ranch hand
Well-known member
Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and Administrator Ron DeHaven, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Regarding BSE Surveillance
Washington D.C. July 20, 2006
Source: USDA
MODERATOR: Good morning from Washington. I'm Larry Quinn speaking to you from the Broadcast Center at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Welcome to today's news conference with Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns to discuss USDA's transition to a new BSE surveillance program. Joining the Secretary in the study today is Dr. Ron DeHaven, Administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
We remind reporters to press *1 on your telephone touchpad to alert us if you wish to ask a question.
Now it's my pleasure to introduce Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns.
SEC. JOHANNS: Larry, thank you very much, and to everyone out there good morning. Thank you also for joining us today as we talk about BSE surveillance in the United States.
USDA will soon be transitioning to an ongoing BSE surveillance program after having successfully achieved our goals with the enhanced surveillance program. The ongoing surveillance program will involve sampling approximately 40,000 animals each year. As with the enhanced surveillance, the focus will be on cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found and samples will be taken from a variety of locations.
This approach will maintain our ability to detect BSE even at the very, very low levels that the analysis shows it might exist in the United States. It will also enable us to identify any change in BSE prevalence if a change were to occur. This ongoing BSE surveillance program will exceed surveillance guidelines set forth by the World Animal Health Organization, also known as OIE.
In fact, the program will provide at testing at a level ten times that which is recommended by the OIE.
Let me say that we have been very carefully considering international guidelines and developing our ongoing surveillance plan. I'd like to take a moment to review the steps that brought us to this new program, the basis upon which we are making this change.
In April we released an analysis of our enhanced surveillance program. This analysis confirmed that the prevalence of BSE in the United States is extremely low, less than one case per 1 million adult cattle. The analysis further concluded that the most likely number of cases is between 4 and 7 out of 42 million adult cattle in our country. We asked outside experts to review the analysis, and they concurred with our conclusions.
It is important to remember that the Enhanced Surveillance Program was designed to provide a snapshot of the U.S. cattle herd, a 12 to 18-month intense assessment to help us estimate the prevalence of BSE in the United States and the effectiveness of the measures in place to protect public and animal health in this country.
Our enhanced surveillance effort has tested more than 759,000 animals. That's more than 1,000 animals per day, the vast majority of which have come from the population where you'd be most likely to find the disease if it did exist. During this 24-month program, two animals have tested positive for the disease. That would be two animals out of 759,000, and both animals were born before the United States banned the practice of feeding recycled ruminant protein to other ruminants.
As you know, the first case of BSE came from an imported cow before our enhanced surveillance began.
Importantly, none of these animals entered the food chain or animal feed supplies.
I'll offer one more important reminder. A surveillance program serves as a monitor, but it is not a food safety program. We have strong safeguards in place to protect our food supply, to include the removal of specified risk materials from cattle at slaughter, and a ban on preventing nonambulatory animals known as downers from entering the food supply.
Some people have suggested that we continue the enhanced surveillance program indefinitely. Let me be very direct in my response to that suggestion. There simply is no scientific justification for doing so. As I indicated, the ongoing surveillance program will far exceed international science-based surveillance guidelines. The reality is this, and it's really straightforward: There is no significant BSE problem in the United States. And after all of this surveillance, I am able to say there never was. We proved that during enhanced surveillance.
The ongoing surveillance program will continue to demonstrate the safety of our beef to consumers and the international community and affirm that our interlocking safeguards are working.
There are some steps that must be taken before the transition can occur. We have an obligation to give 30 days notice of any change to our contractors who are performing the sampling and testing so the very earliest that the transition could begin is late August. We are committed to continuing to work with our trading partners to ensure they understand the scientific basis for our decision as we move forward.
As with any program, once the transition takes place we'll continually analyze the surveillance strategy and make adjustments if needed to ensure that we maintain a robust surveillance program that provides the foundation for market confidence in the safety of U.S. beef.
To put it simply, we've accomplished our enhanced surveillance goals, and it's time to move forward with a level of surveillance that corresponds to the very low level of BSE in this country.
Lastly, I'd just like to say that I'm very proud of all the work that our employees and our partners in the Enhanced Surveillance Program have done. As I have said before, consumers both here and abroad should feel better than ever about the meat that they are buying, and U.S. producers should be prouder than ever of the work that they do.
I'll be happy to take questions. Dr. Ron DeHaven, the administrator of our Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is here with me. And Ron can assist me in answering any technical questions that might be presented.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We remind reporters to press *1 to indicate if you have a question. And our first question today comes from Kaori Iida from NHK. And standing by should be Chris Clayton. Kaori?
Not hearing Kaori, I'll go on to Chris Clayton. Chris?
REPORTER: Good morning, Secretary. Thank you for taking questions. I guess I will follow up on what I think will be a question in terms of how do you think the trade partners, particularly Japan and South Korea, will react? It seems like some people are saying you're kind of jumping the gun in terms of doing this before you have those markets back open.
SEC. JOHANNS: Well, let me answer the second part of your question first. We have been working, as you know now for many, many months to bring us to this final decision. I announced near the end of last year that at the first of 2006 we were going to be working on a decision relative to the surveillance program. We even went farther than that; we continued to test. We decided to have the scientific review of what we were doing. We put out the report; we had the scientific review of that to make sure our assessment was accurate. And so a lot of things have happened.
It would be enormously disingenuous of me if not downright dishonest to hold back and wait until they open their marketplace and then come forward, you know, a week or a month or two months or six months later and say, guess what, we're bringing our surveillance program down to where it's at.
So that's about as straightforward as I can be. What would their reaction be? In Japan there really shouldn't be any reaction. Keep in mind that the agreement that was reached with Japan is that we are shipping beef to them from animals who are animals 20 months of age or younger. You just don't find BSE in that population. There just isn't any risk.
And then when you consider what we have found -- we've tested 759,000 animals; we've only identified two -- Japan understands BSE. They've had a lot of BSE in their country. They've had I think 26 cases that they have identified in a much, much smaller herd than we have in the United States.
Now we will consult with them as we have. I've been very public in my comments about the surveillance program. We'll visit with them, we'll talk to South Korea also and all of our trading partners. But my hope is that they'll recognize the science here. And again I point out with Japan we're only shipping beef from animals under 20 months.
