|
Animal Health Matters - Examples from North America
Selected Examples of Animal Health Issues of Importance in North America:
One doesn’t have to look to the international arena to find examples of the huge economic, ecological, and political dimensions of animal health and disease. Wildlife and domestic animal health issues pervade the North American landscape. Both agricultural and wildlife conservation interests have concerns as to how diseases may impact animals, and each group fears disease transmission from the other. In the world’s most industrialized economy, the agriculture and natural resource sectors remain at the heart of productivity. Why would we expect these sectors deserve any less attention in the developing world?
Today’s headlines are full of examples of the inextricable links between animal and human health, and the state of health of our environment. Brucellosis continues to cause conflict between cattle and conservation interests in and around Yellowstone; Chronic Wasting Disease seriously threatens deer and elk as it moves across the United States while federal compensation for elk farmers in Saskatchewan who’ve been mandated to have their animals destroyed and farms condemned (even for grain production) has now surpassed the US $ 24,000,000 mark; West Nile Virus’ toll on wildlife is only beginning to be understood as we continue to grapple with the loss of human lives; tuberculosis threatens the multi-million dollar deer hunting and livestock industries due to human health concerns in states like Michigan, and so on. These examples represent millions and millions of dollars of ongoing research and attempted remediation costs in addition to revenues lost by commercial agriculture, wildlife ranching interests, hunting and associated tourism and hospitality-related industries, etc. Could greater awareness and better vigilance have prevented some of these problems? Can we preclude similar scenarios in countries receiving U. S. foreign assistance?
|
A Perspective from the Home Front:
From the livestock/poultry producer’s perspective, there are multiple concerns about the perceived or actual presence of diseases in wildlife. A recent United States Animal Health Association (USAHA) news release gave the cost to producers at $1 billion annually, so there is much to be feared. When a disease moves from wildlife to domestic animals, there is the direct threat due to morbidity and mortality, and the accompanying economic losses. Additional financial losses occur through quarantines, special husbandry practices (fencing, closed housing) required to segregate wildlife from domestic animals, surveillance programs, vaccination, etc. Also, there may be loss of export markets due to endemic infections in wildlife, even when domestic animals are not infected. A reverse economic threat also can occur when public grazing is denied to livestock owners because of a real or perceived threat to wildlife from domestic stock.
Wildlife conservationists, including professional wildlife managers, hunters, many landowners, and the numerous private citizens who enjoy wildlife in a non-consumptive manner, also worry about diseases. As with domestic animals, there is the direct risk to wildlife due to the pathogenicity of the disease agent, and there are a few examples where wild populations were decimated by disease. Perhaps a greater threat is for wildlife to be become involved in the epidemiology of a disease of significance to animal agriculture. When a wild species is identified as reservoir host, amplifying host, main or alternate host for the disease (or for its vector), or as a transport mechanism for disseminating a disease, it can lead to trouble and conflict for wildlife conservationists. Preserving our agricultural economy may call for harsh control measures such as the depopulation of thousands of animals, intolerance of wildlife on farms, and destruction of habitat. Even perceived health threats from wildlife have led poultry industries to lobby forcefully against waterfowl refuges in poultry-producing areas. Given these circumstances, it is not unusual for agriculture and wildlife interests to collide over health issues.
One special area of health concern for wildlife conservationists is the private ownership of wildlife species as “alternative livestock.” Wildlife managers fear the introduction of diseases or undesirable genetic material into wildlife populations from animals that are being rapidly moved throughout the country. In addition to fence-line contact, escapes are particularly worrisome because recovery of the privately owned animals can be difficult, particularly when indistinguishable wild animals are present.
Before progressing further, it is important to recognize that fish-and-wildlife –associated recreation is big business. Outdoor activities associated with wildlife have a huge public constituency and the economics of wildlife generally are under-recognized. The latest National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation revealed that 77 million Americans participate in fishing, hunting, or non-consumptive wildlife enjoyment. And they spend $104 billion annually in the process. Thirty-five million people fish and spend $38.1 billion, and 14 million people hunt and spend $20.6 billion. Non-consumptive wildlife activities (observation, feeding, etc.) are enjoyed by 63 million people who spend $25.7 billion. Hunting, which is the smallest of the wildlife industries, is huge. Hunting activities provide for $16.1 billion in household income, $3.1 billion in state and federal tax revenue, 704,000 jobs, and an economic multiplier effect of $61 billion. Many of the economic benefits from hunting and fishing impact rural areas.
