Page 209 - Veterinary Toxicology, Basic and Clinical Principles, 3rd Edition

176 SECTION | I General

VetBooks.ir the federal government, or any combination of state and referred to as specific causation is discussed in
Section VII below. The distinction between enforcement
federal government. One or more agencies of the state in
actions taken by agencies to benefit the public as a whole
which the animal was harmed may have statutory author-
ity to protect the health of animals, humans, or both. and legally admissible specific causation in an individual
These agencies may include the State Department of animal is not always appreciated.
Agriculture, the State Department of Health, the State This distinction may be illustrated by a hypothetical
Department of Natural Resources, the State Board of example. A bulk tank load of milk is tested in the receiv-
Animal Health, or other similar agencies. A state agency ing bay and found to be positive for the presence of beta-
may choose to take enforcement action against the feed lactam antibiotics using a test kit marketed and validated
distributor, premix manufacturer, or both, in order to pro- for this purpose. The entire load of milk is dumped, and
tect the health of animals, humans, or both in its state. the producer whose individual sample is positive is
The state agency may collect its own samples and per- charged for the load of milk. Paying for the tanker load of
form its own analyses prior to taking enforcement action. milk in this situation is a contractual agreement between
The agency may determine that the concentration of the milk producer and the bulk milk buyer.
chemical in the feed is greater than a published tolerance The test kit is approved and validated for use in
or action level for that chemical in that feed. This agency administrative action. That action is to assist in the public
action may end with a fine, recall, or other administrative policy of preventing exposure of humans to beta-lactam
action, if both sides agree. antibiotics to prevent allergic reactions, and to reduce the
If both sides do not agree, the feed distributor and pre- likelihood of developing strains of bacteria that are patho-
mix manufacturer may “appeal” the agency’s decision. genic to humans and resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics.
This appeal may go to an administrative law judge, or a The test kit is sufficient to support the contractual agree-
similar official within, or outside, the agency, depending ment and perhaps administrative action of preventing
on the administrative structure of that particular agency. these antibiotics from entering the human food supply.
If the feed manufacturer or premix manufacturer agrees The test kit result may not be sufficient, however, for
with the ruling of the administrative law judge, the dis- litigation aimed at prosecuting one for the source of the
pute is finished. If all do not agree, the distributor or man- beta-lactam. Further analytical chemistry analysis may be
ufacturer of the feed may choose to appeal the decision of required to distinguish, penicillic acid, from penicillin G
the administrative law judge to a district civil court. This from, ticarcillin, as an extreme example. This distinction
may put the dispute in a venue similar to a civil suit as may be important because of the implication raised as to
discussed below. the potential source of the antibiotic in the bulk tank:
Agencies are given deference at the district court feed, versus a treated cow, versus “spiking” the bulk tank.
level, making this an increasingly difficult, but not insur- In short, a test that is entirely acceptable for contractual
mountable, argument to win. The specialty of administra- agreement or agency action may not be acceptable for a
tive law is devoted to the details of administrative specific type of litigation. This concept is expanded upon
procedure that arises in such actions. Administrative law in the section on specific causation below. See Dr.
is beyond the scope of this chapter. Bright’s chapter on Regulatory Veterinary Medicine for a
Federal agencies may also have an interest in the ani- further discussion of agency issues.
mal case. The Federal Food and Drug Administration The results of diagnostic testing may rarely be offered
(FDA) may have an interest in the case because the feed as fact in a criminal case. Animal poisoning cases have
additive impacted interstate commerce when it crossed rarely risen to the level of criminal action. The addition
state lines, and impacted the health of the public when it of the chemical to the feed with the intention of causing a
caused toxicosis of a food animal. The FDA has authority toxicosis may be a crime based on animal cruelty or
to protect the public health and has authority to take chemical terrorism statutes. The executive branch of gov-
administrative action against the manufacturer of the feed ernment may then choose to prosecute the case. The state,
similar to that discussed for the state agencies above in often through its Attorney General’s office, may choose
that protection of the public’s health. to prosecute under an animal cruelty statute. Similarly,
Although agency decisions are normally given defer- the Department of Justice, may file criminal prosecution
ence in the courtroom, regulations developed by agencies charges if the act is considered to be one of chemical ter-
may not always address the issue of causation. Agency rorism. In these instances the state or federal government
regulations are often promulgated to protect populations is a direct party in the case.
11
rather than individuals. The affect on an individual This discussion of legal venue is not exhaustive. The
purpose of this section is merely to indicate how a routine
clinical or diagnostic case could become involved in a
11. See e.g. Troy Corp , AFL-CIO, and Simpson. variety of legal venues including, insurance claims,