A few weeks ago, MyEquineNetwork.com posted some information about NAIS, the often controversial project that’s been a bone of contention among some horse owners. Passionate reactions were received within minutes from readers on both sides of the fence, many expressing real fear about the impact of NAIS and all the things that might come with it.
In an attempt to cut through the fog of misinformation and just get to the facts, Kathryn Brim, Editor of MyEquineNetwork.com, asked me to track down people representing all sides of the argument and ask them to calmly and rationally explain themselves. With some help from a few people who know about these things, I found Karin Bergener and Judith McGreary, horse-owners and members of Libertyark.com, an organization that is definitely anti-NAIS.”
Taking a more centrist position is Dr. Jim Morehead of the American Association of Equine Practitioners. During my conversation, he made a point of telling me several times that he and the organization are neither for nor against NAIS. Their rightful position is to cut through the smoke and put accurate and unbiased information about the program in the hands of AAEP members. “It would be up to them to make up their minds about the program,” he said.
Dr. Morehead is also involved with the Equine Species Working Group, which was formed to review and evaluate the possible role of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) within the Equine Industry., according to their web site. The group’s expressed purpose is to help people who are just learning about NAIS and ‘address their concerns and questions, clarify the purposes of the national identification system and its potential benefits, and explain how the horse industry is responding and what this program means to horse owners and breeders.’
To make sure that what each of them said was what they really wanted to say – no ambush or ‘gotcha’ journalism or second thoughts about how a particular point was expressed, I emailed the questions to each of them and asked that they think through their responses carefully. Indeed, after reading their first draft, Bergener and McGreary asked for a few more days to polish their answers. To be fair, everyone received essentially the same questions, altered only slightly to get to the core of their position on the issue.
When they were ‘all in,’ I knitted their responses together to make it easier to compare and contrast their points-of-view.
LIbertyark.com’s Karin Bergener, M.S., J.D., PMP, is an attorney and business person from Northeast Ohio. She has worked as a therapist, mediator, arbitrator, lawyer, and now information technology contract manager. She raises chickens and ducks and, an important qualifier for this story, she owns a horse.
Judith McGreary is also an attorney who lives in Austin, Texas. She has a B.S. in Biology from Stanford University and a J.D. with high honors from The University of Texas at Austin. McGreary began her legal career by clerking for the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since then, her practice has focused on environmental law, commercial litigation, and appeals. She and her husband also run a small organic farm, with horses, cow, sheep, and poultry, based on the principles of holistic resource management.
Dr. Jim Morehead is with the American Association of Equine Practitioners, headquartered at the Kentucky Horse Park in Lexington, Ky. It’s a non-profit organization dedicated to the health and welfare of the horse. Currently, the AAEP reaches more than 5 million horse owners through its nearly 9,000 members worldwide and is actively involved in ethics issues, practice management, research and continuing education in the equine veterinary profession and horse industry.
Karin and Judith, the government’s definition of what NAIS is has changed since its inception. After conducting extensive listening sessions and reviewing the feedback, voluntary is the current term used by the USDA. Clearly, you don’t trust them to keep it that way. What are the reasons for your mistrust?
Karin: Unfortunately, the listening sessions have been advertised mainly in publications directed toward industrial agriculture. These aren’t publications small farmers, horse owners or the general public would typically read, so they didn’t know about or attend these sessions. We know that many of the people who will be affected by NAIS still have not had the chance to participate and comment.
Our lack of trust is warranted based on the USDA’s current tactics. While describing NAIS as voluntary at the federal level, the USDA has shifted its efforts to promoting implementation at the state level. This allows the USDA to proclaim its innocence without altering its original intent of forcing everyone who owns even one livestock animal into NAIS.
Let me describe what is happening: USDA is funding states that have implemented mandatory portions of NAIS, such as Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan. USDA is also offering funding to other states provided they show progress in premises registration, which is the first prong of NAIS. The annual Cooperative Agreements between the states and the federal government define the number of farms that must be registered in the premises registration database by each state in order to receive the federal funding. In 2008, the USDA intensified their requirements and, for the first time, will require states to achieve mid-year performance targets to receive continued funding even for that year.
Many states’ programs have budget constraints, so access to federal funding is important to them. What’s disturbing is how states are meeting these performance targets. A number of states involuntarily enrolled farmers who participate in other animal health programs, such as scrapie or Coggins testing, by taking the data they provided for the health program and placing it into the NAIS database without the farmers’ permission. These states then reported these “registrations” as “voluntary.” The USDA specifically stated that it would fund these kinds of data mined registrations.
