The annual convention of the United States
Animal Health Association (USAHA) was held in Louisville, Kentucky,
on October 18-24, 1997. The two committees responsible for Johne's
disease, the National Johne's Working Group (NJWG) and the
Committee on Johne's Disease met during that time. Present and
representing PARA at the meeting were: Karen Meyer, Ronald Miller,
Doug Meyer, Steve Merkel and Cheryl Miller.
Table of contents
1997 U.S.A.H.A. Resolutions - (Background information concerning the resolutions; verbatim citation of the Resolutions adopted by U.S.A.H.A.; PARA's comments concerning the Resolutions
Speech given by Karen Meyer to the Committee on Johne's Disease on October 21, 1997
First, I want to thank the Millers and Mr. Merkel for their attendance at these meetings. Their moral support was absolutely vital to my having the courage to speak, and they will never know how much strength their presence gave me.
It became apparent in late August and early
September that our presence at the USAHA convention would be
advantageous for creating more awareness of PARA and its
objectives. Despite the fact that the NJWG committee chairs were
aware of our position months prior to that time, it was obvious we
were not going to be invited to formally address the committees. To
that end, I began communications with several members of the NJWG
and Committee on Johne's Disease which resulted in a formal
invitation to address both committees. Dr. Chris Rossiter, co-chair
of the Committee on Johne's Disease, made that possible. Without
her intervention, our reception would not have been as favorable as
it was, and I would like to publicly thank her for all of her
efforts in accomplishing that.
Since the NJWG and Committee on Johne's Disease are primarily comprised of individuals involved in the animal/agriculture side of Johne's disease, it is from that perspective that they view this issue. These are people for the most part who had no grasp of the extent of suffering of those affected by Crohn's disease. It was an eye opener for most of them and something they needed to hear and will need to hear over and over again. We went into the meeting not knowing what to expect, whether we would be in hostile territory, but thanks to many of these people, we were warmly received and treated with respect. Because of our presence there and the controversial nature of the subject matter, both meetings drew two to three times the usual numbers in attendance.
Before proceeding further, it should be
explained that in the discussions of the resolutions in both this
summary as well as the citing of the resolutions themselves on the
page entitled "USAHA Resolutions,"
please note that there are three different sets of resolutions we
will be discussing. The first was the "first draft" resolutions of
the National Johne's Working Group which were presented to PARA for
our input and evaluation. The second set of resolutions, "The
Committee on Johne's Disease" resolutions were revisions of the
"first draft" resolutions and were the resolutions presented on
Tuesday to that committee. The third set are the "final
resolutions" which were adopted by USAHA later. Those are the
resolutions that are set forth on the page entitled
"Resolutions."
It should be noted that in the original "first draft" resolutions
that were presented to PARA, virtually all of the resolutions
contained the following background language: "The NAHMS '96 STUDY
'Johne's disease on U.S. dairy operations' showed that 20-40% of
U.S. dairy herds are infected with Mycobacterium paratuberculosis
and that Johne's disease has a significant economic impact on
dairies. When compared to earlier studies on the prevalence of
Johne's in the U.S., it appears that the disease is spreading.
Adding to concern about Johne's are scientific publications that
imply M. paratuberculosis might be a zoonotic pathogen
transmissible to humans through food."
It is very interesting that the language is nonexistent in the
resolutions ultimately adopted by USAHA. Perhaps these comments
were removed because of fears for potential liability after such
significant admissions.
NJWG MEETING (Saturday, 10/18)
On Saturday, October 18, I addressed the NJWG, and afterwards there was a question-and-answer session. That evening key members of the NJWG met and drafted their initial set of resolutions and presented them to us for our review. Feeling our main objectives had not been met in the "first draft," we countered with our own set of resolutions which addressed our concerns. We wanted it to be clearly on the record what we were requesting.
When we were later given the "Committee on Johne's Disease" resolutions which were revisions of the "first draft," it was apparent our main concerns were not addressed, specifically: (1) the etiological (disease-causing) connection between M. paratuberculosis and Crohn's disease; (2) retail testing of dairy products. Certainly, there were more resolutions put forth than the sum total of many years prior, but all of those dealt with Johne's disease on the animal side, but nothing dealing with Crohn's disease.
Realizing we did not get the concrete things
we needed in terms of immediate substantial recommendations for
Congressional funding for research into the etiologic connection
between M. paratuberculosis and Crohn's and only a resolution to
"study" pasteurization studies again, we decided that the speech
given on Saturday had to be strengthened to show our resolve on
this issue. We were told by some individuals prior to that meeting
that any attempts we made on that day to have resolutions adopted
to that end would be vehemently opposed by some individuals, and we
were prepared for that. We felt it was our last chance to try to
make a difference for Crohn's patients and adjusted our speech
accordingly.
