Economic assessment of FMDv releases from the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2015, Pages

  Pendell, Dustin L ^a   Marsh, Thomas L ^b   Coble, Keith H ^c   Lusk, Jayson L ^d   Szmania, Sara C ^e  

^a KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Signature Science LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONSUMER; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; EPIDEMIC; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; POLICY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRAVEL; UNITED STATES; AGRICULTURE; ANIMAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS; FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE; HEALTH SURVEY; KANSAS; ORGANIZATION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; AGRICULTURE; ANIMALS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE; FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS; HUMANS; KANSAS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SURVEILLANCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84938321757     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129134     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. U.S. Congress. 2009. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010. Washington, DC: 111th Congress, October 28, 2009. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ83/pdf/PLAW-111publ83.pdf.
2. Government Accountability Office (GAO). High-containment biosafety laboratories: DHS lacks evidence to conclude that foot-and-mouth disease research can be done safely on the U.S. mainland, GAO-08-821T (Washington, D.C.: May); 2008. Available: http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/120209.pdf.
3. Schroeder, T.C., Pendell, D.L., Sanderson, M., McReynolds, S. Economic impact of alternative FMD emergency vaccination strategies in the United States. J Agric Appl Econ 2015; in press.
4. Pendell D.L., Leatherman J., Schroeder T.C., Alward G.S. The economic impacts of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak: A regional analysis. J Agri Appl Econ 2007; 39(October):19-33.
5. Zhao Z., Wahl T.I., Marsh T.L. Invasive Species Management: Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the U.S. Beef Industry. Agric Resour Econ Rev2006; 35(1):98-115.
6. Schoenbaum M.A., Disney W.T. Modeling alternative mitigation strategies for a hypothetical outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. Prev Vet Med 2003; 58:25-52. PMID: 12628769
7. Rich K.M., Winter-Nelson A. An integrated epidemiological-economic analysis of foot and mouth disease: Applications to the southern cone of South America. A J Agric Econ 2007; 89(3):682-697.
8. Jones K.E., Patel N.G., Levy M.A., Storeygard A., Balk D., Gittleman J.L., et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 2008; 451(7181):990-993. doi: 10.1038/nature06536 PMID: 18288193
9. King L.J. Introduction - emerging zoonoses and pathogens of public health concern. Rev Sci Tech 2004; 23(2):429-430.
10. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). International tourism to continue robust growth in 2013. Madrid, Spain. January, 2013. Available: http://media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2013-01-28/international-tourism-continue-robust-growth-2013.
11. World Bank. People, Pathogens, and Our Planet. Volume 1: Towards a One Health Approach for Controlling Zoonotic Diseases. Report No. 50833-GLB. Washington, D.C. 2010. Available: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/PPP-Web.pdf.
12. Hosono, H., Kono, H., Ito S., Shirai, J. Economic impact of nipah virus infection outbreak in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 11th ISVEE; 2006. Available: http://www.sciquest.org.nz/node/63964.
13. Thompson D., Muriel P., Russell D., Osborne P., Bromley A., Rowland M., et al. Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001. Rev Sci Tech 2002; 21:675-687.
14. National Research Council (NRC). Meeting critical laboratory needs for animal agriculture: Examination of three options. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; 2012a. Available: http://www.nap.edu/ catalog/13454/meeting-critical-laboratory-needs-for-animal-agriculture-examination-of-three.
15. The White House. Homeland security presidential directive / HSPD-9: Defense of United States agriculture and food. Washington, D.C. February 3rd; 2004. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-2004-book1/pdf/PPP-2004-book1-doc-pg173.pdf.
16. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Updated site-specific biosafety and biosecurity mitigation risk assessment. National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). Final Report. February, 2012. Available: http://www.dhs.gov/ssra.
17. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Observations on DHS's analyses concerning whether FMD research can be done as safely on the mainland as on plum island. GAO-09-747 (Washington, D.C.: July); 2009. Available: http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/293168.pdf.
