![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.510416666666667in"
height="1.4583333333333333in"}

Release No. 0446.03

USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623

**of**

**Technical Briefing and Webcast with\
U.S. Government Officials on BSE Case**

# Sunday, December 28, 2003

**OPERATOR:** Good morning or afternoon, and thank you all for holding.
I\'d like to remind parties that your lines will be on a listen-only
mode until the question and answer portion. I\'d like to introduce your
speaker, Mr. Ed Curlett.

Thank you, sir. You may begin.

**MR. CURLETT:** Thank you. Welcome everyone to today\'s BSE situation
update. Today we\'re going to have a statement from Dr. Ron DeHaven, our
chief veterinary officer for USDA. We\'ll have a statement after that by
Dr. Ken Petersen with the Food Safety and Inspection Service. And then
we\'ll go to questions.

Also on the line today is Dr. Stephen Sundlof with the Food and Drug
Administration. He will be available in case there\'s any questions
regarding the feed investigation.

So one more thing. I just ask that everyone keep their questions to just
one. We want to try and get as many questions as possible in. So with
that, I\'ll turn it over to Dr. Ron DeHaven.

**DR. RON DEHAVEN:** Yes. Thank you very much, and good morning to
everyone. Quite honestly we have no new information to report today
relative to the investigation. We are continuing to work with Canadian
officials to verify the trace-back including a continued search of the
records and as it relates to this indexed cow as well as coordination
with the Canadians on samples being submitted for DNA testing. Again,
the purpose of the DNA testing is to confirm the origin of the indexed
or positive cow.

Additionally our investigation today will be focusing on the tracing out
of the other 73 head of cattle that came into the United States or
appear to have come into the United States with the indexed or positive
cow. Again, in that regard we don\'t have any new data to report yet,
but we will certainly keep you posted as that portion of the
investigation progresses.

I\'d like to take the opportunity now to just clarify a few points if I
could.

Under the state of Washington authority there are two premises that are
under a hold order or under a quarantine. The purpose of that quarantine
or hold order is not to stop the spread of the disease. It\'s important
to realize that BSE is not a contagious disease. It\'s not spread by
contact, direct contact, animal to animal. Rather, it\'s a disease with
the primary means of transmission of consumption of affected proteins or
proteins from an infected animal.

The reason that we have these hold orders in place is to stop movement
of animals on and off the premise to expedite and prevent complications
as it relates to our overall investigation and the process of tracing
back and tracing forward animals involved in the investigation.

I\'d also like to clarify that we are not in disagreement with our
Canadian colleagues about the data we have received and that it\'s still
not verified. Here in the United States we decided it was necessary to
provide the public with the information that we have in order to ensure
that people have accurate and comprehensive information and an accurate
overall picture of the situation, as we know it.

So I must reiterate that it is still only the beginning of the fifth day
of our investigation. Our knowledge is evolving very rapidly, and the
information we have thus far is preliminary.

I continue to work very well with the chief veterinary officer from
Canada, Dr. Brian Evans \-- as do our respective staffs in the field.
And I certainly appreciate the cooperation, consideration and assistance
that we\'re receiving at all levels, particularly with our colleagues in
Canada.

We are also working closely with, and I greatly appreciate the
cooperation of, the owner of the indexed herd, the slaughter plant
owner, the importers, state officials in Washington, and as I mentioned
our colleagues in Canada.

As you might guess, any investigation of this magnitude would not be
possible without the assistance and cooperation and partnership of many
people. And while USDA has many dedicated employees who have given up
their holidays to assist in this effort, we are not doing that alone,
and I certainly want to express my appreciation to everyone for their
help and for the partnership that we have in carrying out this
investigation.

I think it\'s also important to express an appreciation for the good job
that the news media is doing. By and large the reporting has been
thorough, it\'s been responsible and on-target on an issue that is very
difficult and one that is evolving very quickly. I note that many of you
just like us have things that you\'d rather be doing during the holidays
and on a Sunday morning such as this as well.

With this finding of the positive cow, we are looking at any and all
appropriate changes that we might make to our overall BSE program. There
had been many comparisons made between our situation in North America
and the situation in Europe as it relates to BSE. Even though we are
very early in this investigation there is no indication that we have
anywhere near the magnitude of the problem that Europe has experienced
over the past years.