REPORTER: Our next question comes from Peter Shinn and he'll be followed by Philip Brasher. Peter?
REPORTER: Well, thank you, Larry. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking the questions. This is actually a question first for Dr. DeHaven, and then I'll follow up with you, Mr. Secretary, if I can.
Dr. DeHaven, are you convinced that the Canadian testing system meets OIE standards given the large number of positives they have had with a relatively much lower testing sample? And then Mr. Secretary, if I could follow up, is it true? I've been hearing reports that the big stumbling block with Korea is a commingling of American and Canadian beef on our slaughter lines. And can we resolve that without some other internal controls about Canadian beef coming in?
DR. DEHAVEN: Peter, thank you for your question. This is Ron DeHaven. And let me take the questions in a little bit reverse order in terms of the adequacy of their program; and you indicated a lower level of testing in Canada. If you look at the number of animals that they are testing in Canada in comparison to their adult cattle population as a percentage, and then compare what we are testing, they in fact are testing a proportionate sample consistent or actually exceeding the number that we are. So I would argue that in fact they do have a testing program in Canada that not only meets OIE requirements but far exceeds it.
And arguably the fact that they have now found six or seven cases in Canada is evidence that their surveillance system is working. They are finding the cases that are there. I think there's a lot of epidemiological evidence that is relevant-- for example, the clustering effect that they are finding and where they're finding those samples. But here again I think the fact that they have now found six or seven positive animals is evidence that they are testing at an appropriate level consistent with the testing that we're doing and in excess of OIE requirements.
SEC. JOHANNS: I might just add a thought to Dr. DeHaven's comments, and then I'll address your question on South Korea. Keep in mind that from a food safety standpoint, the real key here is the removal of the specified risk materials. Those who are trying to convince their consumers that universal testing or 100 percent testing somehow solves the problem, really are misleading. You solve the problem by dealing with the problem; you solve the problem by removing specified risk materials. And that's how you protect human health.
In reference to South Korea, we had a handful of plants that we continue to work on, and I think we're making progress. In fact I'm confident we're making progress.
But one of the issues that was raised, just to answer your question directly, was the use of the same equipment between Canadian livestock and U.S. livestock. Now we believe we can solve that problem by getting good scientific information in their hands and again dealing with that issue directly. I don't believe in the end that those kinds of things should be an impediment to opening the markets. But South Korea has asked for information on that. We're providing that and working to deal with that issue so we can get that market reopened.
MODERATOR: Next question comes from Philip Brasher of Des Moines Register. And he'll be followed by Jackie Fatka. Philip?
REPORTER: Yes. Mr. Secretary, do you have any plans to or are you giving any consideration to ending the ban on downer cattle? Or is that going to be permanent?
SEC. JOHANNS: We continue to work on that issue of the ban on downer animals, and in fact Phil I can tell you that we've had a number of meetings over the past few months on that issue. And I'm not ready to announce a decision today. But I want to assure you that it's not -- it's an issue that we haven't ignored. It is a rulemaking process. This is an interim rule that we have out there. And so we will follow a final rulemaking process in terms of any action there.
MODERATOR: Jackie Fatka of Farm Progress is next, followed by Matt Kaye. Jackie?
REPORTER: Hello. Thanks for taking my call. It seems like August is coming upon us pretty quickly, and there's been a lot of talk about support for sanctions on Japan if there isn't trade resumed by August. What is your reaction to that, and is there a possibility something could happen within the next couple of weeks?
SEC. JOHANNS: I certainly hope so in terms of market opening, you know I always avoid setting a date. And even today I would hesitate to say it's next few weeks or next few days. But I will say this. I think we have made good progress with Japan. The audits of the plants have gone well. The decision made today again I would just voice the thought that I believe if you look at what we're doing with Japan, this should have really no impact. We're shipping beef over there, or will ship will beef over there that comes from animals under 20 months. You're not going to find BSE there. So I just think the dynamic is such that we should have this wrapped up before too long.
You know my statements on retaliation. I just hate to even think about going there because what tends to happen is one action just invites a counteraction, and you're kind of off to the races, and you miss what you're really trying to do which is to return U.S. beef to their marketplace.
REPORTER: Matt Kaye of the Burns Bureau is next followed by Christopher Dohring. Matt?
REPORTER: Yeah. Thank you. And thank you, Secretary and Dr. DeHaven. Let me ask you a couple of quick questions. One is, on Senator Harkin's weekly conference call this morning we asked him about the transition to a regular surveillance program. And his reaction was that there has been a question about the randomness about the sampling of these animals. I think this may have been something you addressed once before, but his feedback based on Inspector General's analysis was that the samples were not random, that in some areas there were fewer samples, other areas more. And this would skew the numbers.
Why is there a disconnect between that assessment and the peer review analysis that you've referenced?
And secondly, on the Japan front has there been any more discussions with the Japanese about what happens after resumption of trade in terms of future problems that instead of shutting down the whole market individual plants might be isolated as other countries have done?
SEC. JOHANNS: I'll answer your second question, and then I'll ask Ron DeHaven to address the first one.
In reference to the second question, there has been really from the very beginning this discussion of, what's the appropriate level of response if a shipment does not comply with their agreement. And of course we have always maintained that should be handled in a trade way. It should be handled between Japan and the plant that is involved. Typically that's the way these issues are handled.
Billions of dollars worth of trade that occurs between our countries and really around the world, shipments do get rejected, shipments comply and then fail to comply, and we face it and other countries face it. And typically these are handled really on a level that doesn't even come to my attention most of the time.
So we continue to believe that's the best approach. There has been public indications from Japan that that's the approach that they're heading towards. So I'm confident that we're dealing with that issue, and my hope is that if there are any issues, which we're going to do everything we can to avoid, that those issues are handled with the plant that is affected. Otherwise, as the Japanese leader pointed out, you punish plants that are abiding by all the rules. That's what happened here; the whole market got shut and yet this was a situation where our plants were really abiding by the rules.
We had one plant that shipped something that didn't comply with the agreement, but it wasn't a food safety or a health issue.
So that's the direction we're headed, and at least public indications have been that's what Japan is also thinking about.
Ron?
