*EPF301 12/31/2003
Transcript: Bush Administration Acts to Reassure Public on U.S. Beef
(Agriculture secretary announces enhanced safety measures) (10340)

The Bush administration is moving to boost confidence in U.S. beef products following the discovery in Washington State of a dairy cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as BSE or mad cow disease.

In separate December 30 news briefings, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and other U.S. food and health officials said the United States was adopting measures to enhance rules already in place to prevent the spread of BSE.

Veneman restated her confidence in the safety of the U.S. food supply, citing an independent analysis by Harvard University carried out in 2001 and again in 2003. The Harvard analysis "shows that the risk of BSE spreading in the U.S. is extremely low, and possible spread would have been reversed by the controls that we have already put in place," she said.

Many of the new safeguards announced by Veneman are similar to those introduced by Canada following its discovery of a single case of mad cow disease in May 2003. The new rules include banning from the human food chain all meat from carcasses of "downer" cattle, which are cows unable to walk due to illness or injury. Other regulations will impose stricter measures for the handling of brain and nervous system tissue, which through feed contamination can cause the spread of the disease among cattle. Small intestines from cows will not be allowed into the U.S. food supply, nor will head and spinal tissue from cattle older than 30 months. Officials said the age was chosen because mad cow disease generally has an incubation period of at least three years.

Veneman said the government would speed creation of a national animal identification system and that additional reforms are under consideration. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will also appoint an international panel of experts to review the United States' response to the mad cow case and to consider other potential reforms.

Mad cow disease is a public health concern because of a fatal brain-wasting illness in humans called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJB), which has been linked to consumption of brain or spinal matter from an infected cow.

Following are the transcripts of Secretary Veneman's remarks and of the technical briefing by U.S. food and health officials, which took place immediately afterward:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Transcript of
Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman
Announcing Additional Protection Measures to Guard Against BSE
Washington D.C.

December 30, 2003

SEC. ANN VENEMAN (USDA): Good afternoon, and thank you all for being here with us once again today. I want to acknowledge some of the members of our team who are here with us today. In the front row are Dr. Elsa Murano, our under secretary for food safety here at USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture]. Bill Hawks, who's our under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs. Keith Collins, who's our chief economist. And I want to give a special thanks to those who have been providing you with the regular briefings and the technical briefings that the media has been getting every day. And I think their information has been very helpful and vital.

Dr. Ron DeHaven has been a part of that. He's become someone you see often, our chief veterinarian here at USDA; along with Dr. Ken Petersen of the Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS], and Dr. Sundlof from FDA [Food and Drug Administration] who is not here with us today, but the deputy director of FDA, Dr. Les Crawford, is here. The deputy commissioner, Dr. Crawford, is here with us today.

Also joining the technical briefing today will be Dr. Dan Engeljohn of the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

I'm going to make an opening statement this afternoon, and after that time there's going to be a short break. They're going to reset the stage for the regular technical briefing with our experts that will allow them to answer specific technical questions and update you on the investigation itself.

At the very beginning of that briefing, the technical briefing, Dr. Crawford will provide a presentation on actions by the FDA that are related to the announcements that we're making today.

It was just one week ago today that I stood here before you hours after learning of a single presumptive positive case of BSE, or what we call 'Mad Cow Disease,' in Washington state, and I stood here to make that announcement. In that short period of time, exhaustive efforts have been made, countless hours have been spent, to investigate this finding.

My thanks to everyone who has assisted in these efforts including our partners at the federal, state and industry and international level especially all of the hosts -- and many did this -- they altered their holiday plans significantly to ensure our swift and effective response to this incident.

While this investigation is still in its early phases we've made a lot of progress in both the trace-back and the trace-forward from the indexed cow. Our investigative team on the ground, working with the state of Washington and Canadian authorities, has done an outstanding job. I especially want to thank Canadian officials for their excellent cooperation throughout this process.

As our technical experts have informed you, our main line of inquiry indicates that the cow slaughtered in Washington state and found to have BSE may have been born in Canada. We know that higher risk materials from the animal did not -- did not -- enter the food chain. Recalls of meat and product from this cow and others slaughtered at the same facility on the same day have been implemented, and we continue to be guided by an abundance of caution.

But I will stress again that our food supply and the public health remain safe.

Judging by recent market actions, consumer confidence and demand for beef are still relatively strong. We have initiated discussions with our trading partners which are ongoing to assure them of the actions that we are taking, and continue to take, to investigate this finding. Our USDA trade team has been in Tokyo and South Korea. Our goal is to see trade resume as quickly as possible.

We are also making information available to the public as soon as it becomes known to us. As you know, we have been updating on a daily basis and our updates are virtually up to the minute. They are webcast across the country and around the world and our materials are posted on our USDA website at www.usda.gov.

Sometimes we will tell you that this information is in a preliminary form, but we make it available quickly in the public interest.

For more than a decade the United States has had in place an aggressive surveillance detection and response program for BSE. That program has evolved over time as our understanding of BSE has changed. But sound science continues to be our guide.

We have tested about 20,000 head of cattle for BSE in each of the last two years -- 47 times the recommended international standard. Since 1989 USDA has banned imports of live ruminants and most ruminant product from the United Kingdom and other countries having BSE. In 1997 the FDA prohibited the use of most mammalian protein in the manufacture of animal feed intended for cattle and other ruminants.

I would note, as Dr. DeHaven as done previously, that the indexed cow appears to have been born before the feed ban was in place. And we are now awaiting the results of a DNA test to obtain positive identification on this animal.

