USDA, September 2008.
22
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).
23
NAIS Program Standards and Technical Reference, Version 2.2, APHIS, USDA, February 2008.
12
the data element formats for premises identification numbers, animal

identification numbers, and group/lot identification numbers, needed to ensure
compatibility across information systems;
standards for official identification devices that utilized the animal identification
number; and
information on technology standards published by the International Organization

for Standardization (ISO) that were utilized in NAIS.
Use of these standards by states, tribes, industry organizations, identification device

manufacturers, and other entities involved in NAIS would help to ensure system effectiveness.
NAIS Goals
The primary goal of NAIS was to protect the commercial interests involved in U.S. agriculture
from the potential harm associated with the outbreak of an animal disease. NAIS was not
intended to serve as a food safety program per se, although there could be positive public safety
effects from its successful implementation.
USDA identified the following specific goals for NAIS:24
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, USDAs long-term goal was 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 would require rapid access to reliable and complete data on both animal ID and
movement history.
NAIS Program Implementation

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 was 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 was composed of three sequential components
premises registration, animal identification, and animal tracking.
24
This list is available at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/about/nais_components.shtml.
13
Step 1. Premises Registration25

The first phase of NAIS involved registering the geographic location (i.e., the farm or ranch)
where the livestock or poultry were raised, housed, or boarded. To meet USDAs data standards
for premises registration, states and tribes had to collect and maintain at a minimum the
following pieces of information:26
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, a unique seven-digit number permanently assigned to a location, would not change
following a change of ownership. A producer or owner could have multiple PINs based on the
nature and type of operations (e.g., if a single producer had distinctly different animal production
activities taking place at different locations).
Premises were to be registered at one of the state (or tribal) animal health authorities. Premises
registration was free and did not require participation in the following two steps. USDA
maintained the premises information in a National Premises Information Repository, but declared
that it would protect individuals private information and confidential business information from
disclosure.27
According to USDA, premises information would ensure that producers are notified quickly
when a disease outbreak or other animal health event might harm their operations. In an
emergency, animal health officials would 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 stated
that much higher levels of participation would be needed to successfully implement NAIS.
25
For more information on premises registration, see http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/premises_id/index.shtml.

NAIS User Guide (2007), p. 17.
27
Ibid., p. 18.
26
14
Table 3. NAIS Premises Registration Statistics, as of September 6, 2009

State
Massachusetts
Wisconsin
Indiana
Idaho
New York
Utah
Michigan
Pennsylvania
North Dakota
Nevada
Nebraska
Iowa
West Virginia
Illinois
Delaware
Colorado
North Carolina
Minnesota
Alaska
South Carolina
Tennessee
Hawaii
Virginia
New Mexico
Arizona
Florida
Alabama
Kentucky
Arkansas
South Dakota
California
Mississippi
Wyoming
Kansas
Ohio
Maryland
New Jersey
Missouri
Texas
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Georgia
Maine
Oregon
Washington
Vermont
Montana
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Subtotal
Territories & Tribes
Grand Total
Premises
3,555
51,373
34,790
18,754
25,559
12,460
29,011
42,302
14,085
2,522
30,841
47,273
17,670
30,046
1,553
22,951
36,142
44,193
354
16,120
68,010
1,391
37,673
11,250
5,170
28,731
35,538
61,251
37,614
22,356
32,500
29,312
8,227
39,346
48,073
7,837
5,315
79,018
187,118
71,420
19,677
35,431
4,213
28,634
22,155
4,438
19,708
2,539
504
2,277
1,438,280
Premises Registered
8,082
62,802
35,200
18,752
22,441
10,184
22,447
30,749
8,904
1,485
17,606
26,741
9,509
15,094
661
8,650
13,491
15,593
117
4,976
20,577
406
10,619
3,102
1,425
7,826
9,284
15,565
9,501
5,549
7,763
6,751
1,840
8,430
9,995
1,559
1,041
15,166
33,022
12,184
3,307
5,108
444
2,877
2,131
389
1,699
164
15
61
531,284
1,577
532,861
Percent
>100.0%
>100.0%
>100.0%
100.0%
87.8%
81.7%
77.4%
72.7%
63.2%
58.9%
57.1%
56.6%
53.8%
50.2%
42.6%
37.7%
37.3%
35.3%
33.1%
30.9%
30.3%
29.2%
28.2%
27.6%
27.6%
27.2%
26.1%
25.4%
25.3%
24.8%
23.9%
23.0%
22.4%
21.4%
20.8%
19.9%
19.6%
19.2%
17.6%
17.1%
16.8%
14.4%
10.5%
10.0%
9.6%
8.8%
8.6%
6.5%
3.0%
2.7%
36.9%
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.
15
Step 2. Animal Identification28

