**Testimony of Dr. John Clifford**

**Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services**

**Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service**

**U.S. Department of Agriculture**

**Before the House Committee on Agriculture's**

**Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry**

**Hearing to "Review Advances of Animal Health within the Livestock
Industry"**

**September 25, 2008**

Chairman Boswell, Ranking Member Hayes, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the Committee this morning. My name is Dr. John Clifford
and I am the Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services with the
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS). In this position, I also serve as USDA's Chief
Veterinary Officer.

Today, the Committee is looking at an important issue -- advances of
animal health within the livestock industry. We at USDA are actively
engaged in developing and utilizing innovative methods to provide
leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, and related issues
based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient
management.

In furtherance of this mission, APHIS is the Agency within USDA
responsible for protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health,
administering the Animal Welfare Act, and carrying out wildlife damage
management activities. Within APHIS, Veterinary Services protects and
improves the health, productivity, quality, and marketability of
animals, animal products, and veterinary biologics in the United States.
Partnerships with the livestock industry, as well as other global and
domestic stakeholders, are critical in accomplishing this mission.

At any given time, my Agency is working on multiple priorities in order
to ensure the health of our Nation's domestic animal resources. These
priorities include safeguarding against foreign animal diseases,
emergency planning and preparedness, animal disease eradication and
control, and monitoring and surveillance for animal diseases. I am very
pleased to provide the following outline of some of the advances that
have been realized in these important areas.

**Foreign Animal Diseases**

While I am going to look broadly at several components of USDA's
programs that assist in advancing livestock health, including several of
those that look at the use of antibiotics in production practices, I
want to start with an area that is critical to me as the Chief
Veterinary Officer. In my mind, one of the most important ways of
protecting and advancing livestock health is to ensure we have a strong
system for preventing and responding to animal diseases.

Foreign animal diseases (FAD) represent an ongoing threat to human
health and to the health of the U.S. agricultural industry. We expect
that these diseases will continue to be of major concern because of
increased trade and increased movement of people, animals, and
pathogens. This fiscal year, we expect U.S. agriculture exports to reach
approximately \$114 billion, making it the highest export sales in a
12-month period ever in our history. U.S. agriculture imports are rising
as well---increasing from nearly \$58 billion in 2005 to an estimated
\$79 billion this fiscal year. APHIS works diligently with State animal
health officials and veterinary professionals to protect U.S.
agriculture from the introduction of animal diseases and to identify,
control, and eradicate animal diseases and diminish their impact.

Efforts to detect FAD events in the United States include surveillance
in disease-specific programs, reporting by producers and private
veterinarians, and field investigations conducted by specially trained
Federal, State, and private accredited veterinarians. Additional
detection efforts include State diagnostic laboratory surveillance, in
which routine cases that are subsequently considered "suspicious" for
FADs are reported to Federal and State animal health authorities for
further investigation. Early identification and quick response in the
FAD investigations are critical steps to ensuring that any further
spread is minimized.

Several important events have occurred globally over the last few years
involving foreign animal diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease
(FMD) and exotic Newcastle disease. A few of these events have
highlighted the importance of our emergency preparedness and response
capabilities. Most recently, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI)
subtype H5N1 virus has captured global attention as a potential human
and animal health threat.

Preventing, preparing for, and responding to potential outbreaks of
avian influenza (AI) require collaboration on the broadest scale.
Successfully protecting avian health depends on our ability to work
together effectively---across all levels of government, with private
industry and the public, and around the world. This includes working
with the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), which sets
international standards concerning diseases that affect human and animal
health, the United Nations\' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and
World Health Organization (WHO).

Internationally, we are collaborating with a variety of partners to
control, and eradicate HPAI in those countries where it currently
exists, and to prevent its introduction into the United States and other
areas. For example, APHIS works with its partners to identify reservoirs
of the disease and develop biosecurity recommendations for farmers;
conduct intensive diagnostic training sessions to expand international
diagnostic resources; and offer funding, technical expertise, and
equipment to countries affected by or at risk for HPAI.

On the domestic front, APHIS has partnered with other Federal and State
agencies and the commercial poultry industry in conducting surveillance
efforts for AI for many years. APHIS implemented strategies to
strengthen existing AI surveillance where necessary in 2006, and
continued the enhanced surveillance efforts in 2007. We also increased
our AI preparedness by refining our response plans and strengthening
existing core programs in 2007.

Because of heightened animal- and public-health concerns, the poultry
industry and State and Federal animal-health regulatory agencies are
continuing efforts to increase biosecurity measures and conduct
extensive surveillance for HPAI, as well as certain subtypes of low
pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI), in commercial poultry, live-bird
markets, and poultry raised in nonconfinement operations. The H5 and H7
subtypes of LPAI are of concern because they have the potential to
mutate into highly pathogenic forms. This is why we established
regulations for a new monitoring and control program for the H5 and H7
subtypes for LPAI in 2006.

In addition, in partnership with the U.S. Department of the Interior's
U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, APHIS'
Wildlife Services program monitors wild birds for AI. Bird banding data
are used in conjunction with U.S. Census of Agriculture data to rank
counties with a high prevalence of domestic poultry production and
relatively high numbers of migrant waterfowl to identify areas of
critical concern and overlap between commercial poultry production and
concentrations of migratory waterfowl.

We at APHIS are proud of the success of our AI prevention efforts to
date. And it is worth reminding ourselves that, in addition to routinely
addressing outbreaks of LPAI, the United States has effectively
eradicated outbreaks of HPAI in 3 past instances, in 1924, 1983, and
2004.

**Emergency Planning and Preparedness**

Foreign animal disease incursions, as well as other animal health
emergencies, can have a major impact on America's infrastructure, animal
and public health, food safety, economy, and export markets. For
example, an outbreak of FMD in the United States could have significant
economic impacts. There are many susceptible animals in the United
States, including 96 million cattle, 61 million swine, and almost 9
million sheep and goats. The 2001 outbreak in the United Kingdom cost an
estimated 8 billion pounds (\$13 billion) and reduced the British gross
domestic product by 0.2 percent. Studies have projected a cost of
between 6 and 14 billion dollars for a U.S. outbreak contained to
California. The impact comes primarily from lost international trade,
followed by costs directly associated with the eradication effort
including the expenses of depopulation, indemnity, carcass disposal, and
cleaning and disinfecting. In addition there are direct and indirect
costs related to lost production, unemployment, and losses in related
businesses.

APHIS' Veterinary Services (VS) program is charged with preventing
animal health emergencies in the United States, rapidly detecting such
emergencies should they occur, and responding effectively to control or
eradicate them.

The U.S. emergency response to animal health emergencies involves a
partnership between various Federal, State, tribal, local, industry, and
other private-sector cooperators. Written response plans and guidelines
address all areas of an emergency response, such as the initial field
investigation; local disease control and eradication activities;
emergency management, including line of command, planning, logistics,
and resources; and interagency coordination. Written response plans have
been developed for the most dangerous animal diseases that pose a risk
to U.S. agriculture, including HPAI and foot-and-mouth disease.

Disease outbreaks throughout the past several years have demonstrated
the critical need for surge capacity personnel during an animal health
emergency. In 2000, APHIS created the National Animal Health Emergency
Response Corps (NAHERC) to provide a volunteer reserve of veterinary
professionals to assist Federal and State responders during an animal
health emergency. In 2001, 145 NAHERC members deployed to the FMD
outbreak in the United Kingdom. In 2003, 340 NAHERC personnel assisted
in the exotic Newcastle disease outbreak in California and 71 NAHERC
personnel responded to a LPAI outbreak in Virginia. Their efforts were
critical in protecting the nation's livestock from these diseases.

During an emergency, APHIS is responsible for rapidly deploying critical
veterinary supplies and personal protective equipment for workers from
the National Veterinary Stockpile (NVS). The NVS was established in
February 2004 through Homeland Security Presidential Directive\--9
(HSPD\--9). HSPD--9 reflects concerns that terrorists could
simultaneously, and in multiple locations, release catastrophic animal
diseases. The mission of the NVS is to deliver critical veterinary
supplies nationwide within 24 hours.

In 2007, the NVS continued expanding its capabilities. It acquired
personal protective equipment and antiviral medications against AI to
protect 3,000 responders, portable vaccine storage containers for field
use, emergency air and ground transportation contracts to ensure
deployment within 24 hours, and satellite phones to provide reliable
emergency voice and data communications, anywhere, anytime. It also
established commercial partnerships with all-hazard response companies
to provide large numbers of trained, experienced personnel with
equipment to help States depopulate, dispose, and decontaminate if they
do not have enough of their own personnel. Looking forward, the NVS is
working with the Department of Homeland Security to acquire
next-generation FMD vaccines and to quickly deliver current vaccines
should an FMD emergency occur.

Laboratory and diagnostic services are an essential component of the
U.S. emergency response to animal health emergencies. The National
Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) is part of a national strategy
to coordinate the activities of Federal, State, and university
laboratories providing critical animal disease surveillance and testing.
The NAHLN is a cooperative effort between two U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) agencies---APHIS and a portion of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service's (CSREES) Integrated
Activities program---and the American Association of Veterinary
Laboratory Diagnosticians.

The USDA Homeland Security Office established the NAHLN as part of a
national strategy to coordinate and link the testing capacities of the
Federal veterinary diagnostic laboratories with the extensive
infrastructure (facilities, professional expertise, testing capacity,
and support) of State and university veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
This network enhances the Nation's early detection of, response to, and
recovery from animal health emergencies, including emerging diseases and
FADs that threaten the Nation's food supply and public health.

In 2002, APHIS and CSREES initiated the network by entering into
cooperative agreements with 12 State and university veterinary
diagnostic laboratories. These were funded by the Department of Homeland
Security. APHIS now contracts with 54 State and university diagnostic
laboratories to assist with testing and surveillance; the number of
NAHLN facilities totals 58 laboratories in 45 States, which includes
those 54 laboratories plus the National Veterinary Services Laboratories
(NVSL), the Department of the Interior (DOI) laboratory in Madison, WI;
and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) laboratory in Athens,
GA. All of the above preparations have us well positioned to respond to
animal health emergencies and to safeguard the animal health in the
United States.

**Animal Disease Eradication and Control Programs**

In the event diseases are introduced or have existed in the United
States, a key component of APHIS' VS program is its role in eradicating,
controlling, or preventing diseases that threaten the biological and
commercial health of U.S. livestock and poultry industries. Diseases
targeted in VS eradication programs include scrapie in sheep and goats,
tuberculosis in cattle and cervids, pseudorabies and brucellosis in
swine, and brucellosis in cattle and bison.

APHIS' animal disease control and eradication programs generally include
many of the same features. The programs center on regulatory measures
that include, for example, quarantines to stop the movement of possibly
infected or exposed animals; the establishment of State statuses,
including regions or zones located therein that allow us to fight
infection while enabling commerce to continue; testing and examination
to detect infection; destruction of infected (sometimes exposed) animals
to prevent further disease spread; treatment to eliminate parasites;
vaccination in some cases; and cleaning and disinfection of contaminated
premises. Advancements in these program areas have come through
exhaustive work with States and industry over the years. There have been
successes in several key eradication programs.

*Pseudorabies*

One eradication program that has seen significant advances over the
years is the pseudorabies program. Pseudorabies emerged as an
economically important disease of swine in the late 1960s. After a
virulent strain of pseudorabies virus (PRV) caused concentrated
outbreaks in the Midwest in the 1970s, the Livestock Conservation
Institute (now the National Institute for Animal Agriculture) set up a
task force in the 1980s that defined two State stages and established
the National Pseudorabies Control Board to oversee and determine the
status of each State. In 1989, APHIS published the program standards for
a plan to eradicate pseudorabies from commercial swine production by
2000. By 1999, the U.S. infection rate was down to less than 1 percent
of all swine herds (about 1,000 herds), and the Accelerated Pseudorabies
Eradication Program was established to remove the last infected domestic
commercial herds through depopulation by the end of 2004, but
accomplished this by early 2003.

Conducted in cooperation with State governments and swine producers, the
National Pseudorabies Eradication Program eliminated pseudorabies from
domestic commercial herds in all States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands by the end of 2004. As documented in the Pseudorabies
Program Standards, program measures are based on prevention, vaccination
(now largely discontinued), disease surveillance, and eradication.
Primary program activities include surveillance, herd certification, and
herd cleanup.

Currently, there are no known domestic production swine herds infected
with PRV in the United States. Nationally, 18 transitional herds, which
are any herds with pigs that were exposed to feral or wild pigs, were
disclosed through surveillance as infected with PRV during FY 2007. All
herds were depopulated promptly. Complete epidemiologic investigations
of all cases disclosed no evidence that infection had spread from the
infected transitional herds to any contact herds. Extensive surveillance
activities over the past 3 years also suggest that no commercial
production farms have been infected.

A comprehensive surveillance plan for PRV, specifically for rapidly
detecting PRV introduction into commercial swine, was completed in 2007.
Although pseudorabies has been eradicated from commercial production
swine, it is still endemic in feral swine and can be found occasionally
in transitional swine herds. The distribution of feral swine continues
to expand, with an estimated 3 million to 4 million feral swine now
located in at least 35 States. Therefore, surveillance for PRV continues
to be a priority for APHIS, particularly with respect to addressing the
new challenge of wildlife disease reservoirs in feral swine populations.
This prioritization of pseudorabies is consistent with the sense of
Congress in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L.
110-246, 122 Stat. 1651) that pseudorabies eradication is a high
priority the Secretary of Agriculture should carry out under the Animal
Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq*.).

*Brucellosis*

Another animal disease eradication program that I would like to
highlight for you is the brucellosis program. USDA has been working with
State and industry cooperators to eradicate brucellosis for many years.
The disease affects numerous species of animals, including humans, and
is caused by the bacteria *Brucella abortus.* Cattle, bison, and elk are
especially susceptible to the disease.

The Brucellosis Eradication Program was launched on a national scale in
1934, and a cooperative effort among the Federal Government, States, and
livestock producers began in 1954. All States participate in APHIS'
Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program and are
assigned a brucellosis classification by APHIS. These
classifications---Class Free, Class A, Class B, and Class C---are based
on herd prevalence rates for the disease and require various levels of
movement restrictions and surveillance activities. Most importantly to
cattle producers, restrictions on moving cattle interstate become less
stringent as a State approaches or achieves Class Free classification.

The program has been highly effective. In 1956, 124,000 affected herds
were found in the United States as a result of testing. By 1992, this
number had dropped to 700, and as of today, there are only four known
affected domestic cattle or bison herds remaining in the entire United
States. Currently, 49 States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
are considered free of brucellosis. Montana is the last remaining Class
A status State. I am also pleased to report that annual
brucellosis-related losses due to aborted fetuses, reduced breeding
efficiency, and lowered milk production have decreased from more than
\$400 million in 1952 to almost zero today.

The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), which encompasses approximately 20
million acres in three states, is the last known reservoir of
brucellosis in wild elk and bison in the United States. While management
of the disease is our approach for the near term, our long term goal is
to eliminate brucellosis from GYA wildlife, along with protecting the
elk and bison populations from the disease. I should note that
brucellosis in elk is widespread across the entire GYA, and indications
are that all disease transmissions from wildlife to cattle in the GYA
have come from elk. Transmission can occur through direct contact
between infected elk or bison and non-infected cattle if they are
allowed to co-mingle. Approximately 90 percent of GYA elk fall under
state jurisdiction during the summer season.

Surveillance testing of wild bison from the Yellowstone herd indicates
that approximately 50 percent of the bison in the 2 million acre Park
have been exposed to and are potentially infected with the disease. This
disease reservoir poses a risk to cattle that graze on lands adjacent to
the Park.

APHIS works with the GYA States, the cattle industry, and the National
Park Service to address the risk of brucellosis transmission from
wildlife leaving the Park to cattle that graze in surrounding areas. Our
sister agency within USDA, the U.S. Forest Service, also plays a key
role in managing the public lands on the Gallatin National Forest,
adjacent to Yellowstone National Park in Montana. The current
Interagency Bison Management Plan carefully balances the need to
preserve the Yellowstone bison herd with the need to prevent the spread
of brucellosis from bison to cattle.

USDA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) believe the next step is
to develop a long-term plan for the elimination of brucellosis from the
GYA. USDA and DOI have agreed to a draft a Greater Yellowstone
Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC) Memorandum of Understanding
and have forwarded it to the Governors of Idaho, Montana, and Idaho for
their review and signature.

**Monitoring and Surveillance for Diseases that Affect Production and
Marketing**

A key role of APHIS is the monitoring and surveillance for diseases of
major impact on animal production and marketing. This includes
monitoring animal health and production trends; facilitating the use of
new technologies for early and rapid disease detection, response, and
data analysis; and capturing, analyzing, interpreting, and disseminating
data using standardized methods.

*National Animal Identification System (NAIS)*

One of our more recently developed technologies for swift and effective
disease response is the National Animal Identification System, or NAIS.
NAIS is a modern, streamlined information system that helps producers
and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal
disease events in the United States. From the beginning, NAIS has been a
cooperative effort among states, APHIS, and industry.

There are three components of NAIS\--premises registration, animal
identification, and animal tracing. Through NAIS, APHIS' ultimate,
long-term goal is to have the capacity to identify all premises and
animals that have had contact with a FAD or domestic animal disease of
concern within 48 hours after its discovery.

Our initial focus in developing NAIS has been to encourage farmers and
ranchers to register their premises. Registering premises provides
animal health officials with the key information needed to conduct
disease investigations quickly and efficiently. To date, more than
482,000 premises had been registered within the States, tribes and
territories. This total represents more than 34 percent of the estimated
number of premises nationwide. Thanks to the support and outreach
efforts of our State and industry partners, NAIS continues to build
momentum.

APHIS is also working to accelerate participation in the
animal-identification component of the system. In terms of animal
tracing, we've established 14 State and private databases to keep track
of animal movements. We've also developed a system that will allow
authorized State and Federal animal health officials to request
information from these databases during an animal disease event.

By working together with the public and with our partners, we will
continue to increase our ability to respond to animal diseases and
guarantee that we are successful in protecting the health and
marketability of American agriculture.

*Data Collection and other Activities related to the Use of Antibiotics
in Livestock*

Another area where APHIS, along with other Agencies with the USDA, has
contributed to advances in the livestock industry is in the collection
of data related to animal health issues using standardized methods. Over
the past several years, one such issue that has captured national
attention is the use of antibiotics in livestock.

As you may know, several Federal agencies have in place programs to
learn more about, track, and reduce antimicrobial resistance in animals.
Many of these activities are joint activities among several Federal
agencies and are supported by the agricultural industries. In fact, in
1999, the U.S. Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance was
created to develop a national plan to combat antimicrobial resistance.
The Task Force is co-chaired by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National
Institutes of Health and also includes USDA, the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, the Health Care Financing Administration, the
Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Defense,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. Within USDA, agencies that have contributed to the Task Force
activities include APHIS, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and CSREES.

The first is surveillance. In 1996, HHS and USDA, in cooperation with
several State and local health departments, established the National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System---NARMS. The goal of the
system is to provide data on the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in
animals, humans, and retail foods. This monitoring system has been
operating for about 10 years and has provided critical information on
emerging resistance trends. USDA supports NARMS through three of its
agencies. FSIS contributes isolates from its regulatory program for
Salmonella and isolates of Campylobacter from its microbiological
baseline data collection surveys. APHIS contributes isolates from
clinically ill animals and isolates from healthy animals on farms. And,
ARS conducts all testing and analysis of isolates collected by USDA. The
impact of NARMS has been to assist the FDA in regulatory decision making
on animal antimicrobial drugs, practitioners on prudent use practices,
and commodity organizations on quality improvement.

In addition, APHIS has been collecting an increasing amount of data on
production practices and samples containing bacteria that have been used
to evaluate levels and impacts of antimicrobial use on livestock
operations throughout the United States. This data and the samples are
collected through the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS),
which conducts national studies on the health and health management of
United States domestic livestock and poultry populations. Bacterial
isolates gathered via NAHMS have been tested for antibiotic resistance
and included in the NARMS. The data collected yielded information on,
among other things, the types of antimicrobials used to treat various
common diseases in animal populations, how producers decide to treat and
what to treat with, how antimicrobial drugs are delivered to the animals
(via feed, water, or parenterally), and primary influencers on the
antimicrobial drug decision-making process. All of these factors are
critical to understanding the ways to optimize antimicrobial drug use in
animal populations.

APHIS, in collaboration with ARS, has also been collecting samples to be
cultured for bacteria as part of the NAHMS program, which are
subsequently evaluated for antimicrobial drug resistance as part of the
NARMS program. These studies provide information on the extent of
antimicrobial drug resistance among potential foodborne pathogens and
commensal organisms in livestock populations. Such information is
critical to risk assessments that evaluate the potential for transfer of
the resistant organism or resistance determinants through the food
chain. To date, the NAHMS program has collected antimicrobial drug use
and antimicrobial drug resistance data from 11 studies conducted between
1994 and 2008.

Finally, in 2003, APHIS, ARS, and FSIS undertook a pilot project that
was designed to complement the NARMS and the NAHMS. The mission of the
Collaboration in Animal Health and Food Safety Epidemiology (CAHFSE) was
to monitor bacterial resistance to antimicrobial drugs on farms over
time and to evaluate the potential for resistant organisms to persist in
food products from animals from the farms under study. Health and health
management data were collected on the same operations where repeated
samples were collected over time. The CAHFSE project was concluded in
2005.

In addition to the data collection and surveillance activities that we
are involved in, I would also like to mention two additional activities
that other USDA agencies participate in with respect to the use of
antibiotics in livestock: (1) Research and (2) prevention and control.

In terms of research, ARS conducts hypothesis-driven research on various
topics relevant to use of antibiotics in livestock. This includes
research on the mechanisms of resistance development and transfer of
resistance genes; the potential mitigation for resistance alternatives
for antibiotic use in livestock; and alternatives to antibiotics for
subtherapeutic use and potential interventions for foodborne pathogens
that could affect resistance development. ARS also develops technologies
for the detection and characterization of antibiotic resistance genes in
foodborne pathogens, such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli.

In addition to ARS' research, a growing segment of CSREES' directed
funding had been dedicated to research on antimicrobial resistance. From
1999-2008 there have been over thirty research, education and extension
competitive grants funded by CSREES in the area of antibiotic
resistance. The competitive grants, totaling over \$17 million, were
funded primarily through the National Integrated Food Safety Initiative,
the National Research Initiative's (NRI) Epidemiological Approaches for
Food Safety, and the NRI Microbiological Approaches for Food Safety;
three flagship competitive grant programs administered by CSREES. These
grants were funded at various land grant universities, professional
societies, and other four year universities throughout the country. The
research focuses on a variety of food-borne pathogens as they relate to
antimicrobial/antibiotic resistance including Listeria monocytogenes,
Salmonella, E. coli, E. coli O157:H7, and Campylobacter. Many of these
studies are ongoing.

Prevention and control is an area of emphasis within USDA, both
domestically and internationally. On the domestic front, I would like to
highlight that, while the FDA regulates the use of drugs given to food
animals -- including determining what drugs are permitted, what they can
be used for, and setting the tolerance levels for those drugs in food
animal tissues -- FSIS is responsible for verifying the tolerance levels
for antibiotics set forth by FDA. To accomplish this, FSIS collects
samples of meat, poultry, and egg products at federally-inspected
establishments and analyzes these samples at FSIS laboratories for
chemical residues of veterinary drugs, among other things.

Since 1967, FSIS has administered the National Residue Program (NRP) to
collect data on chemical residues in domestic and imported meat,
poultry, and egg products. The NRP is designed to provide a structured
process for identifying and evaluating compounds of concern by
production class, statistical analyses of compounds of concern,
appropriate regulatory follow-up of reports of violative tissue
residues, and collection, analyses, and reporting of the results of
these activities. When a violation of tolerance levels is found, FSIS
notifies FDA of the violation and assist in obtaining the names of
producers and other parties involved in offering animals for sale.

Internationally, USDA has also taken an active role in the development
of harmonized approaches and guidance on the use of antibiotics. For
example, representatives from the USDA, including ARS and FSIS, are part
of the ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance
that was established by the twenty-ninth Session of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission. Its mandate is to develop science based
guidance, taking full account of its risk analysis principles and the
work and standards of other relevant international organizations, such
as FAO, WHO, and OIE. The intent of this guidance is to assess the risks
to human health associated with the presence in food and feed including
aquaculture and the transmission through food and feed of antimicrobial
resistant microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance genes and to
develop appropriate risk management advice based on that assessment to
reduce such risk. The first session of the Task Force was held in
October 2007. The session was very productive and resulted in the
development of three project documents on risk assessment, risk
management and risk profiling based upon project proposals submitted in
response to the Circular Letter request for proposals for new work. The
next session is scheduled for this fall.

**Conclusion**

As the comments above indicate, we have made tremendous progress in
collaborating with our partners in the U.S. government and industry that
have a stake in protecting public and animal health. Expanding current
partnerships with the livestock industry, as well as other global and
domestic stakeholders, will continue to be critical in realizing
advances of animal health within the livestock industry and ensuring the
health of our Nation's domestic animal resources.