Currently in the United States every animal going to slaughter is inspected by a USDA veterinarian for attributes such as ability to walk and central nervous system impairment. An independent analysis of our systems by Harvard University in the years 2001 and then again this year in 2003 shows that the risk of BSE spreading in the U.S. is extremely low, and possible spread would have been reversed by the controls that we have already put in place.

While we are confident that the United States has safeguards and firewalls needed to protect our food supply and public health as well as our animal health, today I am announcing steps we are taking to further protect our system.

In most instances these actions are the results of work that was underway long before the discovery last week in Washington state and prior to the announcement of BSE last May in Alberta, Canada.

First, effective immediately USDA will ban all downer cattle from the human food chain. We will also continue an aggressive surveillance program for BSE. However, these animals tested for BSE will no longer be marked "inspected and passed" until there is confirmation that they have tested negative for BSE. In other words, any animal tested under our surveillance program, that will continue, will be held until the test results are known.

Next, in order to further prevent human exposure to high-risk tissues and protect public health, USDA will implement new regulations. These actions are consistent with those taken by Canada following the BSE case discovered there in May of this year. These regulations deal with specified risk materials or SRMs.

Scientific studies have indicated that specific tissues from cattle of certain ages can harbor prions believed to cause BSE. Therefore, we are declaring those high-risk tissues primarily contained in the head and spinal column in cattle 30 months or older to be unfit for human consumption, and we are prohibiting their presence in human food.

In addition, for all cattle the small intestines will also be considered unfit for human consumption and prohibited from inclusion in human food.

Tonsils will remain prohibited from the human food chain.

Another area we are addressing in the regulations will provide additional process controls for facilities that use a process called advanced meat recovery, or AMR systems. AMR is a technical process that enables processors to remove smaller amounts of meat from carcasses without breaking bones. This rule will codify an existing USDA policy that prohibits the presence of spinal cord tissue in beef obtained through the AMR process.

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service currently verifies the presence of spinal cord tissue through testing of the product. The new AMR rule will ensure that spinal cord tissue and another central nervous system tissue known as dorsal root ganglia are not present in the AMR product.

We will also specify that the skull cannot be used in AMR systems. These new regulations will become effective immediately on publication, which will take place as soon as possible.

In addition, FSIS is issuing a regulation to prohibit air injection stunning of cattle. This will further strengthen our systems by decreasing the risk of any brain material becoming dislodged during the slaughter of an animal.

USDA is also working to take the next steps toward implementation of a verifiable system of national animal identification. This is a process that has been underway for more than a year and a half. USDA has led an effort among partners at the federal and state levels, along with industry, which has resulted in the adoption of standards for a nationwide animal ID system. Currently many animals can be identified through some system of animal ID. In fact, the cow in question was subject to an animal ID system, which has facilitated our investigation in this case over the past week.

Such a system will help enhance the speed and accuracy of our response to disease outbreaks across many different animal species. With the standards now in place, I have asked USDA's chief information officer to make it his top priority to work with the committee that's working on this issue to develop the technology architecture necessary to implement an effective and verifiable system throughout the United States.

Our goals are to achieve uniformity, consistency, and efficiency across the national system.

And finally today, I am announcing the appointment of an international panel of scientific experts to provide an objective review of our response actions and areas for potential enhancement. This team will function almost identically to the panel that lent expertise to Canada after the May 20 discovery of BSE in Alberta.

In fact, we anticipate that the team members from the Canada incident will also serve on the panel that we are announcing today.

It is important that USDA seek credible, objective scientists from countries that have had experience with BSE in implementing the most effective response possible.

The actions that we're taking today are steps to enact additional safeguards to protect the public health and maintain the confidence of consumers, industry, and our trading partners in our already strong food safety and protection systems. Along with our scientific review panel we will continue to look at other potential actions that may be appropriate. USDA remains committed to taking every appropriate step along with our partners to protect our food supply and the well being of American agriculture. I want to again thank you all for being here today, and I will take a few questions, and then we will follow with our experts.

OPERATOR: We will be using microphones so please wait for your microphone, state your name and affiliation please.

DAN GOLDSTEIN: Dan Goldstein, Bloomberg News. The list of safeguards that you're enacting today, were these in response to the USDA's trade mission to Japan, and what do you imagine the reaction is going to be to Japan and some other trade partners who have banned about 3.6 billion worth of beef subsequent to this event? What's their, going to be the reaction to this?

SEC. VENEMAN: Well, as I said in my opening remarks, these actions that we are announcing today are actions that we have been considering particularly since the case of BSE in Canada earlier this year. Certainly we are very concerned about the reaction of our trade partners. As you know we dispatched a team on Saturday, which arrived on Sunday to meet with our trading partners in Tokyo. They went on to Korea and had meetings today.

These actions are not being taken in response just to our trading partners certainly, but they are being taken because we believe that given the circumstances that we are now in -- that is, we are a country with one positive case of BSE -- that we should take these actions that are appropriate and consistent with actions that other countries have taken and many of which are consistent with what the international organization recommends for a country with a find of BSE.

In particular, you will note that I announced that the ban on specified risk materials -- that prohibition will match the one that was put in place by Canada, and therefore we will have a consistency of standard in that regard.

Randy?

RANDY FABI: Randy Fabi, Reuters. Are downer cattle allowed to be rendered now? Are they still going to be allowed to be used as pet food? And also with these new regulations do you see beef prices rising for consumers?

SEC. VENEMAN: I don't expect an increase in the price to consumers. The number of cattle that enter into the food supply as downer animals currently is a very small number when compared to the universe of cattle that we slaughter in this country. We slaughter somewhere in excess of 35 million head a year, and it's estimated that the downer cattle were in the range of 150,000 to 200,000. So as you can see, that's a very small percentage.

