Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 6 - Evidence of February 3, 2005
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 3, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:05 a.m. to study the present state and future of agriculture and forestry in Canada.
Senator Catherine S. Callbeck (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Good morning, everyone, and to our witnesses, welcome. The mandate of the committee is the present state and future of agriculture and forestry in Canada. The topic today is an update on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE. The witnesses with us this morning are from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Peter Brackenridge, Acting Executive Vice-President, Office of the President; Krista Mountjoy, Acting Vice-President of Operations; Cameron Prince, Executive Director, Animal Products Directorate; and Gary Little, Veterinary Program Officer, Animal Products Directorate.
I understand, Mr. Breckenridge, that you have a presentation to make. I am sure that there will be many questions from the senators. Please proceed.
Mr. Peter Brackenridge, Acting Executive Vice-President, Office of the President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: We are pleased to appear before you to provide an update on the current BSE situation in Canada. We will give particular emphasis to those aspects of the six-point plan in response to BSE that full under the direct responsibility of CFIA, namely the two most recent BSE investigations, the government's current review of Canada's feed controls, and recently announced regulatory initiatives.
After the third case of BSE was detected in Canada, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food responded with a six-point plan.
The first step is the CFIA's investigation into what the latest affected cow may have been fed early in its life and the potential feed source.
The second step involves the agency's review of Canada's feed controls to clearly demonstrate to Canadians and the world the strength of the ban and the job it is intended to do.
As part of the third step, the Government of Canada will continue to work closely with provinces, territories and industry to identify resources and to move forward on the proposed regulations to remove specified risk materials from all animal feed to eliminate the possibility of any cross-contamination.
The fourth step involves the launch of an international outreach program to convey to our trading partners the continued effectiveness of the measures Canada has in place to mitigate the risk of BSE.
Fifth, the Government of Canada will continue to ensure to build upon the strong collaboration with industry and provinces.
Finally, Canada will continue to stand by affected industry sectors and continue to support the repositioning strategy that was announced by the minister on September 10, 2004.
I would like to provide you with an update on our BSE investigations at this point.
As you are aware, a case of BSE was detected on January 2, 2005, through our surveillance programs. This was the second case of BSE in a Canadian-born animal detected through our surveillance program. On January 21, we announced the completion of the investigation into this second case of BSE. We have fully traced the three lines of inquiry, those being the birth cohort of the affected cow, its recently born offspring and the feed to which it may have exposed early in its life.
The index cow in this investigation was born on October 5, 1996. With regards to the birth cohort component of this investigation, we traced 135 cattle that were born on the farm of origin within one year before and one year after the birth of the affected cow. From this group, 126 animals were determined to have already died or been slaughtered. The nine animals that were confirmed to be still alive were removed and tested. We are pleased to report that all had negative results for BSE.
In the offspring component of this investigation, there were two offspring of interest. It was determined that both had died of causes unrelated to BSE in the previous two years.
With regard to the feed line of inquiry, based on available information, we confirmed that the affected animal was exposed to feed rations containing meat and bone meal. This feed was produced when such materials were legal ingredients in ruminant feeds in North America. In other words, it was produced before the 1997 feed ban was introduced.
The thoroughness and speed of the investigation is one component of our continued commitment to the protection of public and animal health for which Canada is recognized by the international community. It also speaks to the commitment to food safety and traceability that begins with the producer and must extend across all components of the feed and food production systems to manage BSE in an effective manor.
I will turn now to our investigation into case three, which was confirmed on January 11, 2005. This investigation is nearing completion. The animal was born on March 21, 1998, which is shortly after the feed ban was introduced. As with case two, we have pursued offspring and birth cohort lines of inquiry, but given the circumstances of this case, we have placed a heightened focus on the feed component of the investigation.
Current information indicates that the birth cohort for case 3 consisted of 349 animals. Of this group, 41 animals were confirmed to be still alive, but they have now been removed, sampled and tested, all with negative results. A total of 300 animals have been confirmed to have been slaughtered or died of causes unrelated to BSE. The remaining eight animals continue to be investigated to determine their status.
Regarding the offspring of the affected cow, our investigation revealed that the animal had two progeny born within the previous two years. One of these was confirmed to have been slaughtered. The other has been euthanized and incinerated at the CFIA Lethbridge laboratory. This animal was not tested for BSE, as it was less than one year of age.
We determined that the affected animal could have been exposed to a number of different feed sources early in its life. This is the time when cattle are most susceptible to BSE. It is possible that the feed used, which exposed this animal to the BSE agent, was produced shortly after the feed ban's implementation, when new feed production methods had not yet been uniformly adopted. This is the most recent information on the investigations to date.
[Translation]
With respect to feed review, on January 11, in response to the third case, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a review of Canada's feed ban. The review is examining the context surrounding the implementation of the feed ban in 1997. It is looking at the scope of the measures put in place, including the implementation of new regulations, and it is examining the CFIA's inspection program to assess compliance with these regulations. Also, the review will report on the results achieved by the Canadian feed and rendering industries in implementing these regulations. It is anticipated that the team will present its final report by the end of February.
Officials from other countries were invited to participate in the review process. To date, a number of countries have expressed interest in reviewing the results. Also, officials from the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Food and Drug Administration are in Canada to conduct an independent review of Canada's feed controls. This body of work will, where practical, proceed in concert with the Canadian review, but the two exercises are not explicitly linked.
[English]
Before I conclude, I would like to provide a brief overview of recently announced proposed regulations to remove import restrictions from a range of currently prohibited U.S. commodities. The current restrictions were introduced following the detection of BSE in Washington State on December 23, 2003.
The new regulations would allow the importation of animals born after January 1, 1998. Also, the import of live goats and sheep would no longer be prohibited. Meat from animals of all ages would be permitted provided the Specified Risk Material, SRM, has been removed. The new regulation would also prohibit the import of fertilizers and animal foods that contain ingredients derived from any ruminants. The proposed regulations are in line with recommendations from the OIE, the world organization for animal health and have been published in the Canada Gazette Part I. A 30-day comment period, ending on March 1, 2005, is being provided to allow interested parties the opportunity to provide comments. In the interim, current import restrictions will remain in effect.