Other tactics have been directed at our children. Examples include offering to pay $10 to each 4-Her who gets his or her parents to register their farm, or making premises registration a requirement to participate in 4-H programs or in livestock shows at the County or State Fair.
Some states have required registration for critical agricultural assistance. When hay became scarce during the recent severe drought in North Carolina, the state purchased and trucked in hay to be sold at cost to farmers. But to take advantage of this hay, farmers first had to register their farms in the NAIS database. Although described as “voluntary,” in truth these underhanded tactics coerce desperate people to go along with something in order to save their animals.
Judith: The USDA statement is that NAIS is “voluntary at the federal level.” Not only can USDA change its position at any time, but, as Karin’s examples clearly show, “voluntary at the federal level” does not mean “voluntary for real people.”
The newest Business Plan from the USDA (dated December 2007) includes provisions that show that USDA supports coercive measures for implementing NAIS.
The Business Plan calls for equine organizations and associations to implement NAIS-compliant electronic identification technology by January 2009, and that sets a goal of having 90% of “horses that move to events” identified. Covered horses are any horses that require a health certificate or a Coggins test. Since several states require a Coggins test for pretty much every horse, that makes the scope of the program extremely broad. The Business Plan also includes a plan to make Coggins testing mandatory nationwide any time a horse is sold, which would force yet more people into NAIS.
It’s hard to believe the government can get 90% of horse owners to voluntarily register their property in a federal database and identify their horses with a specific type of microchip in less than one year without using mandatory or coercive tactics. A close reading of the Business Plan provides clues as to how this might happen. For example, the Plan discusses having breed registries require Animal Identification Numbers (AIN's).
Premises registration (obtaining a Premises Identification Number, or PIN) is required before an Animal Identification Number can be issued, so this second prong of NAIS will require horse owners to register their farms as well.
While it may be voluntary for a breed registry to decide whether to require NAIS, it is not voluntary for the animal owners who utilize a registry that requires NAIS. A coercive choice between being forced to participate in a government program to which one objects or having unregistered animals – which can have severe economic consequences - is not truly voluntary.
It’s interesting that, even though NAIS is allegedly a voluntary program, both state agencies and the pro-NAIS industry groups have opposed bills to limit NAIS to a truly voluntary program. Actions speak much louder than words.
Dr. Morehead, let me ask a similar question -The government’s definition of what NAIS is has changed since its inception. After conducting extensive listening sessions and reviewing the feedback, voluntary is the current term used by the USDA. Can a purely voluntary program gain enough adherents to make it workable?
Before you can understand what is being proposed by the USDA you must understand what is required today in the horse business. Currently for a horse to be transported across state lines or move internationally or gain access to certain events (fairs, racetracks, horseshows), the owner must obtain a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) that accompanies the horse in the transportation.
This CVI requires a negative Coggins test for equine infectious anemia. Owner information and premises of origin and destination are recorded on the CVI and this information is stored at the state veterinarian’s office.
My point in explaining where we are today is that even now we do not have a purely voluntary system in place. In the proposed system there will still be requirements for horses moving across state lines and internationally and truly the biggest difference is a form of permanent identification.
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) proposed by the USDA requires some form of permanent I.D. and the USDA sought input from the Equine Species Working Group (ESWG). This ESWG, representing each of the breed registries and several associated groups, was formed to offer advice to the USDA so as to minimize any negative effects that the NAIS might have on the horse industry. The ESWG has recommended microchips as the most practical means of permanent identification as they have been used in horses for many years both in this country and abroad.
In the equine industry, participation will be more likely in those horses traveling for competitive events, such as racing and showing, and those traveling across state lines. The population of horses required to obtain a CVI currently will also be required to obtain one in the NAIS. The voluntary program refers to those individuals wishing to register their horse with the NAIS outside of the requirements for travel or competition.
Karin and Judith, there is some opposition among many Ag groups and other owners of animals. It seems the strongest dissension comes from horse owners. What is it about NAIS that has created so much opposition from the equine side of the table?
Judith: Horses are not part of the food chain in this country and are not susceptible to many of the diseases, such as Foot & Mouth, that are of the greatest concern to the rest of the livestock industry. Most of the diseases listed by the Equine Species Working Group as diseases of concern for horses are either not very dangerous or do not exist in this country. Pro-NAIS people like to argue that horses can carry disease spores on their hides and hooves, and spread disease to other livestock. But the same argument applies to humans, who can carry disease spores on their shoes and clothes. Most people object to the idea of microchipping and tracking every human!
