Release No. 0036.04
|
Release No. 0036.04
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720-4623
Printable version |
Dr. J.B. Penn
Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services and other USDA and FDA Officials -
Press Briefing on BSE -
U.S. Embassy Auditorium
Tokyo, Japan January 23, 2004
|
|
EMBASSY PRESS SPOKESPERSON: Good evening everyone. I am Michael Boyle, the
Embassy spokesperson. I would like to say a couple of words before we
begin. First, thank you for being here, thank you for waiting patiently.
We are on the record tonight. We will have simultaneous translation,
which means that when you ask a question, please use the microphone so
that the translators who are in the booth up above can hear. We ask you,
when you ask a question, to ask one question at a time. Please identify
yourself, your organization, your name. And without further adieu, let
me introduce Dr. J.B. Penn, Under Secretary of Agriculture, who will
introduce the rest of the group.
UNDER SECRETARY PENN: Thank you very much. With me today are
colleagues David Hegwood, Special Counsel to Secretary Veneman; Dr.
Chuck Lambert, who is Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs at USDA; Dr. Merle Pierson, who is the Deputy Under
Secretary for Food Safety; and Dr. Lester Crawford, who is the Deputy
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Now these folks have
the responsibilities for the regulation of animal feed in the U.S., food
safety, animal health, trade. So most aspects that relate to BSE are
represented on the platform today. We have just concluded an
afternoon-long meeting with our colleagues from the Japanese Government,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of
Health, Labor and Welfare. So all of those folks.
This meeting today was a follow-up to on-going discussions that we
have had with the Japanese Government since the announcement of this
confirmed case of BSE in the U.S. on December 23rd. Shortly after,
within a week after that announcement, both David Hegwood and Dr.
Lambert came here. We began the process at that point in time of sharing
information, of keeping our trading partners informed as to our
investigation and as to subsequent actions. Just a week ago, the
Japanese government had a delegation of technical specialists to the
U.S. They came to Washington, D.C., they went to Washington state, they
got a first hand view of what we were doing with the investigations of
the new measures that we announced on December 30th to further
strengthen our food safety system. Secretary Veneman and Minister Kamei
from the Agriculture Ministry have been in contact by telephone. In
fact, this trip and this meeting are a direct outgrowth of a
conversation they had just about a week ago, at which time they agreed
that it was time to move the discussions to a policy level and that’s
the reason that we are here. The two ministers agreed that they have a
common goal of resuming trade as soon as is practical. We want to resume
trade as soon as possible based on continued use of solid science,
scientific principles for developing the regulations. And we want to
assure consumers, both in Japan and consumers in the United States, that
we continue to have a very safe and highly effective food regulatory
system, and we certainly want to assure Japanese consumers of the safety
of U.S. beef.
This is a very important market to the U.S. livestock and meat industry,
as we have repeatedly said. This market accounted last year for about
one-third of all of our exports, and it’s a market in which our industry
has had a big hand in helping develop over two decades, so it’s very
important to us that we try to resume trade as quickly as possible and
avoid any erosion.
In the meeting today we had a very good exchange of information, as
I said we spent several hours in very intense discussions. Both sides
presented information to the other side, posed detailed questions,
requested elaborations; it was a thorough going exchange of information.
The Japanese side presented the report of the investigation of their
technical team which had just been in the U.S., as I indicated, and we
had some questions and requested some clarifications about that. And
our side explained the new measures that we have taken to further
strengthen and enhance our food safety system and to assure consumers
domestically and internationally of the safety of the food system.
There were no new proposals presented from either side and, overall,
I would characterize the meeting as the usual words -- meaningful,
productive. It was a very necessary exchange of views in what I consider
an on-going process that we hope will lead to a conclusion of a
resumption of trade. We agreed to a subsequent meeting next month, with
a specific date not set. We will exchange information in the meantime.
With that, I would stop and we will invite your questions and we have,
as I said, people who are very knowledgeable in various areas and so we
will try to respond as we can. So we’d be happy to respond to your
questions.
QUESTION: (Toshio Aritake, Bureau of National Affairs) Have you
discussed the possibility of introducing a new safety measure which
Japan is demanding? Japan is requesting 100% testing -- if Japan picks
up, foots that cost of inspection fully for cattle to be exported to
Japan, is it something the U.S. side can accept?