So I would not anticipate an economic impact, but I would invite you to ask that question of Dr. Collins later on this afternoon as well.

So I don't anticipate a market response to this in terms of increase in consumer prices because I think that the number is a very small number.

RANDY FABI: And rendering?

SEC. VENEMAN: On rendering, I think Dr. Crawford will be addressing that in his remarks because as you know the product that goes into pet food is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration as opposed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Yes, sir, right here.

SETH BORENSTEIN: Seth Borenstein, Knight Ridder Newspapers. Since the tests on downers were a major part of your surveillance system, what's left with the surveillance in terms of sick animals and injured animals on the farm, and what are you going to do in terms of surveillance of healthy animals for BSE?

SEC. VENEMAN: Well, we are going to continue an aggressive surveillance program. We are going to look at all of the high-risk areas. Particularly we know that older animals are higher risk, any animals that exhibit any kind of unusual symptoms of any kind. But we will be identifying the whole range of animals that may be the higher risk animals.

And as I said, we're going to continue a very aggressive surveillance program and increase our surveillance considerably over what it's been in the last couple of years.

MOLLY HOOPER: Molly Hooper, Fox News Channel. How will this affect the beef industry? How much money will this cost cattle ranchers and, you know, etcetera, etcetera? How much will this cost them? How much will it cost the USDA?

SEC. VENEMAN: Well, it is too preliminary at this point to determine what kind of cost will cost the USDA in terms of surveillance, and so forth. There will be some additional cost. We had already anticipated increases in our surveillance partially because of the find in Canada. And so there are additional increases associated with that. We're going to be looking at other costs in the system, but I don't anticipate that the change in the specified risk materials, the ban on downer animals in the food system, are going to cost USDA significant amounts of money -- or for that matter the industry -- significant amounts of money for the very reason that I just stated -- that this involves a very small number of animals in the scheme of things.

But again, I would invite you to address some of these questions directly to Dr. Collins during the technical briefing because I think that he can give you an overall economic review of the industry and potential economic impacts.

Yes, ma'am.

GWEN ADRON: Gwen Adron, ABC News. Have you made any decisions yet about reductions of the quarantined herds in Washington state?

SEC. VENEMAN: We are still reviewing those herds as part of the investigation. At this time, there are two herds that remain under quarantine. One is the dairy itself where the indexed animal came from initially, and the other is the facility where the calf from this cow went. And both of those remain under quarantine, and we are still reviewing in the case of the dairy all of the various records -- the cattle, looking at which other ones may have come in in the same herd from Canada, and we want to do all of the investigation in that regard. We are looking at how we're going to deal with the group that has the calves in it as well, but no decisions have yet finally been made on that.

Yes, sir, in the back.

TOM DOGGETT: Tom Doggett, Reuters. Was President Bush briefed on these changes you're making, and what was his reaction to them?

SEC. VENEMAN: I've had regular briefings with the President and with senior members in the White House, and they are fully aware of the actions that we're taking today.

Bill?

BILL THOMSON: Bill Thomson, Dow Jones. Madam Secretary, I don't understand how you will continue the surveillance if downer cattle aren't brought to the slaughterhouse now. Congress considered a measure such as you're announcing today, and one of the main objections by other congressmen -- and the reason it failed is because they said, 'Now we won't be able to find out whether or not there's BSE.' Are you worried that people are going to bury downer cattle on the farms? APHIS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] has for awhile wanted to go on to farms to check downer cattle. Are these some of the possibilities?

SEC. VENEMAN: I think they're all possibilities. I mean, obviously we're going to be looking at other ways to test downer cattle besides at the slaughter plant, because if they're not coming into a slaughter plant. Certainly rendering plants are one option, and we're going to be discussing those options closely with FDA, and I think we will look at a whole variety of actions, and whether or not that involves on-farm is undetermined at this point.

Again, I would remind all of you that we are only one week into this situation. We're announcing some fairly aggressive actions today. We think they're appropriate actions, but there will be follow-up measures that we will be assessing as we go forward. I can tell you that we have our staff very, very engaged at every level in all of the discussions, along with FDA, and we are looking at all the different ramifications of things that we decide to do, including the kinds of things that you're raising. But I would just reiterate that we will continue to have an aggressive surveillance program, and it will be based on high-risk animals. And again, that is largely associated with an animal's age as well as other factors.

Thank you all very much. We will now have about a five-minute break and you all will have the opportunity to talk with our technical group.

(end Veneman briefing)

(begin USDA technical briefing)

Technical Briefing and Webcast with U.S. Government Officials On BSE Case

Tuesday, Dec. 30

Welcome to today's technical briefing on the BSE situation. Today we are going to start off with an update by Dr. Ron DeHaven. He's the chief veterinary officer for USDA. We'll have a statement by Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, executive associate for policy from Food Safety Inspection Service. And then we'll have a statement by Dr. Lester M. Crawford. He's the deputy commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration.

I just want to point out a couple of things. Because of the number of people on this call, we would ask that you ask one question, no follow-ups. Also at the table here is Dr. Kenneth Petersen. He is the executive associate for regulatory operations at FSIS. He will be available as well to answer questions as needed. So the way it will work today is we'll let the statements go, and then we'll take three questions from the audio bridge; then we'll take three here, and then alternate. Dr. DeHaven will point you out. Wait for the mike to come to you. And then, with that, I think we're ready to begin. Dr. DeHaven?

DR. DEHAVEN: Thank you very much. Again, thank you all for being here. Ed mentioned that we will be making some statements. And, actually, I'm going to defer to my friend and colleague, Dr. Lester Crawford from Food and Drug Administration, and let him make the opening statement. Dr. Crawford?

