Livestock Disease: A Perennial Human Health Risk - Thesis Proposal Example

Livestock Disease: A Perennial Human Health Risk Introduction Besides the massive effect on the environment and animal safety, the growth of animal domestication has generated new ways for disease to thrive and endanger the health of human beings. Interactions between human beings and animals have constantly meant risk of contagious disease. But the growing reliance on and utilization of animal resources, that has taken place through the expansion of animal domestication, has implied that the possibilities of disease which were not present, or were unlikely, four or five decades ago are presently widespread (Fano 18). Basically, the growth of livestock production has resulted in the expansion of possibilities for the spread of disease. The methods of animal domestication, particularly the living and housing conditions of highly domesticated animals considerably create risks of exposure to disease-carrying organisms (Wyld 110). This thesis analyzes the current human health risks posed by the growing livestock industry, and the legal aspect of and solution to this problem. Overview of the Livestock Disease Problem The risks of disease can be prevented or lessened with proper techniques of animal domestication. Unfortunately, management of animal resources is largely tied to sustaining or boosting efficiency or output. Before, cattleman could care for animals more thoroughly. Nowadays, the number of cattlemen is not just fewer, but they are also obliged to attend to massive numbers of domesticated animals as cost efficiently and productively as possible (Sapkota et al. 663). The decrease in the number of workforce in livestock farming alongside the escalating production of domesticated animals can result in poor hygiene and disease management which, consequently, may lead to the spread of communicable disease among the domesticated animals and perhaps even transmission to human beings in the immediate vicinity. There is also the possibility of diseased animal protein contaminating the food chain and threatening the health of human beings (Sapkota et al. 663-664). A particular disease control practice used in rigorous animal domestication is to recognize the commonness of disease or the chronic presence of viruses. Vaccinations and antibiotic medicines are hence regularly given in order to maintain the health and productivity of domesticated animals (Smith & Kelly 29). When disease epidemics take place, it may not be feasible to harvest stock because of the sheer size of the population of domesticated animals. Likewise, cattle houses may have been inadequately built and cannot be correctly or thoroughly sanitized, and the animal’s body wastes may threaten the health of both animals and human beings. Disease control entirely through medication is far from successful. Furthermore, it raises substantial public concern about the cleanliness or safety of the animal products which are consumed by humans. The application of growth hormones and the potential adverse impacts of the remains of veterinary medicine have become a growing source of public concern recently (Brown 10). For roughly five decades now, antibiotics have been injected into animal feeds with the purpose of enhancing growth and productivity. During the past decades, experts have explored the likelihood of ‘resistance risks’, and eventually the European community had initiated attempts to prohibit the use of antibiotics as enhancers of animal growth (Swabe 139). Nowadays, the problem of resistant risks has once more emerged as the focus of scientific and political discourse, encouraged partly by the introduction of ‘avoparcin’, a veterinary antibiotic which is directly associated with ‘vancomycin’, a major human medical antibiotic (Swabe 139). There is a fear that these veterinary antibiotics may encourage the formation of bacterial strains that have a natural immunity to antibiotics. Even though these is presently weak microbiological evidence or agreement on this issue, a number of experts have still argued that the prevalent application of antibiotics in animal domestication, especially those administered to cure diseases, could be the source of immune strains of campylobacter and salmonella that are being discovered in numerous cases of food poisoning in humans (Boris 286). Recently, the issue of animal disease management has also been addressed from another perspective, that instead of trying to change the animals’ living and housing conditions, try to transform the domesticated animals themselves. Within this perspective, efforts have been initiated to raise strains of least disease-prone animals which are housed in well controlled settings (Boris 286). Nowadays, poultry herds can be reared to be immune to certain diseases, which basically imply that certain disease-breeding agents have been eradicated by reproducing and raising poultry in a germ-free state. Nevertheless, this segregation can make poultry flocks susceptible to other bacteria that may otherwise have been harmless (Davis 68). Contemporary animal domestication is a hazardous enterprise and at times it is the health of human beings that is at risk. Despite of the efforts of the industry to generate animal goods that are safe for human use, animal disease remains a major hazard to human health. The amplification of poultry-raising is primarily responsible for bacterial contagion in human beings. Disease