Release No
0458.04
of
Technical Briefing and Webcast with U.S. Government
Officials
on BSE Situation - January 2, 2004
MR. ED CURLETT: I'd like
to welcome everybody to the BSE situation update for today. Today we'll
have Dr. Ron DeHaven, the chief veterinary officer for USDA, making a
statement. We also have with us, from the Food and Drug Administration,
Dr. Stephen Sundlof, to answer questions as needed. And we also have with
us Dr. Daniel Engeljohn with the Food Safety and Inspection Service. Again,
because of the number of people on the call, particularly the audio bridge,
we ask that you keep your questions just to one. And with that, I'll turn
it over to Dr. DeHaven.
Thank you, sir.
DR. RON DEHAVEN (USDA):
Thank you, Ed. And happy New Year to all of you, and thanks again for
joining us.
Well, we did take the day off yesterday
from media briefings. Our epidemiological work, of course, did continue.
I'm going to provide you the latest information on that as well as some
more information about how we are modifying our surveillance program.
First as to the epidemiological investigation,
we have now confirmed that 81 of the 82 animals listed on the Canadian
health certificate--and that would include the positive animal--entered
the United States through the Oroville, Washington port on September 4,
2001. One of those 82 has now been confirmed on the ground at a Mattawa
dairy facility operation which is now under state hold order. An inventory
of that facility to look for possible additional Canadian animals is continuing,
though we don't necessarily expect to find any. And in fact that has been
delayed because of bad weather conditions in Mattawa today.
Just to recap where we are in tracing
those 82 animals, we now have 11 of them definitively accounted for. One
is the indexed positive cow; 9 are those known to be in the indexed herd;
one is the animal that I mentioned on the Mattawa dairy operation. But
we believe that one may still be in Canada. The whereabouts of the remaining
70 animals is still yet to be confirmed but, again, we have good leads
on those, and we will keep you posted on that information as we gather
it.
I want to reiterate that our interest
in finding these cows is not because BSE can spread from cow to cow but
because it's possible that they may have shared a common feed source when
they were young, and therefore potentially would have had a common exposure.
I think it's important to note, however, that even at the height of the
outbreak of the disease in the United Kingdom it was uncommon to have
more than just one or two animals in a herd found to be positive.
Also to clarify, we currently have three
facilities under state hold orders, as our epidemiological investigation
continues. The first is the index herd, that herd from which the positive
cow departed immediately before slaughter. The second being a nearby facility
that has the indexed cow recently born bull calf, and the third being
that dairy operation in Mattawa.
We expect to have our DNA results from
the indexed cow by sometime next week, and certainly we will share that
information with you after we receive it and have an opportunity to analyze
it.
Of course the Canadian laboratory is also
running the DNA tests in their laboratory, and we are continuing to work
very closely as we work--do our epidemiological work. Indeed, two Canadian
epidemiologists are on the ground with us in the United States, and likewise
USDA epidemiologists are in Canada.
This work would not be going nearly as
well as it has been if we didn't have that close cooperation and partnership.
So, again, our many thanks to our Canadian colleagues.
With regard to our surveillance program,
given the secretary's announcement to prohibit nonambulatory or downer
animals from going into slaughter establishments, a number of you have
asked what the means will be in terms of capturing that population in
terms of our surveillance program.
As we have discussed previously, we have
tested 20,000 animals a year for the past two years, and approximately
three-fourths of those animals were nonambulatory animals at slaughter.
Because this particular population of
animals will no longer be coming to slaughter plants and no longer be
going into the human food chain, we are working with industry representatives
to reposition our efforts to collect those samples on the farm, at rendering
facilities, and the so-called ‘three-D’--downed, dead, diseased
animals--and those plants where those meat products are harvested for
animal food and other nonedible purposes.
Of course, some number of those animals
will arrive at slaughter and will become nonambulatory at slaughter. We'll
continue to work to focus some of our efforts at collecting samples from
those animals.
