SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  




From: TSS ()
Subject: Steady Progress toward Resumption of U.S. Beef Imports by Japan or force feeding Japan N. AMERICAs MAD COW BEEF
Date: October 19, 2005 at 7:01 am PST


Steady Progress toward Resumption of U.S. Beef Imports by Japan
-By The Economic Section
(Embassy of Japan)

The Food Safety Commission (FSC) of Japan has been deliberating since May on the safety of resuming U.S. beef imports--under certain conditions--which were banned in December 2003 following the first mad cow case in the U.S. At issue is the safety of food, and not protection of the domestic beef industry. Recent progress at the FSC indicates that Japan is moving steadily toward resuming the import of U.S. beef.

On September 12, the FSC started discussions on a draft conclusion document pertaining to this matter. After a meeting on October 4, the Chairman of the Prion sub-committee of the FSC expressed the view that the safety of beef to be imported again from the US will not be very different from that of Japanese beef. He also said that if all things went well, it would take only two more meetings for the sub-committee to finalize the conclusion document. The FSC then announced on October 17 that its next meeting at the sub-committee level to consider the resumption of U.S. beef imports will be held on October 24.

Although there will still be some necessary steps remaining after the FSC arrives at a conclusion, including a public comment procedure of four weeks, there are some promising signs. On October 5, the Japanese media reported that "resumption of import of U.S. beef by the end of the year is now almost a certainty." The Tokyo stock market reacted positively as well: also on October 5, the stock of Yoshinoya D&C, the most famous gyudon (beef bowl) fast food chain, which relies essentially on U.S. beef, recorded a maximum allowable single day gain. At the same time, the U.S. government is preparing to lift its ban on Japanese beef imports. Although a specific date for the resumption of bilateral beef trade cannot be given, Japan and the U.S. are close to having access to beef imported from one another.

http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/jicc/EJN_no5.htm#bse

Visit to Japan by President Bush of the United States of America

Embassy of Japan
October 18, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, will visit Japan on November 15 (Tue) and 16 (Wed) and will hold a Japan-U.S. summit meeting with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in Kyoto.


President Bush's itinerary in Japan and other details are still being coordinated.

http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/

Posted on Mon, Oct. 17, 2005

Possible sanctions against Japan include tariff on luxury items

BETSY BLANEY

Associated Press


GRAPEVINE, Texas - Capitol Hill discussions on possible sanctions against Japan, which has yet to lift its ban on American beef, could bring higher prices for luxury cars and high-end televisions made there, a national cattle industry leader said Monday.

Jim McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, told Texas cattle feeders at their annual convention that Japan's refusal to reopen its markets to U.S. beef could bring such sanctions or taxes.

No sanctions are in place now but congressmen are looking at the issue, which McAdams said would not include tariffs or taxes "on goods for those who can't afford them."

Late last month, Japan's Food Safety Commission said it needed more time to weigh U.S. safeguards. Last fall, Japan agreed to lift the ban, which started shortly after a Canadian-born cow was confirmed infected with mad cow disease in December 2003.

After Japan said it needed more time, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the stalling "will sorely tempt economic trade action against Japan."

"The objective is not to start a trade war," McAdams said after his comments to the Texas Cattle Feeders Association. "This is something none of us wants to do."

In the year it implemented the ban, Japan imported more than $1.5 billion worth of U.S. beef and was the country's biggest customer.

A second U.S. case of mad cow disease was confirmed in June in a Texas-born cow. Japan, in contrast, has found 20 cases of mad cow disease. U.S. regulators proposed last month to partially lift the ban on Japanese beef.

After the Texas finding, Japanese officials said the second case would not directly affect deliberations on reopening Japan's market to U.S. beef. A final decision was instead dependent upon resolving remaining safety issues.

If the ban is lifted, the two countries have agreed to allow the importation of U.S. beef from animals younger than 21 months.

U.S. Secretary Mike Johanns, in a video hookup with the convention, said he's been warning Japanese officials for months that "there was a point here where folks on the Hill would lose patience," and might consider sanctions.

But, he said, "I'm not sure that is the most expeditious way to go about this," Johanns said. "In fact, I would argue that it is not."

