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

OIE for Tam

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Tam, before you start thinking that the OIE is all about food safety and animal health, read this. The OIE is as much about trade as it is anything.



1. Letter dated 4 May 1998 from the Director General of the
World Trade Organization to the Director General
of the Office International des Epizooties


I have the honour to refer to the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, and in particular to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, annexed as an integral part thereof, particularly the provisions which concern the Office International des Epizooties.

I refer notably to Article V, paragraph 1, of the Marrakesh Agreement and to Article 6.k of the Organic Rules of the Office International des Epizooties.

Bearing in mind these provisions and taking into account the conversations held between representatives of the Office International des Epizooties and the World Trade Organization, it seems to me that official relations need to be established between our two organizations. They should be established on the following basis:

Cooperation and Consultation
1.
The Office International des Epizooties, hereinafter the OIE, and the World Trade Organization, hereinafter the WTO, agree, in order to facilitate the accomplishment of their respective missions as set out in the International Agreement for the creation of the OIE, and the texts relating to the WTO, notably the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, hereinafter the SPS Agreement, and to act in collaboration and to consult each other on questions of mutual interest, in particular those concerning the sanitary aspect of international trade in animals and products of animal origin and zoonoses.

Participation
2.
Representatives of the OIE shall be invited to attend meetings of the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the WTO and to participate, without voting rights, in deliberations on items of the agenda in which the OIE has an interest, with the exception of meetings limited to the delegates of WTO Members.
3.
Representatives of the WTO shall be invited to attend the Annual General Sessions of the International Committee of the OIE and to participate, without voting rights, in deliberations on items of the agenda in which the WTO has an interest, with the exception of meetings limited to the delegates of OIE Members.
4.
Appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure the participation of the OIE and the WTO in other meetings of a non-confidential nature convened under the auspices of either organization, during which questions in which the other organization has an interest are to be examined.

Exchange of Information and Documents
5.
The OIE and the WTO agree to keep each other informed of all projects and work programmes which may be of interest to the two organizations.
6.
Subject to any arrangements which may be necessary to safeguard the confidential nature of certain documents, the OIE and the WTO shall undertake the exchange of technical documents.

Actions
7.
The Secretariats of the OIE and the WTO may agree on the procedure to be followed when the SPS Committee submits specific questions to the OIE concerning the standards, guidelines or recommendations of the OIE within the meaning of Article 12, paragraph 6, of the SPS Agreement.
8.
In order to promote the proper application of the provisions of the SPS Agreement, particularly Article 9, paragraph 1, the Secretariat of the OIE and that of the WTO may agree on joint actions, such as seminars and interventions during conferences, as well as other actions considered necessary, particularly as regards the granting of technical assistance for the benefit of developing countries.
9.
The Secretariats of the OIE and the WTO may also agree on other joint or separate actions, concerning the spheres of activity of their respective organizations, when they consider such actions to be necessary.
10.
They may also agree on procedures for designating scientific and technical experts with a view to the application of the provisions of the SPS Agreement, notably as provided for in Article 11, paragraph 2, in respect of dispute settlement.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Looks to me that they are working together to make sure trade doesn't take precedent over safety.

BMR, have you done any research on WTO cases? Go look at examples of WTO rulings. You'll see that trade indeed does take precedent over safety.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,036
Reaction score
254
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Looks to me that they are working together to make sure trade doesn't take precedent over safety.

BMR, have you done any research on WTO cases? Go look at examples of WTO rulings. You'll see that trade indeed does take precedent over safety.


Exactly why the OIE needs to be involved to protect from that.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Looks to me that they are working together to make sure trade doesn't take precedent over safety.

BMR, have you done any research on WTO cases? Go look at examples of WTO rulings. You'll see that trade indeed does take precedent over safety.


Exactly why the OIE needs to be involved to protect from that.

They should be, but did you notice the word "Non-voting"? Once again, do a little research on past WTO rulings.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,036
Reaction score
254
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
BMR, have you done any research on WTO cases? Go look at examples of WTO rulings. You'll see that trade indeed does take precedent over safety.


Exactly why the OIE needs to be involved to protect from that.

They should be, but did you notice the word "Non-voting"? Once again, do a little research on past WTO rulings.

Sandhusker did you notice the word non-voting when WTO sits in on OIR as well?
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Here is a little intersting blurb put out a while back by the OIE.

Updated :09-Jan-2004

The OIE standards on BSE: a guide for understanding and proper implementation

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has become increasingly concerned about reports of international trade disruptions involving the misinterpretation of OIE standards. Recent published information on categorization of countries by the OIE indicates there are some apparent misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of the OIE international standards and guidelines, and their interpretation and implementation by Member countries.

The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code) contains standards, guidelines and recommendations to be used by national veterinary authorities to prevent the introduction of infectious agents pathogenic for animals and humans into the importing country during trade of animals and animal products, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers.

While the Code describes conditions for the classification of countries into one of five BSE risk categories, the OIE itself does not assign countries to all these categories. These are used by importing countries when determining the specific conditions for trade. However, the OIE has been recently requested to examine country submissions, made on a voluntary basis, for determining whether they meet the conditions to be officially classified by an OIE decision as "BSE free" or "BSE provisionally free". For the moment the OIE does not give an opinion on the further 3 categories existing in the Code. So far no country has been given such recognition by the OIE. Furthermore, the OIE has been requested by Member countries to reduce the current number of categories.

The Code also draws attention to the obligations under the provisions of the World Trade Organization-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (WTO-SPS), whereby the importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that its measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.

The OIE chapter on BSE currently describes five levels of exporting country status based on their determined risk level (free, provisionally free, minimal risk, moderate risk and high risk). It then addresses trade conditions for various commodities through an increasing degree of restrictions commensurate with the risks presented. For example, fresh meat may be imported safely from a country of any BSE status but with increasing restrictions so that, for countries presenting a high BSE risk, more severe measures are applied to the cattle and to the meat itself. The experts consider that, if these measures are followed, the meat is safe.

For some commodities however, the experts have determined that particular commodities should not be exported even from countries presenting a low BSE risk. For example, meat and bone meal, or any commodity containing such products, which originate from countries with minimal, moderate or high BSE risk should not be traded.

It is apparent that some Member Countries are applying trade bans when an exporting country reports the presence of BSE, without consulting the recommendations in the Code or conducting a risk analysis in accordance with its OIE and WTO obligations. While the Code provides increasingly restrictive recommendations which are commensurate with the level of BSE risk in each of the country status categories, it does not recommend any other ban than the above mentioned on trade of animals or specific animal products.

Regarding the BSE situation in the European Union and more recently in Japan, Canada and the US, the existence of valid up-to-date standards did not prevent major trade disruptions due to a failure by many countries to apply the international standard when establishing or revising their import policies. This has been particularly evident in the case of commodities for which the Code recommends that no restrictions be applied, regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country.

Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE, without having conducted a risk analysis as described in the Code. Such situations penalise countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal diseases and zoonoses, and which have demonstrated their ability to control the risks identified. This may result in a reluctance to report future cases and an increased likelihood of disease spread internationally.