DR. CRAWFORD: The Food and Drug Administration fully supports the safety policies announced today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which build on the principles and procedures that FDA and USDA have developed since 1997. These protective measures will add an additional layer of protection to the American public. In order to obtain these goals, FDA will evaluate the impacts of the new policies on the agency's resources, so that we can devise and implement the most effective and efficient additional layer of protection to the American public.

FDA will devote additional resources in order to do these increased responsibilities for protecting the safety of the food and feed supply. FDA will continue to rigorously enforce its measures to protect the public health against the BSE hazard. In the last six years, the agency has sponsored workshops, teleconferences and other outreach programs to stimulate cooperation of state, local and cross-border authorities in a vigilant surveillance for BSE. It has issued import alerts and bulletins to detain all products with processed animal protein from countries with BSE. It has requested blood centers to exclude blood donations by individuals who might be carriers of the BSE agent. And it has urged manufacturers of drugs, vaccines, medical devices and cosmetics to use only materials derived from cattle that are BSE free. The main focus of FDA's BSE prevention program has been regular inspections of all renderers and feed mills in the United States, more than 99 percent of whom have achieved full compliance with the 1997 FDA rule that prohibits the inclusion of most animal protein in feeds for cattle and other ruminants. The effectiveness of FDA's surveillance was most recently confirmed by the fact that all of the firms involved in the current BSE investigation were found to be in compliance with the FDA rule, and that the agency working with state and industry officials was able to halt the distribution of all of the meat and bone meal from the sick animal.

I cannot close without complimenting Secretary Veneman and the Department of Agriculture, who have been in complete communication with FDA. We have worked together and our agency applauds her leadership in this regard. We recognize that USDA is the lead agency. We want you to know that we feel like we are in complete communication, and we are working together on this, and in the end we will bring this to a satisfactory conclusion as fast as we possibly can.

Lastly, FDA has contained, as we have previously announced, all of the suspect rendered material. It is under our control, and it is being held at the present time.

DR. DEHAVEN: Dr. Crawford, thank you, and thank you for being here with us today.

Just a brief update on our investigation stemming from, again, a single positive cow slaughtered on December 9th, and she tested positive for BSE on December 23rd. Documentation is now available indicating that she was approximately six and a half years old at the time of slaughter, and our primary line of inquiry does lead to a farm in Alberta, Canada. The age of the animal is particularly important in that it does provide an explanation as to how she became infected, in that as a six-and-a-half-year-old with an approximate birth date of April 1997, she in fact would have been born before the feed ban went into place, either in Canada or the United States.

Multiple samples for DNA testing are in various stages of being submitted to two laboratories, one in Canada and one in the United States. We continue our trace-back and trace-forward investigations. We believe that the positive cow was one of 82 animals from the same Canadian herd that were permitted into the United States. We are conducting a painstaking records review to determine the transit, timing and current location of these 82 head of cattle. We do know that several are on the same premises where the positive cow was located immediately before she went to slaughter.

The positive cow we know had three calves while she was in the United States. The first animal, or first calf, was stillborn. The second is currently a yearling heifer, and is located on the index farm. And the third, a bull calf, is in a group of calves at another location, a calf feeding operation which is also under a state hold order.

I want to emphasize that these hold orders are not imposed because BSE is a contagious disease, or in any way to prevent the spread of this disease, since we know from the science that the disease is not spread by casual contact animal to animal. Rather, these hold orders are in place to ensure that we maintain the location of all animals that are of consequence and otherwise relevant to our ongoing investigation.

Just on a side note, if I could, I am hearing from my colleagues in the state of Washington that because of the incredible interest in this issue, there had been reports that reporters are visiting multiple dairy farms throughout the state. And while BSE cannot spread by this way, other diseases can be spread by people and equipment who move on and off the farm. So I would urge all farmers and visitors to take appropriate biosecurity precautions, and please let's respect the privacy and property of these individuals.

Finally, I just want to reiterate that the science supports our assertion that the meat is safe and nothing that we have announced today changes any of that. Over the last few days we have indicated that we are carefully considering appropriate changes to our system. Clearly that's a prudent thing to do given this new find in the United States, as well as the find in Canada in May of this year.

Today's announcement by the Secretary is clearly a result of that review. These actions do not in any way suggest that the meat produced in the current system is unsafe. For years we have had a feed ban in place. The high-risk materials from this positive cow were removed. And meat produced on the day that this positive cow was slaughtered is being recalled. Just like the meat recall, we are making these further enhancements to our system out of an abundance of caution.

I would again like to express my thanks to the owner of the index herd who has been extremely cooperative, as has the owner of the slaughter plant where this animal was slaughtered, the importers involved in the movement of these animals, and of course state officials in the state of Washington, and my friends and colleagues with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. All of them have provided tremendous assistance as we proceed with this investigation.

And, again, my thanks to the news media. We have been working hard, or you have been working hard, to ensure accurate reporting of this very complex and rapidly evolving situation.

With that, let me provide an opportunity for my colleague from the Food Safety Inspection Service, Dr. Dan Engeljohn, to make a statement.

DR. ENGELJOHN: Thank you, Dr. DeHaven. The Secretary of Agriculture has very broad authority to be able to swiftly and effectively take the policy actions that she announced earlier today. Here at the Department of Agriculture we have the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which the Food Safety Inspection Service administers. Through the Food Safety Inspection Service -- we are the public health regulatory agency here at USDA -- that ensures that the food supply -- in particular the meat, poultry and eggs -- are in fact safe, properly labeled and, importantly, that they are fit for human consumption.

With the policies that the Secretary announced today, we will put in place, or intend to put in place, regulatory policies that will ensure that the federally-inspected facilities will have written procedures that will document how they intend to segregate these high-risk tissues from those which present lower risk or no risk at all. As the Secretary mentioned, we are going to focus on tissues that contain the potential for high infectivity. And because healthy-appearing animals may in fact have infectivity in those tissues, we'll concentrate on those tissues even in healthy-appearing animals. As the Secretary mentioned, we'll look at the small intestine and the tonsils of all cattle. We intend to prohibit the use of the brain and spinal cord and the vertebral column in cattle of older age that may have higher infectivity because of their age.

With those actions, I'd like to turn the microphone back over to you, Dr. DeHaven.

DR. DEHAVEN: All right. We'll open it up for questions. And, as was first mentioned, we'll go to our telephone bridge for the first three questions. So, operator, if we could please have the first question.

OPERATOR: Our first question is from Leah Beth Ward. Your line is now opened.

LEAH BETH WARD: Hi, Yakima Herald Republic. We have a large population here in the Yakima Valley that customarily consumes brains, spinal cord material. Are you saying that these delicacies to some of our people are now no longer going to be in the market?

DR. ENGELJOHN: Yes, I'll answer that question, from the Food Safety Inspection Service. The policies that we intend to put forward will focus on the highly-infective tissues, or the potentially highly-infective tissues from older animals. With that being said, those animals that are younger would still be able to be processed -- such as the brain and spinal cord -- could in fact be used for edible purposes.

DR. DEHAVEN: (?) So the ban in fact does -- would preclude those tissues, but only from animals over 30 months of age. And clearly that is a restriction that is based in science, and that we know from research studies that the prion, the infectious agent, typically does not appear in those tissues until well after that 30-month age mark.

Operator, next question?

OPERATOR: Our next question is from Scott Kilman. Please state your affiliation.

SCOTT KILMAN: Hi, this is Scott Kilman with Wall Street Journal. Dr. Crawford, the GAO report in 2002 made the point that the United States feed ban is far more permissive in countries that do have BSE in their cattle population -- for example, Europe. Now that the United States knows that BSE is here, and the surveillance done by the USDA suggests the possibility that it's here at the rate of one in a million, or 100 cattle in the United States, why hasn't the FDA immediately banned the use of cattle material in any feed for livestock, for any livestock?

DR. CRAWFORD: The question relates to the use of these materials in non-ruminants as I take it, and there is no scientific evidence that animals such as pigs and chickens can get the disease BSE, and therefore that action has not been taken.

DR. DEHAVEN: Next question, operator?

OPERATOR: Our next question is from Jeff St. John. Your line is now open.

JEFF ST. JOHN: Hi, this is Jeff St. John with the Tri-City Herald. I just wanted to clear up whether or not there was the determination that either the Sunnyside herd of calves or the Sunny Dene Ranch herd was definitely going to be destroyed, whether or not that was going to take place. I was wondering any details on when and where and who would be involved in that testing and destruction of those two herds.

DR. DEHAVEN: This is Dr. DeHaven. There has been no final determination at this point in terms of the disposition of those calves. We do know that on that calf feeding operation there are approximately 460 calves. We are today going through that group of animals, identifying them as according to age and gender, and then at that point we will make the appropriate determination as to which of the animals may need to be euthanized and destroyed. So no determination has been made yet in terms of which group, or all of those animals would need to be sacrificed, so we don't have at this point definitive plans exactly when and where that would take place.

Now we'll move to questions here in the room. Lady in the black sweater there, please. Please wait for the microphone.

SALLY SCHUFF: Thank you. I'm Sally Schuff with Feedstuffs. My question is for Dr. Crawford. Dr. Crawford, last year, in '02, FDA suggested or posted an advanced notice of rulemaking on possible expansions on the feed rule. Can you tell me if you will accelerate your rulemaking process on that based on the policy changes announced today?

DR. CRAWFORD: We are evaluating several possible changes in how FDA works to prevent BSE in conjunction with USDA, but we have not made a determination as to whether or not to go forward with some of those. Basically what we put forward was an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. We took comments from the public, both the scientific community, medical community, and the general public. And we have not developed a policy as to whether or not we will go forward with any of those at this point.

DR. DEHAVEN: Next question, please. Yes, sir, right here in the front row.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: A question for you, Dr. DeHaven, Shankar Vedantam, the Washington Post. Given that you believe the animal from Washington state was more than six years old, and given that the animal that was found in Canada in May may have also been infected before the feed ban went into place, are you planning any increased surveillance for animals that are older than six to eight years old, than what you are doing right now? And in the same line of the surveillance question, Secretary Veneman talked about an increased identification program. Could you give us details of what that program would look like? Is it going to be from birth to slaughter, or is going to be from slaughter to the grocery stores, or from both to the grocery stores?

DR. DEHAVEN: Shankar, thank you for those questions. This is Dr. DeHaven. The fact that the animal that was found positive in Canada in May was older than six years old, and therefore not subject to the feed ban, and the fact that this animal now appears to have been older than six years old, and therefore not subject to the feed ban, is a significant point, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. It would suggest the fact that we are not finding other animals positive that the feed ban on both sides of the border has been very effective. And also emphasizes or confirms the emphasis in the report from the Harvard risk assessment that said that the most important thing we can do in terms of preventing the spread of the disease animal to animal is through an effective feed ban.