Indeed, we have reason to be confident that our preventive measures have
afforded us a high level of protection. Some of those measures would
include the surveillance program that we\'ve had in place for over 10
years now, targeting that high-risk population; the fact that we\'ve had
a feed ban in place to prevent animal-to-animal transmission \-- and
that\'s been in place since August of 1997; and that we stopped the
importation of animals from the European Union in 1989, again which is
the most likely source of any infection that we would have in North
America.

The last thing I\'ll report before Dr. Petersen with FSIS makes a
statement is to note that the trade team that was dispatched yesterday
has arrived in Tokyo and will be meeting tomorrow morning, Monday
morning Japanese time, with the Japanese Ministries of Agriculture and
Health to review the BSE situation and to continue to assure them that
US beef is safe.

With that, let me pass the microphone to Dr. Ken Petersen from our Food
Safety Inspection Service.

**DR. KEN PETERSEN:** Thank you, and good morning.

Yesterday we discussed that the beef products related to the December 23
BSE-related recall were distributed from the Verns Moses Lake facility
to Midway Meats on December 11, 2003. All of the CNS-related tissue,
meaning the brains, spinal cord and distal ileum, were removed at the
Verns facility during the slaughter that occurred on December 9. Those
are the tissues that are known to contain the BSE agent.

Because the meat leaving Verns did not contain these high-risk material,
the recalled beef represents an essentially zero risk to consumers.

On December 12, after removing or what we call \"deboning\" the meat
from the carcasses, Midway Meats which is located in Centralia,
Washington, distributed the product to two federally inspected plants in
Oregon \-- the Willamette Valley Meats in Portland, and Interstate Meat
Distributors in Clackamas, Oregon.

These last two facilities are considered secondary consignees of the
recalled beef.

Last Friday December 26 and into yesterday December 27 we began
following up on the distribution of the tertiary consignees \-- that is,
those customers of Willamette and Interstate. I reported that products
have been distributed primarily in Oregon and Washington, but also in
the states of Nevada and California. These remain the locations with
most of the recalled product.

We now know that the tertiary consignees have had some limited further
distribution into four other states \-- Alaska, Montana, Hawaii and
Idaho \-- as well as the US territory of Guam. Therefore, eight states
and one territory are currently involved with the recall.

Several of these locations reflect further distribution from locations
that originated elsewhere in Oregon or Washington.

Again, the recall was initiated out of an abundance of caution following
the report of one cow testing presumptive positive for BSE. Even though
we remain confident in the safety of these beef products we are and we
will continue to verify distribution and control of all products related
to the recall.

With that, we\'re ready for the first question.

**CURLETT:** We\'re ready for questions.

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. At this time if you wish to ask a question
press \"star\" followed by \"1\" to ask your question. Again, that\'s
\"star\" followed by \"1.\" And our first question comes from Sally
Schuff. You may ask your question. And please state your company name.

**SALLY SCHUFF:** Hello?

**OPERATOR:** Your line is open.

**SALLY SCHUFF:** Hi. This is Sally Schuff calling from Feedstuffs.

I\'m calling to ask a question and a follow-up question. What kind of an
ear-tag was involved in the indexed cow that the numbers matched the
Canadian? Was it a Canadian tag or a US tag?

And two, according to USDA\'s statistics some 70,000, 75,000 dairy cows
were imported in the U.S. in 2001 from Canada.

What, is there any investigation on those cows as well?

**DR. RON DEHAVEN:** Thank you for the question. The ear-tag that has
been traced is a small, silver metal ear-tag that, again based on
preliminary information, suggests that that tag would have been applied
in Canada. Again, we are working feverishly to verify that. Part of what
we\'re doing is looking for similar ear-tags, ear-tags in the same
series of number that would be in animals or tags currently in animals
in the indexed herd as part of that overall investigation. But again,
based on what we know now it\'s a metal, silver-colored ear-tag and
evidence would suggest that that tag is of Canadian origin.