January 2004

Mike, if I am reading this right, it does certainly appear that trade issues are of extremely high importance and the safety aspect of meat and meat products takes somewhat of a lesser role in the consideration phase. Trade does in fact, rule first!! What is your opinion on this hypothesis Mike? And one has to wonder who the so-called "experts" really are in this document? Ron.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
The OIE sets standards that "No One" has to abide by. Not so for the WTO. When you get these two joined at the hip who knows what is fair and what is not.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
This was also from the OIE Web site


Each member Country undertakes to report the animal diseases that it detects on its territory. The OIE then disseminates the information to other countries, which can take the necessary preventive action. This information also includes diseases transmissible to humans
and then this on the same page
The OIE provides technical support to member Countries requesting assistance with animal diseases control and eradication operations including diseases transmissible to humans. The OIE notably offers expertise to the poorest countries to help them control animal diseases that cause livestock losses, present a risk to public health and threaten other Member Countries.
so I have to say by this the OIE is looking at the risk factor to HUMAN HEALTH and that is why the guidelines are different for the different catagories of risk.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
WTO Dispute Settlement

Dispute settlement: a cornerstone of the WTO



The dispute settlement mechanism, which came into being with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995, is one of the cornerstones of the Organisation.

It gives all 149 Members of the WTO confidence that the agreements negotiated and agreed will be respected. It does not impose new obligations, but it does enforce those already agreed.

The rationale behind the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) of the WTO is to provide Members with a clear legal framework for solving disputes which may arise in the course of implementing WTO agreements. Clearly, agreed solutions between Members are the most desirable way of solving disputes. However, if this is not possible, Members can ask for panels and (possibly) appeal procedures where the WTO, by interpreting the rules, solves the dispute. If a Member does not comply with WTO recommendations on bringing its practice in line with WTO rules, then trade compensation or sanctions, for example in the form of duty increases or suspension of WTO obligations may follow.



Yes, Ron. Trade undisputably rules. As you can see the WTO can remediate disputes from OIE and WTO disputes.



It is apparent that some Member Countries are applying trade bans when an exporting country reports the presence of BSE, without consulting the recommendations in the Code or conducting a risk analysis in accordance with its OIE and WTO obligations.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
AS i said before, OIE should hang up there jock strap now, since it appears they will buckle every time a country makes some political hay about trade protocol, commodities and futures. IF they are not going to be science based, they should do everyone a favor and dissolve there organization. With Science like this, Japan would be fully justified in declining to be a member. ...TSS


Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:17:16 -0600
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
<[email protected]>
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
<[email protected]>
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Subject: OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission held in Paris,
28 June to 2 July 2004 (BSE)

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

Written comments of the Community on the report of the meeting of the
Bureau of the
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission
held in Paris, 28 June to 2 July 2004

snip...

EN 8 EN
9. Chapter 2.3.13. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
EN 9 EN
For this chapter, the Bureau of the Code Commission produced two
alternative versions, taking into
account comments received from Member Countries. Part a) contains a
proposed new chapter with a
simplified categorisation system while Part b) proposes a revised
current chapter.
The Bureau urges Member Countries to examine these two approaches and to
send comments to the Central
Bureau.
a) New BSE chapter with a simplified categorisation system
Community position:
The Community welcomes the action taken by the Bureau of the Code
Commission to draft
a new text reflecting a simplified categorisation system for BSE but
would like the detailed
comments made on the individual Article taken on board.
Recalling the support from the OIE International Committee at the 72nd
General Session for a
simplified categorisation system for BSE, the Bureau of the Code
Commission drafted a new text
reflecting this approach. The new text (Appendix VI) is submitted to
Member Countries for comment.
The following criteria were the basis for formulating the new text:
i) the recommendations from the ad hoc Group meeting of April 2004 for a
three category
approach; the report of the meeting is at Appendix VII;
ii) proposals from Member Countries the EU, the USA, Australia, New
Zealand, Japan, South
Africa, Korea and Argentina for a new approach;
iii) the shift in emphasis agreed by the OIE International Committee
towards commodity-specific
recommendations;
iv) the linkage between risk assessment outcomes and surveillance, and
the ability to be categorised
as negligible BSE risk with or without mitigating measures; and
v) the recommendations of the ad hoc Group regarding the factors
relevant to a risk assessment and
the safety of certain commodities.
Articles were consolidated as necessary to address a three category
approach but changes to existing
recommendations were minimised. In the explanation below, current
Article refers to the
2004 edition of the Terrestrial Code.
Article 1 was not modified with regard to specific commodities because
of the absence of any new
scientific information on the risks presented. With the respect to
tallow, this approach reflects the
position of the BSE ad hoc Group. The Bureau understands that the
results of an investigation into
whether or not the BSE agent may be present in tallow will soon be
released. In addition, while the ad
hoc Group believed that the information available indicated that bovine
blood and blood by-products
would be safe (subject to stunning being carried out in accordance with
the current Article 2.3.13.14),
EN 10 EN
the Bureau awaits further concrete scientific information before making
recommendations on their
use.
Article 2 was modified, taking into consideration the recommendations of
the ad hoc Group on the
factors important to release and exposure assessments.
A new Article 3 addressing a category named negligible BSE risk without
mitigating measures was
drafted by merging current Articles 2.3.13.3 and 2.3.13.4 describing
free and provisionally-free
categories, and taking into consideration the recommendations of the ad
hoc Group and comments
received from Member Countries. Recommendations regarding the
destruction of progeny were
retained for a country or zone/compartment which had reported a case of
BSE more than 7 years ago;
however, the Bureau was of the view that, in the light of the lack of
evidence for vertical transmission,
these recommendations should be dispensed with from this article and the
new Article 4.
The new Article 4 addressing a category named negligible BSE risk with
mitigating measures
incorporates the current Articles 2.3.13.5 and 2.3.13.6 describing
minimal and moderate risk
categories, and includes the concept of high BSE risk in its
recommendations. In this exercise, the
Bureau took into consideration the recommendations of the ad hoc Group
and comments received
from Member Countries.
In order to have a single middle category, the Bureau considered it
necessary not to differentiate risk
levels for commodities on the basis of BSE incidence rate. In this
regard, the Bureau agreed with the
ad hoc Groups proposal that because of the difficulty of estimating
accurately the prevalence of BSE
infection and the relative lack of importance of prevalence in relation
to rendering commodities safe, a
broad second category be created with no arbitrary distinctions.
Australia recommended an emphasis
on risk assessment and disease management rather than on disease
incidence in drawing up new
categories. The USA also supported a risk-based rather than
prevalence-based approach to
categorisation. The Bureau considered that this approach did not reduce
the importance of surveillance
in categorising countries or zones/compartments.
A new Article 5 undetermined BSE risk was created for those countries
or zones/compartments
which, by not conducting a risk assessment or surveillance, could not be
categorised in either of the
above categories but which could still trade safely in certain
commodities under specified conditions.
Community position:
The Community fully supports the risk-based approach on which the simplified
categorisation system will be based upon i.e. an initial risk assessment
and the
implementation of a surveillance programme. However the EU does not
support to make a
link to the current Appendix when evaluating the implementation of the
surveillance
programme in the framework of the categorisation of the country. The EU
re-iterates
comments made on Appendix 3.8.4. on surveillance and monitoring systems
for bovine
spongiform encephalopathy.
The Community would like the OIE to take on board the detailed comments
in Appendix
VI.
EN 11 EN
In accordance with the proposed three category system, the articles
dealing with commodities have
been redrafted to address the risk posed by the combination of the
commodity and the source country
or zone/compartment.
A new Article 6 is essentially unchanged from the current Article
2.3.13.8 which dealt with imports
from free countries or zones.
A new Article 7 dealing with cattle from a country or zone/compartment
posing a negligible BSE risk
with mitigating measures resulted from a merger of the existing
recommendations in current
Articles 2.3.13.10 and 2.3.13.11.
The existing recommendations for the import of cattle from a country or
zone with a high BSE risk
were incorporated unchanged in new Article 8 addressing cattle from a
country or zone/compartment
with an undetermined BSE risk.
On the recommendation of the ad hoc Group, recommendations for
post-mortem inspection were
added to new Articles 9, 10 and 11 to address the need to certify to
certain tissues having been
removed in a manner to avoid contamination.
The new Article 10 is a combination of current Articles 2.3.13.14 and
2.3.13.15. The
recommendations regarding the age for the removal of specified risk
materials were based on expert
advice regarding pathogenesis studies and epidemiological analysis.
The new Article 11 was modified from the current Article 2.3.13.16,
taking into account the
recommendations of the ad hoc Group, and in order to adapt it for Member
Countries in which animal
identification and traceability are not required. The Bureau did not
believe that such systems would
play a significant role in further mitigating any BSE risk posed by the
exported commodity.
The recommendation for the removal of the entire intestine was
reconsidered, and in view of
comments from the USA, Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, Canada and Japan and
advice from an expert, the
Bureau now proposes that the current Article 2.3.13.18 (new Article 13)
be modified to require the
exclusion from trade of the distal ileum only.
The substance of the remainder of the articles is unchanged. The Bureau
considered that the
recommendations in the current Article 2.3.13.22 are substantially
incorporated into new Article 2 and
proposes deletion of this article.
b) Proposed revision of the current BSE chapter
The Bureau took Member Countries comments into account in revising the
current BSE chapter.
In the absence of new scientific information on the risks presented,
Article 2.3.13.1 was not modified
with respect to specific commodities. This approach on tallow reflects
the position of the BSE ad hoc
Group. The Bureau understands that the results of an investigation into
whether or not the BSE agent
may be present in tallow will soon be released. In addition, while the
ad hoc Group believed that the
information available indicated that bovine blood and blood
by-products would be safe (subject to
stunning being carried out in accordance with Article 2.3.13.14), the
Bureau awaits further concrete
scientific information before making recommendations on their use.
EN 12
Article 2.3.13.2 was modified, taking into consideration the
recommendations of the ad hoc Group on
the factors important to release and exposure assessments.
Revised text submitted by the EU and Canada on Article 2.3.13.3 (and on
Articles 2.3.13.4, 2.3.13.5,
2.3.13.12 and 2.3.13.16 for Canada) was not adopted as it was not
considered to significantly improve
the existing risk mitigation.
A comment from Australia and Canada regarding the age cut-off in
Articles 2.3.13.5 and 2.3.13.6 was
not adopted as the ad hoc Group believed that an age of 24 months was
the usual cut off point for
animal census data; if the ages were aligned at 24 months, the ad hoc
Group considered that the
prevalence cut-off limits for the categories would need to be adjusted.
The wording of paragraph 2) c) of Article 2.3.13.6 was clarified.
On the recommendation of the ad hoc Group and in light of comments from
Canada,
recommendations for post-mortem inspection were added to Articles
2.3.13.13, 2.3.13.14, 2.3.13.15
and 2.3.13.20 to address the need to certify to certain tissues having
been removed in a manner to
avoid contamination.
A Japanese recommendation that meat-and-bone meal be banned even from
BSE-free countries was
not adopted as it was considered to be excessive for exporting countries
not affected by BSE.
The age cut-off for mechanically separated meat from skull and vertebral
column in Article 2.3.13.16
was changed from 6 to 12 months on the recommendation of the ad hoc
Group and for consistency
with Article 2.3.13.18.
The current recommendation to remove the entire intestine was
reconsidered by the Bureau, and in
view of comments from the USA, Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, Canada and Japan
and advice from an
expert, the Bureau now proposes that Article 2.3.13.18 be modified to
require the exclusion from trade
of the distal ileum only.
The Bureau considered that the recommendations in Article 2.3.13.22 are
substantially incorporated
into Article 2.3.13.2 and proposes deletion of this Article.
The proposed modifications (Appendix VIII) are submitted to Member
Countries for comment.
c) Appendix 3.8.4 on surveillance and monitoring systems for BSE
The Bureau noted that the ad hoc Group had examined comments on the
appendix submitted by
Member Countries in making its recommendations. The Bureau endorsed the
comments of the ad hoc
Group regarding the BSE surveillance appendix and is submitting revised
text for the comment of
Member Countries (Appendix IX).
d Appendix 3.6.3 on transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agents
inactivation procedures
The Bureau modified Appendix 3.6.3 in accordance (Appendix X).

