May 23, 2013 Leave a comment
(Updated 5/23/13 at 1:18pm)
Corrected 5/23/13 at 1:30pm
The full Senate is taking up the farm bill (S. 954), and
one amendment three amendments (Amendment 970, 1011 and 1097) from Senator Charles Grassley contain nearly identical language that would eliminate basic “phone directory” information from disclosure, including the name, address, contact info (including email address), GPS coordinates and other identifying information of livestock owners and operators. They claim it’s a defense against domestic terrorism.
The EPA in the last few weeks released such information under FOIA to one (or more) environment groups. That release was criticized by some in Congress. However, the controversy around farmer and rancher’s address and contact information goes back a while to when the USDA was trying to create a system to trace back foodborne illness outbreaks to the source (e.g., the farm) within
72 48 hours to abide by trade agreements. (And it may go back further than that.) There was much opposition among ranchers and farmers to that program, known as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Eventually, that program was dropped.
During past discussions about this data, we tried to accommodate those concerns and carefully consider when the journalists would find that information useful in reporting (such as when an outbreak occurs) and find some compromise text, but we did not find anyone pushing the exemption who was willing to compromise.
The amendment is ill-considered and should not be voted on in such a rushed manner, especially when the interests in disclosure are as significant as the safety of the food supply. At a very minimum the public has an interest in learning the location of farms implicated in a health scare so the public can evaluate how those responsible for the safety of the food supply are responding. The current amendment fails to balance any interest in keeping the records confidential with the public interest in disclosure. The amendment creates a bad precedent for the federal government and for the public that has a strong interest in having full and fair information about newsworthy events regarding the safety of the food supply. Operators of any type of business already have exemptions written into FOIA to protect trade secrets and individual privacy.
This amendment is bad for transparency and accountability and shouldn’t be taken up until sponsors work to address the concerns with the proposal.