The second phase of NAIS involved 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 animals unique identifying
number. 29 The first three numbers of an AIN issued in the United States would 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 under NAIS was 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.30 USDA did not designate any specific identification
technologies beyond the minimum requirements for official identification described 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 did 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 encouraged 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 would choose when to place the ID on the
animal. Some producers might want to attach ID devices shortly after birth; others might choose
to attach a device later. However, USDA contended that an animal should have an ID attached
before it moved from its current premises to another producers premises, a livestock market, or a
feedlot, among other locations. If the animals could not be tagged at their current premises,
producers might elect to have their animals tagged at an auction market providing tagging
services when they were ready to market their animals. In such cases, when the animals were
28
For more information on animal identification, see http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal_id/index.shtml.

30
APHIS provides more information on AIN devices at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/
guidelines/NAIS_ID_Tag_Web_Listing.pdf.
29
16
unloaded, they would be tagged before they were 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 would be expected to maintain the
official identification already on the animalno additional identification or change of
identification of those animals would be needed.
Group Identification Number (GIN)

Animals that typically move through the production chain as a group of animals of the same
species could 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 could be an option for other species moving 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 would be
maintained at the premises by the producer in his or her management records.
The ID would remain with the animal for its lifetime. The uniform numbering system would link
each producers livestock or poultry flock to the animals 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 Tracing31

The third phase of NAIS involved 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 would select 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 could report the movement of animals shipped
from or moved into their premises. Under NAIS, only the minimum, standardized tracing
information was necessary for participation. The minimum traceback information included:32
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 supported NAIS in traceback situations
were also standardized, but were not necessary for participation.
31
32
For more information on animal tracing, see http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal_track/index.shtml.

17
The traceback information would be read and recorded each time that a notable movement
between locations occurred. 33 Movements within a production unit for management purposes
(e.g., from pasture to pasture) were not considered to impact disease spread, and therefore were
not necessary to report relative to NAIS.
The voluntary animal tracing component of NAIS was a public/private partnership. Both
industrythrough private systemsand states would 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 would not maintain the ATDs; states and privates entities
would. Having states and industry maintain these ATDs was part of USDAs plan to assure
confidentiality for participants. On the federal side, USDA would operate a portal system to
enable animal health officials to submit requests for information to the administrators of the ATDs
when investigating an animal disease event. This system was known as the Animal Trace
Processing System (ATPS).
When there was a disease outbreak or other animal health event, the ATDs were designed to
provide timely, accurate reports that showed where potentially exposed animals had been and
what other animals had 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 would use the system only in the following situations:34
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.).
Issues Concerning NAIS

Low Participation Rates; Slow Implementation Pace
As of September 2008, about 40% of potential premises in the United States (including premises
with horses) had been registered (Table 4), although there was substantial variation in
participation across species and states (Table 3). Poultry and sheep registration was estimated at
95%, swine at 80%, goat at 60%, horse at 50%, and cattle at 18%.
33
For specific examples of reportable and non-reportable animal movement scenarios, see NAIS User Guide (2007),
pp. 35-36.
34
Ibid., p. 30.
18
Table 4. Estimated U.S. Animal Premises, Populations, and Premises Registration

