1.2 Foreign and Domestic Animal Health Issues

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.