International Workshop on Animal Disposal Alternatives (IWADA) - Discoveries and Outcomes

Dr. Norm Willis, Consultant to Canadian Food Inspection Agency

In November 1998, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) was conducting a foreign animal disease outbreak simulation.  This was part of a program of proactive training of staff for foreign animal disease emergencies.  As part of the theoretical exercise, the postulated disease entered a cattle feedlot operation of 35,000 head.  Attempting to respond on a theoretical basis, after several days it became clear to us that this eradication was not going to happen logistically in any effective time frame.  The challenges to a traditional disease strategy of stamping out appeared overwhelming. 

The problem of slaughtering virus excreting animals could not be solved fast enough.  Sufficient environmentally sound burial sites could not be found.  Other methods of dealing with vast numbers of carcasses and waste material or a humane, socially acceptable manner could not be determined.  And for Canada, the financial and human resources required for the undertaking were daunting.

Out of this stunning realization was conceived the kernel of the idea for this workshop.

We realized that, not only for Canada, but for many countries, disposal of large numbers of animals in a short period for disease control  purposes, ranged from a logistical nightmare to an impossibility. 

Further, the public response from an urban perspective seems to be increasingly less receptive to this type of slaughter.  From the producer perspective, the may represent a lifetime or even generations of devotion to genetics and years of total personal effort and investment, gone.

This workshop was created to probe for new ideas and fresh thinking.

Therefore, from the onset, there were two main objectives for the workshop, namely:

• to develop new strategies which could replace the need for large scale depopulation

• and, second, if such massive depopulation could not be avoided, to recommend better methods for such depopulation and disposal.

The factors that we felt were driving a need for change in the current approaches included:

• logistic and economic considerations - such as larger farms, dense populations, and greater clustering

• societal pressures - such as increasing public concern with the impacts of modern agriculture

• the existence of viable disease control alternatives - such as prevention and vaccination

• the limitations of some conventionally mandated approaches 

• the need for balance and flexibility in control programs - not “one size fits all” situations

• animal welfare considerations

• environmental considerations

• the need for more effective use of resources - such as international cooperation in equipment,
  expertise, and facilities

To focus these needs further from the point of view of public health and environmental considerations, we are now facing:

• environmental contamination of air, water and land by using such traditional methods as burning, burial, or incineration.

• Will this continue to be accepted?

• What will we do if it is not?

• future use of land because of biosecurity and biosafety requirements

• elevated environmental standards as they relate to disposal

• a potential for huge numbers of animals in small geographic areas

• What will we do with them in the immediate short time span?

• the future value of land being compromised as a result of disposal actions

• the need for on-farm standards in these “TSE-times” and the growing attention on disease transmitted from animals to people.

• What are acceptable methods for disposal of carcasses with prion disease?

Against this backdrop, IWADA was created. The workshop was sponsored by Dr. Brian Evans of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency  (CFIA),  Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, but it was also supported by the Chief Veterinary Officers of the United States of America, New Zealand, Australia, and Mexico.  It was held at the Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in June, 2000.

The Process

The process that was designed for the Workshop was innovative in that it provided a reiterative, learning experience for participants while encouraging their maximal participation and synergy.  Participants were chosen for their experience and knowledge, and were provided with an opportunity to explore, discuss, and debate issues leading to the development of a mechanism for a plan of action.

The 30 participants were invited from the USDA, the federal services in New Zealand, Australia, and Mexico, and from Canadian agricultural industries, Canadian provincial services, as well as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 

A keynote opening address, setting the stage for the challenge of the Workshop, was presented by Dr. Lonnie King, Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University and former Administrator of the USDA.

Participants were divided into four working groups and each group was assigned one of the four themes of the Workshop.  The four themes were:

• societal, ethical and cultural concerns

• international trade and finance

• disease control and eradication

• environment

In plenary session each theme was overviewed and addressed via a lecture format by a noted expert in that field.

To focus thinking on reality and to insure a common understanding of what the current status was, examples of five types of recent disease outbreaks were presented by people who had each been personally involved their outbreak.  What were their problems, their challenges, their successes, and their failures?

The quite stunning presentations were on:

• bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom

• classical swine fever in the Netherlands

• anthrax in Australia

• Newcastle disease in Australia

• Nipah virus in pigs in Malaysia

These examples were chosen because they:

were relatively recent

occurred in different countries (developed and developing)

involved large numbers of animals and different species

• involved zoonotic as well as animal diseases

• involved newly emerged as well as classical diseases

• involved animals there were already dead as well as animals that had to be destroyed, and

• involved diseases that showed variation in modes of transmission, incubation, pathogenicity and clinical signs

Of particular note, points of concern that came out and were emphasized in these presentations were

• the devastating costs

• the terrible waste

• human health and safety

• the emotional impact on the well-being of the producers

Finally, by way of completing the background, there were presentations and plenary discussions on two selected potential alternatives - vaccination approaches and composting.

Operating in individual working sessions, each group was tasked with establishing criteria against which any new alternative would have to be assessed for each theme.  To maximize the productivity of their discussions, each group had a designated expert, a facilitator and a recorder.