Participation Rates by Species
Species
Estimated Animal
Population
Estimated Number of
Premises
Percent of 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%
94,491,000
1,046,000
18%
2,082,151,000
1,438,280
36%
5,800,000
570,000
50%
2,087,951,000
2,004,340
40%
Cattlec
Subtotal
Horse
Total
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.
On September 6, 2009, APHIS reported that 531,284 animal premises (excluding horses) had
been registered in one of the available databases (Table 3).35 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, up slightly from a year earlier.36
To achieve an effective response to an animal disease outbreak, a certain level of participation is
necessary. According to USDA, NAIS would have to achieve a critical mass level of
participation to achieve its long-term goal of 48-hour traceback. USDA estimated that 70% of the
animals in a specific species and/or sector would need to be identified and traceable to their
premises of origin to achieve the necessary critical mass.37 Dr. John Clifford, USDAs Chief
Veterinary Officer for animal health, also cited a participation rate of 70% of the animals in a
specific speciesthat could be both identified and traceable to their premises of originas
necessary to provide an effective measure of traceability.38 However, Dr. Clifford suggested that a
35
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.
36
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.
37
NAIS Business Plan, Version 1.0, APHIS, USDA, September 2008, p. 11.
38
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 Agricultures Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and
Poultry and the House Committee on Homeland Securitys Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and
Science and Technology on May 5, 2009.
19
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. 39 USDAs NAIS Business Plan (2008) was intended to respond to several
of the GAO criticisms.
Others believe that USDAs slow progress has simply reflected the wide differences among
producers and other interests over many unresolved issues.
Mandatory or Voluntary?
NAIS was operated as a voluntary program. However, USDA officials expressed concern that
participation rates were too low for NAIS to be effective at achieving its 48-hour traceback
window. These officials publicly called for Congress to address the low participation rates either
by increasing the incentives to participate or by making the program mandatory.40
Others, including many state animal health officials, had already made similar requests. The
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), which represents more than 78,000
veterinarians across the United States, addressed Congress on its support for mandatory
participation in NAIS.41 At meetings in October 2006, the National Assembly of State Animal
Health Officials and the U.S. Animal Health Associations 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),42 the
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF),43 and the American Meat Institute (AMI)44
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, expressed their interest in
seeing NAIS implemented as a mandatory program as a way to avoid devastating losses from
virulent diseases.
39
National Animal Identification System: USDA Needs to Resolve Several Key Implementation Issues to Achieve Rapid
and Effective Disease Traceback, GAO-07-592, July 2007.
40
Dr. John Clifford, in remarks made during the question and answer session at the May 5, 2009, hearing mentioned in
an earlier footnote.
41
Testimony of Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, DVM, MBA, Chief Executive Officer, AVMA, at a hearing on NAIS by the
House Committee on Agricultures Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, March 11, 2009.
42
See the NPPC website position paper on NAIS at http://www.nppc.org/issues/mais.htm.
43
Testimony of Dr. Karen Jordan, D.V.M., on behalf of NMPF, at a hearing on NAIS by the House Committee on
Agricultures Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, March 11, 2009.
44
http://www.meatami.com/ht/d/ArticleDetails/i/3252.
20
In contrast, groups opposed to a mandatory NAIS have been associated primarily with the cattle
industry, including the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF),45 the National
Cattlemens Beef Association (NCBA), 46 and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.47 Some
opponents reportedly have worked to block mandatory and/or even voluntary programs in various
states.48 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 industrys
concerns.49
There has been some uncertainty over the degree of authority that a U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
has in determining by decree whether NAIS would 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 have argued that, with a change in
administration, Secretary Vilsack should have the authority to reverse Secretary Johannss 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 imposes 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 paythe industry (and ultimately
consumers), government, or both? USDAs ideas have called for expenses to be shared (e.g.,
database costs funded by government and the identifying devices by producers).
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.50
45
http://www.r-calfusa.com/animal_id/animal_id.htm.
http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/animalidleavebehind.pdf.
47
http://www.ftcldf.org/aa/aa-13feb2009-2.htm.
46
48
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.
49
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.
50
Meat Traceability: Its Effect on Trade, Iowa Ag Review, Winter 2002.
21
On April 29, 2009, APHIS released a study, the KSU Benefit-Cost Study (2009), of the economic
benefits and costs of adopting USDAs NAIS.51 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 represented the researchers
best estimate of what 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 sectors 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 industrys $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.
Table 5. Estimated Annual Cost Summary of NAIS Implementation by Species
(scenario assumes 100% participation)
Species
Premises
Registration
Tags &
Tagging
Reading /
Tracking
Total
Cost
$1,000
Cattle
Adoption
Cost per
Animal
Total Cost
per Animal
Marketed
$ per head
4,474
157,326
47,270
209,070
4.97
5.97
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
Beef Cow/Calf
51
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.
22
Species
Premises
Registration
Swine
Tags &
Tagging
Reading /
Tracking
Total
Cost
Adoption
Cost per
Animal
Total Cost
per Animal
Marketed
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
Wean-to-Feeder
24
382
407
0.01
0.01
Feeder-to-Finish
138
854
991
0.01
0.01
147
147
0.00
0.00
327
2,091
1,246
3,664
1.07
1.39
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
Packers
Sheep
All operations
0.13
0.12
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.
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 lossesas great as $1.32 billion per year over a 10-year
perioddue 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 would become more cost-effective as participation levels increase, and
that NAIS might not be economically viable at lower participation levels.
23
Liability and Confidentiality of Records