Many horse owners also object to being required to put a foreign object in their horse’s body, especially in light of studies indicating that the microchips may cause an increased risk of cancer. The government has not conducted any studies on the long-term health effects to these microchips. It’s one thing if people choose to take that risk; it’s another for the government to require it.
Karin: Horse owners are shocked by the number of events that would need to be recorded. Horses move extensively. It’s not unusual for a horse owner to go on at least one trail ride a week, and take a lesson or got to a team penning event, or similar activity. This could mean 100 reports a year per horse owner! Although the Equine Species Working Group has recommended that existing means of tracking, such as health certificates, be used instead of 24-hour reporting, the USDA is not bound by that recommendation. And if the states expand the health certificate requirements under USDA pressure – as was proposed in Kentucky a year ago – the effect would be the same.
Also, the failure of the mainstream horse magazines and other periodicals to adequately inform their readers about NAIS has left horse owners with a steep learning curve, and wondering why they weren’t warned earlier. When they learned about USDA’s intent to convince breed registries to establish NAIS, many horse owners felt betrayed by the organizations they count on to help them build their equine businesses. When you couple this with the heavy reporting duties NAIS would put on horse owners, people are outraged. Horse owners are certainly vocal, although other owners of livestock, including many cattle ranchers, are also up in arms about NAIS.
Dr. Morehead, what’s your response?
Clearly there is opposition from some sectors of the horse industry, primarily the recreational and “back-yard” horse owners. Opposition to the NAIS is not limited to groups within the equine industry. A large amount of misunderstanding, misinformation and miscommunication about the NAIS is being spread throughout the industry and is a leading cause of much of the opposition.
Everyone may not be in favor of the NAIS and it’s goal to protect this country’s agriculture base, but being educated about the program requires some reading and effort to get educated while negative vocalizing without an understanding of the plan does not benefit anyone involved, including agriculture.
Dr. Morehead, Let’s look at the various parts of an NAIS program from registration, to chipping, to notifying some government or non-government organization about animal movement. If a horse owner decides to join the program, what are the steps he must take?
The first basic step is for the horse owner to register their premises through their state department of agriculture. This can be the first step or it can be the only step the owner takes. If the owner wants to participate in the animal identification part of the program, they will need their premises registered beforehand.
Permanent identification is required by the NAIS for animal identification and the microchip is the official permanent identification form. And finally, if they want to participate in tracking movements with a CVI, they must have an official premises number and animal identification numbers. Besides registering their premises the owner would not be required to do any additional reporting.
Karin and Judith, is there any part that program that might be acceptable to you
Karin: I would support only a program that is completely voluntary, privately funded, and not managed by any government agency. Anything else will grow, as all government run programs do, and be able to use the coercive measures I just described. If industry organizations want to set up a source verification system, and fund it through their own income, that is fine.
Yet even that sort of system could be used by agriculture giants to reduce competition. If the industry giants require electronic source verification, people become accustomed to such a program and even accept it as inevitable. It’s then easier to make one small step to include horses, for instance by having all vets require animal identification and premises registration numbers. It would take real vigilance to ensure that government funding didn’t sneak back into even a voluntary program.
Judith: I’d start by asking a question in return: what is the scientific basis for any portion of the program? Where is the evidence that registration, chipping, and reporting will provide benefits above and beyond the existing methods for tracking animals? So far, no one has provided anything other than feel-good claims without support. The next step would be to determine the costs, both to the animal owners and taxpayers.
Cost assessments must include the cost in time and paperwork, as well as the out of pocket expenses. And then we’d have to compare the expected benefits and costs, and weigh factors such as the intrusion into people’s privacy and liberty – intangibles that are important to us all. Everything I’ve seen so far indicates that no portion of NAIS provides benefits that would outweigh the tangible and intangible costs.
Dr. Morehead, let's break down the arguments about NAIS to the finer points and separate fact from fiction. For the average horse owner, what are the pros and cons
The intent of the NAIS is to control disease outbreaks and prevent further spread of disease. By doing this the NAIS should allow equine commerce to continue ‘around’ an outbreak and prevent quarantines of larger scale to accomplish the same result.
Permanent identification of horses should expedite recovery of those displaced during natural disasters, theft, or accidents. The negative side of the NAIS includes the costs and administrative requirements associated with the program.