snip...full text 202 pages (takes a while to load) ;

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie10_en.pdf

* Written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie11_en.pdf>
on the Report of the meeting of the Bureau of the OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Standards Commission.
Submitted by the European Union to the OIE on 13/12/2004 (6,20MB)
* Draft written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie10_en.pdf>
on the report of the meeting of the Bureau of the OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Standards Commission held in Paris, 28 June to 2
July 2004 (1,03MB)
Submitted by the Commission to the Council on 22/10/2004
(SEC/2004/1344)
* Written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie9_en.pdf>
on the OIE Fourth Strategic Plan 2005-2010 (1,5MB)
Submitted by the European Union to the OIE on 24/09/2004
* Written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie8_en.pdf>
on (1) a draft report of the meeting of an ad hoc group to revise
the bluetongue Chapter in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code
and (2) on a review of the new Avian Influenza Code Chapter to be
submitted for adoption and consideration in the 73rd General
Session to be held in May 2005 (122KB)
Submitted by the European Union to the OIE on 01/07/2004
* Written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie7_en.pdf>
on the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Standards Commission [Parois, 5-9
January 2004] (1,5MB)
Submitted by the European Union to the OIE on 25/05/2004
* Written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie6_en.pdf>
on the report of the meeting of the Bureau of the OIE terrestrial
animal health code [Paris December 2003] to be submitted for
consideration and possible adoption in the 72nd General Session to
be held in May 2004 in Paris (1,5MB)
Submitted by the European Union to the OIE on 03/03/2004
* Draft written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie5_en.pdf>
on the report of the meeting of the Bureau of the OIE terrestrial
animal health code [Paris December 2003] to be submitted for
consideration and possible adoption in the 72nd General Session to
be held in May 2004 in Paris (1,5MB)
Submitted by the Commission to the Council on 17/02/2004
(SEC/2004/209)
* Written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie4_en.pdf>
on the Draft report of the meeting of the Bureau of the OIE
[Office International des Epizooties] Aquatic Animal Health
Standards Commission [Paris October 2003] (1,5MB)
Submitted by the European Union to the OIE on 18/12/2003
* Written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie3_en.pdf>
on the report of the meeting of the Bureau of the OIE [Office
International des Epizooties] International Animal Health Code
Commission [Paris July 2003] and the Scientific Commission [Paris
August 2003] to be submitted for adoption and consideration in the
72nd General Session to be held in May 2004 (6MB)
Submitted by the European Union to the OIE on 19/11/2003
* Draft written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie2_en.pdf>
on the report of the meeting of the Bureau of the OIE [Office
International des Epizooties] Aquatic Animals Health Code
Commission [Paris July 2003] and the Scientific Commission [Paris
August 2003] to be submitted for adoption and consideration in the
72nd General Session to be held in May 2004 (705KB)
Submitted by the Commission to the Council on 23/10/2003
(SEC/2003/1177)
* Draft written comments of the Community
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/international/organisations/ah_pcad_oie1_en.pdf>
on the report of the meeting of the Bureau of the OIE [Office
International des Epizooties] Aquatic Animals Health Standards
Commission [Paris June 2003] to be submitted for adoption and
consideration in the 72nd General Session to be held in May 2004
(354KB)
Submitted by the Commission to the Council on 29/09/2003
(SEC/2003/1065)

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; BSE-L
Subject: Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION
TO DOCKET 2003N-0312]

Greetings FDA,

snip...

