FOOD

Animal Identification
Does Not Equal Food Safety
Fact Sheet • July 2009

C onsumers get a lot of information about the things they buy, whether it’s
monitoring the progress of a package making its way across the country or the
label in a shirt that says where the fabric was made and the final product assembled.

So should consumers expect any less when it comes to Many farmers and ranchers don’t want anything to do with
food? Everything from public opinion polls to the explo- this program because industry and the USDA seem intent
sive growth of programs that connect consumers directly to on taking tracking to a ridiculous level, with the potential
farmers show that consumers don’t want mystery meat — to force small farmers to track every chicken, or require
they want to know what they’re eating and whether it is safe.someone who keeps a horse or a couple of goats to regis-
ter them with the government. To make matters worse,
Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the rules for the program are geared towards the largest
and big meat companies are trying to use consumers as producers, who use confinement and other methods that
their cover for pushing a livestock tracking system that make animals easier to track and benefit from economies
could permanently change the structure of the meat indus- of scale for purchasing electronic tracking devices and
try, and not for the better. equipment. USDA estimates show that among livestock
producers that don’t currently tag their beef cattle, the
The tracking program is the National Animal Identifica- smallest producers — those with less than 50 head of cattle
tion System (NAIS), a registry for livestock and for the — would incur the highest costs.
premises where animals live or visit. The stated purpose
of the system is to aid government responses to outbreaks USDA and the meat industry — while always officially
of animal disease, and pressure for the program increased careful to characterize NAIS as an animal health program
after the discovery of mad cow disease in the United — tend to invoke improving meat safety as a selling point
States. Supporters of the program point to a demand for for the program. But NAIS does not offer consumers any
“traceability” by export customers in countries like Japan assurances of food safety.
and Korea. Right now, the federal government says the
program is voluntary, but some states have forced livestock Why NAIS Doesn’t Mean Safer Meat
producers into the system against their will, and state gov-
ernments and trade associations are putting tremendous Tracking Ends at the Slaughterhouse. As recalls
pressure on producers to sign up. of millions of pounds of meat become a regular feature
of the nightly news, a tracking system might seem worth
the effort. But the tracking capability of NAIS stops at the
slaughterhouse, so it doesn’t help the government or retail-
ers track contaminated meat back to its source.

Consumer groups have actually been calling on USDA for

years to do a better job tracing what happens to meat when
it leaves the slaughterhouse and goes out to thousands
of smaller plants to be ground into hamburger or further
processed. Contamination with E. coli happens during
the slaughter process. So when contamination is found at
plants that don’t slaughter animals, but only process meat,
chances are that there is other product out there that came
from the same source and might be contaminated. But
USDA often refuses to trace back to the slaughtering plant,
even though the agency already has the authority to do so.
Focus on Response Instead of Prevention. Dis-
eases like mad cow disease, avian influenza or tuberculo-
sis not only have a tremendous economic impact for the
meat industry, but could also put consumers at risk. But
NAIS is only intended to respond to these diseases — not
prevent them.

State and federal disease prevention programs already

exist for animal diseases. Others, like avian influenza
and mad cow disease, are tied to practices used by large
industrialized operations that confine thousands of ani-
mals together and use feed that has been tied to mad cow
disease. Ironically, while USDA and the beef industry
devoted a lot of effort to reassuring consumers after mad
cow disease was discovered in the United States in 2003,
many of the practices that could strengthen prevention Track Contaminated Meat. If USDA wants to track
efforts, such as testing cattle for the disease and enforcing something that is useful to consumers, it should track con-
rules for removal of risky materials from cattle carcasses, taminated meat. The agency should make it a priority to
are still not in place. conduct trace-back investigations when adulterated meat is
found through testing at processing plants or because con-
Puts Small Producers at a Disadvantage. More
sumers get sick. The agency needs to be more aggressive in
and more consumers are looking for meat and poultry pro-
making sure that all the potentially contaminated product
duced without growth hormones, antibiotics, or thousands
gets taken out of commerce, not just the small amount that
of animals being confined together. Often it is small,
may have been found in one downstream plant.
independent producers who are meeting this consumer
demand. But these are the farmers and ranchers most Focus on Prevention, Not Just Response. There
likely to suffer under the NAIS program. are lots of things USDA can do to prevent animal diseases,
ranging from increasing the amount of testing done for
No Consumer Information. While USDA has spent
mad cow disease, ending the import of high-risk cattle
years and hundreds of millions of dollars promoting a
from Canada, and funding existing state and federal ani-
program many farmers and ranchers have no interest in
mal health programs. The agency should also research the
joining, agency leadership has been sabotaging a program
risks of animal disease posed by different types of livestock
that consumers and producers have worked for years to
production and should crack down on factory farms with
get – country-of-origin labeling (COOL). The agency has
conditions that are ripe for spreading animal diseases like
used every tactic at its disposal, including inflating cost
avian flu.
estimates and abusing its discretion in rulemaking, to
undermine the mandate from the last two farm bills for Close Loopholes in COOL. Right now, USDA’s stan-
mandatory country-of-origin labeling on meat and poultry. dards for mandatory country-of-origin labeling allow lots
COOL benefits consumers every time they shop. NAIS of pork and other meat to go without labeling because it is
does not. considered to be “processed” and therefore exempt. USDA
should tighten its rule so that labeling requirements cover
There Are Better Ways for USDA to more types of meat.
Spend Our Money
The NAIS program is so fatally flawed that it helps no one
If USDA was as devoted to protecting consumer health except corporate livestock companies.  Instead of offering
as it seems to be to promoting NAIS, the agency would any assurance to consumers, NAIS forces family famers
be spending its effort and its money on different things. into a program that many object to and few can afford. It’s
Instead of continuing to promote a failed program, USDA time for USDA to stop trying to force farmers and ranchers
should: into a broken program, and devote its resources to prevent-
ing animal disease and enforcing food safety standards.
Enforce Standards At Slaughterhouses. USDA
needs to make sure that the ranks of USDA meat inspec-
tors are filled and that inspectors are able to enforce sani-
tation rules and standards for pathogens like E. coli and
Salmonella. And the agency should make sure that rules For more information:
for removing risky nervous system materials from cattle web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org
are properly enforced in slaughterhouses to make sure that email: info@fwwatch.org
any undetected cases of mad cow disease don’t spread to phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA)
people.
Copyright © July 2009 Food & Water Watch