caused by salmonella is one of the persistent risks of broiler-raising (Sapkota et al. 664). It is actually well established that salmonella will always be present in poultry flocks, even though it can be controlled by proper housing and feeding methods. The commonness of this microorganism in poultry stock is mostly because of unhygienic feeding practices. Rigorously raised poultry, similar to other domesticated animals which can transmit the microorganism salmonella, are usually given high-protein fodders which can carry animal by-products like excreta or dung (Brown 12). If these fodders are poorly sanitized, bacteria can survive and can be transmitted to other animals. The process of sterilization is expensive. Yet, subjecting animal foods to heat treatment is not constantly effective because salmonella strains have developed which are resistant to high temperature and persist to infect animal food. The spread of salmonella involves “the transfer of faeces or intestinal contents from an infected individual to the digestive tract of a susceptible one” (Swabe 104). Salmonella can also be transmitted to human beings through the consumption of infected animal products. The microorganism can bring about focal illness, septic shock disorder, gastroenteritis in human beings, and even be lethal to at risk groups, like the elderly and newborns (Swabe 104). It must be stressed that proper sanitation and appropriate cooking procedures can lessen the possibility of disease for human consumers. Yet, the contemporary techniques of animal domestication and transportation of huge numbers of farm animals enhance the risks of cross-contagion and the contamination of animal products for human consumption. Even though salmonella is the most widespread bacterial disease, it is not the only disease which could infect human beings. Toxoplasmosis, clostridial toxicosis, staphylococcal enterotoxicosis, campylobacteriosis, trichinosis, brucellosis, and bovine tuberculosis may be passed on through infected animal feeds and bring about human disease (Swabe 104-105). Besides food-borne diseases and contamination, human health is usually free from the infections which domesticated animals have. The individuals who are mostly affected or at greatest vulnerability to diseases from farm animals are those who come in direct contact with them; in short, veterinarians, farm workers, and people who take care of animal remains. The fact that rigorous animal domestication nowadays takes place within isolated environments or closed settings has a great deal to do with the mitigation of infection threats. Current cattle housing is basically intended to ward off disease-causing agents and to maintain the health of farm animals (Smith & Kelly 49). These methods are far from ideal; for instance, contamination may happen through animal feed. Moreover, veterinarians, cattlemen, and farmers may bring in infection to livestock. It is routine procedure when one goes in a livestock production facility to have to wear specified clothing, like overalls, so as to lessen the risk of infecting animals with new diseases from outside (Wyld 112). Yet, prohibiting visitors from entering these facilities not merely helps disease management, but to a certain extent forbids the public from witnessing personally the conditions under which animal products for human consumption are produced. Consumers today demand a continuous, affordable, and stable supply of animal goods (Swabe 105): Yet never before have the majority been so divorced from the production of the animal proteins which sustain them. The urban consumer is estranged from the origins of the food he eats and the leather he wears and has limited involvement in or knowledge of the circumstances of their production. The consumer is very much reliant on the producers and retailers to offer fresh and uncontaminated animal products—at—a low price—on demand. However, animal goods that are labeled ‘farm fresh’ in urban grocery stores are not likely to have been generated locally. Animal goods may come from facilities and farms located miles away from the consumer’s neighborhood (Swabe 105). The storage processes and transport systems which nowadays quite effectively guarantee the fast transportation and delivery of freshly produced animal goods to consumers were impossible until lately. In the past the transportation of livestock and animal remains was quite limited, both across and within national or local boundaries, not merely because of the absence of efficient storage and transportation systems, but also because of concern over and risk of disease outbreaks (Fano 82). Once a greater knowledge and understanding of disease transmission and management by means of the legal intervention had been attained, infections may be better prevented and controlled. However, even though governmental policies concerning management or control of animal disease have been present both internationally and nationally, it is still likely for infected animals to escape detection and infect human beings. Since diseased farm animals can swiftly and easily be transported from one place to another, new possibilities for disease-carrying agents can arise in places and among human populations formerly unaffected. The possibility of infection can be worsened by the inability to correctly sanitize automobiles used for the transportation of farm animals, and interruption in the movement of these animals from one location to another