Karin and Judith, with any new program, there are always those that stand to profit and those that will be ‘out-of-pocket.’ Let’s take the money factor out of the argument for a moment and just look at the other benefits and liabilities. NAIS has been promoted as a program that can help combat the spread of animal diseases and bioterrorism. Phrases such as “locate in 48” are often used to describe the advantage of tracing back any problems within two days. Those two points are seen as major advantages by proponents. What’s your take?
Judith: It’s the magic of smoke and mirrors. Again, I would ask what’s the scientific basis for these supposed advantages? Where’s the evidence that current tracking mechanisms are insufficient or that NAIS will be better than the current systems?
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) did a detailed analysis of the risk of agroterrorism, focusing on livestock diseases. As the report noted, whether the disease is accidentally or intentionally introduced, the issues are the same. The GAO reports several challenges that would limit our country’s ability to deal with an outbreak, such as the failure to use rapid diagnostic testing and a failure to train most veterinarians in foreign animal diseases. The GAO listed nine separate problems that the US needed to address in order to protect us against widespread livestock disease outbreaks. But it did not even mention tracking as a potential failure or an issue that needed improvement.
If improvement is needed, the next question is whether NAIS will be better than the current systems. Reports from Australia, where animal tracking has been implemented, indicate their databases are in chaos. The USDA’s own pilot projects reveal a range of problems, from technological problems to many people’s lack of access to computers and the internet.
While the so-called benefits seem to be illusions, the liabilities are real. Aside from money, NAIS will impose many other costs on animal owners. There will be time and reporting burdens, and also government intrusion into people’s lives. Since our horses don’t move themselves, adopting NAIS means we report not only our horses’ movements but our own activities to the government. Something is very wrong with subjecting ourselves to a level of surveillance generally reserved for sex offenders.
Karin: We’ve requested the scientific studies establishing that a 48-hour traceback will combat disease and bioterrorism, and not one has been produced. The UK had a traceback program in place as of 1999 and yet millions of animals were killed in the 2000 outbreak of Foot & Mouth. The tracking program also didn't prevent the release of Foot &Mouth again just last year from a government lab. So it did not help control disease. It did help destroy herds.
As to bioterrorism, the probability that a terrorist is going to go after my 20 chickens on my 2-acre farm is far-fetched. Large confinement operations are a more likely target. There are also security issues with the types of tags selected for implementing NAIS in cattle. The tags are reprogrammable, which would allow a terrorist to insert an infected or contaminated cow into a herd or feedlot. How could a program that claims to improve security use a reprogrammable ID tag?
In truth, NAIS was conceived in the 1980s and the basic design was scoped out in 1994, long before 9/11 or reports of mad cow and avian flu. As the political winds have shifted over several decades, the rationale for NAIS has also varied, from control of disease, to protecting against terrorism, to providing a marketing advantage. This brings us back to NAIS not being based on science.
We also have concerns about the databases. No one has ever managed a database of this size. There are approximately 9 million horses in this country. Conservatively estimate that they will make 25 reports a year on average (assuming trail rides, lessons, shows, farrier or vet visits, etc. are reportable), that would mean hundreds of millions of reports each year! Now, add the billions of chickens (yes, billions), 100 million cattle, 9 million sheep and goats, etc., and you’ll see what we’re talking about.
Even when the database was supposed to be one database, not a combination of 50 state databases, people thought it unmanageable. And what if owners make mistakes keying in the 15 digit animal ID when they make reports? Then, the data won’t match reality. There have been terrible stories out of Australia and the UK of people losing herds of animals because a few of the animals’ tag numbers didn’t match the database. The government assumed the database was right, and confiscated the animals, then killed them.
Can we be sure the data will be confidential or secure? Of course, the answer is No! We all know databases are vulnerable to mistakes, hackers or perhaps terrorists. The USDA accidentally published tens of thousands of farmer’s social security numbers on its website. Hackers break into systems every day. Placing data that describes the entire livestock supply of the United States in one place may be a great asset for terrorists.
Judith: When you talk about bioterrorism and agriculture, the underlying issue is food security. Having a variety of food sources is vital to our security. We’re told to “diversify our investments” to have monetary security. To have food security, we should diversify our food system. Small farmers and people who raise food for themselves will be driven out by the cost and the burdens of NAIS. So NAIS will have a negative effect on our security by increasing centralization and consolidation of agriculture.
Dr. Morehead, let’s talk about the money. I’ve heard many dollar figures thrown around, from a dollar or two per animal to major, bank-breaking investments. What’s the real number as you see it? And what's the payback?