One comparative example is the value for the cattle industry provided by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The farm gate value of all cattle, calves, and dairy products was $44 billion in 1996. There were approximately 1 million cattle farmers and ranchers, which means for every vote the cattlemen had that year, fish and wildlife enthusiasts had 76. Cattlemen have the largest percentage of private land, some 525 million acres, but they also are dependent upon much of the 516 million acres of public land. Both private and public lands are teeming with wild animals that are held in public trust and, thus, there are multiple scenarios where disease interaction between wildlife and livestock can become contentious issues….
Nettles, V. F. “Wildlife-Livestock Disease Interactions,” United States Animal Health Association Newsletter, vol. 28 (5), October 2001. |
|
The Washington Post - December 27, 2002
Ecological Impact of West Nile Virus -by Rick Weiss
First there was the silence of the crows. Then the horses fell ill – more than 14 000 this past summer [2002] alone -- along with squirrels, chipmunks, and mountain goats. Even mighty raptors -- eagles, hawks, and great horned owls -- dropped from the sky. Now scientists are beginning to take stock of West Nile virus's North American invasion, and they are taken aback by the scale and sweep of its ecological impact. While the human toll dominated the nation's attention this year [2002] -- the virus killed at least 241 people and infected thousands more -- the effects on wildlife were far worse.
The virus swept westward with alarming rapidity, appearing in almost every state in the nation -- an astonishing expansion for a [virus] that had never been seen in the Western Hemisphere until 3 years ago. Equally unexpected, nearly 200 species of birds, reptiles and mammals fell ill as a result of West Nile virus infection this year [2002], including rabbits and reindeer, pelicans and bats, even a few dogs and cats. The virus also slammed dozens of exotic species in about 100 U.S. zoos, killing cockatiels, emus, seals, flamingos, and penguins. Florida alligator farms lost more than 200 of the reptiles….
….In North American wildlife, the virus has proven to be unusually aggressive and capable of infecting a surprisingly diverse array of animals. "Most viruses tend to be rather host-specific, but that's not the case with what we were seeing," said Tracey McNamara, chief of pathology for the Wildlife Conservation Society, which has its headquarters at the Bronx Zoo [NY], where the first infected crow was found. It is still unclear how many of the 200 or so species struck by West Nile virus infection have suffered significant population declines…. Still, researchers this year found more than 140 bird species sickened or dead…. [Researchers] point to the experience of Hawaii, where the arrival of an avian poxvirus in the 1890s and avian malaria in the 1930s drove dozens of species to extinction or close to it. "Those [microbes] just hammered Hawaiian forest birds," [Princeton Professor of Ecology David] Wilcove said. "That illustrates the potential for harm when a disease organism encounters a naive population."
Still, some scientists fear that the nation may soon become less able to prevent outbreaks such as that of West Nile virus -- whether accidental or intentional. They say the U.S. system for screening incoming animal, plant and microbial life -- a patchwork of more than 20 agencies -- has long been undervalued and underfunded. Now the largest component, the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is to become part of the new Homeland Security Department. That's leading many ecologists to fear that it will narrow its focus to classical bioterrorism pathogens such as anthrax, leaving the nation more vulnerable to [agents] such as West Nile virus. ….The epidemic should be a wake-up call to beef up the nation's surveillance and quarantine network, said Princeton's Wilcove.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45800-2002Dec27.html |
|
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a transmissible neurological disease of deer and elk that produces small lesions in brains of infected animals. It is characterized by loss of body condition, behavioral abnormalities and death. CWD is classified as a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), and is similar to mad cow disease in cattle and scrapie in sheep.
Infectious agents of CWD are neither bacteria nor viruses, but are hypothesized to be prions. Prions are infectious proteins without associated nucleic acids.
Although CWD is a contagious fatal disease among deer and elk, research suggests that humans, cattle and other domestic livestock are resistant to natural transmission. While the possibility of human infection remains a concern, it is important to note there have been no verified cases of humans contracting CWD.