Some producers have been concerned that they would 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 have been 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. 52
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 2010.53 Currently the EU
requires individual identification and traceability for all suppliers, domestic and foreign.54
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.55 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.56
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.57
52
For more discussion of liability and confidentiality issues, see National Agricultural Law Center, Animal
IdentificationAn Overview, at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/animalid/.
53
Brett Stuart, S.Korea Traceability Requirement, CattleFax Update, vol. 41, issue 28, July 10, 2009, p. 4.
54
Ibid.
55
Beef Trade With Japan in Rough Political Waters This Summer, Oklahoma Farm Report, July 15, 2009.
56
Banzai! A landslide victory for the DPJ in Japan, The Economist, August 31, 2009.
57
Beef Trade With Japan in Rough Political Waters This Summer, Oklahoma Farm Report, July 15, 2009.
24
The WTOs 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. 58 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.59
USDA Listening Sessions

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. Despite the large monetary investment, overall participation in
NAIS remained low through 2009 at about 40% of livestock producers, and substantial criticism
of the proposed national program resonated from the U.S. cattle sector.
In response to slow growth in NAIS participation rates and to better assess the producer concerns
surrounding NAIS implementation, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack undertook a series of
public listening sessions around the country between April 15 and June 30, 2009, to hear from
livestock producers and other interested parties concerning their views of the NAIS.60
Secretary Vilsack said that he hoped to use the listening sessions to gather feedback and input that
would assist him in making decisions about the future direction of animal ID and traceability in
the United States. It was the information obtained from these listening sessions, plus the
thousands of written comments submitted to USDA, that motivated Secretary Vilsack to
announce the abandonment of NAIS in favor of a more flexible, state-based system on
February 5, 2010 (as described in this reports introduction).
Congressional Actions
Funding
From FY2004 through FY2009, approximately $142 million was appropriated for NAIS (Table
6). However, since 2008 Congress 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. 110-161, 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 agencys 2008 traceability business plan.
58
The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, WTO, Cambridge University
Press2009.
59
Articles 4 and 5, Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, The Legal Texts, WTO,
Cambridge University Press2009.
60
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.
25
Table 6. Congressional Funding for NAIS by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year
Appropriated Funds
Statute
2004
$18,793,000
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
$ 5,300,000
P.L. 111-80
Sum to date
$147,987,000
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.
In 2009 the Administration 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 USDAs 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 expressed interest in seeing a mandatory animal
ID program passed into law, also expressed frustration with the slow pace of national sign-up for
NAIS. The full committees report (H.Rept. 111-181) observed:
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.61
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 restricted 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 were resolved in conference and the final FY2010
funding level for NAIS was set at $5.3 million. The FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bill was
signed into law as P.L. 111-80 by President Obama on October 21, 2009.
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 USDAs authority or spelling out what type of
61
H.Rept. 111-181, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2010, June 23, 2009, p. 24.
26
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, not to FSIS-regulated meat and poultry
products.62
Congressional Hearings
The 111th Congress held two hearings on the national animal ID system (NAIS), both in the
House. On March 11, 2009, the House Committee on Agricultures Subcommittee on Livestock,
Dairy, and Poultry held a public hearing to review animal identification systems. Then on May 5,
2009, the House Committee on Agricultures Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry held
a joint public hearing with the Committee on Homeland Securitys 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.
62
For more information, see CRS Report R40443, Food Safety in the 111th Congress: H.R. 2749 and S. 510,
coordinated by Rene Johnson.
27
Appendix A. Chronology of NAISs 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 diseasea fatal neurological disease
is first identified in the United Kingdoms 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 UKs 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.
28
2003
The preliminary work plan was expanded by a group of approximately 100 state, federal, and
industry representativesthe National Identification Development Teamwhich 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. APHISs 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 planImplementation Strategiesthat 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. 63
63
Ibid.
29
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 approachpremises registration, animal ID, and traceabilityto
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
USDAs APHIS released the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)A User Guide and
Additional Information Resource.64
April 2008
USDAs APHIS released A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability in draft form.
This same report is currently available with a September 2008 date.65 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 lowerpriority Tier 2. Another key objective would be to bring 70% of the cattle breeding herd into
NAIS by the end of 2009.66
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.
64
Available at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/NAIS-UserGuide.pdf.
Available at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/plans.shtml.
66
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.
65
30
April 15, 2009 to June 30, 2009

