Province to include border shutdowns among animal health ‘hazards’

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) is proposing a new regulation in the province’s Animal Health Act (AHA) that will add to the definition of “hazards” to better prepare the province should an animal health emergency occur, and better support animal health. 

The new regulation will prescribe that a provincial surplus of livestock or poultry due to a border-related disruption would be added to clause (c) of the “hazard” definition, plus amendments to the appendices listing notifiable hazards in O. Reg. 277/12.

Several diseases of concern to aquaculture are also among proposed additions to a list of reportable “hazards” in Ontario’s (AHA) about which the Chief Veterinarian of Ontario (CVO) must be informed.

Why it matters: This particular proposed addition is part of the government’s preparedness strategy for the possible arrival in Canada of African swine fever (ASF) or other highly-infectious animal diseases that have already devastated other areas of the globe.

The proposed amendments were posted on Oct. 19 to Ontario’s Environmental Registry with a comment period running through Dec. 3. 

“The final decision to make the regulation with respect to the expanded definition of ‘hazard’ rests with the Lieutenant Governor … and Cabinet,” explained Christa Roettele, media relations strategist with OMAFRA.

The addition to the list of various emerging diseases isn’t unusual; knowledge about aquaculture health has advanced significantly in recent years and the proposed additions reflect that. But the addition of “surplus of livestock or poultry due to a border-related disruption” is outside the definition as currently noted in the Act — although the authority is granted to expand that definition if justified.

“The potential application of the AHA in these circumstances would help position Ontario to be better prepared to respond to animal health-related emergencies if they arise,” suggests the Environmental Registry notice. 

This is the first amendment to this section of the Act since it came into force on Jan. 1, 2013. If it’s approved, 19 diseases will be added to the list of “immediately notifiable hazards” including 11 which have been observed in aquaculture environments. Also included are the emerging swine threat Senecavirus, Cache Valley Virus in cattle, and Severe Acute Respiratory Virus coronavirus-2 (SARS-2).

Appendix A of the regulation states the immediately notifiable hazards “hav(e) the potential to transfer from animals to humans, arise in animals that are sentinels warning of human exposure to risk, have the potential to cause significant morbidity or mortality in animals (and) have the potential to infect farmed and or wild species.”

Section 2 of the Act clarifies that the “hazard” could cause significant harm to human health —either directly or indirectly — if no management measures are undertaken.

About two dozen diseases will also be added to the Act’s list of “periodically reportable hazards” — for which “ongoing monitoring is necessary” if they’re confirmed. Strangles in horses will be moved from the periodically reportable list to the immediately reportable list; five other conditions currently on the periodically reportable list will be removed from the Act.

The most significant proposed addition to the list, however, is a surplus of livestock or poultry. The Environmental Registry notice provides as an example “a significant disruption that has occurred within a supply chain because of border-related measures” and refers to disease outbreak-related bans on interprovincial or international trade in livestock or food products.

“Through this proposal, Ontario aims to enhance its preparedness for animal health-related events and emergencies,” Roettele explained. “These changes would help position Ontario better to respond to animal health-related emergencies such as African swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease if they arise.”

The identification of a disease-related surplus would not compel any particular action by the government or the CVO, and the Act names no specific actions. No additional reporting requirements for producers or veterinarians are proposed. “However, where the circumstances warrant the use of the authorities in the Act,” Roettele said, specific actions could be determined by the CVO and OMAFRA in consultation with the industry.