CWD can reduce the growth and size of wild deer and elk populations in areas where the prevalence is high, and is of increasing concern for wildlife managers across North America. The disease was long thought to be limited in the wild to a relatively small endemic area in northeastern Colorado, southeastern Wyoming and southwestern Nebraska, but it has recently been found in new areas of Colorado and Nebraska, as well as in wild deer in Illinois, New Mexico, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Saskatchewan.
The disease also has been diagnosed in commercial game farms in Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin, Saskatchewan and Alberta. © Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance
http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.main |
|
Greater Yellowstone's Bison: Brucellosis and the Unraveling of an Early American Wildlife Conservation Achievement
The Greater Yellowstone region's bison-brucellosis controversy has triggered troublesome proposals giving federal and state agriculture agencies jurisdiction over wildlife to eradicate a domestic livestock disease. Many of the region's bison (Bos bison) and elk (Cervus elaphus) carry the bacterium Brucella abortus, which can cause brucellosis. Local livestock officials fear bison and elk could transmit brucellosis to domestic livestock, jeopardizing state brucellosis class-free status. However, no cases of such transmission in an open range setting have been verified scientifically. Various federal and state agencies have jurisdiction over the region's wildlife and livestock; these agencies are having real difficulty reaching consensus on how to address brucellosis in the wildlife populations. Montana and Idaho recently vested livestock officials with jurisdiction over bison leaving Yellowstone National Park (YNP), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has indicated it may propose regulations asserting jurisdiction over bison. An interim bison management plan, the result of a recent court settlement, provides for the National Park Service (NPS) to participate in capturing, testing, and slaughtering Yellowstone's bison, but makes no provision for addressing brucellosis in elk. The region's brucellosis problem could be adequately addressed through a risk management disease control policy rather than a costly and perhaps fruitless eradication effort. Such an approach can be implemented without the unwelcome precedent of livestock officials taking jurisdiction over wildlife.
Abstract from: Keiter, R. B. 1997. Greater Yellowstone's Bison: The Unraveling of an Early American Wildlife Conservation Achievement, Journal of Wildlife Management 61 (1): 1-11. |
|
The New York Times April 19, 2002
Farm Bill Could Mean Killing of Sick Bison in Yellowstone
National Park Service officials and environmentalists say a provision in the farm bill could lead to the slaughter of bison and elk in Yellowstone and other national parks. The provision, the Animal Health Protection Act, was added to the bill in the Senate by Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, to consolidate and broaden the Department of Agriculture's authority to manage animal disease. The purpose was to make it easier for agricultural officials to respond to livestock diseases like mad cow and foot-and-mouth and to counter possible food contamination by terrorists.
The contention comes down to the word ''animal'' in the definition of the ''pests'' that would be subject to the department's new authority. That addition, critics say, would give that department control over any animals that threaten livestock. Among those that could be affected, the critics say, would be elk and bison in Yellowstone, which have brucellosis in large numbers. Ranchers in Montana and Wyoming fear that the disease could be passed on to their cattle. The Interior Department, which oversees national parks and has authority over wildlife, has opposed efforts to kill infected elk and bison under a philosophy that nature should be allowed to take its course. Even though there have been no documented cases of brucellosis transmission to domestic cows in the wild, Montana has a zero-tolerance policy and shoots any buffalo that leave Yellowstone.
 ''For 60 years, the state veterinarians and Department of Agriculture have wanted to come into the park, round up elk and bison, test them and slaughter the ones that have brucellosis,'' the chief scientist at Yellowstone, John Varley, said. ''My guess is that would be their first priority.'' A spokeswoman for the Agriculture Department said the bill was not intended to grant the agency authority over other jurisdictions. ''Any action we would take that involves another government agency, we would consult with them very closely,'' the spokeswoman, Alisa Harrison, said. ''We work closely with the National Park Service.''