18. National Research Council (NRC). 2010. Evaluation of a site-specific risk assessment for the department of homeland security's planned national bio- and agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; 2010. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog13031/ evaluation-of-a-site-specific-risk-assessment-for-the-department-of-homeland-securitys-plannednational-bio-and-agro-defense-facility-in-manhattan-kansas.
19. National Research Council (NRC). Evaluation of the updated site-specific risk assessment for the national bio- and agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; 2012b. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13418/evaluation-of-the-updated-site-specific-riskassessment-for-the-national-bio-and-agro-defense-facility-in-manhattan-kansas.
20. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Site-specific biosafety and biosecurity mitigation risk assessment. National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). Final Report. October, 2010. Available: http://www.dhs.gov/ssra.
21. Pendell, D.L., Lusk, J.L., Marsh, T.L., Coble, K.H., Szmania, S.C. Economic assessment of zoonotic diseases: An illustrative study of rift valley fever in the United States. Transbound Emerg Dis 2014; doi: 10.1111/tbed.12246
22. Paarlberg, P.L., Seitzinger, A.H., Lee, J.G., Mathews, K.H. Economic impacts of foreign animal disease. USDA, Economic Research Report Number 57. Washington, D.C.; 2008. Available: http://www. ers.usda.gov/media/210481/err57-1-.pdf.
23. Harvey N., Reeves A., Schoenbaum M.A., Zagmutt-Vergara F.J., Dubé C., Hill A.E., et al. The North American Animal Disease Spread Model: A simulation model to assist decision making in evaluating animal disease incursions. Prev Vet Med 2007; 82(December):176-197. PMID: 17614148
24. Tonsor G.T., Mintert J.R., Schroeder T.C. U.S. meat demand: Household dynamics and media information impacts. J Agric Res Econ 2010; 35(1):1-17.
25. Shiflett J.S., Purcell W.D., Marsh D., Rodgers P. Analysis of lamb demand in the United States. Report to the American Lamb Board. Denver, CO: Juniper Economic Consulting, Inc.; 2007. Available: http:// www.lambcheckoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/juniper-2007.pdf.
26. Zheng Y., Kaiser H.M. Estimating asymmetric advertising response: An application to U.S. nonalcoholic beverage demand. J Agric Appl Econ 2008; 40(3):837-849.
27. Paarlberg P.L., Seitzinger A.H., Lee J.G., Mathews K.H. Supply reductions, export restrictions, and expectations for hog returns in a potential classical swine fever outbreak in the United States. J Swine Health Prod 2009; 17(3):155-162.
28. Livestock Marketing Information Center (LMIC). Various spreadsheets of data. Denver, Colorado; 2012.
29. USDA-Economic Research Service (ERS). Various commodity Outlook Reports and Data. Washington, D.C. 2012a. Available: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/commodity-outlook/ersoutlook-reports-and-data.aspx.
30. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Production. Washington, D.C. 2012. Available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID = 1046.
31. USDA-Economic Research Service (ERS). U.S. Agricultural Trade. Washington, D.C. 2012b. Available: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-trade/us-agricultural-trade/data.aspx.
32. USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). 2012. Trade Data. Washington, D.C. 2012. Available: http:// www.fas.usda.gov/data.
33. Nelson, F.J., Schertz, L.P. Provisions of the federal agriculture improvement and reform act of 1996. USDA, Economic Research Service. AIB729. Washington, D.C.; 1996. Available: http://www.ers.usda. gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib729.aspx.
34. Westcott, P.C., E.C. Young, and J.P. Price. The 2002 Farm Act: Provisions and implications for commodity markets. USDA, Economic Research Service. AIB778. Washington, D.C. 2002. Available: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/886438/aib778-002.pdf.
35. Blake A., Sinclair M.T., Sugiyarto G. Quantifying the impact of foot and mouth disease on tourism and the UK economy. Tourism Econ. 2003; 9(4):449-465.
36. Mak J. The Economic Contribution of Travel to State Economies. J of Travel Res 1989; 28:3-5.
37. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Consumer Expenditure Survey. U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C. 2009. Available: http://www.bls.gov/cex/.
