Canada needs new global rules on beef bans

The Edmonton Journal

Thursday, July 24, 2003
 
Larry Wong, The Journal, File / A black Angus cow on a farm near Fairview
 
It's heartbreaking work, but Agriculture Minister Shirley McClellan appears to have little choice but to press ahead with plans to help sustain Alberta beef producers through a longer term closure of Canada's export markets.

First, McClellan must look at some form of financial aid to help Alberta producers who clearly won't regain their export markets as quickly as hoped.

McClellan must also renew pressure on Ottawa to speed up regulatory reform for the beef industry to impress our trading partners that we have taken appropriate steps to prevent other cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Thirdly, both Canada's own policy and the international rules around beef bans on countries with isolated cases of BSE need to be changed.

Like many other countries, Canada bans beef from BSE-infected countries for seven years as recommended by the International Center of Animal Disease (OIE) in Paris. Canada has imposed import bans on Finland, which had one case in 2001, and Poland, which had five.

In other words, Canada now is demanding more lenient treatment from trading partners than it extends to other countries caught in a similar situation. It isn't a strong negotiating position.

In the long run, what's needed is a change in international rules around BSE control and exports. Currently, the OIE in Paris has a single remedy -- a seven-year ban on imports -- for countries with isolated cases of BSE and countries like Britain where there are still more than 1,000 BSE cases annually, Ireland with 1,200 cases.

There's no denying strong measures must be taken to control the spread of BSE. But a system that puts all countries -- whether they have an isolated case or a much larger problem -- into the same category is too rigid -- as is the seven-year rule.

Professor William Leiss, an expert in risk communication and public policy at the University of Calgary, concedes developing a new international consensus on a better protocol for BSE-afflicted countries may take years to achieve. But it is important to start building one now.

It would require agreement on both international standards for the beef industry and a common inspection system. "The agreement would specify that once a country has complied, its beef exports would again be welcomed on the world stage," says Leiss.

There are some signals other countries are ready to consider changes. At an international beef conference in Calgary earlier this month, delegates from Australia and the U.S. (both BSE free) called for an arbitrator such as the EIA to step in to get beef moving faster. The OIE could decide when a country has taken the right steps to show it has the disease under control, then recommend lifting a ban.

This is a long-term solution but it points the way for Canada in the short run. Canada needs to move speedily with reforms to the beef inspection, animal tracking and surveillance system, and to tighten regulations around animal feed. So far, only one change has been made despite the call for quick action from an international panel of scientists that reviewed Canada's BSE case this spring.

By next week, high-risk tissue, including brains, spinal cords and eyeballs that contain most of the BSE disease agents will be removed from the food chain on cattle over 30 months.

Admittedly, moving ahead with reform puts Canada's beef industry in a sticky situation. Canada now has higher standards than the U.S. for handling high-risk tissue. Other reforms, such as the country-of-origin labelling, a full ban on use of cattle bone meal for animal feed (it can still be fed to pigs and chickens) and more testing for BSE risk putting us at odds with the U.S.

Cattlemen worry that further reform also risks making Canadian beef more expensive and unable to compete with the U.S. product.

The prospect of disrupting the highly integrated industry we share with our biggest customer is not an easy one to contemplate, but it may be necessary.

Without implementing reforms that set some higher standards, how does Canada convince the world we have improved the handling of beef and reduced the risk the disease could spread or infect the human food chain?

Japan is holding out for country-of-origin labelling. It won't let in American beef until Canadian beef is labelled.

Canadian officials declare they aren't sure what changes the Japanese are looking for in our beef production system.

But it's really not that obscure. Look what Japan did when it found seven cases of BSE. It bans all use of rendered beef in any animal feed and tests every cow sent for human consumption.

It's easy to see where Canada's response so far falls short. Canada still allows beef bone meal to be fed to pigs and chickens, despite a 2001 Health Canada study warning that this could lead to cattle being fed contaminated feed. In 1997, Britain banned the use of ruminant bone meal altogether.

Canada can rightly argue it's impractical to test every animal sent to slaughter when most are slaughtered before they reach 30 months, the age at which BSE can be detected. But the current system of testing only sick animals clearly will not be enough to impress trading partners.

We Canadians can't cross our fingers and rely on American goodwill to open the border. We need to take concrete steps that will impress trading partners.

Let's get on with it.