AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 44, relative to animal health.
Summary
SB2558 amends Tennessee’s animal health laws in Title 44 to define two USDA-based disease categories: “monitored disease,” meaning an endemic disease listed by the USDA, and “notifiable disease,” meaning USDA-listed emergency, emerging, or regulated disease incidents. These definitions give state animal-health authorities clearer statutory terms to use when responding to livestock and other animal disease threats.
The bill also expands the authority of the state veterinarian or other designated animal-health officials. Under the amended law, they may not only recommend tests or vaccinations for animals in Tennessee or imported into the state, but may also order tests or vaccinations when needed to detect or treat a notifiable disease or monitored disease. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, citing the public welfare.
Impact
The bill updates Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 44, Section 44-2-102, by broadening the state’s animal disease response powers and adding new statutory definitions tied to USDA disease classifications. Its practical effect is to strengthen the state’s ability to require testing or vaccination of animals within Tennessee or entering the state, which may affect livestock owners, animal importers, veterinarians, and agricultural operations. It is aimed at improving disease surveillance, containment, and treatment for animal health threats.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support and little opposition. It passed the Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee 9-0 and later passed the Senate floor 30-0, indicating strong bipartisan agreement. The available record shows no committee debate or recorded dissent, suggesting the measure was viewed as a routine but important animal-health update.
Contention
No notable contention is reflected in the available materials. Because the bill expands authority to order tests and vaccinations, any potential concerns would likely center on regulatory burden, animal owner compliance, or the scope of state authority over imported animals, but no such objections appear in the votes or transcripts provided. The absence of recorded debate suggests the measure was not controversial in committee or on the floor.