A spokesman for Mr. Harkin's office said the language in a small but critical section of the bill that transferred authority was an oversight. ''It wasn't Senator Harkin's intent to infringe on the Department of Interior's jurisdiction,'' the spokesman, Seth Boffeli, said. ''We are
|
“Based on past studies of the 3,000 or so bison in Yellowstone, Mr. Varley said, up to 80 percent of the animals could test positive for brucellosis and could, under the proposed legislation, be shipped to slaughter.” |
working with wildlife groups and are hopeful a compromise can be reached.'' Based on past studies of the 3,000 or so bison in Yellowstone, Mr. Varley said, up to 80 percent of the animals could test positive for brucellosis and could, under the proposed legislation, be shipped to slaughter. Yellowstone bison are descendants of the few animals that survived the slaughter in the late 19th century. They are the last free-roaming herd in the West. Steve Torbit, senior scientist for the National Wildlife Federation in Denver and a former wildlife biologist for Colorado and Wyoming and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, said the proposed legislation would also usurp a state's authority to manage its own wildlife. ''It would,'' Mr. Torbit said, ''give authority to kill wildlife to a single special interest, the livestock industry.''
www.nytimes.com |
|
Wood Bison National Park and Disease
The presence of reportable cattle diseases in bison in the Greater Wood Buffalo National Park area is the most difficult issue facing management and recovery of wood bison in Alberta, Canada. There are three prevalent diseases that affect the bison populations, particularly those in and around Wood Buffalo National Park: bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, and anthrax.
Bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis occur only in bison in and around Wood Buffalo National Park. Infected herds within the Park appear to be negatively impacted by the presence of the two cattle diseases (Joly and Messier 2001). In addition to being a concern for recovery of healthy wood bison herds in wild populations, these diseases are of concern to the commercial bison and cattle industry. One estimate of the economic consequences of an outbreak in cattle in Canada reported a potential cumulative loss of $1 billion over a 20-year period (FEARO 1990).
Mycobacterium bovis and Brucella abortus are the causative agents of bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis, respectively. The role of the diseases in the population ecology of free-ranging bison is the subject of current research programs in Wood Buffalo National Park (Joly and Messier 2001) and Yellowstone National Park (National Parks Service 1999). The course of each disease is considered similar in bison and cattle (Tessaro 1989). The main clinical features of brucellosis are a high incidence (approximately 90%) of abortion during the first pregnancy, following infection the second pregnancy exhibits a 20% abortion rate, and subsequent pregnancies result in less than a 1% abortion rate because of naturally acquired immunity (Davis et al. 1991). The symptoms of the disease also include a low incidence of bursitis leading to arthritis and reduced joint mobility. Transmission occurs through contact with aborted fetuses and infected placentas (FEARO 1990).
Tuberculosis in bison and cattle is primarily a lung disease, although any organ system may be affected. Advanced tuberculosis is generally fatal and is transmitted through infected secretions and excretions (FEARO 1990). Owing to the importance of brucellosis and tuberculosis as diseases communicable from animals to humans, they have been the subject of intensive, long-term eradication programs in livestock populations in Canada and the United States. Bison in the Greater Wood Buffalo National Park area represent the last known reservoir of the diseases in Canada.
Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian northwest have a long tradition of association with bison, both having inhabited the region for millennia. Traditionally, these people hunted wood bison for food, clothing, and for use in spiritual ceremonies (Guthrie 1980, Bigstone Cree Nation and Metis People of Kituskeenow 1999). Because of the threatened status of wood bison and the cultural and spiritual significance of the animal, some aboriginal groups have voluntarily refrained from hunting bison. The First Nations have expressed a desire to hunt disease-free, free-ranging bison herds in the Caribou Lower Peace Region in the long-term. A management plan has not been developed to achieve this objective however. . . the objective was identified in the National Wood Bison Recovery Plan (Gates et al. 2001).
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/status/reports/bison/lim.html |
|
Tuberculosis at the Wildlife / Human Interface
Michigan fights bovine TB- but not soon enough…
03/13/1998 JUSTIN HYDE Associated Press Writer
EAST LANSING, Mich. (AP) Concerned about the spread of disease to cattle, two Michigan state commissions approved measures meant to eradicate an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis among whitetail deer in parts of the Lower Peninsula. The state Agriculture Commission approved a ban Thursday on feeding deer in the area. The Natural Resources Commission prohibited baiting deer in the five affected counties and parts of six others. Under the bait ban, hunters could use bait only from Sept. 1 until the last day of the open deer-hunting season in the affected area. Farmers say the steps are needed - and might not be enough to stop the deer from spreading the disease to cattle. Some hunters consider the limits too severe.
``There's plenty of bitter medicine to go around,'' Bob Bender, the state's TB coordinator, told a joint meeting of the Natural Resources and Agriculture commissions Wednesday. ``We're not going to solve this problem overnight.”… The infection threatens the state's cattle industry, which has been certified as tuberculosis-free. Preliminary tests show that four cattle herds in the area might have been infected. If those tests are confirmed, the whole state would lose its certification for at least five years, and all cattle shipped out of Michigan would have to be tested….
Just a few years later…
Department of Community Health Confirms Human Case of Bovine TB
Michigan Department of Community Health officials today announced that an elderly individual was diagnosed with bovine Tuberculosis (TB), but died from unrelated causes in February. DNA fingerprinting conducted by the Department of Community Health laboratory has determined the strain of Mycobacterium bovis found in the individual is the same found in cattle and deer in Northern Lower Michigan….
Bovine tuberculosis is a serious bacterial disease that affects primarily the lungs and sometimes the digestive tract of livestock, deer and other wildlife," said Michigan Department of Community Health Director James K. Haveman, Jr. "Due to the fact that it is slow growing, it has taken some time to culture the bacterium and conduct the appropriate DNA testing." The individual lived in a rural area within the Northeast Lower Peninsula. The patient was not coughing and was not likely to transmit disease, Haveman said….
The Michigan Department of Community Health, in conjunction with the state's Bovine TB Eradication Project, continues to emphasize standard bovine TB prevention practices. Because the bacterium is most often found in lung tissues the disease is primarily spread through breathing or coughing but can also be spread by drinking unpasteurized milk or eating improperly cooked meats from infected animals…. All meats, including hunter-harvested deer, should be thoroughly cooked to an internal temperature of 165 degrees F for 15 seconds to kill bacteria. If the lungs, ribcage or internal organs from wild deer look abnormal (multiple tan or yellow lumps), the meat should not be eaten and the deer should be taken to a Michigan Department of Natural Resources check station….
Since bovine TB was re-discovered in Michigan in the mid-1990's, the state has moved aggressively to develop and implement a comprehensive and stringent TB testing strategy and protocol. Since 1995 more than 760,000 TB tests have been conducted on Michigan cattle, bison and goats and 16,500 privately owned cervids have been tested or are under a herd surveillance plan. In 1997, one privately owned cervid herd was identified with TB and was depopulated. To date, 19 cattle herds have been diagnosed with bovine TB. Two dairy herds are under plans that remove animals responding to TB skin tests, and 17 beef herds have been depopulated.
In addition, over 88,373 TB tests have been conducted on wild white-tailed deer and elk, with 397 deer and two elk confirmed with the disease. Carnivore tests for 2001 revealed two TB positive coyotes, two bobcats and three probe-positive bear, bringing the total number of carnivores that have tested positive for bovine TB to 30.
www.bovinetb.com |
The ‘livestock / wildlife’ interface is not just terrestrial. Aquaculture presents a similar set of challenges in the developed and developing world.
|
A North American Perspective on Salmon Farming: Few Benefits and Many Risks?
"In the 1970s and early 1980s, shrimp and salmon farming were small-scale industries that appeared to be more of a solution than a problem for protection of marine resources. The increasingly large scale of these industries, combined with other human activities, now places substantial demands on ocean ecosystems, which in turn result in the demise of fisheries and biological diversity. These ecological impacts are not reflected in either local or international prices for aquaculture inputs or outputs. So long as the full environmental costs of feed and stock inputs, effluent assimilation, and coastal land conversion are not recognized in the market, ocean resources - including fisheries - will deteriorate further."
Rosamund Naylor, et. al., Science, Vol. 282, October 1998.
Disease is very prevalent in the crowded netcages of farmed salmon. Epidemics in wild fish stocks could be transmitted by fish farm wastes and escaped farm fish. Millions of tax dollars have been spent, fish destroyed and many rivers poisoned in unsuccessful attempts to eradicate diseases that have decimated native salmon stocks from Canada to Europe.
In an attempt to control disease and parasites among farmed salmon, powerful antibiotics and other drugs are dumped directly into open netcages. Salmon aquaculture uses more antibiotic per pound of "livestock" than any other form of farming. This largely unregulated use of antibiotics - the same drugs used to treat human infections - has already led to the development of drug-resistant "super-bugs." This poses grave risks not only to the wider marine ecosystem, but also to fish farm workers and to consumers of farmed salmon who may be affected by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Over a million Atlantic salmon have escaped in British Columbia’s waters. DNA tests have confirmed they are now reproducing in the wild - something salmon farmers and government officials said could never happen. As well as spreading disease, these exotic species may threaten some Pacific stocks by competing for food and breeding space.
Every day British Columbia’s aquaculture industry dumps the same amount of raw sewage into the ocean as a city of half a million people. High concentrations of fish waste and drugs, along with drug-resistant microbes, pass through netcages to settle and destroy life on the ocean floor, contaminating shellfish beds and other habitats while spreading disease up the food chain.
Farmed salmon represent a 'net loss' of protein worldwide. Three to five kilograms of other fish are used to make the feed to produce every kilogram of farmed salmon.
Marine life, like whales, seals, sea lions and birds, are killed by net entanglements and by salmon farmers using guns and acoustic deterrent devices to protect their stock.
www.davidsuzuki.org/Salmon_Aquaculture/Benefits_and_Risks/ |
|
Shrimp Aquaculture May Be Fishing for Trouble
Environmental News Service By Cat Lazaroff
SAN FRANCISCO, California, February 21, 2001 (ENS) - New studies released this week reveal that farmed fish and shellfish, which form a growing percentage of the seafood consumed around the globe, may pose unexpected risks to wild species, as well as to the environments in which they are raised. At the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in San Francisco this week, an international group of scientists presented new findings on the unintended impacts of fish farming that put both oceans and the aquaculture industry at risk. Aquaculture, the fastest growing sector of the world food economy, is increasing by 11 percent a year…. "A lot of countries could use more protein, and aquaculture is a good way to get there," said Rosamond Naylor, an economist at the Stanford Institute for International Studies. The problem, Naylor pointed out, is that farmed salmon, shrimp and other carnivorous species often take more out of the oceans than they keep in. At the AAAS meetings, a panel of seven international scientists presented data showing that aquaculture is necessary to the world's future food security. But they also warned that the growing demands of the world's food production systems upon a finite quantity of resources means that all aquatic and terrestrial farming systems must become more efficient.
Shrimp farming now produces half of all internationally traded shrimp. Raising 800,000 metric tonnes world wide each year, for a total value of U.S. $6 billion, the industry was predicted to generate benefits for cash strapped countries. Instead, disease-induced "boom and bust" shrimp farming has resulted in increasing poverty and landlessness, declining food security, and the breakdown of traditional livelihood systems. Impacts have included the destruction of mangroves and wetlands, the large scale capture of wild larvae and brood stock, pollution, use of chemicals and antibiotics, intensive fish meal demands and the privatization of public resources. Fish farms can have negative impacts on surrounding ecosystems as well. Nils Kautsky from the University of Stockholm in Sweden demonstrated how fish farms can affect surrounding areas by discarding excess fishmeal, transferring parasites to wild populations and introducing exotic fish into native ecosystems. Kautsky showed that the so called footprint of a farm - its influence on the local environment - can be up to 50,000 times larger than the physical farm itself.
"There are now identifiable ways to improve shrimp aquaculture," said Stanford's Dr. Naylor, who chaired the AAAS session. These may include reducing food input and developing closed water systems that prevent waste and parasites from escaping. "Aquaculture is at a critical crossroads," said Dr. Albert Tacon, head of the Oceanic Institute's Aquatic Feeds and Nutrition Program in Hawaii. "Fish farming could decrease pressure on fisheries and feed the world’s growing population. That's why it is so important to proceed on a sustainable path." More information on sustainable fisheries is available at: http://www.fao.org/fi/default.asp . More information on health risks from wild fish is available at: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-20-06.html. |
Back to Table of Contents
|
