A veto that would save animals, protect humans

Listen to this article

As a veterinarian, I have dedicated my career to ensuring the health and welfare of animals and the protection of public health. Protecting the availability of safe, proven therapies is important to meeting this mission. Game-changing innovations in vaccines over the past few years have undoubtedly saved animal and human lives, yet here in Arizona, access to these therapies is being threatened by inaccurate, unnecessary legislation that is currently on its way to the governor’s office.  

The Arizona legislature recently passed SB1146, a bill that disparages life-saving vaccine technology by allowing food products from aquaculture, livestock, and poultry to be labeled “mRNA free” if the animals did not receive mRNA vaccinations. 

Vaccines work by increasing the body’s ability to fight infection before serious disease can occur.  Traditional vaccines utilize a weakened or dead version of the virus.  Some new technologies use mRNA technology, which uses a small strip of genetic code to teach the immune system to create antibodies to fight infection. Both are safe and effective. In some cases, mRNA technology can be developed faster after the emergence of a new virus. This will be important to protecting Arizona and the United States from future epidemics. 

Labeling food mRNA free would be sending a false message to consumers. Since mRNA is an essential component of all living organisms, labeling food products “mRNA free” is not only misleading to Arizona consumers it is also scientifically inaccurate. mRNA does not linger in the body after it is used, and mRNA vaccines cannot intermingle with or change the genetic material of the person or animal receiving the vaccine. Prohibiting veterinarians from using proven, effective therapies to respond to animal disease outbreaks is a far more dangerous threat to Arizona agriculture than misplaced concerns about mRNA.    

Misleading labeling would negatively affect public understanding of these critical new therapies, which would be a setback for animal health and welfare. Furthermore, misleading and unnecessary labels would create a chilling effect for innovators seeking new ways to prevent diseases in animals at a time when such innovations are essential for reducing the need for traditional antibiotics and safeguarding our food supply from viral diseases. Preventing disease rather than treating and mitigating disease saves resources and keeps animals healthy. 

The mRNA vaccines used in people are not used in animals. However, animal vaccines using different types of RNA have been licensed, and it is anticipated that mRNA vaccines for animals are on the horizon. These new vaccines represent a promising approach to treating major viral diseases that can cause sickness and death in flocks and herds and are especially useful in combatting fast-moving outbreaks and pandemics because they can be quickly adapted to specific viruses. 

All vaccines used in animals, both pets and livestock, are reviewed and regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB), which requires vaccine manufacturers to submit data to demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and quality of all products. Then, the USDA sets withdrawal times—the period before an animal is harvested during which vaccines cannot be administered—ensuring no component of the vaccine is found in animals at the time of slaughter or milking.    

I hope Gov. Katie Hobbs will see the value of these vaccines and veto this legislation. 

Dr. Rachel Cumberbatch is vice president of Regulatory and International Affairs at the Animal Health Institute.