 |
 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Animals > Imports > Policies / Procedures Discussion Paper: Policies on the Importation of Restricted Feeder Cattle from the United StatesTable of Contents
ISSUE:The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is conducting a review of import conditions, with a view to facilitating year-round import of US cattle for feeding and slaughter. This discussion paper is provided to invite stakeholder input and to facilitate public consultation. BACKGROUND:Diseases of concern associated with the importation of cattle from the US include bovine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, bluetongue and anaplasmosis. Canada's national herd is free from brucellosis, anaplasmosis and bluetongue (except that bluetongue occurs sporadically in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia). Canada's bovine population is free of bovine tuberculosis according to OIE criteria. Canadian animal health programs for bovine tuberculosis eradication and surveillance are very similar to those of the US and the ‘equivalence’ of these programs is currently the subject of formal evaluation by the CFIA and USDA Canada's disease-free status for brucellosis, bluetongue and anaplasmosis is verified by surveys of the national cattle herd which are conducted every three to four years. Our free status for bovine tuberculosis is verified by passive surveillance, including veterinary investigations on farm, submissions to veterinary laboratories and meat inspection. Anaplasmosis and bluetongue are vector borne diseases, i.e. they are both spread by biting insects. Culicoides sonorensis, the main insect vector for bluetongue in North America, occurs in the southern part of the three western provinces. However, transmission of bluetongue has only occurred to date within the Okanagan Valley. Anaplasmosis is spread by ticks of the Dermacentor genus and by biting flies (e.g. tabanids) that occur throughout Canada. The disease is also transmitted via the use of veterinary instruments contaminated with blood. The reasons why anaplasmosis has not become established in Canada are not well understood. Bluetongue is a viral disease that typically causes serious illness and mortality in sheep and goats. Infected cattle are carriers of infection during the period of viraemia (thought to be less than 60 days), but rarely show clinical signs of illness. Bluetongue can cause disease in ruminant wildlife. Anaplasmosis is caused by the haemoparasite, Anaplasma marginale, which affects cattle and other ruminants. In endemic areas, anaplasmosis is seen as a "production limiting disease", but cattle newly introduced to the area may show marked clinical signs, including anemia, jaundice, weight loss and death. In an endemic region, however, the disease typically presents as an increased number of "poor doers". Infected animals are carriers for life. It appears that infection with A. marginale does not cause significant disease in other ruminant species in North America. Neither bluetongue nor anaplasmosis are human health hazards. In the mid 1970's, it was determined that bluetongue had been introduced into the cattle population of British Columbia's Okanagan Valley. While this introduction was attributed to the importation of bluetongue infected US cattle, it is believed that a subsequent introduction in 1987 was due to wind-borne vectors carrying the virus. In response to the disease introduction Agriculture Canada (which was then responsible for animal health) took steps to eradicate the disease and implemented measures to prevent the entry of bluetongue via importation of US ruminants. USDA actively participated in the development of the import standards, which were deemed appropriate at that time. In 1995, following the completion of a science-based risk assessment that recognized the absence of insect vectors during the winter season in Canada, import regulations relative to bluetongue were amended. Cattle and other ruminants were, for the first time since the 1970s, allowed to enter Canada during the winter months with no testing for bluetongue. Federal officials then worked with the national cattle industry to enable the implementation of a specialized import program for feeder cattle, called the Northwest Pilot Project. It allowed the importation of feeder cattle under significantly reduced certification arrangements from qualifying states. Subsequent regulatory amendments in 1997 and 1998 established import conditions for a class of cattle known as "restricted feeders" and led to the development of the current restricted feeder cattle program. CURRENT POLICY:The Health of Animals Act provides the legal authority to prevent the introduction of diseases into Canada and prevent the spread within Canada of diseases of animals that affect human health and/or could have a significant economic effect on the Canadian livestock industry. The Health of Animals Regulations and associated Import Reference Document set out conditions for the importation of animals and their genetic material. The importation of restricted feeder cattle from qualifying states of the United States is currently allowed during winter, which is defined as October 1 - March 31, with the use of an import permit according to the provisions of the Health of Animals Regulations. "Restricted feeder cattle" are defined as cattle that are imported for the purpose of feeding and slaughter, including steers, bulls, cows or heifers and weaned calves (i.e. on solid feed and imported for the purpose of fattening and slaughter). It is intended that restricted feeders go to slaughter within the normal commercial time frame. The original regulation was intended for cattle being fed for slaughter. However, the movement of these cattle into the