Technical Briefing and Webcast with U.S. Government Officials on BSE Case Monday, December 29, 2003
DR. RON DEHAVEN: Let me speak first from an investigation standpoint. We are continuing to work with our Canadian colleagues to verify the trace-back of the indexed or positive animal.One issue that has been of particular concern was the initial discrepancy in the age of the animal as reported by our records in the US versus those records that were available in Canada.
Technical Briefing and Webcast with U.S. Government Officials on BSE Case Monday, December 29, 2003
DR. RON DEHAVEN: Let me speak first from an investigation standpoint. We are continuing to work with our Canadian colleagues to verify the trace-back of the indexed or positive animal.One issue that has been of particular concern was the initial discrepancy in the age of the animal as reported by our records in the US versus those records that were available in Canada.
Yesterday I personally telephoned the owner of this herd where the positive animal was located primarily to thank him for his cooperation thus far in this effort. However, during that discussion he indicated that he has conducted an extensive search of his records and located original documents that would indicate that the cow in question, this positive animal, was indeed an older animal when he purchased her in 2001.
Those records are consistent with the Canadian records indicating that this animal was born in April of 1997, making her approximately 6 1/2 years old at the time of slaughter. So again I want to personally thank him and his employees for the extraordinary level of cooperation that they have shown to our investigators throughout what is no doubt a very difficult time for them.
The age of the animal is especially important in that it is a likely explanation as to how this animal would have become infected. She would have been born before feed bans were implemented in North America. As the feed bans in the US and Canada both went into effect in August of 1997, as I mentioned records would now indicate that this animal was born in April of 1997.
Again, those feed bans prohibit the inclusion of ruminant protein -- that would be material from animals such as cattle, sheep and goats -- from being fed back to other ruminants. Research evidence suggests that this is the primary, if not in fact the only, means by which BSE is spread from animal to animal. Obviously the more time goes by the fewer animals that are alive that would have been exposed to feed before this feed ban went into place, and so as time goes by the risk of more animals becoming infected decreases.
Even though we have now resolved or apparently resolved the earlier discrepancy regarding the actual age of this animal, only DNA testing will positively confirm her origin. Again, our primary line of inquiry goes to a farm in Alberta, Canada, and our Canadian counterparts are working hand-in-hand with us sharing information, records and samples that will enable us to perform this DNA testing to hopefully confirm the actual herd of origin for this particular animal.
We are continuing the trace-back of the other 73 head of cattle that came into the United States in the same shipment as the infected cow but do not have any new data to report in that regard at this point. However, while reviewing records we have also determined that an additional eight animals from the same herd in Canada were also shipped to the United States, so we are now tracing the location of all 81 animals.
As I mentioned previously in previous press conferences, this positive cow had three calves while she was in the United States. One of them died shortly after birth, shortly after the animal entered the United States. The second one remains in a herd in Washington State where the positive cow was at the time that she went to slaughter. And the third animal, a bull calf, is currently in a separate herd with several other bull calves, which is subject to a hold order in place by the state of Washington.
And as I explained before as well, this hold order is not to stop the spread of the disease. BSE is not a contagious disease like we associate with conditions such as human flu, but rather the hold order has been put in place to make sure we know where all of the relevant animals are with regard to this investigation and to prevent future complications as it relates to the investigation.
I would emphasize again even though we are following up on these three calves that maternal transmission, transmission from the cow to her offspring, is a rare means of transmission if it occurs at all. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that this is, this type of transmission would occur in this case. However, as I mentioned, the calves that are still alive, those two, one on the indexed farm and the other in this calf-rearing facility, are on hold orders out of an abundance of caution to preserve public and international confidence that we in fact have the situation well in hand with regard to our investigation.
We are continuing to look at any and all appropriate changes to our entire meat and livestock system as it relates to BSE. Even though we are still early in this investigation there is no indication that we have the magnitude of problem that Europe has experienced in the years past -- in large part due to the preventive measures such as feed bans that were put in place in this country back in August of 1997.
