Recent US Farm Bill threatened herpetile enthusiasts

I saw this in pijac's site. A recent proposal to amend the US Animal Welfare Act initially included a mandate to study salmonella in reptiles sold in the US but was eventually stricken from the final amendment. The full pijac piece is here. If it had gone through, this would have resulted in a broad-scale prohibition on the sale of reptiles and amphibians in the USA.

Have a read of my thoughts on the broader issue by going here.

I found a blog post in relation to the above mentioned amendment to the Animal Welfare Act on the Farm bill. Does anyone have a link to the farm bill text for this amendment? It would be interesting to read.

How serious is the risk of contracting salmonella from reptiles? I've looked over a few things including the CDC, one of their studies, and the ARAV page.

The CDC receives reports of an average of 40,000 cases a year and they believe that 1,160,000 other cases may occur every year but are not serious enough to receive medical attention. Mortality is associated with only about 600 cases per year or 0.05%. In the 2004 study by the CDC they estimated a total of 74,000 cases but I'm really curious as to how many of those are serious in nature or result in mortality.

Is salmonella from reptiles and amphibians really a serious health issue? Is it another example of the rather horrible risk assessment abilities of humans? I believe that this issue can be much more easily remedied by point of sale education or better dispersal of information to important parties. After small turtles were banned salmonellosis cases that could be tracked to reptiles and amphibians dropped significantly. It seems more education would work and may even help to stop abandoned reptiles if even some lax requirements were necessary to purchase a herptile.

The information available to the common person who is just going to acquire it form the petshop is pretty miserable.

I believe that this issue can be much more easily remedied by point of sale education or better dispersal of information to important parties. After small turtles were banned salmonellosis cases that could be tracked to reptiles and amphibians dropped significantly. It seems more education would work and may even help to stop abandoned reptiles if even some lax requirements were necessary to purchase a herptile.

The information available to the common person who is just going to acquire it form the petshop is pretty miserable.

Click to expand...

You've hit the nail on the head, Abrahm.

As a rule, distrust any information that comes from commercial pet retailers. In my view, the big box pet industry has, with respect to reptiles and amphibians, tried to 'idiot-proof' husbandry of exotics. One only needs to take a walk down the food aisles and see packaged/freeze-dried foods touted as being nutritionally complete for 'all species' as a substitute for live foods.

I would blame flaws in husbandry and hygiene practices for the incidence of salmonella infection. Even common feeders (like roaches and crickets) can transmit salmonella when housed with cardboard egg carton that has been previously used for eggs.

I looked through the 2008 Farm Bill (HR 2419), and was not able to find anything that referred to anything about the sale of turtles or salmonella. Here is a link the the bill along with the amendments to it.

http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/FarmBill.html

I did find on another website this statement though.
http://www.beloblog.com/KHOU_Animal_Attraction/2008/05/world-turtle-da.html

"At the federal level, Congress rejected a proposal that could have allowed the sale of small turtles as pets. The turtle language was included in the original Senate version of the Farm Bill, but not in the final bill that was sent to the president. The HSUS applauds the bipartisan action."

I did not read all of that article however. So I may have missed something.
But, seeing how is was proposed, it could creep up again unfortunately.


My next comment is slightly off topic:

I will say that the Farm Bill is important. While I do not agree things that are in it, it does help out the Forestry Community. There was funding in the previous Farm Bill, that can helped landowners with certain management activities. The program was called EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentive Program). While EQIP is mainly for farming practices, there is a special projects area for forestry. I have worked with a number of woodland owners in my area with this program. It helps woodland owners remove invasive species like bush honeysuckle, ailanthus (Tree of Heaven), and other invasive species. But this version of the Farm Bill I believe, won't provide the appropriate levels for that program. And I think in the past there may have even been funding in prior years to help landowners with restoring wetlands and riparian areas.

So that is my two cents for what it is worth.

I found the relevant text for those interest in reading the removed amendment. The pdf is here and the relevant text can be found beginning on page 141 of the pdf (135 as labeled in document.)

Most of the relevant text:

Farm Bill said:

(b) Prevalence of Salmonella- Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this title, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, shall determine the prevalence of salmonella in each species of
reptile and amphibian sold legally as a pet in the United States in order to determine
whether the prevalence of salmonella in reptiles and amphibians sold legally as pets in
the United States on average is not more than 10 percent less than the percentage of
salmonella in pet turtles.
(c) Action if Prevalence Is Similar- If the prevalence of salmonella in reptiles and
amphibians sold legally as pets in the United States on average is not more than 10
percent less than the percentage of salmonella in pet turtles
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture shall--
(A) conduct a study to determine how pet turtles can be sold safely as pets in the
United States and provide recommendations to Congress not later than 150 days after
the date of such determination;
(B) in conducting such study, consult with all relevant stakeholders, such as the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the turtle farming industry, academia, and
the American Academy of Pediatrics; and
(C) examine the safety measures taken to protect individuals from salmonellarelated
dangers involved with reptiles and amphibians sold legally in the United States
that contain a similar or greater presence of salmonella than that of pet turtles; and
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture--
(A) may not prohibit the sale of pet turtles in the United States; or
(B) shall prohibit the sale in the United States of any reptile or amphibian that
contains a similar or greater prevalence of salmonella than that of pet turtles

Click to expand...

That could have been seriously crippling to the reptile and amphibian trade if it went through. Amphibians need to have 1/10 the salmonella prevalence of (unspecified) turtles? I wonder how beef, swine and other livestock compare to turtles in salmonella prevalence? One of the links I posted above noted that antibiotic treatment tended to increase resistant strains and not cure infections.

To Pat: I really wish we could get forestry and ecological programs passed without having to have them ride along on other important bills. Also thanks for posting those links as it allowed me to find that text.

Pat,

The Farm Bill itself is fine, but as usual, politicians were tagging on a pretty much unrelated piece to modify the US Animal Welfare Act regarding salmonella in reptiles. That was struck from the proposed amendment early on, I believe.