mrj said:
The problem with many analyses of this 'problem' of labelling is that consumers, when asked in various consumer focus groups, want not just country of origin, they want RANCH or FARM of origin. Some ranchers fear that, so demanded it be ONLY country of origin.
Advertising beef as to source would be the simple way, but some ranchers want to be able to sell their generic beef for source labelled prices, so got that law passed. Adding words to labels DOES cost money, so packers and grocers will pass those costs back to suppliers.
Don't be too quick to put down 'Mexican cattle' as poor in quality. Remember, USA producers have been selling their breeding stock to Mexicans for decades and that quality just might rival that of some herds represented on this site.
Let's see, now, what is the amount of beef imported compared with that raised in the USA right now?
mrj
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 4, 1-13 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of Mexico
- 7 -
2.3 Overall assessment of the external challenge
The level of the external challenge that has to be met by the BSE/cattle system is estimated according to the guidance given by the SSC in its final opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as updated in January 2002).
Live cattle imports:
According to the CD the country imported in total over the period 1980 to 2003, approximately 3.2 million live cattle from BSE - risk countries, of which conclusively none came from the UK. The numbers shown in table 1 are the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5 - years periods the resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the evidence that certain imported cattle did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system, i.e. were not rendered into feed. In the case of Mexico, it is assumed that "cattle still alive" (imports from Spain) did not enter the rendering system.
MBM imports:
According to the CD the country imported in total over the period 1980 - 2003 approximately 826,000 tons MBM from BSE - risk countries (according to "other data": ~ 919,000 tons), of which none came from the UK. The numbers shown in table 2 are the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5 - years periods the resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the evidence that certain imported MBM did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system or did not represent an external challenge for other reasons. However, in the case of Mexico, there was not sufficient evidence to remove any quantities of MBM from the external challenge.
SNIP...
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 4, 1-13 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of Mexico
- 12 -
would harbour, while being pre - clinical, as much infectivity as a clinical BSE case. Hence cattle imports could have led to an internal challenge about 3 years after the import of breeding cattle (that are normally imported at 20 - 24 months of age) that could have been infected prior to import. In case of Mexico this implies that an internal challenge caused by live cattle imports (predominantly from USA or Canada) first occurred in the mid to late 1990's and continued to the present.
On the other hand imports of contaminated MBM would lead to an internal challenge in the year of import, if fed to cattle. The feeding system is of utmost importance in this context. If it could be excluded that imported, potentially contaminated feed stuffs reached cattle, such imports might not lead to an internal challenge at all. In case of Mexico this implies that an internal challenge caused by MBM imports (predominantly from USA or Canada) first occurred around 1993 and continued to the present.
In view of the above - described consideration the combination of the very / extremely high external challenges with a very unstable system makes the occurrence of an internal challenge likely in Mexico from approximately 1993 onwards.
4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing
It is likely that BSE infectivity entered processing at the time of imported 'at - risk' MBM (1993) and at the time of slaughter of imported live 'at - risk' cattle (mid to late 1990's). The high level of external challenge is maintained throughout the reference period, and the system has not been made stable, leading to increased internal challenge.
4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated
It is likely that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated from approximately 1993. The risk has since grown consistently due to a maintained internal and external challenge and lack of a stable system.
5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE – RISK
5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge
The current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.
5.2 The expected development of the GBR as a function of the past and present stability and challenge
• The GBR is likely to increase due to continued internal and external challenge, coupled with a very unstable system.
SNIP...
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/4r.pdf
The most recent assessments (and reassessments) were published in June 2005 (Table I; 18), and included the categorisation of Canada, the USA, and Mexico as GBR III. Although only Canada and the USA have reported cases, the historically open system of trade in North America suggests that it is likely that BSE is present also in Mexico.
http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/06heim937950.pdf
TSS