Our surveillance has always targeted older animals, particularly those that are showing central nervous system disorders, or those animals that are nonambulatory. And so that won't change. We do know that the disease with an incubation period typically of three to six years would suggest that that older population, especially those that have shown some clinical illness or are nonambulatory, would be our target population. I think the challenge for us now is with that population not going to slaughter we need to develop a system where we can still test those animals, whether they go to rendering, whether they be on the farm. And so we will be working very closely with those industries, and with the veterinary profession, as we come up with means where we can continue our surveillance on that high-target population.

As to the question on animal identification, we had been working actually for a year and a half with a cooperative effort involving state agencies, as well as all of the interested industries, in terms of a comprehensive animal identification system, one that would focus on an electronic ID that would be entered into an electronic system that would provide us very rapid access, and therefore the ability to very rapidly trace animals.

In terms of where that would happen or how that would happen, I think those are the kinds of details that are yet to be resolved, but we do have that plan, a basic implementation plan that we actually currently are in the process of working with the implementation teams -- a cooperative effort between state and private industry in terms of developing. And we will proceed with that from here.

Next question. Randy, please?

RANDY FABI: Randy Fabi with Reuters. I just -- well, first -- okay, I know I only get to get one shot at this, so on the product holding, is USDA testing all cattle? And, if so, after visiting the mad cow testing facility in Ames, it's a pretty dilapidated facility. So does the USDA actually have the capabilities to test more mad cow brains or just brains for mad cow disease.

DR. DEHAVEN: Randy, I'm sorry, I didn't understand the first part of your question.

RANDY FABI: In the product holding, the test and hold, is the USDA going to be testing all cattle for mad cow disease?

DR. DEHAVEN: No, let me clarify. This is Dr. DeHaven. Let me clarify what the process is intended to be. We are not doing a test-and-hold, if you will, where we would test every nonambulatory animal at slaughter. Rather, we would not allow nonambulatory animals to enter the food chain.

For those animals that do end up at a slaughter plant that then become nonambulatory, we would certainly target those for testing. And we would do a test and hold on those carcasses, so that we would in fact have a system where we could collect those samples, submit them to the laboratory, and have a rapid turnaround where we would then be able within a matter of 36 to 48 hours be able to report those results out, using the rapid test. So that is the plan at present. Again, as the Secretary mentioned, this is very preliminary information. The details and the exact mechanics of that are yet to be worked out.

We are currently doing that testing at our laboratory in Ames, Iowa, the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. We are currently in the middle of a modernization project with our colleagues in Agriculture Research Service to modernize those facilities. In fact, we have got a construction project that totals in excess of $400 million. We would anticipate with the early phases of that building, or of that facility, that are currently under construction, that we will soon be able to move the testing into those new facilities. In the meantime, I want to assure everyone that we are using state-of-the-art equipment. We have recognized experts internationally in the testing procedures. So while our facilities may not be pretty, they certainly have been effective, and they are doing world-class work in those facilities that we currently have.

Last question for inside the room here, the gentleman in the back there please?

BILL TOMSON: My name is Bill Tomson with Dow Jones. This may be a question for you, Dr. DeHaven, or Dr. Petersen -- I'm not quite sure. It's my understanding that because this cow was, as you said today and yesterday, older, predates the feed ban, and it was nonambulatory, but was not nonambulatory for central nervous system reasons, it was declared -- it was -- and so therefore the meat went on to a processing facility, and it was not condemned. So but it's not being proposed here that all animals that are older and predate the feed ban cannot be slaughtered?

DR. DEHAVEN: No, let me clarify. This is Dr. DeHaven. We are not suggesting that older animals would not be allowed to be slaughtered. Rather, we are saying nonambulatory animals will not be allowed to move to slaughter and enter into the food chain. We do want to continue to target that older population of animals for our surveillance testing, recognizing that with a disease with an incubation period of three to six years it's only natural, number one, that we target that older population; and, two, that we target animals that are showing some clinical illness, especially those that have central nervous system disorder, and especially those that would be nonambulatory.

We know that particularly in the early stages of an animal with clinical disease the clinical signs can be very subtle. It almost becomes a chicken-and-egg question: Did the animal become nonambulatory? Did she fall and break her leg, if you will, because she had CNS [central nervous system] signs associated with BSE, or did she simply fall and might have been incubating the disease, and therefore we happen to discover the disease at the time of testing?

So I would emphasize this is a surveillance testing system intended not to definitively determine if every animal that goes to slaughter has the disease or not. The surveillance system has been focused on determining, one, if we have the disease, and at what prevalence do we have the disease? And by targeting that target population -- older animals, and particularly those older animals that are showing some clinical illness, especially central nervous system disorder, we get the most benefit, the greatest bang for your buck, if you will, in terms of the tests that we do run.

BILL TOMSON: I just want to --

MODERATOR: Bill, Bill, to be fair, I think we have to take some questions from the audio bridge now. There are well over 500 reporters there. Dr. DeHaven?

DR. DEHAVEN: Okay, operator if we could take the next question from the telephone bridge.

OPERATOR: Our next question is from Ron Haze (sp). Please state your affiliation.

RON HAZE (sp): Yes, this is Ron Haze with Clear Channel Ag Radio Networks. I wanted to know exactly what your plans are for those 81 animals as you continue your trace-back efforts. Do you intend to, as you identify them, to go ahead and slaughter them and test them for BSE?

DR. DEHAVEN: This is Dr. DeHaven. Thank you for the question. Our job, one, is to find those 81 animals. We want to do our best through the records that are available to us to find out, one, did they all come into the United States? Certainly we had 82 animals, the positive animal and 81 others that were permitted, that had all the necessary paperwork that would allow them to enter the United States. The first job is to find out which ones did come and where are they currently located.