There is also no reason to question the safety of the US beef supply. Muscle tissue or cuts of meats are safe. Research shows that the prion, which is that infectious agent that causes BSE, is not found in skeletal muscle tissue. The infective agent is largely in the brain and spinal cord and a few other tissues not normally consumed by humans in this country.
Research studies in which muscle tissue from infected cattle has been injected directly into the brain of other cattle, the most likely way to transmit the disease when infectivity is present, have demonstrated no evidence of transmission of the disease through muscle tissue.
In contrast, high-risk tissues such as brain or spinal cord in the same study do cause the disease when they are either fed to or injected into recipient cattle.
International standards allow for the import of meat and other commodities even from countries that have a high or moderate risk for BSE. Those countries that have had numerous cases of BSE in their own native-born cattle. These international standards have been developed with the advice and consultation of many of the top international scientists and researchers in the field of BSE. By any stretch of the imagination the US cannot be considered to be at high risk for BSE, especially given our high level of surveillance over the recent past and the fact that only one case has been found here, and further that a single case appears not to have been even born in the United States at this point.
International reaction to our find of this positive case has been based largely on public perception and not what we know about the science of this disease. We have been working with the World Animal Health Organization, the OIE, especially since the finding of the single case of BSE in Canada in May of this year to ensure that the international response to a case of BSE is better founded in science and not just in public perception.
Even with the finding of this single cow, the US remains at very low risk. Measures we put in place in this country years ago -- including the prohibiting of feeding rendered cattle products back to other cattle and stopping cattle imports from high-risk countries -- are protecting the US consumer. Further, we have conducted surveillance testing of high-risk cattle for more than 10 years, and this is our only positive find despite that high level of surveillance testing. For the last two years we conducted approximately 20,000 tests each of those two years -- more than 45 times what the World Animal Health Standard would call upon us to test.
An extensive risk assessment was conducted by Harvard University, and that assessment demonstrated that the risk of BSE in the United States is very low and that even with the disease our procedures that we have put in place would be eliminating the disease from our population.
The producer recalled the meat, and the recall in this situation from this cow and others slaughtered on that day has been done out of an abundance of caution. The risky materials, especially the central nervous system, the brain and spinal cord from this animal, were removed, and they went into rendered product for inedible purposes and did not go into the human food chain.
Again, I want to reiterate my thanks to the herd owner, the slaughter plant owner, the importers, the officials in the state of Washington and our colleagues in Canada for their tremendous assistance as we have proceeded with our investigation. And again, my thanks to you in the news media who have been working so hard to ensure that reporting on this situation is accurate and is timely and recognizing that this situation is evolving very rapidly.
With that, let me pass the microphone to my colleague with Food Safety Inspection Service, Dr. Ken Petersen.
DR. KEN PETERSEN: Thank you, and again, good afternoon.
I'd like to briefly summarize the current situation on the beef products related to the December 23, 2003, BSE recall. The beef products were distributed from Verns Moses Lake Meat to Midway Meat on December 11, 2003. We know that on December 9 when this animal was slaughtered, that was the only animal that tested presumptive positive for BSE. And yet we decided to initiate a recall out of all 20 animals that were slaughtered on that day. The recall was for those 20 carcasses, which involved slightly over 10,000 pounds of meat.
We also know that all of the central nervous system-related tissue -- that is, the brain, the spinal cord and lower part of the intestines -- were removed at the Verns slaughter facility during the slaughter that occurred on December 9, 2003.
Those are the tissues that are most likely to contain the BSE agent. Because the meat leaving Verns did not contain these high-risk material, the recalled beef presents an essentially zero risk to consumers.
This recall was initiated out of an abundance of caution following the report of this one cow testing presumptive positive. Even though we remain confident in the safety of these beef products, we are and we will continue to verify distribution and control of all products related to this recall.
Since the discovery of BSE last week, the Food Safety Inspection Service has been working literally around the clock to ensure the protection of public health. FSIS is verifying that the commercial companies have notified their customers of the recalled product and have also told their customers how to handle recalled products that they have in their possession.
Previously we've discussed the distribution of products from Midway Meats down to Interstate Meats and Willamette Valley Meats. Both of those last two are located in Oregon. We've since found that the products were distributed to an additional 42 locations from Interstate Meats and Willamette Valley Meat. The vast majority of these products, at least 80 percent, were distributed to stores exclusively in the states of Oregon and Wisconsin.
