King Speaks up For Animal ID Program

KING SPEAKS UP FOR ANIMAL ID PROGRAM

Washington, D.C.-Iowa Congressman Steve King and the House Agriculture Committee today marked-up voluntary country-of-origin labeling (COOL) legislation introduced by the Chairman earlier this summer. King, who opposes implementation of any kind of COOL before implementing an animal identification system, offered an amendment that would allow the USDA to continue to focus on the U.S. Animal Identification Program (USAIP).

Below is the text of the statement King gave before the committee:

Mr. Chairman, this amendment in the nature of a substitute would postpone current law until the Secretary of Agriculture has implemented a national animal identification system. The Secretary would be required to publish in the Federal Register and submit in writing to Congress a notice of implementation.

While it is debatable as to whether country of origin labeling should be mandatory or voluntary, I oppose implementation of any kind of COOL before implementing an animal identification system. Implementing COOL before animal traceability is like having the cart before the horse.

Long before we discovered BSE in this country, beef producers in my district were calling for an animal ID system that would provide for the traceability of animals in the case of disease. If a diseased animal were found again in this country, a traceability system would aid the industry by enabling the quickest possible way to pinpoint the origin of the contaminated cattle. This traceability system would be like an insurance policy that no cattleman should live without.
As you are aware, USDA is currently working on the U.S. Animal Identification Program (USAIP). However, if the current COOL law is implemented, this traceability system will not be able to be utilized to implement COOL because of how the law was written in the 2002 Farm Bill. The law explicitly prohibits the use of an animal ID system to implement COOL.

The consequence results in more unneeded bureaucracy and a very costly program to the taxpayer and beef industry. I urge my colleagues to vote "yea" on my amendment and allow USDA to focus on what really needs to be done to protect our beef industry and food supply.