1. Animal Health Protection and Disease Control

Download this Policy Statement

  • 1.1 Animal Health Introduction
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    The need for basic and applied animal health protection and disease control research continues to demand attention.  There is a critical need to strengthen integrated animal health management programs to facilitate the transfer of information and technology from laboratory to the producer/consumer.  Research is needed to prevent introductions of pathogens into the food chain by developing methods to reduce or eliminate them from animals during production.

    Currently not enough scientifically-based information is available to define what constitutes a state of well-being in animals.  Behavioral, physiological, health, and production parameters need to be incorporated into animal health research.  This will lead to improved management practices and systems which will ensure the well-being of animals while maintaining affordability and competitiveness for producers.
     

  • 1.2 Animal Health Issues
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    Homeland Security and Agriculture — NASDA strongly supports the pest exclusion mission area known as Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) at the nation’s ports of entry that serve to protect our domestic agriculture industry from a foreign pest or disease incursion. After the events of September 11, 2001 and the anthrax incidents that followed, AQI functions were transferred from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the newly created Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") in an effort to consolidate all governmental functions that protect the nation against threats to the homeland into one agency. NASDA strongly supports the mission and efforts of DHS to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. While the prevention of terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States is vital to the security of the nation, so too, is the protection of the nation's food supply, our agricultural economy, and animal health. Introductions of foreign animal diseases, such as Exotic Newcastle Disease and emerging diseases, such as West Nile Virus, Avian Influenza and Chronic Wasting Disease, are of great concern to the nation’s livestock and animal producers and could cause significant impacts to the nation’s agricultural economy.

    Unfortunately, since the AQI transfer, pest and disease introductions have increased dramatically. It is clear that DHS’ administration of the AQI program lacks efficacy and currently there are no performance measures relative to AQI functions that DHS must meet to ensure the resources that DHS receives to protect the U.S. domestic agriculture sector are being utilized for this purpose. In addition, in order for AQI to remain effective while housed at DHS, it was essential that DHS and APHIS establish a consistent and clear communication structure that provides for problem resolution with built-in accountability in order to provide the greatest degree of risk reduction. Unfortunately, DHS’ mission is so broad that AQI is not viewed within the agency as a critical function either in terms of staffing or funding. Therefore, NASDA supports the re-assignment of the AQI mission area back to USDA APHIS given that they have the expertise to carry out a focused, coordinated and effective agricultural safeguarding effort and are statutorily charged with managing exotic pests and diseases.

    NASDA urges that increased emphasis be placed on the mission of safeguarding agriculture and strongly supports the immediate adoption of quantifiable performance measures for AQI functions to ensure the program is meeting the statutory mission for which it was created – protecting American agriculture from a foreign plant or animal pest or disease. These performance measures should consider the interdiction, control, eradication and suppression costs borne by state and local governments for foreign pests and diseases that AQI fails to interdict at the ports of entry. These costs shall be assessed to the budget of the parent department of AQI. In addition, NASDA urges DHS’ Office of Domestic Preparedness to provide specific funding opportunities to state departments of agriculture for local preparedness similar to grants provided to state departments of health.

    Animal Disease Eradication and Control — The completion of several disease control programs of significance to the economic viability of livestock production agriculture in the United States is nearing. Bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, swine brucellosis and pseudorabies are examples of diseases that will likely be eradicated from domestic livestock. Funding cuts and other resource constraints threaten the ability of USDA, specifically the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), to complete these important programs.

    As international trade has increased, the threat of an outbreak of a foreign animal disease in the United States has also increased. Such an outbreak would disrupt production of food animals, interrupt the domestic meat and poultry supply, adversely affect food processing, marketing and the distribution chain, and cause the loss of export markets for United States livestock and livestock products. The loss to the United States would be billions of dollars in trade of agricultural products. NASDA encourages APHIS to accept the DNA test in sheep, proven by ARS researchers as well as scientists in Great Britain as reliable, in determining scrapie susceptibility.

    NASDA believes that disease control programs are essential if eradication of animal and poultry diseases and the prevention of the introduction or outbreak of foreign or domestic diseases is to be successful. Priority should be given to programs whose efforts are aimed at preventing the outbreak of animal health diseases and protecting our nation’s domestic livestock from foreign diseases. Valid tests should also be developed to properly detect diseases that pose a risk to animal health. Some animal health diseases that require specific attention are:

    • Avian Influenza
    • Bluetongue
    • Brucellosis
    • Johnes Disease
    • Pseudorabies
    • Raccoon Strain Rabies
    • Scrapie
    • Tuberculosis
    • Vesicular Stomatitis
    • Chronic Wasting Disease
    • Anaplasmosis
    • West Nile Viral Encephalitis

    Sufficient resources should be made available for such programs so that the appropriate agencies can provide indemnity to owners of diseased livestock, which will encourage the elimination of remaining infected herds, and maintain an adequate number of animal health professionals able to respond to animal health issues.