MEETING OF COMMITTEE ON JOHNE'S DISEASE - (Tuesday, 10/21)
On Tuesday afternoon, October 21, I addressed the Committee on Johne's Disease. (You may read the speech by accessing the page entitled "Speech.") After several more speakers and a recess, the resolutions came up for a vote. When the resolution entitled "Research Funding for Johne's Disease" (the resolution that ultimately became USAHA's Resolution 13; see the "Resolutions" page), came up for a vote, it was absent any reference to Crohn's disease. After the resolution was read, an amendment was introduced by John Adams (co-chair of the NJWG) of the Milk Producers Federation to include the language "and Crohn's disease." The resolution was voted on by the committee members and unanimously passed.
My initial reaction was one of relief, a feeling that we had made a difference, that we had at last gotten language relating to Crohn's disease. In no way do I want to minimize that fact. It will be used by PARA in the future as we present our case to Congress and the world, that this Committee recognizes the need for more research and is recommending that.
But PARA and indeed all Crohn's disease patients and significant others must remain firm and strong in our demand that more be done to address this issue. We must insist that more than "Congressional awareness" be sought, as is cited in Resolution 13. We must insist that Congress consider this a matter worthy of "fast track" status and that this research be given the priority it deserves and warrants.
It was important for us to be at this year's USAHA convention, and valuable contacts were made and hopefully relationships with key people have been established so that we can work together to eventually eradicate Johne's and get answers on its link to Crohn's disease. We have been told by many individuals that great strides were made at this year's meeting, that our presence was important in that regard.
But with all due respect, those who feel
great strides were made are viewing it from the animal research
perspective. From a mother's perspective, there was not really
anything concrete in these resolutions that will bring about
immediate answers for my son. From my perspective as Executive
Director of PARA, there were no significant strides made for the
sufferers of Crohn's disease or for protection of the public at
large on the matter of food safety.
Because Johne's disease has gone almost virtually unchecked, it is now approaching epidemic. Yet, unbelievably, 10% of the farmers have never even heard of it, and 35% of them only recognize the name, according to the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) study published in 1997. How can this be? There are many who bear responsibility for that, the USDA, the dairy and cattle industries, and the veterinarian community.
The USDA, while it should be concerned about
animal industries, has an ultimate responsibility to the citizens
of the country to protect us from diseased animals entering the
food chain. The dairy and cattle industries have an obligation to
be certain their food products are safe for the consumer. Those
agencies and organizations have been dealt with in many of the
letters and correspondences that have taken place thus far.
In addition, the veterinarian community bears responsibility on
this issue. The Veterinarian's Oath adopted by the AVMA in July,
1969, states: "Being admitted to the profession of veterinary
medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and
skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal
health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of
livestock resources, the promotion of public health and the
advancement of medical knowledge." In addition, the AVMA's Position on Food Safety adopted in 1994
sets forth the responsibilities of the veterinarian community in
relation to food safety and public health.
Neglecting to aggressively diagnose and treat Johne's will no
doubt result in the ruination of some farmers' livelihoods and
possibly ultimately cause legal questions on liability issues. It
is time for veterinarians to aggressively deal with this disease,
informing their farmers of the potentially devastating
consequences. To withhold that information is no different than a
medical doctor withholding a diagnosis of cancer from a patient
based on the assumption that the patient either has no right to
know or no need to know. Just as patients have a right to that
information, farmers are equally entitled.
The fact that so many farmers are unaware of
this problem can only be attributed to the fact that all of these
groups of individuals have failed them. It is a sad irony that the
two groups who have the most to lose on this issue, Crohn's disease
patients and farmers, are the ones who have been left out of the
loop for the most part.
In conclusion, we Crohn's disease patients and significant others must now become lobbyists, taking the little we have gotten in the way of these resolutions to Congress. Because of the strength of our resolve, we intend to do just that. But it is a sad commentary on our system that is requiring a group of people devastated by the carnage of Crohn's disease to now expend enormous amounts of energy and resources on a matter that should have already been addressed by the USDA, FDA, the dairy/cattle industries and the veterinarian community.
Make no mistake, we will pursue this matter
to its conclusion. In the meantime, it is our hope that we will be
supported by these groups rather than ignored or patronized by
them. If we all make a decision to move forward on this issue,
perhaps one day we will have answers and this problem will be
resolved for everyone.