Also, on December 10, 2004, we announced proposed amendments to federal regulations that will strengthen existing animal feed controls. These changes require the removal of Specified Risk Material from all animal feeds, increasing the speed with which BSE would be eradicated from the national cattle herd. SRM tissues that, in infected cattle, contain the BSE agent are already removed from all cattle slaughtered for human food.
In conclusion, Canada has taken a multi-faceted approach to BSE. We have adopted import controls for both live animals and feed. BSE was named as a reportable disease in 1990, and we implemented a training and monitoring program for United Kingdom imports. We have had a surveillance program in excess of the standards of OIE, the world organization for animal health, since 1992. We tested all United Kingdom animals that were alive in 1994, and all had negative results for BSE. We implemented the feed ban in 1997 to curtail the spread of BSE in cattle. North American import policies were aligned in 1998. Risk assessments were conducted in 2000 and 2002, and the mandatory cattle identification program was implemented in 2001.
Following the initial detection of BSE, the Government of Canada moved quickly to implement the most effective public health measure that a BSE-affected country can take, by requiring the removal of SRM from all cattle slaughtered in Canada.
In our opinion, the six-point plan is progressing well. The CFIA is pursuing those items for which it is directly responsible and is providing support to other departments, such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and International Trade Canada, on those items such as international outreach and the repositioning strategy for which they have a lead role.
As always, we remain committed to share in an open and timely manner all relevant information on the status of BSE in Canada.
We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Oliver: You have put a pretty positive spin on a multi-billion dollar problem for farmers in Canada. If I were to not press on and ask some difficult questions about things you have said, I could probably leave the room feeling Canadian beef will be safe, and farmers in a few months will return to profitability. It seems to me there have been a number of delays in doing many of the things that should have been done years and years ago. For instance, we Canadians have known for years that Specified Risk Materials, those parts of the animal that may and do cause BSE, have in fact been fed for some time, not just to beef and dairy cattle but to other animals. If some of that feed that we used as pet food got into the beef, it could cause BSE.
My first question is this: When the Specified Risk Material is taken out of cattle more than 30 months of age, what is done with it, and how is it disposed of in a safe way to ensure that it cannot get back and contaminate the feed of other animals?
My second question is this: Since we have known for several years now that we should not be feeding this to other animals, such as pets, dogs, swine and so on, why has Canada waited so long to stop feeding animal parts to other animals? Why did we not stop years ago? Perhaps we would not have had the three cases that you have just had to report to us.
Mr. Brackenridge: That is a good question, and it is appreciated. I would not like to be seen as making light of the situation and the economic hardship that is being experienced by the industry.
What I was trying to demonstrate is the activities that have been undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in response to these issues in an effort to try to prevent a recurrence. I will call on my colleagues to respond more directly to the questions. I will start with Ms. Mountjoy, to respond to the SRM removal and the disposal of those components and how we deal with that through the rendering process and the safe disposition of those. Afterwards, perhaps I could move to Dr. Little to explain the science behind BSE and the restrictions on which types of animals, the monogastric versus the ruminant animals, where the science takes us and where the international direction is going. I will ask Ms. Mountjoy to talk about the SRM disposal issue.
Ms. Krista Mountjoy, Acting Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: In response to your question, senator, currently there is, as you know, a ban on the feeding of prohibited material to cattle. As we speak, the Specified Risk Material, SRM, coming out of cattle abattoirs across the country is currently permitted to be manufactured into feeds for other special species of animals such as poultry and pigs that are not susceptible to BSE and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSE.
Senator Oliver: And dogs and cats?
Ms. Mountjoy: Yes. We do have a proposal with respect to a regulatory amendment regarding the feed ban that would strengthen the feed ban and require the redirection of Specified Risk Material away from all animal feeds. That would address any potential issues of cross-contamination at feed mills, mislabeling potentially throughout the retail and distribution sectors, and any potential for unintentional cross-feeding on farms. We believe that the proposed regulatory amendments will strengthen the feed ban in those regards and will serve to mitigate more rapidly the effect of BSE in Canada.
We believe currently we have a low and declining level of BSE in Canada. The feed ban implemented in 1997, while there appear to be some issues around the design and implementation, did do its job in the sense that a very low number of cases of BSE were prevented from increasing by virtue of the implementation of the feed ban.
Senator Oliver: When do you think we will stop using SRM in any feed in Canada? This is 2005. When do you think that will finally be finished and that it will be illegal and we cannot do it anymore?
Ms. Mountjoy: We published our proposal in the Canada Gazette Part 1 in December of 2004. We are currently in a comment period in which we are encouraging all stakeholders to comment, governments, industries, et cetera, so that we can well understand the views around this issue. Then we propose to move forward at the end of that comment period with our regulations in Canada Gazette Part II. We are also positioning to be able to implement those regulations in terms of verification of the redirection of SRM away from the feed chain once those regulations come into effect.
Senator Oliver: Which would be?
Ms. Mountjoy: We are hoping in the spring or early summer of 2005, following the end of the comment period and our moving to put the regulations in the Canada Gazette Part II.
Senator Oliver: Up until then, there is still the possibility of cross-contamination of some of the SRM materials; is that correct?
Ms. Mountjoy: There is that possibility. The CFIA has taken efforts, going back to 1997, to mitigate the possible effects of cross-contamination by virtue of our inspection program and our awareness initiatives with producers and the feed industry in general. By that, I mean since that time we have been communicating to producers and feed manufacturers and feed retailers the importance of observing the requirements of the feed ban. Those requirements are to ensure that prohibited materials are not incorporated in cattle feed, that labeling is done properly, and that on mixed farms particularly where farmers have both cattle and poultry or pigs side-by-side, that cattle are receiving the appropriate feed that is free of prohibited materials.
We also have an inspection program that is aimed primarily at feed mills and feed retailers to further strengthen and ensure that those requirements are met.
Senator Oliver: I am interested in knowing how you recommend that farmers and people in the chain dispose of the Specified Risk Materials. You cannot just bury it. What do you do to ensure that it does not continue to contaminate? What are your regulations for disposing of it? I am talking about the brain and the spinal cord.
