Moshe Shalev

USDA to amend regulations on handling certain animal species

On 28 April 2006, the US Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) proposed to amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations (9 CFR Part 2) regarding the handling of animals. The substance of the change adds a new paragraph to Sec. 2.131 “that would require the use of shift cages for moving and transporting potentially dangerous animals, such as big cats (lions, tigers, pumas, jaguars, and cheetahs); all species of bears; great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans) and other nonhuman primates; and wild or exotic canids1.” The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the risks and injuries that escaping animals may cause to persons and other animals, and ensure their safe transport between their enclosures. Shift cages vary in design, some of which are permanent structures (such as connections between two enclosures), whereas others are temporary housing (such as transport cages). Regardless of the type, however, the new proposed rule would require that all shift cages meet the following performance standards: • Attach to the animals’ cage or holding pen; • Enclose animals securely in their cages; • Not allow animals to pass through any gaps between the shift cage and their primary enclosures; • Be structurally sound and maintained in good repair; and • Provide handlers access to the animals’ cages without risking their safety. The proposed rule would also require that all personnel involved in the movement or transport of potentially dangerous animals be trained in the proper use of the equipment. In addition, the rule would mandate that animal facilities establish written protocols for the safe transfer of animals.

China prohibits unsupervised research on highly pathogenic microbes

On 15 January 2006, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) announced its opposition to a bill that would prohibit the use of random-source dogs and cats in research and teaching1. The ‘Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005’ (S. 451)2, which was introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) in February 2005, is intended to protect family pets by preventing the sale or provision of randomsource dogs and cats to research facilities unless they meet specified requirements. The AVMA’s Legal Advisory Committee and Council on Research (COR) see S. 451 as “inconsistent with the AVMA Position Statement on Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats for Research, Testing, and Education, which states the carefully controlled use of random-source dogs and cats contributes greatly to improving the health and welfare of animals and humans1.” In its recommendations to the AVMA Executive Board, the COR pointed out that the Animal Welfare Act contains provisions to protect the safety of family pets, as well as the welfare of research animals.

AVMA opposes bill to prohibit the use of random-source cats and dogs

On 15 January 2006, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) announced its opposition to a bill that would prohibit the use of random-source dogs and cats in research and teaching1. The ‘Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005’ (S. 451)2, which was introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) in February 2005, is intended to protect family pets by preventing the sale or provision of randomsource dogs and cats to research facilities unless they meet specified requirements. The AVMA’s Legal Advisory Committee and Council on Research (COR) see S. 451 as “inconsistent with the AVMA Position Statement on Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats for Research, Testing, and Education, which states the carefully controlled use of random-source dogs and cats contributes greatly to improving the health and welfare of animals and humans1.” In its recommendations to the AVMA Executive Board, the COR pointed out that the Animal Welfare Act contains provisions to protect the safety of family pets, as well as the welfare of research animals.

New USDA animal identification system; OHS partnership continues.

USDA Implements a New Numbering System to Identify Nation’s Livestock On 10 November 2004, the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) amended the regulations to recognize additional numbering systems for the identification of animals in interstate commerce and State/Federal/ industry cooperative disease control and eradication programs. Additionally, it amended the regulations to authorize the use of a numbering system to identify premises where animals are managed or held, and to prohibit the removal of official identification devices, including those recognized as official on livestock imported from other countries1. APHIS will recognize a new 15-character animal identification number, a 13character group/lot identification number, and a 7-character premises identification number. At present, animal producers can choose to implement this new official ‘one number–one animal’ numbering system on a voluntary basis. APHIS will authorize this new national numbering system to identify premises where animals are located. This numbering system will be a key part of the national animal identification system that the USDA is implementing on a voluntary basis, and will replace the separate identification numbers or methods many producers use for official animal health programs, interstate commerce purposes, and industry programs such as breed registries. Under the new numbering system, individual or groups of animals could be identified by the same number in multiple programs, instead of by different numbers for different programs. Regardless of the numbering system used, animals must be offiMoshe Shalev, MSc, VMD, Column Editor