DR. DEHAVEN: Matt, with regard to your question about randomness of the sampling in our BSE enhanced testing program, indeed the OIG did express some concern early on as we were developing that program, a concern about the randomness of the sampling. And I'd point out that was a concern expressed just as we were beginning that sampling.
We worked out in our program a regionalization requirement where we wanted to ensure that we received samples from cattle from all over the country representative of the distribution of adult cattle in the country as well as to make sure that we received samples from the various streams of cattle coming into the system-- those being for example animals exhibiting central nervous system disorder, cattle that were nonambulatory, and cattle that were dead on the farm.
At the end of the day we not only feel very comfortable, we think that we exceeded all expectations in terms of the numbers of samples that we received, the fact that we had representation from all the relevant streams of cattle from the different types of animals that we were testing under this program, as well as good regional representation of those samples.
The OIG in their final report did have a number of recommendations for us in our overall program, and I would point out that we reached management decision with the OIG -- meaning that they had agreement with our responses to all of their concerns and recommendations. So at the end of the day we feel comfortable that we exceeded all expectations with our enhanced program, not only in terms of numbers of samples collected but as well as the randomness of the samples.
MODERATOR: Christopher Dohring of Reuters is next, followed by Daniel Newman. Christopher?
REPORTER: Yes. Thank you for taking my question. Mr. Secretary, if you could just summarize I guess that based on what you're hearing and your general feeling do you think today's decision and today's change to the program will have any impact on current progress to resume exports, beef exports to other markets?
And also, my second question if you'd, so far with Japan have you seen any so-called maybe deal-breaking problems that might delay any –
SEC. JOHANNS: Okay. First thing I would point out just maybe to clarify your question a little bit, we have indicated a decision today; we have not made the change to day. And again I would point out that under our contracts we cannot even make this change without giving 30 days notice to our contractors.
And so you have to build in some time here for this to take effect, and that time allows us to work with our trading partners-- Japan and Korea, etcetera. At the moment I don't see a hiccup out there with Japan or with South Korea. We're working through some issues. That's not a huge thing though. That can arise in these situations. It's a complicated process.
So I just continue to believe that we're on the right course. And we thought Korea would be open by now. We did run into some issues with some plants. So that delayed it a little bit. But I don't see an issue that has derailed our progress with any of our trading partners relative to U.S. beef.
Things can pop up, and you can run into some delays, but I don't see anything that looks like a derailment is on the way.
REPORTER: Daniel Newman of Inside U.S. Trade is next, followed by Katherine Larkin. Daniel? Go ahead.
REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking my question. My question is regarding the possibility of beef exports to China. On June 30 China unilaterally announced they were going to open their market to boneless beef under 30 months of age, a move USDA and the beef industry as a whole essentially rejected.
It's my understanding there are no further negotiations scheduled at this time. At what point does this become a dead deal, does this become a broken (JCCT) promise from China?
SEC. JOHANNS: My hope is that this does not become a dead deal. We will continue to work with China. China is a great trading partner when it comes to ag products. We actually have a surplus in the agricultural area. We sell more to China than they sell to us.
Their decision on beef was disappointing. I felt very, very strongly that they needed to comply with OIE standards. That's what we're working toward, that's what we're asking our trading partners to do. So I would tell you today, I don't see this as a situation where this is just permanently forever, the door is closed. What I see is, we just have some more work to be done here, and my hope is that we'll continue to work toward China opening its border according to OIE standards. It's what we ask of every country.
REPORTER: Has anything been –
MODERATOR: Catherine Larkin (sp) of Bloomberg News is next followed by Steve Kaye. Catherine?
REPORTER: Thanks much for taking our call, Secretary. I have two small questions for you, the first of which is, did you tell any of the U.S. trading partners in advance of this announcement to reporters today, about the proposed change in the surveillance program?
SEC. JOHANNS: The answer is yes, but the answer is also more I can offer a more extensive answer than just that. As you know I've been very public about this and very public about what we intended to do with the surveillance program. And there's been stories on that and my efforts to involve the scientific community and have our work reviewed, and that's been done. So all of that has in fact occurred.
But yes, there's also been discussions with trading partners about the surveillance program, and those discussions will continue. As I pointed out earlier, we've announced the decision today. The action can't take place today. There is a built in timeline here that I have to deal with, and that also gives us a timeline to continue to have discussions with trading partners.
MODERATOR: Next question comes from Steve Kay of Cattle Buyers Weekly. And standing by should Kaori Iita. Steve?
Q; Good morning, gentlemen. I have a question for each of you. Firstly, Dr. DeHaven, do you think that the testing going forward will need to focus even more on the most at risk population of cattle, or are you satisfied you're doing that already? And for you, Mr. Secretary, regarding South Korea the bone fragment issue still remains outstanding. Could you bring me up to date as to where you're at with that, and are you any closer to resolution on that?
SEC. JOHANNS: I'll take your question, and then I'll let Ron offer thoughts on the question you posed to him.
The bone fragment issue continues to be discussed, not only an issue with South Korea but it's an issue with some of our other trading partners. We feel strongly that if you can solve that and deal with that bone fragment issue then you've really solved some other issues relative to the trade in beef.
So we continue to work on that issue and continue to work toward a resolution of that issue, but I can't tell you today that it's solved yet.
DR. DEHAVEN: With regard to your question about the animals that we'll be testing under our ongoing surveillance program, you point out correctly that not all animals have the same value in terms of surveillance value at testing. So we indeed will be focusing our efforts on the most at-risk animals and would intend for example to test all animals that we can get our hands on that are exhibiting some central nervous system disorder, some nervous system sign.
So we will continue to test all those animals that we can find and then from there focus on animals that are nonambulatory, unable to rise or otherwise would be exhibiting clinical signs that would be consistent with BSE; and probably focus less on animals that are dead on the farm-- although we certainly intend to continue to get samples from all three streams of cattle as part of this overall program and as recommended by the OIE guidelines.
MODERATOR: Next question from Kaori Iita. Go ahead, please.
REPORTER: The Japanese government and the Japanese Food Safety Commission has been requesting that the USDA maintain or even expand the enhanced surveillance program. I was wondering what kind of response, if you've had a positive reaction from the Japanese government. And also with the Japanese inspectors leaving later this week, how do you see this unfolding next week? Thank you.