Ms. Mountjoy: You are quite right in highlighting a very important issue linked to the regulatory amendments that are going forward, that is, once you require that SRM come out of the feed chain altogether there is a disposal question that must be addressed. Our colleagues in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are leading the discussions and consultation with all stakeholders including the provinces in whose jurisdiction the responsibility for environmental disposal primarily rests. If you would like some more information in that regard, perhaps we could invite a colleague from AAFC to join us at the table here.
The Acting Chairman: That will be fine.
Senator Oliver: It really is important, because if the materials removed are not properly disposed of, they can continue to contaminate. Countries like Japan and the United States, which are watching, would certainly want some assurance that the problem will not linger. That is why it is so important to me.
Ms. Mountjoy: That is a very important question.
Mr. Gilles Lavoie, Senior Director General, Team Leader, Food Safety and Quality, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: We have initiated, in cooperation with the provinces, a series of consultations. Those consultations have been completed in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. They will be held in a couple of weeks in Quebec and Ontario. Alberta was initially scheduled for the end of January but has been rescheduled.
These meetings are attended by all interested parties — farmers; owners of rendering facilities; universities, veterinarian colleges and so on; and provincial governments — to ensure that we have input from everyone. We try to identify the best options for disposal in each province because the nature of the soil and environmental conditions may vary from one province to another, and in fact within a single province, particularly in the case of large provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan.
A report was published following each of these meetings, which could be made available to you, wherein the various options were identified. The most significant challenge is obviously the transportation of this material, given that in most instances we do not have a very high density of animal population. Some groups have already started submitting proposals on how they could help to collect this material and to dispose of it.
The generally accepted method is, of course, rendering then removing the tallow for further processing, which can be used for various things. The protein can be buried or incinerated after that. That is the most common method suggested to date, but there will be other acceptable methods as well.
Senator Mercer: I am a little frustrated that we are talking about BSE again. I thought we had finished this. I am frustrated; I think the farmers are frustrated; I think Canadians are frustrated; and if I can interpret Senator Oliver's comments, I think this committee is frustrated.
I am very frustrated not only because we have another case of mad cow to deal with but also because I think the system has let us down. The witnesses indicated that we are waiting for a comment period. I do not think there is any room for a comment period. We should stop using SRM material now and we can figure out if it is worth reintroducing later.
We are doing a disservice to the agriculture community, and I am very concerned that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has let us down here. I think the minister has let us down and I think the system has let the agriculture community down, which means that it has let Canadians down.
On the television show W5 they asked: Who, what, when, where and why? I am now down to the why. I know who, what, when and where. I want to know why it happened and why we are feeding animal products to animals that do not normally eat other animals. I know it is to help profit, but it frustrates me.
This last case of BSE is probably the most frustrating for all of us because the public perception is that this animal was fed feed purchased or existing somewhere in the system before the ban.
My frustration here is with the farmer. What were you thinking? Have we taken any steps to ensure that the feed sitting at the back of the barn since before the ban is not brought to the front of the barn and fed to the animals now to cause more problems and to put more pressure on our trading partners, who have come a long way on this matter? Mind you, they are also in the same boat.
My second question is in respect of mad goat disease as opposed to mad cow disease. There is a report of mad cow disease being found in a goat in France. I find this disconcerting because we have been feeding Specified Risk Materials, SRMs, to animals other than cattle. Will we have this same problem with our goat industry? As a Nova Scotian, I am more concerned about the pork industry. What is next? We already have Avian flu in chickens. I have one follow-up question after your answers to those questions.
Mr. Brackenridge: Thank you, Senator Mercer. We understand your frustration and the frustration of everyone involved in these files. The system has been developed and has evolved. We think with a certain level of confidence that we have been somewhat ahead of the curve in our developments that I outlined. There is no doubt that when you are dealing with the complexities of the system in terms of the various ingredients that go into feeds and the various processes used in this country to process feed for the distribution and retailing for use on the farm, there is an obvious challenge in moving this through. Regulations were established in 1997, when we did not have the evidence that we have today. We are basically looking at a then-versus-now situation.
However, we have moved forward. We worked closely and collaboratively with groups such as the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada, which represents feed manufacturers; the Canadian Cattlemen's Association; and a number of others to emphasize the importance of segregating out the ruminant versus non-ruminant feeds. Part of the challenge, as I am sure you appreciate, particularly when the discussion is at the farm level, is the sheer numbers involved. There are tens of thousands of farms in Canada and it is virtually impossible to go to each farm to validate what is happening in all situations. We have tried to work as best we can with communication materials, with various producer associations, with provincial governments, with field staff out on the farms, and with our own staff to reinforce the messages.
However, accidents will happen. Each case that we have investigated to date has occurred unintentionally. You made reference to the last case and I would like to indicate that we have no information now. That is part of the challenge in dealing with cases where the animal is six or seven years of age. We do not have accurate records to provide accounting of these animals. However, in this third case, we have not directly implicated the farmer in this respect. The farmer has been very forthcoming with all information, including records of the animal and the kinds of feed that he may have used at different times during the early life of this animal. We have reviewed the extensive feed records. We may never know exactly what happened to be able to pinpoint the cause of why this particular case occurred, but we have it narrowed down. Unfortunately, we might never have an explicit answer to that case. We are trying to do our best and we are continuing to communicate. Senator, we share your frustration.
I ask Dr. Little to speak to your question about the goat because we have some information on that.
Dr. Gary Little, Veterinary Program Officer, Animal Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Certainly, as you have indicated, we have confirmation of BSE in a goat in France. It is important that we put that into some historical context relative to comparing the situation in Europe with the situation in North America, and specifically in Canada.
Unlike Europe, where they faced regulatory changes and preventive measures in the face of a full-blown epidemic like the one that was developing in the U.K. during the early 1990s, Canada, in particular, and North America, more broadly, introduced a number of measures beginning in 1989-90 to control our exposure to potential BSE. We began surveillance, not only in cattle but also in other species. You are quite aware, I am sure, that we have scrapie in sheep and potentially in goats as well. In 1997 we introduced a mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban that applied equally to cattle and other small ruminants such as goats and sheep.
