Stop Mandatory Electronic Identification (EID)

The mandatory electronic ID rule threatens to vertically integrate the cattle industry – a development that occurred long ago within the poultry and pork industries. USDA can use this new requirement to regulate independent farmers and ranchers into the ground.

The Food Freedom Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, has established an EID Litigation Fund to support efforts to stop implementation of a rule issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) requiring mandatory electronic ID for cattle and bison in interstate commerce to track U.S. livestock movement under the guise of animal health traceability; the rule went into effect on November 5, 2024.  The importance of stopping the rule can’t be overstated.

Many of the nation’s small- and mid-size ranchers operate at a loss already; the cost of the electronic ID system imposes a further and unnecessary economic burden on them. Small farmers and ranchers will have to pay many times more for the electronic ID than they did for the metal tags; by contrast, the rule provides a loophole that allows big corporate-owned herds to be grouped and tagged as one group, generating a substantial savings for the large corporations.   

The rule on mandatory EID for cattle and bison is only the first step for USDA in regulating animal traceability.  In its press release on the final rule, USDA stated that it is “committed to implementing a modern animal disease traceability system that tracks [all] animals from birth to slaughter…” [1]

Under the animal disease traceability framework in place from 2013 until November 5th, many forms of ID were officially recognized including tags, brands, tattoos, breed registry certificates; low-tech ID has worked well and there is no scientific reason to change it. 

Although USDA claims the rule is about animal health, it does nothing to prevent or treat disease. Nor will RFID tags make our animals healthier. USDA continues to allow imports of livestock from countries with known disease problems. The EID plan is primarily designed to maximize corporate profits by promoting exports and imports of animals and meat – further increasing the risk of introducing and spreading diseases.

USDA hasn’t provided any data to show how it will significantly increase traceback – the agency simply assumes electronic systems will be faster, even though the experience in other countries, such as Australia, does not support this.

USDA’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has admitted that in order to achieve the benefits associated with electronic ID, the technology (e.g., readers, software, and databases) must be in place along the entire production chain to capture the official identification numbers and movement of animals in real-time to be of value for the industry.

In issuing its final rule, APHIS conceded, “The official identification requirement does not require a producer to have hardware [readers] or software [computer systems].  Readers and software are not required because each EID tag also has a visual component. The tag reader is imprinted on the shell containing the EID portion of the tag. The tags can be used in the same manner as visual tags by producers who do not wish to invest in tag-reading, hardware and software.”  This raises the question: if the EID software only has to be used visually, why can’t the other previously permissible forms of visual ID be used as well?

‍

Citings

[1] Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). (2024, April 26). APHIS Bolsters Animal Disease Traceability in the United States. (press release). https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/agency-announcements/aphis-bolsters-animal-disease-traceability-united-states

‍

LEARN MORE

Read "The Threat of Forced Electronic Animal ID"

‍

‍