Senate panel backs bill to shield livestock owner data during animal‑health probes

A Senate Conservation Committee majority voted to advance a committee substitute for Senate Bill 56 after supporters said confidentiality will encourage livestock producers to report animal‑health problems and speed responses to outbreaks.

The measure, as revised by the sponsor and the state veterinarian, creates a new section in the livestock code restricting access to identifiable information about livestock owners, animals and operational practices during investigations and responses to animal‑health events. Sponsor Senator Woods said the changes aim to balance traceability and the need to protect producers from harassment and “agriterrorism.”

Supporters including Belinda Garland, executive director of the New Mexico Livestock Board, told the committee the protections are needed to preserve the farm and ranch way of life and to prevent producers from refusing to cooperate during an outbreak. “We think this is very, very important for the preservation of just the farm and ranch lifestyle as well as the food source,” Garland said.

Industry witnesses pointed to recent disease responses in New Mexico. Beverly Itzinga of Dairy Producers of New Mexico said that if anonymity had been available during the last avian influenza response, “we would have had better access to dairies for additional testing” because producers were willing to participate but wanted assurances they would not be targeted.

Opponents warned the bill creates a broad confidentiality carve‑out from public‑records and discovery rules. Senator Cervantes, speaking in opposition, framed his objection in public‑transparency terms: “I’m a big believer in transparency and sunshine laws,” he said, and warned the measure could set a precedent that limits access to government records.

Committee members debated technical drafting points: several expressed concern about citing regulations in statute (because regulations can be renumbered) and urged instead to reference confidentiality provisions more generally. Senator Cedillo Lopez offered a friendly amendment to refer to board regulations and to clarify redaction authority; the amendment was adopted by unanimous voice/roll call.

The committee then approved the committee substitute as amended on a roll‑call vote, 7–2, sending the measure to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The record shows the bill’s sponsors and supporters emphasized biosecurity risks such as foot‑and‑mouth disease and the potential chilling effect on reporting when producers fear public identification. Critics emphasized the bill’s interaction with existing public records law (IPRA) and the need to preserve discovery and media access where appropriate.

Next steps: The committee’s due‑pass recommendation moves the amended SB56 to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further consideration.