For that reason, and confirmed as well in the context of our more recent surveillance activities, all indications are that the level of exposure to BSE in Canada is very low. That is significantly different than the existing situation in France, in the greater European Union, and in the U.K., in particular. There is much evidence to suggest that confirming BSE in goats is unwelcome but it was not necessarily unexpected because goats are ruminants. We understood that they are potentially subject to BSE infection and that we need to safeguard against that. Those small ruminants also fall under the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban that is in place. Exposure to the BSE agent will be very low.
I want to comment on the feed ban because it should be highlighted. Worldwide where a mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban has been introduced, it has had a significant and dramatic effect on the level of circulating infectivity within that animal population. We saw strong evidence of that in the U.K. where the number of cases went from 32,000 per year down to 5,000. Having a mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada, we are confident that it has been effective in reducing the level of infectivity within the animal populations and in preventing opportunities for recycling. On its own, it would have been successful in eradicating BSE in Canada and greater North America over a period of time.
In December 2004, we proposed changes to the feed ban that will accelerate the eradication of BSE, but this is not required to eradicate BSE. The current feed ban would be successful but we want to accelerate that eventuality. For that reason, we are proposing changes to the feed ban.
Senator Mercer: The EU market is integrated much like the integrated market in North America between Mexico, Canada and the United States. That leads me to a question that is somewhat off the topic about accidents that will happen.
I find it incomprehensible that Canada is dealing with a couple of cases of BSE while our neighbours to the south claim to be almost BSE-free. I have the sneaky suspicion that they were listening to Premier Ralph Klein when he said to shoot, shovel and shut up, and that is what they have been doing in the United States. You may not want to answer this question but do you believe that the U.S. herd is BSE-free?
My other question stems from the presentation and Senator Oliver's question about the disposal of SRMs and the challenge that it presents. I remember when we did not use SRMs. What did we do with them then? I do not remember how we disposed of SRMs before and I do not remember it being an ecological problem. Have we invented a new problem for ourselves from something that did not present a problem for many years in the past?
Mr. Brackenridge: I do not want to answer your first question, but what I can say is that it goes back to the system that we have put in place to try and determine what our situation is in Canada. Again, I do not want to be accused of patting CFIA on the back; it is just a trait of our overall system in this country. We have taken a very proactive approach to try and determine the status of the Canadian herd by doing the various surveillance programs that we have put in place.
We had a target for this past year of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8,000 samples. In fact, more than 22,000 samples have been tested. That is due, in large part, to the responsible attitude that has been taken by the Canadian farming community and by the provinces and all those involved in the system. They stepped up to the plate and said they would not hide behind this situation. We identified four categories of animals — those that had died on the farm; those that were diseased; those that were in the downer category and those that were disabled.
We have put forward a program with a reimbursement aspect to it and the provinces are working with us on that. The program encourages people, when they have these types of animals, to call their private veterinarian to determine whether it has clinical signs of a potential mad cow infection, to send samples into our laboratory and to run the tests on it.
Again, at the risk of putting too bright a face on it, it demonstrates a strength in our system that we have analyzed over 22,000 samples. We have found a few positives, which is unfortunate for all of us, but we are doing the right thing. The international community is respecting us for that and we are opening our doors to the international community to come in and take a look at it.
With regard to the traditional uses of SRM, there were export market opportunities and things of that nature. I am not sure somebody at this table can speak to SRMs in general, how the definition came along and how we deal with it.
Mr. Little: Certainly, we can discuss the SRM. When Canada introduced the SRM, we did that very rapidly after the first discovery or first detection of BSE in May 2003.
The definitions of SRM were established in consultation with Health Canada and with the awareness of the latest literature and scientific information that was available to us. In that context, the specified risk material list was developed and the categories of animals for which it would apply were established. Prior to removing SRM, of course, that material would normally flow through our rendering system and be used as a potential protein source after that processing.
It is important to realize and understand that the rendering process in and of itself is somewhat harsh; it applies high levels of heat over extended periods of time. That processing does have a significant effect in terms of reducing any infectivity that is present in the material.
We know that it is not going to completely sanitize or sterilize the product with respect to BSE, but there are certainly significant reductions in the level of infectivity in any potential material after it has been processed through that system. That provides us with further reductions of infectivity and reduces the potential amount of material that could be cycling within our systems at any time.
Senator Hubley: I would like to go back to the feed ban for a moment. The ban prohibiting the feeding of animal meal to ruminants was introduced in August 1997. It did not apply to producers who had such feed in stock on their farms. I would like you to confirm if that is the case.
I am looking then at the third case of BSE on March 28, 1998. There are seven months in-between. Does that sound reasonable to you? Would feed remain in a barn for seven months or would the turnover be greater than that?
Mr. Brackenridge: I will ask Mr. Prince to speak to the feed ban and its implementation and evolution over the past number of years.
Mr. Cameron Prince, Executive Director, Animal Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: When the feed ban was brought in August 1997, it was directed primarily at feed manufacturers, feed mills. Some had already voluntarily implemented this measure, but it was made law that this prohibited material could not be put into feed at feed mills at that time.
It is important to remember that we were in a totally different context then. We had no reason to believe that we had BSE in Canada at that time. The decision was taken that we would not recall feeds from farms and that we would allow an estimated matter of months when that feed would be fed out to animals. At that time, there was deemed to be limited risk associated with that decision, so there was no recall.
As my colleague Ms. Mountjoy has mentioned, farmers were informed. There was education material at the time. We had no reason to believe that material would last on farms for any length of time.
With respect to case three, I want to emphasize the fact that we do not have evidence at this point that the cause of this case is related to feed produced before or after the feed ban. That has not been concluded. The answer to your question is that it is possible that some feed did remain on some farms for a matter of months, but eventually it was all fed out within a fairly short period of time.
Senator Hubley: If you are not sure that the BSE was a result of the feeding regime, are you looking at any other ways of contracting BSE?
Mr. Prince: I will ask Dr. Little to answer that. However, it is true that the most plausible theory is that BSE is related to feed. All the evidence, both from the European and Canadian experience, points to that. As far as other possibilities go, I would ask Dr. Little to respond to that.