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack undertook a series of public listening sessionswith a
variety of stakeholders representing the full spectrum of views on the NAISaround 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

USDAs APHIS released the results of a comprehensive benefit-cost analysisKSU Cost-Benefit
Study (2009)of the NAIS.
February 5, 2010
Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced that USDA was substantially revising its approach to
achieving a national capability for animal disease traceability. NAIS was to be replaced with a
new approach that will allow individual states (and tribal nations) to choose their own degree of
within-state animal identification (ID) and traceability for livestock populations. However, under
the proposed revision USDA will require that all animals moving in interstate commerce have a
form of ID that allows traceability back to its originating state.
March 2010 Through August 2010

USDA held a series of public meetings on the Animal Disease Traceability framework to provide
opportunities for state and tribal nation animal health officials to discuss and provide feedback.
APHIS released two documents on August 13 (Animal Disease Traceability Framework,
Overview and Current Thinking and Animal Disease Traceability Framework, Update and
Preliminary Content of the Proposed Rule) that described what a proposed rule on traceability
might contain.
31
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.67
World Trade Organization (WTO)

In response to concerns that market access may be limited by use of non-tariff trade barriers, the
WTOs 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. 68
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.69 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.
67
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.
68
Articles 4 and 5, Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, The Legal Texts, WTO,
Cambridge University Press2009.
69
For more information refer to the CODEX alimentarius website at http://www.codexalimentarius.net.
32
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.70 In its capacity as a leading international standardsetting 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 OIEs 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.71 Chapter four of the OIEs 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.72 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. 73 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 OIEs 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.74
Export Certification
Certification is frequently part of export verification processes imposed by importing countries.
In the United States, certification is handled by USDAs Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS).75 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 importers 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 OIEs Terrestrial Code presents the general obligations related to certification as
well as certification procedures.76
70
More information on the OIEs organization and structure is available at http://www.oie.int.

Available at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_mcode.htm.
72
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.
73
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.
74
75
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.
76
(continued...)
71
33
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). 77
Table B-1. Comparison of International Cattle ID and Traceability Programs
Identification
Premises
Individual
Animal
Group or
Lot
Electronic
RFID
Animal
Movement
Traceability
Retire
Animal
Number
2007
Australia
2002
Canada
2002
Not Allowed
EU
1997
Japan
2003
South Korea
2004
Uruguay
2006
Brazila
2001
M/V
M/V
Mexico
2003
New Zealandb
1999
M/V
M/V
United States
2004
Date
Begun
Argentina
Country
Mandatory
Voluntary
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.
Brazils program is mandatory for beef being exported to markets that require origination information such
as the EU.
b.
New Zealands animal ID program is mandatory for cattle as part of a tuberculosis eradication program.
(...continued)
77
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.
34
Canada
The Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA)78 is a federally incorporated, nonprofit,
industry-led organization that manages, administers, and develops policy for Canadas 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.79 The governments Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
is a non-voting board member of the CCIA. Agri-Food and Agriculture Canada (AAFC)
Canadas USDA counterpartworks 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%.80 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. CCIAs repositorythe 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)81 is Australias 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.82
78
79
The CCIA official website is at http://www.canadaid.com/.

