Spending bill's 'trojan horse' - RFID livestock tagging may lead to cattle limits

A stealth maneuver to require electronic cattle tagging?

Did the recently passed 2024 Omnibus spending bill include “trojan horse” agricultural measures that will mean trouble for America's small ranchers? The spending bill, meant to keep the government operating through September 2024, includes $15 million allocated for RFID (radio frequency identification) infrastructure for tagging cattle and bison moving across state lines. Proponents of the measure claim it will improve tracing in cases of livestock diseases.

Bringing to light the stealth maneuver, Law Enforcement Today's Pat Dorney wrote that, 

[m]any people have long warned about items hidden inside 1,000-plus page omnibus spending bills. The devil is in the details.

Culling the herd?

Dorney cited ZeroHedge's report on the bill, which stated that,

the recently passed spending bill in Congress directs $15 million to electronic livestock tracking, stoking fears that the ever-radical government could weaponize this system to limit beef consumption, long a dream of environmental extremists. 

Dorney also cited The Epoch Times's interview with cattle rancher Shad Sullivan who believes the new electronic tags will mean the end for U.S. small ranchers:

“They are going to use it as a taxing mechanism to eventually control the livestock,” Sullivan said. “In the European Union, they used these measures under the guise of climate change lies to limit the cattle supply and if they do that here, it will destroy our industry.” 

In the name of efficiency

As described in the video below, proponents of the electronic tracking system believe it will streamline operations and make life easier.

Resistance

Alexia Kulwiec, an attorney and executive director of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund explained, that Big Tech and Big Agriculture have been trying to implement electronic tagging for decades but have faced too much opposition:

For decades, multinational meatpacking corporations and high-tech companies have pushed mandatory electronic identification for livestock, to promote international trade and maximize the meatpacking companies’ profits. In 2010, the initial proposal for electronic ID was defeated by massive opposition from organic farmers, conventional ranchers, sale-barn owners, homesteaders, and consumers who want to buy from American producers.

The 2013 Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) rule requires that all dairy cattle and adult beef cattle that cross state lines have some form of “official identification.”  The rule specifically provides that people can use either electronic or traditional forms of ID. In 2020, the USDA APHIS issued a mandate that cattle and bison be tagged with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. Following litigation, in March 2021 this mandate was revoked.

In May 2021 KOSU's Jonathan Ahl reported that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) had been unsuccessful in its attempts to compel livestock producers to use electronic ear tags to track their animals. 

The USDA tried in 2019 and 2020 to compel the use of the radio frequency tags by 2023 but backed off due to opposition from a variety of livestock producers. In order to totally quash the measure, he continued, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit alleging that the USDA's information on RFID usage was obtained illegally: 

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Wyoming, alleges the committees the USDA created to get information on RFID usage violated its rulemaking process. Specifically, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) from 2013.

Properly following rule-making procedures would have revealed overwhelming opposition to the rule.

Hageman said following the proper rulemaking process will show the overwhelming opposition to electronic ear tags. . . .

“They said they are going to go through a rulemaking procedure,” Hageman said. “What we’re trying to do stop them from doing is being able to use the work product from these two illegal committees in order to further that effort.”

Deck stacked against ranchers

Rather than creating an impartial committee, the USDA chose committee members who were known to support the measure, stacking the deck in favor of tagging. 

“They handpicked people they knew were in favor of RFID,” said Harriet Hageman, an attorney working on the suit. “We’re going to continue holding them to the law, which is they have to comply with the administrative procedure act.”

Too heavy a burden

Kulwiec detailed the burden the RFID tags would place on those who could least afford them. She argued that “[t]he proposed rule will not improve traceability and will disproportionately harm small ranchers and farmers.” (Original emphasis.) 

The first problem with the rule, which she observed, was that independent ranchers would bear most of the program's costs. A 2009 study showed that tagging would only cost large operations $2.48 per head whereas independent ranchers would pay almost three times as much, or $7.17 per head.

Problems with the Rule
1.  . . . costs of the program will disproportionately be borne by independent producers. A 2006 Kansas State University report found that costs of an RFID-based system are significantly higher for people with smaller herds due to the expense of the electronic infrastructure. USDA’s 2009 analysis affirmed this by finding that significantly greater costs would be imposed on small producers. Specifically, the agency found that large operations would pay $2.48/head as compared to $7.17/head for what the agency termed the “smallest operations.”

The other problem she found with the rule, was that it would not increase livestock traceability. She cited a 2010 Congressional Research Service Report that found that the cattle producer participation in the national animal identification system, which was 18% at the time, was too low to be effective. Yet, the USDA had previously estimated that the new rule would affect only 11% of America's cattle.

2. The Proposed Rule Will not Improve Traceability: USDA-APHIS and multinational corporations claim that the rule will improve disease traceability. Yet the USDA-APHIS previously estimated that the new rule will impact approximately 11 million cattle per year, or only 11% of the cattle in the country. This is in part due to the allowance for group identification described above. In a 2010 Congressional Research Service Report, the CRS noted that 18% participation by cattle producers in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) was too low to be effective, and to respond effectively to animal disease outbreak.

Technical issues

The measure would also increase error rates.

In addition, the proposed rule will be ineffective because of the probable error rate in implementing the program. The proposed rule provides that the EID tags will include visual ID numbers so that they can be read either electronically or visually. Yet error rates that exists with current nine-digit tags will surely increase with the proposed 14-digit codes.

No need

Independent farmers have not had a problem with traceability. So why the need for tags?

Moreover, traceability from independent ranches and farmers has not been found to be a problem. When consumers purchase from their local ranches or farms, they know where the meat is produced and can easily trace any illness back to that producer if necessary (which the USDA has not established is in fact necessary).

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who himself owns livestock, also opposed the measure, in this tweet, shared by Dorney. Massie contends that this is an illegal measure that will be used by climate change proponents to limit beef and by Big Agriculture to small ranchers.

Where's the consumer?

Missing from the discussion is the consumer, whose voice is unheard but also stands to lose if the measure is used to jack up prices for small farmers and contract the beef industry.