Another question might be how many OTM cattle slipped past CFIA inspectors in Canadian plants? Tyson and Cargill aren't going to turn themselves in because they think OTM live cattle should be shipped into the USA!
Here is something to read and think about...
"What has happened to the USDA?"
The Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has just recently been quoted in the agriculture media, and I paraphrase: "The BSE (Mad Cow Disease) issue has been given too much press. BSE has been blown out of proportion, considering its very low level of risk." Previous to this apparent position about the low risk of BSE exposure and introduction into the United States, the USDA had rules in place to prevent the importation of cattle from any country that had a proven positively identified case of BSE. This rule was in place for a number of years (from the late 1980's until 2004) and stated that a country which had identified a case of BSE must be BSE free for 7 years before imports of beef or live animals from that country into the United States could resume. This rule was compatible with other zero tolerance polices enacted by USDA-APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service). There were rules in place to make contamination with E. coli O157:H7 incompatible with food service. There is a Listeria monocytogenes control program in place to make contamination with Listera spp. incompatible with food service. These rules are complex, but have worked well to prevent exposure of these treatable disease-causing organisms to humans.
For BSE (Mad Cow Disease) the USDA has enacted a program they term as "Risk Based Trade". This program allows trade in beef and live ruminant animals with countries that previously had been prohibited from exporting either beef or live ruminant animals into the Untied States. Presently, the new set of rules allows trade with countries that have any number of positive cases of BSE, if that country can document the age of the animal or meat, and if that country will remove a minimum number of Specified Risk Materials (SRM's). In the case of Canada, the SRM's required to be removed are the tonsils and small intestine. The spinal chord and the tissues surrounding the spinal chord, the primary source of BSE infectivity, are not required to be removed at this point in time from animals 30 months of age or less. Other countries with positive BSE cases can now follow the lead of Canada. They will be allowed to export both live animals less than 30 months of age, and meat from animals that have had certain SRM's removed at slaughter, regardless of the number of positive cases of BSE previously identified within that specific country.
In August the USDA published potential rules whereby they intend to allow Japan to export boneless cuts of beef into the United States. Japan is a different issue from Canada because Japan does not allow any bovine animal to enter the human food chain unless it has tested negative for BSE. This is an excellent safeguard. Unfortunately, Japan has identified 20 or more cases of BSE in a much smaller population of cattle than the US, and in some very young cattle. Nothing in the rule states that importation of beef into the US will cease if Japan decides that universal testing for BSE is no longer warranted. Not only will there then be a potential danger to humans consuming the meat items imported into the US at that time, but plate waste from restaurants serving high-end Japanese specialty meats could potentially provide a method for BSE prion introduction into the animal food chain.
Ironically, Japan prohibits the feeding of plate waste to animals, but the USDA and the FDA have not issued a rule preventing its utilization within the US. I say all that, to say this. Once the USDA opened the border with Canada to animals younger than 30 months of age and boxed beef from animals less than 30 months of age, it essentially opened the border to any country wishing to export beef into the US, regardless of that particular country's BSE infectivity status. It was thought that these newly "approved for export countries" would have to meet the same "Minimal Risk" qualifications as Canada, but that does not appear to be the case.
The concept of "Risk Based Trade" with countries that have the potential to send to the United States diseases that were eradicated, or nearly eradicated, from livestock, poultry, and wildlife, is a very new issue. I first heard these words from the mouth of a USDA-APHIS veterinarian who gave a speech on disease control issues at the annual meeting of the Kansas Cattleman's Association in January 2004. The whole idea revolves around knowing that a risk of introduction of a disease is evident, although low, but the dollars generated from that trade are more important than zero risk of disease introduction. It is a concept difficult to understand for a veterinarian trained in disease control and eradication.
Not only has USDA-APHIS taken a "Risk Based Trade" stance on the subject of BSE-- a disease that is not highly contagious from animal to animal or animal to human-- I believe the USDA is preparing to take a similar stance towards other more traditional disease conditions that are contagious from animal to animal and animal to human. Take, for example, the free trade agreements that are being negotiated with South American countries by the US government. All the countries south of Panama regularly identify Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in their ruminant populations. FMD is a viral disease that infects cloven-hoofed animals, including swine. FMD is very contagious and spreads quickly among the population of livestock in a given geographical location. The disease rarely causes death in its victims, but does cause loss of weight and condition. Currently, the disease is considered a Level 1 threat for Bio-Terrorism. South American countries have vaccinated against FMD for years, but have been unsuccessful in its eradication. USDA-APHIS is well aware that to have free trade with South American countries, the subject of FMD will have to be addressed. Instead of requiring a country to be FMD free, the USDA has identified regions of a country that are FMD free. Eventually, most of these FMD free regions have identified new cases of FMD and have lost their FMD free status.
Modern veterinary science has identified the genetic code of the FMD virus and can distinguish the identity of several different strains of FMD virus. Scientists can also distinguish between the naturally occurring virus, and the virus utilized in modern vaccines. To have free trade, the USDA will have to accept the risk of introducing FMD into the US from South America and other regions of the world.
There are other diseases to consider with "Risk Based Trade". A number of contagious animal diseases have been eradicated from the US. These animal diseases are usually viral in nature and are contagious from animal to animal or animal to human. It has taken millions of tax payer dollars to deal with these diseases, most of which are alive and well in Central and South America, not to mention endemic in Africa, India, and much of Asia. If we are going to have free trade with these regions, disease control issues will have to take a back seat to trade issues. Therein lies the danger.
The USDA has worked diligently to eradicate bovine Brucellosis from the cattle population of the United States. The US government has just ratified the Central America Free Trade Agreement. The countries that are involved in this agreement have a Brucellosis incidence that may exceed 10% of adult reproductive age cattle. I discovered this fact while visiting Costa Rica, Honduras, and Nicaragua this summer. I have no idea what the incidence of tuberculosis is within these countries, but if these countries are like other tropical countries with an abundance of feral poultry, the incidence could be quite high. In all the negotiations, discussions, and press surrounding CAFTA, not one thing was mentioned about these two communicable diseases.
R. M. Thornsberry, D.V.M.