|
             
|
By David Bowser HOUSTON — Dennis Laycraft of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association says people will always remember where they were on certain dates in their lives. "May 18, 2003, was my day," Laycraft says. That's when he was first called and told that there appeared to be a presumptive positive case of BSE in his country. "That was confirmed on May 20," Laycraft told a cattlemen’s gathering here recently. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association made a joint announcement concerning the case of BSE in Canada on May 20. "Prior to the public announcement with the NCBA," Laycraft said, "we realized the important relationship this had. They would be getting media calls on this as well." That has been the nature of the working relationship, Laycraft added of the CCA and NCBA. The cattle and beef industries of the two countries are interwoven. Laycraft said the decision was made almost immediately to handle the investigation in an open manner. "We actually ended up testing and removing 2700 animals as we went through various herds," Laycraft said. "We were taking a very aggressive approach." They also investigated sources of infection. The investigation showed that there was widespread adherence to a Canadian feed ban instituted in 1997. "When all was said and done," Laycraft said, "we did identify the animal." It was born in March 1997, prior to the feed ban. The investigation, Laycraft said, told them that the most probable source was feed infected from a low level of exposure dating back to the United Kingdom prior to 1989 or 1990. He said the animal diagnosed with BSE in the U.S. on Dec. 23 was born in the same area, within 30 days of the Canadian cow with BSE. The investigations into the cases indicate there is a risk, albeit small, that there may be other animals, but it will likely be a small number. "The risk will diminish very quickly over the next 12 to 18 months," Laycraft added. The risk has peaked and is on the way down quite rapidly. International animal health organizations praised Canada for handling the problem openly and said the Canadian case should be an example of what to do and how to do it. "For the very first time," Laycraft said, "we exceeded investigations done by most other BSE-affected countries over a period of years." He said the measures in place achieved their desired outcomes. "As we got into this," Laycraft said, "the first thing we found that nearly paralyzed our industry was the market response that occurred." During the first few weeks, all of their customers took steps to back away from Canada. "Immediately, borders closed around the world to us," Laycraft noted. Cattle prices dropped to 40 cents per pound. "We actually had a beef shortage develop in Canada during this time," Laycraft noted. By the time they finished their investigation into the BSE scare, 88 percent of Canadian consumers said they trusted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. "Eighty-five percent said they trusted our association," Laycraft added. He said the CCA made it a point to speak directly to the public. In a survey last June, 87 percent of Canadian consumers said Canadian beef was safe. "That was the first time that has ever happened in the world," Laycraft said. Canada was one of the first countries to put in place various measures such as prohibiting the importation of meat and bone meal or animals from high-risk countries. "We've had the meat and bone meal ban and the ruminant to ruminant feed ban in place since August 1997," Laycraft said. They had developed their trace-back capabilities. "All these things contributed to the fact that we've been proactive," Laycraft said. Japan, by comparison, put their measures in place after they'd found BSE in their national herd. The most important thing, however, was maintaining consumer confidence, Laycraft stressed. "That cannot be overstated," he insisted. During July and August, the months when Canadian cattle were confined to their domestic market, they saw a 56 percent increase in beef demand. In Europe, when BSE was reported there, demand initially dropped 40 percent. It took them years to recover to 90 percent of previous consumption. Last year, Laycraft said, there were rallies across Canada for beef and anger over the bans in the international marketplace. "That makes it sound like we should have come through this pretty well," Laycraft said. "The problem is that on a net basis we export 41 percent of our production." They had more cattle than they could move through their domestic market. Canada's vulnerability is that they export so many of their cattle. They saw losses after May 20 of $250 a head. At the same time, U.S. cattlemen were making money. "There was about a $500 spread," Laycraft pointed out. The situation remains critical in Canada, he said, and there is a need to move ahead and address barriers to trade. Following the discovery of BSE in the U.S. on Dec. 23, Canada did not close its borders to live cattle going north for slaughter. In early January, they instituted another survey. Almost 90 percent of Canadians said they thought the beef industry was well regulated. Some 65 percent said they'd buy more beef. "There are some good things coming out of this, in my opinion," Laycraft said. Harmonization and cooperation between countries are moving ahead much faster on a number of issues. "We also agree that we need to work to maintain the normalization of trade based on sound science," Laycraft said. He said the world is watching while Canada and the U.S. revise their rules and regulations concerning BSE. The U.S., he said, is going to be the leader in BSE regulations. The BSE cases in both Canada and the U.S. have been learning experiences. "Overall, the rules do not treat countries differently that have put in place all the right measures versus those that haven't," Laycraft said. "That's an important issue." Right now, he explained, Canada is treated exactly the same as countries that have not put in place proper surveillance, measures to prevent introduction of BSE, or measures to prevent the spread of the disease. He said the rules are actually discouraging many steps in finding BSE. If a country is testing only a few hundred head, and because they're testing a small number of cattle, they're not finding any BSE, they actually come out with a higher health status than countries that do a lot of testing. "That's why there are changes that are being proposed," Laycraft said. The proposed U.S. rules are effectively stepping forward to face the problem, Laycraft continued. They are defining a more appropriate definition of a minimal risk. They identify countries with measures in place that should be respected for such procedures. "The second thing in that rule is that it broadens the list appropriately to very safe products, essentially neglible risk products, that can safely be traded," Laycraft added. The proposal would deal with bone-in product from animals under 30 months of and boneless product from those over 30 months. "To put it in perspective, those particular products — in our case, we export those — are worth about $192 per head," Laycraft said. "There's no scientific reason those should not trade quite safely." The rules are important to the value of livestock, he emphasized. "That is the significance of the rule, and it will be the template for countries around the world," Laycraft said. To put BSE in perspective, he said, last year 14,700,000 people died from infectious diseases. Respiratory infections made up the largest number, accounting for 3.9 million deaths. Measles killed 750,000 children, and rabies killed 42,000 people. Initially, when BSE broke out in the United Kingdom, there were estimates that some 5000 people would become infected by vCJD by 2080, but that number has been revised downward to fewer than 540. Testing cattle for BSE is important, Laycraft said, but other areas are more important. If all the cattle in North America were tested, the cost of the test would be about $25 per animal, he said. That would total about $1.5 to $2 billion. "When looking at preventable diseases, where would you create a benefit in terms of human health?" Laycraft asked. "There are better places to spend that kind of money if you're concerned about human health." The vCJD epidemic is decreasing. Because of the timeframe during which preventive measures were established and the incubation periods involved, BSE and vCJD should be of less concern within the next couple of years as potentially infected animals age and disappear from the picture. |
|
 |
|
Questions? Comments? Suggestions? |