For a list of industry groups and individual board members, see http://www.canadaid.com/about_us/about_us.html.
80
Testimony provided by Mr. Kerry St. Cyr (CCIA executive director) to the House Committee on Agricultures SubCommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, March 11, 2009; available at http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/
statements.html.
81
The NLIS official website is at http://lwx.dpi.qld.gov.au/lwx/nlis/pages/externalhome.htm.
82
Testimony provided by Dr. Rob Williams, Agriculture Counselor, Embassy of Australia, Washington, D.C., to the
House Committee on Agricultures Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, March 11, 2009; available at
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/statements.html.
35
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 propertyand 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-oflife 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 Promotantfree cattle. In 1999, the NLIS was introduced.
In a 2004 audit of the NLISthe National Livestock Tracing Auditall of the animals identified
using NLIS were traced to their property of origin within 24 hours.83 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.
Australias 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),84 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.
83
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.
84
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.
36
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.85 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.86 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. 87
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 facilitys approval number(s).88
Mandatory food traceability has been a part of the general food law of the EU since January 1,
2005.89
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).90 A mandatory identification
system for porcine animals went into effect on August 28, 2008.91 Initially adopted in December
2003, the EUs ID system for ovine and caprine animals was entered into in full force in July
2005.92
85
More information on EU individual species identification and trace back programs is available at http://ec.europa.eu/
food/animal/identification/index_en.htm.
86
Regulation (EC) No. 82/97, 21 April 1997.
87
Regulation (EC) No. 1760/2000, 17 July 2000.
88
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.
89
EU Traceability Guidelines, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), GAIN Report Number E35012, January
21, 2005.
90
Commission Decision 2000/68/EC, 22 December 1999.
91
European Council Directive 2008/71/EC, 15 July 2008.
92
Council Regulation (EC) 21/2004 (of 17 December 2003), later amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
933/2008 (of 23 September 2008).
37
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.93
In response to a series of food safety crises in the early 2000s, including the discovery of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Japans domestic cattle herd and a series of labeling
scandals, the Japanese government implemented a series of animal traceability regulations and
food safety oversight.94 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, Japans Diet passed the Food
Safety Basic Law on May 23, 2003, establishing the Food Safety Commission.95 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, 2004.96 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, Japans Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) also announced a
new Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) program to certify the traceability of imported beef.97 To
gain certification, exporters must be able to provide all the same information required under the
Law Relating to Special BSE Countermeasuresdate of birth, sex, breed, name and address of
owner, location of fattening, date fattening commenced, and slaughter dateplus 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). 98 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
93
Beef Trade With Japan in Rough Political Waters This Summer, Oklahoma Farm Report, Agricultural News, July
15, 2009.
94
Roxanne Clemens, Meat Traceability in Japan, Iowa Ag Review, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
(CARD), Iowa State University, fall 2003, pp. 4-5.
95
The Food Safety Basic Law, Food Safety Commission of Japan, available at http://www.fsc.go.jp/sonota/
fsb_law1807.pdf.
96
Update: Japans Beef Traceability Law, USDA, FAS, GAIN Report Number JA4094, December 29, 2004.
97
Meat Traceability in Japan, by Roxanne Clemens, Iowa Ag Review, CARD, Iowa State University, Fall 2003, pp.
4-5.
98
Scientist 24 (2008): 287-294.
38
grade, location of birth and subsequent premises, owners 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. 99
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 specieswhether flock/group or individual identificationto the NAIT system
should only be considered once the system is up and running for cattle and deer. 100
New Zealands 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 2011.101 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. 102 In September
99
Brett Stuart, S. Korea Traceability Requirement, CattleFax Update, vol. 41, issue 28, July 10, 2009, p. 4.
100
Position of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) on NAIT, undated, available at http://www.maf.govt.nz/
mafnet/maf-positon-on-nait.pdf.
101
Animal Identification and Tracing NAIT timeline, MAF, New Zealand, available at http://www.maf.govt.nz/
mafnet/animal-identification-and-tracing.htm.
102
Scientist 24 (2008): 287-294.
39
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, Brazils 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 informationmost notably the EU which was Brazils 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 EUs Food and Veterinary Office
(EU/FVO) have found severe shortcomings in Brazils animal identification and traceability
system. 103 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.104 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
traceabilitythe Argentine Animal Health Information System (SGS)105directed at animal
products destined for the EU. 106 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.107 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 outbreaksparticularly 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). 108 These
103
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.
104
Dan Buglass, Ban on Brazilian Beef Urged as EU finds Multiple Failings, TheBeefSite.com, August 5, 2009.
105
Sistema de Gestion Sanitara or SGS in Spanish.
106
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.
107
Michael McConnell and Ken Mathews, Jr., Global Market Opportunities Drive Beef Production Decisions in
Argentina and Uruguay, Amber Waves, April 2008.
108
Ibid.
40
export limitations provide ample incentive for Argentina to improve its animal identification and
traceability system. 109
Uruguay
Uruguay is very dependent on external markets for selling a large portion of its annual domestic
production. An estimate 68% of Uruguays 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, Uruguays Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries (MAGyP)
implemented a mandatory animal identification system called the National Livestock Information
System (SNIG).110 Under SNIG, all individual animals must be identified (i.e., tagged) before six
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, for example, 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 Uruguays national premises identification system (DICOSE)established in
1973which, 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 111