worsens the possibility of infection (Wyld 111). Given that, on a global level, animal campaigns or programs are more likely to escalate than decline as an outcome of economic and political agreement, the potential crisis of the transmission of animal disease may, in the near future, be an issue of growing importance. The Legal Aspect The reasons for the legal system, the government, or other powerful institutions to intervene in markets involve issues related to the following (OECD 19): Competitiveness, e.g. monopoly power, such as in the provision of pharmaceutical products for livestock. The presence of negative externalities, such as risks to human health or animal suffering. The provision of public goods, such as biosecurity and animal welfare. Information adequacies, e.g. which prevent the efficient functioning of markets, such as disease or welfare status of livestock. Issues of (in)justice and (in)equity, such as rationing during times of great scarcity, or compensation payments for loss. A range of socially desirable goals, including the provision of merit goods, i.e. goods that are felt to be needed by all members of society on grounds of ‘need’ or fairness. A wide array of policy mechanisms can be developed and implemented by governments to tackle the problems posed by animal disease to human health. These policy instruments range from direct intervention and legislation by government, through the taxation system, provision of incentives, to self-management and/or institutional agreements. The numerous multilateral agreements to mitigate and control global trade are launched with regards to the broadly known advantages of liberalized global trade, within which consumers in numerous countries can take advantage of the efficient and productive utilization of resources by manufacturers or producers in various countries (OECD 27). Due to its general economic value and susceptibility as a component of human consumption, livestock trading comprises a major part of several of these agreements, in an attempt to lessen the possible interruption to cross-border trade when a disease epidemic is determined or predicted. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was ratified in 1993 by the states of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The agreement contributes to the arena of animal disease management in North America. The members of NAFTA have bilateral agreements concerning animal disease control, and several trilateral arrangements like the North American Animal Health Committee, to organize responses to certain risks, such as foot-and-mouth disease (OECD 30). The major co-ordination system of NAFTA for animal disease management is the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Committee). The Committee convenes regularly and has a directive under NAFTA to oversee and promote the improvement of food security and sanitary conditions in the member states of NAFTA. It also concentrates on the implementation of global standards and policies; discussions on particular issues concerning sanitary and phytosanitary regulations; and scientific collaboration in the formation and implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary policies (OECD 30-31). The meetings of the Committee have played a major role in the improvement of policy organization and stronger planning for responses to crises or emergencies. An important case in point was the Foreign Animal Disease Response Simulation Exercise launched a decade ago (Smith & Kelly 115). The countries agreed to perform the same exercises on a regular basis. Nevertheless, in spite of this attempt toward organized crisis response and policymaking, significant development has not been realized toward regulatory co-ordination in animal disease legislation at NAFTA. A major centralized agency with regulatory authority and a research facility are still absent in NAFTA. Furthermore, its resources in this field are largely inadequate (OECD 31). In fact, there are very few sets of evidence to prove that the working and technical committees of NAFTA took part in recent major policymaking associated with livestock disease control, such as the decision regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemics that brought about considerable market collapse (OECD 30). Likewise, policies for identifying and preventing the transmission of other common animal diseases like avian influenza and foot-and-mouth disease have mostly been confined in specific countries. Ultimately, the NAFTA Secretariat was given the task of overseeing the agreement’s dispute settlement terms. Yet, no animal health concerns have thus far pushed any of the involved entities to implement the system (Smith & Kelly 155). Thus, the international domain of animal disease management emerges not just because communicable infections cross national boundaries but because global trade usually functions within an intricate structure of multilateral agreements. International agencies, like the World Health Organization (WHO), have major tasks to fulfill in disseminating information, implementing general standards and documentation, and creating opportunities for mediation and intervention, both during a supposed or actual epidemic (Kahrs 94). The WHO is an international agency concerned about animal health with the objective of reducing or preventing threats to human health originating from livestock, including zoonotic infections—or those with the “potential to be