38. Elbakidze L., Highfield L., Ward M., McCarl B.A., Norby B. Economics analysis of mitigation strategies for FMD introduction in highly concentrated animal feeding regions. Rev Agric Econ 2009; 31(4):931-950.
39. Pendell, D.L. Value of animal traceability systems in managing a foot and mouth disease outbreak in southwest Kansas. Dissertation, Kansas State University. 2006. Available: http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/199/DustinPendell2006.pdf?sequence=1.
40. Abdalla, A., Beare S., Cao L., Garner G., and Heaney A. Foot and mouth disease: Evaluating alternatives for controlling a possible outbreak in Australia, ABARE eReport 05.6., ABARE, Canberra; 2005.
41. Piggott N., Marsh T.L. Does food safety information impact U.S. meat demand? A J Agric Econ 2004; 86(1):154-174.
42. Coffey, B., Mintert, J., Fox, S., Schroeder, T., Valentin, L. The economic impact of BSE on the U.S. beef industry: Product value losses, regulatory costs, and consumer reactions. MF-2678. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Service; 2005. Available: http://krex.k-state. edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/12460/EconomicImpactofBSE.pdf?sequence=1.
43. Kuchler, F., Abebayehu, T. Did BSE announcements reduce beef purchases? USDA-Economic Research Service. Economic Research Report 7251. Washington, D.C.; 2006. Available: http://www. ers.usda.gov/media/535548/err34.pdf.
44. Marsh T.L., Schroeder T.C., Mintert J. Impacts of meat product recalls on consumer demand in the USA. Appl Econ 2004; 36:897-909.
45. Schlenker W., Villas-Boas S.B. Consumer and market response to mad-cow disease. A J Agric Econ 2009; 91(4):1140-1152.
46. United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK DEFRA). Family Food-Data Sets. 2010. Access on 08/23/2010. Available: http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/food/familyfood/documents/index.htm.
47. Blayney, D.P. Disease-related trade restrictions shaped animal product markets in 2004 and stamp imprints on 2005 forecasts. USDA, Economic Research Service, LDP-M-133-101; 2005. Available: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/865046/ldpm13301-002.pdf.
48. Randolph T.F., Morrison J.A., Poulton C. Evaluating equity impacts of animal disease control: The case of foot and mouth disease in Zimbabwe. Rev Agric Econ 2005; 27(3):465-472.
49. Nogueira L., Marsh T.L., Tozer P.R., Peel D. Foot-and-mouth disease and the Mexican cattle industry. Agri Econ 2011; 42:33-44.
50. Tozer P.R., Marsh T.L. Domestic and trade impacts of foot and mouth disease and BSE on the Australian beef industry. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 2012; 56(3):385-404.
51. Office International des Epizooties (OIE). Terrestrial animal health code. 2012. Available: http://www. oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/.
52. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Various Livestock and Animals reports. Washington, D.C. 2010.
53. Carpenter T.E., O'Brien J.M., Hagerman A.D., McCarl B.A. Epidemic and economic impacts of delayed detection of foot-and-mouth disease: A case study of a simulated outbreak in California. J Vet Diagn Invest 2011; 23(1):26-33. PMID: 21217024
54. Hagerman A.D., McCarl B.A., Carpenter T.E., Ward M.P., O'Brien J. Emergency vaccination to control foot-and-mouth disease: Implications of its inclusion as a U.S. policy option. Appl Econ Perspect and Policy; 2012 34(1):119-146.
55. Melius, C., Robertson A., Hullinger, P. Developing livestock facility type information from USDA agricultural census data for use in epidemiological and economic models. Department of Homeland Security, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-TR-226008; 2006. Available: https://e-reports-ext.llnl. gov/pdf/340224.pdf.
56. United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK DEFRA). Foot and mouth disease 2007: A review and lessons learned. 2008. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives. gov.uk/20100807034701/http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/fmdreview/documents/fmd-2007-review.pdf.