FSIS is verifying that these 42 distributors are complying with their requirement to notify their customers. In overseeing this process, FSIS has found that all of the companies that have received these products have in fact been duly and promptly notifying their customers. We will continue to ensure that this indeed remains the case.
MR. CURLETT: Before we go to questions, I just want to make one announcement. We ask that you limit yourself to one question in the interest of fairness. There are a lot of reporters on, so one question, then we go to the next question. Then we go four here and four on the audio bridge. Okay.
SETH BORENSTEIN (sp): Knight Ridder Newspapers.
What percentage of downers in this year and in past years does get tested for BSE? Why isn't it 100 percent?
DR. DEHAVEN: For those that are listening in on the telephone bridge, this is Dr. Ron DeHaven, chief veterinary officer for USDA. My last name is spelled D-E-H-A-V-E-N.
Let me take an initial response to that and then also provide Dr. Petersen an opportunity to respond.
We have tested as I mentioned the last two years in excess of 20,000 animals per year. We're targeting that surveillance at what we consider to be the high-risk population, first and foremost those animals that are showing nervous system disorder at the time of slaughter and then the secondary population that we are targeting would be those animals that are nonambulatory at the time of slaughter, recognizing that if an animal is exhibiting clinical signs of the disease they most typically are going to be showing central nervous system disorders or would be nonambulatory, wouldn't be able to stand.
And our surveillance testing has been based on a statistically valid sample that would tell us that if the infection existed in the United States even at a low prevalence of one in a million animals that we should find the disease. And so it's on that basis that we feel comfortable when we say, the worst case scenario is the disease exists in the United States at a very low prevalence and even if it is here our procedures and most notably the feed ban would be eliminating the disease.
And that is information that has independently been confirmed by the Harvard Risk Assessment.
One of the pieces of information that we don't have and would certainly need to be gathering in the future is, the total number of nonambulatory animals in the US in a year's time and of those how many are found at slaughter, how many might be at livestock markets, how many might be on the farm.
But again, having said that knowing what we know about the population of animals, cattle in the United States, and the level of surveillance, we feel comfortable that at worst, again, the prevalence of the disease in the US would be very low.
We are also reassured by the fact that, while unfortunate that we found this case, if in fact the animal is 6 1/2 years old as we would now believe it to be, that she would have been born before the feed ban went into effect. And again, evidence that the feed ban, both in Canada and the US, has been effective.
Ken, anything to add?
DR. PETERSEN: I'd just add that at slaughter of course these nonambulatory animals do occasionally arrive. Many times they are recent injuries. Perhaps they even occurred on the transportation truck. But regardless of the cause of these animals being nonambulatory, if it is nonambulatory those animals are always inspected by our USDA veterinarian. That veterinarian looks at the animals and decides whether they may be fit to proceed into the slaughter plant.
Last year those veterinarians that had ante-mortem identified just over 130 animals that had true, clinical signs for central nervous system disease. Those would be the highest risk animals for BSE. All of those animals were tested through the APHIS program.
DR. DEHAVEN: In the interest of time, and I hate to do this, but we can't allow follow-up just so we, we've got a limited amount of time and a lot of questions.
Yes, ma'am, the lady in the red dress?
TRACY WRIGHT: Global Television.
Premier Ralph Klein from Alberta today said that he is frustrated, that you've pointed the finger at Canada before having a final confirmation the cow is from Canada. I'm wondering if you can address that. And also what, you seem to be making different statements yesterday and today about what impact this all might have on reserves, limiting of the ban or lifting of (unclear) live animals.
DR. DEHAVEN: In response to your first question indicating that preliminary information suggests that the animal would have originated from and most likely been born in Canada -- it's a difficult call on our part in terms of keeping the public informed on what is a very important and critical issue for them and at the same time not being premature.
That's why we have been very careful to say, and continue to be very careful to say that our primary line of inquiry would lead us back to a farm in Alberta, Canada -- recognizing that we don't have absolute confirmation at this point in time but at the same time in the interest of keeping the public informed of what we know again it will be through DNA testing that will hopefully be able to make absolute confirmation.
In the meantime as I've continued to say as well, we are following every possible line of inquiry. It would be disingenuous not to say however that our primary line of inquiry takes us back to Canada. So a difficult call. I would emphasize that there's no disagreement between US and Canadian officials with the information that we have but rather how we would put that information out to the public.
In terms of lifting restrictions on Canadian product, we continue to allow certain minimal risk products, most notably boneless beef from animals under 30 months of age, into the United States from Canada. We proposed a rule early in November of this year that would potentially allow not only those products but additional products as well as live animals under 30 months of age into this country. Because the comment period is still open and the comment period is officially open until January 5, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. But that still is a proposed rule. We would encourage and welcome comments on that especially in light of this new situation. And clearly as we contemplate what to do with the comments that we receive from that proposed rule, this new information will be given all due consideration.
Next question, please. Yes, sir. Right here.
RANDY FABI: Randy Fabi with Reuters.
Is the USDA willing to test all US cattle at slaughter like in Japan? Presidential candidate Howard Dean said this would only cost 3 cents a pound to do so. I'm just wondering if that was accurate.
DR. DEHAVEN: We feel very comfortable that we've had in place in this country a very good and appropriate program, given what we know about the disease and given what we know about our exposure to the disease. So I would start by emphasizing that there have been appropriate firewalls and safeguards in place in this country.
I would quickly add however that it's only prudent that given this new finding that we look at our program, our overall system as it relates to US beef in total, and consider changes that we may need to make based on this new information. One of the things that we are looking at is, additional testing and what populations of cattle would be appropriate for that additional testing.
We would hope to also as we take those different options into consideration fall back on the science, and the science would suggest that this is a disease of older animals. Incubation period is typically between 3 and 6 years of age, which is why we've been focusing our testing on not only nonambulatory animals but older animals. That is why we are currently allowing product in from Canada that comes from animals under 30 months of age.
So we need to take into account the science that we know about this disease as we consider any modifications to our overall system. And I can assure you, all of those options are on the table, and they are actively being discussed within USDA as well as with our colleagues in the Food and Drug Administration.
Next question? Yes, sir.
GERALD (unclear) TV News: I heard you on the TV this morning explaining that the US would not trade with (unclear) country (unclear) if that country had (unclear) food ban in place. (unclear) risky material (unclear) food chain. And yet according to the European Union your feed ban isn't sufficient. The European Union, it is not allowed to feed any animal back to any other animal in the US (unclear) these cows (unclear) cows and chickens, chicken waste and pigs are fed back to cows (unclear). (unclear) outlaw in EU. Also you said the risky material (unclear) food chain or you wouldn't trade with that country, but in the European Union the last 8 years, it's been illegal to mechanically recover meat from cattle (unclear) because (unclear) nervous tissue close to the spine. In the US that happens all the time and you can eat (unclear) material. So therefore you wouldn't trade with yourself (unclear).
DR. DEHAVEN: Let me take an initial, make an initial response and then provide Steve Sundlof from FDA the opportunity as well with regard to the feed ban in the UK versus the US. Again, I think that's an appropriate issue for our Food and Drug Administration colleagues. But I think I need to explain it in the context of our proposed rule.
This proposed rule would create what we refer to as a minimal risk category. Current regulations in the US recognize either countries who have expressed a case of BSE and those that haven't expressed a case of BSE. That's not been consistent with the OIE or the international standards, and this proposed rule would get us more in line with those international standards that currently exist.
To qualify for that minimal risk category, this proposed rule explains that certain procedures would need to be in place. One of them would be an appropriate feed ban. One of them would ensure that especially for those countries that have expressed a moderate or high prevalence of the disease there would need to be assurance that certain high-risk tissues, those specified risk materials, would have been removed before product came into the United States.
So again, all of those are issues that are currently under consideration in the proposed rule. I would suggest that the comments you are making are appropriate comments to make with regard to that proposed rule.