McAdams and Johanns spoke to about 500 members of the association, which numbers about 5,800 cattle feeders in Mexico, Australia, Canada and Argentina and the United States. Texas is the nation's largest cattle producing state.

Charlie Sellers, chairman of the Amarillo-based association, said his group would rather the Washington legislators not have to resort to economic sanctions on luxury products.

"But we've go to start somewhere," he said.

---

Editors: Betsy Blaney has been the AP's Lubbock correspondent since 2001 and regularly reports on agricultural issues.

ON THE NET

Texas Cattle Feeders Association: http://www.tcfa.org

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/12926168.htm

10/17/2005 11:09:00 AM


Canada Could Export Beef To Japan By December

WINNIPEG (Dow Jones)--Canada could be supplying the Japanese market with beef products as early as December as long as the implementation of new import rules by the Japanese Government goes smoothly, an official with the Canadian Beef Export Federation (CBEF) said.

"If there is no delay in implementing the new rules, Canada could be shipping beef products to Japan as early as December," said Ted Haney, president of the Canadian Beef Export Federation (CBEF). "However, we have also been urging the industry not to get hung up on a particular month as any delay could prolong the resumption of beef trade with Japan."

No Canadian beef has been exported to Japan since prior to the discovery of BSE in a cow in Alberta in May of 2003.

Haney said that Japan was expected to complete its regulatory changes that will allow Canada to resume shipments of beef sometime between December 2005 and March 2006.

Japan's regulation changes will mean some restrictions for Canada's beef exporters, he said.

Haney said that Canada will be able to sell to Japan all edible beef products, including boneless beef, bone-in beef and offal products, which is an unrestricted range of products.

"But the restriction that will apply is that all the beef must have been derived from animals that have been verified to be 20 months or age or less," Haney said.

The Japanese age restriction will make it difficult at first for Canadian packers to comply. But over the year as the industry adapts, beef shipments from Canada to Japan should grow, he said.

"Our biggest problem is that we do not have a sufficient number of age- verified cattle available in commercial position at this time," Haney said. "It will not be good enough just to have 100,000 to 120,000 beef cattle age- verified. It will also require some organization on the part of the packers meaning a commitment to have kill capacity for these age verified cattle."

Canada's cattle industry has already initiated a program aimed at identifying and providing an age verification process, Haney said.

The Canadian Cattle Identification Agency has already been promoting throughout Canada the need to submit birth dates from cattle whose ID numbers have already been put into a computer-based tracking system.

He said there are already over 600,000 cattle in Canada in the system which are age-verified, although the majority of these animals were from the dairy industry.

Haney pointed out that the biggest, single source of age-verified cattle were those born in Quebec.

"All cattle in Quebec are not only identified, but they are also age- verified as well," he said.

The biggest processor of these age-verified cattle at the moment is Better Beef Limited in Guelph, Ontario, while the second-largest processor was located near Montreal, he said.

Haney said these two companies process a total of 2,000 to 2,500 Quebec cattle per week, accounting for roughly 3% of Canada's total slaughter capacity.

"Those two plants will likely be the first eligible companies that will be able to sell beef products to Japan," Haney said.

He speculated that a similar number of age-verified cattle would be processed by the other companies in Canada so that Canada will have 4,000 to 5,000 cattle per week whose products will be eligible to be exported to Japan.

Another potential problem is that it will not be until February or March that Canada will have enough young cattle moving through the system, Haney said. “Japan will be opening their border to Canadian beef at a time when Canada will have the lowest actual supply of cattle coming through the system," he said.

Haney forecast that the number of age-verified cattle in Canada eligible to be processed for the Japanese market would likely double within a year.

Canadian processors in a survey hoped to export 33,712 metric tonnes of Canadian beef to Japan in calendar year 2007, which would compare with none in both 2004 and so far in 2005, Haney said. By 2010, Canada was hoping exports of beef to Japan would be in the 47,656-ton range and by 2015 in the 67,551- ton range.

-By Dwayne Klassen, Dow Jones Newswires; (204)-947-1700;

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=11640

Leading Markets for U.S. Beef Plus Beef Variety Meat Exports

January - August 2005

http://www.usmef.org/TradeLibrary/files/export05_08_BVMPlus.pdf

Working Group Report on

the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of

CANADA

2004

snip...