Mr. Little: To address it, we have to understand a little more about the diseases in general. As I am sure you are aware, BSE is but one of a group of diseases that are caused by aberrant proteins. We are familiar perhaps with scrapie in sheep and we have heard about chronic wasting disease in elk and deer, and we are certainly aware of Creutzfeldt- Jakob disease in humans. Although all those diseases are similar in terms of the agent associated with them and the types of problems they cause, there are significant differences between how they behave within their own species and their ability to cross species as well.
Certainly we are familiar with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in people. We know that it occurs at a level of one case per million roughly in the general population. We do not have a good understanding of where that disease comes from or how it occurs.
That is not the case to date with BSE. There has been strong evidence associating BSE infectivity with contaminated feed, and the transmission of the disease to the consumption of feeds. However, because of the situation that occurs in people, there is a tendency to assume that BSE in cattle will behave the same as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease does in people. That makes individuals concerned about the potential for spontaneous disease in other species, including BSE.
I want to emphasize that to date there is no evidence of that having occurred in the cattle population at large. The potential for that is an area we continue to look at and be aware of but there is no evidence to suggest that is the cause. We remain focussed on the fact that feeding contaminated material, material that contains the agent of BSE, is certainly the most significant if not the only source of transmission of the agent.
Again, it is important to understand and recognize that what we know about the disease in other species is not necessarily applicable. We have to be careful about extrapolating that information more broadly.
Senator Hubley: Canada is what they call a ``minimal risk.'' The United States is using that criteria to open the borders next month. Do they associate the number of cases with that designation of minimal risk, or is it arbitrary?
Mr. Little: It is not arbitrary. The definition of a minimal risk country is based on criteria that have been established by the World Organization for Animal Health, known as the OIE. The OIE provides guidance to countries in terms of facilitating trade between nations in the context of a disease-control environment, or disease environment.
The OIE has established criteria for establishing risks associated with BSE. In the minimal risk designation, the incidence of BSE can be up to two cases per million adult cattle. In Canada, we have approximately 6 million adult cattle. Consistent with OIE guidelines and recommendations, something less than 12 cases per 12-month period could be detected and we would still be consistent with the OIE minimal risk guidelines as published.
Senator Kelleher: I recall reading in the newspapers soon after this last case was detected that the Americans were going to send a team of people to check things out from their perspective. Did they do that?
Mr. Brackenridge: Yes.
Senator Kelleher: What did they find; what did they say and what do you know about this?
Mr. Brackenridge: I do not know what they have found to date. We have not yet had a debriefing from them. They did come to Canada. A group of approximately 12 individuals came from the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. They were leading the initiative on behalf of the United States, but they were accompanied by representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In the United States, feed inspection work is conducted by the Food and Drug Administration, but this was a USDA-led investigative team that came to Canada.
They organized themselves into two teams. One was an epidemiological team that looked at all three cases, with more focus on the last two. They tried to determine how our investigation had been handled and to validate the information that was being provided. They got an explanation from our epidemiologist about how he had done the tracing of the animals and dealt with the cohorts, and how we had done our feed investigation, et cetera.
That group was with us for only about four or five days. They then returned to the United States where they were going to look at the information they had gathered. They will be sharing a draft report with us before a final report is filed, which is a typical approach in an audit scenario.
The other group did feed investigation work. That team may leave as soon as today or tomorrow. They will return to the United States and draft a report to review with us. They made a couple of field visits. They accompanied us to a couple of feed mills in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. They did some other work as well in looking at our feed programs and understanding the rationale for the approach.
It should be kept in mind that the U.S. has a very similar system and the approaches they have taken are very similar to our own, so the Canadian system was not foreign to them. Their intent was to look at the Canadian system in order to provide some objective information to U.S. leaders with regard to their proposed March 7 final rule. From our standpoint, hopefully it will provide confidence to the U.S. administration that they are continuing to pursue the right avenues.
We have our own Canadian investigation. Although the two activities are not directly linked, we tried to orchestrate it such that if they wanted to visit a feed mill, which we were completely open to, we wanted them to accompany us so that we did not bother the company twice going through the same records and that type of thing.
Senator Kelleher: When do you expect they will share these reports with you?
Mr. Brackenridge: I expect it will be within the next one to two weeks. Their target to file their reports is mid- February. I am sure they will want to have some points clarified, and that will probably happen within the next week or two.
Senator Kelleher: I understand a bit about trade law. There is far more latitude given to protest groups in the United States than there is in Canada. As I understand it, they have rights to file protests and oppose in various and assorted ways, notwithstanding what the administration may think.
Will you attempt to evaluate for me the risk of this being done by these groups in the States? The American producers are somewhat protective of their own industry, understandably.
Mr. Brackenridge: Perhaps Andrew Marsland from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada could join me at the table. They have been dealing very closely with the U.S. situation. No doubt there are some litigation actions being developed in the United States. However, they are not only on the side of those opposed to the rule. Some are filing documents in support of what is happening and want it to move even further than is being proposed.
Mr. Andrew Marsland, Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: In response to your question, there are two actions underway in the United States at the moment. The first one was an action filed by the American Meat Institute in relation to the proposed rule that is slated to come into effect on March 7.
The American Meat Institute is very clear that they agree with the rule so far as it goes, but they think it should go further. In particular, they think it should cover the importation of live animals more than 30 months old, which are currently not covered by the rule.
The second legal action underway in the United States has been brought by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund. It attempts to stop the final rule to allow importation of live animals and a broad range of products, and also to pull back in respect of the importation of those products that are currently allowed to be imported into the United States. That action certainly was not unexpected. That organization brought an action in April 2004 and was successful in restricting the types of importations allowed into the United States.
I cannot speculate on the outcome of that case, but I can say that the Government of Canada has engaged legal counsel in Washington to ensure that we do all we can to protect our interests in respect of that case. The case is based on an argument that the regulatory approach taken by the United States Department of Agriculture did not follow appropriate approaches.