naturally transmitted from animals to the humans” (Merson, Black, & Mills 168); Veterinary Public Health is defined by the WHO as “the sum of all contributions to the physical, mental, and social well-being of humans through an understanding and application of veterinary science” (Smith & Kelly 174), and views human health as “inextricably linked to animal health and production” (Smith & Kelly 174). The Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses is mandated to co-ordinate international programs to tackle human health threats caused by animal diseases. For serious zoonotic infections, objectives involve enhancements in policies and governance, such as intensified global, regional, and national regulation and prevention capability (Merson et al. 168-169). In general, such effort intends to reduce the disease problem from animals and food, focusing on both traditional and modern production processes and incorporating preventive measures. These attempts are carried out through formation and execution of sustainable activities and policies aimed at guaranteeing early detection of possible diseases, risk evaluation, planning, and prompt crisis response. An expert from the Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses classified current effort on the regulation and prevention of zoonotic diseases into three sections (OECD 27): (1) policy-level intervention and buy-in, sustainable program development, and policy implementation undertaken with relevant governments; (2) co-ordination of technical work on zoonoses with governments and other international governmental organizations in order to achieve national, regional, and global coherence in surveillance, early detection, emergency preparedness, and response; and (3) implementation of policies and technical interventions to ensure that national, regional, and global tools and mechanisms, as well as knowledge and partnerships, are in place for the detection, assessment, and management of risks. The WHO greatly depends on its direct collaboration with other agencies, particularly the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for organizing and promoting campaigns against the transmission of livestock diseases (OECD 27). The WHO also evaluates the central capabilities of member states to identify, prevent, and regulate risks of zoonotic diseases through putting into practice the International Health Regulations structure. The evaluation of these core capacities is derived from the self-evaluation of each country, which could have a downside. In a reverse communication system, the WHO informs its members about the developments it has achieved on agreed goals and performance guidelines (Merson et al. 179). The WHO observes that there is still a need to improve containment processes and disease warning systems to make sure that zoonotic infections are prevented and controlled within animal stocks before they turn into a public health crisis (OECD 28). Hence, in the future, the agency will aspire for a positive transformation in preparedness and prevention in order to contain and regulate health threats brought about by animal disease. Potential Solutions Disease prevention and control policies can be implemented on a particular facility or at the national, regional, local, or global levels. Processes used at poultry-raising factories, ranches, or farms are generally derived from vaccinations and managerial systems. They concentrate on localized diseases, are not subjected to government supervision, and could change on a regular basis. Several livestock businesses have efficient nutrition, health, and management systems created by expert (Wyld 113). Usually, local disease-management programs are launched with hindsight in response to crisis and depend more on cure than prevention. Livestock health policies founded on prevention-based managerial principles or properly selected vaccination policies can be quite useful. Disease-management policies implemented by national or sub-national governments place emphasis on diseases of human health or economic importance; they call for public cooperation, legal intervention, and tax-based resources. In order to successfully deliver they necessitate sufficient financial support, competent governance, participatory implementation, and thorough preparation. They can be interrupted by incompetent supervision, communication inadequacies, and absence of collaboration. Generally the most broadly accepted and most effective animal disease-management policies are embarked on by national governments. Their potentials are reinforced if they are embarked on at the demands of livestock producers who see a disease crisis that cannot be effectively resolved at the local level (Smith & Kelly 129). Such diseases are generally transmittable and difficult to regulate by livestock producers alone. A national veterinary program should address relevant issues first about the ecosystem, the disease, and the proposed policy before forcing livestock owners into regulatory systems. These involve economic repercussions, the degree of support by the general public and livestock enterprises, the degree of authority held by the institutions involved, and the accessibility of undomesticated and domestic animals for testing (Kahrs 93-94). Majority of animal disease-management policies are implemented within national borders and supervised by veterinary authorities of the national government. There are prerequisites for creating disease-free sites that diverge from national boundaries applying a mechanism referred to as ‘regionalization’ (Kahrs 94). The SPS and World Trade Organization (WTO) adopt trade-based regionalization by launching disease-free sites including countries or locations having the same ecosystems (Kahrs 94). Thus far this approach has had narrow global purpose. Livestock diseases are targets of prevention or control policies when they bring about severe economic impacts, are communicable to humans, or affect trade. Control policies attempt to make diseases economically tolerable and manageable. Eradication programs aim at the complete removal of the disease from an area. In developing national animal health policies a preliminary objective of control is frequently more sensible or feasible than eradication, since unforeseen problems can arise after policies are implemented (Boris 288). When control programs have been effective in mitigating the prevalence of disease, and eradication seems viable, the strengths can be used to improve policies. National control policies need the active involvement and support of livestock owners and health organizations. The United States has effectively eliminated avian influenza, sheep scabies, swine vesicular disease, screwworms, cattle tick fever, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, African horse sickness, and others. These diseases are currently deemed alien (Kahrs 95-96). Several disease-carrying organisms are more simply prevented, regulated, and eradicated than others. The attributes of infections open or responsive to control attempts involve the lack of chronic diseases in animals, the accessibility of diagnostic examinations to determine the contributing agent, easily detectable symptoms, and controllable incubation phases (Kahrs 96). National veterinary agencies and legislators, before embarking on control or eradication attempts, should hence examine different issues. Finally, animal disease monitoring, surveillance, and reporting mechanisms are integral to the protection of livestock enterprises. Monitoring includes overall supervision and knowledge based on findings from laboratories, personal reports, and examination of suspicious epidemics. Surveillance can be overall supervision of public health but normally concentrates on particular diseases. Reporting is a crucial element of surveillance and monitoring. Without clear and transparent circulation of information about diseases it may remain buried in silence (Davis 117). This can weaken control attempts and the integrity of the government among the international community, trading partners, and local stakeholders. A feasible and effective monitoring, surveillance, and reporting mechanism necessitates a credible investigative and diagnostic capability and a strong national institution. They rely on collaboration from all sectors of the national livestock industry. Conclusions Animal disease has been a major problem since the beginning of time because of its impact on human health. Due to the indispensable and intensive interaction between animals and human beings, transmission of animal diseases to human population is difficult to prevent or control. The growth of livestock production or animal domestication further aggravated this threat to human health. However, with rigorous legal intervention by national governments, regional organizations, and the global community eradication and control of livestock diseases is not impossible; the United States and other countries have already proved this. Through collaboration at the national, regional, and global levels, livestock diseases will cease to be a major public health problem in the future. Works Cited Boris, Lynn. “The Food-Borne Ultimatum: Proposing Federal Legislation to Create Humane Living Conditions for Animals Raised for Food in Order to Improve Human Health”, Journal of Law and Health 24.2 (2011): 285+ Print. Brown, C. “Emerging Diseases: The Global Express”, Veterinary Pathology Online 47.1 (2010): 9-14. Print. Davis, Radford. Animals, Diseases, and Human Health: Shaping our Lives Now and in the Future. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print. Fano, Alix. Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policy. New York: Zed Books, 1997. Print. Kahrs, Robert. Global Livestock Health Policy: Challenges, Opportunities and Strategies for Effective Action. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Print. Merson, Michael, Robert Black, & Anne Mills. International Public Health: Diseases, Programs, Systems and Policies. UK: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2006. Print. OECD. Livestock Diseases Prevention, Control and Compensation Schemes: Prevention, Control and Compensation Schemes. New York: OECD Publishing, 2012. Print. Sapkota, Amy et al. “What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health”, Environmental Health Perspectives 115.5 (2007): 663+ Print. Smith, Gary & Alan Kelly. Food Security in a Global Economy: Veterinary Medicine and Public Health. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Print. Swabe, Joanna. Animals, Disease, and Human Society: Human-Animal Relations and the Rise of Veterinary Medicine. London: Routledge, 1999. Print. Wyld, David. “The National Animal Identification System: Ensuring the Competitiveness of the American Agriculture Industry in the Face of Mounting Animal Disease Threats”, Competition Forum 4.1 (2006): 110+ Print. Read More