Member Alert
To: R-CALF USA Members and Affiliates
From: Bill Bullard, CEO, R-CALF USA
Date: April 13, 2023
Subject: Op-ed by Rep. Hageman: USDA Eartags – A Pricy Solution in Search of a Problem
Background: Below is an opinion editorial by Rep. Hageman (R-Wyo.) regarding the radio frequency identification (RFID) rule.
USDA Eartags – A Pricy Solution in Search of a Problem
by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (WY)
In January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), issued a proposed rule entitled “Use of Electronic Identification Eartags as Official Identification in Cattle and Bison.” This flawed rule equates to nothing less than a centralized mandate on America’s agriculture which community then must also bear the financial and logistical burdens associated with this ill-conceived and unnecessary regulation.
APHIS’s proposed rule would amend the existing animal disease traceability regulations adopted in 2013 to require that eartags be both visually and electronically readable to be recognized for use as official identification for the interstate movement of cattle and bison. As is typically the case with government overreach, there are at least two incorrect and insupportable assumptions at the heart of this proposed rule. The first assumption is that there is a limited burden placed upon ranchers in the implementation of this new mandate. The second is that ranchers do not already have a robust incentive to protect their herd from disease. Ignoring concerns from the ranching community, USDA has barreled ahead in a manner that ignores the interests, expertise, and opposition of America’s ranchers, and to instead enforce mandates developed by D.C. bureaucrats who have never worked cows, taken care of livestock, or tried to make a living in a low-margin industry.
This proposed rule itself exposes its flaws, undermining the very purpose for this burdensome and expensive requirement: “The ability to trace animals accurately and rapidly does not prevent disease epidemics…” This rule does, however, place burdensome and unrealistic regulations on cattle and bison producers, force undue stress on the animals, and carries a heavy price tag that will only grow as technology and requirements change.
The USDA’s additional “justifications” for this federal mandate are both farfetched and contradictory. For example, the proposed rule relies on the notion that errors can occur when recording a non-EID tag on paper and entering it into a database. Surely typos are not a legitimate basis for major federal action and are an unfounded suggestion that ranchers are doing sloppy work. There is also no guarantee of protecting herd, rancher, and veterinarian data – opening the door to potential theft for those intending to discriminate, retaliate, or impose baseless liability claims against domestic cattle producers. Further, this proposed rule does not address the legitimate concerns establishing country of origin. If an animal is born outside the United States, then raised domestically, is this animal tagged with a U.S. code when it reaches adulthood and has lost its official import tag?
When addressing concerns to the EID tag mandate, the USDA cited in response that “the official RFID tags are easily read visually and therefore could be used as they are currently using non-EID tags without the added expense of purchasing reading equipment.” This admission makes no sense in the context of the stated purpose for the rule in the first place as it implies that the old visual system, which APHIS claims is rife with human transcription errors, can continue to be used – just with the use of the new EID tags, which raises numerous questions as to why a $26.1 million dollar price tag should be placed on the ranching community in the first place.
It is obvious that, while the implementation of this rule would provide an outsized benefit to large corporations with the resources and infrastructure to comply, it would not provide similar benefits to the smaller and mid-sized operations. The additional consolidation of power and influence in the hands of a few, at the expense of small and independent farmers and ranchers, is a threat to our entire food supply.
Our livestock producers have implemented the world’s most innovative and advanced practices in relation to animal welfare, animal husbandry, and precision herd health management, while also producing high quality and affordable food. Those facts alone belie the claim that “rapid and accurate recordkeeping for this volume of animals and movement is not achievable without electronic systems.”
It is apparent that the proposed RFID program would invite limitless incremental regulation from other agencies as is evidenced by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s so-called E.S.G. requirements and the Food and Drug Agency’s rules for antibiotic usage (being just two examples of how regulatory mandates begat more and more regulatory mandates, all of which are designed to put the independent and small producer out of business). It will be just one more situation where “government is always trying to fix its last solution.”
Implementation of the proposed rule also constitutes a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The State of Wyoming, for example, has codified into state law a range of identification options that work well for our livestock producers. States’ rights matter.
Our family-owned livestock operations, and independent cattle producers are constantly under threat from market volatility, weather, skyrocketing expenses, and natural predators. It is not the role of regulatory agencies to act as an unnatural predator, attacking their very livelihoods and way of life. The proposed rule is unnecessary, overbearing, and disregards the farmers and ranchers who have repeatedly expressed concerns about the ramifications of implementing of this latest mandate.
I urge the agency to cease its willful and unreasonable disregard of the concerns expressed by our farmers and ranchers who can’t afford to bear the brunt of this newly proposed rule and have no interest in implementing APHIS’s agenda to further the interests of the packers at the expense of the producers. I would also urge stakeholders to make their opinions known to the agency via this link – the comment period is open through April 19th, and you deserve your voice to be heard.
Across the federal government in 2022, agencies finalized more than 260 rules with estimated economic impacts totaling $117.1 billion and 86.2 million new annual hours of paperwork burden. As if that was not costly enough, the administration also proposed 311 rules that, if finalized as is, would add another $191.2 billion. Americans simply can’t afford all the government they get – and it’s time to get government out of the way. This could not be more true than in the context of raising livestock – leave it to the professionals to decide how to manage their herds and keep the bureaucrats out of it.
####
Congresswoman Harriet Hageman is serving her first term as Wyoming’s at-large Member in the U.S. House of Representatives. She serves on the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Committee on Natural Resources.