SEC. JOHANNS: The inspections have gone well. Every indication that I have received is that the issues that we'll be dealing with are pretty straightforward. And again the inspections have gone well. So I think when they leave next week we're looking forward to sitting down with them and working through whatever findings they have or report they have. And my hope is that brings us closer to this border reopening.
In terms of the additional testing or testing, again one of the things I'd point out is those who are attempting to cause consumers to believe that somehow they are protected by testing really aren't being fair with consumers. And that's pretty blunt, but it's true. The way to protect consumers is to remove the specified risk materials, to deal with the issue directly.
There's no way that additional testing can guarantee food safety. It's just not how this works.
We have done testing well beyond international standards in terms of our surveillance. We started out thinking we'd probably test about 250,000 to 275,000 animals. We've nearly tripled that number. The testing, the ongoing surveillance as I've said, I just envision we're going to have an ongoing surveillance program. Today we've announced that. And it's ten times the international standards, literally ten times.
But probably the most important point I can make is this. In Japan they definitely have a BSE problem. They have a small herd there in comparison to ours, and they've found 26 cases. Probably the reason for that is the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban is more recent than ours. By comparison in the United States we've tested all these animals and we've only identified two.
We've had this examined by outside scientific experts, and they've reached a conclusion that in an adult population of 42 million animals we might find 4 or 7 animals with BSE. That's a remarkably low prevalence of BSE in the United States herd, and with the removal of specified risk material you really bring this risk to virtually nonexistence.
So it's important for them to recognize that we have bent over backwards with the Japanese. We've even agreed with them to ship only beef from animals under 20 months, which I'll be very candid about that-- that's a very unique, very, very unusual agreement. But we hope to start somewhere with the Japanese, and this is where we're starting.
With that proviso, there's just simply no risk here from U.S. beef.
So my hope and my belief is that the Japanese response should be one of, Look we want to consult, we want to sit down and talk to our very important American trading partner, United States trading partner. But in the end, they recognize that what we've done here exceeds all international standards in the market should be open to our beef.
MODERATOR: Our next question will come from Libby Quaid of Associated Press. And standing by is Scott Kilman of Wall Street Journal. Libby?
REPORTER: Thank you for taking my question. Another decision that USDA is getting close, or trying to get close to making, has been on further opening trade with Canada. Could one of you all address quickly whether or not that needs to be reexamined in light of the cases they've had there recently, particularly the ones before and after the feed ban?
SEC. JOHANNS: I will let Ron offer thoughts on where we're at in terms of that process. But I do want to just remind people that we've had somebody in Canada working with Canadian officials on this most recent case, and our hope is that their work is soon to be done. In fact, I know that it is, and we'll have a report on that cow. But we've had somebody in Canada working with the Canadians on this issue. But in reference to that additional rulemaking, I'll let Dr. DeHaven offer a thought on where we're at in terms of process and timelines.
DR. DEHAVEN: Thank you, Libby. We, in fact, have, as you know, published the first rule that allows for animals under 30 months of age to come into the United States from minimum risk regions or countries -- Canada has been identified as one obviously -- for slaughter and feeding purposes. This second rulemaking that is under way would allow for the movement of animals over 30 months of age to come into the United States for any purpose, whether it be for feeding, slaughter, breeding or dairy replacement animals.
And we're basing that rule on the program that exists in Canada that in essence mirrors what we have in the United States in terms of a feed ban, the testing program that they have in place. And so that we have confidence in the Canadian system much as we have in our own.
We are in fact looking very closely at this most recent positive animal and that it was 50 months old, born after the date that they imposed their feed ban in trying to figure out how that could happen but at the same time recognizing that no feed ban is absolute. There can be an effective feed ban with some leaks in the system, if you will.
So we are considering all of the relevant information with regard to this animal that was recently found, as well as the rest of their system, the effectiveness and enforcement of their feed ban. And that will be taken into consideration before we proceed with this next rulemaking that the next step would be publication of a proposed rule.
MODERATOR: And our final question today comes from Scott Kilman of Wall Street Journal. Scott?
REPORTER: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I have two questions. First one is, what will be the annual cost of the ongoing program, surveillance program, compared to the annual cost of the expanded program that's ending?
And then secondly, I wanted, I'm a little confused about what the USDA's determined about the type, the strain of BSE that the Alabama and Texas cows had. Has the USDA concluded, definitively concluded that those strains are different than the strain that was responsible for the outbreak in the United Kingdom? And if that's the case, how could that have happened?
SEC. JOHANNS: That I can offer to you on the cost. I think the enhanced surveillance was costing us about $1 million a week. We were testing about 1,000 cattle a day. So you can kind of extrapolate from there. This would be 40,000 animals a year. We'll get you exact numbers; I just don't have them at my fingertips. But those numbers I remember.
In terms of the strain of BSE, maybe I can ask Dr. DeHaven to offer a thought on that.
DR. DEHAVEN: As you indicated, both the Alabama and Texas cows had a slightly different prion, and different in the context of molecular weight of the prion is higher than what has typically been found in the European cases as well as the first case found in the United States in the state of Washington. So those two animals are undergoing -- and the test results and prions recovered in those situations are part of an ongoing research effort to find out more about what does that mean, what is the significance of that?
I can tell you that from a regulatory standpoint we are considering those to be two cases of BSE and are taking that into consideration in everything that we're doing with regard to the program.
But having said that, we feel comfortable that our existing program provides the appropriate level of protection, whether it is the traditional or typical molecular weight prion that is being seen in Europe and most of the North American cases as well. It provides adequate protection for those animals and these other cases where we are seeing a higher molecular weight prion.
So we have the appropriate safeguards in place regardless of whether or not we have one or more strains of BSE out there, and we'll keep those in place as we continue to learn more about these unique cases.
SEC. JOHANNS: The numbers now, we're testing 5,000 animals a week. It's costing us about $1 million a week. We will go to 40,000 animals through a year. Again I point out that's about 10 times what the OIE would require in our situation, and the cost on that would be about $8 million per year for that ongoing surveillance to occur.
All right. Let me just wrap up and say thank you everyone for joining us. We do appreciate it.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns.