We also know from the disease that the animals that would be of greatest concern would be what we call the birth cohorts: the animals that were in the herd at the same time as the positive animal that might have been exposed to the same feed source and therefore might also be harboring the disease. Clearly those animals we would want to identify for slaughter or for -- excuse me, for sacrificing and for testing. I think it would be premature to make a determination at this point as to what might happen with the other animals -- other animals that might have been in the herd, but clearly would not have been of the appropriate age to have been exposed to the same feed sources. Although I think immediately what we would do is the same thing we've done with the other animals that are of concern, and that is to put a hold or a quarantine order on them, find as much as we can out about their history, and then make a determination as to whether or not they need to be sacrificed and tested.

Next question, operator, please?

OPERATOR: Our next question is from Steve Mitchell. Please state your affiliation.

STEVE MITCHELL: Yes, this is Steve Mitchell with United Press International. You are talking about a turnaround for some of these animals that will be tested and then put on hold of 36 to 48 hours. So does that mean you are moving towards going to be implementing the so-called rapid tests that are in use in Europe?

DR. DEHAVEN: This is Dr. DeHaven. Indeed we are talking about using one of several rapid tests. There are several that have been used in Europe, as well as other parts of the world. And to have that kind of turnaround we would definitely be going to one or potentially more of those tests. Theoretically the plan as we have developed this thus far would suggest that we would obtain the samples, whether they be at rendering plants or on the farm, potentially those animals that go to slaughter and become nonambulatory after they arrive at slaughter. Those samples then would be sent by overnight express to our laboratory, to be received in the neighborhood of 10:00 the next morning. They would be set up to run in the laboratory, and have results out that afternoon. And if everything goes perfectly, and assuming negative results, we would report those results out the afternoon or early evening the day after they were collected.

So we are getting ourselves some flexibility there, recognizing that some samples might not be obtained in time to be ready for overnight express pick-up that day, so there might be a delay there. There's always the possibility that there could be complications in the laboratory. And clearly for those animals that would test positive on one of these screening tests, we would continue to hold product or carcasses in those situations pending testing on the other tests. So indeed for that kind of turnaround we would contemplate going to one of the rapid screening tests.

STEVE MITCHELL: Do you have any --

DR. DEHAVEN: I wonder if we could please go on to the next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question is from Andy Dworkin. Please state your affiliation.

ANDY DWORKIN: Yes, with the Oregonian. I was wondering, you guys have talked a lot in the last couple of days about the very open border in terms of both live animal trade and feed trade and other things between us and Canada. Given that, why were some of these changes not made on the confirmation of Canada's first case, or at least for instance when Canada made its changes dealing with SRMs, why did the U.S. not do the same thing at that point in time, instead of waiting for a U.S. case to be found?

DR. DEHAVEN: This is Dr. DeHaven. I would answer that by saying that we have had, and continue to have, a very effective system in this country, and we know that our colleagues in Canada, even before they made the changes following their find of BSE in May of this year, had a very effective system. The current case I think is evidence of that, the fact that our surveillance system picked up this animal, the fact that we had a feed ban in place that has every appearance of having stopped any animal-to-animal spread through the feed, the fact that the risk materials from this particular animal didn't enter into the food chain. And just as a precautionary measure we're doing the recall. So, again, I think, one, we wanted to ensure that any steps that we take would be well thought out, well planned. We have had the benefit of the time since May to contemplate some of the changes that the Secretary announced today. But, in the meantime, we felt good about the system that we had in place. And, again, this situation would suggest that we had a very good reason to be confident in the system that we had in place. Having said that, we are taking these actions out of an abundance of caution, and not because we think that the system that has been in place has put our livestock or our public in jeopardy.

Last question from the telephone bridge, operator?

OPERATOR: The next question is from Mike McGuiness (sp). Please state your affiliation.

MIKE MCGUINESS (sp): Yes, I'm with Data Transmission Network. My question is we are getting reports that the U.S. consumer is willing to continue to buy beef. But has the export market that has been lost, does that come back in 2004 or not? And I'm not sure who wants to answer this.

DR. DEHAVEN: This is Dr. DeHaven, and I'll make an initial attempt at that, and we also have here with us Dr. Keith Collins, our chief economist within the department, and we would certainly provide Keith an opportunity to make any additional comments.

One of our concerns relative to the whole BSE situation internationally has been the fact that the response to a country reporting a case of BSE has been largely a response not based on the science, not based on international standards that are based on the science, but rather has been largely in response to public concern and overreaction. But, admittedly, the United States has been part of that problem, but we have been working very actively, especially since the find of the case in Canada in May of this year, to change that international overreaction based on public perception and not based on the science.

Indeed, as we have sent several delegations to our trading partners to discuss the trade implications of this disease, as they have sent delegations to the United States, one of our focal points, I would even suggest that our main focal point, has been to emphasize the science, to emphasize that we have very good science-based international standards that we collectively need to start implementing, and as has been pointed out time and again with this recent situation, not punish countries who do the right thing by having in place good systems and then get punished by reporting a case, recognizing that there are commodities that can safely be traded from countries even after they have the disease, and even from countries that have moderate or high prevalence of the disease. With that, Keith, anything to add to this?

Okay. So we'll take two more questions from here in the room, please. Yes, sir?

SETH BORENSTEIN: Seth Borenstein, Knight Ridder Newspapers. Not knowing my cattle as much as I should, in terms of the specified risk material that you are talking about in over 30-month cattle, one, is there any guesstimate on how many pounds or tons of cattle are we talking about a year this is affecting? And can you tell us sort of -- obviously people eat brains as a delicacy, but some of this may get in hot dogs -- you know, what cut around spinal cord that gets affected?

DR. DEHAVEN: For that we will defer to our colleagues in Food Safety Inspection Service. Dr. Engeljohn?

DR. ENGELJOHN: Yes, this is Dr. Engeljohn. The question that you had about the appearance of brain and other tissues in hot dogs and things such as that, we presently have requirements that many of the sausage items that you can purchase may in fact have variety meats in them or byproducts in them, that many items that are labeled as meat products have or would not have items such as brain in them. There are specialty items that may in fact have brain in them, but for the most part they are not produced here in this country. But the general sausage product would not have brain in it.

And your first question? I'm sorry?

SETH BORENSTEIN: The amount of tons of cattle --

DR. ENGELJOHN: Yes, I can't give you an exact figure for that. I can give you a general proportion of the number of animals that are in fact over 30 months of age. And in this country roughly 20 percent of the cattle that are slaughtered are over the age of 30 months.

MARK SHERMAN: Mark Sherman with the Associated Press. How many of the 81 cattle have you found, including how many of those are in the same index herd? And you said you would be testing those. Do you also plan to test the recalled meat just out of the same abundance of caution that you've spoken of so frequently?

DR. DEHAVEN: This is Dr. DeHaven. Let me address the question with regard to the 81 cattle, and then we can talk about testing, or let FSIS talk about the testing of the recalled meat. As far as the 81 cattle, the trace back of those animals is going to I think come to fruition, or our effort in that regard is going to come to fruition significantly in the next couple of days. We have a lot of source documents to tell us which animals were likely to have come and where they might have gone from there. Quite honestly, one of the limiting factors is the animal identification issue, and not all of the animals had the same kind of ID that the infected cow did have. So I can't tell you at this point exactly how many of those 81 animals we have traced out, or exactly where they are, other than to say that a number of those animals in fact have been found on the index herd, the premises where this positive cow left immediately before she went to slaughter.

On the testing of the meat, let me first explain that the testing that we have for this disease requires brain tissue. All of the tests require tissue from a very specific portion of the brain to do our testing to be relevant. So there is no test that we have available -- and I'll allow my FSIS colleagues to correct me -- but so far as I know no test that's available that we can apply to meat that would be readily available. And, here again, I think it's important that we emphasize scientifically that's not one of the risk tissues. That's not one of the parts of the animal where the infectious agent, the prion, goes. So even if we get that meat back, there wouldn't be anything there to look for in terms of infectious agent.

Anything to add to that?

DR. ENGELJOHN: No.

DR. DEHAVEN: Okay. And I understand that we are going to provide the opportunity for one absolutely final last question today.

DAN GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, Dr. DeHaven. Dan Goldstein, with Bloomberg News. I'm not a math whiz, but just looking at the numbers that Secretary Veneman provided, with between 50,000 and 100,000 downer cattle slaughtered every year, with the ban going into effect ostensibly soon after this announcement, that still would leave about 1,000 to 3,000 downer cattle essentially in the system after the December 23rd discovery of BSE. And obviously not every downer animal is diseased or has symptoms of BSE. But do you think it was wise to wait a week to do that? Why not just simply make that decision then a week ago, and get these potentially loaded guns out of the food chain?

DR. DEHAVEN: This is Dr. DeHaven. I'll take an attempt at that, and then provide FSIS colleagues an opportunity to comment as well.

We are again emphasizing operating out of an abundance of caution. So while there has been a week gone by since we confirmed the positive, or had presumptive positive results on this particular animal, I want to emphasize it's not as if we haven't had an effective system in place during that week's time. And I would also suggest that given the magnitude of the changes that the Secretary announced today, making those changes just one week after we received presumptive positive results is extremely fast action.

In the meantime, again I would emphasize that for those animals that might be in the system, they would have been subject to the same safeguards that have been in place and have protected us so well thus far. We have had a feed ban in place that certainly for those animals under six months of age should have kept them from becoming infected. Specified risk materials from this positive cow were kept out of the food system. And, again, the recall on this meat was done out of an abundance of caution and not because it represents a real risk to the public health.

So it's only prudent that we take these additional steps, given again the find a week ago in the United States, as well as taking into account that we have had an integrated market with Canada, and their find in May. But in the meantime, we have had an effective system in place and nothing that we are doing today -- none of the actions that we are doing today are being or should be taken as a suggestion that anything but safe beef has been made available in the United States up till now.

DR. PETERSEN: Dr. Petersen, FSIS. It's difficult to predict when these nonambulatory animals will come to a particular slaughter facility. And to suggest that by waiting we would somehow get caught up is really not consistent with how they come to market. If it's a recent injury, for example, they're going to come immediately, and that's a situation that I cannot predict. An animal that has perhaps been ill, it's a determination made on the particular clinical status of that animal to decide if they're going to get better, or should I go ahead and proceed to slaughter. And so those are kind of day-by-day decisions, so at some point we have to decide we're going to go forward, and we've decided to go forward, as the Secretary has indicated.

DAN GOLDSTEIN: Can't predict how many downer cattle went into the system prior to this?

DR. PETERSEN: Well, we know the trends over time, but it's not a daily trend or necessarily a weekly trend. They come and go, but we have seen relative consistency in the numbers over the years, and those are the numbers the Secretary indicated.

DR. DEHAVEN: Thank you for your questions. We appreciate the continued interest and responsible reporting. And, Ed, any update on the next one?

MODERATOR: Yes, the next briefing, we'll make an announcement. We'll keep you posted. Transcripts available on the web shortly thereafter this briefing. And for follow-up media call 202-720-4623.

(end USDA technical briefing)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents