Japan ...
Japan
Embassy Web Site Answers Questions On BSE
A question-and-answer session in a press briefing at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo March 3 led to the posting of answers to BSE questions on the embassy Web site. The event was part of ongoing cooperative efforts between the embassy and USMEF-Japan to reassure Japanese consumers:
- Are all cattle inspected prior to slaughter?
- Why isn't USDA testing all cattle slaughtered in the United States?
- Do you think you will find more cases of BSE? (APHIS)
- Are all SRMs properly removed? What is the procedure? How is SRM-removal and prevention of cross-contamination ensured?
- Isn't Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR) still being used?
- Feed ban: The United States claims that it has been implementing a ban on feeding mammalian proteins to ruminants since 1997, but it still is primarily a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. How can you prevent bovine-derived poultry feed, for example, from commingling with cattle feed?
- What was the rate of compliance of the U.S. feed ban in the initial stages of its implementation?
- Please provide an update on the investigation into the recent labor union allegation of problems with the implementation/compliance of the SRM regulation.
- What is A Maturity?
- How can A40 assure that animals are younger than 21 months old?
- How can you verify that each inspector correctly and consistently performs the maturity grading? Do you have any monitoring system in place to assure the accuracy of the inspector?
- What is vCJD? How many vCJD cases have been found in the United States? What about the alleged cases in New Jersey?
- With respect to trade between the United States and Canada, now that Canada has found 3 BSE cases (4 including the one found in Washington state), how will the United States ensure that no BSE-infected animals will enter the United States when the U.S.-Canadian border opens?
Industry News
ILC Delegates Support Mandatory Cattle Identification And Traceability
More than 200 cattlemen, academics, trade associations, industry service providers, government representatives and international guests convened at the 2005 International Livestock Congress (ILC) March 2-3, and reached general agreement that a U.S. cattle identification and traceability system should be mandatory with 100 percent compliance as the goal. The delegates want an electronic system with limited and controlled access to data by governments, begin at birth and continuing through harvest with its main goal to contain animal health crises.
On Wednesday, following presentations outlining animal identification and traceability systems in seven countries (Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Uruguay, The Netherlands, and the United States), six breakout groups heard background information and instructions from Dr. Gary C. Smith of Colorado State University. Dr. Smith described ten differing “purposes” for implementing animal identification and traceability systems, and outlined a method for characterizing systems (first described by the USDA Economic Research Service) that provides for delineation of the depth, breadth, and precision of animal identification and traceability systems. Depth is “how far forward or backward” in the marketing chain that traceability is maintained; breadth is the “amount” of information required to be collected by the system to be effective; and precision is the “degree of assurance” with which the tracing system can “pin-point” movement of a particular food product or its characteristics — the amount of verification that is required to instill confidence in the effectiveness of the traceability system.
Generally, the groups concluded, the U.S. beef production industry is perceived by other countries as progressive and receptive to implementation of new technologies that improve beef quality and safety. Nonetheless, participants at ILC concurred that, in general, the U.S. has fallen behind the rest of the world in adopting a strong identification and traceability system.
The ILC wants a U.S. animal identification and traceability system confirmed and audited by a third party — most likely state veterinary officers or USDA-APHIS veterinarians. All efforts should be extended by the U.S. government and state governments to make implementation of the new animal identification and traceability system a minimal burden on producers. The system also should provide many additional fields for data entry that allow private and confidential information to be added for purposes of marketing and product differentiation; such information, though, also would necessarily be subjected—on a voluntary basis—to third party process verification for compliance with production management, cattle age, or any other parameter that might be included as marketing and labeling criteria with final products.
Japan
Embassy Web Site Answers Questions On BSE
A question-and-answer session in a press briefing at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo March 3 led to the posting of answers to BSE questions on the embassy Web site. The event was part of ongoing cooperative efforts between the embassy and USMEF-Japan to reassure Japanese consumers:
- Are all cattle inspected prior to slaughter?
- Why isn't USDA testing all cattle slaughtered in the United States?
- Do you think you will find more cases of BSE? (APHIS)
- Are all SRMs properly removed? What is the procedure? How is SRM-removal and prevention of cross-contamination ensured?
- Isn't Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR) still being used?
- Feed ban: The United States claims that it has been implementing a ban on feeding mammalian proteins to ruminants since 1997, but it still is primarily a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. How can you prevent bovine-derived poultry feed, for example, from commingling with cattle feed?
- What was the rate of compliance of the U.S. feed ban in the initial stages of its implementation?
- Please provide an update on the investigation into the recent labor union allegation of problems with the implementation/compliance of the SRM regulation.
- What is A Maturity?
- How can A40 assure that animals are younger than 21 months old?
- How can you verify that each inspector correctly and consistently performs the maturity grading? Do you have any monitoring system in place to assure the accuracy of the inspector?
- What is vCJD? How many vCJD cases have been found in the United States? What about the alleged cases in New Jersey?
- With respect to trade between the United States and Canada, now that Canada has found 3 BSE cases (4 including the one found in Washington state), how will the United States ensure that no BSE-infected animals will enter the United States when the U.S.-Canadian border opens?
Industry News
ILC Delegates Support Mandatory Cattle Identification And Traceability
More than 200 cattlemen, academics, trade associations, industry service providers, government representatives and international guests convened at the 2005 International Livestock Congress (ILC) March 2-3, and reached general agreement that a U.S. cattle identification and traceability system should be mandatory with 100 percent compliance as the goal. The delegates want an electronic system with limited and controlled access to data by governments, begin at birth and continuing through harvest with its main goal to contain animal health crises.
On Wednesday, following presentations outlining animal identification and traceability systems in seven countries (Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Uruguay, The Netherlands, and the United States), six breakout groups heard background information and instructions from Dr. Gary C. Smith of Colorado State University. Dr. Smith described ten differing “purposes” for implementing animal identification and traceability systems, and outlined a method for characterizing systems (first described by the USDA Economic Research Service) that provides for delineation of the depth, breadth, and precision of animal identification and traceability systems. Depth is “how far forward or backward” in the marketing chain that traceability is maintained; breadth is the “amount” of information required to be collected by the system to be effective; and precision is the “degree of assurance” with which the tracing system can “pin-point” movement of a particular food product or its characteristics — the amount of verification that is required to instill confidence in the effectiveness of the traceability system.
Generally, the groups concluded, the U.S. beef production industry is perceived by other countries as progressive and receptive to implementation of new technologies that improve beef quality and safety. Nonetheless, participants at ILC concurred that, in general, the U.S. has fallen behind the rest of the world in adopting a strong identification and traceability system.
The ILC wants a U.S. animal identification and traceability system confirmed and audited by a third party — most likely state veterinary officers or USDA-APHIS veterinarians. All efforts should be extended by the U.S. government and state governments to make implementation of the new animal identification and traceability system a minimal burden on producers. The system also should provide many additional fields for data entry that allow private and confidential information to be added for purposes of marketing and product differentiation; such information, though, also would necessarily be subjected—on a voluntary basis—to third party process verification for compliance with production management, cattle age, or any other parameter that might be included as marketing and labeling criteria with final products.