|
| |
Iowa Farmer Today – Thursday – December
7, 2006
NAIS Debate: Voluntary vs. mandatory
By Jeff DeYoung
Livestock producers will be able to
choose whether they participate in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS),
but the debate continues on USDA’s decision to make it voluntary rather than
mandatory.
Ron Plain, Extension ag economist at the University of Missouri, says while a
voluntary system should keep trading partners happy, it does not completely
address the animal safety issue.
“When (former USDA) Secretary Ann
Veneman first brought this up in December 2003, after the first report of BSE
(mad-cow disease), disease containment was the issue,” he says.
“But, now you also have the marketing issue. The meat industry wants to be able
to trace back if there is a problem.
“It’s really difficult to figure out how to implement this proposed system that
will accomplish all these goals.”
But, all indications are the NAIS will remain voluntary. The Bush administration
announced Nov. 22 it would not seek to make it mandatory for producers to
register for the program.
concerns with trust and confidentiality
issues, and those mirror industry concerns, says John Clifford, deputy
administrator for USDA-APHIS veterinary services.
“There was a lot of concern from the private sector, and the department has made
a decision that we think can make a voluntary program successful,” he says.
“But, it’s important for the producers and other industry stakeholders to fully
understand the benefit of this program, to protect their livelihood, their
markets and their neighbors.”
Clifford believes a voluntary program will make foreign trading partners feel
comfortable about product safety. He says several other livestock-related
identification programs, such as those for brucellosis and pseudorabies, should
have many producers feeling comfortable with a national system.
“We already have these systems in place with our disease-eradication programs,”
Clifford says. “NAIS builds on those systems.”
Most livestock producers are involved in an animal-identification program, notes
Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA in Billings, Mont. He says making registration
mandatory in a national system would not benefit the livestock industry.
“When this first started in December 2003, it was an animal-health issue, and
then it evolved into a marketing issue,” Bullard says. “We do not support a
mandatory program of any kind, at least not how it has been developed by USDA.”
Bullard says many of his organization’s members are already involved in
voluntary disease-eradication programs, primarily for brucellosis.
He suggests the USDA continue to fund these voluntary programs and to expand any
surveillance programs into states not currently vaccinating for brucellosis.
“To us, that’s really the first logical step to take in controlling potential
animal disease outbreaks,” Bullard says.
Plain says trading partners should be comfortable with a voluntary program.
New regulations that have been put into place with the beef industry since the
December 2003 BSE announcement have resulted in the re-opening of most export
markets, including Japan and South Korea this year.
But, Plain quickly adds the longer the process is drawn out, the more difficult
it will be for the USDA to get producers to come on board.
“Every day that goes by and the more we are removed from Dec. 23, 2003, it’s
going to get tougher,” he says. “We’ve done a lot of planning, but almost three
years later, some are starting to believe it is not such a big deal after all.
Even though it’s going to remain voluntary, you are going to have producers who
take a look at it and decide not to participate.”
Clifford says livestock producers realize the importance of being able to
quickly move on animal identification if there is a disease outbreak. “We need
to continue to make good progress, and we are building a system that will work,”
he says “It’s just a matter now of getting the producers to participate.”
http://www.iowafarmer.com/articles/2006/12/07/top_stories/04nais04.txt
|
