Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Agriculture wants to check how chickens are treated with medicine to make sure they stay healthy, and they asked for permission to do this study. They are asking people to share their thoughts about it until January 15, 2025.
Summary AI
The Department of Agriculture has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This collection focuses on monitoring antimicrobial use and resistance in U.S. broiler chicken production through the National Animal Health Monitoring System. The study, conducted with the University of Minnesota, aims to provide insights into how antimicrobial use and resistance affect animal health and production over time. Comments on this proposal are invited until January 15, 2025, and can be submitted online.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent submission by the Department of Agriculture to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act outlines a significant initiative aimed at monitoring antimicrobial use and resistance within U.S. broiler chicken production. This initiative, conducted through a cooperative agreement with the University of Minnesota, represents a continuation of efforts under the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) to scrutinize and understand the evolving dynamics of antimicrobial use and resistance as they relate to poultry health and production practices.
Summary of the Document
The document is a formal request for approval to continue collecting information that will help U.S. poultry producers and animal health professionals understand the relationships between antimicrobial use, resistance, and overall animal health. This study is particularly vital due to the growing global concern over antimicrobial resistance, which poses a threat to both animal and human health. The Department of Agriculture invites public comments on this proposal until January 15, 2025, emphasizing the importance of public input in shaping this initiative.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several aspects of the document warrant closer examination and discussion:
Cost Transparency: The document does not specify the estimated total cost associated with the information collection process, potentially raising concerns about efficient use of resources.
Estimation Methodology: The methodology behind the estimated burden hours totaling 869 is not detailed. Clarity on how these estimates were derived could enhance confidence in the reliability of the data collection process.
Decision-Making Impact: The document provides limited insight into how exactly the collected information will inform decision-making processes. More explicit connections between data collection and policy shifts or interventions could better illustrate the necessity and utility of the study.
Language Accessibility: The technical language used in the document might not be easily digestible for the general public, which could hinder broad-based public engagement and informed commentary.
Partnership Details: The selection process details for partnering with the University of Minnesota are not disclosed, potentially raising questions about the transparency and fairness of this collaboration.
Information Dissemination: There is no mention of how findings from this study will be shared with the public or stakeholders, which may affect transparency and accountability.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
For the general public, particularly those concerned with food safety and public health, this initiative has the potential to bring about positive impacts by enhancing understanding and strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance. However, without clear communication of the study's benefits and results, public trust and engagement might be compromised.
For specific stakeholders, such as poultry producers and veterinary health professionals, the study promises to offer valuable insights into best practices for antimicrobial use, potentially leading to improved animal health outcomes and production efficiencies. However, there could be concerns over the potential costs and time involved in complying with the information collection process, especially if clarity and transparency in project execution are lacking.
In conclusion, while the initiative spearheaded by the Department of Agriculture is a crucial step in addressing antimicrobial resistance, there are areas that require further transparency and public engagement to maximize its effectiveness and acceptance. Public commentary is not just a formality, but a necessary component in ensuring that such government actions are representative, efficient, and equitable.
Issues
• The document does not specify the total estimated cost associated with the information collection process, which could lead to concerns about potential wasteful spending.
• The methodology for estimating the burden hours and the validation of assumptions used are not detailed, which may impact the perceived accuracy and reliability of the estimates.
• It is unclear how the collected information will specifically contribute to the decision-making process, which could affect the perceived necessity and practical utility of the information collection.
• The language used is technical, which may not be easily understandable to the general public, potentially limiting the scope of informed public comments.
• The document mentions a cooperative agreement with the University of Minnesota but does not provide details about the selection process for this partnership, which could raise concerns about potential favoritism.
• No information is provided on how the results of this study will be disseminated to the public or stakeholders, which could challenge transparency and accountability.