Michigan House Bill HB4173

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/5/25
• Refer: 3/5/25

Caption

Appropriations: supplemental; funding to test facilities and backyard flocks for bird flu (H5N1); provide for. Creates appropriation act.

Impact

If enacted, this bill would reinforce Michigan's commitment to animal health and food safety, acknowledging the significant threat posed by avian influenza. The allocated funds will facilitate not only immediate detection capacities but also long-term preparedness strategies that incorporate genetic analysis and public health dynamics. By focusing on avian influenza, the bill addresses broader agricultural sectors' vulnerabilities, thus enhancing the state's capability to respond comprehensively to animal health crises while potentially reducing associated economic losses in the poultry industry.

Summary

House Bill 4173 is focused on appropriations for various state departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025. The bill specifically designates approximately $1 million aimed at avian influenza prevention and response efforts, particularly testing for the H5N1 strain of avian influenza. This funding is crucial for testing facilities and backyard flocks to ensure timely responses to potential outbreaks, thereby safeguarding agricultural health and public safety. The proposed initiatives include obtaining respiratory samples, serological tests, and environmental samples, alongside dissemination of data regarding the virus's genetic lineage and pathogenicity, all of which are vital for effective pandemic preparedness and management.

Contention

Discussions surrounding HB 4173 may highlight budgetary constraints and prioritization of funding within the state. Given that the bill's funding originates solely from the state’s general fund, stakeholders may debate the effectiveness of allocating these resources specifically for avian influenza in comparison to other pressing health or emergency management needs. While proponents view this as a necessary precautionary measure to mitigate risks of outbreaks, critics may argue that it diverts essential funds from other programs, prompting a broader evaluation of the state's overall health funding and emergency preparedness strategies.