Following the individual working discussions, each group made a summary presentation in a plenary session.

After hearing all these group presentations and learning the thinking of all the other groups, the groups once again broke off to continue their individual discussions having the benefit of being able to build on what they had learned from each other in the plenary session.

This process of reiterative learning and synergy was repeated for a third time with challenges and comments from all to expand the scope of the entire group’s thinking.

To bring all these discussions into a sharp practical focus, the final day was intensely devoted to the development of recommendations and to the construction of an action plan based on:

• guiding principles

• general comments

• specific comments

which had been enunciated during the discussions of the previous days of the Workshop.

Conclusions

Amongst all who participated in the Workshop, there was absolute consensus on two points:

• new approaches to large-scale animal depopulation and disposal must be developed

• international collaboration is required for success

A series of specific recommendations were brought together, often being identified by multiple groups. Included are:

• vaccine, and diagnostic tests to differentiate vaccinated from naturally infected animals should be developed

• equipment and technological capacity should be shared internationally 

• more research on composting as this was seen as an extremely environmentally sensitive technology

• international expertise must be shared as no one country has all of the expertise

• there must be a mechanism to address unknown agents in disease outbreaks

• international acceptance of any technology or methodology must be secured in advance of its use so that international trade may continue - it must be proactive

• meat hygiene research and principles should be established to allow product from uninfected animals, killed as part of pre-emptive slaughter, to safely enter the food chain for human consumption instead of being rendered or otherwise disposed of.

• local governments must be made aware of the risks associated with intensive large-scale livestock enterprises.

In addition and above all, it was clearly stated that any alternative to depopulation:

• must be at least equal to currently accepted methods from a disease control perspective - disease control cannot be compromised

• must gain international acceptance, or otherwise it will not be used

• must decrease waste

• must be more humane

• must be less destructive to the environment

The Plan

To have an opportunity to bring this into reality, an action plan was developed and proposed.  The plan projected a multi-factorial process to develop new alternatives which would be guided by an International Steering Committee, the chairperson of which would report to the CVOs of the five supporting countries. 

The process must:

• first suggest or identify new strategies to be pursued

• must evaluate there strategies against the criteria developed in the Workshop

• the specific strategies

• must be developed

• must be standardized into a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) format

• must have MOUs developed

• must pass quality assurance specifications

• must be accepted by world standard setting organizations such as the OIE and Codex Alimentarious Commission to advise WTO

The plan involves four standing technical committees which would operate on an international basis in a flow-through  mechanism with a feed-back loop.

The objective of all this is to provide the CVOs with specific, scientifically sound, clearly evaluated and internationally accepted alternatives which they can incorporate into their range of options as they pursue their decision-making process.

The four technical committees are:

• International Response Committee

• Technology and Epidemiology Committee

• Standards and Quality Assurance Committee

• International Trade and Liaison Committee

Each committee has a designated chairperson.

The International Response Committee is a team of experts who have practical experience in disease outbreaks. They would be available world-wide to provide advice on animal disposal alternatives wherever a disease outbreak occurs.  They would generate ideas or needs that they encounter in these  practical real-life situations.

These are passed to the Technology and Epidemiology Committee which would determine and facilitate the best way to develop answers to these  needs on a scientifically sound basis.  They will advance this to knowledge or technical procedures.

The Technology and Epidemiology Committee will then transfer these to the Standards and Quality Assurance Committee which will develop these alternatives into a standard format which is sound from a quality assurance standpoint.  This format would also be appropriate for presentation to the international standard setting organizations, OIE and the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

These would then be passed on to the International Trade and Liaison Committee.  They would develop the appropriate strategy to negotiate the international acceptance of the alternative.  Through their knowledge of the most effective channels, they would achieve this international acceptance in a proactive, non-crisis mode.  The alternative would then be passed back  to the International Response for its practical application and to the CVOs for their  use when applicable.

The members of these committees have all been nominated by their CVOs for their appropriate skills and abilities.  Each committee then will have representation from each of the countries.

Where Are We Now

One chief concern of the workshop participants was that their efforts and commitments during this Workshop would be merely filed away as a report and nothing real would come of it.

To quote Dr. Lonnie King, ‘...you have to make sure that your plans don’t become just another pretty report - that you have to take the knowledge and transfer it into actions.”

Since that point we have produced the report which hopefully captures the essence and spirit of the whole exercise. 

The CVOs of the five countries have completely endorsed the report as it is written and have authorized the action plan to be implemented.

Dr. Brian Evans of Canada has contracted me to chair the International Steering Committee and to oversee the implementations of the Action Plan.

Members of the five committees have all been nominated and I have established contact with them.

And finally, and most importantly, a working session has been planned and invitations sent to all committee members.  This is to take place in Ottawa, Canada on 17-19 May of this year.  The objectives of this session are to identify specific strategies that we can move forward into the process which I have described to you, and to solidify the way we will work together and what paths we will follow.

During this session the challenge will be to create original thinking.  We will have some wonderful talent in the people who will contribute. I am hopeful that we can create the opportunities we need.  We are sure going to push this to the limit and advance from what was accomplished in the Workshop.