breeding herd was not specifically precluded and some such movement occurred. The import conditions have since been amended to specify that imported feeder cattle are not eligible to enter the breeding herd. A state's eligibility to export restricted feeder cattle to Canada depends upon its status for the four diseases of concern. Under current policy, to be eligible as a source state for restricted feeders, the exporting state must be designated by USDA as a Brucellosis Class Free State and as a tuberculosis accredited-free state or a modified accredited advanced state. Additionally the exporting state must be designated by CFIA as "low risk" for both bluetongue and anaplasmosis. "Low risk" for bluetongue is established by considering the seroprevalence of bluetongue in the state plus climatic factors (date of initial killing frost). The "low risk" designation for anaplasmosis is determined by a maximum seroprevalence of 1.5%. The nine states currently eligible to export restricted feeders during the winter season include Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, New York, Maine, Alaska and Hawaii. There is no requirement for testing for anaplasmosis and bluetongue for winter importation of restricted feeder cattle The only health certification required is provided by a USDA-accredited veterinarian and USDA endorsement is not required. The restricted feeder cattle conditions have greatly facilitated the movement of cattle from northern US pastures and auction markets into Canadian feedlots. However, the volume of this trade depends to a great extent on economic factors such as the relationship between the price of feed in the US and Canada and the currency exchange rate. The importation of US feeder cattle ceased following the May 2003 occurrence of BSE in Alberta. In October 1995, the CFIA recognised Hawaii and Alaska as bluetongue free, so cattle imports from these states are exempt from certification or testing for bluetongue. Hawaii was also recognized to be free of anaplasmosis in June 2001. Therefore, restricted feeder cattle can be imported from Hawaii throughout the year without testing for bluetongue or anaplasmosis. In summary, depending on the state of origin and the season, Canada’s import conditions for anaplasmosis and bluetongue are less restrictive than current recommendations of the OIE. ONGOING REVIEW:In February 2000, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) requested an extension of the conditions for winter importation, commonly referred to as "year-round importation". The CCA subsequently proposed a number of technical modifications with the goal of achieving a significant relaxation of the current import conditions for bluetongue and anaplasmosis. A risk assessment undertaken by Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development during 2000 on the unrestricted importation of feeder cattle during the summer months determined that the proposed importation could result in the introduction of anaplasmosis and bluetongue into Canada. Giving consideration to the proposed model rates and conditions, the projected number of outbreaks of bluetongue disease was more than three outbreaks per hundred years of importing and up to six outbreaks annually of anaplasmosis. The cost of Anaplasma marginale becoming endemic in Canada was estimated at $3,300,000 for Alberta producers and $6,500,000 for the remainder of the Canadian producers. A clinical disease outbreak of bluetongue was estimated to cost the southern Alberta producers $40,000 in total and the British Columbia Okanagan producers $6,000. The effects of the diseases on Canadian exports were not addressed. The CFIA completed a risk assessment on the CCA importation proposal in October 2001. In summary, the CFIA concluded that importation accordance with the provisions of the proposal would result in the transmission of the virus to cattle herds outside of the terminal feedlots 7.4 times annually and one outbreak of anaplasmosis every five years. In March 2002, considering additional information, it was estimated that there is likely to be one occurrence of anaplasmosis every 11 years. The calculation for bluetongue remained unchanged. In response to a further proposal from CCA, the CFIA proposed to undertake summer importation on the basis of a pilot project during the summer months of 2002. Canadian stakeholders did not support this proposal because of disease risk concerns and the CFIA did not proceed with the project. During 2002, the CFIA came to the conclusion that C. sonorensis did not occur east of the Manitoba/Ontario border and, therefore, the importation of untested livestock into Canada's six eastern provinces could be allowed without testing for bluetongue. Accordingly, the CFIA implemented a policy to allow the import of ruminants from any state into eastern Canada without bluetongue certification. Such imports must remain in the eastern provinces for 100 days, to provide a safe margin of time for clearance of viraemia. While enforcement of this provision should not prove difficult for feeder animals that are imported under permit into designated feedlots, enforcement for breeder cattle imports may present a greater challenge. In June, 2002, the CCA sponsored a workshop on bluetongue and anaplasmosis. The objective was to have an open forum on the scientific base for the determination of acceptable risk in the development of options to facilitate the year-round trade in beef cattle between Canada and the United States. Information provided resulted in increased stakeholder acceptance of the proposed pilot project for summer importation. In December 2002, the CCA presented a further proposal for summer importation. After consultation with stakeholders, the CFIA agreed to allow the importation of feeder cattle from