Future Animal Health Science Working Group

Documents - Workshop September 2007

Issue Template - Science Working Group

Future Animal Health Science Working Group

A working group focused on the application of future animal health science in support of the National Animal Health Strategy (NAHS) outcomes.

DEFINITION – Animal Health

The following draft definition incorporates suggestions from the working group but does not necessarily represent a consensus position:

“Animal health” is the measurable condition of a live animal and/or a population of animals. It is comprised of three components: 1) access to needs for daily living; 2) ability to cope with stressors and change; and 3) ability to meet expectations that are defined by a species’ ecology and/or societal views of the species and/or its use. 

Issues with the original NAHS-proposed definition include:

• Emphasis on the biological function of animal health at the expense of the economic function
• Lack of association with the broader environmental/ecosystem outcomes
• Some issue with applicability of the term “integrity.” Certain industrial applications (i.e. humane slaughter) may be at odds with this usage

Definition should be “fit for purpose,” that is customized for the NAHS.

DEFINITION – Animal Welfare

The working group has a number of issues with this definition (outlined below) but does not have a suggested alternative.
The state of an animal when it is in harmony with its environment and its physical health, and behavioural needs are fulfilled in accordance with expert opinion and scientific knowledge.
Issues with this definition include:

• Usage of the term “harmony” may be difficult to associate with clearly measurable outcomes
• The inclusion of “social values,” along with “expert opinion” and “scientific knowledge
• A new definition of “animal welfare” may result in inconsistencies with previous definitions developed by key stakeholders, resulting in misaligned expectations

The usage of “animal welfare” over “quality of life” may avoid ethical debates on animal rights.

ISSUES related to the future of animal health science

1. There is not a balanced approach to animal health that emphasizes health promotion and well-being, in addition to disease prevention and mitigation.
2. There is insufficient integration of animal health with human health in areas that are applicable (zoonotics, epizootics, surveillance, animals as sentinels).
3. The linkages between research prioritization and funding sources in the animal health sector require improvement.
4. The systematic application of science to inform decision making and policy in animal health requires improvement.
5. Improved analytical tools are required to measure the impact of scientific activities on animal health.
6. There are insufficient training opportunities for animal health specialists.
7. Animal health issues do not adhere to political boundaries. As a result, the NAHS should be both national and international in scope.

PROPOSED NAHS OUTCOMES

Individual comments from group members (i.e. not necessarily consensus):

1. A clear understanding of some of the terms employed during strategy development, including “animal welfare” and “animal health” will facilitate communication and collaboration throughout the process and result in a better understanding of the overall goal.
2. Outcome 1, 3 and 7 may be somewhat redundant; all deal with human/animal/environmental risk mitigation.
3. Although possibly captured in Outcomes 4, 5 and 6, an emphasis on the protection of animals from disease identification to disease mitigation would be prudent.
4. Additional outcome: Strengthen the competitive position of the Canadian agriculture and food industry.
5. Consider distilling current list to 3 outcomes:
   1. Create the scientific basis for integrated decisions intended to prevent animal diseases and their associated impacts on animals, society and their shared environment.
   2. Promote animal health and welfare to the betterment of animals and society.
   3. Practise animal health in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.
6. A risk-based approach to animal health avoids a discussion about the benefits of health promotion and well-being.
7. The NAHS outcomes should be called “long-term outcomes” or even “mission-critical” outcomes. The time scale for the Strategy must be made clear (i.e. Is it 5 or 25 years to achieve the outcomes?).
8. Some outcomes will be difficult to evaluate using measurable evidence.