Not all countries with large animal populations have ongoing animal ID programsexamples
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.
109
Ibid.
110

Scientist 24 (2008): 287-294.
111
Ibid.
41
Table B-2. Comparison of Cattle, Swine, and Poultry Populations by Country

(data for 2007)
Cattle
Rank
Country
Swine
Million
Country
Poultrya
Million
Country
Million
Brazil
200
15%
China
426
46%
China
4,815
26%
India
177
13%
EU-27
162
18%
United States
2,322
12%
United States
97
7%
United States
62
7%
EU-27
1,448
8%
EU-27
90
7%
Brazil
36
4%
Indonesia
1,275
7%
China
82
6%
Viet Nam
27
3%
Brazil
1,144
6%
Argentina
51
4%
Russian Fed.
16
2%
India
560
3%
Ethiopia
43
3%
Mexico
16
2%
Mexico
501
3%
Sudan
41
3%
Canada
15
2%
Iran
423
2%
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
1%
Thailand
209
1%
14
Russian Fed.
22
2%
Ukraine
1%
Bangladesh
207
1%
15
Tanzania
18
1%
Myanmar
1%
Malaysia
190
1%
514
38%
Other
90
10%
4,316
23%
1,357
100%
918
100%
18,679
100%
Other
World Total
World Total
Other
World Total
Source: Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), United Nations, FAOSTAT; August 7, 2009. FAOs
database includes data for 188 countries.
a.
Includes chickens, geese, guinea fowl, and turkeys.
42
Table B-3. Comparison of Goats and Sheep, and Equidae, Populations by Country
(data for 2007)
Goats and Sheep
Rank
Country
Million
Equidaea
%
China
426
22%
India
162
EU-27
Country
Million
China
18
16%
8%
Mexico
13
11%
62
3%
United States
10
9%
Sudan
36
2%
Brazil
7%
Australia
27
1%
Ethiopia
6%
Nigeria
16
1%
Pakistan
4%
Pakistan
16
1%
EU-27
4%
Iran
15
1%
Argentina
4%
Bangladesh
14
1%
Colombia
3%
10
Ethiopia
13
1%
Egypt
3%
11
New Zealand
10
1%
Mongolia
2%
12
Turkey
10
1%
Iran
2%
13
South Africa
0%
Niger
2%
14
Mongolia
0%
Mali
2%
15
Somalia
0%
Morocco
1%
Other
1,089
57%
Other
28
25%
World Total
1,917
100%
113
100%
World Total
Source: FAO, United Nations, FAOSTAT; August 7, 2009. FAOs database includes data for 188 countries.
a.
Horses, mules, and donkeys.
43
Table B-4. Global Beef Production and Trade Rankings by Country

(data are carcass-weight averages for calendar years 2007 and 2008)
Production
Rank
Country
United States
1,000
mt
Exports
% of
prod.
Country
1,000
mt
Imports
% of
Exp.
% of
Dom
Prod.
Country
1,000
mt
% of
Imp.
% of
Dom
Cons.
12,130
21%
Brazil
1,995
26%
22%
United States
1,268
18%
10%
Brazil
9,164
16%
Australia
1,404
18%
65%
Russia
1,084
16%
45%
EU-27
8,144
14%
United States
753
10%
6%
Japan
673
10%
57%
Chinaa
6,131
10%
India
652
9%
27%
EU-27
553
8%
6%
Argentina
3,225
5%
New Zealand
515
7%
82%
Mexico
406
6%
16%
India
2,442
4%
Argentina
478
6%
15%
South Korea
302
4%
57%
Mexico
2,216
4%
Canada
476
6%
37%
Venezuela
253
4%
38%
Australia
2,166
4%
Uruguay
373
5%
66%
Egypt
249
4%
42%
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%
World
6,978
100%
13%
12%
Source: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Production, Supply and Demand (PSD) database, August 12, 2009, Data Release.
Notes: Totals include only those countries that make up USDAs official PSD database. This means totals do not encompass total global production, consumption, and
trade, but rather the sum of those countries reported in USDAs 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.
CRS-44
China includes Hong Kong data.
Table B-5. Global Pork Production and Trade Rankings by Country