Montana and North Dakota into a small number of quarantine feedlots during summer 2003, again on a pilot basis and in the expectation that the results would be re-evaluated at the end of the season. No import occurred because of the BSE case in Alberta. At such time as the US industry is prepared to export feeder cattle to Canada, the pilot project could be re-activated. NEW SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION:This paper provides an overview of information obtained through reports of research projects, animal disease surveys and scientific meetings during the past two years that are relevant to our feeder cattle import policies. For more complete information, the reader is referred to the CFIA’s risk assessments (2003) listed at the end of this paper. The analysis of Canada's 2002-2003 national bovine serosurvey is not yet complete. However, the results of testing approximately 10,363 samples for bluetongue and 11,154 samples for anaplasmosis for a finding of 1 and 31 positive results, respectively, indicate that Canada remains free of bluetongue (outside BC's Okanagan Valley) and anaplasmosis nationally. In the fall of 2001, US and Canadian industries jointly initiated a three-year study on the risk of bluetongue and anaplasmosis infection in western Canada following importation of US feeder cattle. More than 5000 feeder cattle imported from Montana were tested during the fall of 2001 and the results indicated a relatively low incidence of infection in the imported animals. The economic situation in Canadian feedlots in the fall of 2002 resulted in reduced importation and it was not possible to complete the planned testing in the second year of the study. A second component of the study for which the lead scientist is Dr. Tim Lysyk of AAFC's Research Branch laboratory in Lethbridge, is to determine the prevalence, biting rate and abundance of Culicoides spp. in Western Canada, targeting southern Alberta. It is intended to evaluate factors relevant to the vectoral capacity of C. sonorensis in western Canada. Preliminary results of the study suggest that Culicoides spp. are inefficient vectors of bluetongue under the conditions that pertain in Alberta. A paper entitled "Environmental Effects on Vector Competence and Virogenesis of Bluetongue Virus in Culicoides: Interpreting Laboratory Data in a Field Context", which was co-authored and presented at the OIE Third International Bluetongue Symposium in Italy in late October 2003 by B.A. Mullen, provides very useful information and facilitates an understanding of Dr. Lysyk's work. Publication of this paper is pending. During summer 2002 and 2003, the USDA conducted surveillance for C. sonorensis and bluetongue activity in North and South Dakota and Nebraska. A summary of the findings of the study is published in the proceedings of the 2002 and 2003 United States Animal Health Association annual meetings. It will also be in the report of the OIE Bluetongue Symposium. The findings confirmed that North Dakota ruminants present a very low risk for bluetongue. In November and December 2002, the USDA completed national surveillance for the 2002 Serological Survey of Slaughter Cattle for Antibody against Bluetongue Virus. This survey is carried out primarily to establish the prevalence of bluetongue in specified states for purpose of export certification of cattle to Canada. As well as the traditional north-eastern states that are classed as "low incidence" for bluetongue, several central and western states were surveyed for the prevalence of bluetongue seropositive animals. The CFIA is considering the results of the survey in reassessing the bluetongue risk associated with importation. An important conclusion of the OIE Bluetongue Symposium in October 2003 is that bluetongue is still considered to be an important disease for the international community. Reports of particular interest concerned southern Europe, where Culicoides species that were not previously recognized as bluetongue vectors have shown competence under particular conditions. Specific studies of vector competence and capacity are important to a proper understanding of risk management. Revision of current OIE standards for bluetongue is warranted and the OIE will consider the recommendations of the conference in this regard. Abstracts of the presentations at the symposium and an unofficial summary report can be made available to stakeholders by the CFIA. An official report will be published in the near future. Concerning anaplasmosis, sero-surveillance of feeder yearlings imported from Montana in 2001, as described above, indicated a prevalence of infection of 0.73% to 1.93% in the animals surveyed. In October 2002, US scientists, epidemiologists and regulators conducted a closed working session in Fort Collins, Colorado on "Anaplasmosis Science and Policy". The purpose of the session was to review current science and ongoing research in reference to the movement of US cattle to Canada and the potential for establishing anaplasmosis in Canada. While there were identified areas where additional information is needed, particularly in research on the vector and disease prevalence information, the participants in the session concluded that: "The weight of current scientific and historic evidence supports the year round movement of feeder cattle from the northern tier of States in the United States to quarantined feedlots in Canada with the mitigations outlined in the proposed pilot program". Early in 2003, the Iowa State University conducted a study on the use of tetracycline to treat anaplasmosis in cattle. In the study, none of three different courses of tetracycline treatment evaluated was successful in eliminating the organism from infected cattle. Publication of the study is pending. The scientific information