PENN: Well, as I indicated, we want to see the resumption of trade
as quickly as possible, but there are certain conditions that we want to
see go along with the resumption of that trade. As I said before, basing
the trade on solid science, scientific principles, is very important to
us. Doing it in a way that gives maximum reassurance of consumer safety
is also a way that is very important to us. But we did discuss the
possibility of 100% testing, and we have reviewed the scientific basis
for that and, for the purposes for which we have a surveillance system
we think it not necessary to do 100% testing. As we have all discussed
over and over, this animal disease manifests itself in older animals,
not in younger animals. We think that it is not an efficient use,
effective use of resources to do massive testing in younger animals
where the disease is very unlikely to manifest itself. We think those
resources should be devoted to the higher risk population, so we have a
different philosophy, a different approach to testing than the Japanese.
And it is a matter of trying to base this on science, regardless of the
cost, who might have to pay the bill.
QUESTION: (Peggy Hernandez, Boston Globe) I just had several
questions regarding the Japanese trade. You said that Japan imports one
third of its beef, or that the U.S. exports one-third of its beef
exports to Japan. I wonder if you can estimate the cost of that trade to
Japan, the size of the export, and calculate the loss to the American
livestock industry.
PENN: I can take a stab at that then I'd invite my colleagues to
elaborate. As I said, in 2002, the most recent year for which we have
complete numbers, the U.S. total exports were 3.2 billion dollars of
beef and beef products, and of that the Japanese market accounted for
one billion dollars, or just about one-third of the total. Now the U.S.
exports about nine percent of its total beef production. And the
remainder, 91 percent, goes entirely to the domestic market. So the loss
of almost 10 percent of the market for your product is a very
considerable one, and we have seen the economic response to that in the
U.S. already. Cattle prices have declined since the announcement of this
incident by about 15 percent. We had near record cattle prices before
the announcement and so they have fallen, but they are still above where
they were a year or so ago but, nonetheless, it is a very adverse
economic consequence to the domestic cattle producers. Elsewhere
throughout the system you begin to see economic effects as well, the
meat packing facilities don’t run as long hours as before and they
reduce the shifts and potentially will have to lay off workers. So there
is an economic consequence throughout the U.S. system.
Now turning to the other side, U.S. beef accounts for 29 percent of
the Japanese beef consumption in the most recent year. That is a very
substantial part of the protein in the diet of Japanese consumers. And
as the supply of U.S. beef is no longer available, other suppliers, of
course, will try to meet that demand. It is highly unlikely, in the
current market conditions, that other suppliers, Australia and others,
would be able to do that. So one could expect that prices will begin to
rise, that the product will not be available, and in certain
restaurants, certain uses, the product will not be available. And if the
ban resumes for a prolonged period then consumers will shift their
purchasing patterns and will probably begin to purchase other products,
which is a result that we would not like to see. That is why we would
like to see the ban lifted as soon as we possibly can.
QUESTION: (Kyoko Morisawa, NTV) The employee of (inaudible) Lake
Meat said that infected cow wasn’t a cow "downer", the cow was a walker.
If that is true, Secretary Veneman had a false statement and obviously
the ban on downer cows is not enough, what do you think about it?
PENN: I’m going to ask Dr. Pierson, the Food Safety person, to
respond and then Dr. Lambert.
DR. PIERSON: I saw the report on the animal in question, and the
animal was examined by our inspectors prior to going through the plant
and was one of a group that day tested for BSE. It was identified as an
animal possibly of a little bit higher risk because it calved and it
demonstrated partial paralysis, and that is why it was identified as a
result, again, of the calving. And so it was identified, it was in fact
tested and the result was that the test came back positive.
DR. LAMBERT: The testing regime that we use involves testing what
we consider the high-risk population, and that includes animals that
were in this category, the non-ambulatory animals, so we do feel that by
testing this high risk category that it provides the highest probability
of finding animals that would exhibit the disease. That’s been shown in
Europe and in other countries, and that the highest probability and most
cost-effective manner of use of resources is in testing that population.
QUESTION: (Taro Kurosaki, Herald Asahi) I would just like to
confirm a portion of the answer to your first question. Was there any
proposal from Tokyo to shoulder the burden or cost of testing all cows
and, related to that, I would like to know if there were any proposals
for alternatives to testing all cows, from Japan and if you made any
proposals.
PENN: The answer is 'no' and 'no'. We, as I said, we did talk about
100% testing, but we were talking about the relative merits of that
system versus other systems and we didn't discuss, we did not discuss,
who might bear the cost of such a system. As I said in the opening
statement no proposals were advanced from either side.
