• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

another Harvard assessment

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    another Harvard assessment

    WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Agriculture Department has asked Harvard University for help in determining whether resuming all imports of Canadian live cattle and beef products would increase the risk of spreading mad cow disease, a Harvard official said on Monday.

    The USDA is reviewing more than 3,000 comments submitted by industry, consumer groups and ranchers on whether to lift all trade restrictions against Canada, which reported its first native case of mad cow disease one year ago.

    Before the case of mad cow disease, Canada produced about 1.2 million tonnes of beef each year and exported roughly one-third of it in the form of live cattle to the United States.

    The USDA "asked us to take a look at some of the comments that they got on their proposed rule for allowing beef in from Canada," said George Gray, director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

    A USDA spokesman had no immediate comment.

    Last August, the USDA agreed to resume shipments of a large amount of boneless beef from Canada from animals under 30 months old. That beef is thought to be the least risky in carrying mad cow disease.

    In 2001, Gray was the main author of a Harvard risk analysis that said mad cow disease was highly unlikely to occur in the United States. But if it did, the federal government had implemented enough safeguards to ensure that mad cow disease did not become widespread, the report concluded.

    Gray said the USDA did not ask Harvard to prepare another risk analysis of the nation's vulnerability to the brain-wasting disease. A cattle group, R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, has threatened to file a lawsuit against the USDA if it eases the ban on Canadian beef without first conducting a new risk analysis.

    "The most important factor that would be discovered in the risk assessment is 'What is the prevalence of BSE in Canada?'" said Bill Bullard, the cattle group's chief executive officer.

    Last month, R-CALF won a federal court order in Montana stopping the USDA from allowing the resumption of some imports of ground beef and bone-in beef from Canadian cattle.

    Canada has pressed the USDA to fully reopen the border, noting that the United States discovered its own case of mad cow disease in late December.

    #2
    i would think we could look not bad under an honest risk assessment relative to the usa. the head of the oie investigative tema stated last summer that the original harvard risk assessment didn't adequately consider all the risks in the system. our testing rate has been higher than the americans and our feed regulation surveillance has been better than the americans and i think even with better feed testing our compliance to the 1997 regs has been superior to the american standard.

    Comment


      #3
      How long does this take? That's what I'd like to know.

      BTW...I was reading the OIE rules today.

      www.oie.int/eng/normes/MCode/A_00068.htm

      It's a long one, but everyone should read it. It's an eye opener!

      The way I read it, we drop from moderate risk to minimal risk next year due to the length of our feed ban.

      What really made me mad was the requirements for importing from a moderate risk country are that there is a feed ban, there is a traceback system, and the cattle were born after the feed ban.

      Isn't that Canada? Sure sounds like Canada!

      Bring on the assessment.. I'm sure we'll do better than our neighbours to the south.

      Comment


        #4
        i quickly read the regs too kato and i think it explains why the americans didn't depopulate and test their index herd in washington - they may not have been able to clearly demonstrate that their infected animal was infected when imported and would not have been able to in any way argue bse-free status. as long as they didn't open that can of worms they still had (in their minds) an argument.

        Comment

        • Reply to this Thread
        • Return to Topic List
        Working...