I'm Larry Quinn bidding you a good day from Washington.
usda.gov
Washington D.C. July 20, 2006
Source: USDA
MODERATOR: Good morning from Washington. I'm Larry Quinn speaking to you from the Broadcast Center at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Welcome to today's news conference with Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns to discuss USDA's transition to a new BSE surveillance program. Joining the Secretary in the study today is Dr. Ron DeHaven, Administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
We remind reporters to press *1 on your telephone touchpad to alert us if you wish to ask a question.
Now it's my pleasure to introduce Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns.
SEC. JOHANNS: Larry, thank you very much, and to everyone out there good morning. Thank you also for joining us today as we talk about BSE surveillance in the United States.
USDA will soon be transitioning to an ongoing BSE surveillance program after having successfully achieved our goals with the enhanced surveillance program. The ongoing surveillance program will involve sampling approximately 40,000 animals each year. As with the enhanced surveillance, the focus will be on cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found and samples will be taken from a variety of locations.
This approach will maintain our ability to detect BSE even at the very, very low levels that the analysis shows it might exist in the United States. It will also enable us to identify any change in BSE prevalence if a change were to occur. This ongoing BSE surveillance program will exceed surveillance guidelines set forth by the World Animal Health Organization, also known as OIE.
In fact, the program will provide at testing at a level ten times that which is recommended by the OIE.
Let me say that we have been very carefully considering international guidelines and developing our ongoing surveillance plan. I'd like to take a moment to review the steps that brought us to this new program, the basis upon which we are making this change.
In April we released an analysis of our enhanced surveillance program. This analysis confirmed that the prevalence of BSE in the United States is extremely low, less than one case per 1 million adult cattle. The analysis further concluded that the most likely number of cases is between 4 and 7 out of 42 million adult cattle in our country. We asked outside experts to review the analysis, and they concurred with our conclusions.
It is important to remember that the Enhanced Surveillance Program was designed to provide a snapshot of the U.S. cattle herd, a 12 to 18-month intense assessment to help us estimate the prevalence of BSE in the United States and the effectiveness of the measures in place to protect public and animal health in this country.
Our enhanced surveillance effort has tested more than 759,000 animals. That's more than 1,000 animals per day, the vast majority of which have come from the population where you'd be most likely to find the disease if it did exist. During this 24-month program, two animals have tested positive for the disease. That would be two animals out of 759,000, and both animals were born before the United States banned the practice of feeding recycled ruminant protein to other ruminants.
As you know, the first case of BSE came from an imported cow before our enhanced surveillance began.
Importantly, none of these animals entered the food chain or animal feed supplies.
I'll offer one more important reminder. A surveillance program serves as a monitor, but it is not a food safety program. We have strong safeguards in place to protect our food supply, to include the removal of specified risk materials from cattle at slaughter, and a ban on preventing nonambulatory animals known as downers from entering the food supply.
Some people have suggested that we continue the enhanced surveillance program indefinitely. Let me be very direct in my response to that suggestion. There simply is no scientific justification for doing so. As I indicated, the ongoing surveillance program will far exceed international science-based surveillance guidelines. The reality is this, and it's really straightforward: There is no significant BSE problem in the United States. And after all of this surveillance, I am able to say there never was. We proved that during enhanced surveillance.
The ongoing surveillance program will continue to demonstrate the safety of our beef to consumers and the international community and affirm that our interlocking safeguards are working.
There are some steps that must be taken before the transition can occur. We have an obligation to give 30 days notice of any change to our contractors who are performing the sampling and testing so the very earliest that the transition could begin is late August. We are committed to continuing to work with our trading partners to ensure they understand the scientific basis for our decision as we move forward.
As with any program, once the transition takes place we'll continually analyze the surveillance strategy and make adjustments if needed to ensure that we maintain a robust surveillance program that provides the foundation for market confidence in the safety of U.S. beef.
To put it simply, we've accomplished our enhanced surveillance goals, and it's time to move forward with a level of surveillance that corresponds to the very low level of BSE in this country.
Lastly, I'd just like to say that I'm very proud of all the work that our employees and our partners in the Enhanced Surveillance Program have done. As I have said before, consumers both here and abroad should feel better than ever about the meat that they are buying, and U.S. producers should be prouder than ever of the work that they do.
I'll be happy to take questions. Dr. Ron DeHaven, the administrator of our Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is here with me. And Ron can assist me in answering any technical questions that might be presented.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We remind reporters to press *1 to indicate if you have a question. And our first question today comes from Kaori Iida from NHK. And standing by should be Chris Clayton. Kaori?
Not hearing Kaori, I'll go on to Chris Clayton. Chris?
REPORTER: Good morning, Secretary. Thank you for taking questions. I guess I will follow up on what I think will be a question in terms of how do you think the trade partners, particularly Japan and South Korea, will react? It seems like some people are saying you're kind of jumping the gun in terms of doing this before you have those markets back open.
SEC. JOHANNS: Well, let me answer the second part of your question first. We have been working, as you know now for many, many months to bring us to this final decision. I announced near the end of last year that at the first of 2006 we were going to be working on a decision relative to the surveillance program. We even went farther than that; we continued to test. We decided to have the scientific review of what we were doing. We put out the report; we had the scientific review of that to make sure our assessment was accurate. And so a lot of things have happened.
It would be enormously disingenuous of me if not downright dishonest to hold back and wait until they open their marketplace and then come forward, you know, a week or a month or two months or six months later and say, guess what, we're bringing our surveillance program down to where it's at.
So that's about as straightforward as I can be. What would their reaction be? In Japan there really shouldn't be any reaction. Keep in mind that the agreement that was reached with Japan is that we are shipping beef to them from animals who are animals 20 months of age or younger. You just don't find BSE in that population. There just isn't any risk.
And then when you consider what we have found -- we've tested 759,000 animals; we've only identified two -- Japan understands BSE. They've had a lot of BSE in their country. They've had I think 26 cases that they have identified in a much, much smaller herd than we have in the United States.
Now we will consult with them as we have. I've been very public in my comments about the surveillance program. We'll visit with them, we'll talk to South Korea also and all of our trading partners. But my hope is that they'll recognize the science here. And again I point out with Japan we're only shipping beef from animals under 20 months.