QUESTION: (Kenji Hall, Associated Press) There's a sense that,
because the United States lacks a nation-wide standardized electronic ID
and tracking system, the investigation was slowed to an extent. Has the
Japanese side indicated that this is something they would like to see
put into place and, specifically, does the U.S. have any plans at this
point to put that into place?
LAMBERT: Yes, the USDA has been working with representatives of
state governments and representatives of the various industry
organizations for about the last 18 months to develop an animal
identification program, and the find of this animal in Washington state,
this case of BSE, has accelerated the implementation of this program. We
are still working out some of the details, but we are moving forward
very aggressively putting resources towards premises ID, some pilot
projects, and putting together the infrastructure so that this animal ID
system will be up and running. That system has not been a primary topic
of conversation, I would say, with the Japanese government, but that's
an underlying, I think, measure that we have taken and that all of our
trading partners have indicated we need to move toward.
PENN: And this was one of the half dozen or so initiatives that were
announced on December 30th - the accelerated development of this animal
ID system that he just described.
QUESTION: (Miho Yoshikawa, Reuters) Am I correct in understanding
that what happened today was mostly an exchange of information, and the
actual topic of resumption of trade itself was not discussed during your
talks with the Japanese officials?
PENN: Well, no, I wouldn't say that. The main content of our
discussion today was about the resumption of trade, but it was about the
conditions that would be necessary for trade to resume. We were
presenting our information to reassure the Japanese government officials
and reassure Japanese consumers that the steps that we have since the
find of this one Canadian cow in Washington state have further
strengthened what was an already robust system. So we were presenting
information in that regard, and then the Japanese side was presenting
the information that their technical experts had gathered and
assimilated, and we were providing clarifications where possible.
QUESTION: (Hayato Ishii, Kyodo) Apart from the
government-to-government level meeting you had today, are you planning
to meet others, like Parliamentarians and so forth of Japanese National
Diet? If you have done so, what is the general impression that you have
gained from Japanese today? Any general interpretation about the
Japanese reaction.
PENN: I'll ask my colleagues to elaborate. We have had several
meetings with various parties, stakeholders if you will, in the issue
before us and we've developed -- certainly I have developed -- several
impressions. One of the first impressions I got is that, given the
particular circumstances in the Japanese market, that there is a great
need here to reassure Japanese consumers about the safety of the food
supply -- certainly the safety of the US beef supply. And that's one of
the things, one of the messages we've been trying to stress over and
over is that our beef is safe, is that our system is very good, that we
have, yes, discovered one Canadian origin cow in Washington state, but
the system worked. We found the cow and we have now further strengthened
that system. So that's one impression I have. The second impression is
that there's an enormous sense of good will here, that this is not a
situation in which there is hostility, but there is a genuine desire for
cooperation and to return to normal as quickly as is practical. I just
took a great amount of time to describe the economic consequences on
both sides. We met with a lot of people here who have a lot at stake
financially and are trying to get the system resumed. It affects
employment, it affects economic activity, so there are a lot of people
with a lot of good will and we certainly found that among the government
officials, that there is a very cooperative spirit, a cooperative
attitude to try to work through this issue. Those are a couple of my
impressions. I'll ask my colleagues if they'd like to say something.
QUESTION: (Koichi Yamamoto, Asahi Shimbun) I was wondering about the
possibility of exploring a system of BEV program - Beef Export
Verification program. Is there a possibility to introduce some testing
system into the program? That's one question, and the other is I
understand that you have requested to lift the ban for pipeline
products, beef box, as a top priority for the Japanese market. Have you
discussed this during this conference? Thank you.
HEGWOOD: Well, I'll respond to the part about the BEV system. That
was a system put in place back in July, resulted from discussion in July
after the find of positive BSE cow in Canada. Essentially what that
program does is ensures that all meat products coming from the U.S. do
not contain any Canadian-origin beef. So it's not sure if that system
would have to remain in place if we were to be able to resume trade.
Certainly we would be willing to explore ways to provide science-based
assurances through some type of certification program, but we didn’t get
that far today. As Dr. Penn said, we were talking about the measures
that we put in place. So we didn't get as far as talking about the
actual implementation of whatever conditions we would ultimately agree
to.
PENN: The second part of your question related to the pipeline beef
supplies. There is some considerable amount of beef that is here, that
arrived and has not been admitted by the customs officials. We have had
discussions about the disposition of that product in the United States.
We have had discussions here with some of the importers, the exporters,
the people who own the product. A lot of that is subject to commercial
contract -- standard commercial contract -- and is as yet not exactly
an issue for the two governments. We did not discuss the pipeline issue
in our meeting this afternoon.
QUESTION: (Leika Kihara, Dow Jones) You said there were no new
proposals made from either Japan or the U.S. side, and you also said
that there would be a meeting later on. Is there any possibility each
side would make any new proposals, considering that there seems to be a
gap between the opinions of both sides on this issue. And if there is
any date -- since you want to resume trade as soon as possible -- is
there a date you want to meet, a specific date the US wants to meet with
Japan?
PENN: Well, thank you for the questions. I characterized the meeting
today as part of a process. This is a process, because this was an
extraordinary event -- the finding of this one BSE infected animal --
and now we have to work through the process. That involves sharing
information, taking extraordinary measures to improve the system in our
country, to try to harmonize that with the Canadian system to the extent
that we can. And the meeting today was another necessary part of the
process. We have to share information and understand the requirements of
the Japanese side. We wanted them to better understand the steps we'd
taken, and see how close that we could come together, and we did that.
It was successful in that regard and we have agreed to meet next month.
We didn't set a specific date, but I would think that as soon as is
practical. We have this international review team, as you know, that was
established by Secretary Veneman to review our system, to review the new
actions that we have taken. That team is meeting in Washington this week
and we would expect it to issue its preliminary report in a few days
time. I would expect that we would like to review the preliminary report
before our next meeting, so I think our next meeting could take place
sometime soon thereafter. At that time, I think we are moving toward the
development of specific proposals, or specific ideas or specific
reassurances, steps that would be necessary to get the trade resumed.
And from our point of view, as I said, we'd like to see that resumed as
soon as possible. I know from the Japanese business community side,
they'd like to see it resumed as soon as possible, as well.
QUESTION: (Kuniko Ishihara, Nihon Nogyo Shimbun) I have two
questions. First, Secretary Veneman had announced on the 30th of
December the additional measures -- what has been the progress made so
far? Have you implemented fully all the measures announced then? And
there are 23-month old or 21- month old cows which the Japanese
government would like to see being inspected, but US has not recognized
such a request from Japan -- testing those young cows, 23- month old,
21- month old?
PENN: OK. I will ask Dr. Pierson first to respond to the measures,
because I think that most of those occurred in his area.
PIERSON: On December 30th, Secretary Veneman announced we would no
longer allow downer cattle to be processed and to go into the food
supply. That was effective immediately upon that announcement. On
January 12th, we issued three regulations and a rule. One of these
related to the holding and testing, or to hold any animal that was
tested for BSE, and not allowed for release until such time as the test
results were back, and only a negative animal -- negative by test --
would that animal be allowed for processing for food. Another rule
related to the Specified Risk Materials, in which we identified
Specified Risk Materials based upon international criteria and the best
available science, and the rule on Specified Risk Materials took affect
on January 12th - the same day they were issued. Another rule related to
Advanced Meat Recovery, and this Advanced Meat Recovery process is one
by which we will do additional testing on, and that also became
effective on January 12th. So all those measures that Secretary Veneman
announced were either immediately placed into effect or all were placed
into effect upon our issuance of the rules.
PENN: OK, the second part of your question I wasn't quite sure I
understood it, but I'm going to ask Dr. Lambert to respond and if he
didn't quite understand it, you can ask again.
LAMBERT: As I understand it, the question was regarding the 21- and
23 month-old cattle that have been found in Japan. I think it is
important to understand that two of the three tests that the Japanese
government conducted on those animals were negative. And so there is
some question in the international scientific community about whether
those were test aberrations or just what those results were. The slides
have been submitted to an OIE lab in England and the negative results
were confirmed, as we understand it. So, again, we have continued to
focus on the high-risk population that results in findings in the EU and
other countries where they have had high incidences of BSE have tended
to be in older animal populations and in the higher risk populations.
And that is where we have continued to focus our surveillance efforts to
continue to identify if we have that problem in our population and to
what extent.
QUESTION: (Peggy Hernandez-Boston Globe) I'm just trying to get a
sense of the urgency here. You know, you've mentioned several times that
there is a loss to the Japanese businesses, the American businesses; is
there any kind of calculation on what we're looking at on a daily basis,
a weekly basis, or a monthly basis, or some measure that our readers can
understand? You also said there is beef in the Japanese pipeline; I'm
wondering how much that is? Is there a goal to when you hope trade will
resume? Are you looking at this summer? Is this ban going to go on until
the summer? That's a lot of money! That's a lot of jobs, too, in both
countries and I'm just trying to get a sense of the human reality of
this ban.
PENN: Well, I took a long time a moment ago in response to your
first question and apparently I didn't do too good a job. I was trying
to indicate that, yes, you're right, this is an economic disruption,
it's an economic dislocation. The normal economic activities have been
altered. Now, from the U.S. side, again, there is a loss to the U.S.
cattle producers, there is a loss to the packing industry, to the
transporters, and there will be some loss of jobs as a result of this. I
mean, we suddenly have had over three billion dollars worth of exports
abruptly terminated for the most part. Here, the same sort of thing
--again, people who normally deal in imported product, people who work
in the restaurants, people who are involved in the food-service
industry… yes, there is an economic dislocation. And it is, again, in
everyone's best economic interest to try to get trade resumed as quickly
as possible, but there are other considerations. And those
considerations are reassuring the Japanese consuming public that the
U.S. has done all of the things that are appropriate to do to make sure
that the beef supply is safe, and that is what we're trying to do.
That's why this is a process that does take some time, but I can assure
you that we want to do it, but we want to do it in the right way. We
don't want to just rush into this, we want to make sure that we're doing
everything first and foremost to protect consumers. The public health
is the paramount consideration.
QUESTION: (Kenji Hall-Associated Press) Was there any sense that the
steps the U.S. has taken so far are any closer to what Japan needs to
see before it lifts the import ban? And was there any indication in your
talks today that Japan might relax its demand for 100 % testing? Or is
it asking for the U.S. to do more? Thank you.
PENN: Well, I repeat again, part of what we were doing is getting to
the answers to those questions, where we were trying to share
information as to what we had done. The Japanese technical team was in
the United States, it was learning more about our measures. It was
learning more about our investigation of this one animal. And the
Japanese officials are now evaluating and assimilating all of that
information, plus, I would hope, the new information that we were
presenting today. At the same time, the Japanese have called for 100 %
testing. They have indicated some other requirements. So while they are
evaluating our position, we're going to be going away and evaluating
their position. And, as I have already explained, we have agreed to meet
again next month to see if we can begin to come together.
QUESTION: (Kyoko Morisawa, Nippon TV) In the Moses Lake, according
to the meat packers there, with regard to SRM, when the meat is being
processed-- First of all, the beef will be cut into half and the risk
material will be removed. Which means the powder or the blood might be
splattered on the meat which will be edible or eaten by human beings, so
I was wondering how perfect or how effective the ongoing tests will be?
So tests might not be adequate, that is why maybe all cattle need to be
inspected and so forth. And sampling test is also being conducted, but
maybe the sampling tests have not been conducted as they should have
been? So, any observations on this point?
PENN: We do have some observations. I'm going to ask Dr. Pierson to
begin.
PIERSON: OK, thank you. Our rules that took effect on January 12, to
address Specified Risk Materials, requires the processor to develop,
implement and maintain plans for the removal of Specified Risk
Materials, and for the control or disposition or disposal of those
materials, and the control of the materials during the processing
operation. We have, at our meat processing companies, an inspector
present all the time that the animals are being slaughtered and going
through the process. Our law requires what you call continuous
inspection -- every animal is inspected by a government inspector. And
the company must meet these regulatory requirements for the removal of
Specified Risk Materials. Our inspectors have been provided with
directions on what to do in case there should be cross-contamination and
the actions to take. We're confident that what has been implemented is
effective and the Specified Risk Materials are effectively removed.
PENN: OK, I've noticed a pattern, all the questions seem to come
from right here in the front. Are there any questions way in the back?
OK, here is one in the back. Then you, ok.
QUESTION: (Tim Kelly, Bloomberg News) I just want to clarify the
next stage in the process. Today was a meeting to exchange information.
At the next meeting, next month, will you be coming to the table with
specific proposals, and do you expect the Japanese side to come to the
table with their own proposals that you will hammer out and discuss to
try and reach an agreement? Will the next meeting be in Tokyo? And will
it be the same members from the U.S. side?
PENN: Well, the one thing that I can tell you for sure is that we
agreed to meet next month, and I have before described this as a
process, and this was information exchange today. I think, as you move
down the process, that you do have to get to more specifics. You do have
to get more concrete ideas that can be discussed, and I would expect the
next meeting to be one where we're discussing more specific, more
concrete steps that would lead to the resumption of trade. I would
expect that some of the same people would be involved, certainly from
our side, in the next meeting. I would assume so for the Japanese side.
QUESTION: (Mitsuru Obe, Jiji News Agency) You have talked so much
about 100 % testing, so I have a question about the 1997 law banning the
use of bone meal from ruminants and your claim of 99 % compliance. As
far as I know, that claim was actually challenged by the General
Accounting Office (sic) in 2002. And also there has been a suggestion
that this 99 % figure isn't so much of a comfort to consumers because
the actual figure doesn't include, doesn't cover small farmers. So what
do you say about these charges?'
PENN: Thank you very much for that question. We have noted that
there is quite a lot of misinformation around, and I am happy to say
that Dr. Crawford can set the record straight, I would hope once and for
all.
CRAWFORD: It's my pleasure. First of all, the 99 % compliance rate
is correct. That's as a result of audits, of inspections and tracking
actually when inspectors go to a farm. And so we have virtual complete
compliance with this particular regulation, the meat and bone meal ban
or the so-called animal feed ban in the United States. Actually, the
compliance rate for that is the highest of any FDA compliance program in
all of the categories of products that we regulate. It is probably the
most effective regulatory program that FDA has had in its 100-year
history. The GAO report that you mentioned was published in 2002 and it
talked about their earlier years, 1997 to 2000 where, as we began the
program and we expanded it to include all 13,000 feed-producing
facilities in the United States, both large and small. There was a
start-up problem, so that we didn't have the compliance in the early
days that we do now. However, the compliance problems that were
highlighted in that report related not to meat and bone meal getting
into animal feed, but technical irregularities. The majority of these
technical irregularities were, in fact, the lack of records and the lack
of record keeping. A regulation like this does cause dislocations in the
way business in conducted in a given industry. In that particular case,
anyone producing animal feed and anyone buying animal feed had to keep a
record where they got it from, what the ingredients were, and so forth.
Now let me address the problem, finally, of whether or not small
facilities are involved. Even if a person in the United States buys
only one bag of feed a year to feed half a cow, they still have to be in
complete compliance with this particular regulation. The fines for
non-compliance are extraordinary. If you violate the animal feed
regulation of the United States, you may be fined up to two million
dollars for each violation or two million dollars per day as long as you
are out of compliance. You also may face a jail term of five years for
each violation. Nobody wants that. And FDA is convinced there are no
lapses in this.
The other thing that was brought up was perhaps animal feed could be
brought in from Mexico, or from Costa Rica or Canada or wherever, and it
would escape FDA's attention. The regulation is clear -- no one can
bring it in from anywhere. With the passage of the Bioterrorism Act in
the United States in 2002, we've got a lot more strength with that. You
may not bring any kind of product that is regulated by FDA into the
United States without notifying us that it is coming, keeping records
and allowing inspection and detention of the product. We have a very
efficacious animal feed ban and the record is clear -- anyone can
investigate and see what it is. It's also been in place for seven years.
We have the same kind of experience that few countries have in terms of
keeping animal feed supply safe.
MODERATOR: Okay, are there any more questions? One in the back.
QUESTION: (Taro Kurasaki, Herald Asahi) This is a basic question.
Were there any, in the discussions, was there any information from the
Japanese side that you noticed was perhaps based on misperceptions, and
did you have to correct that?
PENN: Well, I don't know that I would characterize information as
being misperceptions. We did have full and frank discussions. We had a
lot of detailed discussions. A lot of our discussion focused on
explaining and describing our system, comparing and contrasting it to
the Japanese system. There was a lot of detailed discussion, but I think
it was largely to educate and inform and to explain, as Dr. Crawford
just did, about some perceptions that have emerged. Okay, one more.
MODERATOR: Let's make this the last question. We have gone on now
for some time.
QUESTION: (Miho Yoshikawa, Reuters) I've heard the U.S. maintains a
ban on imports of Japanese beef into your country. I was just curious as
to the reason for this ban being maintained.
PENN: We do have a ban on beef from Japan and it's because of
the outbreak of BSE that occurred in Japan. The ban continues because no
one has asked that it be lifted. That's the first step in the process. I
don't mean to be flip about that, but we do have a process whereby we
would go through a risk assessment, a detailed evaluation of what
transpired in a country that has had an outbreak of BSE. Just much like
we're going through at the present time. What were the circumstances
surrounding the outbreak, what were the sources, what happened to the
animals and then what ameliorations measures have been taken? What steps
have been put in place, both to prevent the spread of BSE in the animal
population and what preventive measures have been put in place to
protect the public health? So we would go through an evaluation of that
kind for any country that has an outbreak of BSE and then asks to have
trade resumed.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
|