    NASDA believes that any comprehensive program to control or eradicate disease from domestic livestock should include provisions for testing, quarantining exposed animals, and indemnifying diseased animals. All susceptible species should be included in regulations addressing disease control, including non-livestock species that can harbor and/or transmit diseases of concern. Historically, animal disease eradication and control programs have been cooperative state/federal programs and should continue to be cooperative state/federal programs.

    APHIS has published a proposed rule that would codify a standardized cost sharing formula for animal disease and plant pest and disease emergency eradication programs that are conducted cooperatively with states. Unfortunately, expanding world trade and the threat of bioterrorism have increased the risk of destructive pests and diseases being introduced into the United States. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the federal agency statutorily charged with preventing the introduction, spread and establishment of plant pests and diseases, noxious weeds and pests and diseases of livestock in the United States. States are not federally mandated to partner with USDA in this endeavor yet have historically done so with great success. Developing a plan on how the United States Department of Agriculture should respond to emergencies is not without merit. In fact, NASDA's Animal Health Safeguarding Review and the Safeguarding American Plant Resources Review conducted by the National Plant Board contain recommendations that would facilitate the kind of out year planning envisioned in the proposed rule.

    Emergency programs relating to animal and plant health by their very nature, however, do not accommodate a "one size fits all" approach. While some suggest a cost share formula would yield savings to the Federal Government in future years, it will actually result in quite the opposite for states, who are already bearing significant costs associated with plant and animal pest and diseases that are not detected at the border.

    NASDA urges USDA to withdraw the proposed rule and work with states toward the development of a joint system for the early detection and eradication of plant and animal pests and diseases. NASDA's Animal Health Safeguarding Review and the Safeguarding American Plant Resources Review would provide a sound footing for the development of a science based rule that combines the unique abilities of each partner. NASDA discourages attempts to construct meaningful eradication programs around budgetary decisions.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy — Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in livestock has gained much of the world’s attention with its identification in Western and Eastern Europe, Israel, Japan and North America. BSE and other TSEs are considered serious animal health concerns. BSE has also become a public health issue as a result of the connection that has been made between BSE in cattle and variant Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans. Public confidence in the beef supply is potentially affected each time another case of BSE in cattle is identified. Many questions remain that can only be resolved through further research, on-going evaluation and assessing the risks involved. Maintaining an adequate food safety system while additional knowledge is obtained remains a primary objective. NASDA supports a policy which assures that the U. S. actions are supported by the best available science–a policy that embraces research as a method to advance current knowledge and understanding, is based on risk analysis, is able to assure the consuming public that the beef supply is safe because of the actions taken by U. S. pubic agencies and is fair to U. S. beef producers. Within this context, NASDA supports—

    • Development of a feed ban based on the best available science and is enforceable.
    • Increased research – especially to develop an in vitro testing procedure that is rapid, accurate, and cost efficient, further analysis of other possible methods of transmission of the disease in cattle (e. g., blood/tissue), other possible avenues of transmission to humans, disposal options for SRM, infectivity of tissue from animals under 30 months of age, develop and implement effective methods for inactivation of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) agents, further determination of pathways by which the agent causes the disease.
    • Risk assessment – determine options for proper actions based on risk assessment.
    • Normalization of trade and consideration of regionalized barriers, where appropriate, to minimize the overall affect on U. S. producers while regional issues are worked outùmay be across international borders.
    • An emphasis on developing whatever is needed to allow the U. S. to qualify for better than minimal risk status with our trading partners.
    • The need for an animal ID system that is operational as soon as practical.
    • Harmonization of all animal health standards. Harmonization of BSE Standards while avoiding reaching agreement on other standards is not generally recognized as free trade in the U. S. No feeder cattle should be allowed to be imported until agreement is reached on harmonization of other animal health standards, especially bluetongue, anaplasmosis, brucellosis, and tuberculosis.
    • NASDA realizes there is no such thing as a no cost policy if the U. S. needs to take actions to assure eradication in a reasonable timeframe, NASDA believes that affected sectors of the industry (e.g., renderers, perhaps others) should be assisted to assure compliance is reached as reasonably as possible.
    • Surveillance programs that assure the U. S. is compliant with OIE Standards and that go beyond compliance where such actions can lead to the removal of infected animals from the U. S. herd (e.g., due diligence on trace-forwards, trace-backs and cohorts).

     Emergency Disease Preparedness/Response — Government infrastructure for emergency animal disease preparedness has decreased significantly at both the state and national levels. This has led to serious concerns regarding our ability to control and eradicate foreign animal and poultry diseases in the United States. The economic and trade implications are enormous.

    Successful strategies for emergency disease preparedness will require the combined cooperative effort of industry, government, and academia. USDA, the states, and regional groups must work in concert to improve communications and to prepare for dealing with emergencies involving the introduction of foreign animal or poultry diseases. NASDA supports the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) introduced in Congress in 2000. The AHPA would be a powerful tool for safeguarding the United States from dangerous incursions by granting the USDA broader authority. Appropriate funding must be available to carry out an effective emergency disease response program.

    The National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) provides vital support for the animal health programs of the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The NVSL plays a crucial role in safeguarding the agriculture of the United States from harmful disease events. Because of its importance in protecting American agriculture, NASDA supports funding for necessary upgrades to the NVSL Ames, Iowa, facility.

    The heightened awareness of foreign animal diseases due to natural events as well as intentional introductions has been met with like attention to the needs of appropriate funding and infrastructure to implement an effective emergency disease response program.

    Although the threat for introducing any foreign animal disease into the US is high, the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) poses the most immediate threat in the US, as well as multifaceted challenges that impact State Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, animal diagnostic laboratories, the farmed cervid industry, deer processors and hunters:

    • The health of captive herds must be carefully monitored to protect the economic future of the captive cervid industry
    • Surveillance of the free roaming cervid population must be conducted to determine the prevalence and spread of the disease.
    • Hunters must have a means of determining whether the animals they harvest are free of disease.
    • The annual deer harvest must be sufficient to control population.
    • Licensed deer processors require assurance of the disease status of hunter-killed deer in order to protect conditions in their facilities.

    Central to the challenges is the need for reliable, rapid diagnostic testing for CWD. Current restrictions on state testing do not promote the broad-based, rapid testing necessary to meet potential demand. USDA’s National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) conducts CWD surveillance, but is not equipped to provide the fast-turn around testing service required by hunters and processors and necessary to support programs of the Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The current timetable for CWD results at NVSL is two to four weeks.

    State laboratories must be able to provide CWD testing service. The majority of state-run diagnostic laboratories are prohibited from possessing reagents necessary to run the tests. A limited number of laboratories recently authorized under contract with NVSL are required to use specific equipment (Ventana) and protocols established by NVSL. Non-contract laboratories that own and use quality immunohistochemistry stainers capable of producing accurate CWD test results must purchase a $45,000 Ventana immunohistochemistry stainer and a host of expensive commodities to be recognized by NVSL.

    NASDA acknowledges that prevention, containment and eradication of foreign animal diseases will require cooperative efforts of federal and state governments, industry, and academia. Further, NASDA urges USDA to:

    • Expand the authorities of state-run diagnostic labs to conduct tests for foreign animal diseases, including CWD:
    • Implementation of appropriate protocols to enhance the nation’s infrastructure to address foreign animal diseases, including accepting test results from laboratories that utilize systems other than Ventana, which produce accurate foreign animal disease test results. 

    Disposal of Animal Carcasses and Animal Parts—Significant animal mortalities from natural disasters as well as recent outbreaks of infectious animal diseases such as Avian influenza demand expeditious and appropriate disposal of animal carcasses in a manner that will prevent disease spread, prevent excessive air emissions and prevent ground water and environmental contamination by infectious agents or by the byproducts of decomposition. State and federal agencies must have protocols, authorities and approvals in place for appropriate animal carcass disposal prior to, and not after, emergency disease or emergency mortality events. NASDA supports the development of a national coordinated carcass and SRM disposal / utilization plan / guidance that will enable states to be better prepared to address emergency and routine livestock disposal while protecting both public health and the environment.

    Accurate identification of animals and products, traceability, and documentation of events is essential to ensure appropriate measures. In addition, adequate laboratory and diagnostic capabilities as well as essential interagency real time communication of critical information are important elements for animal carcass disposal. States must have necessary statutory authorities to deal with proper disposal of affected agricultural materials from either disease or other disaster incidences whether from imported or domestic animal production.

    NASDA will work to formulate and gain approval from all agriculture and environmental agencies of appropriate protocols for permit sanitary carcass disposal; to provide effective systems of identification; to promulgate needed authority in model language; to authorize needed resources and laboratory and diagnostics capacities; and to effectively incorporate interagency communication agreements.

    Wild and Exotic Animals — The unregulated, or inadequately regulated importation, commercialization, interstate movement and reintroduction of wild and exotic animals, including Cervidae and other wild and exotic ungulate species, poses a disease risk to domestic livestock. Even the barter and sale of surplus animals from quarantined zoos could result in the dissemination of diseases presently foreign to the domestic livestock. There is a need within the United States to address all susceptible animal species in disease control regulations. USDA should obtain authority over all animal species in order to provide for adequate control measures. The failure to do so will jeopardize the success of national disease eradication programs.