- 2 -

2. EXTERNAL CHALLENGES

2.1 Import of cattle from BSE-Risk2 countries

An overview of the data on live cattle imports is presented in table 1 and is based on

data as provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports

as available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk

periods are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already

represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC July

2000 and updated January 2002).

• According to the CD, 231 cattle were imported from UK during the years 1980 to

1990 and no cattle imports from UK were recorded after 1990.

• According to Eurostat, altogether 198 cattle have been imported from the UK during

the years 1980 to 1990, Additionally 500 were recorded in 1993; this import is

1 For the purpose of the GBR assessment the abbreviation "MBM" refers to rendering products, in particular

the commodities Meat and Bone Meal as such; Meat Meal; Bone Meal; and Greaves. With regard to imports

it refers to the customs code 230110 "flours, meals and pellets, made from meat or offal, not fit for human

2 BSE-Risk countries are all countries already assessed as GBR III or IV or with at least one confirmed

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-14 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 3 -

mentioned in Eurostat and the updated UK export statistic as male calves, but not

mentioned in the original UK export statistics. According to the CD, detailed

investigations were carried out and it is very unlikely that the 500 calves have been

imported. Therefore, they were not taken into account.

• According to the CD, in 1990 all cattle imported from UK and Ireland since 1982

were placed in a monitoring program.

• Following the occurrence of the BSE index case in 1993 (imported from UK in 1987

at the age of 6 months), an attempt was made to trace all other cattle imported from

UK between 1982 and 1990.

• Of the 231 cattle imported from the UK between 1980 and 1990, 108 animals had

been slaughtered and 9 had died. From the remaining, 37 were exported, 76 were

sent to incineration and one was buried; these were not entering the rendering system

and therefore not taken into account.

• According to the CD, 16 cattle were imported from Ireland (according to Eurostat

20), of which 9 were slaughtered, 3 died. The remaining 4 were incinerated and did

therefore not enter the rendering system. According to the CD, the 6 animals which

were imported in 1990 according to Eurostat, were never imported.

• Moreover 22 cattle have been imported from Japan (through USA), of which 4 were

exported (excluded from the table) and 14 were destroyed and therefore not entering

the rendering system, 4 were slaughtered.

• Of 28 imported bovines from Denmark, 1 was destroyed and 1 was exported. Of the

19 buffalos imported in 2000, 1 was incinerated and the others were ordered to be

destroyed.

• Additionally in total 264 cattle according to the CD (276 according to other sources)

were imported from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and

Switzerland.

• The numbers imported according to the CD and Eurostat are very similar. Some

discrepancies in the year of import can be explained by an extended quarantine;

therefore it is likely that imports according to Eurostat in 1980 and imports

according to the CD in 1981 are referring to the same animals.

• Additionally, between 16.000 and 340.000 bovines have annually been imported

from US, almost all are steers and heifers. In total, between 1981 and 2003,

according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to other sources 1.5 million

cattle have been imported.

• According to the CD, feeder/slaughter cattle represent typically more than 90% of

the imported cattle from the USA; therefore, only 10% of the imported cattle have

been taken into account.

snip...

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

2.2 Import of MBM or MBM-containing feedstuffs from BSE-Risk

countries

An overview of the data on MBM imports is presented in table 2 and is based on data

provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports as

available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk periods

are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already

represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC, July

2000 and updated January 2002).

According to the CD, no imports of MBM took place from UK since 1978 (initially

because of FMD regulations).

• According to Eurostat data, Canada imported 149 tons MBM from the UK in the

period of 1993 to 2001. According to up-dated MBM statistics from UK (August

2001) no mammalian MBM was exported to Canada from 1993 – 1996. As it was

illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and MBM from UK since

27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have included nonmammalian

MBM. Therefore, these imports were not taken into account.

• According to the CD, imports of MBM have taken place from Denmark, Germany,

France, Japan and US.

• According to Eurostat Canada imported MBM from Denmark, Belgium, France and

Ireland.

• According to the CD further investigations concluded that all imported MBM from

Denmark consisted of pork and poultry origin and was directly imported for

aquaculture, the imported MBM from France was feather meal, the imported MBM

from Germany was poultry meal for aquaculture and the imported MBM from

Belgium was haemoglobin; therefore these imports were not taken into account.