Without speculating on the outcome of that litigation, which I cannot do, I think it is clear from the level of detail of the rule — it is approximately 400 pages — and the risk assessments that were undertaken with respect to that rule, that every effort has been taken to ensure that it respects procedural requirements and is based on the best scientific evaluation possible.
Senator Kelleher: I am going to ask you to speculate. Because you retained a law firm I am certain that by now they have given you at least some preliminary assessment as to how serious these challenges will be. I would like an indication of what you think will happen. Will it be bad or good? What are the chances? In these trade matters, I know that counsel will provide an evaluation.
Mr. Marsland: The original motion was filed on Monday, January 31 and the documents in support of the motion became available on Wednesday, February 2. We are reviewing those with our colleagues at CFIA to understand what statements were made about the Canadian system and to ensure that we provide information that rebuts those statements. I want to be clear that this is not a trade issue. This is domestic litigation between a U.S. organization and the United States Department of Agriculture relating to a procedural issue in the United States. It is not, per se, a trade matter, although it has significant potential trade implications.
We are following it day by day but I find it difficult to speculate on the trends of the case, which are still in play. I certainly do not want to prejudice those discussions in any way. We are doing all we can, with the assistance of U.S. counsel, to ensure we protect the interests of Canada as much as possible.
Mr. Brackenridge: Again, I would not be able to speculate either, but since the most recent cases emerged, the U.S. administration and officials at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service have been very supportive in their public statements and they have worked closely with us. We have a direct, close, working relationship between our organizations, including our chief veterinary officers. They understand well how our systems work and the integration of the systems. I have to give some credit to them. Public releases were made by Dr. Ron DeHaven, Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. They have stood by us through these two cases and I do not think any of us could have dreamed of a worse scenario to unfold in the early days of January. Again, it is my opinion that if they had wanted to fold at that time, perhaps they could have done so. However, they did not fold. I have no idea how that will bode for the future but to date they have been collaborative, cooperative and continuing to seek information and be objective on their assessment of the situation. We will have to see what it leads to.
Other U.S. groups, such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, NCBA, are having annual policy meetings now in San Antonio, Texas. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency each has a representative attending those meetings if questions need to be answered. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is taking a strong advocacy approach with those groups, who are also highly influential. All the parties are bonding to try their best to move this forward.
Senator Kelleher: With my next question, we will take a political tack. Do you think that there has been a political element intruding into the process. For example, I know that a number of U.S. senators have become quite vocal, particularly with elections looming. Do you think that a political element exists?
Mr. Brackenridge: As far as I am concerned, it is like any political system: the strength of the system lies in the fact that everyone has the opportunity to approach their elected officials to lobby on their behalf. There is no doubt that these groups that Mr. Marsland referenced, particularly the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, R-CALF USA, have influence. There is no doubt that in any democratic political system, people will use those systems to their advantage as they are able to do.
Senator Kelleher: Does that seem to be the case?
Mr. Brackenridge: Certainly. They approach their senators and congressmen to try to influence the outcome of the decision in this issue. We would not have expected them to do otherwise.
Senator Oliver: Following along the questions of Senator Kelleher, the border between Canada and the United States is supposed to open for the movement of live cattle under 30 months of age within one month from today. Do you have any information, based upon the things you have been stating, in response to the question from Senator Kelleher to indicate that there is a chance that the border will not open in March to the movement of live cattle under 30 months from Canada to the United States?
Mr. Marsland: I have no indication it will not happen. On the contrary, the signals from the U.S. administration continue to indicate that their decision will be based on science, as is the final proposed rule to come into force March 7, 2005.
The litigation was not unexpected because we had seen it back in April 2004. The final rule was formulated in that context and, as I said, it was based on thorough risk assessments on the best science available. In our view, it did not go far enough, that the science would support a more comprehensive approach. To the extent that it did go, it was based on thorough risk assessments and a comprehensive and thorough procedural approach to reviewing all of the comments received. It resulted in a rule that is 400 pages long. That reflects the care that was taken in both the scientific and procedural approaches. We are confident that the litigation is based on good science and, therefore, should stand up to any test from a scientific or procedural perspective.
From the point of view of the administration, the signals have been clear. They said that they would go forward with this rule and they continue to base their approach on science. It is always difficult to speculate on the outcome of litigation and it is probably not particularly helpful for me to speculate openly beyond the comments that were made.
The Acting Chairman: We have talked a lot about our discussion with the United States since the two new cases of BSE. Have the two new cases had an effect on our discussions with Japan about reopening their market to Canadian cattle?
Mr. Marsland: We continue to keep our trading partners informed in a timely fashion. In fact, we had a technical mission to Japan with Dr. Baker at the time the third case was discovered. It is clear from the approach the Japanese have taken, particularly with the U.S., that as they move forward, in the progress to date there could well be several other cases that would be consistent with a low prevalence.
The approach that CFIA has taken — and perhaps they would like to comment on it — was not based on a single case but on the basis of a risk status, which is on the basis of the measures that Canada has put in place over the years. To answer your question, we do not anticipate that would have an impact on our trading partners' approach.
Mr. Little: We have, in fact, had a Canada-Japan working group, a technical working group, that has been together now for almost a year. That has resulted in ongoing discussions with the Japanese at a technical level, and a sharing of information concerning BSE generally and certainly concerning BSE in each of our countries more specifically.
As Mr. Marsland indicated, those discussions have been fruitful, based on the understanding that additional cases in Canada — and in Japan, for that matter — are perhaps likely in the context of our increased surveillance activities. Any decisions that Japan has made relative to trade with Canada are based on the full knowledge and understanding that additional cases will be found within the greater North America.
Senator Mercer: I want to move off the farm for a moment. I am concerned about my dog's health over the years. I understand that ruminant materials still can be used legally in pet food. What are we doing to protect our pet population, to ensure that the feed I am feeding my dog, and others are feeding their dogs and cats is safe and that there are no ruminant materials in that pet food? That is my first question, which is probably the easier of my two questions, because I am going back to our American friends again and you continue to skirt around those questions.
They are up here looking at our system, making sure that they are comfortable with our inspection and that our inspection is doing a good job. However, it is interesting that an internal audit of the USDA's mad cow surveillance program by the agency's inspector last fall found a failure to test the riskiest animals, confusion among inspectors and slaughterhouses, and a failure to follow regulations.