PLUS, if the USA continues to flagrantly ignore the _documented_ science
to date about the known TSEs in the USA (let alone the undocumented TSEs
in cattle), it is my opinion, every other Country that is dealing with
BSE/TSE should boycott the USA and demand that the SSC reclassify the
USA BSE GBR II risk assessment to BSE/TSE GBR III 'IMMEDIATELY'. for the
SSC to _flounder_ any longer on this issue, should also be regarded with
great suspicion as well. NOT to leave out the OIE and it's terribly
flawed system of disease surveillance. the OIE should make a move on CWD
in the USA, and make a risk assessment on this as a threat to human
health. the OIE should also change the mathematical formula for testing
of disease. this (in my opinion and others) is terribly flawed as well.
to think that a sample survey of 400 or so cattle in a population of 100
million, to think this will find anything, especially after seeing how
many TSE tests it took Italy and other Countries to find 1 case of BSE
(1 million rapid TSE test in less than 2 years, to find 102 BSE cases),
should be proof enough to make drastic changes of this system. the OIE
criteria for BSE Country classification and it's interpretation is very
problematic. a text that is suppose to give guidelines, but is not
understandable, cannot be considered satisfactory. the OIE told me 2
years ago that they were concerned with CWD, but said any changes might
take years. well, two years have come and gone, and no change in
relations with CWD as a human health risk. if we wait for politics and
science to finally make this connection, we very well may die before any
decisions
or changes are made. this is not acceptable. we must take the politics
and the industry out of any final decisions of the Scientific community.
this has been the problem from day one with this environmental man made
death sentence. some of you may think i am exaggerating, but you only
have to see it once, you only have to watch a loved one die from this
one time, and you will never forget, OR forgive...yes, i am still very
angry... but the transmission studies DO NOT lie, only the politicians
and the industry do... and they are still lying to this day...TSS


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. BOX 42 Bacliff, TEXAS USA


############## [email protected] ############## Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:47:22 -0500
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Subject: OIE drafts concerning BSE and USDA's comments
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]> #########

Greetings list members,

snip...
The following links give OIE drafts concerning BSE and USDA's comments.

see specially page 8 (OIE proposed text - USDA Suggested text) in
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/oie/pdf_files/bse_dec02_cmt.pdf
comments submitted by USDA to the OIE

This text cannot be properly copied as E-mail, because you wouldn't see the
USDA's proposed deletions and additions (in bold).

It is clear that USDA does not like the rapid tests:

"...prescribing the specific use of certain diagnostic tests is
inappropriate. Furthermore, certain tests, such as the rapid tests, may
not give an accurate picture of the BSE situation
in a country or zone. It is well known that certain rapid tests such as the
Enfer and Biorad tests have recorded false positive BSE results. For BSE
free countries or zones, the use of rapid BSE tests that give false
positive
results will cause loss of consumer confidence in beef and beef products. "


The use of rapid tests has been the greatest contribution to "give an
accurate picture" of the real BSE situation in Europe and Japan.
It is true that there were some 'false positive' problems in Europe during
the first months of 2001. But any positive rapid-test result _always has to
be confirmed_ by another test (IHC, Western blot ...), so this should
not be
a real problem.
I'm sure that the use of rapid tests in the USA in a serious active
surveillance program involving at least _all_ US downer cattle and as many
as possible of fallen stock, would increase consumer confidence, that is
_if_ the results were all negative during for 1-2 years.

The OIE "guidelines" for risk assessment deserve some comment.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/oie/pdf_files/gbse_risk_jan2002.pdf
appendix x .x .x . OIE's guidelines for assessing the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy
risk of a cattle population

Questions to be answered by countries applying for BSE risk assessment
according to OIE seem to limit the risks to the last 8 years.
"... If cattle have not been fed products containing MBM of ruminant origin
within the last 8 years, MBM/greaves can be dismissed as a risk..."

"... has MBM, greaves or feedstuffs containing either been imported within
the last 8 years... ?

What do they mean ? If a country has taken risks by MBM-imports and
feeding of ruminants no
later than 1993, the country would be OK ? even a country such as Canada or
USA, where nothing has been done to avoid amplification of TSE's ?

But the USA does not comment on this.

Comments on Guidelines for Assessing the Bovine Procedures Spongiform
Encephalopathy Risk of a Cattle Population
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/oie/pdf_files/bserisk_jun_jan02.pdf


http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/imported-food/bse-categorisation/bse-final-measure.pdf


New Zealand has adopted the same questions as OIE:
...Has MBM or greaves of ruminant origin been fed to cattle in the last
eight years?
...Has MBM or greaves, or feedstuffs containing either, been imported
during
the past eight years?
...Have cattle been imported in the past eight years from countries that
have reported cases of BSE?

...When applying for status assessment by the Scientific Steering
Committee,
member countries and third party countries are specifically required to
provide extensive annual data, preferably from 1980 onwards but at least
from 1988...


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/oie/pdf_files/gs71-ahc-jul2002-bse-cmt.pdf


The webside where these links are given:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/oie/
National Center for Import and Export

TSS

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:35:49 +0200
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
From: Karin.IrgensSubject: SV: BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY IN CANADA Follow-up report
No. 3 (final report OIE)
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]> #########

Hello

I just found today the Canadian risk assessment for BSE, a 150 pages text
from December 2002.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/ahra/bseris/bserise.pdf

All details on Canadian risk imports from UK and other countries should be
found there.

