Workshop Sept 2007

National Animal Health Strategy
Multi-partner Workshop

September 18-19, 2007

September 2007 Workshop Summary Report

< Introduction

Table of Contents

Part 2: Defining the NAHS Scope >

---

Part 1 – Define Animal Health

During the Summer, the Working Groups were each asked to propose definitions for animal health. The results were analyzed, and 3 composite definitions were proposed to the Workshop participants:

Definition A: "The state of a living animal, species or population that can sustain functions and maintain its well-being while alive."

Definition B: "Animal health is the measurable condition of an animal and/or its population while alive.
Animal health includes three components:

1. access to the needs for daily living
2. ability to cope with stressors and change
3. ability to meet those expectations defined by species ecology and societal views of the species and its use."

Definition C: "A state of optimal physical, mental and social well-being which allows for its survival and perpetuation (reproduction and other related functions) and includes the absence of disease or infirmity."

Participants were invited to provide comments on each definition. The results of these discussions are as follows.

Definition A

• Choosing too specific a definition will imply an obligation to act on it. You may choose to intercede in a specific disease outbreak or condition due to environmental, public health, economical, genetic or other reasons, or you may choose not to intercede because you are unable to or because you choose not to (e.g. a normal moderation of wild populations)... In addition, many wild populations have been inadequately studied, particularly when compared with domestic animals, to authoritatively state whether they are healthy.
• The term, functions, is too broad. There is a need to specify what is meant by functions. Is it biological functions, physical functions, including behaviour, or all of those?
• There is a need to incorporate the ethological notion of well-being (i.e. the expression of an animal's or of an animal population's normal repertoire of behaviours). The word sustain suggests a minimal standard, and many animals can sustain physiological functions even through duress.
• The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) does not have a definition for animal health. Canada, therefore, needs to adopt a definition that is compatible with those of our major trading partners.
• The definition might read: "... or population that can fulfill its expected function and maintain its well-being while alive." The definition might be limited to animals under the control of humans" and, perhaps, "wildlife that may affect humans and/or other animals (e.g. zoonotic diseases)."
• The definition does not differentiate between the circumstances of wild versus domestic animals.
• It is essential to define what an animal is.
• The definition of animal health needs to be broad. Definition A is broad. However, while alive should read throughout its life.
• The definition appears to be too production oriented and considers the economics of production as it pertains to welfare more.
• The definition is not broad enough and needs to contemplate more factors, such as the environment and psychological state of health, which are not mentioned.
• Measurements and species-specific parameters are required. However, measurements are not always precise, because both quantitative and qualitative aspects are included in measurements. There were questions on whether measurements of animal health were even possible.
• Well-being does not include animal welfare clearly enough. The proposed definition misses the societal view of the relative worth of animal species.
• The following additions/suggestions were proposed:
  • "... population that can sustain biological and/or ecological functions throughout its lifecycle."
  • "... the state of living animals, a species or population that can sustain biological and/or ecological functions and maintain its well-being while alive."
  • "... sustain biological and ecological functions."
  • sustain functions should be defined if used. Example could be "sustain normal physiological functions."

Definition B

• Is health a measurable condition? It should be seen along a spectrum or a continuum. The word, measurable, provides a scientific driver for determining the level of health, but measures can be used at the individual level to extrapolate the health of the population as a whole. A healthy population includes those individuals in an optimal environment, as well as those forced to live on the edge, noting that the latter many not be as healthy, but that the population is healthy.
• There are some elements of any definition that cannot be expressed in black and white terms. A gelding, for example, cannot reproduce but could still be healthy.
• We need to "balance" the access to the needs of daily living with the economics of animal ownership.
• The definition should include the concept of "human involvement/responsibility."
• The term, societal views, is too broad, and its inclusion as a component of quantitative evaluation of health is problematic.
• Participants questioned the addition of "... and its use" at the end of the third bullet.
• One advantage of this definition is that it provides the scope for setting a goal to improve the overall conditions at the population/species level. Some animals or populations, for instance, may be culled or eliminated due to their competition with other animals or populations, thus reflecting the overall goal of a healthy, national animal population.
• The combination of definitions A and B was proposed to read:
  
  "A state of optimal, physical, mental and social well-being, comprised of 3 components:
  

  1. access to the needs for daily living
  2. ability to cope with stressors and change
  3. ability to meet those expectations defined by species ecology and societal views of the species and its use"
  

  This definition would eliminate the problem with measurable but could introduce problems with optimal.
• Animal welfare should be included at the end of Definition B to read ”... and its use including animal welfare."
• This definition should include some reference to human disease issues, such as zoonotic disease and food safety.
• This definition defines animal health from society's (i.e. human) perspective.
• One suggestion was to delete use and to substitute expected function.

Definition C

• This definition seems to be an extrapolation of the World Health Organization's definition for human health.
• Mental and social well-being (within the confines of a definition) must be species-specific.
• This definition should be commended; it encapsulates animal welfare for its intrinsic value, not just from a human perspective.
• Another definition was proposed:
• "A measure of the physical, mental and social well-being of an animal allowing for its survival and perpetuation and which includes the degree of absence of disease and infirmity."
• Entrenching perpetuation/reproduction as a core component of health excludes all gelded or neutered animals. Further, regarding social/mental well-being, it could be considered unhealthy to remove herd animals from the herd. Mental well-being is, perhaps, too subjective a value to be an effective indicator of health.
• Another definition was proposed:
• "A state of species-specific physical, mental and social well-being which allows for an animal's or animal population's survival and perpetuation, and includes resilience to and/or absence of disease or infirmity."
  • This definition is animal-centric and does not contemplate societal needs. The context within society wherein the animal exists should be included in the definition.
  • Concerns were raised with perpetuation. It was believed that such an indicator would be unacceptable or unrealistic if applied to human health and thus should be removed from the chosen definition
• An alternative definition was put forward:
• "A state of optimal physical, mental and social well-being including the absence of disease or infirmity, with objective, appropriate and measurable parameters."
  • A question was raised about the realism or wisdom of considering an absence of disease
• It was suggested to add expected function to definition C.
• The definition of animal health should include some animal products; specifically, germplasm, semen and ova.

Conclusion: defining animal health

No clear consensus was reached on definition preference; there were many proposed variations and changes. However, many comments on the need to keep a definition short and simple were collected. This would appear to favour definition A.

Observations on animal welfare

• We cannot eliminate all suffering; we should therefore qualify suffering and talk about undue suffering.