Meat + Poultry - June 2004 - 3

U.S.D.A. initiates B.S.E.
surveillance plan
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has implemented its bovine spongiform encephalopathy enhanced surveillance program. Announced March 15 by Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, the program went into effect June 1.
"Our objective in the enhanced surveillance program is to test as many animals as
we can in what we're referring to as the target or high-risk population," said Dr. Ron
DeHaven, administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. "(The
high-risk) population includes those animals exhibiting some central nervous disorder, animals that are non-ambulatory or those animals that are dead for reasons that
are unknown."
The goal, according to DeHaven, is to test as many high-risk cattle as possible during the next 12 months to 18 months. "At the end of that time period we will be far better
able to determine whether or not we have the disease in this country and, if so, what
the prevalence of the disease would be," he said. In the end, it is anticipated U.S.D.A.
will test more than 200,000 cattle.
One of the initial issues with the enhanced surveillance program was where the
samples would be tested. U.S.D.A. has identified seven high throughput labs that have
the equipment necessary to test a large number of samples. DeHaven also noted that
U.S.D.A. has identified five other labs that will be coming online at a later date to assist
in the overall effort.
"We have five rapid-screening tests that have been approved for use by the labs,"
said DeHaven. "Each of the labs will be using one or more of those screening tests,
and it's the goal that we will have results from a screening test available 24 hours to 72
hours after the samples are collected."
While APHIS is the lead regulatory agency in the surveillance program, the Food
Safety and Inspection Service will play a role as well. As part of the approximately
200,000 animals to be tested, 20,000 will come from normal, aged slaughter cattle.
"We've been working with APHIS in two ways," said Dr. Barb Master, acting administrator of F.S.I.S. "We've been working with them in how we are going to be testing the
20,000 normal, 30-month-plus animals. We've also been talking with them on how we
can ensure that antemortem animals that need to be tested can be tested.
"We have made a determination that when F.S.I.S. veterinarians condemn an animal
for which there needs to be a sample taken at the slaughter facility, F.S.I.S. employees
will in fact take those samples."
A week before the June 1 implementation date, APHIS employees trained some
F.S.I.S. veterinarians in sample collection. "We believe this is a significant step to ensure
there is no question that if an F.S.I.S. veterinarian feels a sample needs to be taken based
on their condemnation, that the sample will be taken without question," said Masters.
One issue that has yet to be dealt with is producer cooperation. "We've got a couple
of things underway," said DeHaven. "Part of the (surveillance) plan is to provide for transportation and disposal of carcasses on the farm that would be part of this group. So when
faced with an option of burying or otherwise leaving a dead animal on the farm or having
that carcass removed from the farm at no cost to the producer we think will encourage
producers to provide us with samples.
"We're also doing outreach with producers," he said. "We're educating them as to
what might happen if in fact one of their animals does test positive. I think the producer in the state of Washington (whose animal tested positive for B.S.E.) is an excellent
example and one we can use to our advantage. He's in business and it's pretty much
business as normal for him today."

JUNE 2004

www.MEATPOULTRY.com

E.R.S. calculates the
cost of HACCP
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Economic Research Service has published
the results of a survey that estimates the cost of
the Food Safety and Inspection Service's Pathogen Reduction/HACCP final rule on the meat and
poultry industry.
Estimates based on the E.R.S. survey suggest meat and poultry plants incurred $570 million in fixed costs and $380 million in annual variable costs to comply with the rule. The cost estimates are much higher than the prediction of $1
billion to $1.2 billion spread over 20 years made
by F.S.I.S. prior to enactment of the regulation.
Depending on the useful life of the fixed assets,
the cost estimate based on survey data is close to
the $623 million in annual fixed and variable costs
projected by E.R.S. with an alternative methodology used in a previous study.
One reason why E.R.S.'s cost estimate is
higher than that made by F.S.I.S. is F.S.I.S. considered only the administrative costs associated with record-keeping and planning, the direct
cost of testing, and a small estimate of capital
outlays. The E.R.S. survey includes those costs
and the costs of hiring the workers necessary
for remaining in regulatory compliance, and the
capital outlays necessary to bring each plant up
to the standards necessary for compliance with
regulatory standards.
This broader definition of the costs of the PR/
HACCP rule was necessary because regulatory
costs should include all costs that a plant incurs
to perform tasks that it would not do in the absence of regulation.
The E.R.S. results also suggests the PR/
HACCP rule has raised beef and poultry slaughter plant costs by about one-third of 1 cent per
pound. However, these are average prices per
pound of beef and not the average cost incurred
by each plant, according to the study's authors.
Small plants, which tend to produce more specialized products, had much higher average
costs than the giant plants, which produce mainly
commodity products, such as boxed beef. Since
plants must recover their costs, this means that
prices for commodity products will rise very little, while prices for more specialized products,
like cut-to-order beef, may rise as much as a few
cents per pound.

MEAT&POULTRY

http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - June 2004

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - June 2004