Cattle producers challenge mandate for electronic eartags to trace diseased animals

A case of one year of R-Calf, et al. v. Theyda, to stop using a tool intended to help control sick animals, will take place under a decision of the American district court in the southern Dakota district. The USDA’s attempt to withdraw the trial failed.

R-CALF, the Billings group, based in MT, independent breeders, challenges the EARTAG rule of compulsory electronic identification of the USDA (EID), which entered into force on November 5, 2024. R-CALF is represented by Kara Rollins, lawyer in litigation of the new civil liberties alliance (NCLA).

The final rule of 2024 replaced a previous rule on the identification of animals which gave breeders the possibility of using low -cost metallic ear tags or high cost EID tags when transporting adult cattle sexually intact through state lines. Breeders have lost this choice in the final rule of 2024, the mandate dictating that the most expensive EID EID labels are used.

The official name of R-Calf is the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-Calf USA), which is the largest professional producer association reserved for the United States. Join R-Calf USA to continue the USDA on the Eartag electronic mandate are the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, and the breeders of the Dakota from the South Kenny and Roxie Fox, as well as Rick and Theresa Fox.

The CEO of R-Calf USA Bill Bullard responded to the court’s decision allowing the case to continue saying: “We, of course, will continue to assert that the final rule is not necessary, because the previous rule which allowed breeders to choose the type of Eartags which best correspond to their operations.”

“We will also note that the new rule only covers about 10% of the country’s cattle herd – a percentage significantly lower than the level of participation that the USDA had previously declared necessary to achieve the traceability of diseases,” added Bullard. “Not only do we think that this compulsory Eid rule implemented during the Biden administration is useless and illegal, but we also think that it flies in the face of President Trump’s efforts to put an end to costly government regulations that force private companies to result in unnecessary costs of compliance for American compliance costs.

The USDA animal and vegetable health inspection service (APHIS) described the rule as an “important step” in efforts to improve traceability and limit contagious animal diseases. Aphis represented it as necessary for “rapid traceability” in an epidemic of disease not only to limit the duration of farms, but also to prevent more animals from falling sick and from recovering breeders and farmers to sell their products faster.

The NCLA allegates in court documents that the rule of Eid is “arbitrary and capricious under the Act respecting the Administrative Procedure (APA)”, and that the Aphis and the USDA failed to “explain reasonably” how the rule is necessary when “the framework of traceability of existing animal diseases is already proven effective and that the rule only applies a 10th traceability of the country’s traceability”.

“Since the rule entered into force almost a year ago,” said Kara Rollins, lawyer for the NCLA litigation, “American breeders and farmers have been forced to comply with her expensive and useless Eid mandate. The rule is a classic example of bureaucratic convenience.”

(To register for a free subscription to Food Safety News, Click here.)