Best regards

Karin Irgens

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sendt: 15. august 2003 16:57
> Til: [email protected]
> Emne: Re: BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY IN CANADA Follow-up report No.
> 3 (final report OIE)
>
> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
> #########
>
> greetings list members,
>
> > The most likely source of contamination of the feed was asymptomatic
> > animals imported into North America from the United Kingdom between
> > 1982 and 1989 that entered the food chain through natural attrition.
>
> N America imported MBM/Greaves by the boatloads, but now
> are they admitting that the _live_ cattle imported to N America
> is the cause? how can they be sure it was the live cattle and not
> some of the tons and tons of MBM from the UK that caused
> the only mad cow case in N America? and why is it so far fetched
> to believe that more than just one got infected? and how many more
> were rendered into 'food for consumption' for any species?
>
> my records show Canada imported 83 METRIC TONS of MBM from the
> UK in the years 1993, 1994, and 1995
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m12/tab12.pdf
>
> HOWEVER, the Times reports 125 metric tons;
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Exports of Meat and Bone
> Meal in tons (1000 kg) from
> UK
>
> Source - Sunday Times
>
> Country 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
>
> Canada 30 22 31 42
>
> U.S.A. 20 0
> ================
> look at the live cattle they imported from UK from 86 on.
> 399 of i counted correctly. .1 gram lethal, amplification etc.
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf
>
> MY RECORDS SHOW USA IMPORTED 44 TONS AND CANADA IMPORTED 83 TONS
> OF UK MBM;
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:03:16 +0000
> X400-Originator: [email protected]
> X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
> X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=MAFF400/ADMD=ATTmail/C=GB/; m1570208140657aa]
> X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
> Content-Identifier: m1570208140657aa
> Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
> Message-ID:
> To: [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt
> Notification
> Requested)
> In-Reply-To:
> Subject: Re: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???
> X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>
> Terry
>
> Meat and bonemeal is not specifically classified for overseas trade
> purposes. The nearest equivalent is listed as "flours and meals of meat
> or offals (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves". UK
> exports of this to the US are listed below:
>
> Country Tonnes
> 1980
> 1981 12
> 1982
> 1983
> 1984 10
> 1985 2
> 1986
> 1987
> 1988
> 1989 20
> 1990
>
> Data for exports between 1975 and 1979 are not readily available. These
> can be obtained (at a charge) from data retailers appointed by HM
> Customs and Excise: BTSL (Tel: 01372 463121) or Abacus (01245 252222).
>
> Best wishes
> Simon Pearsall
> Overseas trade statistics Stats (C&F)C
>
> Simon
> as discussed
> thanks
> Julie
> ---
> Forwarded message:
> Sent: Fri Feb 04 21:47:01 2000
> Received: Fri Feb 04 21:45:15 2000
>
> To:
> helpline ou=inf o=maff p=maff400 a=attmail c=gb
> From:
> [email protected] ou=smtp o=maff p=maff400 a=attmail c=gb
>
> Subject: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???
>
> Hello,
> where could I locate data, on the exportation of the U.K.'s meat and
> bone
> meal, to the U.S., between the years 1975 to 1990?
> Thank You
> Terry
>
> =======================================
>
> USA AND CANADA IMPORTS OF UK CATTLE BETWEEN 1986-1996
>
> USA = 697
>
> CANADA = 293
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf
>
> TSS
>
>

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:01:45 -0500
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SV: BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY IN CANADA Follow-up
reportNo. 3 (final report OIE)######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]> #########

Greetings Dr. Dealler and Karin,

> they simply dont have enough data
> with which to carry out their mathematics

they use GW et al 'fuzzy math' system.
this works well for most everything ;-)


yes, thanks for this Karin. i see some of those cattle that the UK
exported to Canada, i see some that were rendered in Canada,
came from _documented_ UK BSE infected farms;

RA on BSE in Cattle in Canada: Part A - Risk Factors (J16) - December 2002
• Of the 68 cattle imported since 1982 from the U.K. that were
potentially rendered, the majority
(58) came from farms that have never recorded a case of BSE, and 10 were
sourced from
farms that had had at least one case of BSE diagnosed in cattle born on
the farm. Of those
10, 2 originated from an infected birth cohort. The farm of origin was
not identified for 1
animal and therefore its status is unknown. For the purposes of this
report, it is assumed to
have been infected with BSE. The status of the farms of origin for the
68 cattle imported prior
to 1982 was not determined.
• The 2 cattle originating from an infected birth cohort were herdmates
of the imported cow that
was diagnosed with BSE in Canada. Both of these animals were slaughtered
prior to the
diagnosis of the case.
• Of the 12 cattle imported from Ireland that were potentially rendered,
none were sourced from
farms with a case of BSE diagnosed in cattle born on the farm. The
status of the farms of
origin for the 2 cattle imported prior to 1982 was not determined.
Table 6: Disposition of Cattle Imported from the U.K. (1982–1990)

page 51

-39-
5.3.1.2. Disposition of Ruminants Imported from BSE-Infected Countries
Other Than the U.K. and
Ireland
Japan:
• Japanese-origin cattle were imported into Canada from the U.S. from
1994 to 1998. Canada
did not import the cattle directly from Japan, given that Canada has
never designated Japan
as free of BSE.
• There were 22 cattle imported from Japan. Four bulls stood at stud for
4 years before being
re-exported to the U.S. Of the remaining 18 of concern, 14 are still
alive and have been
placed under quarantine pending a decision on their disposition. Four
cattle had been culled
due to reproductive failure.
• The 4 Japanese-origin cattle that were slaughtered and potentially
rendered were born in
1993(1) and 1994(3). They were originally imported into the United
States, where they
remained for an undetermined period of time prior to their export to
Canada as part of two
lots in 1997 and 1998. The cattle were slaughtered due to reproductive
failure. Given the high
cost of these animals, it is likely that they remained with the
purchasing company for at least
several months prior to their destruction. In any case, they would have
been destroyed after
the Feed Ban was in place, and therefore would not have entered the
ruminant feed system.
RA on BSE in Cattle in Canada: Part A - Risk Factors (J16) - December 2002
-40-
• The CFIA has ordered that the 14 quarantined animals be disposed of
and the owners
compensated.
Denmark:
• Of the 9 cattle imported from Denmark in 1993, 1 was ordered destroyed
and 1 had been
exported to the U.S. The 7 remaining cattle are assumed to have been
rendered.
• Based on the outcome of a risk assessment, 18 water buffalo imported
in 2000 have been
ordered destroyed. The brains of these animals will be examined for
evidence of BSE, and if
all test negative, progeny of these animals born in Canada over 5 months
of age will be
released from quarantine. One imported animal died in quarantine of
causes unrelated to
BSE and was incinerated.
• There were 16 sheep ordered destroyed; 1 sheep remains in quarantine
pending the
outcome of risk assessment review.
Cattle Imports from Europe:
• Until 1985, the CFIA operated the Continental European Cattle Program,
which was designed
to assist Canadian producers in importing new cattle genetics. Due to
the foot-and-mouth
disease situation in Europe, these cattle were subjected to lengthy
quarantine periods both in
Europe and in Canada.
• From 1979 to 1985, a total of 405 cattle were imported from
continental Europe to Canada
via the Grosse Ile Quarantine Station (countries of origin, where
records still exist, are found
in Table 5). These numbers were validated through a search of archived
files containing
documentation on the imports including, in some cases, listings of the
individually identified
cattle imported along with their destinations in Canada.
France:
• In 1980, 36 Romanov sheep were imported from France via the Grosse Ile
Quarantine
Station. These animals were sent to the Lennoxville Research Station of
Agriculture Canada
for breeding purposes and were maintained in quarantine until their
first offspring were 60
months of age.
Germany:
• A permit was issued for the importation of 2 goats from Germany;
however, they were
refused entry into Canada.
• According to Canadian trade data, 120 sheep were imported from Germany
in 1984. No
documentation validating these numbers was found in a search of CFIA
archived files.
5.3.1.3. Imports and Disposition of Other Ruminants from BSE-Affected
Countries
• In 1989, 377 farmed deer were imported from Great Britain to Canada.
The deer were sold
into one herd, which has since been dispersed, with most of the deer
having been sold to the
U.S. and the remainder sent to slaughter. A shipment of 105 deer to
Canada from Great
Britain was “in transit,” and hence the deer did not stay in Canada. The
U.K. has not reported
BSE in any ruminants other than cattle and zoo animals, including farmed
deer (Moreau
2002).
RA on BSE in Cattle in Canada: Part A - Risk Factors (J16) - December 2002
• There were 6 sheep imported from the U.K. in 1990, 28 in 1989 and 48
in 1980. The
disposition of these sheep is unknown. The Canadian Trade Data show 180
sheep imports
from the U.K. in 1986. There is no trace-back information on these
sheep, and no
documentation validating the number was found in a search of CFIA
archived files.
5.3.2. Imports of Sheep from Countries Reporting Scrapie
Imports of sheep from countries other than the U.S. require an import
permit and a certificate
signed by an official veterinarian of the country of origin that:
• the sheep were inspected and found to be free of scrapie;
• no case of scrapie has been diagnosed in the flock of origin for the
previous 3 years; and,
• the animal is not the progeny of a dam or sire that was affected with
scrapie.
These requirements have been in place since 1982 (Appendix 10, Section
12) (Appendix 4,
Section 12).
The importation of sheep from the U.S. does not require a permit;
however, certification for
scrapie has been required since 1982 as for all other countries. As of
1990, scrapie certification is
no longer required for sheep in transit for the re-entry of animals into
Canada from the U.S. within
60 days and for feeder sheep destined for immediate slaughter (Appendix
10, Section 24)
(Appendix 4, Section 22).
Based on a review of information provided by those countries, Canada has
recognized Australia
and New Zealand free of scrapie. In the absence of specific assessments,
all other countries are
considered to be infected with scrapie (Greenwood, 2002). Table 10 lists
the imports of sheep
from countries not recognized free of scrapie.
Table 10: Imports of Breeding Sheep from Countries not Recognized Free
of Scrapie (1988–July
2001)