(data are carcass-weight averages for calendar years 2007 and 2008)
Production
Rank
Country
1,000
mt
Exports
% of
Prod.
Country
1,000
mt
Imports
% of
Exp.
% of
Dom
Prod.
Country
% of
Dom
Cons.
1,000
mt
% of
Imp.
1,239
23%
50%
Chinaa
44,639
46%
United States
1,771
31%
17%
Japan
EU-27
22,694
23%
EU-27
1,501
27%
7%
Russia
974
18%
33%
United States
10,281
11%
Canada
1,081
19%
57%
China
638
12%
1%
Brazil
3,003
3%
Brazil
678
12%
23%
Mexico
493
9%
32%
Russia
1,985
2%
China
287
5%
1%
South Korea
439
8%
29%
Canada
1,907
2%
Chile
145
3%
28%
United States
408
7%
5%
Vietnam
1,841
2%
Mexico
86
2%
7%
Canada
183
3%
18%
Japan
1,250
1%
Australia
51
1%
14%
Ukraine
160
3%
22%
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
0%
2%
Croatia
50
1%
46%
12
Taiwan
910
1%
Croatia
0%
4%
Angola
50
1%
61%
13
Ukraine
575
1%
Taiwan
0%
0%
EU-27
45
1%
0%
14
Chile
511
1%
South Africa
0%
0%
Philippines
36
1%
3%
15
Australia
367
0%
Norway
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%
World
5,502
100%
6%
6%
Source: USDA, FAS, PSD data base, August 12, 2009 Data Release
a.
CRS-45
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
Rank
Country
1,000
mt
Exports
% of
Prod.
Country
1,000
mt
Imports
% of
Exp.
% of
Dom
Prod.
Country
1,000
mt
% of
Imp.
% of
Dom
Cons.
United States
19,123
26%
Brazil
3,278
38%
29%
Russia
1,268
16%
46%
Chinaa
11,620
16%
United States
3,196
38%
17%
EU-27
784
10%
8%
Brazil
11,153
15%
EU-27
812
10%
8%
Japan
717
9%
37%
EU-27
10,215
14%
Thailand
340
4%
29%
China
706
9%
4%
Mexico
2,759
4%
China
322
4%
3%
Mexico
625
8%
23%
India
2,365
3%
Canada
73
2%
15%
Saudi Arabia
490
6%
47%
Russia
1,505
2%
Argentina
145
2%
11%
UAE
264
3%
91%
Iran
1,424
2%
Kuwait
65
1%
149%
Venezuela
258
3%
25%
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
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%
World
7,866
100%
11%
11%
Source: USDA, FAS, PSD data base, August 12, 2009 Data Release
a.
CRS-46
Author Contact Information

Joel L. Greene
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
jgreene@crs.loc.gov, 7-9877
Acknowledgments
Earlier versions of this report were written by Geoffrey S. Becker and Randy Schnepf.
47

What Is Animal Identification System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is Animal Identification System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is Animal Identification System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Animal Identification and Traceability:

Overview and Issues

Congressional Research Service

CRS Report for Congress

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Most Recent Developments

Initial Steps for Animal Disease Traceability

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Highlights of Current Thinking on Traceability

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Overview of Animal Disease Costs

Resultant Livestock Cull

3.7 million cattle

3.8 million hogs

Classical swine feverc

Entire poultry population of HK

Classical swine fever

Cattle, Sheep, Swine

10 million cattle, hogs, & sheep

~250 million poultry

Source: Compiled by CRS from various sources.

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Table 2. U.S. Meat Exports, Ranked by Country of Destination

Beef and Veal

Source: USDA, ERS, FATUS Export Aggregations.

What Is Animal ID?

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Source: Assembled by CRS.

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Pros and Cons of an Animal ID System

Proponents Claimed Benefits10

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Opponents Claimed Criticisms

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Development of a National Animal ID System

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

Congressional Research Service

Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues

prioritizing implementation by species/sectors, taking into account where the

harmonizing animal ID programs;