Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Vaccine Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Vaccine Current Capabilities Consensus for Change? 1 USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

FMD: What’s at Risk for U.S.? 2

Conjectured Status of FMD 3 WRLFMD ® Endemic Intermediate, sporadic Free with vaccination Countries with multiples zones: FMD-free, free with vaccination or not free Free. Virus present in game parks Free

FMD: What’s at Risk for United States? 4 U.S. Exports to Canada: Dairy, Red Meat ~$1.9 Billion Imports from Canada: Dairy, Red Meat ~$2.2 Billion U.S. Exports to Mexico: Dairy, Red Meat ~$2.6 Billion Imports from Mexico: Dairy, Red Meat ~$336 Million Source: USDA FAS, 2011 (2010 data)

Bovine Population by County 5 Source: NASS, 2007

Swine Population by County 6 Source: NASS, 2007

Sheep Population by County 7 Source: NASS, 2007

Goat Population by County 8 Source: NASS, 2007

United States Animal Agriculture Industry is Unique 9 Herd size: >5,000 cow dairies >70,000 calf ranches >50,000 cattle feedlots >20,000 sows

United States Animal Agriculture Industry is Unique 10

11

12

Total U.S. Beef Exports, 2003 to

14 Total U.S. Pork Exports, 2003 to 2013

Annual Value of U.S. Exports 15 Total value of U.S. dairy exports (2013)*$6.7 billion Total value of U.S. pork exports (2013)**$6.0 billion Total value of U.S. beef exports (2013)**$6.2 billion Total value dairy, pork, beef exports18.9 billion *US Dairy Export Council **US Meat Export Council

Economic Impacts of FMD 16 Oladosu G, Rose A, Lee B “Economic Impacts of Potential Foot and Mouth Disease Agroterrorism: A General Equilibrium Analysis.” Bioterrorism and Biodefense. S12: 001. Total output losses range between $37B and $228B. Carpenter TE, O’Brien JM, Hagerman AD, McCarl BA “Epidemic and economic impacts of delayed detection of foot- and-mouth disease: a case study of a simulated outbreak in California.” J Vet Diag Invest. 23: 26–33. Median national loss in total agricultural surplus ranged from $2.3B to $69B as the diagnostic delay increased from 7 to 22 days (distribution of costs varies, but primarily direct costs).

Economic Impacts of FMD 17 Hayes D, Fabiosa J, Elobeid A, Carriquiry M “Economy Wide Impacts of a Foreign Animal Disease in the United States.” Working Paper 11-WP 525. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (CARD FAPRI) model estimate. Cumulative losses over 10 years to: Pork – 57 Billion Beef – 71 Billion Poultry - 1 Billion Corn - 44 Billion Soybeans – 25 Billion Wheat – 1.8 Billion

APHIS FMD Response Goals The goals of an FMD response are to: (1) detect, control, and contain FMD in animals as quickly as possible; (2) eradicate FMD using strategies that stabilize animal agriculture, the food supply, the economy, and protect public health and the environment; and (3) provide science- and risk-based approaches and systems to facilitate continuity of business for non-infected animals and non- contaminated animal products. 18

APHIS FMD Response Goals Achieving these three goals will:   Allow individual livestock facilities, States, Tribes, regions, and industries to resume normal production as quickly as possible.   Allow the United States to regain FMD-free status without the consequences of the response effort causing more disruption and damage than the disease itself. 19

FMD Response Strategies FMD response strategies—strategies are not mutually exclusive:   Stamping-out   Stamping-out modified with emergency vaccination: To kill (vaccinated animals killed and landfilled) To slaughter (vaccinated animals enter food chain) To live (vaccinated animals are used for milking, breeding, normal purposes and life span, enter food chain) Vaccination to live without stamping-out 20

FMD Response Strategies Based on size of outbreak

Current Capability Given current vaccine resources and policy, we could respond to a small focal outbreak or moderate regional outbreak (Type 1 or 2). We would conduct this through stamping-out, in conjunction with a limited emergency vaccination program. 22

Stakeholder Resolutions 2010 USAHA/AAVLD:... and industry stakeholders should be included as members of FAD/FMD policy groups and steering committees to address transportation, storage, tracking and administration of restricted vaccines SACAH:... recommends the Secretary prioritize foreign animal disease research, specifically the development of vaccines... for preventing, diagnosing, and controlling FMD USAHA/AAVLD:... urge APHIS to expeditiously evaluate foot-and-mouth (FMD) vaccine quantity and capability, times to delivery USAHA/AAVLD:... urge APHIS to evaluate FMD vaccine quantity and capability, times to delivery, methods of distribution,... to meet FMD response needs. Develop consensus among stakeholders on a plan of action,... and initiate action to generate funding support for enhanced animal emergency preparedness. 23

Stakeholder Recommendations June 2014 SACAH Presentation : Dr. Jim Roth, Iowa State University Center for Food Security and Public Health, recommends 250 million doses of vaccine across multiple strains: “Secure funds to enable the surge capacity need for FMD vaccines... estimated at $150 million/year for 5 years to help protect a $100 billion dollar a year (cash receipts) animal industry.” 24

Current Capability vs. Recommendations 25

Current Capability vs. Recommendations continued 26 2,500,000 32,500,000

Resources Needed Based on FMD Response Strategy and FMD Outbreak Type 27

Current Capability vs. Livestock Population 28

Consensus for Change? Sept. 30-Oct Representatives from APHIS and livestock industries met to Discuss viewpoints on what FMD preparedness should look like – Agreed, in concept – $ 150M/year for 5 years to reach desired capacity $70M/year to maintain Brainstorm and evaluate FMD vaccine funding options Voluntary check-off Non-voluntary check-off User fees

Voluntary Check-off? 30 Pros   No Congressional action required; faster implementation   Could leverage this option to further push the Appropriations route Cons   Many producers may not participate   Free-riders or non-contributors will exist   Sector animosity likely if contributions are unequal   Unstable revenue stream   May negatively impact other voluntary check-off programs

31 Non-Voluntary Check-off? Pros   More equitable than a voluntary program   Reliable revenue stream Cons   Requires a Congressional Act   If charged at processor, producers would feel the impact   If charged at the retailer, support difficult to obtain

User Fees? Charge for export certificates 32 Pros   Funded by industry   More sustainable revenue stream   Could leverage this option to further push the Appropriations route Cons   Requires Congressional Act   Only exporters pay, but others will benefit (free-riders)   User fees add to producer costs, little industry support   Raising funds this way insufficient for timely action

33 Status of Funding? Industry is reluctant or has reservations to consider public-private partnerships considered - to date. Industry currently prefers to develop a concerted, multi-sector effort to secure appropriated funds as a matter of National security (HSPD-9 and PPD-8). APHIS continues to explore alternatives to includs brokering a public-private partnership.