    Non-indigenous ticks are entering the United States with imported “wildlife” such as lizards, snakes and tortoises, which are imported for the pet trade. These ticks threaten cattle and wildlife by possible transmission of diseases that could cause great economic hardships to agriculture and inhibit foreign trade. Apparently no federal agency has responsibility for the inspection and control of these invasive pests as they arrive on “wildlife” from countries with known infestations of dangerous foreign diseases. Few acaricides have been approved for treatment inside the United States of these “wildlife” for the pests. NASDA encourages the USDA and all other agencies to work closely with foreign governments, with frequent interchanges of information and technical assistance between countries, so that the prevention/eradication efforts and elimination from all animals being exported can be coordinated with prevention/eradication of these pests in the United States. NASDA urges that APHIS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service take all necessary measures to prevent the introduction of non-indigenous ticks into the United States.

    Uniform Disease Testing — Uniformity in livestock disease quarantine protocols between the United States, Canada and Mexico demands some attention. In some cases, the United States’ requirements are unnecessary and, perhaps, redundant, while in other cases, compliance with those import requirements is not being met. Disease testing requirements that are applied by all three countries would assure that protocols are being met and that each country’s animal and public health is adequately protected.

    NASDA believes that the United States, Canada, and Mexico should work together to develop disease testing protocols which are based on the assessment of risk of disease introduction and to develop uniformity and transparency in disease control programs.

    Rights of States — NASDA diligently supported the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), the purpose of which was to modernize this nation’s ability to safeguard animal health. State animal health officials were careful to ensure that AHPA language did not appear to preclude states from enacting and administering laws and regulations more stringent than federal requirements in order to safeguard an individual state’s animal industries.

    To the surprise of state officials, APHIS administrators in April 2003 reported that enforcement of state animal health requirements which are more restrictive than federal policy could be legally challenged. Federal officials cited legal interpretation of the new AHPA language as their authority for federal preemption of state regulations. From a state perspective, lack of enforcement of state requirements could result in state officials being in violation of their own state statutes.

    The long and successful history of major federal disease control programs (e.g. brucellosis, tuberculosis, pseudorabies) have historically relied upon preceded actions at the state level for successful eradication, in collaboration with the private sector. The Livestock and Horticulture Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee is considering a hearing to address the implementation status and areas of concerns of the AHPA.

    NASDA defends the rights of states to adopt and enforce statutes, regulations, policies that may be more restrictive than federal requirements in order to have necessary protections of animal health and animal industries in their state.

    Regional Equine Event Permits — The movement of equine between states in the southern region for special events (e.g. exhibition, trail rides, horse fairs) has become increasingly popular. All states require a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) issued within the previous 30 days and evidence of a negative equine infectious anemia test for a specified length of time (typically 12 months) in order for equine to enter their states. Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have had a mutual agreement for approximately 15 years that allows movement of equine for special events for a six month period through the issuance of an Equine Event Permit issued by the state of origin. An additional agreement with South Carolina has been in place for approximately one year. Such permit is not valid for change of ownership.

    The Southern Animal Health Association is currently pursuing a Memorandum of Agreement between the souther states for a Regional Equine Event Permit. The southern state veterinarians agree that such a permit for this type of equine movement presents minimal risk for the introduction of disease and facilitates movement of equine throughout the southern region. NASDA supports efforts to implement a Reqional Equine Event Permit and encourages each member to approve its use in their state, recognizing that appropriate safeguards must still be taken to ensure proper disease control.

    Infectious Disease Concerns of Poultry and Other Birds — Outbreaks of Exotic Newcastle disease (END) and avian influenza (AI) are costly and disruptive events for many Americans and significant threats to the U.S. food supply. There is a 30-year-history of repeated outbreaks of END and AI, and other dangerous avian diseases. The danger of these diseases is significantly magnified when they spread into and among backyard and barnyard flocks of poultry, game birds, game fowl, waterfowl and other avian species. Thousands of these types of flocks exist in many states, often in close proximity to commercial poultry operations. The composition, management and exact locations of these critically important flocks are often unknown. Therefore, mitigation of this dangerous situation by education and, when needed, regulatory action first requires the identification of the addresses and geographical locations of these flocks. Such identification would benefit from assistance from various grassroot county and township agencies. NASDA encourages states to give high priority to the formation of pilot studies, in cooperation with grassroot agencies, to find locally appropriate ways and means to precisely locate backyard and barnyard flocks, and other birds. In addition, states are encouraged to explore a national strategy to advance the identification and biosecurity of backyard and barnyard flocks, and other birds. NASDA will survey states to learn of their policies, activities and concerns related to regulation of backyard and barnyard flocks, and other birds.

    Cost-Share Criteria for APHIS Emergency Programs — APHIS has published a proposed rule that would codify a standardized cost-sharing formula for animal disease and plant pest and disease emergency eradication programs that are conducted cooperatively with states. Unfortunately, expanding world trade and the threat of bio-terrorism have increased the risk of destructive pests and diseases being introduced into the United States. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the federal agency statutorily charged with preventing the introduction, spread and establishment of plant pests and diseases, noxious weeds and pests and diseases of livestock in the United States. States are not federally mandated to partner with USDA in this endeavor yet have historically done so with great success. Developing a plan on how the USDA should respond to emergencies is not without merit. In fact, NASDA's Animal Health Safeguarding Review and the Safeguarding American Plant Resources Review conducted by the National Plant Board contain recommendations that would facilitate the kind of out year planning envisioned in the proposed rule.