In the meantime, we, as I mentioned, are working through the international organization and in the international community to make the overall response to trade more based on science and not public perception. I think we've taken a huge step in that regard with our current procedures that allow the importation of certain meat products from Canada and the proposed rule that would even contemplate potentially allowing animals under 30 months of age into the country from Canada.
Let me defer now to Dr. Steve Sundlof.
DR. STEPHEN SUNDLOF (FDA): Thank you, Ron. Let me spell my name for the folks on the phone. It's Stephen, STEPHEN. Sundlof, SUNDLOF. I'm with the Food and Drug Administration.
The question that I'll be responding to is on, the question was, why hasn't the US taken the same approach as the European Union in extending the feed ban to all animal protein so there's no animal proteins could be fed back to any other animal.
First let me say that the US position is consistent with the recommendation of the OIE which is the Office of International Epizootics; that is the equivalent of the World Health Organization but for animal health. The disease is only spread by ruminants consuming -- "ruminants" being cattle, sheep or goats, in this case it's only cattle -- consuming infected material from other cattle. The way that works is that once the cattle have consumed the feed the agent that causes the disease -- we think is a prion, a protein -- actually amplifies, multiplies within the cow and then is transmitted to other animals. But there has to be this amplification process that occurs within the cattle that does not occur in pigs, does not occur in chickens, does not occur in any other animal that we're aware of currently as a food animal except for cattle.
Therefore, the feed ban that has been instituted in the United States is one that is scientifically valid from the standpoint of transmitting the disease to other animals, cattle. And there's been an extensive amount of surveillance and inspection that has gone into this program in the United States such that we now have greater than 99 percent of all firms that handle this ruminant protein are in compliance with our current feed ban.
DR. DEHAVEN: One quick follow-up from our colleague in Food Safety Inspection Service and then we'll take the next question from the phone line.
Ken?
DR. KEN PETERSEN (FSIS): Thanks. Kenneth Petersen, FSIS.
We briefly mentioned AMR or Advanced Meat Recovery, which is a automated process of removing meat from the bones as opposed to a manual process. None of the meat associated with this particular recall was in any way associated with the AMR process. And in fact fewer than 35 locations in the US is AMR-material-produced, so it would be difficult for me to say that is a common practice.
We in FSIS last spring, well before the Canadian event, had proactively initiated a test and hold procedure related to products related to AMR, so that's something we've been actively working on for quite some time.
DR. DEHAVEN: With that, Operator, if we could have the first question from the phone lines, please?
OPERATOR: Thank you, sir. At this time, your first question comes from Andy Dworkin.
ANDY DWORKIN: Yes. This question is for Dr. Petersen. First, quickly, you said at the end of your statement that more than 80 percent of the meat went to stores in Oregon and Wisconsin. I wanted to make sure that you actually I think meant Washington. And the main part of the question is, for some of the other states that you mentioned yesterday such as Montana and Alaska and going as far as Guam, are the locations in those states that you're looking at more the major department stores that might have gotten product from someplace like Interstate or more the smaller ethnic stores that you talked about before?
DR. DEHAVEN: Thank you. And I do appreciate hat clarification. In fact I believe I made the same error yesterday. I'm not even from Wisconsin.
The 80 percent of the meat we know was distributed and ended up in the states of Oregon and Washington. Those are the two primary states.
Regarding the additional states that we mentioned yesterday, I indicated that there was limited distribution to those other locations, which was Montana, Hawaii, Idaho, Alaska and the territory of Guam. I limited, I'm just starting to get a handle on that today. It appears that in at least one or so of those states "limited" may mean one location. And in fact we're talking about small quantities that were distributed to largely ethnic retail outlets, though there may be one or two grocery chains in there.
So the additional states that we mentioned yesterday were simply states as we worked through the distribution lists for these companies; we found that they were the locations. Those states came to mind. We wanted to get that information out to you. Now we're looking at where exactly in those states and what were the products involved.
Operator, next question, please?
OPERATOR: Thank you. Next question comes from Tina Hudson. Please state your affiliation.
TINA HUDSON (sp): Hi. I'm with the St. Lewis Post Dispatch.
And my question is about the spontaneous occurrence of BSE. Do we know if BSE can arise spontaneously in the cattle population, and is the current testing level enough to detect BSE should it arise by means other than through tainted feed?
DR. DEHAVEN: Thank you for the question. There is known to occur in humans in the human version of the disease or of the TSE called Crutzfeldt Jakob Disease, the occurrence of or the spontaneous occurrence of the disease, meaning that for no known reason people come down with this disease at the approximate prevalence of 1 in one million.
I mentioned earlier that our surveillance testing has been focused on identifying the disease at a prevalence of 1 in a million infected cattle, and we're testing at enough frequency to have a 95 percent confidence level that we would detect the disease at a 1 in a million prevalence level.
So if we were to extrapolate from the human situation where there apparently is spontaneously occurring CJD, then in fact if it occurs at the same prevalence in cattle then we should detect it.
Having said that, we have no evidence to suggest that BSE occurs spontaneously in cattle. It's one of those situations where it's very, very difficult to prove a negative. How can you prove that it doesn't occur?
So there is no scientific basis to say that we do have spontaneous cases of BSE. On the other hand, we don't have sufficient data at this point to definitively say that it doesn't occur.
This particular situation, now that we know or it would certainly appear that this is an animal that would have been born before the feed ban, would tend to not support or lend no support for the theory of spontaneously occurring BSE. But again, it's proving a negative and we simply don't have enough data to definitively say that it doesn't happen.
Next question, please, Operator?
OPERATOR: (off mike) Mr. Vedantam, please state your affiliation.
SHANKAR VEDANTAM: The Washington Post.
Dr. DeHaven, I was wondering what you found in terms of a connection between the Washington State holstein and the farm where the Canadians found a positive case in May. And in turn, what would this say about any common source of infection upstream, potentially placing other animals at risk, especially in the light of your finding that eight other animals from this farm have been shipped to the US?
DR. DEHAVEN: In response to the question, connection between this case that we've just found and apparent or likely trace-back to Alberta and the previous case that was found in Canada in May of this year, I would just begin by saying, we are early in our investigation. This is just the sixth day. And we have just recently obtained the additional information that would tend to add credence to the theory that the farm of origin is in Canada.
So it would be premature to even speculate if there is or is not any connection between that case found in Canada in May and this case recently found in the state of Washington.
No doubt that will be a very important component of the investigation that will occur in Canada as they look for any possible link between those two. I would simply point out however that we are talking about, in the case in May, a beef herd cattle and in this case with the recent find we're talking about a dairy animal. So we do have that difference between a beef herd and apparent dairy herd.
In terms of the additional eight animals, we had documentation originally on a certificate to show that there were 82 animals approved for import into the United States as part of this shipment, but we do know that initially only 74 of them came and presumably including the infected cow, and then it was on a subsequent shipment that the additional 8 animals came. So we're looking at all 82 of those animals or if you take out the one positive cow all 81 animals as animals that we need to trace in that presumably they all came from this one herd that is our primary line of inquiry at this point.
MR. VEDANTAM: Did all those 8 cases come into Washington state, Doctor?
DR. DEHAVEN: We don't know at this point where those animals are. It's our understanding that all of them did come into the state of Washington, not confirmed nor do we have information at this point as to their current whereabouts. But again, tracing those 81 animals is a focal point of our current investigation.
Next question, please, Operator?
OPERATOR: Thank you. Next question comes from Diane McClure.
DIANE MCCLURE: Hi. I'm with the Chronicle in Centralia, Washington.
My question is, you said that downer cows are always inspected by USDA vets. What about primary receivers of the meat like Midway Meats here in Centralia? Do they do any testing, or do they even know that they're receiving meat from an animal that may have BSE?
DR. DEHAVEN: We'll refer that question to Dr. Ken Petersen with Food Safety Inspection Service.
DR. PETERSEN: Well, in this particular case of course the animal had been slaughtered and then those carcasses were shipped to Midway Meats before the time that the actual positive result came in. And again, at the time this was part of our surveillance program for BSE, and it was based on assumptions of the status of the US when we took that, when the surveillance sample was taken.
So Midway Meats is a federally inspected facility, so they have a variety of controls in place that they are obligated t
Quelle: Washington [ usda ]