APHIS solicits comments on regulations for the care of ferrets

On 5 August 2005, the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) published a notice of petition and request for comments related to the possibility of developing new species-specific standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of the domestic ferret (Mustela furo)1. At present, ferrets are covered under 9 CFR, Part 3, the section of the Animal Welfare Act regulations that describe the general standards of care for warm-blooded animals. In a petition dated 10 March 2004, the International Ferret Congress asked APHIS to develop specific regulations that address the unique needs of ferrets, as has been done for other species. The petitioners pointed to behavioral abnormalities, special needs during weaning and transportation, as well as frequent reports of malnutrition, starvation, pneumonia, prolapsed rectums, and seizures as evidence of the need for these new regulations. APHIS is soliciting comments on the following issues: “1. Should specific standards be implemented for the welfare of domestic ferrets? If yes, please explain what standards you believe are needed and how they will ensure ferret welfare (for example: cage size, number of animals shipped together, minimum/ maximum temperatures, ventilation, transportation age, etc., and how these standards will prevent aggressive behavior, reduce stress on the animal, promote health, etc.).” “2. What specific problems have dealers, exhibitors, or research facilities had with the current handling, care, treatment, and transportation standards that apply to ferrets and how would ferret-specific standards eliminate them?” “3. Should there be minimum age requirements for the transportation of domestic ferrets, and, if so, what factors should be considered in determining those requirements?1” APHIS will consider all comments received on or before 4 October 2005. Individuals can submit comments online at: http://www.epa.gov/feddocket.

New UK law allows stricter punishment of animal rights extremists.

On 31 January, UK Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt announced a new law to curtail activities of British animal rights extremists against British businesses1–3. In her statement, Hewitt explained “This new law would not affect the important right to peaceful protests, while cracking down hard on those extremists committing crimes—and some horrific acts— against innocent people involved in the supply chain... Extremists are also ruining the lives and livelihoods of people and communities. This is totally unacceptable and our new laws will come with a maximum five year sentence. These measures will give firms and individuals the security to go about their everyday business4.” The new laws, which come in the form of amendments to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill5, will make it an offence “to use criminal actions or acts against civil law, with the intention of threatening or interfering in contracts or other commercial arrangements involving an animal research organisation”, and “to threaten someone with an unlawful act because they are connected to an animal research organisation, whether as a supplier, customer, or other associate, even at several removes4”. The amendments will not affect protests or action by organizations such as trade unions or product boycotts. Almost 200 cases of damage to laboratory properties, and more than 100 attacks on private homes occurred in the UK last year6. This new law would give police more powers to apprehend attackers of businesses in the supply chain, company employees and their family members, charity shops and universities4. Persons who intimidate or cause economic damage to these entities will be prosecuted and may be sentenced for up to 5 years in prison.

APHIS requests extension on information collection related to handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals.

On 25 August 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced final rules on mandatory reporting by NIH employees of certain financial interests, stock divestiture, outside activities, and awards1. These regulations were developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH in an attempt to minimize conflicts of interest related to research decisions without placing undue limitations on the interactions of NIH employees with the greater scientific community. The final conflict-of-interest rules include the following elements: • “The basic prohibition on outside consulting by NIH staff with substantially affected organizations, such as pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical device manufacturing companies, health care providers or insurers, and supported research institutions remains unchanged. • “Divestiture of all holdings in substantially affected organizations in excess of

NIH announces final rules on ethics.

15,000 per company will be required for all senior NIH employees and their spouses and minor children. As defined by the final regulations, these senior employees include the NIH Director and Deputy Director; all direct reports to the NIH Director; all Institute/Center (IC) Directors, Deputy Directors, Scientific Directors, and Clinical Directors in each IC; extramural program officials who report directly to an IC Director; and other employees designated as such because they possess equivalent levels of decision-making responsibility. All other employees may be required to divest if, after review, a potential conflict resulting from their holdings or those of their spouses and minor children would impede their ability to do their government job. • “The receipt of monetary awards from outside sources will continue to be contingent upon prior approval and be limited to awards that have been determined through a pre-screening process to be bona fide. The final regulations will bar senior employees from receiving the cash component of pre-screened awards offered by donors who have matters pending under their official responsibility. • “Employees who file either a public (SF 278) or a confidential (OGE 450) financial disclosure report, and those non-filers who serve as clinical investigators identified on an NIH clinical study, are required to report their interests in substantially affected organizations, as well as those of their spouse and minor children, and to indicate the amount held in such investments. • “To facilitate academic and scientific interactions, the final regulations will allow, subject to prior approval and review by ethics officials, outside activities with professional or scientific organizations, service on data and safety monitoring boards, Grand Rounds lectures, and scientific grant review. • “The regulations maintain current provisions that permit NIH scientists, to the extent allowed under existing government-wide rules and with prior approval, to engage in compensated academic outside activities such as teaching courses at universities, writing general textbooks, performing scientific journal reviews or editing, and providing general lectures to physicians and scientists as part of a continuing professional education program. NIH scientists can also engage in the practice of medicine and other health professions with prior approval and in accordance with existing rules. Outside activities that involve hobbies, sports, civic organizations or interests unrelated to the NIH mission are permissible, generally without prior approval.”

Amended agriculture appropriation bill would eliminate Class-B dealers

On 25 August 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced final rules on mandatory reporting by NIH employees of certain financial interests, stock divestiture, outside activities, and awards1. These regulations were developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH in an attempt to minimize conflicts of interest related to research decisions without placing undue limitations on the interactions of NIH employees with the greater scientific community. The final conflict-of-interest rules include the following elements: • “The basic prohibition on outside consulting by NIH staff with substantially affected organizations, such as pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical device manufacturing companies, health care providers or insurers, and supported research institutions remains unchanged. • “Divestiture of all holdings in substantially affected organizations in excess of

APHIS requests extension to collect information on transportation of guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits

15,000 per company will be required for all senior NIH employees and their spouses and minor children. As defined by the final regulations, these senior employees include the NIH Director and Deputy Director; all direct reports to the NIH Director; all Institute/Center (IC) Directors, Deputy Directors, Scientific Directors, and Clinical Directors in each IC; extramural program officials who report directly to an IC Director; and other employees designated as such because they possess equivalent levels of decision-making responsibility. All other employees may be required to divest if, after review, a potential conflict resulting from their holdings or those of their spouses and minor children would impede their ability to do their government job. • “The receipt of monetary awards from outside sources will continue to be contingent upon prior approval and be limited to awards that have been determined through a pre-screening process to be bona fide. The final regulations will bar senior employees from receiving the cash component of pre-screened awards offered by donors who have matters pending under their official responsibility. • “Employees who file either a public (SF 278) or a confidential (OGE 450) financial disclosure report, and those non-filers who serve as clinical investigators identified on an NIH clinical study, are required to report their interests in substantially affected organizations, as well as those of their spouse and minor children, and to indicate the amount held in such investments. • “To facilitate academic and scientific interactions, the final regulations will allow, subject to prior approval and review by ethics officials, outside activities with professional or scientific organizations, service on data and safety monitoring boards, Grand Rounds lectures, and scientific grant review. • “The regulations maintain current provisions that permit NIH scientists, to the extent allowed under existing government-wide rules and with prior approval, to engage in compensated academic outside activities such as teaching courses at universities, writing general textbooks, performing scientific journal reviews or editing, and providing general lectures to physicians and scientists as part of a continuing professional education program. NIH scientists can also engage in the practice of medicine and other health professions with prior approval and in accordance with existing rules. Outside activities that involve hobbies, sports, civic organizations or interests unrelated to the NIH mission are permissible, generally without prior approval.”