When the border opens, cattle will be moving back and forth across the border, as they did in the past. They want to feel comfortable with our animals moving south. I want to feel comfortable with their animals moving north. Are we checking out their systems and ensuring that their systems are up to the high standards that we have established for ourselves post-BSE? I think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Mr. Brackenridge: I will ask Mr. Little to speak to the science behind the pet food situation, how we deal with that and where we are going with pet foods. Then perhaps I can make a few comments about the U.S. situation and the findings of the General Accounting Office, GAO, and ask Mr. Prince to give a few details on how our verification systems work.
Mr. Little: With respect to pet food, in the late '80s and early '90s an extensive amount of work was done, primarily in the United Kingdom but certainly spilling over into Europe, to establish what species are susceptible to the agent of BSE under a variety of circumstances. Pets, dogs in particular, were a focus. All the research to date demonstrates that canine species, for whatever reason, appear not to be at risk. There have been no cases of BSE confirmed in any of those species. Nonetheless, in the context of strengthening regulations that we are proposing relative to the feed ban, it will address pet food as well. Specified Risk Materials will no longer be permitted to be included in any of those ration formulations.
Senator Mercer: However, there has been a case of a mad goat, which is not a pet obviously, but we have now switched to a smaller animal. We are jumping species here now.
Mr. Little: We are jumping species but we are still within the same larger family; we are still talking about a ruminant species. Even though we differentiate between goats, sheep and cattle, they are nonetheless part of a larger group of animals that are classified as ruminant species. Canines and felines et cetera, as carnivores, are monogastric species, much like hogs, and so their susceptibility is less.
Mr. Brackenridge: Perhaps we could address the U.S. question.
I will switch gears slightly in that I have made reference previously this morning to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the USDA. We have been working with this organization on our animal health issues. With regard to the activities that take place in the slaughterhouses, that is the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA, FSIS, a group that we have close working relationships with.
In that regard, we have based our system over the past number of years on an equivalence type of process, where we recognize the system they have in place and they equally recognize the system we have in place within our abattoir system. Having said that, we do an evaluation of each others' systems on occasion to reconfirm that things are being delivered as they are written on paper. We have taken great pains to reinforce the idea of equivalency versus an identical type of system because they are not identical. They are not completely harmonized, but the end result is to be achieved through the processes we follow.
I will ask Mr. Prince to talk briefly about the most recent evaluation that the U.S. did on our system here in Canada. That is only part of your question because you are primarily interested in what we do in the United States. Mr. Prince could talk about how we do our verification of the U.S. system.
Mr. Prince: As Mr. Brackenridge has indicated, we have close collaboration between the CFIA and USDA in areas of meat inspection and animal health. These involve audits of each others' system. Most recently, the USDA did come and do an evaluation of our meat processing sector. In fact, they come on a regular basis, almost once a year over the last number of years. With very few exceptions, our record has been very good.
Likewise, we have sent teams down to the U.S. Within the last year, we had a team look at meat processing in the U.S. Similarly, we found in general there was good compliance with Canadian requirements and meeting their own requirements.
I do not want to paint the picture that everything is perfect. Issues can be found in any processing system, but none that are of food safety consequence.
With respect to live animals imported into Canada from the U.S., once we have that opened up again over the next number of months, there is long-standing cooperation in veterinary infrastructure on both sides of the border. Live animals that are exported are inspected and certified by veterinarians — both government veterinarians and accredited private practitioners. These animal shipments are evaluated and certified upon entry into Canada. That whole system would be in place and would provide the appropriate assurance.
Senator Oliver: How do you know what they have been fed?
Mr. Prince: With respect to animals coming from the U.S., they have virtually an identical feed ban in place. They have a feed inspection system similar to ours. We have looked at that. That is administrated by the USFDA, which is a little different, and they were part of the team that came here. As far as we know, they have been fed similar types of feeds that would have been fed in Canada and the ban was exactly the same there. That provides us the assurance.
Senator Mercer: However, we have a ban in place and then we discover another animal with BSE. I am concerned about your phrase ``in general'' that they meet it.
Are the Americans, who are quick to demand things from us, meeting the high standards we have set? Are their standards as high as ours? Are their inspections as detailed as ours? Are they testing as many animals, on a percentage basis, as we are? Can we be assured that any beef we import from the United States is as safe as the beef we produce in this country?
Mr. Prince: I used the term ``in general'' because, as Mr. Brackenridge indicated, our systems are equivalent. All meat processing plants in North America have both veterinarian and inspection presence full time, so it is under constant supervision on both sides of the border. That provides considerable assurance with regard to what is taking place in those facilities.
As I have indicated, as far as what is fed to animals, a virtually identical ban was implemented at the same time. A similar inspection cadre is working in the field. Through audits on both sides of the border we are able to convince each other that our systems are equivalent and providing protection for animal health.
Mr. Little: To add one detail to the answer, we introduced a Specified Risk Material removal policy with respect to animals slaughtered in Canada after detecting our first case of BSE in May 2003. The United States, working with us after they detected the December 23 case in Washington state, introduced a similar regulatory change within their meat inspection process. Both Canada and the United States now require Specified Risk Materials to be removed from cattle slaughtered in both countries. In the context of the products that are generated within our slaughter industries, they have an equivalent level of safety.
Senator Oliver: This is February. In January of 2005, certain Canadian newspapers reported on tests done in Canada on what was being fed to cattle. The results showed that certain brands of ruminant feed contained animal protein in violation of the 1997 ban.
How do you explain that is still the case? What do you know about that?
Mr. Brackenridge: Just yesterday we posted the report on the microscopy study. That was the reference point being made; a study we conducted to evaluate a test methodology trying to determine the efficacy of a microscopic test to determine whether there was prohibited material in ruminant feeds. Again, I will ask Mr. Prince to explain it.
The reports that came out were based upon an Access to Information request that was made. Our assessment of all the data had not been completed at that time, and certain assumptions were being made about the fact that animal proteins were being found in what was deemed to be vegetable feeds, is how it was being termed. Our report is now complete and is on the website.
Mr. Prince: The testing methodology for feeds is, at this point, an inexact science.
Senator Oliver: It not an exact science?
Mr. Prince: Yes, it is not an exact science. It is surprising in this day and age, but a test does not exist to determine whether a bit of feed has the prohibited material in it. There is no chemical test to do that at this point, partly because of the complications that certain ruminant materials are still permitted, such as blood, which has no risk whatsoever for BSE infectivity, yet it is a ruminant-based material, so it is hard to test.
We were left with internally trying to find the best method to determine whether ruminant material or prohibited material was inadvertently put into feed, so we did this microscopy test. With microscopy, as you can imagine, we can look at little fragments and determine whether they are hair, bone, feathers or other animal-based materials.
Senator Oliver: But it may not be a Specified Risk Material?
Mr. Prince: Absolutely, and that was the whole issue. When this came out, it was portrayed as animal material found in feeds. In fact, that is probably okay in almost all cases, because when combines go through fields and harvest grain they inadvertently pick up animal material from mice in the fields or whatever. Feed mills attract pigeons, rats, mice and so on. There is a very small amount of contamination that exists naturally within whole feed production system.
In this case, we took 110 samples with a microscope and were able to find such things as feathers. The data showed that there was animal material in a number of these samples, but there was no way to definitively determine whether that material was ruminant material. We found bone, for example. That could be chicken bones; it could be something that is no risk whatsoever.
It was very much an internal study in CFIA that we were using to try to find an indicator of whether there were problems in the feed system. The bottom line was that this was not a very effective tool to determine compliance with the feed ban, so we have discontinued its use. That was the main finding of this study. It did, however, lead us to some further investigation in several mills. We followed up there and were able to ensure that those mills took corrective action.
I hope that answers your question as to what that study was about.
The Acting Chairman: Are there any other questions on BSE?
There being none, I have a question that is off topic, but I want to ask it because it pertains to the agency. It is about inspection fees.
This is a concern, certainly with producers in my province, and I assume it is all across Canada. They feel that this is a very unfair burden placed upon them. As you know, we grow a lot of potatoes in Prince Edward Island. It used to be that a load could be inspected for $5; now it costs $150. There used to be free inspections of the fields, which meant that roughly 100 per cent were inspected. Now that costs $50 an acre, so we are inspecting around 20 per cent of the fields, which means there is an increased risk for disease.
Is there any thought within the agency of reviewing these fees with a view to lowering them? The producers feel that there is a public responsibility here and that they should not have to pay the whole shot. Is there any talk about this in the agency?
Mr. Brackenridge: Before the inception of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we worked with the various commodity sectors negotiating a series of fees for services in the late 1980s or early 1990s. In some cases, there was an escalating fee associated with it. It was a staged fee of introduction.
When CFIA was established, approximately 15 per cent of our budget was based upon the respendable revenue that was coming into the organization. It was determined to be an appropriate percentage level at that time and there was a moratorium announced on increasing inspection fees at that time.
If there had been escalating fees associated with certain commodities, that would have still been on the books and the regulations would have been maintained, so there has been essentially no increase in fees over the past number of years beyond those that would have been negotiated before 1996-97.
Having said that, the agency is certainly looking at this issue.
We have had differing situations come along. One of them is the User Fees Act, which is now in place. It will require a number of agencies such as the CFIA and departments to look at the fees that are charged and the service standards that are in place for the delivery of activities.
We are also running into situations where there are a number of groups interested in accessing our services. They could use them for marketing trade purposes, perhaps. There is a certain recognition that we are an unbiased third party that could provide services. However, if it does not have, for example, a health and safety component that it would be useful for them to be able to contract with the agency, currently we have our hands tied in trying to deal with those types of requests.
We are looking at the fee structures themselves. No decisions have been made with regards to where we are going on this file, but we are looking at the whole manner of fees because we have a number of different fees in place for all the different commodity groups and a wide range of fee schedules. They are based on a varying scale. In some cases, it is based upon hundredweight. In some cases, it is based upon load. In some cases, it is based upon an hourly fee. There are overtime fees. Some of those are recoverable and some are non-recoverable activities. It is a very complex situation. At this point, all I can say is that we are reviewing and considering it, but no decisions have been made yet on the future.
The Acting Chairman: I am happy to hear you are looking at it, but can you give me any kind of a time frame?
Mr. Brackenridge: I am afraid I cannot, because I do not know how long it will take for this review. We have various proposals that we have to put together and review, not only within the agencies themselves but the parties that we deal with have to look at it. We have to consider the new requirements of the User Fees Act and how we proceed with it. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to be able to tell you the exact time frame for that. I was not prepared for that today, so I cannot really tell you.
The Acting Chairman: This is a major concern for farmers. As you know, many of them are in a financial bind right now. I certainly would like to see emphasis put on it.
Mr. Brackenridge: We will take note of the comment.
Senator Hubley: I want to revert to BSE for a moment. Where in Canada is the testing being done on the SRMs? Have you increased the number of scientists working on this and, if so, where is the testing being done — in what labs?
Mr. Little: Just a point of clarification in terms of testing SRM, what we are actually testing are brain samples of animals that we identify as being eligible for our surveillance program. We have in Canada a network of laboratories involving not only federal facilities but also provincial facilities as well in the context of our laboratory network.
Off the top of my head, there are possibly eight or nine functioning laboratories in Canada that have been authorized and are now performing evaluations using rapid test technology for the presence of BSE. However, it is important to realize that those labs are operating in the context of a screening laboratory. Any findings in those particular labs are referred to the national BSE reference laboratory at our facility in Winnipeg for diagnostic confirmation. All the diagnoses of BSE in the country are determined at that particular lab in Winnipeg, although we have a number of labs functioning to screen samples prior to that.
Senator Hubley: Are they spread across Canada?
Mr. Little: Yes, they are. We have a facility in just about every province in the country. We have well-distributed laboratory capacity for BSE testing.
The Acting Chairman: I would like to thank the witnesses from the Canada Food Inspection Agency. You have given us valuable information and answered the questions of the committee. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.