The cost depends on the level of participation. If a horse owner just participates in the premises registration, there would be no cost. If they are part of the animal identification step, costs will be incurred with the microchip and the veterinary fee for implantation. Microchip costs range from $5-20 and veterinary fees will depend on the area of the country and availability of veterinary services.
The payback for having permanent identification of horses can be seen most recently during horse recovery efforts associated with Hurricane Katrina and the wildfires in southern California . Horses have been permanently identified with microchips in Louisiana for years and are required by the state for every horse tested for Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA) with a Coggins test. Should this system result in the efficient traceback of an infectious disease outbreak which allows agricultural shipping to continue then the payback will be worth the investment.
Judith, do you agree with those numbers?
I’ve seen realistic numbers that place the costs at $37 or more per animal on average. With approximately 100 million cattle, 9 million horses, and millions of sheep, goats, pigs, llamas, alpacas, and other livestock and poultry animals, NAIS could easily cost US animal owners and taxpayers several billion dollars. The actual costs to any individual will depend on how they manage their animals, the size of the herd, and other factors, all of which could mean costs significantly higher than $37.
Horse owners are likely to experience much higher costs, because of the expense of having veterinarians implanting microchips. The Equine Species Working Group has recommended that horses be identified with a microchip implanted into the nuchal ligament of the neck. Damaging that ligament can cripple a horse for life, so most horse owners would need the assistance of a veterinarian. That cost alone can be up to $100, and that doesn’t include the ongoing costs of the program – the reporting – after the microchip is inserted.
A cost estimate of NAIS should include:
(1) the costs of setting up the premises registration databases and enrolling people, including the costs of the computers, software, and additional government employees;
(2) the cost of the tag;
(3) the time cost of applying a tag to each animal;
(4) the time cost of recording each movement;
(5) the loss of weight or conditions in animal due to extra handling;
(6) the expense of filing the reports for movements, taking into consideration that the databases will be privately run by companies who expect to make a profit.
Some of these costs may be disguised, as has happened by the USDA using our tax dollars to set up the premises registration databases. But nothing is free. The claim that NAIS will cost only a few dollars per animal is absurd. Cattle tags alone cost several dollars each, even when bought in large quantities. So people who claim it would cost only a few dollars apparently believe NAIS involves nothing more than buying a tag and tossing it into a drawer.
If there is a clear cut division of opinion on NAIS, it’s between larger agri-business operations and small ranchers and farmers, especially those that can be described as hobbyists. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone who owns a few horses, for instance, speak out strongly for the program. Can you talk about the points of difference between the two groups?
Judith: While I don’t know any “hobbyists” who would support the program, I don’t see that as the breakdown. The two groups I’ve seen are the animal owners – whether they are pet owners, hobbyists, small farmers, or large ranchers – and the agribusiness entities, many of whom have financial interests in this program. The proponents of NAIS tend to be those who will profit from the program: government bureaucracies that will expand their area of control, microchip and related equipment manufacturers, meat packers who will be able to sell source-verified meat at a premium without paying the costs, and businesses that manage databases. Many of the industry groups, which people assume represent their members, have ties to one or more of these money-interests.
Most people who raise animals – whether as a hobby or as a full-time business – generally look at this program and see something that will cost a lot of money and invade their privacy. NAIS would impact both their lifestyles and their businesses. They deal with animal health every day, and they understand NAIS won’t do a thing to improve the health of their animals.
In contrast, the factory farms and meat packers are already regulated businesses, and privacy isn’t an issue. They’ll also face relatively low costs under NAIS, because the majority of the expense in the tagging and tracking will be done by the animal owners before the animals enter the feedlots and packing houses. Factory swine and poultry farms will get group identification numbers, further reducing the costs for them.
These same entities are the ones interested in the export market and the premiums that source-verified animals will bring to them. With NAIS, they get an unlimited supply of source verified animals without paying premiums to the people who actually raise the animals and do the work, while undermining the growing competition from the local and sustainable foods movement.
Karin: And, if we put aside that the agribusiness entities have financial interests, and accept that it might have some value for marketing beef overseas, even that doesn’t support the program. Most cattle ranchers say, “I’m not selling overseas, so I shouldn’t have to do this.” If agribusiness wants more ranchers to track their animals for the export market, let them pay the true costs in a private, voluntary program.
Final question for Dr. Morehead - What is the position AAEP takes on NAIS?
The American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) has been represented at the discussion table since the program was proposed. The AAEP supports the efforts of the ESWG in trying to resolve this issue to the benefit of the horse.