We are certainly committed, and the industry
has shown a shared commitment to ensuring that we continue to have a very
robust surveillance program for BSE in the United States. We will be working
very closely with the rendering and other animal disposal industries as
well as other government agencies in the days and weeks to come to ensure
that we continue to have access to this particular population of animals
which we consider to be those at the highest risk for BSE.
Indeed, on Wednesday of this week we had
separate meetings with representatives from the dairy, the feed, and the
rendering industries. Today we are hosting an interagency meeting--all-day
meeting--at our facility in Riverdale, Maryland. And on Monday there will
be an interagency and industry representative meeting to continue to develop
our surveillance program.
As we talk about surveillance, and indeed
a lot of emphasis is going on modifying our surveillance system to be
consistent with the Secretary's announcements, I want to point out that
testing in and of itself does not make food any safer. Rather, surveillance
testing tells us if, number one, a disease is present and, if it is, what
is the prevalence of the disease. The most important food safety measures,
the ones that make our U.S. beef safe as it relates to BSE, is removal
of the specified risk materials from human food and the AMR requirements.
And those are exactly the announcements the Secretary made earlier this
week.
Even those actions were taken out of an
abundance of caution knowing that we do have, if at all, a very low prevalence
of the disease in North America or in the U.S.
With that, since my colleagues from FSIS
and FDA have no update announcement to give, let's go to the questions.
And Ed, we can start with the telephone
bridge? Okay. So, Operator, the first question from the telephone bridge,
please.
OPERATOR: Your first
question comes from Harry Siemans. Please state your company name.
HARRY SIEMANS: Manitoba
Cooperator. Farm Watch, Manitoba, Canada.
Just a question on when you get the confirmations
as to where these cattle are actually from, what exactly will take place
at that point?
DR. DEHAVEN: Knowing
the birth herd is particularly important, because we know this disease
has an incubation period typically of three to five years or sometimes
even longer than that. So it's likely that this indexed cow that is positive
became infected while she was on that premises. At that point it will
be critical to determine what other animals that would have been birth
cohorts of this positive animal--in other words, animals that would have
been born about the same time and exposed to the same feed--where are
those particular animals?
Another part of the investigation then
would lead back to the feed chain. Where did--assuming that the animal
became infected from consuming contaminated feed—where did that
feed come from? What are the potential sources?
It's particularly important to point out
that we now feel that this animal was 6 to 6 1/2 years old. The animal
that was found to be positive in Canada in May was of the same approximate
age, which makes them both born before the feed ban went in place--either
in Canada and the U.S., which would suggest that would be the likely source
of infection and also suggests the two animals that we have found were
both born before the feed ban--to suggest that the feed ban in both Canada
and the U.S. has been effective.
Steve, do you have anything to add to
that?
DR. STEPHEN SUNDLOF (FDA):
No.
All right. Next question, Operator?
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Seth Borenstein. Please state your company name.
SETH BORENSTEIN: Yes.
This is Seth Borenstein with Knight Ridder Newspapers.
Forgive me. I'm trying to understand a
bit the Mattawa dairy operations. You said there is a cow that was part
of the 82 that is down now, and do I understand that right? And are you
testing it for BSE or am I misunderstanding that whole thing?
DR. DEHAVEN: I think
you're misunderstanding, so I appreciate the question so I can clarify.
We have located one of the 82 animals that was listed on the original
health certificate at a dairy operation in Mattawa, Washington. She is
still alive, still on the premise. Whether or not she will be sacrificed
for testing or not is yet to be determined. But again, since this is not
a contagious disease, not a disease that's spread by just casual direct
contact between animals, there's no concern about her spreading the disease
to other animals. But she is under hold order and won't be going anywhere
until we determine the exact disposition on that particular animal. So
she is alive and well on that facility, and she is under a state hold
order at this point.
Next question, Operator?
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Sandy Dowton. Please state your company name.