as noted above has been considered in CFIA’s draft risk assessments on summer season importation as discussed later in this document. REVIEW OF IMPORT POLICIES:In this review the CFIA is considering three future options, including: (1) maintenance of the status quo; (2) complete deregulation of bluetongue and anaplasmosis and allowing importation with no restrictions for these diseases; and (3) allowing importation of restricted feeders during the summer months with specified import requirements. Sourcing of animals from states of different disease prevalence is one means of reducing the risk associated with importation and is considered in option 3. For all options, the current import requirements for brucellosis and tuberculosis would remain unchanged; therefore, the disease risk for these diseases is not altered. For the purpose of this section, the October 1 to March 31 period is referred to as winter importation and the April 1 to September 30 period is referred to as summer importation. In the event that the CFIA were to develop conditions for summer importation, winter import conditions would be re-evaluated to ensure a consistent approach to risk management. Option 1 - Maintain the status quo:Excluding Hawaii, from which year round importation is permitted, current policy provides for the importation from Montana and North Dakota of restricted feeders into a limited number (2-3) of quarantine feedlots in Alberta under a pilot project, as approved for 2003. The beef cattle industry represented by the CCA believes that this proposal should be modified and has recommended that the CFIA deregulate bluetongue and anaplasmosis. The USDA considers that bluetongue-related restrictions for cattle are an unwarranted trade barrier as bluetongue only enters new regions via the movement of infected Culicoides spp. that are competent bluetongue vectors. This position was not supported by the participants at the recent OIE Bluetongue Symposium. The US currently requires that cattle from Australia spend sixty days in a vector free area before export and applies bluetongue mitigating measures to ruminants imported into the US from the Caribbean. As new scientific information has become available, the CFIA has undertaken a risk assessment to determine whether expanded summer importation could present an acceptable level of risk. The draft reports of CFIA-AHRA risk assessments on bluetongue and anaplasmosis (2003) are available upon request as described at the end of this document. Option 2 - Deregulation of Bluetongue and Anaplasmosis:Under this option the CFIA would deregulate both bluetongue and anaplasmosis and would allow year round importation of feeder cattle with no measures to prevent the entry of these two diseases. The likelihood of bluetongue becoming established in susceptible species in western Canada outside the Okanagan Valley would depend on transmission of the disease by the C. sonorensis population in the area where the imported cattle resided immediately after importation. While bluetongue-infected cattle may enter Canada, historical experience suggests that bluetongue is unlikely to become endemic outside the Okanagan valley. However, we cannot be certain that this would continue to be the case if large numbers of viraemic cattle were imported. Remaining questions regarding the competence of C. sonorensis in western Canada may be substantially addressed in the next year or two. The establishment of bluetongue could cause significant disease-related losses for sheep producers and the loss of wildlife species such as bighorn sheep. Serious losses of species that are considered to be rare or listed as 'threatened species' as a result of commercial activity of the cattle industry is not likely to acceptable to Canadians. It is likely that uncontrolled importation of cattle without risk management for anaplasmosis would result in the introduction and establishment of the disease as both tick and biting fly species in eastern and western Canada can spread the disease. As Canadian cattle are naive with regard to anaplasmosis, significant production losses and mortality could be expected to occur in some affected herds. The extent to which anaplasmosis would become established in Canada in the absence of control and eradication efforts is not known. Deregulation would have several implications, which are different for the two diseases. While it is difficult to be certain about all possible implications, we can identify some consequences of deregulation. For a non-reportable disease, the government would not normally implement control or eradication efforts. Costs associated with an outbreak of clinical bluetongue in sheep farms or clinical anaplasmosis in cattle would be borne by the producer. Such costs would relate to animal mortality, lost production and possibly treatment and vaccination. The CFIA would not normally order destruction of infected animals, impose quarantine or compensate producers for diseases that are not reportable. We expect that producers would seek access to vaccine (both diseases) or antibiotics (for anaplasmosis). Tetracycline has been reported to be effective in reducing clinical disease but is not currently registered for treatment of anaplasmosis in Canada and no vaccine is approved for either disease. Government (Health Canada and CFIA) would take steps to facilitate the required approvals in the event of significant disease outbreaks. Clinical bluetongue in wildlife species would not be amenable to control or prevention. In terms of possible impact on industry sectors, it is noteworthy that deregulation of bluetongue may have lesser implications for the cattle industry than for producers of sheep and goats because it is the small ruminant species that are clinically affected by bluetongue. The establishment of anaplasmosis in a deregulated environment may have greater impact on the cow-calf and dairy sectors than the beef feedlot sector. With regard to international trade, bluetongue is a more significant disease than anaplasmosis. The OIE currently recommends risk management measures for bluetongue in regard to trade in live ruminants and their genetic material. The OIE system of classifying animal diseases is evolving and with effect from 2005, the current system of OIE List A and List B diseases will no longer apply. It is possible that this change will make bluetongue less significant in internationally. However, the outcome of the recent OIE conference on bluetongue suggests that the international community will continue to apply risk management measures in regard to bluetongue. Deregulation would make it difficult for Canada to meet its international disease notification obligations or to satisfy trading partners as to our management of these two diseases. It is likely that exports of live ruminants and their genetic material would be harmed in the event of an outbreak of bluetongue. The duration of trade effects would be more prolonged if bluetongue had been deregulated and the CFIA would have little capacity to mitigate these impacts through a zoning policy. Option 3 - Importation of restricted feeder cattle with measures to reduce the risk of entry and establishment of bluetongue and anaplasmosis:Summer Importation Note: Hawaii and Alaska are already recognized as bluetongue-free by Canada and therefore excluded from consideration relative to bluetongue. Hawaii is also recognized as anaplasmosis-free and is therefore excluded from consideration concerning anaplasmosis. It is recognized that no importation is risk-free. It is important to recognise that risk evaluation is based on probability of disease becoming established combined with the impact of such establishment. One of the most important factors influencing probability is the disease prevalence in the state of origin of export cattle. Animals with bluetongue viraemia or anaplasmosis infection will be imported, even from states with recognized low prevalences of the diseases in question. However, permitting importation only from specified states or groups of states allows the CFIA to modify/manage the risk of disease entering importing feedlots. Controls over the physical location and management of the feedlot will influence the probability that disease will spread within or outside the feedlot. For summer feeder cattle importation it is possible to identify measures that would substantially reduce the spread of disease within and the extension of disease outside the importing feedlot. These measures would be specified on import permits so that they are mandatory under the Health of Animals Regulations and give the CFIA the necessary enforcement authority. The following conditions could play a role in mitigating risks associated with summer importation:
Options for state of origin of restricted feeders - Bluetongue: Option 3.1B Montana and North Dakota and any other states designated as "low incidence" for bluetongue by CFIA. Low incidence states have a recognized seroprevalence of bluetongue of 2% or less based on biennial surveys of slaughter cattle using the cELISA test. Option 3.2B The states listed in Option 1 plus the states of Washington, Idaho and South Dakota, which have been recognized as bluetongue "low risk states" for winter importation Option 3.3B Any state regardless of bluetongue status Options for states of origin for restricted feeders - Anaplasmosis: Option 3.1A From Montana and North Dakota Option 3.2A No states are currently designated for the purpose of this option because of the lack of statistically based surveys and hard data (at present, the CFIA requires that states have a demonstrated cattle sero-prevalence 1.5%). Test information provided to date in support of winter importation has come from sources such as export testing, disease investigations and testing of bulls in AI studs. The CFIA considers that more definitive data on anaplasmosis will be required in order to establish the level of risk with more confidence for summer importation. It is our understanding that anaplasmosis is considered to be a notifiable disease under the US NAHMS program. However, reporting is not mandatory. CFIA will continue to evaluate all information provided by USDA in the assessment of a state's anaplasmosis status and those states determined to have a low prevalence/risk of anaplasmosis will be listed under this option. Option 3.3A Any state regardless of the anaplasmosis status. Based on the CFIA-AHRA risk assessment, the risks associated with each option have been estimated for bluetongue and anaplasmosis as follows:
DISCUSSIONThe OIE recommends the health measures that should be used in international trade in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. By adopting OIE recommendations, countries can readily demonstrate that they are consistent with their obligations as WTO members. Among the principles established in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures are: recognition of areas of low pest and disease prevalence and the implementation of measures that are proportional to the risk posed by the importation. Measures that are more restrictive than the OIE recommendations should be based on a risk assessment to determine the most appropriate disease control measures Canada's favourable animal health status provides many advantages in international trade. Freedom from serious diseases such as bluetongue confers a major competitive advantage as Canadian producers have less reliance on treatment with chemicals and drugs and for many diseases Canadian exports are not subject to costly testing and quarantine. Long term freedom from List A diseases and serious List B diseases has been one of the most important indicators of effective and credible veterinary services. There is no doubt that Canada’s animal health status and standard of veterinary services had made it easier for Canada to gain access to overseas markets under favourable technical conditions. The only List A disease that occurs in Canada is bluetongue and most trading partners have recognized the regionalisation of bluetongue in the Okanagan valley. Other countries have tried to obtain recognition of bluetongue regionalisation with limited success. In Canada, regionalisation of bluetongue is confirmed on an ongoing basis by the conduct of national serological surveys of the bovine population and the maintenance of sentinel herds in the Okanagan Valley. Trace back of positive results, if any occur, is facilitated by the Canadian Cattle Identification system, which, under the Health of Animals Act, is mandatory for adult cattle. The introduction of large numbers of seropositive cattle, particularly if these could not be confirmed as being of US origin, would call into question the regionalisation of bluetongue as would an outbreak of clinical disease in sheep or wildlife. Despite the finding of a case of BSE, Canada still has export markets for ruminant semen and embryos. It is likely that the initial response to a bluetongue outbreak would be a suspension of all trade in ruminant genetic material. Markets that are particularly sensitive to this issue would include Europe and Asia. It would take two years to regain freedom status according to the current OIE Code. Canada would attempt to mitigate trade impact by zoning or regionalisation but this would require that the disease was reportable. It is likely that some trading partners would expect the CFIA to impose movement restrictions on cattle from the infected area. Bald assertions about the absence of competent vectors in certain provinces would be unlikely to convince trading partners as to regionalisation. There are provisions in the OIE code for importation of live ruminants and genetic material from infected countries, based on seasonal freedom or isolation from vectors and testing of live animals or donor animals. Canada would argue for trade under these conditions but as seen with BSE, some trading partners may choose not to accept OIE recommendations in the situation of a sudden change of status from free to infected. The establishment of anaplasmosis as an endemic disease in Canada would have little significance for international trade. The international guidelines for anaplasmosis are relatively straightforward. Additional testing and anti-parasitic measures would be required but are not considered to be trade restrictive or unduly onerous. The introduction of either disease into Canada would necessitate the re-negotiation of a significant number of export certificates. ECONOMIC IMPACT:In addition to the economic consequence of the effects on international trade, there would be an economic impact to Canada based on the costs of eradicating an outbreak or ongoing disease control activities in the event that either disease becomes established in Canada. Although the economic impact of bluetongue is relatively minor from the perspective of the national economy, the impact on individual sheep or goat farmers could be catastrophic. There is no treatment for bluetongue and no vaccine licensed for use in Canada, and although vaccine could be made available under an emergency use license, it is possible that significant losses would have occurred before vaccine could be made available. If bluetongue had been deregulated, the government would not be likely to provide significant domestic support to domestic industries affected by an outbreak. The cost of controlling a bluetongue outbreak has been estimated at less than $50,000 when effects on international trade are ignored. For anaplasmosis, the CFIA has conducted an economic analysis (copy attached) that estimates between $12.1 and $ 36.0 million in direct production losses and $3m in costs to the CFIA as a consequence of anaplasmosis becoming established in Canada. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:The introduction of either anaplasmosis or bluetongue to Canada may have an impact on the environment via disease outbreaks in susceptible ruminant species such as Dahl sheep, moufflon and white-tailed deer. Anaplasmosis is a "production limiting disease" and in 2002 it was ranked fifth in economic importance among the diseases affecting cattle in the US However, anaplasmosis has not had significant impact on wildlife or on other species in the US Bluetongue could have a significant impact on susceptible ruminant species in the wild. Species such as bighorn sheep are considered to be rare and significant losses of this species would not be acceptable to Canadians. Bluetongue could cause significant losses of more populous species such as mule deer, black-tailed deer and antelope. This risk is difficult to measure but should not be ignored. INVITATION TO COMMENT:The CFIA invites comments on this discussion paper. Comments should address scientific issues and should, where possible, be supported by scientific data or published information. Unless otherwise directed by the author of the submission, the CFIA will place all submissions on the public record and will release them to stakeholders if requested. Comments should be submitted in writing by February 15th, 2004 and should be addressed to: Clea Coronel November 28, 2003
Reference link:An Economic Assessment of the Introduction and Establishment of Anaplasmosis in Canada For electronic copies of the risk assessment on bluetongue or anaplasmosis, please contact Marlene Longtin.
|
 Top of Page |
Important Notices |