I don\'t have the numbers before me to confirm your report of the 75,000
dairy cattle being imported into the United States, but I would
emphasize that we are at the beginning of our fifth day of this
investigation. It would obviously only be prudent that we would be
focusing our trace-back on those animals that are known to have some
association with this positive cow. So that is the focal point at this
point in time.

As to the whereabouts of those other 75,000 animals, I think that will
be given all due consideration at the appropriate time. But those are
the kinds of things that we also need to take into consideration as we
look at our overall BSE program in the context of this new situation.

We\'ve had a very good and very effective program up until this point.
Knowing what we know it\'s time to relook at that and as we do so as
you\'re suggesting take into account the fact that our beef and dairy
industries in Canada and the US have been very integrated in the past.

Next question, Operator?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Andy Dworkin, you may ask your question, and
please state your company name.

**ANDY DWORKIN:** Yes. Hi. This is Andy Dworkin with the Oregonian.

I am curious. You talked about how the system that has been in place \--
which was mainly to detect BSE if it was here \-- worked, when you\'re
talking about moving to a new system can you tell me sort of what part
of that might be regulatory decisions that USDA itself can make and what
part might require either public input or legislative input?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Most of the things that we\'re looking at now are
changes that could be made in partnership with the industry \-- such
things as increased testing, would we want to increase testing and if so
what population would we look at? Do we need any changes to the feed
ban? And indeed those changes very likely might require some level of
rulemaking or legislation.

And of course any rulemaking process provides for some public comment
process, so I think the appropriate answer is potentially all of the
above. And I think as we look at it and reevaluate based on the new
situation we would be looking at, not just a short-term strategy or
long-term and potentially if some of those longer term strategies might
require some legislation and/or rulemaking.

Next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Lea Beth Ward, you may ask your question, and
please state your company name.

**LEAH BETH WARD:** Hi. Yakima Herald Republic.

Can you talk in layman\'s terms about how much of the contaminated
central nervous system tissue it takes to infect a batch of feed and how
much feed it takes to infect a cow?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** I believe we have Dr. Steve Sundlof from our Food and
Drug Administration on. Steve, can you answer that question, please?

**DR. STEPHEN SUNDLOF:** Sure. Well, I can just tell you about the
research that\'s been done on feeding cattle central nervous system
material from BSE-infected other cattle. And so we don\'t want to talk
in terms of whole feed because the concentration would vary
considerably.

But what we do know is that as little as a half a gram of infected brain
fed to cattle, especially calves, can result in the disease in those
cattle that were fed the infected brain.

So it is a very small dose, and again half a gram is considered to be
what we\'re referring to in the Harvard Risk Assessment as an ID50 or an
infectious dose, which would infect half of the animals that it might be
given to.

Half a gram is a very small amount so that if it were to, even a small
amount of brain or central nervous system material were to get into
cattle feed, there is the potential for that even very small dose to
result in the disease.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Next question, Operator, please?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Antonio Regiletto (sp), you may ask your
question, and please state your company name.

**ANTONIO REGILETTO:** Hi, there. I\'m with the Wall Street Journal.

Can someone tell me whether the spine of this animal was split open or
down the middle during processing? And related questions \-- what is the
advice to consumers who\'ve eaten the beef patties or other meat from
this particular animal?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** We\'ll refer that question to Dr. Ken Petersen with
Food Safety Inspection Service.

**DR. KEN PETERSON:** Thank you. Typical of all cattle slaughter, part
of this slaughter process, the animal\'s vertebrae is split down the
middle with a large saw, and so the animal is split into two halves.
That\'s part of the inspection process. And when you do that, it exposes
the spinal cord, which is then removed elsewhere in the process.

So yes, that was done in this particular case as it would be done in
virtually all cases of large cattle slaughter.

The second question regarding the consumption of meats, we recommend, we
encourage two things. One, we expect by now that many of the customers
that may have purchased some of this meat have been notified by the
grocery chain or other store where perhaps they purchased it. If not,
they can contact those stores and ask them if the meat they purchased on
particular days is related to the recall. So we would suggest they do
that.

As far as consumption, if it has occurred, as you\'ve heard us state
repeatedly the risk related to consumption of this muscle meat is
virtually zero. And that\'s because of the cautions that were put in
place revolving around the extent of this particular recall. So the meat
per se, because it did not contain any spinal cord-related material, we
think is a very, very low risk to consumers.

**MR. CURLETT:** Thanks, Ken. Next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Elizabeth Weiss. You may ask your question, and
please state your company name.

**ELIZABETH WEISS:** This is Elizabeth Weiss with USA Today.

When this cow was born in Canada, which it\'s either 6 1/2 or 4 1/2
years old, was there still feed coming into Canada from the United
Kingdom? Did they have a similar feed ban in place at that time \-- than
the one we have here in the US?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** I don\'t know the answer to that question off the top
of my head. Let me clarify in terms of what we do know and I will say
that we have worked closely to harmonize our regulations in the US with
those of Canada. And then Steve Sundlof may wish to add more. And let me
actually take this opportunity to clarify something I said earlier
relative to imports of animals and products into the United States from
the European Union.

Since 1989 the USDA has banned the importation of live ruminant animals
and products from ruminant animals from the United Kingdom, and any
other country where BSE had been diagnosed. In 1997 USDA prohibited the
importation of live ruminants and products from live ruminants from all
of Europe primarily due to the trading practices between members states
of the European Union.

We have had in place since August of 1997, same time that the Canadians
imposed a feed ban that essentially prohibits the feeding of ruminant
protein to ruminants knowing that that is the primary if not only
mechanism for spreading the disease from one animal to another.

With that, Steve Sundlof, anything to add?

**DR. SUNDLOF:** Yes. Thank you, Ron.

It is my understanding that the Canadian government had similar
restrictions on importation of any materials from countries that were
found to be BSE-positive \-- in other words had a case of BSE \-- in
prohibiting feed materials such as meat and bone meal from those
countries from entering Canada. So the ban should have been in place at
the time that this animal may have been infected. Whether it was 6 1/2
years ago or 4 1/2 years ago, that should have been in place.

Let me just make one clarification on my previous statement. Although
it\'s true that it only requires a half of a gram of raw central nervous
system tissue to infect cattle, all that material would not be fed raw
in feed. It would be, it would go through a rendering process. This
reduces the infectivity by a factor of at least 10, so it would take 10
times that much.

The other thing that\'s important to understand is that cattle are very,
very much more susceptible to this disease than humans. So the dose, we
don\'t know what the dose obviously is in humans, but it would be much
greater than the dose in cattle.

So my comments were strictly referring to the infective dose for cattle.

Thank you.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Thank you, Steve.

Next question, Operator?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Ron Hayes, you may ask your question, and
please state your company name.

**RON HAYES**: Yes. Good morning, gentlemen. Ron Hayes with Clear
Channel Ag Radio Networks in Oklahoma City.

I wanted to get maybe some sense of the conversation that, Dr. DeHaven
that you\'ve had maybe with the folks that are going to be going over in
Japan. I know that it\'s 1:30 or so in the morning in Tokyo right now,
and I understand they will be meeting later on today with the Japanese
officials, and then could you also tell us who is on that team besides
Mr. Hegwood

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Will do. As I mentioned our team has arrived in Tokyo.
They do have meetings set up for Monday morning Japanese time with the
Japanese Ministries of Agriculture and their Ministry of Health, Labor
and Welfare. On that team are David Hegwood who is the secretary\'s
Trade advisor, and accompanying him from Washington is Dr. Charles
Lambert who is our deputy undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.

We have a number of people stationed in Tokyo, and so David Hegwood and
Dr. Lambert will be joined by representatives from our Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, our Foreign Agricultural Service and the Food
Safety Inspection Service.

They are certainly going to update the Japanese on this particular
situation and the investigation, as we know it thus far. Certainly they
will make the case of the safeguards and firewalls that we have had in
place in the United States and the fact that those safeguards have
reported, have afforded a considerable degree of protection as it
relates to US beef. So other than that I don\'t think there is much
detail that we can provide, but we will certainly keep you posted as
those discussions begin and we\'ll be reporting back to you the nature
and how well those discussions go.

Any other \-- next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Harry Seamans (sp), you may ask your question,
and please state your company name.

**HARRY SEAMANS:** Harry Seamans, Farm Watch, Manitoba Cooperator;
Manitoba, Canada.

Just one question or two questions if I may. The first one has to do
with the mention that the news media has done a great job, and obviously
I am with the news media. But since yesterday every headline that I\'ve
seen on the Internet and all the papers says that this cow is definitely
from Canada. Some of the headlines and stories indicated that you
actually verified that this cow is from Canada. My question is, it looks
like in Canada that there\'s no choice other than, no option. That cow
is from Canada.

**DR. DEHAVEN**: We must be reading different headlines because I can
cite a number of headlines here locally where there is, it\'s very clear
that we have, our primary line of inquiry right now would lead back to
Canada, but that is very preliminary information \-- that we are working
to verify that.

So my personal opinion, I would suggest that that has not been the case
in the print or the television media that I have seen. But I think the
point that you make is a very good one. It is preliminary information.
Officials on both sides of the border are seeking only one thing, and
that is the truth. We want to know exactly where this animal came from
and whether that turns out to be US origin or Canadian origin we\'ll let
the chips fall where they may and call them as they are.

So again, my take on the media as I perceive it is different than yours.
Having said that, I think everyone has the same interest, and that is
verifying the accurate situation as best we can.

Next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** Pia Chattopadyhay, you may ask a question and please state
your company name.

**PIA CHATTOPADYHAY**: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The U.S. was set to open the border more fully to Canadian beef in the
New Year after the comment period. I\'m wondering what the news of
yesterday means for that.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** The rulemaking that\'s being referred to is a rule that
was published in the United States early in November of this year that
would \--

I should say it\'s a proposed rule that was published in early November
of this year that would allow the importation from Canada into the
United States certain products that we consider to be of minimal risk in
a country with a low prevalence of the disease as well as it
contemplates potentially allowing certain live animals that would
include animals under 30 months of age for importation into the United
States.

That comment period of this proposed rule is still open, so we will be
receiving comments on that proposed rule until January 5 of 2004. So we
would actively encourage anyone who has an interest to submit their
comments before that time.

Having said that, clearly we will have to take into account this new
situation, the findings of our investigation relative to this new
situation as we review those comments and consider whether or not to
publish a final rule.

Because of restrictions that are imposed by law in terms of what federal
officials can say during a comment period, I\'ll limit my comments to
that other than to say that we will certainly take into consideration
the current situation and would encourage comments from all of the
interested public during this comment period which closes January 5.

Next question, please, Operator?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Steve Mitchell, you may ask your question, and
please state your company name.

**STEVE MITCHELL:** This is Steve Mitchell with United Press
International. The officials keep insisting that this meat likely
presented zero risk, but a number or at least several studies have shown
that infectious agent could be contained in some of these meat products
and even the blood. So is that, are those studies just not relevant
here, or what do you make of those?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** I certainly am not aware of the studies that you make
reference to. So let me explain how we are basing our statements. There
is in fact a large body of scientific evidence to suggest that meat from
cattle is not a tissue at risk as it relates specifically to BSE. There
is an international standard-setting body called the OIE, or
Organization of International Epizootics, that is recognized by the
World Trade Organization as the animal health International
standard-setting body.

They have a chapter, the OIE has a chapter specifically on BSE, and the
purpose of the chapter is to establish standards under which countries
can safely trade in animals and products given an exporting country\'s
relative risk for BSE. That chapter acknowledges that countries can
safely import meat products from countries that are affected by BSE even
from countries that have a moderate to high risk of having BSE.

That chapter is written by internationally recognized experts in BSE.
Though internationally the experts that are not only familiar with the
research but many of them actively engaged in conducting that research
have had input in that chapter adopted by some 164 or 165 member
countries, and they all recognize in that chapter that there are certain
commodities that can safely be traded. Among them would be muscle meat
cuts of beef, dairy products and milk, etcetera.

The OIE is currently in the process of developing a revised BSE chapter
acknowledging that the science relative to this disease is evolving all
of the time. And that chapter would be up for consideration during the
coming year and as I understand it most likely would be up for a revised
chapter up for adoption by the member states of the OIE in May of 2005.

In the meantime, there will be a proposed chapter for consideration by
the member countries. That proposed chapter would be available in
January of 2004, but I can assure you that nothing in that proposed
chapter would modify what I\'ve just said in terms of the relative
safety of certain commodities \-- for example, muscle cuts of meat and
dairy products and milk.