page 55

snip...

5.3.3. Imports of Cervids from Countries Reporting Chronic Wasting Disease
A permit specifying the conditions for import is required to import
cervids into Canada from all
countries. The conditions vary according to the species of cervid and
the exporting country.
Imports of cervids from the U.S. (the only other country that reports
CWD) are found in Table 11.
Table 11: Imports of Cervids from the United States
Year Deer Elk
1989 483 446
1990 321 205
1992 28 -
1993 202 -
1999 20 3
2000 - 13
2001 - 10

snip...

RA on BSE in Cattle in Canada: Part A - Risk Factors (J16) - December 2002
-46-
For the period 1990-1994 the review was based on original documents
(Restricted Commodity Reports)
held by CFIA veterinary inspectors at ports of entry. These reports
contain product description and
volume, and a classification of the product as a low, medium or high
risk import according to the country
of origin. The review concluded that MBM, for use in ruminant feeds, had
only been imported from the
U.S. (Tracey, 2002).
For imports during the period 1995 to December 2000, transaction
records, obtained from the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), were examined. Of the 4000 entries
examined, 400 required
further investigation. This was based on whether the company was known
to trade in livestock feed
ingredients; whether import permits had been issued to the company for
products of concern; or, whether
any imports of MBM had occurred. To address these 400 entries the CFIA
requested additional
documentation from the CCRA, which formed the basis of an in depth
review. The report indicates that
all the transactions relating to ruminant feed were either
mis-classified or the end use was not correctly
identified. No potentially hazardous imports were detected during the
course of this examination.
In response to a request from a trading partner, the CFIA investigated
Eurostat data (Table 17) which
describe imports of MBM from Europe during the period 1980 - 2000.
The first reports of MBM exports to Canada appear in Eurostat figures
for 1993 (30 metric tonnes
reported as imported from the UK). Import trade data provided by
Statistics Canada (Tables 15 and 16)
indicate that MBM was not imported from the UK during the period 1988 -
2001. A detailed examination of
CCRA transaction reports confirm that highly processed inedible products
have been imported
periodically from the UK since 1995, in the form of dog biscuits, bone
ash and bone charcoal. The
discrepancy between the data sources is attributed to the broad
categories used to specify commodities
which results in inaccuracy not evident in the absence of a detailed
examination.
Canada has imported approximately 11,000 metric tonnes of materials
declared as “flour, meals and
pellets, of meat or meat offal, nes, unfit for human consumption;
greaves” from Denmark. Canadian
records confirm that MBM was imported in certain years during this
period (1994 - 2000). CCRA
transaction records indicate that this material was of porcine or
poultry origin and that it was imported by
a maker of aquaculture feed products.
Imports from Germany appear in Canadian import data for the years 1995
and 1999 but do not appear in
the Eurostat data. The CFIA has determined that poultry meal was
imported in 1999 for inclusion into
aquaculture feed, but was not successful in obtaining specific
information relative to the 1995 importation.
A total of 13 metric tonnes of MBM from France appear in the Eurostat
data for the years 1999 and 2000.
An examination of CCRA transaction records indicate that less than 2
metric tonnes of feather meal were
imported from France, under permit, for use in animal feed. The
discrepancy in data is attributed to errors
in the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System that is used
to identify commodities for the
purposes of freight tariffs and statistics, but which fails to provide
the detail required to track specific
import commodities.
Eurostat indicates that 25 metric tonnes of MBM were imported into
Canada from Belgium in 1998 - 1999.
Canada has no record of these transactions; however, it has been
confirmed that several shipments of
spray-dried hemoglobin, imported under permit from France to Canada,
were shipped via Belgian ports.
Belgium was listed as the country of origin several times, despite there
being clear evidence that this
material came from France. In the absence of Canadian transaction
records identifying a Belgian
exporter, the CFIA concludes that Eurostat data incorrectly attributed
to Belgium, on the basis of a
declared Belgian port of exit, consignments that originated in France.
Noting that no detectable
infectivity has been found in blood or blood components of cattle infect
with BSE (Wells et al 1998, Wells
RA on BSE in Cattle in Canada: Part A - Risk Factors (J16) - December 2002
-47-
et al 1999, Bradley 1999) the CFIA considers that these imports do not
compromise Canada’s BSE
status.
The CFIA has investigated the references to MBM importations from Japan
in the years 1994, 1996 and
1997 which appear in the import trade data tables provided by Statistics
Canada. A detailed examination
of CCRA transaction records for Japanese imports during this period
indicate that there were no
importations of MBM during 1994 and significantly smaller amounts than
indicated by the import trade
data in both 1996 and 1997. The importer, identified by the CCRA
transaction records, is not associated
with the livestock industry. Discrepancies are attributed to either a
misclassification of goods, or a failure
to adjust the import trade data when adjustments occur after the final
accounting of the goods.
A second review of import documents (restricted commodity reports and
CCRA transaction records) was
conducted for the period January 1, 2001 to October 19, 2001, for
potential imports from the EU, Russia
and Japan (Appendix 20). A total of 2707 transactions were examined,
based on a coded description of
the commodity (Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System of the
World Customs
Organization). CFIA requested additional information on 193 of the 2707
transactions in order to verify
that the commodities were in fact approved for import. The majority were
found to be dried hog casings,
pet supplies, supplements and food, bull pizzels, pigs ears and bone
charcoal, all of which are approved
commodities. On the basis of this evaluation, the CFIA confirms that no
MBM was imported into Canada
for use in livestock feeds from these countries during the period in
question.
The CFIA periodically reviews import data to determine whether MBM for
use in livestock feeds has been
inadvertently imported from BSE-infected countries. The Agency has also
considered the possibility of
MBM being substituted for fish meal, which can be imported into Canada
from any country regardless of
BSE status. While fish meal is not known to present a BSE risk,
substitution by MBM could be of concern
if the mis-described product was used in the production of ruminant feed.
Canada is a major producer of farmed salmonids, surpassed only by
Norway, Chile and Scotland in the
production of salmonid products for human consumption. Aquaculture
production has been growing
steadily in Canada for the last 20 years, with a concurrently increasing
demand for protein of appropriate
quality to produce fish feed. Canada produces fish meal (from herring
and scrap fish), but domestic
production consistently lags behind demand, creating a market for
imported fish meal. Most of the
imported fish meal comes from South America, particularly Peru, a
low-cost source. Lesser amounts are
imported from Europe (primarily countries of Scandinavia) and the United
States.
For nutritional reasons, fish meal is the most important ingredient for
salmonid feed; it is also one of the
most costly ingredients. Fish feed manufacturers must incorporate an
adequate percentage of fish meal
in their product to ensure the feed meets producers’ needs. Researchers
have evaluated the use of MBM
as a lower cost replacement for fish meal in salmonid feed, but results
have been disappointing due to
the inadequate nutritional profile of this product relative to fish meal
(MBM contains a much higher ash
content than fish meal). The production of salmonid feed is a
specialized industry, with only seven major
producers in Canada, and failures in feed quality can be readily traced
back to the manufacturer. Thus,
the inadvertent or deliberate incorporation of MBM in salmonid feed
would be unlikely to occur in any
systematic manner and the CFIA considers that there would be little
commercial demand for the
importation of MBM mislabeled as fish meal.
Because there is a demand for fish meal in the manufacture of salmonid
feed and the value of the
product is high compared to other protein sources, the CFIA considers
that imported product described as
fish meal is unlikely to be used in the production of ruminant feed.
RA on BSE in Cattle in Canada: Part A - Risk Factors (J16) - December 2002
In summary, the CFIA has made a thorough investigation of import records
from available sources,
augmented by periodic spot checks of current activity. On the basis of
this assessment, Canada has
imported MBM for livestock feed-associated uses from the United States,
Australia and New Zealand but
not from other countries. The CFIA further considers that importation of
MBM from these sources does
not compromise Canada’s BSE status.

snip...

RA on BSE in Cattle in Canada: Part A - Risk Factors (J16) - December 2002
Table 17: MBM Imports (tonnes). Shading indicates period of different
risk that exports
carried the agent, 1986–1990 being the period of highest risk for U.K.
imports, while
1994–1999 U.K. exports are assumed to have been safer than exports from
other
BSE-affected countries. Sources: C = Completed country questionnaire, E =
EUROSTAT
MBM Imports into Canada from BSE-Affected Countries...

snip...

see url karin posted to see charts of all the potential amplicfication
sources for
BSE from known BSE countries for Canada, and as far as that goes thanks
to Nafta, also for USA and Mexico....

TSS


Steve Dealler wrote:

>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]> #########
>
>Thanks, Karin
>the problem with their risk assessment is that they simply dont have enough data
>with which to carry out their mathematics...anyway, I will try to add it to the
>web site as at least a source for people to look at.
>Steve Dealler
>
>Karin.Irgensxxxxxxxxxxxxxwrote:
>
>
>
>>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]> #########
>>
>>Hello
>>
>>I just found today the Canadian risk assessment for BSE, a 150 pages text
>>from December 2002.
>>
>>http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/ahra/bseris/bserise.pdf
>>
>>All details on Canadian risk imports from UK and other countries should be
>>found there.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Karin Irgens
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>>Fra: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [SMTP:[email protected]]
>>>Sendt: 15. august 2003 16:57
>>>Til: [email protected]
>>>Emne: Re: BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY IN CANADA Follow-up report No.
>>>3 (final report OIE)
>>>
>>>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
>>>#########
>>>
>>>greetings list members,
>>>
>>> > The most likely source of contamination of the feed was asymptomatic
>>> > animals imported into North America from the United Kingdom between
>>> > 1982 and 1989 that entered the food chain through natural attrition.
>>>
>>>N America imported MBM/Greaves by the boatloads, but now
>>>are they admitting that the _live_ cattle imported to N America
>>>is the cause? how can they be sure it was the live cattle and not
>>>some of the tons and tons of MBM from the UK that caused
>>>the only mad cow case in N America? and why is it so far fetched
>>>to believe that more than just one got infected? and how many more
>>>were rendered into 'food for consumption' for any species?
>>>
>>>my records show Canada imported 83 METRIC TONS of MBM from the
>>>UK in the years 1993, 1994, and 1995
>>>
>>>http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m12/tab12.pdf
>>>
>>>HOWEVER, the Times reports 125 metric tons;
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Exports of Meat and Bone
>>>Meal in tons (1000 kg) from
>>>UK
>>>
>>>Source - Sunday Times
>>>
>>>Country 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
>>>
>>>Canada 30 22 31 42
>>>
>>>U.S.A. 20 0
>>>================
>>>look at the live cattle they imported from UK from 86 on.
>>>399 of i counted correctly. .1 gram lethal, amplification etc.
>>>
>>>http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf
>>>
>>>MY RECORDS SHOW USA IMPORTED 44 TONS AND CANADA IMPORTED 83 TONS
>>>OF UK MBM;
>>>
>>>Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:03:16 +0000
>>>X400-Originator: [email protected]
>>>X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
>>>X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=MAFF400/ADMD=ATTmail/C=GB/; m1570208140657aa]
>>>X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
>>>Content-Identifier: m1570208140657aa
>>>Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
>>>Message-ID:
>>>To: [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt
>>>Notification
>>>Requested)
>>>In-Reply-To:
>>>Subject: Re: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???
>>>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>>>
>>>Terry
>>>
>>>Meat and bonemeal is not specifically classified for overseas trade
>>>purposes. The nearest equivalent is listed as "flours and meals of meat
>>>or offals (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves". UK
>>>exports of this to the US are listed below:
>>>
>>>Country Tonnes
>>>1980
>>>1981 12
>>>1982
>>>1983
>>>1984 10
>>>1985 2
>>>1986
>>>1987
>>>1988
>>>1989 20
>>>1990
>>>
>>>Data for exports between 1975 and 1979 are not readily available. These
>>>can be obtained (at a charge) from data retailers appointed by HM
>>>Customs and Excise: BTSL (Tel: 01372 463121) or Abacus (01245 252222).
>>>
>>>Best wishes
>>>Simon Pearsall
>>>Overseas trade statistics Stats (C&F)C
>>>
>>>Simon
>>>as discussed
>>>thanks
>>>Julie
>>>---
>>>Forwarded message:
>>>Sent: Fri Feb 04 21:47:01 2000
>>>Received: Fri Feb 04 21:45:15 2000
>>>
>>>To:
>>>helpline ou=inf o=maff p=maff400 a=attmail c=gb
>>>From:
>>>[email protected] ou=smtp o=maff p=maff400 a=attmail c=gb
>>>
>>>Subject: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>where could I locate data, on the exportation of the U.K.'s meat and
>>>bone
>>>meal, to the U.S., between the years 1975 to 1990?
>>>Thank You
>>>Terry
>>>
>>>=======================================
>>>
>>>USA AND CANADA IMPORTS OF UK CATTLE BETWEEN 1986-1996
>>>
>>>USA = 697
>>>
>>>CANADA = 293
>>>
>>>http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf
>>>
>>>TSS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
>>
>>*****************************************************************
>>This email has been checked by the e-Sweeper Service
>>*****************************************************************
>>
>>
>
>########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
>
>
>

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############ Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 14:28:59 -0500
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Subject: Mexico appointed Vicepresidency for the Americas by the OIE
(BSE/TSEs?)######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]> #########

Greetings list members,

A few comments from someone that has been very concerned about the
BSE/TSE situation in Mexico...TSS

Amigo Terry:
This is all we needed...Dr Jose Angel Del-Valle, Director General de
Salud Animal (Animal Sanitation) from SAGARPA was elected during an
extraordinary meeting of the OIE to take over the Vicepresidency of the
Regional Commissioner for the Americas of the OIE....(never heard of
such position but...)
I do strongly believe that the world deserves a better chance.... Let's
get the polititians out of the way!!
Mexico has not earned such position based on scientific advancements or
procurements to better our animal sanitation nor animal control.... this
is pure politics at its highest...
According to Emerit Prof. Aline S. de Aluja, out the more than 2,200
slaughterhouses only 5 to 10% of them are annually inspected...
http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/losreporteros/325811.html
According to our Dept of Health there are 1,249 slaughterhouses and only
80 of them are federally inspected (?)...
http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/losreporteros/325811.html
In a shocking TVnews report on August 5, 2003, the world learned of the
existance of the largest Black Market (of animals) in Mexico that for
more than 60 years has been operating in Ejido San Bernabe, Almoloya de
Juarez located in the Sate of Mexico where every monday more than 10,000
sick animals (downers, CNS, legs broken and all other illnesses there
are) are broght in for sale, mainly to meatpackers... Pablo Zepeda
(buyer) said that "80% of the animals are downers"...(cattle, sheep,
goats, swine, horses)
Report Title: Mercado de Animales de Desecho,
Reporter: Rosa Maria Olguin,
Source: Televisa
There are many, many, many more articles on the subject.... and our
authorities claim that beef is safe that there is no risk of BSE or
contamination of any kind... UNBELIEVABLE!!!
This is really getting out of hand and we are going to sink the ship and
others will follow... amazing!

snip...

My very best regards,
XXXXXXXXXXX

SECRETARÍA DE AGRICULTURA, GANADERÍA,
DESARROLLO RURAL, PESCA Y ALIMENTACIÓN
Coordinación General de Comunicación Social
Municipio Libre No. 377, PB, Ala B, Col. Santa Cruz Atoyac, Deleg.
Benito Juárez,
C.P. 03310, México, D.F.,Tel.91.83.10.00, Ext. 33055, 33056, 33062
http://www.sagarpa.gob.mx
[email protected] - [email protected]
NUM. 123/04 México, D.F., 25 de mayo de 2004
MÉXICO OCUPARÁ LA VICEPRESIDENCIA DE LA COMISIÓN REGIONAL PARA
LAS AMÉRICAS DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DE LA SALUD ANIMAL
" Eligen los delegados de los países miembros al
representante de México y Director General de Salud
Animal de la Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería,
Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA), José
Ángel Del Valle Molina.
" Se reúnen en Paris, Francia, los representantes de 164
países en la 72ª Sesión General del Comité Técnico
Internacional de la Organización Mundial de la Salud
Animal.
París, Francia, 25 de mayo de 2004.- En reconocimiento al trabajo
zoosanitario
que ha realizado, México ocupará la Vicepresidencia de la Comisión
Regional de
la Organización Mundial de la Salud Animal (OIE) para las Américas que
tiene a
su cargo la elaboración de un Plan Estratégico Regional de Sanidad Animal.
El representante de México ante la OIE y Director General de Salud
Animal de la
Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y
Alimentación,
José Ángel Del Valle Molina, fue electo durante la reunión
extraordinaria de la
Comisión por los delegados de países miembros que están reunidos en esta
ciudad, con motivo de la sesión anual de la Organización Mundial de la Salud
Animal.
Luego de su elección, Del Valle Molina aseguró que México tiene un papel
proactivo en materia de sanidad e inocuidad agroalimentaria,
principalmente en
el rubro de salud animal, para garantizar que los productos que se
comercializan
en el mercado nacional e internacional sean de suficiente calidad e
inocuidad en
beneficio del consumidor.
2
A la 72ª Sesión General del Comité Técnico Internacional de la OIE
asisten los
representantes de 164 países miembros, con el objeto de dar seguimiento y
evaluar los avances en materia zoosanitaria en todo el mundo. El
representante
mexicano expuso aquí las medidas que ha instrumentado el gobierno federal
para garantizar la salud animal y con ello la salud pública del país.
El grupo de expertos internacionales que se reúne durante una semana en
Francia, entre ellos la delegación mexicana, revisarán la importancia de
contar
con una adecuada infraestructura en sanidad animal, esquemas de cooperación
regional en materia de inocuidad agroalimentaria, medidas de protección
contra
enfermedades pecuarias e impacto en la salud pública.
El funcionario de México mencionó que dentro de la agenda de los países que
integran la OIE destacan los temas zoosanitarios relacionados con casos
registrados recientemente en algunas regiones del mundo, como la
Encefalopatía Espongiforme Bovina, Virus del Oeste del Nilo, Influenza
Aviar,
Fiebre Aftosa y Newcastle, así como las propuestas de los expertos para
solucionar dichos casos.
Uno de los aspectos más relevantes que México plantea ante la OIE es la
definición de planes estratégicos regionales para el desarrollo de la salud
animal, planteó el funcionario de la SAGARPA al resumir la postura de
México
ante la OIE.
De acuerdo con el representante de México, los temas que tienen más
interés de
la comunidad científica y zoosanitaria regional son la salud animal, la
vigilancia,
rastreabilidad y epidemiología, a efecto de desarrollar herramientas
básicas que
aseguren la sanidad en los países miembros de la OIE.
Un tema común de la agenda, explicó Del Valle Molina, es establecer los
objetivos relacionados con el desarrollo sostenido de servicios veterinarios
nacionales flexibles y fuertes, sistemas efectivos de información sobre
sanidad
animal e incremento de la participación de los países en el desarrollo e
implementación de estándares sanitarios.
El Gobierno Federal instrumentó hace unos días un Sistema Nacional de
Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria para fortalecer el status
sanitario
de México en materia vegetal, animal, acuícola y alimentario, con la
participación
coordinada de diversas dependencias gubernamentales.
Un grupo de miembros oficiales de la OIE, integrados en la Comisión Regional
para las Américas, se reunieron en México desde el año pasado y
posteriormente, en Fort Collins, Colorado, para comenzar a desarrollar
un Plan
Regional que fortalezca el estatus de salud animal en la región para los
próximos
6 años.
****
TSS

######### http://mailhost-alt.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Flounder Posted:
In a shocking TVnews report on August 5, 2003, the world learned of the
existance of the largest Black Market (of animals) in Mexico that for
more than 60 years has been operating in Ejido San Bernabe, Almoloya de
Juarez located in the Sate of Mexico where every monday more than 10,000
sick animals (downers, CNS, legs broken and all other illnesses there
are) are broght in for sale, mainly to meatpackers... Pablo Zepeda
(buyer) said that "80% of the animals are downers"...(cattle, sheep,
goats, swine, horses)

------------------------------

But we as consumers shouldn't have the right to know where our meat comes from (M-COOL) :wink: :???: :cry: :mad:
 

Latest posts

Top