• The main imports of MBM were of US origin, according to the CD around 250.000

tons, according to other sources around 310.000 tons between 1988 and 2003.

snip...

2.3 Overall assessment of the external challenge

The level of the external challenge that has to be met by the BSE/cattle system is

estimated according to the guidance given by the SSC in its final opinion on the GBR of

July 2000 (as updated in January 2002).

Live cattle imports:

In total the country imported according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to

other data 1.5 million live cattle from BSE risk countries, of which 231 (CD)

respectively 698 (other sources) came from the UK. The numbers shown in table 1 are

the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for the assessment of

the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the resulting external challenge is

as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the different aspects discussed

above that allow to assume that certain imported cattle did not enter the domestic

BSE/cattle system, i.e. were not rendered into feed. In the case of Canada, the 500 cattle

imported from UK according to Eurostat were not taken into account and it is assumed

that all incinerated, buried, exported animals and the animals still alive did not enter the

rendering system and were therefore excluded from the external challenge.

MBM imports:

In total the country imported according to the CD around 300.000 tons, according to

other sources nearly 360.000 tons of MBM from BSE risk countries, of which 149 tons

came from the UK. The majority consisted of MBM imported from the US. The

numbers shown in table 2 are the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted

imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the

resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account

the different aspects discussed above that allow to assume that certain imported MBM

did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system or did not represent an external challenge

for other reasons. As it was illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and

MBM from UK since 27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have

included non-mammalian MBM. In the case of Canada all imported MBM from UK,

Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France was not taken into account.

snip...

3. STABILITY

3.1 Overall appreciation of the ability to avoid recycling of BSE

infectivity, should it enter processing

Feeding

The annual Canadian production of MBM is approximately 575,000 tons of which

approx. 40,000 tons are exported each year, mainly to USA.

Use of MBM in cattle feed

• Before the feed ban, dairy cattle received supplementary feed containing MBM

during their productive life (maximum 200-400 g MBM per day). Beef cattle in the

western part of the country do not usually receive complementary feed. Beef cattle

in the eastern part receive normally no supplement protein but the calves could have

access to creep feeds containing MBM, after weaning the ratios may have contained

supplemental protein containing MBM (100-400 g per day).

• According to the CD, MBM is mainly fed to pigs and poultry and included in pet

food.

• According to the CD, only a proportion of dairy cattle may have received MBM.

Feed bans

• Before 1997, there was no legal restriction to include MBM into cattle feed.

• An MBM-ban was introduced in August 1997; it is forbidden since to feed

mammalian MBM to ruminants except if of pure porcine, equine and non

mammalian origin, i.e. in practice a ruminant-to-ruminant ban (RMBM-ban).

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 9 -

Potential for cross-contamination and measures taken against

• Cross-contamination in the about 600 feed mills is assumed to be possible as long as

cattle and pig feed is produced in the same production lines, and premises.

• Cross-contamination during transport is possible, particularly if the same trucks are

used for transporting ruminant MBM (RMBM) and non-ruminant MBM (porcine or

poultry MBM which still might be included into cattle feed) or for transporting

pig/poultry feed and cattle feed.

• On-farm cross-contamination is regarded to be possible.

• Cross-contamination of cattle feed with RMBM can not be excluded. Hence, as

reasonable worst case scenario, it has to be assumed that cattle, in particular dairy

cattle, can still be exposed to RMBM and hence to BSE-infectivity, should it enter

the feed chain.

Control of Feed bans and cross-contamination

• With the introduction of the RMBM ban (1997) the feed mills (approximately 600)

were checked for compliance with the ban, including good manufacturing practices

(GMP) and record keeping, i.e. the separation in production of MBM containing

ruminant material (RMBM) from non-ruminant MBM.

• The feed mills had previously – since 1983 – been regularly checked in relation to

production of medicated feed.

• No examinations are performed to assess cross-contamination with RMBM of the

protein (e.g. non ruminant MBM) that enters cattle feed. Differentiation would

anyway be difficult.

Rendering

Raw material used for rendering

• Ruminant material is rendered together with material from other species, but

according to the CD only in the production of MBM prohibited for use in ruminant

feeds.