Next question, Operator?

**OPERATOR:** Richard Cowan, you may ask your question, and please state
your company name.

**RICHARD COWAN:** Thank you. It\'s Richard Cowan from Reuters.

On expanding the recall, do you have any figures on pounds of beef in
these additional four states and Guam yet?

**DR. KEN PETERSEN:** Actually we\'re not expanding the recall. We
issued one recall and that was the initial posting for just over 10,000
pounds of meat coming out of the Verns Moses Lake facility. What we\'re
referring to is as that meat gets boxed up and cut and perhaps
commingled with other products, we then track anything related to that
specific product. And currently it\'s, the actual numbers as I get to
these tertiary facilities \-- that is those facilities beyond Willamette
and Interstate \-- those numbers I don\'t have in front of me. We\'re
just putting those numbers together. We\'re looking more closely at
their distribution pattern, so it really would be premature to speculate
on the poundage related to it. What we\'re looking at initially is the
customer list and that\'s how I\'m able to report out that we know that
products did go to these other states and the territory of Guam.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Thanks, Ken. Operator, next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. E.J. Toshai (sp), you may ask your question,
and please state your company name.

**E.J. TOSHAI:** Good morning. This is (unclear) with (unclear). Could
you tell me more about your trip to Japan? I mean, I wonder if you just
were to explain the situation or negotiating with Japanese officers. And
actually NCBA said yesterday that after the briefing they insisted
trading partners such as Japan should open its borders to US beef. But
do you see share such an opinion?

**MR. DEHAVEN:** I apologize. We\'re having trouble understanding you. I
don\'t know if you\'re breaking up. Perhaps the next person can ask. If
I understand the question correctly, and you can please verify,
basically your question is, is US beef safe to eat? Is that a fair
assessment?

**MR. TOSHAY:** No. You know, yesterday NCBA said after your briefing
that trading partners such as Japan should open its borders to US beef.
But I wonder if you share such a view.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Should Japan open its borders to US beef?

**MR. TOSHAY:** Um-hum. Um-hum.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** You know, as I just explained, we feel very strongly in
the US that international trade and any trade restrictions should be
well founded in the science. We have had in the United States a very
good program to preclude BSE in this country. And while this recent find
has been unfortunate, indeed the system we have in place has a number of
safeguards and firewalls in place.

On top of that knowing that the prevalence of the disease in the US is
at worst a very small prevalence, a very minor risk, adding to the fact
that scientifically we know that certain commodities like beef meat
products are safe even from countries that have a moderate to high
prevalence of the disease, that would all suggest that trade
restrictions that are being imposed now are not well-founded in the
science.

The US certainly recognized that, and we were actively engaged in trying
to modify the international reaction, in many estimations over-reaction
by the international community, to a find of BSE in a country that\'s
had a good program.

Our actions that I\'m referring to have to do with the fact that we
started allowing importation of meat from animals under 30 months into
the United States from Canada. We had proposed a rule that would allow
the importation of even live animals, for example animals under 30
months of age, into the United States from Canada. So we were actively
engaged in a process of changing the international standard, going
towards what the OIE chapter says in basing trade policy on what we know
about the science.

Unfortunately with this situation what we\'ve seen internationally is,
again, an over-reaction, trade restrictions imposed more out of public
perception than based on the science that we know about this particular
disease. Though sorry for the long answer, but the short answer is, yes
indeed, we think that the restrictions that are being imposed should be
lifted.

Next question, Operator?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Jason Marcusof (sp), you may ask your question,
and please state your company name.

**JASON MARCUSOF:** From the Edmonton Journal.

Can you tell me about any plans to test the indexed cow\'s DNA to
confirm the link to Alberta?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** In terms of what we know about the potential samples
being submitted for DNA testing, these would include tissues that we
have from the positive cow, the indexed cow in the United States, the
one that was slaughtered on December 9.