SANDY DOWTON: This is
Sandy Dowton at the Seattle Times.
Can you tell us a little bit more about
the DNA testing that you're doing? You're testing samples from the indexed
cow, and what are you comparing them against?
DR. DEHAVEN: The DNA
testing is an attempt through comparing DNA from multiple sources as to
whether or not we in fact have traced the animal back to the appropriate
source. Some of the samples that are being tested would include most notably--and
the two most important samples that we have--would be tissue from the
brain of the positive cow. So we've done DNA--or the laboratories will
be doing DNA--extraction from that brain tissue from the positive animal,
and then comparing it to DNA samples obtained from semen of what is thought
to be the sire of this positive cow.
We were able to obtain through the breeding
company samples of the semen that came from the same bull that, by the
records in Canada, would suggest that they were the sire of this positive
animal. We also have progeny, offspring from the positive cow in the U.S.,
so we have samples there to compare back to the sire. We have semen samples
from the sire of some of those progeny. So there's a multitude of samples,
but the most important ones would be the semen from what we think is the
sire of this animal and the animal herself.
I would point out too that, while the
DNA testing may enable us to make a definitive determination it's just
one piece of information, and there's always opportunity for error. And
I would just point out one possible opportunity for error, and I don't
know this to be the case or not, and that would be, for example, it's
not uncommon for dairy animals to be bred through artificial insemination,
which apparently was the case in this situation.
But it's also common practice on dairy
farms to provide what is referred to as ‘clean-up bulls’.
In other words, bulls that would breed naturally with cows that may not
have become impregnated through artificial insemination. So while we know
that artificial insemination was the practice on what we think to be the
most likely birth herd in Canada, there's always the possibility that
something else could have happened that we may not know about, and the
example I gave is just one example of many.
So while we hope that we are going to
be able through that DNA testing to make a definitive determination, there's
many variables that might get thrown into the mix and come this time next
week we may have some conflicting results. I don't have any reason at
this point to suggest that or to think that, but I think it's only prudent
to throw that out as a possibility.
One last question from the telephone bridge,
Operator.
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Tom Moore. Please state your company name.
TOM MOORE: Hi. Tom Moore
from Capital Press.
This is for Dr. Engeljohn. I'm still trying
to put the total quantity of meat together in the recall. I know what
you recalled from Verns. But I'm wondering about the mixing that went
on down the line. How much in total pounds is the recall involved in Willamette
and in Interstate?
DR. ENGELJOHN (USDA):
This is Dr. Engeljohn with the Food Safety and Inspection Service. I don't
have those numbers that I can share with you. I'm just not familiar enough
with that information. I can tell you that the recall has gone very well.
There is no product moving forward. Beginning today the agency intends
to begin posting information updates about the recall on to our webpage,
so that would be the place where I would direct you to find additional
information. The webpage in case you don't have it, is www.usda.gov.
DR. DEHAVEN: Next we'll
take two question in the room here. Yes, sir--gentleman in the blue blazer--black?
BILL TOMSON: My name
is Bill Tomson with Oster Dow Jones.
This question is for Dr. Sundlof. Have
there been any recent changes to the U.S. announced feed ban? The Secretary's
announced some changes, but have there been any changes there? And you
said compliance here in the US is about 100 percent now. But what was
that back about six years ago and the possibility that the feed was contaminated
here and not Canada?
DR. SUNDLOF: Oh, okay.
Well, let me see if I remember your question. The compliance rate is currently
about 99.9 percent. All this information, by the way, is on the FDA website,
and we actually post the results of all of our inspections on the website.
So people can go there and look at it directly.
Back six years ago, let's go back to August
1997. August 1997 is when the feed ban actually went into effect, so prior
to that the issue of compliance is not rational because there was no regulation
for them to follow prior to 1997.
Shortly after 1997 we started our inspection,
or after August 1997 we started our inspections with the intent to get
to all of the facilities, first of all identify all the facilities, that
handle ruminant meat and bonemeal and make sure that they were in compliance.
On our initial sweep through the industry,
that is, the first sweep through it, most of these establishments had
never been regulated before, never saw FDA regulations, and all of a sudden
found themselves under regulation. The compliance rate was somewhere between
75 and 78 percent of all firms were in compliance.
Again, that has dramatically increased
as we've continued our annual inspections. All firms are inspected once
a year. That includes renderers, feed mills, haulers, anybody that basically
touches this material except down to the actual feeding level, and we
don't have 100 percent penetration in that area.
There are no changes to the feed rule at
this point. Obviously we're talking within the agency about any potential
firming up of the rule if that is necessary, but those are still in the
discussion phase.
DR. DEHAVEN: The gentleman
in the glasses and the blue and white striped shirt.
PHIL BRASHER: Phil Brasher
with the Des Moines Register.
In terms of the surveillance of going
forward, are you considering any kind of compensation or financial incentives
to veterinarians or producers to provide an incentive to have these animals
tested-- which as I understand, that Britain has done in the past but
it's not continuing to do it. And also, could you clarify how you treat
animals that arrive--cattle that arrive downed because I guess of an injury
on the truck or something? Are they, are they banned as well?
DR. DEHAVEN: I'll take
the first question and let Dr. Engeljohn from FSIS take the second one.
I'm assuming that you're talking about animals that would arrive at the
slaughter plant downed, but presumably become nonambulatory en route.
In terms of incentive for testing, right
now all options are on the table in terms of as we try and refocus or
modify our emphasis, from slaughter plants to rendering plants and other
points of concentration, how we're going to have continued access to what
we think is the highest risk and therefore the most important animals
for testing.
While clearly since we are just a couple
of days post- the announcement by the Secretary that we were making this
shift in terms of not allowing nonambulatory animals to be slaughtered,
we are early in the process of developing plans on how we're going to
continue to have access to that population at other points.
I would simply say that providing some
financial incentive for bringing those animals to those other locations
is one of the many things that are being considered at this point. Whether
those monies would be made available or not and, if so, at what level,
are all the kinds of things that are being considered at this point.
What we do know is that we want to, and
the Secretary has said, we want to continue to test at the same level
that we anticipated testing before this change, and that would be in the
neighborhood of 38,000 samples total. And we think that, again, these
nonambulatory animals are the most appropriate population to target with
that testing.
And did you want to talk about the cattle
that arrive?
DR. ENGELJOHN: Yes. Beginning
Tuesday after the Secretary's announcement about the-- no longer allowing
nonambulatory disabled animals from entering the slaughter facilities,
once a transport vehicle arrives with beef--cattle--to a facility, FSIS
then will make a determination about whether or not the animal is in fact
nonambulatory disabled. If so, then the inspectors there will condemn
that animal and ensure that it's humanely handled until it is in fact
euthanized by the establishment. And then it would be denatured and then
ensured that it would go off to appropriate denaturing.
DR. DEHAVEN: We would
either at that point, or at some other facility where that carcass might
go on to, continue to test those animals as well. So those that do show
up at slaughter and become nonambulatory, they are still targeted population
for testing.
Operator, let's go to the next question
from the audio bridge.
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Jason Marcathoff (sp). Please state your company name.
JASON MARCATHOFF: The
Edmonton Journal.
The deadline for comment on the proposed
rule for Canadian live cattle closes on the next business day, possibly
before the DNA results are going to be coming in. You've hinted before
this, perhaps you can tell us, will the USDA give the public more time
to comment on this rule?
DR. DEHAVEN: In fact
the comment period does close on January 5. It has been open since November
4. I believe that's the correct date. And as you point out, this recent
situation has shed a new light on the whole situation. There are several
options that would be under consideration--or I should say are under consideration--within
the Department right now as it relates to that rule. And that could be
anything from taking into account, on our own, this situation as well
as the comments we receive and proceed from there to reopen the comment
period at a later time to repropose an entirely new rule, to keep--stay
with the same proposed rule and extend the existing comment period. All
of those are options that are currently on the table.
I think one thing would be for certain
is that we would not make any determination in terms of a final rule without
giving all due consideration to the new situation coming to light because
of the find of this positive cow in the state of Washington.
So how we go about that in terms of considering
our epidemiological investigation and the results of that internally or
providing an opportunity for further public comment is something that
is yet to be determined.
Next question, Operator, please?
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Mike McGinnis. Please state your company name.
MIKE MCGINNIS: DTN, Data
Transmission Network.
And my question this morning has to do
with what cattle, if any, are being killed in the state of Washington
at this time.
DR. DEHAVEN: I assume
you are referring to cattle that might be sacrificed as a result of our
epidemiological investigation.
MIKE MCGINNIS: Right.
DR. DEHAVEN: We haven't
sacrificed any at this point. We do have hold orders, as I mentioned,
on three premises. We do have a group of calves on a separate facility
from the indexed herd that would include the male calf, the bull calf,
born to this positive cow. So we are making, will be making in the very
near future a determination on the disposition of all of those animals
that are part of that herd. And I think it's safe to presume that at some
point that some or all of those animals will need to be sacrificed.
So we have not yet made that determination.
There's a lot of arrangements, obviously, that need to be made in terms
of how, when, and where they might be euthanized and appropriate disposal
of them. So nothing has happened at this point.
Same with the indexed herd. We have not
made a determination in terms of needing to sacrifice any of those animals
on the indexed herd. That's clearly a possibility, but no determination
has been made at this point.
Next question from the audio bridge, Operator?
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Jeff Sparshott. Please state your company name.
JEFF SPARSHOTT: Washington Times.
Could you just tell us a little bit about
what's going into the thought process and whether or not you're going
to sacrifice these animals, and what you're kind of waiting for. And just
a really quick question, when did you actually put a quarantine on the
Mattawa herd?
DR. DEHAVEN: In terms
of the quarantine on the Mattawa herd, that has been imposed--I don't
know exactly the time, but certainly within the last day or two that hold
order has been put in place. And I believe it was two days ago that that
was imposed.
In terms of our thought process, it goes
to the science as well as the public perception. The science would suggest
that only those animals that have a direct link back to the premises of
origin and would be birth cohorts of the infected cow represent any kind
of risk at all, as well as the progeny from the infected cow, whether
they be in Canada or the United States. There's certainly some evidence
now to suggest that she had calves on both sides of the border.
By international standards, not being
able to definitively rule out that the disease can't be transmitted from
dam to offspring--recognizing that that is albeit a very slim one, a possibility--international
standards would dictate that those animals have to be sacrificed.
Then the second population of biggest
concern would be, as I mentioned, the birth cohorts, those animals that
would have been on the birth farm at about the same time as the indexed
cow and therefore might have been exposed to the same feed source.
Having said that, it would be disingenuous
if I were not to suggest that there is also some public perception concerns
with other animals that might have been associated with those animals
that would be of concern from a scientific or disease transmission standpoint--and
recognizing that the producer has some issues and concerns relative to
that.
So even though we know with a very good
degree of certainty that there's no direct disease spread animal-to-animal
by contact simply by being on the same farm, there are some public perception
issues related to those animals, and certainly the owners of those animals
have some concerns in that regard. So again, no determination having been
made, but we are not immune to recognizing that there are some public
perception issues beyond those from a pure scientific or disease transmission
standpoint as well.
Next question from the audio bridge, and
then they'll take the next one in here.
OPERATOR: Next question
comes from Jim Polson. Please state your company name.
JIM POLSON: Bloomberg
News. Hello?
OPERATOR: Your line is
open, sir.
JIM POLSON: Yes. I wondered
if the Department has decided yet or has a count yet on how much of the
cattle slaughtered would be excluded under the over-30-months rule? In
other words, how many cattle would be involved in that exclusion of certain
tissue parts?
DR. DEHAVEN: I think
the questioning is, what percentage of cattle slaughter is animals over
30 months of age?
JIM POLSON: Yes.
DR. ENGELJOHN: We estimate
that roughly 20 percent of the annual slaughter production is in fact
cattle 30 months of age or older. I think there's roughly 36 million or
so cattle slaughtered.
DR. DEHAVEN: Okay. We'll
take the next question in the room. Randy?
RANDY FABI: Randy Fabi
with Reuters.
Is the USDA investigating an Edmonton
rendering plant as a possible source of the infected feed in the Washington
mad cow case? And are there any leads that the USDA is looking into that
are connecting to the two mad cow cases?
DR. DEHAVEN: I mentioned
that we have USDA epidemiologists in Canada. In fact, one is in Edmonton.
The other initially went to Edmonton and is now in their emergency operation
center in Ottawa. So we have direct link with the Canadian side of the
investigation just as from early on we've had two Canadian epidemiologists
working with us in the state of Washington.
And I understand the third one will be
joining us in our emergency operation center in Riverdale, Maryland. So
there is that cross-fertilization of personnel as we help each other with
the investigation on both sides of the border. And then of course our
respective people would be sources of information.
But suffice it to say that those investigation
activities that are happening on the Canadian side of the border are being
directed by the Canadians. Those activities occurring on the U.S. side
of the border are being directed by our officials. So while we are involved
in the investigation, as it relates to potential sources of feed, that
portion of the investigation is being led and directed by Canadian Food
Inspection Agency personnel. There have been multiple media reports about
a possible link between feed sources for both of these cows, both of them
being the Canadian-born animal that was found on or about May 20 and then
this more recent find in the state of Washington. But I think it's way
too premature to draw any conclusions about whether or not there is a
single feed plant or whether or not even if there is, there would have
been similar sources of feed--given that each production lot of feed would
potentially come from entirely different sources.
So those are all kinds of things that
are currently part of the investigation that are occurring in Canada but
too early to draw from my conversations with Brian Evans, the chief veterinary
officer there, too early to draw any definitive conclusions about feed
sources.
Steve, do you have anything to add?
DR. SUNDLOF: No, I think
you've covered it.
LYNNE ADRINE: Lynne Adrine
with ABC News.
For Dr. Engeljohn, I'm a little confused
about your answer about the downed cattle, the cattle that arrive at the
processing plant downed under the new guidelines. It sounds as though
there's a lot of wiggle-room by inspectors to decide whether animals come
under the new downed procedures or whether or not they determine that
they were just injured in transit. So is it an absolute about downed animals
not being able to get into the food chain, or are there exceptions?
DR. ENGELJOHN: When the
Secretary made her announcement on Tuesday she did use the term "downer
animal." The term that we're using now is "nonambulatory disabled."
That's a broader term than "downer" in and of itself, and it
includes those animals that cannot rise from a recumbent position. Those
would be the true downers. And then it includes as well those animals
that are disabled that cannot walk.
So any animal that cannot walk or is down,
cannot rise, is in fact included within the nonambulatory definition.
So it's fairly straightforward, very clear. Those animals will not enter
the federal establishments, the state establishments, or go into the human
food supply.
DR. DEHAVEN: In the interest
of being fair in the number of folks we do have on the telephone bridge,
we'll go to the telephone bridge for the next two questions, please.
OPERATOR: The next question
comes from Denise Grady. Please state your company name.
DENISE GRADY: The New
York Times.
Could you tell us if you know the ages
of any of the other animals in the group of 80 or 81 that you're still--or
70 left that you're still tracking? And do you know the age of the cow
that you say you've located in Mattawa, or any of the others that are
still on the farm in Mabton? Thank you.
DR. DEHAVEN: I'm sure
that there are records which I have not personally seen which would include
the health certificate on which those animals moved that would include
a description of the animals as well as their approximate age. And it
was, that was part of the information that helped us to conclude that
the indexed cow was in fact probably 6 1/2 years old at the time that
she was slaughtered in the United States.
So do we do have some of that age information.
We know that since they moved on September 4, 2001, that all of them are
at least two years old, going on 2 1/2 years old. But I don't have at
my fingertips the information in terms of the ages of the other animals.
Since they came from what was, or I should
say our information, assuming that is the birth herd which again is not
absolutely confirmed at this point--but if we assume that to be the herd
of origin, the herd in Alberta, Canada, we do know that it was a dispersal
sale--meaning that all of the animals on the farm were sold out at the
same time.
So that would suggest the likelihood that
the animals would be of a variety of ages at that time, since it was a
sale of all of the animals on the farm.
Next question, please?
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Tom Steever. Please state your company name.
TOM STEEVER: Brownfield
Network.
And I was wondering, how are we going
to keep downers in surveillance if now the rule has changed about downer
livestock? How will they be kept in surveillance, and what will be known
about their disposition?
DR. DEHAVEN: As I mentioned
earlier, now that those animals—or, the preponderance of nonambulatory
animals--will not be going to slaughter, our efforts right now are focused
on modifying our surveillance systems so that we still have access to
that population of animals.
Clearly we think that nonambulatory animals,
particularly the older nonambulatory animals, are the population at highest
risk and therefore the group that we want to continue to focus our surveillance
on.
We would assume then at this point if
they're not going to be going to slaughter, or the preponderance of them
will not be going to slaughter establishments, that we have to have access
to them elsewhere. Those other access points could be ‘three-D’
plants; those would be plants that process carcasses but not for human
consumption. Those would be rendering plants. And we also need to work
to get access to some of those animals on the farm.
We think the most likely route there is
working through the American Veterinary Medical Association and the local
practitioner who has established that relationship with the dairy farmer.
So we will be refocusing our effort to have access to those same animals--but
before they would be going to slaughter. We will now try and get access
to them at those concentration points or on the farm, those same animals,
now that they won't be going to slaughter.
MR. CURLETT: Sir, I think
we have time for two more on the audio bridge, and then we will finish
up with two more here.
DR. DEHAVEN: So four
more questions. Next one from the audio bridge, please?
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Carol Sugarman. Please state your company name.
CAROL SUGARMAN: Yes.
This is Carol Sugarman from Food Chemical News.
I was wondering, is it the Canadian government
that's doing the DNA testing as the U.S. government is? And are there
any independent labs doing confirmatory testing in either the U.S. or
Canada?
DR. DEHAVEN: It's my
understanding that on the Canadian side they are using a private contract
laboratory. This would be a private laboratory but one that's operating
under contract with the Canadian food inspection agency or at least the
Canadian government.
So while it's contract, they certainly
have a lot of expertise, and indeed this is the same laboratory, based
on my understanding, that did all the DNA testing to confirm the birth
herd of the cow that was found in Canada to be positive on May 20. So,
a private contract laboratory in Canada.
And I'm sorry--the second part of your
question?
CAROL SUGARMAN: Was,
are there any independent labs that are not owned--are there any independent
labs doing confirmatory testing in either the U.S. or Canada?
DR. DEHAVEN: Well, in
fact, it only takes one laboratory, so we've got some redundancy in that
we have one lab in Canada and one in the U.S. doing this testing. So those
are the only two laboratories that are receiving these samples. The Canadian
contract laboratory and then our agricultural research laboratory in Nebraska
is the laboratory on the U.S. side.
Last question from the telephone bridge,
please?
OPERATOR: Your next question
comes from Jim Polson. Please state your company name.
JIM POLSON: Bloomberg
News.
Dr. Sundlof, I wondered if you could be
a little bit more specific about--since you say that the rendering plants
are examined once a year, whether this means that inspections will need
to be picked up?
DR. SUNDLOF: Well, again,
we are considering all of the new information in trying to make a determination
as to what the most appropriate response is. But that coverage--once-a-year
coverage--seems to be a pretty good frequency. We think that that, right
now that has been adequate.
When we find a violation--when we find
a firm in violation, then it gets reinspected on a first come basis. And
so the minimum is once a year. Companies are inspected more frequently
if it turns out that they are not in compliance with the rule.
Again, we are considering all of the new
information in trying to make sure that this system, this firewall that
we have in place, is as strong as possible. And we’ll again examine
the frequency and determine if we consider that to still be adequate.
But at this point in time my sense is that once a year, plus revisiting
the firms in violation, has served us very well in the past and will serve
us in the future.
DR. DEHAVEN: Gentleman
in the brown blazer?
MARC KAUFMAN: Mark Kaufman
with The Washington Post.
At this point, is there any firm reason
to believe that the food--that the contaminated feed was consumed by the
cow in Canada or in the United States? And also, is there anything that's
being done now to trace back where the food came from--for the animal--once
it came to the US?
DR. DEHAVEN: Based on
what we know about the disease, the fact that these feed supplements are
typically fed to dairy cattle early in life and, second, the fact that
we have a three to five-year--or longer--incubation period, that would
strongly suggest that the contaminated feed was not fed to the animal
at its present location--or I should say the indexed herd where it was
immediately before going to slaughter.
Our primary line of inquiry does indeed
take us back to a farm in Alberta, Canada, and if in fact that is correct
and if we're able to confirm that, and other than the time in transit
this animal has only been at the two locations, that would suggest that
the contaminated feed would have been fed at that farm in Alberta, Canada.
Again, that is presuming that the herd
in Alberta is in fact the birth herd, and we're able to confirm that.
So without question, one of the primary
focuses of the investigation on the Canadian side of the border is based
on the assumption that that is the birth herd, and then looking at what
feed might have been consumed by animals on the farm at that time when
this animal was a calf.
All right, last question in the room?
MARK SHERMAN: Thank you.
Mark Sherman with the Associated Press.
On the subject of mother to cow transmission,
mother to cow transmission, however unlikely, I would assume that the
positive cow's mother is long dead, but what about its progeny? Are you
searching at all for, for those animals?
DR. DEHAVEN: In fact,
it's a very good question. We are tracing the dam or the mother of the
positive cow. It's possible--and again we are attempting to verify through
records--but it's possible that she could in fact have been included in
that 81 animals that came into the United States in September of 2001.
We don't know that for sure, but there at least is some preliminary information
to suggest that.
So we would, as you mentioned--even though
it's unlikely that disease is going to be spread maternally, if in fact
that was the source of this animal's infection--it would be important
to get back to her dam. And that work is in progress.
Before we leave, Dan Engeljohn had a clarification
he wanted to make on an earlier statement that he made. Dan?
DR. ENGELJOHN: I perhaps
did not fully understand the question that was asked earlier, and so I'm
going to try to make a clarification and answer it two ways in terms of
how I think that the question was raised.
I think the question related--or I answered
the question of how many animals, or how many cattle, come to slaughter
that are 30 months of age or older. And I answered that roughly 20 percent
of those slaughtered each year are 30 months of age or older. And there
are 36 million or so total cattle slaughtered.
However, I think the question may have
been more: what would be banned in terms of those animals. And for those
animals 30 months of age or older, they still can come to slaughter. It
would just be the specified risk materials that would be banned. Okay?
DR. DEHAVEN: All right.
We thank you very much for being here again. Happy New Year to everyone,
and Ed I'll turn it back to you.
MR. CURLETT: Thank you,
sir. Thanks for being on the BSE update today.
The next briefing will occur on Monday,
and we'll make a time announcement on the website. For follow-up media
calls call 202-720-4623, and transcripts of today's briefing will become
available on the website shortly.
So with that, thank you.
(Whereupon, the press conference was concluded.)
#
|