New OIE Rules- Take them or leave them?

[Anonymous]

FROM READING THIS IT APPEARS AS THO OIE WILL SET NEW RULES THAT WILL ALLOW THE US TO IMPORT BEEF EVEN FROM COUNTRIES WITH A HUGE BSE PROBLEM, LIKE THE UK---BUT IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM- LIKE JAPAN- YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THEM.... :???: GOOD OLD WTO :roll:



INTERVIEW - OIE to Set New Beef Trade Rules over Mad Cow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FRANCE: May 25, 2005


PARIS - The world animal health organisation OIE hopes to set new guidelines this week on beef exports and mad cow risk that could shake up the multi-billion dollar international meat trade.


"These will have a significant impact on the trade from any country," Alex Thiermann, President of the International Animal Health Code at the Paris-based organisation, told Reuters in an interview during the OIE annual general meeting.
The OIE wants to simplify the way countries are judged to be at risk from the cattle disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and, controversially, making deboned beef free of any category-based restrictions.

A switch to a three-tier risk system from the current five-tier model should pass the assembly, due to end on Thursday. But taking red beef out is likely to face opposition from OIE members like Japan and could impact on its beef row with the United States over imports.

The 167-member OIE sets global guidelines on animal health, which whilst not binding on members, are regularly used by the World Trade Organisation to settle cross-border trade disputes.

The OIE says a three category risk system would put better emphasis on the relative safety of beef exports rather than purely the number of mad cow cases a country has registered. The lowest category would be 'negligible risk without mitigating measures', followed by 'negligible risk with mitigating measures' and finally 'undetermined risk'.

"The idea is to attract attention to the trading of commodities, rather than the status of the country, which has been the historic view," Thiermann said.


RECORD ON BSE

The first category is for countries with no BSE history and the second for those that have had or may have had cases. Both require risk assessment and strict surveillance to be in place. Extra controls would be imposed on second category countries.

All other countries, with no risk or surveillance measures, would be in a third category with limited trading possibilities.

He said that Britain, for example, where BSE first emerged in the 1980s and went on to devastate the beef industry, was currently in the highest risk category of the five-tier system.

But under the new classification, due to its long history of risk awareness and robust surveillance, it could be placed in the middle, potentially freeing up certain beef exports.

Thiermann said there had already been some discussion on the new classification and he was "optimistIc" it would be adopted. The OIE already recommends that certain cattle products such as milk and dairy produce, hides and skins, embryos and semen are free to be traded regardless of a country's classification.

It now wants to add deboned red meat to the list.

"The placing of red meat in a safe category would de-mystify and de-emphasise the terrible trade impact that we encoutered worldwide because of BSE," Thiermann said.

But Japan and others have asked for more details. Thiermann said it was unclear if the measure would pass this week.

Japan imposed a ban on US beef in December 2003 following the discovery of the first case of mad cow disease, although Tokyo is considering resuming imports from younger cattle.

Before the ban, Japan was the biggest market for US beef exporters, taking $1.4 billion a year.

Thiermann said that even if the new guidelines did pass, Japan was not obliged to take them all on board.

"It's likely Japan will say it's not good enough but at least it should push the trade in that direction," he said.



Story by David Evans


REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

 

[Bill]

If this article is correct it also appears Canada and the US will be at the same risk level as it should be.
Could you forward a copy of this to Judge Cebull?

 

[Murgen]

Kind of makes me think the OIE was tired of certain trade groups misquoting and out right lying about the guidelines and has now made it very simple for protectionist groups to follow. Will R-calf still be saying we should follow the guidelines as loud?

 

[Murgen]

Just wanted to add. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to "play nice" with a country that practises the same precautions, then to now have the guidelines watered down even more? I guess it was better to import live animals from a country with lax TB regulations and now be under pressure from countries with more than 4 cases of BSE!

 

[Mike]

The OIE just lost all credibility they might have had with me. Now they are in the trade restriction and/or unrestriction business instead of the animal disease business.

 

[Sandhusker]

If this article is correct it also appears Canada and the US will be at the same risk level as it should be.
Could you forward a copy of this to Judge Cebull?

You've had 4 cases of BSE in your domestic herd and we've had none, but we should be at the same risk level? :roll:

 

[agman]

Just wanted to add. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to "play nice" with a country that practises the same precautions, then to now have the guidelines watered down even more? I guess it was better to import live animals from a country with lax TB regulations and now be under pressure from countries with more than 4 cases of BSE!

The change was made as a result of a better understanding of BSE and where the risk exits and how the risk to humans can be mitigated. SRM removal is the solution. That is the foundtion of the OIE's decision. Better science and more historical data analysis prevailed. This is still an evolving process just as other diseases that preceded this one. Rules can and should change based upon new, more reliable data and an improved understanding of the disease.

 

[Sandhusker]

Just wanted to add. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to "play nice" with a country that practises the same precautions, then to now have the guidelines watered down even more? I guess it was better to import live animals from a country with lax TB regulations and now be under pressure from countries with more than 4 cases of BSE!

The change was made as a result of a better understanding of BSE and where the risk exits and how the risk to humans can be mitigated. SRM removal is the solution. That is the foundtion of the OIE's decision. Better science and more historical data analysis prevailed. This is still an evolving process just as other diseases that preceded this one. Rules can and should change based upon new, more reliable data and an improved understanding of the disease.

So what do we know about the disease now that we didn't prior to Canada finding BSE?

 

[agman]

We know that new cases of vCJD were found in Turkey and the Netherlands and that Ireland and France which imported the most MBM from the UK are seeing multiple cases of vCJD now.

As for SRMs, we know that Canada and the US do not follow the OIE standards on how SRMs are defined and do NOT remove the CNS.

Response...There is no proven evidence of prions in muscle per OIE scientists. There are unsubstantiated claims only. The better understanding of the disease is that to protect humans the essential procedure is SRM removal. While you or even I may disagree I do believe that the OIE scientists have available to them the best and most recent substantiated research. I would trust their judgment over yours or mine per this subject.

 

[Murgen]

You've had 4 cases of BSE in your domestic herd and we've had none, but we should be at the same risk level?

That's what happens when you reduce the levels of measurement of anything, more individuals fall within the same band.

Especially when risk is measured to be the same within both our countries.

Maybe the score is measured by risk and not "the official R-calf count"!!!

 

[Murgen]

• The U.S. does not have an effective animal traceability system. Only 50% of the birth cohort were successfully identified.
• …it is probable that other infected animals have been imported from Canada and possibly from Europe. These animals have not been detected and therefore infective material has likely been rendered, fed to cattle, and amplified within the cattle population, so that cattle in the USA have also been indigenously infected.
• Having examined the information provided on trade in live cattle and livestock feed ingredients within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the subcommittee firmly believes that the first case of BSE in the United States can not be considered in isolation from the whole cattle production system in North America. The significance of this BSE case cannot be dismissed by considering it "an imported case". The first BSE case detected in the USA, and the first "indigenous case" reported in Canada in 2003, must be recognized as both being BSE cases indigenous to North American.
• Unless aggressive surveillance proves the BSE risk in the USA to be minimal according to OIE standards, the subcommittee recommends that the SRM identified below be excluded from both the human food and animal feed chains.
• Brain and spinal cord of all cattle over 12 months of age
• Stull and vertebral column of cattle over 12 months of age
• Intestine-from pylorus to anus-from all cattle
• …that non-ambulatory cattle are more likely to be BSE infected than are healthy slaughter cattle and therefore may pose a greater risk to public and animal heatlh. The goals for measures related to these cattle must to (1) test them for surveillance purposes (2) prevent potentially infective tissues from entering the food and feed chains. Given their exclusion from supervise slaughter at inspected slaughterhouses, this important population may no longer be available for the BSE surveillance programme at these locations. Therefore it is imperative that the USDA take additional steps to assure that facilitated pathways exist for dead and non-ambulatory cattle to allow for collection of samples and proper disposal of carcasses.

Therefore the subcommittee recommends that the US should demonstrate leadership in trade matters by adopting import/export policy in accordance with international standards, and thus encourage the discontinuation of irrational trade barriers when countries identify their first case of BSE.

 

[Bill]

We know that new cases of vCJD were found in Turkey and the Netherlands and that Ireland and France which imported the most MBM from the UK are seeing multiple cases of vCJD now.

As for SRMs, we know that Canada and the US do not follow the OIE standards on how SRMs are defined and do NOT remove the CNS.

Response...There is no proven evidence of prions in muscle per OIE scientists. There are unsubstantiated claims only. The better understanding of the disease is that to protect humans the essential procedure is SRM removal. While you or even I may disagree I do believe that the OIE scientists have available to them the best and most recent substantiated research. I would trust their judgment over yours or mine per this subject.

Agman - you are listening to the WRONG people. There is research that SUGGESTS that prions are found in muscle -- by one of the top handful of TSE researchers. In science, which you seem intelligent enough to understand, research results need to be replicated a number of times before they are accepted as "science." Your OIE scientists are intelligent I'm sure but they are not the ground-breaking TSE experts. Sorry, this is a field I have more contact with than you. Look up Aguzzi in Switzerland who did the research that detected prions in muscles. This is not a matter of judgement, it's a matter of reading and hearing the TSE research community. While it may be that this research ends up not being replicated, it was done by a top researcher and is not to be dismissed summarily. If you want to post here on this subject, you'll need to do your own reading, not take the word of your pals.

There is research that SUGGESTS that prions are found in muscle

We know that it's transmissable via blood, that there are traces of prions in muscle,

Which of your statements do you stand by ReaderII. Do we all know this or is it suggested?


As for SRMs, we know that Canada and the US do not follow the OIE standards on how SRMs are defined and do NOT remove the CNS.

What exactly do you mean when you say that the US and Canada do not remove the CNS? In Canada at least the CNS is removed in all OTMs. Are you suggesting that this is not the case in the US?

 

[agman]

Agman - you are listening to the WRONG people. There is research that SUGGESTS that prions are found in muscle -- by one of the top handful of TSE researchers. In science, which you seem intelligent enough to understand, research results need to be replicated a number of times before they are accepted as "science." Your OIE scientists are intelligent I'm sure but they are not the ground-breaking TSE experts. Sorry, this is a field I have more contact with than you. Look up Aguzzi in Switzerland who did the research that detected prions in muscles. This is not a matter of judgement, it's a matter of reading and hearing the TSE research community. While it may be that this research ends up not being replicated, it was done by a top researcher and is not to be dismissed summarily. If you want to post here on this subject, you'll need to do your own reading, not take the word of your pals.

Excuse me, I have read the very data you cite. However, I used the word "substantiated" in my comments. If you look carefully the OIE scientists have not substantiated the claims made by the referenced sources. Look up the word"substantiated" before you make "unsubstantiated" claims about me. As I previously very clearly stated, I have more trust in the OIE scientists than I have in your judgment or opinion concerning this matter. I am not entrapped in this mental arena that there is a boogie man at every corner.

Who are my pals? You seem to know so much!!! The FACT is you do not know me personally nor do you know the many people I consult with and have access too in all the various factions that comprise our great beef industry and great economy. So your claim to know my "pals" is totally "unsubstantiated", is it not? Your comment "substantiates" nothing about me or mu pals but says a whole lot about yourself.

 

[Sandhusker]

• The U.S. does not have an effective animal traceability system. Only 50% of the birth cohort were successfully identified.
• …it is probable that other infected animals have been imported from Canada and possibly from Europe. These animals have not been detected and therefore infective material has likely been rendered, fed to cattle, and amplified within the cattle population, so that cattle in the USA have also been indigenously infected.
• Having examined the information provided on trade in live cattle and livestock feed ingredients within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the subcommittee firmly believes that the first case of BSE in the United States can not be considered in isolation from the whole cattle production system in North America. The significance of this BSE case cannot be dismissed by considering it "an imported case". The first BSE case detected in the USA, and the first "indigenous case" reported in Canada in 2003, must be recognized as both being BSE cases indigenous to North American.
• Unless aggressive surveillance proves the BSE risk in the USA to be minimal according to OIE standards, the subcommittee recommends that the SRM identified below be excluded from both the human food and animal feed chains.
• Brain and spinal cord of all cattle over 12 months of age
• Stull and vertebral column of cattle over 12 months of age
• Intestine-from pylorus to anus-from all cattle
• …that non-ambulatory cattle are more likely to be BSE infected than are healthy slaughter cattle and therefore may pose a greater risk to public and animal heatlh. The goals for measures related to these cattle must to (1) test them for surveillance purposes (2) prevent potentially infective tissues from entering the food and feed chains. Given their exclusion from supervise slaughter at inspected slaughterhouses, this important population may no longer be available for the BSE surveillance programme at these locations. Therefore it is imperative that the USDA take additional steps to assure that facilitated pathways exist for dead and non-ambulatory cattle to allow for collection of samples and proper disposal of carcasses.

Therefore the subcommittee recommends that the US should demonstrate leadership in trade matters by adopting import/export policy in accordance with international standards, and thus encourage the discontinuation of irrational trade barriers when countries identify their first case of BSE.

Murgen,
If you believe in all of that, you are also advocating a closed border until those requirements are met.

 

[Bill]

What exactly do you mean when you say that the US and Canada do not remove the CNS? In Canada at least the CNS is removed in all OTMs. Are you suggesting that this is not the case in the US?

from www.priondata.org

Definitions of SRM


Cattle:

In all Member States of the EU the following tissues are designated as SRM:

Skull including the brains and eyes, the tonsils, the spinal cord of animals aged over 12 months and the intestines from the duodenum to the rectum of bovine animals of all ages.

In addition to the tissues listed above the following tissues are designated as SRMs in the UK and Portugal (with the exception of the Autonomous Region of the Azores):

The entire head excluding the tongue, including the brains, eyes, trigeminal ganglia and tonsils; the thymus; the spleen and spinal cord of animals aged over six months; and the vertebral column, including dorsal root ganglia, of animals aged over thirty months.

What I mean is that the U.S. and Canada define SRMs for cattle under thirty months differently than the EU which removes the brains, eyes, tonsils, and the spinal cord of animals OVER 12 months of age, in addition to the intestines from the duodenum to the rectum.

Take the time to read my question again. Your earlier comment said "As for SRMs, we know that Canada and the US do not follow the OIE standards on how SRMs are defined and do NOT remove the CNS."

You are combining CNS and SRM into one and making the blanket statement that North America does not remove the CNS on any cattle.

We remove it on OTMs as those are believed to be the highest risk animals. Maybe not by you but by the majority of the rest of the world.

If you believe someone is yelling at you I suggest you switch to decaf as comments from myself are either meant to gain knowledge or clarify grey areas. I have read reports that say beef causes cancer while others claim it reduces the number of cases of that disease. Excuse me for being a bit skeptical until the majority of the scientific community acknowledges it.

Unlike many of you who rely on pulling it out of your ***** and claiming it to be god's truth.

I don't know where you are coming from with that but seriously give the decaf a try and I hope your day gets better for you.

 

[agman]

New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 349:1812-1820
November 6, 2003
Number 19

That's Agman's "unsubstantiated claims."

If you believe in the "absolutism" of prions in muscle meats why do you consume muscle meats while eschewing ground beef? Is that not a clear contradition on your part if you are so convinced of the validity of the research you posted?

 

[agman]

New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 349:1812-1820
November 6, 2003
Number 19

That's Agman's "unsubstantiated claims."

You need to substantiate your post. I said "OIE scientists have not substantiated these claims." There is a difference concerning what I actually stated versus what you claim I stated.

 

[Bill]

I use bold to indicate a quotation of another person's post.
You should be seeing black not red.

I have to wonder with your obvious though biased knowledge on this subject why you do not target your energy and beliefs in a direction where there may be some benefit.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

I use bold to indicate a quotation of another person's post.
You should be seeing black not red.

I have to wonder with your obvious though biased knowledge on this subject why you do not target your energy and beliefs in a direction where there may be some benefit.

I dunno, Bill. Maybe it's because there's actually an audience here.