We are obtaining samples from any animal that is a calf or potentially a
calf on the US side from that animal. It\'s my understanding that on the
Canadian side of the border there is still some semen available from
what is believed to be the sire of this infected cow, and there is also
at least one calf that if the information that she is 6 1/2 years old is
accurate one calf on the Canadian side from this animal. So by comparing
DNA samples from those samples on the US side with what we can gather on
the Canadian side, the theory at least is that we should be able to make
a determination, firm determination as to whether or not we have located
the actual premises of origin.

Ed?

**MR. CURLETT:** Operator, we have time for two more questions. Thanks.

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Emily Gersema, you may ask your question, and
please state your company name.

**EMILY GERSIMA:** I\'m with the Associated Press. My question is for
Dr. DeHaven.

Are you there?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Yes, I am.

**EMILY GERSIMA:** Okay. I was curious if the strain of this disease and
the sick cow in Washington matches the one found in Britain, or is it
entirely different? I mean I know it\'s caused by a prion, but I was
curious if you could find any similarities.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** It really is too premature for us to make any statement
about whether or not we are dealing with the same strain of the disease
in the United States or with this particular cow that we found in the
United States as compared to the BSE that has been prevalent in Europe
and especially in the United Kingdom.

Some of those studies are ongoing, but it would be premature to
speculate. One thing we can say, and this was brought out in the risk
assessment that was conducted by Harvard University\'s Center for Risk
Assessment, is that the risk that we had in North America, and I would
speak both to Canada and the US here, comes from animals and product
imported years ago from UK and elsewhere in Europe.

So if we had some exposure it would have been years ago from animals and
product that may have come in from the UK, and one could then speculate
that we are probably dealing with a similar disease as to what there has
been in the UK. But I want to emphasize, we do not have any testing
results available to us relative to this new find in the United States.

Next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** Thank you. Steve Cornett, you may ask your question, and
please state your company name.

**STEVE CORNETT:** This is Steve Cornett, with Farm Journal.

I\'m curious about the discrepancy in the records. Have you all talked
to all the people who owned that cow through her life including the
dealers? And do you suppose was that tag either moved? Is it a
tamper-proof tag, or were there records falsified somewhere?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Pardon me while I make some notes so I don\'t miss your
points. One, in terms of the tamper-proof nature of the tag, it is a
metal tag that is intended for use one time. Typically these tags are
applied with a plier-type tool, pierces the ear and then the two sides
of the tag crimp together.

In terms of who have we talked to? Clearly, we\'ve talked to the owner
of the indexed herd, the herd from which this cow departed to go to
slaughter. We\'ve talked to the owner and operator of the premises in
Mattawa, Washington where she is reported to have spent a short period
of time. We\'ve talked to the dealer who is thought to have been
responsible for the importation of the animal from Canada into the US.
And our colleagues in Canada have been talking with the owner of the
herd from which we now think that this animal originated.

So I can assure you that we are talking to all of those people.

Again, preliminary information from our side of the border\-- initially
we had a verbal report from the herd owner of the indexed farm saying
that based on his memory this particular cow came into the US in October
timeframe, October 2001, as a two-year-old springer. In talking with the
manager of that same farm, not the owner but the manager of the farm, he
recalls this cow being a dry cow which would suggest that she was an
older animal and soon to give birth to the next calf.

So hence, some of the discrepancy at least on our side of the border as
to whether or not she was a, at the time, a two-year-old or a
four-year-old or, hence, would she now be a four-and-a-half-year old or
a six-and-a-half-year-old animal. And as we have stated, the records on
the Canadian side would suggest that she is a six-and-a-half-year-old.

Those are all part of the focal areas of our investigation that is
happening as we speak. Those are the kinds of details that we as best we
can want to confirm, and we hope through DNA testing we can resolve any
doubt that may linger.

So I can assure you that all of those considerations are what our
investigators on the ground are looking at.

With that, again I want to thank everyone for your participation, for
your continued responsible reporting, and at this point I\'ll turn it
back to Ed Curlett.

**MR. CURLETT:** All right. I just want to remind everyone that if you
have follow-up questions, call 202-720-4623. Also I want to remind you
that transcripts will be available on the USDA website,
[http://www.usda.gov](http://www.usda.gov/). And then tomorrow\'s
briefing will be at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time. And with that, thank you
very much, and talk to you soon.

(Whereupon, the briefing was concluded.)

\#