|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: TSS ()
Monday 27 of March, 04:06 p.m. INCREASE OF 300 PERCENT EXPORT OF BOVINE MEAT TO JAPAN IN 2005 Mexico, 27 Sea (Notimex).- the exports of bovine meat from Mexico to Japan they grew 300 percents the year last with respect to 2004, thanks to the effort of the producers, the support of the government federal and to the observance of the quality controls and inocuidad. Thus the president informed into the Mexican Association of Engordadores of Ganado Bovino (AMEG), Juan Barrio Aguirre, during Tasting of Cuts of Mexican Meat 2006, where it was demonstrated why Mexico is of the few countries that can sell meat to nations demanding like Japan. As well, the holder of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Cattle ranch, Rural development, Fishes and Feeding (Sagarpa), Francisco Mayorga Castañeda grove, assured that Mexico is a country where the prestige of certificate Type of Inspection Federal (TIF) plays a role important. That credibility, said, is conquering to other countries, where there are consumers who, like we, have confidence in seal TIF, "has confidence in the Mexican authorities, in which certificamos like innocuous product, as healthy product ". Mayorga Castañeda grove added that at the moment the Japanese market it consumes eight thousand tons of Mexican meat that represents a value of almost 50 million dollars, while in 2004 they were only exported two thousand tons to that destiny. It trusted that this year the consumption increases to 22 thousand tons, already that the Japanese government has recognized Mexico the efforts that do to safeguard the sanitary controls and he recommended that stimulate the export from meat to the Asian country. In as much, Barrio Aguirre recognized the support of the Sagarpa, then it works with the producer and "it allows to promote with pride a meat that by generations it has contributed with quality and inocuidad in feeding of the Mexican town ". Also, the holder of the AMEG indicated that Mexico is a country free of diseases like the one of the mad-cows, the foot and mouth, among others, and is of the few countries that can export meat to countries like Japan. http://mx.news.yahoo.com/060327/7/1nqu5.html 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. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_summary_en1.pdf Assessment EFSA refers to the Working Group Report (annex) prepared by the EFSA Scientific Expert Working Group on GBR for full details on the assessment. External Challenge Mexico was exposed to a negligible external challenge for the period 1980-1990, a very high external challenge for the period 1991-1995 and an extremely high external challenge for period 1996-2003. 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. On the basis of the available information it was concluded that Mexico’s BSE/cattle system was very unstable for the entire period 1980-2003. This indicates that BSE infectivity, if imported, could have reached domestic cattle and probably would have been recycled and amplified. Feeding Feeding meat and bone meal (MBM) to cattle was legally possible until October 2000 and the information provided indicates that it was common practice for both dairy and beef cattle. Therefore feeding was assumed to be “not OK” until the end of 2000. The feed ban is of ruminant MBM only and good evidence of its effectiveness is not provided. Therefore feeding remains “not OK” since then. Rendering Rendering is and was common practice in Mexico. Ruminant material is included, excluding most SRM and most fallen stock. The process used was and is not adequate for reducing BSE - infectivity. Therefore rendering is assessed as having been "not OK" throughout the reference period. SRM-removal There is no SRM ban. However, SRM is consumed by humans and it does not tend to enter the feed chain and fallen stock and diseased animals are incinerated. Hence SRM - removal it is assessed as "reasonably OK" throughout the reference period. BSE surveillance There is some passive and active BSE surveillance. However, given the large cattle population size, the BSE surveillance system in Mexico is insufficient. Recent plans have been introduced to increase surveillance efforts since 2004. 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 Mexico. http://www.efsa.eu.int 4 of 6 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. Expected development of the GBR The GBR is likely to increase due to continued internal and external challenge, coupled with a very unstable system. Since recent improvements in the safety of MBM production in many countries or significant recent reductions in the incidence of BSE are not taken into account for the assessment of the external challenge, the external challenge assessed after 2001 could be overestimated and is the worst case assumption. However all current GBR conclusions are not dependent on these assumptions in any of the countries assessed. For future assessments and when the impact of the production, surveillance and true incidence changes has been fully quantified, these developments should be taken into account. A table summarising the reasons for the current assessment is given in the table below. Documentation provided to EFSA • Letter with the ref D(2003)KVD/ip/420722 from the European Commission requesting a geographical risk assessment for the appearance of BSE in a country. • Country Dossier as prepared by the country in response to the EC and EFSA data collection request. • Other sources of data information i.e. exports from third countries and Eurostat data. • SSC, July 2000. Final opinion on the Geographical Risk of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (GBR). EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 4, 1-6 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of Mexico. http://www.efsa.eu.int 5 of 6 • SSC, January 2002. Updated opinion on the Geographical Risk of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (GBR). Acknowledgment Members of the EFSA Scientific Expert Working Group on GBR are acknowledged for their valuable contribution to this mandate. The members are: Didier Calavas, Aline De Koeijer, Michael Gravenor, John Griffin, Dagmar Heim, Matthias Kramer, Riitta Maijala, Mo Salman, Vittorio Silano, Emmanuel Vanopdenbosch, and Stig Widell. Annex Details of the assessment are presented in the report as prepared by the EFSA GBR Expert Working Group: http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/566_en.html Mexico, Summary of the GBR-Assessment, July 2004 GBR Level : III** EXTERNAL CHALLENGE STABILITY INTERACTION of EXTERNAL CHALLENGE and STABILITY 1980-1990: Negligible 1991-1995: Very high 1996-2003: Extremely high 1980-2003: Very unstable Live cattle imports MBM imports Feeding Rendering SRM-removal BSE surveillance Any external challenge would have met the very unstable system and infectivity would have been recycled. INTERNAL CHALLENGE An internal challenge was highly unlikely up to 1990 but likely to be present and growing since 1993. EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT OF THE GBR From UK: None (CD* and other sources of data) From other BSE risk countries: 3,194,014 (CD) or 1,629,790 (other sources of data). *CD: country dossier From UK: None (CD and other sources of data) From other BSE risk countries: 826,136 ton (CD) or 919,144 ton (other sources of data). 1980-2003: Not OK MBM was legally included in cattle feed until October 2000. 1980-2003: Not OK Process used is not adequate for reducing BSE. 1980-2003: Reasonably OK No SRM ban. SRM is consumed by humans and it does not tend to enter the feed chain. 1980-2003: Insufficient 1996 – 2003: Passive and some active surveillance. The GBR is likely to increase due to continued internal and external challenge, coupled with a very unstable system. **GBR level is III: ‘it is likely but not confirmed’ that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_v2_en1.pdf TSS
|