    Emergency programs relating to animal and plant health by their very nature, however, do not accommodate a "one size fits all" approach. While some suggest a cost-share formula would yield savings to the Federal Government in future years, it will actually result in quite the opposite for states, who are already bearing significant costs associated with plant and animal pest and diseases that are not detected at the border.

    NASDA urges USDA to withdraw the proposed rule and work with states toward the development of a joint system for the early detection and eradication of plant and animal pests and diseases. NASDA's Animal Health Safeguarding Review and the Safeguarding American Plant Resources Review would provide a sound footing for the development of a science-based rule that combines the unique abilities of each partner. NASDA discourages attempts to construct meaningful eradication programs around budgetary decisions.
     

  • 1.3 APHIS Reorganization
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) consolidated the following offices — Veterinary Services (VS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Wildlife Services, Animal Care, and Investigations and Enforcement Services — into two regional offices. The consolidation streamlined the administration of programs, permitted cross utilization of personnel, and made the agency more responsive to the needs of the states and their constituencies. NASDA commends APHIS for its efforts to seek efficiency within the federal government and to improve satisfaction of its constituencies. We recognize the importance of the consolidation of APHIS programs into eastern and western regional offices as a cost savings measure, while maintaining accessibility by customers and partners. NASDA recommends that, to prevent negative impacts on services, costs for future reorganizations should not be taken from operational programs, but from agency overhead savings.

    Further, NASDA recognizes that plant and animal health issues may not be similar within the consolidated regions and that current funding levels of programs in a particular region may be diminished due to priority setting as a result of the regional consolidation. NASDA urges APHIS to consider the plant and animal health needs of the states within the current regional composition when allocating program funding.

    NASDA strongly supports increasing funding to PPQ Unit for the purpose of interception of illegal and smuggled food products that pose a direct threat to the food security of the United States of America and to homeland security. NASDA also strongly supports increasing APHIS’s ability to fine and prosecute offenders of United States’ agricultural import laws. NASDA also recognizes that the 48 inspectors that the PPQ Smuggling and Interdiction Program has for inspection of all imported food and agricultural products into the United States is severely inadequate and further poses a direct flaw in the United States’ ability to ensure food security and homeland security.
     

  • 1.4 Animal Damage Control
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    USDA’s Wildlife Services program (formerly the Animal Damage Control program) provides leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. Because wildlife can cause significant damage to private and public property, natural resources, agricultural crops, forests, pastures, and urban and rural structures, as well as pose a serious threat to livestock and human health and safety, proper wildlife management is essential. NASDA supports full funding for the USDA Wildlife Services Programs and encourages the U.S. Congress and the Administration to provide the necessary resources to strengthen such programs for the benefit of the American Public.

    The emergence and demonstrated spread of rabies in the United States has overwhelmed state rabies control and prevention programs. NASDA supports the appropriation of federal funds to support rabies control and vaccination programs.  

  • 1.5 Animal Drugs
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

     Livestock Tampering at Exhibitions — Livestock tampering and the use of illegal drugs at exhibitions  around the nation have become prevalent. Some states have passed laws or have considered legislation  making it a felony to administer illegal or unapproved drugs to livestock, or otherwise illegally tamper with livestock before or during exhibition. Valid tests have been developed to detect the use of drugs in livestock exhibitions.

    Several implications exist if action is not taken on this issue. First, public safety and health issues exist regarding the wholesomeness of meat and dairy products. Second, the use of illegal, unapproved, or offlabel drugs in exhibition livestock jeopardizes consumer confidence in the safety of meat and the integrity of our inspection system. And, third, the “win at all cost” attitude of some exhibitors and fitters encourages unethical practices.

    NASDA denounces tampering and other unethical practices at livestock exhibitions and encourages states to aggressively survey and test, including ultrasound at exhibitions to ensure that food safety, consumer confidence and ethical standards are upheld. The federal government should provide aid in combating the administration of illegal drugs to exhibition livestock. Further, a national code of conduct/practices for showing exhibition livestock should be developed by the National Association of Agricultural Fair Agencies.

     

  • 1.6 Animal Welfare
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    Quality animal care is at the heart of farm animal production in an age when science and technology have moved farming from horsepower to computer power. Farmers and ranchers devote their lives to providing a safe, ample supply of food and fiber for the nation and many beyond our borders. Farming is a business and farm animals are not pets. Because the margin between costs of production and marketing products is so small, today’s producers recognize that poor or inhumane management is never profitable. Our nation’s farmers and ranchers must use the highest quality, most nutritious feeds, provide safe, clean stress free environments couple with a love genuine concern for their animals. However, there is a clear distinction between animal welfare and animal rights:

    • Animal Welfare is the proper care and management of animals. Farmers and ranchers believe animals raised under humane conditions and practices will be productive and profitable.
    • Animal Rights philosophy goes beyond the promise of protecting the physical well-being of animals and seeks to establish that animals have inherent legal and ethical rights that are equal to those of humans. Adhering to this philosophy would mean the complete elimination of all uses of animals for food, clothing, leisure or research. This would lead to the total abolition of animal agriculture.

    A healthy diet is based upon moderation and animal food products are an excellent source of essential dietary nutrients. Fat is necessary for hormone production and healthy skin and enables the body to absorb fat-soluble vitamins such as A, D, E, and K as well as providing calories for energy. Advances in modern medicine, as well as agriculture production, have been made possible as a result of research involving the use of animals. We support the humane and judicious use of animals in research carried out under good laboratory practices.

    There is a growing need for adding animal welfare, which will include information on the value of farm animals, to the curriculum for elementary, middle and junior high schools. Youth programs should provide appropriate developmental and learning opportunities through working with farm, companion or when appropriate, research animals. 

    Public concern about animal welfare continues to increase. The industry should address such concerns including the increasing need for both consumer and industry education about the welfare of animals and their value to the nation, new techniques to assure and improve the welfare of animals, national voluntary standards for animal husbandry practices, mechanisms to assure fair and proper enforcement of animal welfare regulations, government funding for this increased regulatory burden, and stronger laws and regulations to end threats, harassment, destruction and disruptive actions by animal rights activists. Animal welfare regulations and guidelines should be developed and promoted by the appropriate industry segment. These regulations should include guidelines about animals used in biomedical research; standards of practice for all livestock species, both for production and marketing including transportation; the handling of downer animals; and animal care including a protocol for farmers and ranchers to use to evaluate the welfare of animals on their farms and ranches. NASDA also encourages the dairy industry to adopt voluntary guidelines for the care of dairy cattle, and to urge that any requirements regarding the treatment of animals be based on science.

    We support the humane and compassionate care of all animals and encourage the development of educational programs and activities that communicate factual information on food and fiber production to the public. Research should be conducted that evaluates and develops production systems that insure an environment that provides for the health and well-being of animals, while simultaneously providing an economic and wholesome food and fiber supply for the nation’s consumers.

    Further, we support establishment of guidelines for use by livestock exhibitions, including petting zoos, to encourage minimized or controlled animal contact by the public, and to promote handwashing/sanitizing by the public. It is recognized that effective handwash practices protect both the public and animals from potential illness.

     We believe that the goal of all persons involved in production animal agriculture should be to produce a quality food or fiber product for consumers. In order to accomplish this goal, producers and all other components of the marketing chain must operate in a profitable manner. Maintaining the health, welfare and value of animals as they are raised, marketed, transported and processed is of central importance.

    Horses for Slaughter--As animals—particularly horses—age, their ability to survive without extensive care decreases. Current policies allow humane, veterinarian-supervised euthanasia of horses slaughtered for human consumption. These policies assist in the humane treatment of animals as they age, since they continue to maintain a market value. If limitations on uses of horse meat are enacted, many horses will die from abandonment and disposal problems will also result. NASDA supports policies which allow horse slaughter for human consumption to continue to be available to producers.

  • 1.7 Domestic Bee Protection
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    The continued production of high quality food and fiber crops in the United States depends on the ability of the American beekeeping industry to provide pollination services. Research initiatives conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS) to protect and improve pollination resources have allowed the American beekeeping industry to become the finest in the world.

    International trade agreements such as GATT and NAFTA were intended to lower international trade barriers, the effect of which may have contributed to the increase in the recent introduction of undesirable honey bee diseases, parasites, pests, and/or genetic strains of bees into the United States. These recent introductions of bee diseases and pests have increased the burden on American beekeepers to maintain a healthy domestic supply of bees. An example is the Africanized honey bee. The Africanized honey bee (AHB) has characteristics that pose a threat to the United States beekeeping industry and the general public.

    It is essential to maintain a healthy domestic bee stock to pollinate crops, and for the production of honey.

    NASDA encourages the USDA to vigorously enforce the Federal Honey Bee Act in order to protect the beekeeping industry from introductions of undesirable honey bee diseases, parasites, pests, or genetic strains of bees in the United States. Pollinator and bee disease research programs should also continue to receive adequate funding.

    New regulations are being established for the importation of honeybees and related articles. It is therefore important that APHIS has data of the current status and risks of honeybee diseases and pests available so that informed decisions may be made regarding future import requests. NASDA requests that APHIS provide a mechanism similar to the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) for the purpose of establishing an ongoing, coordinated, nationwide survey to document the presence and/or absence of pests and pathogens which affect honeybees.

  • 1.8 Brucellosis in Yellowstone Bison
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    Brucellosis has been known to exist in the bison of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) since 1917 and in the elk of the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) since the 1930s. Numerous intermittent efforts during the time between 1935 and the 1970s have been made by USDA and state animal health officials to gain cooperation of the National Park Service (NPS) to control and eradicate brucellosis from YNP bison. More diligent efforts have been continuous since 1988.

    Until 1967, NPS officials conducted population controls of both bison and elk in YNP to maintain the population of bison and elk within the "carrying capacity" of the park (425 bison and 3,500 elk). These controls included capture and slaughter of bison, and the shooting of bison and elk. In addition, bison were tested periodically and reactors removed. YNP officials removed bison from the park and transferred ownership of YNP bison to other federal agencies and to private citizens. Some of these transfers were made without regard to the disease status of the bison.

    In 1967, NPS initiated a policy of "natural regulation" (hands off management) within YNP. The bison population in YNP was 397 head in 1967. The bison population in YNP has been reduced from an estimated 3,500 head in 1996 to approximately 1,700 head as a result of the destruction of approximately 1100 head and the starvation of approximately 1000 head in YNP during the winter of 1996/1997. The current population in GYA consists of 2,5000 bison and 120,000 elk. The Grand Teton National Park contains 250 bison.

    Brucellosis infection in cattle, resulting from exposure to brucellosis-infected wildlife, may not be discernible for many months after the exposure occurred. The end result could be transmission of brucellosis to herds in a number of states. Without brucellosis eradication, efforts to set aside additional lands outside YNP are deceiving to the public and dangerous to domestic livestock and should be discouraged.

    The President should delegate authority and responsibility for animal disease control over livestock, and animals carrying disease which may affect livestock, to APHIS, the agency specifically established for that responsibility. APHIS should be involved in the effort of eradicating brucellosis from the wild populations of bison and elk living within the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). The NPS should take responsibility for managing the wildlife, implementing a brucellosis management plan for bison and other species located in Yellowstone-Teton National Parks, and other parks in the system, and maintaining numerically, biologically, and genetically viable bison populations in the parks that will maintain the brucellosis Class Free status of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, thus protecting the ability of livestock producers to freely market and buy livestock, eliminating brucellosis-related risks to public health.

    NASDA urges the Administration to direct Agriculture and Interior to collaborate with state agencies to address Brucellosis in wildlife in the GYA and to provide sufficient resources to control and elminiate Brucellosis from wildlife of the GYA.

  • 1.9 Aquaculture
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    Aquaculture — the business of farming aquatic plants and animals — is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture. Aquaculture is based on sustained production of renewable resources, promotes a healthy environment and provides an economically viable form of agriculture. As phenomenal as the growth of aquaculture has been over the past three decades, there remains significant constraints to realizing its full potential as a major force in American agriculture. 

    NASDA believes aquaculture should be considered a form of agriculture in the broadest sense and aquaculture products should be viewed and treated as agricultural commodities. This means that the aquaculture industry should have access to USDA financing, crop insurance, soil and water conservation, commodity grading and other marketing services and be subject to USDA’s inspection and regulatory requirements comparable to those currently applicable to meat and poultry. Development of the aquaculture industry would be enhanced if the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) leadership role in aquaculture was reaffirmed. Furthermore, we encourage USDA to work with other federal agencies including established Sea Grant and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) programs in the Department of Commerce and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) programs within the Department of the Interior in order to enhance the role of the aquaculture industry in agriculture.

    NASDA believes regulatory constraints imposed upon the aquaculture industry should be clarified, streamlined, and consolidated. The treatment of aquaculture as a form of agriculture by local, state and federal regulatory agencies should enhance development of the industry from a regulatory standpoint and provide a positive climate for development. Water Quality standards and regulation need to be based on science and reasonable risk assessment procedures. The US Environmental Protection Agency should rely strongly on the expertise within USDA and the aquaculture organizations in evaluating new technologies and best management practices for aquaculture, which can be utilized to improve water quality.

    We believe the development of sound marketing strategies is crucial to the orderly and progressive development of the U.S. aquaculture industry. The research, extension and market development infrastructure utilized for other agricultural commodities has not adequately addressed opportunities for aquaculture. There is a need for collaborative research and education (with industry participation) to better identify consumption trends, market structure, market access, market elasticity, regional preferences, product form and demand equations from a regional, national, and international perspective. The opportunity for new international markets and the rise in competition from abroad increases the need for continued and expanded evaluation of foreign markets, trade constraints and markets potentials.

    Further, there is a need for improved crop and marketing reports and a better definition of market relationships among domestic and foreign aquaculture products and traditional fisheries products. We support strong marketing education of producers and processors as well as consumers such as home processing, preparation and the nutritional quality of aquaculture products.

    NASDA urges the Office of Management and Budget to approve USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service funding for an annual aquaculture census which would provide statistics on the number of aquaculture farms, number of units sold, total sales, and average price per unit for most species for places which have or normally have $1,000 or more in agricultural sales. The census would provide data for the major species under the following categories: food fish, baitfish, ornamental fish, sport or game fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Aggregated information for other fish and aquaculture products would also be published. Estimates would be published for each of the 50 states and the United States, except where prohibited by confidentiality laws. The estimated cost of conducting a census of this scope is $213,240 per year. The first annual census would update the information published in the 1998 Census of Aquaculture. This is the only source of aquaculture information for all 50 states and the United States. 

    NASDA believes the development of improved processing technologies and new products development represent important opportunities for the aquaculture industry. New value -added products can contribute to both domestic and export markets. NASDA endorses the HACCP principles for aquaculture processing and encourages USDA and FDA to provide on-going training for the industry that is both cost effective and focused. Adoption of uniform quality standards throughout the aquaculture industry and assurance of product safety and high quality could assure a competitive edge for aquaculture products over the traditional capture fisheries or imported aquaculture products.

     NASDA believes the process of development of minimum health standards by USDA should be with the direct involvement of the major aquaculture organizations, insuring coverage of all species groups and uses for the interstate and international movement of aquatic animals and plants. This is critical to the continued viability and growth of the aquaculture industry, domestically and abroad. The recognition of these standards will facilitate the movement of aquaculture products in commerce and protect the industry from losses due to disease outbreaks and adverse public opinion. Further, there is need for the development of rapid, non-lethal sampling and testing techniques for the diagnosis of aquatic diseases as well as state and national surveillance systems to identify disease early in its course. Regulatory constraints utilizing new identification methods and testing protocols should have nationally accepted validation and interpretation prior to adoption.

    The development of the U.S. aquaculture industry is severely constrained by a lack of federally approved chemicals, vaccines, and therapeutic compounds that could contribute to increased production efficiency and offset annual losses of millions of dollars to disease and parasites. The process of certifying shipments of live fish and aquaculture products for export needs to be streamlined in the areas of jurisdiction as well as the use of therapeutants and disease free status. There is opportunity to facilitate the process of clearance and approval of desirable and safe therapeutants through research to provide necessary information, through improved communications among government agencies and the industry, and through increased understanding of the aquaculture industry by regulatory agencies. We encourage the enhancement of the role of the National Research Support Program - 7 (NRSP-7), formerly IR-4 Program, in order to provide further assistance to aquaculture for development of minor use drugs.

  • 1.10 Animal Identification
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    The number of animals officially identified in existing animal disease program databases the United States has been decreasing rapidly over the last few years due to the successes of disease eradication programs that have historically provided the foundation for animal identification.  The ability to efficiently track food producing animals from birth to slaughter is vital to safeguarding animal health, protecting the safety of the U.S. food supply and promoting the economic vitality of animal agriculture. More than ever, States need modern tools for capturing animal health data in an integrated and automated fashion to track the health of livestock populations. USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a voluntary partnership among producers and government that seeks to ensure a 48-hour traceback of livestock in the United States. NAIS utilizes three components - premise registration, animal identification, and animal tracing - to locate and eliminate potentially diseased animals. The system and all 3 components are based on voluntary enrollment by livestock producers.

    NASDA supports and encourages the U.S. Congress to legislatively remove livestock from the J-List, an amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1304(a)(3)(J); 19 C.F.R. § 134.33) This would allow animal health authorities to identify imported livestock, in concert with the recently enacted Country of Origin Labeling provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Section 11002.). Moreover, identification of imported livestock is necessary to facilitate quick traceback of livestock that were previously and unknowingly exposed to potential new and emerging diseases, or diseases with long incubation periods, such as BSE and tuberculosis. The need to locate these animals may not be realized until many years after the date of importation.

    The USDA released a draft Business Plan for implementing NAIS in December 2007. The primary focus of the business plan is streamlining current animal health programs to increase NAIS participants through these systems. The basic strategies outlined in the business plan include; focusing on cattle breeding herds as first priority, harmonizing and standardizing data collection methods using NAIS standards across existing government programs; integrating automated data capture technologies within existing disease programs; expanding partnerships with state and tribal governments; collaboration with industry; and continued exploration of new technologies and their applications.

    NASDA supports USDA's efforts within the NAIS draft Business Plan to form a more workable, common sense approach to enhance animal ID for animal health and disease surveillance purpose. NASDA further supports the recent producer confidentiality provision within the 2008 Farm Bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Section 1619.) Section 1619 prohibits disclosure of information that agricultural producers or owners of land have provided to USDA concerning agricultural operations, farming or conservation practices, or the land itself, in order to participate in USDA programs such as NAIS.

    NASDA also supports and encourages the use of state-held animal ID program databases that are fully equipped to communicate with the other state-held animal ID program databases to trace animal movement in the event of a disease outbreak. NASDA further supports the use of a standardized animal identification numbering system for livestock that is technology-neutral, enabling producers to choose the identification tag that best fits their operations and management practices allowing producers to manage costs.