REPORTER: Our next question comes from Peter Shinn and he'll be followed by Philip Brasher. Peter?
REPORTER: Well, thank you, Larry. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking the questions. This is actually a question first for Dr. DeHaven, and then I'll follow up with you, Mr. Secretary, if I can.
Dr. DeHaven, are you convinced that the Canadian testing system meets OIE standards given the large number of positives they have had with a relatively much lower testing sample? And then Mr. Secretary, if I could follow up, is it true? I've been hearing reports that the big stumbling block with Korea is a commingling of American and Canadian beef on our slaughter lines. And can we resolve that without some other internal controls about Canadian beef coming in?
DR. DEHAVEN: Peter, thank you for your question. This is Ron DeHaven. And let me take the questions in a little bit reverse order in terms of the adequacy of their program; and you indicated a lower level of testing in Canada. If you look at the number of animals that they are testing in Canada in comparison to their adult cattle population as a percentage, and then compare what we are testing, they in fact are testing a proportionate sample consistent or actually exceeding the number that we are. So I would argue that in fact they do have a testing program in Canada that not only meets OIE requirements but far exceeds it.
And arguably the fact that they have now found six or seven cases in Canada is evidence that their surveillance system is working. They are finding the cases that are there. I think there's a lot of epidemiological evidence that is relevant-- for example, the clustering effect that they are finding and where they're finding those samples. But here again I think the fact that they have now found six or seven positive animals is evidence that they are testing at an appropriate level consistent with the testing that we're doing and in excess of OIE requirements.
SEC. JOHANNS: I might just add a thought to Dr. DeHaven's comments, and then I'll address your question on South Korea. Keep in mind that from a food safety standpoint, the real key here is the removal of the specified risk materials. Those who are trying to convince their consumers that universal testing or 100 percent testing somehow solves the problem, really are misleading. You solve the problem by dealing with the problem; you solve the problem by removing specified risk materials. And that's how you protect human health.
In reference to South Korea, we had a handful of plants that we continue to work on, and I think we're making progress. In fact I'm confident we're making progress.
But one of the issues that was raised, just to answer your question directly, was the use of the same equipment between Canadian livestock and U.S. livestock. Now we believe we can solve that problem by getting good scientific information in their hands and again dealing with that issue directly. I don't believe in the end that those kinds of things should be an impediment to opening the markets. But South Korea has asked for information on that. We're providing that and working to deal with that issue so we can get that market reopened.
MODERATOR: Next question comes from Philip Brasher of Des Moines Register. And he'll be followed by Jackie Fatka. Philip?
REPORTER: Yes. Mr. Secretary, do you have any plans to or are you giving any consideration to ending the ban on downer cattle? Or is that going to be permanent?
SEC. JOHANNS: We continue to work on that issue of the ban on downer animals, and in fact Phil I can tell you that we've had a number of meetings over the past few months on that issue. And I'm not ready to announce a decision today. But I want to assure you that it's not -- it's an issue that we haven't ignored. It is a rulemaking process. This is an interim rule that we have out there. And so we will follow a final rulemaking process in terms of any action there.
MODERATOR: Jackie Fatka of Farm Progress is next, followed by Matt Kaye. Jackie?
REPORTER: Hello. Thanks for taking my call. It seems like August is coming upon us pretty quickly, and there's been a lot of talk about support for sanctions on Japan if there isn't trade resumed by August. What is your reaction to that, and is there a possibility something could happen within the next couple of weeks?
SEC. JOHANNS: I certainly hope so in terms of market opening, you know I always avoid setting a date. And even today I would hesitate to say it's next few weeks or next few days. But I will say this. I think we have made good progress with Japan. The audits of the plants have gone well. The decision made today again I would just voice the thought that I believe if you look at what we're doing with Japan, this should have really no impact. We're shipping beef over there, or will ship will beef over there that comes from animals under 20 months. You're not going to find BSE there. So I just think the dynamic is such that we should have this wrapped up before too long.
You know my statements on retaliation. I just hate to even think about going there because what tends to happen is one action just invites a counteraction, and you're kind of off to the races, and you miss what you're really trying to do which is to return U.S. beef to their marketplace.
REPORTER: Matt Kaye of the Burns Bureau is next followed by Christopher Dohring. Matt?
REPORTER: Yeah. Thank you. And thank you, Secretary and Dr. DeHaven. Let me ask you a couple of quick questions. One is, on Senator Harkin's weekly conference call this morning we asked him about the transition to a regular surveillance program. And his reaction was that there has been a question about the randomness about the sampling of these animals. I think this may have been something you addressed once before, but his feedback based on Inspector General's analysis was that the samples were not random, that in some areas there were fewer samples, other areas more. And this would skew the numbers.
Why is there a disconnect between that assessment and the peer review analysis that you've referenced?
And secondly, on the Japan front has there been any more discussions with the Japanese about what happens after resumption of trade in terms of future problems that instead of shutting down the whole market individual plants might be isolated as other countries have done?
SEC. JOHANNS: I'll answer your second question, and then I'll ask Ron DeHaven to address the first one.
In reference to the second question, there has been really from the very beginning this discussion of, what's the appropriate level of response if a shipment does not comply with their agreement. And of course we have always maintained that should be handled in a trade way. It should be handled between Japan and the plant that is involved. Typically that's the way these issues are handled.
Billions of dollars worth of trade that occurs between our countries and really around the world, shipments do get rejected, shipments comply and then fail to comply, and we face it and other countries face it. And typically these are handled really on a level that doesn't even come to my attention most of the time.
So we continue to believe that's the best approach. There has been public indications from Japan that that's the approach that they're heading towards. So I'm confident that we're dealing with that issue, and my hope is that if there are any issues, which we're going to do everything we can to avoid, that those issues are handled with the plant that is affected. Otherwise, as the Japanese leader pointed out, you punish plants that are abiding by all the rules. That's what happened here; the whole market got shut and yet this was a situation where our plants were really abiding by the rules.
We had one plant that shipped something that didn't comply with the agreement, but it wasn't a food safety or a health issue.
So that's the direction we're headed, and at least public indications have been that's what Japan is also thinking about.
Ron?
DR. DEHAVEN: Matt, with regard to your question about randomness of the sampling in our BSE enhanced testing program, indeed the OIG did express some concern early on as we were developing that program, a concern about the randomness of the sampling. And I'd point out that was a concern expressed just as we were beginning that sampling.
We worked out in our program a regionalization requirement where we wanted to ensure that we received samples from cattle from all over the country representative of the distribution of adult cattle in the country as well as to make sure that we received samples from the various streams of cattle coming into the system-- those being for example animals exhibiting central nervous system disorder, cattle that were nonambulatory, and cattle that were dead on the farm.
At the end of the day we not only feel very comfortable, we think that we exceeded all expectations in terms of the numbers of samples that we received, the fact that we had representation from all the relevant streams of cattle from the different types of animals that we were testing under this program, as well as good regional representation of those samples.
The OIG in their final report did have a number of recommendations for us in our overall program, and I would point out that we reached management decision with the OIG -- meaning that they had agreement with our responses to all of their concerns and recommendations. So at the end of the day we feel comfortable that we exceeded all expectations with our enhanced program, not only in terms of numbers of samples collected but as well as the randomness of the samples.
MODERATOR: Christopher Dohring of Reuters is next, followed by Daniel Newman. Christopher?
REPORTER: Yes. Thank you for taking my question. Mr. Secretary, if you could just summarize I guess that based on what you're hearing and your general feeling do you think today's decision and today's change to the program will have any impact on current progress to resume exports, beef exports to other markets?
And also, my second question if you'd, so far with Japan have you seen any so-called maybe deal-breaking problems that might delay any –
SEC. JOHANNS: Okay. First thing I would point out just maybe to clarify your question a little bit, we have indicated a decision today; we have not made the change to day. And again I would point out that under our contracts we cannot even make this change without giving 30 days notice to our contractors.
And so you have to build in some time here for this to take effect, and that time allows us to work with our trading partners-- Japan and Korea, etcetera. At the moment I don't see a hiccup out there with Japan or with South Korea. We're working through some issues. That's not a huge thing though. That can arise in these situations. It's a complicated process.
So I just continue to believe that we're on the right course. And we thought Korea would be open by now. We did run into some issues with some plants. So that delayed it a little bit. But I don't see an issue that has derailed our progress with any of our trading partners relative to U.S. beef.
Things can pop up, and you can run into some delays, but I don't see anything that looks like a derailment is on the way.
REPORTER: Daniel Newman of Inside U.S. Trade is next, followed by Katherine Larkin. Daniel? Go ahead.
REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking my question. My question is regarding the possibility of beef exports to China. On June 30 China unilaterally announced they were going to open their market to boneless beef under 30 months of age, a move USDA and the beef industry as a whole essentially rejected.
It's my understanding there are no further negotiations scheduled at this time. At what point does this become a dead deal, does this become a broken (JCCT) promise from China?
SEC. JOHANNS: My hope is that this does not become a dead deal. We will continue to work with China. China is a great trading partner when it comes to ag products. We actually have a surplus in the agricultural area. We sell more to China than they sell to us.
Their decision on beef was disappointing. I felt very, very strongly that they needed to comply with OIE standards. That's what we're working toward, that's what we're asking our trading partners to do. So I would tell you today, I don't see this as a situation where this is just permanently forever, the door is closed. What I see is, we just have some more work to be done here, and my hope is that we'll continue to work toward China opening its border according to OIE standards. It's what we ask of every country.
REPORTER: Has anything been –
MODERATOR: Catherine Larkin (sp) of Bloomberg News is next followed by Steve Kaye. Catherine?
REPORTER: Thanks much for taking our call, Secretary. I have two small questions for you, the first of which is, did you tell any of the U.S. trading partners in advance of this announcement to reporters today, about the proposed change in the surveillance program?
SEC. JOHANNS: The answer is yes, but the answer is also more I can offer a more extensive answer than just that. As you know I've been very public about this and very public about what we intended to do with the surveillance program. And there's been stories on that and my efforts to involve the scientific community and have our work reviewed, and that's been done. So all of that has in fact occurred.
But yes, there's also been discussions with trading partners about the surveillance program, and those discussions will continue. As I pointed out earlier, we've announced the decision today. The action can't take place today. There is a built in timeline here that I have to deal with, and that also gives us a timeline to continue to have discussions with trading partners.
MODERATOR: Next question comes from Steve Kay of Cattle Buyers Weekly. And standing by should Kaori Iita. Steve?
Q; Good morning, gentlemen. I have a question for each of you. Firstly, Dr. DeHaven, do you think that the testing going forward will need to focus even more on the most at risk population of cattle, or are you satisfied you're doing that already? And for you, Mr. Secretary, regarding South Korea the bone fragment issue still remains outstanding. Could you bring me up to date as to where you're at with that, and are you any closer to resolution on that?
SEC. JOHANNS: I'll take your question, and then I'll let Ron offer thoughts on the question you posed to him.
The bone fragment issue continues to be discussed, not only an issue with South Korea but it's an issue with some of our other trading partners. We feel strongly that if you can solve that and deal with that bone fragment issue then you've really solved some other issues relative to the trade in beef.
So we continue to work on that issue and continue to work toward a resolution of that issue, but I can't tell you today that it's solved yet.
DR. DEHAVEN: With regard to your question about the animals that we'll be testing under our ongoing surveillance program, you point out correctly that not all animals have the same value in terms of surveillance value at testing. So we indeed will be focusing our efforts on the most at-risk animals and would intend for example to test all animals that we can get our hands on that are exhibiting some central nervous system disorder, some nervous system sign.
So we will continue to test all those animals that we can find and then from there focus on animals that are nonambulatory, unable to rise or otherwise would be exhibiting clinical signs that would be consistent with BSE; and probably focus less on animals that are dead on the farm-- although we certainly intend to continue to get samples from all three streams of cattle as part of this overall program and as recommended by the OIE guidelines.
MODERATOR: Next question from Kaori Iita. Go ahead, please.
REPORTER: The Japanese government and the Japanese Food Safety Commission has been requesting that the USDA maintain or even expand the enhanced surveillance program. I was wondering what kind of response, if you've had a positive reaction from the Japanese government. And also with the Japanese inspectors leaving later this week, how do you see this unfolding next week? Thank you.
SEC. JOHANNS: The inspections have gone well. Every indication that I have received is that the issues that we'll be dealing with are pretty straightforward. And again the inspections have gone well. So I think when they leave next week we're looking forward to sitting down with them and working through whatever findings they have or report they have. And my hope is that brings us closer to this border reopening.
In terms of the additional testing or testing, again one of the things I'd point out is those who are attempting to cause consumers to believe that somehow they are protected by testing really aren't being fair with consumers. And that's pretty blunt, but it's true. The way to protect consumers is to remove the specified risk materials, to deal with the issue directly.
There's no way that additional testing can guarantee food safety. It's just not how this works.
We have done testing well beyond international standards in terms of our surveillance. We started out thinking we'd probably test about 250,000 to 275,000 animals. We've nearly tripled that number. The testing, the ongoing surveillance as I've said, I just envision we're going to have an ongoing surveillance program. Today we've announced that. And it's ten times the international standards, literally ten times.
But probably the most important point I can make is this. In Japan they definitely have a BSE problem. They have a small herd there in comparison to ours, and they've found 26 cases. Probably the reason for that is the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban is more recent than ours. By comparison in the United States we've tested all these animals and we've only identified two.
We've had this examined by outside scientific experts, and they've reached a conclusion that in an adult population of 42 million animals we might find 4 or 7 animals with BSE. That's a remarkably low prevalence of BSE in the United States herd, and with the removal of specified risk material you really bring this risk to virtually nonexistence.
So it's important for them to recognize that we have bent over backwards with the Japanese. We've even agreed with them to ship only beef from animals under 20 months, which I'll be very candid about that-- that's a very unique, very, very unusual agreement. But we hope to start somewhere with the Japanese, and this is where we're starting.
With that proviso, there's just simply no risk here from U.S. beef.
So my hope and my belief is that the Japanese response should be one of, Look we want to consult, we want to sit down and talk to our very important American trading partner, United States trading partner. But in the end, they recognize that what we've done here exceeds all international standards in the market should be open to our beef.
MODERATOR: Our next question will come from Libby Quaid of Associated Press. And standing by is Scott Kilman of Wall Street Journal. Libby?
REPORTER: Thank you for taking my question. Another decision that USDA is getting close, or trying to get close to making, has been on further opening trade with Canada. Could one of you all address quickly whether or not that needs to be reexamined in light of the cases they've had there recently, particularly the ones before and after the feed ban?
SEC. JOHANNS: I will let Ron offer thoughts on where we're at in terms of that process. But I do want to just remind people that we've had somebody in Canada working with Canadian officials on this most recent case, and our hope is that their work is soon to be done. In fact, I know that it is, and we'll have a report on that cow. But we've had somebody in Canada working with the Canadians on this issue. But in reference to that additional rulemaking, I'll let Dr. DeHaven offer a thought on where we're at in terms of process and timelines.
DR. DEHAVEN: Thank you, Libby. We, in fact, have, as you know, published the first rule that allows for animals under 30 months of age to come into the United States from minimum risk regions or countries -- Canada has been identified as one obviously -- for slaughter and feeding purposes. This second rulemaking that is under way would allow for the movement of animals over 30 months of age to come into the United States for any purpose, whether it be for feeding, slaughter, breeding or dairy replacement animals.
And we're basing that rule on the program that exists in Canada that in essence mirrors what we have in the United States in terms of a feed ban, the testing program that they have in place. And so that we have confidence in the Canadian system much as we have in our own.
We are in fact looking very closely at this most recent positive animal and that it was 50 months old, born after the date that they imposed their feed ban in trying to figure out how that could happen but at the same time recognizing that no feed ban is absolute. There can be an effective feed ban with some leaks in the system, if you will.
So we are considering all of the relevant information with regard to this animal that was recently found, as well as the rest of their system, the effectiveness and enforcement of their feed ban. And that will be taken into consideration before we proceed with this next rulemaking that the next step would be publication of a proposed rule.
MODERATOR: And our final question today comes from Scott Kilman of Wall Street Journal. Scott?
REPORTER: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I have two questions. First one is, what will be the annual cost of the ongoing program, surveillance program, compared to the annual cost of the expanded program that's ending?
And then secondly, I wanted, I'm a little confused about what the USDA's determined about the type, the strain of BSE that the Alabama and Texas cows had. Has the USDA concluded, definitively concluded that those strains are different than the strain that was responsible for the outbreak in the United Kingdom? And if that's the case, how could that have happened?
SEC. JOHANNS: That I can offer to you on the cost. I think the enhanced surveillance was costing us about $1 million a week. We were testing about 1,000 cattle a day. So you can kind of extrapolate from there. This would be 40,000 animals a year. We'll get you exact numbers; I just don't have them at my fingertips. But those numbers I remember.
In terms of the strain of BSE, maybe I can ask Dr. DeHaven to offer a thought on that.
DR. DEHAVEN: As you indicated, both the Alabama and Texas cows had a slightly different prion, and different in the context of molecular weight of the prion is higher than what has typically been found in the European cases as well as the first case found in the United States in the state of Washington. So those two animals are undergoing -- and the test results and prions recovered in those situations are part of an ongoing research effort to find out more about what does that mean, what is the significance of that?
I can tell you that from a regulatory standpoint we are considering those to be two cases of BSE and are taking that into consideration in everything that we're doing with regard to the program.
But having said that, we feel comfortable that our existing program provides the appropriate level of protection, whether it is the traditional or typical molecular weight prion that is being seen in Europe and most of the North American cases as well. It provides adequate protection for those animals and these other cases where we are seeing a higher molecular weight prion.
So we have the appropriate safeguards in place regardless of whether or not we have one or more strains of BSE out there, and we'll keep those in place as we continue to learn more about these unique cases.
SEC. JOHANNS: The numbers now, we're testing 5,000 animals a week. It's costing us about $1 million a week. We will go to 40,000 animals through a year. Again I point out that's about 10 times what the OIE would require in our situation, and the cost on that would be about $8 million per year for that ongoing surveillance to occur.
All right. Let me just wrap up and say thank you everyone for joining us. We do appreciate it.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns.
I'm Larry Quinn bidding you a good day from Washington.
usda.gov