• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Jolley: Canada And BSE - Few In The Industry Speak

flounder

Well-known member
8/25/2006 3:35:00 PM

Jolley: Canada And BSE - Few In The Industry Speak



Earlier this week and immediately after Canada announced its ninth case of BSE, I thought we needed to bring some structure to the issue so I sent three questions to a dozen people of influence in the North American beef industry.



The case indicated the problem, which seems to be centered in Alberta, might be more serious than anyone thought.



What better way to shed some light on the subject than ask the opinion of people who are supposed to know about these things?



The questions weren’t loaded in the “have you finally stopped beating your wife” vein so I expected most of the people I corresponded with would take the opportunity to make a point or two. A few, I know, might be prevented from answering due to their business travel or personal schedules.



I didn’t expect a “no answer” from 10 of them.



The two people who answered; Steve Krut, Executive Director of the American Association of Meat Processors and Chuck Kiker, President of R-CALF USA, responded with comments that defined their positions with clarity. Mr. Krut chose to reply to the general theme of the questions; Mr. Kiker answered each question in turn.



First, I’ll reproduce the questions with Mr. Kiker’s answers and then follow with Mr. Krut’s general commentary.



1. Canada has just discovered its ninth case of BSE. Is it proof of an ongoing problem that would require more drastic steps than that country has taken or an indication that their system works?


Chuck Kiker for R-CALF USA: This latest detection confirms what R-CALF USA said and what USDA scientists and international scientists said before USDA leaders reopened the U.S. border to Canadian beef in 2003. After Canada detected its first case of BSE in 2003, we all said there was insufficient scientific information to conclude that Canada’s problem was isolated, and that far more needs to be done to prevent the continued spread of BSE in Canada. Now, after 9 confirmed cases, with at least 4 of these cases born after Canada implemented its 1997 feed ban, it is clear that the magnitude of Canada’s problem was grossly underestimated by both USDA and the Canadian government.



USDA’s own BSE experts told the agency in 2003 that additional steps were needed to prevent the spread of BSE in Canada. These experts recommended that Canada take immediate steps to determine the magnitude of its disease problem, as well as to immediately begin strengthening its feed ban. The USDA Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) Working Group provided USDA with an 11-page recommendation (dated June 16, 2003, and available at http://r-calfusa.com/BSE/061803%20TSE%20Working%20Group%20memo.pdf).



These TSE scientists recommended that Canada increase BSE testing to more accurately determine the scope of its BSE problem; that Canada immediately begin removing SRMs from both human food and animal feed; and, that Canada begin requiring dedicated rendering facilities and mills for processing of ruminant products. Importantly, the TSE Working Group stated at the time that, “If additional BSE cases are identified in Canada additional steps will be necessary.”



It is disappointing that USDA did not encourage Canada to follow this scientific advice in 2003. Now that additional cases have been detected within its cattle herd, Canada should begin taking more drastic mitigation measures.



An effectively enforced feed ban is the most important measure a country can implement to prevent the spread of BSE within its cattle herd. In June, Canada announced it would take steps to strengthen its feed ban, but the new regulations do not go into effect until July 2007, with more time allowed for smaller producers to come into compliance. While this is good news, Canada has waited too long to implement this essential measure, and it will be almost another year before the new regulations are enforced. Unfortunately, due to the long incubation period of BSE, it will now take many more years before we know if Canada’s improved feed ban will be sufficient to control the disease.



What we do know today, based on Canada’s limited testing program, is that its system of BSE prevention has not yet worked. We know also that Canada’s strategy to prevent the introduction of BSE into its country was compromised years ago, and that the disease has been spreading in its cattle herd beginning in 1993, when it imported its first BSE case from Great Britain, through at least 2002, when the 4 years, 2 months old BSE-infected cow was born. This means the disease likely has gone through several generations of infectivity within the Canadian cattle herd.



2. Some U.S. politicians and organizations have called for an immediate ban of Canadian cattle. Is a ban a necessary step to protect the safety and reputation of the U.S. herd?


Chuck Kiker for R-CALF USA: Until 2003, the primary measure taken to protect the U.S. cattle herd from the introduction of BSE was to allow no imports of cattle or beef from a country known to have BSE, and the secondary measure was to ban ruminant protein from being used in feed for ruminant animals. USDA jumped the gun and relaxed our import restrictions against Canada before the scope of the BSE problem in Canada was fully determined. It is clearly evident that the prevalence of BSE in Canada is much greater than originally thought, and that Canada’s feed ban has been ineffective. U.S. officials should strengthen our import standards and increase our risk mitigation measures to protect the U.S. cattle herd and the nation’s beef supply from infection and contamination.



USDA’s present practice of commingling Canadian beef with U.S. beef within the U.S. beef supply, without differentiating the country of origins of the beef for consumers, has already hurt the U.S. cattle industry by causing unnecessary delays in reopening lost U.S. export markets, particularly the South Korean market. The U.S. should immediately ban imports of Canadian cattle and beef until three conditions are met:



A scientific determination is made of the scope of Canada’s BSE problem through increased testing;



All Canadian beef entering the U.S. market, and all beef derived from Canadian cattle entering the U.S. market, be clearly identified as to its country of origin for consumers;



Canada begins practicing the more stringent risk mitigation measures recommended by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), for a country with an undetermined risk for BSE, including the removal of all SRMs in cattle over 12 months of age.



3. Should the U.S. consider rescinding its Minimal Risk Region Rule that presently allows the importation of cattle and beef from cattle less than 30 months of age from Canada?



Chuck KIker for R-CALF USA: Yes. The U.S. should rescind the Minimal Risk Rule because right now we are allowing into this country Canadian live cattle and beef from Canadian cattle 30 months of age and younger, and there have been documented cases of cattle under 30 months old being infected with BSE. With the magnitude of the BSE problem in Canada still unfolding and the failure of its feed ban, we could possibly be allowing animals into this country that are either incubating BSE, or are positive for BSE. If the SRMs from an infected animal are used to produce non-ruminant animal feed, such as chicken feed, we could become susceptible to infecting the U.S. cattle herd with BSE through inadvertent feeding or cross-contamination.



Also, another reason to rescind the Minimal Risk Region Rule is that it is not recognized as valid by any of the major U.S. export customers that have partially reopened their borders to Canadian beef and U.S. beef. This is because the Minimal Risk Region Rule is less stringent, in several respects, than the international guidelines established by the OIE. For example, the Minimal Risk Region Rule does not require that a country maintain an effectively enforced feed ban for eight years – a cornerstone of the OIE guidelines. The Minimal Risk Region Rule assumes that a Minimal Risk Region has an identical risk profile as the United States, and that measures practiced in the U.S. are adequate to mitigate the risk of even higher risk profile countries. This one-size-fits-all approach is contrary to the recommendations of the OIE, which recommends that countries with higher risk profiles be subject to far more stringent risk mitigation measures. Also, the Minimal Risk Region Rule does not require the removal of all SRMs from use in both animal feed and fertilizer, as is clearly recommended by the OIE guidelines.



The FDA has recently recalled thousands of tons of feed produced by several feed plants in the U.S. due to concerns that the feed may have been contaminated with prohibited ruminant protein. This suggests that U.S. firewalls are not yet adequate to protect the U.S. from the increased risk associated with Canadian beef and cattle imports. This is the defining moment when we have the opportunity to prevent the introduction of a foreign animal disease into the U.S. and maintain our reputation for disease prevention and food safety.



This is where true character and leadership prevails, and we go above and beyond to do what is right. This is where we differentiate ourselves as the U.S. cattle industry by producing the safest, highest quality beef in the world.



Steve Krut is a man of fewer words but his points are well-taken, too. He said:



“As a summary to all the questions, it is apparent that we as a nation of producers, processors, government officials and consumers can only respond to what we think we know for certain at any given time. The carved-in-stone precepts seem to be shifting and may continue to change.



Whether the situation in Canada and in the U.S. is caused by pre-feed ban factors, or whether there is something else in the equation, we can only continue to work diligently to discover the answers. If there is something evolving that we are only learning about, or if there is something out there that has been there before recorded history but not previously discovered, we cannot say absolutely.



It remains a situation where caution should be exercised, but not the total abandonment of key elements of our food supply, based on information we are taking seriously and studying, but which yet remains inconclusive.



The Russian government just cut off poultry exports from Michigan because of a form of avian influenza in a muted swan. It has nothing to do with food safety of chicken from Michigan. It is a political and trade issue, not a scientific one.



They have condemned the Michigan poultry industry through the media and in an economic sense on the flimsiest evidence, if you could call it evidence. We should not make similar errors that are perceived as over reactionary or protectionist. What did the previous two-year ban on Canadian cattle imports really accomplish and what was the cost?





http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=63573





Subject: USDA BSE inconclusive MRR policy
Date: August 25, 2006 at 3:52 pm PST




snip...





The BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to trade _all_ strains of TSE Globally. The BSE MRR policy must be repelled and the BSE GBR risk assessment must be enhanced to include all TSE, especially the atypical BSE/TSE showing up in cattle, since the USA BSE GBR risk is III and the fact both typical and atypical BSE/TSE has been documented in the bovine in the USA. ...tss

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12610


Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA


https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed







TSS
 

Latest posts

Top