Japan Ends Blanket Testing for BSE

[farmers_son]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-08-01T142450Z_01_N01536389_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-MADCOW-JAPAN-TESTING-DC.XML

By Miho Yoshikawa
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan dropped its policy of testing all cattle for the deadly mad cow disease on Monday and will require checks to be conducted only on cattle that are 21 months or older.

However, blanket testing will in effect continue in Japan as all local governments have decided to keep checking all cattle born in their region, a Health Ministry official said.

"Testing will now only be mandatory for cattle aged 21 months or older," the official said.

Under pressure from the United States, the Japanese government decided in early May to ease its policy of blanket testing after the move was approved by the country's food safety watchdog, the Food Safety Commission (FSC).

Monday marks the start of the new safety guideline after the completion of a series of moves needed to revise the law.

Local governments have said, however, that they plan to continue testing all cattle to reassure consumers about the safety of their beef.

"As it now stands, all local governments will continue to test all the cattle in their area," the ministry official said.

Japan began checking all its cattle for BSE in October 2001 after it discovered its own case of mad cow disease, to reassure Japanese consumers of the safety of domestic beef and revive beef sales which had plunged.

Mandatory testing, however, became a major sticking point in talks between Tokyo and Washington on resumption of beef trade, which was suspended after the United States reported its first case of mad cow disease in December 2003.

Tokyo had initially said that all meat bound for Japan must come from cattle that had been checked for mad cow disease, in line with domestic safety guidelines.

Japan eventually agreed to lower its own safety threshold, a move that was opposed by many health-conscious consumers who believe that a blanket test has helped keep beef safe.

After months of talks, Tokyo has agreed to resume some beef trade, but no timetable has been set for the easing of the 19-month ban, which rests on the FSC's review of U.S. food safeguards

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

[grassfarmer]

Quote "Local governments have said, however, that they plan to continue testing all cattle to reassure consumers about the safety of their beef."
As they say the consumer is always right!

[farmers_son]

Until such time as the consumer has the opportunity to choose between tested beef from the Japanese herd which has a relatively high incidence of BSE or untested North American under 21 month old beef which has for all intents and purposes no risk of BSE then we will not know which product the consumer will choose.
You say the consumer is always right, but what you are really saying is government is always right, at least up to this point. The consumer has not had the opportunity to choose.

[grassfarmer]

Let's be clear here there are two issues - I believe testing UTM cattle is unnecessary period. Don't use that as an excuse to say that all testing of beef carcases for BSE is wrong. Testing OTM cattle makes perfect sense in a post BSE country - this is the real issue. If you had lived in a country that had been through a BSE inspired slump in consumer confidence you would see the logic in testing these older animals. Governments aren't necessarily scientifically right to offer enhanced BSE precautions, they hold no high moral position on this, rather they have seen the political cost of being caught on the wrong side of a consumer BSE backlash.

[farmers_son]

When you say “Testing OTM cattle makes perfect sense in a post BSE country” I take it you mean blanket testing. Obviously there is a great deal of surveillance testing going on in North America right now. The thought that comes to mind is why not also blanket test for TB, Bangs and Rabies while you are at it. The risk of human infection from TB, Bangs and Rabies is higher than BSE, these diseases are known to be highly contagious. There is no cure for Undulant Fever (the human form of Bangs, Rabies is always fatal and TB can be fatal. The prevalence of TB, Bangs and Rabies is probably higher than BSE in North America.

Speaking of a post BSE country… Why not talk about a post BSE world. Lets face it, the only countries that have not discovered BSE are countries that do not test at all or test very little. There is no question that the UK should be blanket testing their OTM beef. Should Australia blanket test their OTM beef? If you would answer no, then why not? Is the risk of contracting nvCJD any different eating Australian beef than Canadian beef. I would suggest the risk of contracting nvCJD is higher eating the Australian beef because they do not remove their SRMs while we do. Australia can jump up and down proclaiming they are BSE free but the U.S. considered themselves BSE free too until a few months ago and lets face it Canada was considered to be BSE free before May 2005. Not finding a BSE positive is not proof positive that a country does not have BSE.

Wouldn’t you say the need to blanket test is directly related to the incidence of BSE within the country or in the case of North America the trading region. Should a country that finds one or two BSE positives be tarred with the same brush as the UK? Is the fact that a country has not announced a positive test result a guarantee that they are BSE free?

At some level of incidence of BSE countries or trading regions should blanket test for BSE in OTM beef. I do not think Canada or the U.S is there yet. Especially since the incidence of BSE in North American should be declining since 1997 and in a few years should be for all intents and purposes gone.

In the meantime food safety and presumably consumer confidence is achieved through removal of SRMs.

[grassfarmer]

I don't think we do need to blanket test OTMs for BSE but plants should be allowed to test if they feel there is market demand for it. From what my vet tells me there are potential risk cattle not being tested even with a Government payment in place. If I remember correctly you were one of the advocates of not testing suspects because "we couldn't afford to find another case" I'm amazed that someone of your obvious intelligence would suggest such a policy. Has that view changed now that the US obviously have cases they are prepared to admit to, our status is equal and the border is at least partially open?
Testing for TB, Bangs and Rabies is not needed because these are not consumer confidence issues. You can argue the "sound science" theory of BSE, and I agree SRM removal is a safe enough system but "consumer confidence" is ensured by the consumer feeling confident not a Government scientist feeling confident.

"Lets face it, the only countries that have not discovered BSE are countries that do not test at all or test very little." "Is the risk of contracting nvCJD any different eating Australian beef than Canadian beef. I would suggest the risk of contracting nvCJD is higher eating the Australian beef because they do not remove their SRMs while we do."
I think innocent until proven guilty should apply despite the potential for someone (like the US) to mislead the world on their BSE status. Are you pleased to advertise that Canada already has Anaplasmosis and Bluetongue? - no because as far as we know we don't have it. What happened to the "sound science" in this part of your argument? Guessing that every country has a disease or condition because someone the other side of the world has just doesn't cut it.
Perhaps the need to test should be directly related to the incidence of BSE within the country or in the case of North America the trading region. This would be guided by the OIEs ranking of a countries risk status.
"Especially since the incidence of BSE in North American should be declining since 1997 and in a few years should be for all intents and purposes gone." - yes, well - hopefully - but that depends how well the rendering industry was regulated since 1997. Personally I believe the industry was as lax in North America as it was in Europe and in fact didn't take it seriously until May 2003. Hopefully that won't matter as I still believe the BSE cases found indicate we have a very, very small incidence in Canada and may even be sporadic cases picked up by rigorous testing.

[farmers_son]

Regarding “we cannot afford to find another case”. It is encouraging to see that the consumer and market reaction to the last positive BSE and the “non definitive” suspect cow in the United States was much more reasonable than the previous North American BSE positives that happened to come from Canada. Canada is doing a lot of testing, well past even our commitment. However no one should underestimate the damage to our industry if we were to find another BSE positive born after the feed ban in 1997. If that were to happen, especially within the next year, it would not be business as usual, unless of course the U.S. were to first find a positive born after their feed ban. And I still have my doubts about the honesty of USDA when it comes to announcing positive BSE tests.

Your reference to Bluetongue and Anaplasmosis is perhaps not quite fair because they are animal diseases where the diseases I mentioned TB, Bangs and Rabies can cross over to humans like BSE is thought to do. You say innocent until proven guilty. It is not black and white like that when it comes to BSE. Suggesting that Australia and South American probably have BSE, they just have not found it, is not without scientific basis. It is quite possible, even likely, given the world wide one in one million incidence of CJD in humans, that BSE is found at a similar incidence in the cattle population throughout the world. If so it is not a matter of guilty or innocent, it is simply a matter of determining the actual incidence of BSE in the national herd. Some countries are further ahead than others in that regard.

There are two issues with BSE, food safety and international trade. I think North American has successfully demonstrated that the incidence of BSE is very low in our trading region. I do not think Australia and South America have demonstrated that same low incidence at all. Japan and other beef importing countries have a double standard when it comes to BSE when they block imports of beef based on a single positive test yet they continue to accept imports from countries that do no testing or almost no testing for BSE.

The actual incidence of BSE in Canada did not change overnight on May 20, 2003. If anything our beef is safer now than it was May 19 because of the removal of SRMs. And our heightened level of testing should be proof positive that the level of BSE is very low in our country. Australia and South America just cannot make the same claim.

While it is encouraging to see Japan move towards a resumption of trade in beef with North America their reaction to BSE still smacks of protectionism. For that matter, the continued U.S. restrictions on cow and beef trade with Canada are no better.

[farmers_son]

In case anyone gets the wrong impression, I do not think there needs to be increased testing for TB etc, just was trying to point out that the government and consumer reaction to BSE is a little extreme. As grassfarmer says "Testing for TB, Bangs and Rabies is not needed because these are not consumer confidence issues." Hopefully we are approaching a time when BSE is not so much of a consumer issue.