• Slaughter by-products, including specified risk material (SRM) and fallen stock are

rendered.

• The country expert estimated that 20% of the rendering plants, processing 20% of

the total amount of raw material, are connected to slaughterhouses. Their raw

material is more than 98 % animal waste from these slaughterhouses while less than

2 % is fallen stock. No estimation was given for the remaining 80% of the rendering

capacity.

• There are 32 rendering plants of which 3 are processing blood exclusively.

Rendering processes

• The rendering systems (parameters) were specified for 6 plants producing mixed

MBM, none of these fulfilled the 133/20/3 standard. Of these, 5 have dedicated

facilities to produce products for use in ruminant feed and products not permitted for

use in ruminant feed.

• The remaining plants process porcine or poultry material exclusively.

SRM and fallen stock

• There is an SRM ban for human food in place since 2003.

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 10 -

• However, SRM are rendered together with other slaughter waste and fallen stock.

However, according to the CD, MBM with SRM is not permitted to be fed to

ruminants.

Conclusion on the ability to avoid recycling

• Between 1980 and 1997 the Canadian system would not have been able to avoid

recycling of the BSE-agent to any measurable extent. If the BSE-agent was

introduced into the feed chain, it could have reached cattle.

• Since 1997 this ability gradually improved with the introduction of the ruminant

MBM ban and its implementation.

• Since cross-contamination cannot be excluded, and as SRM is still rendered by

processes unable to significantly reduce BSE-infectivity, the system is still unable to

avoid recycling of BSE-infectivity already present in the system or incoming.

3.2 Overall appreciation of the ability to identify BSE-cases and to

eliminate animals at risk of being infected before they are processed

Cattle population structure

• Cattle population: 12.15 Million in 1988 increasing to 14.6 Million in 2001;

• Of the total cattle population, 2.2 million are dairy cattle and 12.4 million are beef.

• The cattle population above 24 months of age: approx. 6.0 Million.

• Of the approximately 2.2 Million dairy cattle 2 Million are located in the two eastern

provinces Ontario and Quebec.

• Mixed farming (cattle and mono-gastric species) is usually not practiced; the

country expert estimated the proportion of mixed farming to be less than 1%.

• Individual regions traditionally have ID systems under provincial authorities. Brand

inspectors are present when cattle are assembled. It is estimated by the Canadians

that the level of a national, uniform ID for cattle is less than 10%; most of those

individual pedigree animals. Mandatory ID for the milk-fed veal sector was

implemented in Quebec in 1996, but does not contain information on the herd of

origin. An agreement of the relevant industries to develop a national cattle ID and

trace back strategy was reached on 1 May 1998 (starting in 2001).Since 2002, a

national identification program is existing. Al cattle leaving any farm premises must

be uniquely identified by ear tag.

BSE surveillance

• BSE was made notifiable in 1990.

• Every cow over one year of age exhibiting central nervous system signs suggestive

of BSE submitted to a laboratory or presented at an abattoir is subjected to a BSE

laboratory diagnostic test (histology and over the past years also PrPSc-based

laboratory tests).

• In addition, cattle submitted for rabies examination and found rabies negative are

examined for BSE. Samples are prepared immediately upon arrival to the federal

laboratory responsible for the rabies diagnostic for possible later BSE examination,

i.e. formalin fixation.

• Since the 1940’s, a rabies control program has been in place, where farmers,

veterinarians and the general public are well educated about this neurological

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 11 -

disease. In 1990, when BSE was made notifiable, this awareness was extended to

suspicions of BSE.

• Since 1993 the number of brains examined per year did exceed the number

recommended by OIE (300 - 336 for countries with a cattle population over 24

months of age of 5.0 to 7.0 Million) in all years, except in 1995 (table 4).

year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

samples 225 645 426 269 454 759 940 895 1΄020 1΄581 3΄377 3΄361

Table 4: Number of bovine brains annually examined for CNS diseases, including BSE.

• According to the CD approx. 98% of the examined cattle were older than 24 months

and approx. 90% exhibited neurological symptoms. Although the identification

system of Canada does not document the birth date or age of the animals, according

to the CD, examination of the dentition is used to ascertain the maturity of the

animals.

• The list of neurological differential diagnoses for the 754 brains examined in 1997

included encephalitis (70 cases), encephalomalacia (19), hemophilus (7),

hemorrhage (2), listeriosis (38), meningoencephalitis (36), rabies (22), tumors (2),

other conditions (135) and no significant findings (423).

• Compensation is paid for suspect BSE cases as well as for animals ordered to be

destroyed (90-95% of market value with a maximum of 2,500 Can$ per cow).

• Diagnostic criteria developed in the United Kingdom are followed at ADRI,

Nepean. According to the very detailed protocol for the collection, fixation and

submission of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) specimens at abattoirs

under inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the specimen shall be

shipped to National Center for Foreign Animal Disease, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

• In 2003, around 3000 animals from risk populations have been tested.

• According to the CD, it is aimed to test a minimum of 8000 risk animals (animals

with clinical signs consistent with BSE, downer cows, animals died on farm animals

diseased or euthanized because of serious illness) in 2004 and then continue to

progressively increase the level of testing to 30,000.

• In May 2003, Canada reported its first case of domestic BSE. A second case was

detected in the US on 23 December 2003 and traced back to Canadian origin. Both

were born before the feed ban and originated from Western Canada.

3.3 Overall assessment of the stability

For the overall assessment of the stability, the impact of the three main stability factors

(i.e. feeding, rendering and SRM-removal) and of the additional stability factor,

surveillance, has to be estimated. Again, the guidance provided by the SSC in its

opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as updated January 2002) is applied.

Feeding

Until 1997, it was legally possible to feed ruminant MBM to cattle and a certain fraction of

cattle feed (for calves and dairy cattle) is assumed to have contained MBM. Therefore

feeding was "Not OK". In August 1997 a ruminant MBM ban was introduced but feeding

of non-ruminant MBM to cattle remained legal as well as feeding of ruminant MBM to

non-ruminant animals. This makes control of the feed ban very difficult because laboratory

differentiation between ruminant and non ruminant MBM is difficult if not impossible.

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

Due to the highly specialised production system in Canada, various mammalian MBM

streams can be separated. Such a feed ban would therefore be assessed as "reasonably

OK", for all regions where this highly specialised system exists. However, several areas

in Canada do have mixed farming and mixed feed mills, and in such regions, an RMBM

ban would not suffice. Additionally, official controls for cattle feeds to control for the

compliance with the ban were not started until the end of 2003. Thus, for the whole

country, the assessment of the feeding after 1997 remains "Not OK".

Rendering

The rendering industry is operating with processes that are not known to reduce infectivity.

It is therefore concluded that the rendering was and is "Not OK".

SRM-removal

SRM and fallen stock were and are rendered for feed. Therefore SRM-removal is assessed

as "Not OK"

snip...

4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing

A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least

partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in

the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew

significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached

processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with

continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated

A risk that BSE-infectivity was recycled and propagated exists since a processing risk

first appeared; i.e. in the early 90s. Until today this risk persists and increases fast

because of the extremely unstable BSE/cattle system in Canada.

5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE-RISK

5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge

The current geographical BSE-risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level

that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.

This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because at

that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.

snip...

full text;


http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/563/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_annex_en1.pdf


EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)
Publication date: 20 August 2004
Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

Report

Summary
Summary of the Scientific Report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.


http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573_en.html

SUMMARY

Summary of Scientific Report
http://www.efsa.eu.int
1 of 1
Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority
on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of
United States of America (USA)
Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted July 2004
Summary of scientific report
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the
Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR)
were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on
the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more
cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific
report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period
1980-2003.
The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in
the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered
in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible
that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to
an internal challenge in the early nineties.
A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk
countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some
imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when
domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of
the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from
BSE risk countries.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed
that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as
there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very
unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the
BSE-agent persistently increases.
Key words: BSE, geographical risk assessment, GBR, USA, third countries

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_summary_en1.pdf

REPORT (6 PAGES)

snip...

EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 3, 1-6 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of
Conclusions
The European Food Safety Authority concludes:
1. The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic
cattle in the middle of the eighties. This cattle imported in the mid eighties could have
been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early
nineties. It is possible that meat and bone meal (MBM) imported into the USA
reached domestic cattle and lead to an internal challenge in the early nineties.
2. A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE
risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together
with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the
mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing.
Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued
imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
3. The current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed
that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.
4. This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because
at that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.
5. It is also worth noting that the current GBR conclusions are not dependent on the large
exchange of imports between USA and Canada. External challenge due to exports to
the USA from European countries varied from moderate to high. These challenges
indicate that it was likely that BSE infectivity was introduced into the North American
continent.
6. EFSA and its Scientific Expert Working group on GBR are concerned that the
available information was not confirmed by inspection missions as performed by the
Food and Veterinary office (FVO – DG SANCO) in Member States and other third
countries. They recommend including, as far as feasible, BSE-related aspects in
future inspection missions.
Expected development of the GBR
As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains
extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically)
infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.
A table summarising the reasons for the current assessment is given in the table below

snip...

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf


EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of Mexico
Last updated: 08 September 2004
Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

Report

http://www.efsa.eu.int
3 of 6
Conclusions
The European Food Safety Authority concludes:
1. The BSE agent was probably imported into Mexico and could have reached domestic
cattle. These cattle imported could have been rendered and therefore led to an internal
EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 4, 1-6 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of
challenge in the mid to late 1990’s. It is possible that imported MBM into Mexico
reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge around 1993.
2. It is likely that BSE infectivity entered processing at the time of imported ‘at - risk’
MBM (1993) and at the time of slaughter of imported live ‘at - risk’ cattle (mid to late
1990s). The high level of external challenge is maintained throughout the reference
period, and the system has not been made stable. Thus it is likely that BSE infectivity
was recycled and propagated from approximately 1993. The risk has since grown
consistently due to a maintained internal and external challenge and lack of a stable
system.
3. The current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed
that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.
4. EFSA and its Scientific Expert Working group on GBR are concerned that the
available information was not confirmed by inspection missions as performed by the
Food and Veterinary office (FVO – DG SANCO) in Member States and other third
countries. They recommend including, as far as feasible, BSE-related aspects in
future inspection missions.

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_v2_en1.pdf

Summary

Summary of Scientific Report
http://www.efsa.eu.int
1 of 2
Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority
on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of
MEXICO
Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted July 2004
SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC REPORT
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the
Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR)
were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on
the GBR in Mexico, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected
with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Mexico. This scientific report addresses the
GBR of Mexico as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.
The BSE agent was probably imported into Mexico and could have reached domestic cattle.
These cattle imported could have been rendered and therefore led to an internal challenge in
the mid to late 1990s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Mexico
reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge around 1993.
It is likely that BSE infectivity entered processing at the time of imported ‘at - risk’ MBM
(1993) and at the time of slaughter of imported live ‘at - risk’ cattle (mid to late 1990s). The
high level of external challenge is maintained throughout the reference period, and the system
has not been made stable. Thus it is likely that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated
from approximately 1993. The risk has since grown consistently due to a maintained internal
and external challenge and lack of a stable system.
EFSA concludes that the current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely
but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSEagent.
The GBR is likely to increase due to continued internal and external challenge, coupled
with a very unstable system.
Key words: BSE, geographical risk assessment, GBR, Mexico, third countries
Summary of Scientific Report
http://www.efsa.eu.int
2 of 2


http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_summary_en1.pdf


Summary of the Scientific Report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Mexico, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Mexico. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Mexico as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into Mexico and could have reached domestic cattle. These cattle imported could have been rendered and therefore led to an internal challenge in the mid to late 1990s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Mexico reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge around 1993.

It is likely that BSE infectivity entered processing at the time of imported ‘at - risk’ MBM (1993) and at the time of slaughter of imported live ‘at - risk’ cattle (mid to late 1990s). The high level of external challenge is maintained throughout the reference period, and the system has not been made stable. Thus it is likely that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated from approximately 1993. The risk has since grown consistently due to a maintained internal and external challenge and lack of a stable system.

EFSA concludes that the current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. The GBR is likely to increase due to continued internal and external challenge, coupled with a very unstable system.

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/565_en.html

ONE YEAR PREVIOUSLY ;

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder@wt.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:03 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Cc: ggraber@cvm.fda.gov; Linda.Grassie@fda.gov; 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




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: