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

Release No. 0456.03

**of**

Technical Briefing and Webcast with\
U.S. Government Officials\
on BSE Case\
December 31, 2003

**DR. RON DEHAVEN (USDA):** Thank you very much for joining us this
afternoon. I do have some new information to report on the status of our
ongoing investigation. First is regarding the status of our effort to
trace the 82 animals. This would be the positive animal as well as what
we think now are 81 animals that would have come into the United States
who were at least listed on a health certificate presumably to come into
the United States along with the positive cow.

This is what we\'ve been able to confirm thus far. There is a Canadian
health certificate dated August 28, 2001, which lists 82 ear-tag numbers
from cattle that were part of a herd dispersal in Alberta, Canada. Again
I would emphasize that this is the primary line of inquiry at this
point. Our most likely source of the animal would be that herd in
Alberta, Canada.

Of the 82 animals listed on that health certificate, one of those
ear-tag numbers is the animal associated with this BSE-positive animal.
And that is the animal that we are now subjecting---or, tissues that we
are subjecting to DNA testing to hopefully confirm the identity.

Nine others of those 82 are still on the ground as part of the indexed
herd, the herd from which the positive cow left immediately before going
to slaughter. And we have good leads on all of the remaining animals.

Much of the work that we\'re doing right now is to corroborate the
information, the preliminary leads that we have, and we\'re using
documents such as health certificates, records on the farm, etcetera,
those kinds of documents, as well as obtaining affidavits from those
involved with the handling of these animals.

There\'s also information to suggest that only 81 of the 82 animals
actually entered the United States with one presumably remaining back in
Canada, and we will continue to work with our Canadian colleagues to
trace that animal.

With regard to the DNA testing, the lab testing could begin as early as
this evening as we are sending multiple samples to two laboratories
\--one in Canada and one in the United States. Hopefully, I will have
more information to report to you about this early next week, but
understandably we want to have results from both laboratories\--the one
in Canada and the one in the United States\--before we reach any
conclusions from that testing regimen.

Our cooperative efforts with the government of Canada, with officials in
the state of Washington, the herd owner, and the slaughter plant
continue and are very good. We will certainly report any new
developments as they become available to us as we continue to hold these
press conferences.

In the meantime, I think it would be appropriate if we spent some time
discussing some of the announcements and more of the details relative to
those announcements that the Secretary made yesterday in terms of
changes to our program.

To recap, USDA will accelerate the implementation of a national
identification program. We will remove nonambulatory animals from the
food chain. We will prohibit the use of specified risk materials or SRMs
in the human food chain \-- from animals over 30 months of age; require
additional process controls for establishment of systems or the advanced
meat recovery systems for animals over 30 months of age; and prohibit
the use of air-injection stunning from cattle. And actually this is
something that has already been implemented voluntarily by the industry,
but the action announced yesterday will codify that restriction.

And for any animals that would be tested at slaughter those animals
would be held pending results from a negative test.

I\'d like to turn my attention in terms of those items for a minute here
to animal identification. I\'m of course very pleased to say that we
have been involved in an effort now for a year and a half to develop and
implement an animal identification system. USDA is part of a team
consisting of more than 70 organizations and approximately 100
individuals representing government and industry to develop a nationally
coordinated animal ID program for disease tracking purposes.

The group has developed a plan of action that was accepted as work in
progress by the US Animal Health Association at their most recent
meeting in October of this year. This plan will enhance our capability
to respond to disease issues with the goal of being able to trace back
animals to their point of origin within 48 hours, thereby providing for
rapid detection, containment and elimination of disease threats. This
plan includes standards for uniform and nationally recognized premises
and animal identification systems with tags that can be visually read as
well as electronically scanable.

Although the plan is initially focused on cattle and swine, the intent
is to eventually apply this system to all livestock. We have
species-specific groups that are currently working to evaluate the plan
and work on implementation details for their respective species.

More information is available about our current plan at a website which
is [www.usaip.info](../www.usaip.info).

We talked a bit about surveillance for nonambulatory animals. Certainly
that was a very significant component of the Secretary\'s announcement
yesterday, and this policy of course would exclude downed animals from
the human food supply.

As you know, these nonambulatory animals have been the single most
important population that we have tested as part of our ongoing effort
to survey for BSE in the United States. Indeed, in each of the years
2002 and 2003 we tested over 20,000 animals with about three-quarters of
those animals coming from nonambulatory animals found at the time of
slaughter.

In light of yesterday\'s announcement, these animals will no longer be
going to slaughterhouses but instead most likely most of them will be
euthanized and sent to rendering plants. So in the coming days we will
be working very closely with the rendering industry as well as other
colleagues in the animal disposal industry to ensure that we retain
access to this very important population of animals for our BSE
surveillance purposes.

And indeed, we will not only work closely with our industry but even as
importantly be working very closely with our colleagues in FDA as we
develop this new surveillance system.

We will also be working with the veterinary profession through the
American Association or American Veterinary Medical Association and
allied groups to obtain animals from this target population that may be
on the farm.

And then one last area that I\'ll touch on, and that is the
international review panel that Secretary Veneman mentioned yesterday in
her announcement. We have in fact contacted members for an international
team of experts to review our investigation and make recommendations as
it relates to our overall BSE program. They will conduct this review
following completion of our epidemiological investigation and make any
recommendations that may require a follow-up as it relates to that
investigation as well as I mentioned any recommendations that they would
have for us in terms of a national strategy.

This team will be similar if not identical to the group that conducted
such a review following the find of a single case of BSE in Canada in
May. The team will be led by Dr. Ulrich Kihm, the former chief
veterinary officer of Switzerland, who now owns a consulting company
called Safe Food Solutions, Incorporated.

In addition to Dr. Kihm we have commitments from Dr. William Hueston who
is currently the director of the Center of Animal Health and Food Safety
at the University of Minnesota; Dr. Dagmar Heim, chief of BSE Control
Program in the Swiss Federal Veterinary Office; and Dr. Stuart
MacDiarmid, a BSE expert with the government of New Zealand.

We are very much looking forward to getting this group\'s review on our
operations that we are currently conducting as well as the
recommendations that we will make as we continue to look to ways that we
can improve our already robust system.

With that, I\'ll first offer my colleague from FSIS an opportunity to
make some comments, and then we will go to questions and answers. So Dr.
Dan Engeljohn from Food Safety and Inspection Service.

**DR. DAN ENGELJOHN:** Good morning. I\'d like to identify that we have
some clarifications from our information that was released yesterday. We
are going to clarify that in the policies we\'re working on, instead of
the entire small intestine that will be identified as a risk material it
will be only the distal ilium. And we\'re making some clarifications to
the actions that would be taken with the vertebral column of beef and
that would be that we will be following closely the information that
Canada put out on how they defined what would or would not be allowed
from the vertebral column.

So the important thing is that the vertebral column from beef will not
be allowed to be used for mechanical separation or for the advanced meat
recovery systems that we have in place here if the cattle are 30 months
of age or older.

Also I\'d like to just point out that we did put in place our downer
policy yesterday, so that went into effect after the Secretary made the
announcement. The other activities that we\'ve identified that we\'re
moving forward on in terms of policy will in fact go into effect when
the regulations publish in the Federal Register.

Okay?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Thanks, Dan. I just want to make a comment on, in
particular, the SRM removal component of the Secretary\'s announcements.
I think that with the number of announcements that were made, all of
which are significant, that perhaps the importance of this SRM removal
has been lost in all of the discussion and flurry of activity. When it
comes to protecting human health we know from the science that there are
certain tissues where the prion or infectious agent gravitates to, and
that\'s in the specified risk materials. We also know that with an
incubation period of typically three to five years that the disease
doesn\'t occur. There is no danger to animals under 30 months of age. So
by removing the specified risk materials from animals under 30 months of
age, we have done the single most important thing that we can do to
protect human health.

And given that with the fact that we\'ve had a feed ban in place that
prohibits the feeding of ruminant protein back to ruminants, we\'re
protecting animal health. So those two components certainly add a
significant amount of robustness to our system as we also continue to
look harder through increased surveillance.

So with that, let\'s go to questions, and since we started on the
telephone bridge, yesterday, is that right, Ed? \-- we\'ll start with
questions in the room.

Randy:

**OPERATOR:** Please press star \"1\" on your phone to ask your
question. Star \"1.\"

**RANDY FABI** (Reuters): There are media reports that investigators are
looking at a rendering plant in Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, that may
link, that might have provided infected feed to the two mad cow cases
\-- one in Canada and now one in Washington state. I was wondering if
you can confirm this, and if so if you can provide any more details.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Thank you. I actually spoke earlier this morning with
Dr. Bryan Evans, the chief veterinary officer in Canada, about this very
specific thing. He is aware of the media reports and wanted to let me
know that at this point in time it is way too premature and the
information far too preliminary to draw any conclusions.

Having, even if there is a similar source in terms of a feed plant,
those plants would get source materials from any number of different
locations. So he wanted me to pass on along the fact that they are aware
of this; it is certainly part of the investigation that they have
ongoing in Canada, but it is certainly far too premature to draw any
conclusions or draw any connections between the feed that may have been
fed to this animal that we recently found and the animal that was
infected or found infected in May in Canada.

But certainly that is an active area that is being investigated as we
speak.

The gentleman in the black sweater.

**DAN GOLDSTEIN:** Dan Goldstein from Bloomberg News.

One question for you, Mr. DeHaven and one question for Mr. Sundlof.

With the feed ban from August 1997, I just want to clarify, feed was
banned in May of 2003 crossing the border from Canada to the US. Am I
correct?

**DR. SUNDLOF:** Yes.

**DAN GOLDSTEIN:** Okay. What about the feed that was in the United
States prior to that? Does that get consumed relatively quickly or is
there a chance that maybe some feed from as early as April 1997, before
the 1997 went into play, is still in the United States?

**DR. SUNDLOF:** Before the 1997 ban? That would be highly unlikely. The
feed does move very quickly in commerce, and one of the things that\'s
common in the feed industry is most feed gets fed warm. It\'s still warm
by the time it gets fed, consumed rapidly. And because of the volumes of
feed that are produced there isn\'t a lot of storage space, so it is a
commodity that moves very quickly in commerce.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** The gentleman in the brown sport coat?

**BILL TOMSON:** Bill Tomson, Oster Dow Jones.

I just want to throw something \-- you said you found nine of the
animals? You found them to have it, and are they being tested?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** We have definitely identified nine animals in the
indexed herd, so we know that 10 animals definitely went to the indexed
herd, the positive cow plus nine others. In terms of testing them,
premature, no determination has been made. As you know we don\'t have a
live animal test, so the animals, if they\'re going to be tested, would
have to be sacrificed and then brain tissue obtained for doing that
testing.

I think some of the factors that we would want to consider initially
would be confirming that they all came from the same herd in Alberta. We
want to confirm that in fact we have the right herd in Alberta. So in
the meantime \-- and also would they be birth cohorts of this animal? If
in fact the age is such that there\'s no absolute reason to suggest or
to\-- if we\'re able to absolutely confirm that they weren\'t fed the
same feed as the indexed cow then we may or may not take the animals at
that point.

We will certainly operate out of an abundance of caution. I don\'t want
to suggest that we would have animals from an infected herd without
giving all due consideration as to which animals might or might not be
sacrificed. I don\'t know what all we know in terms of the age and other
parameters about those animals, so I don\'t want to make that kind of
decision during a press conference but would defer to our epidemiologist
on the ground and disease experts in terms of whether or not they would
need to be sacrificed or not.

We will err on the side of caution when making that determination,
without a doubt. But again, in the meantime the important thing is,
they\'re not going anywhere. They\'re subject to that hold order.
They\'re under quarantine on that indexed premise. We know where they
are, and so that\'s the important thing at this point. They\'re not
going anywhere.

With that, Operator, we will go to the first question from the telephone
bridge, please?

**OPERATOR:** The first question is from Steve Mitchell. Please state
your affiliation.

**STEVE MITCHELL:** Hi. This is Steve Mitchell with United Press
International.

I just heard Dr. DeHaven, you just a short time ago said that animals
under 30 months of age don\'t seem to have the disease, but there\'s
been a couple of cases in Japan recently that were younger than that.
Can you comment on, on those animals?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Yes, I can. There have been a total of nine cases that
the Japanese government has reported as positive, and two recently have
been under 30 months of age. A couple of things on that.

They have reported them as positive, and yet both of those animals were
negative on the immuno-histo chemistry test, the test that is
internationally recognized as the gold standard test. They have been
positive on other tests.

At this point in time there has not been an opportunity for
international corroboration on the exact findings as it relates to those
animals, and some suggestion by the Japanese government that perhaps
they have a different strain of BSE.

Again, all of that is chatter within the intellectual community. No
definitive determination made at this point. And certainly it would be
premature to modify any national program based on those two animals.

I would also add that in the calendar years 2001 and 2002 in the
European Union there were approximately 19 million animals tested. Out
of those 19 million \-- and the reason the number is so high is that
they are essentially testing all animals that go to slaughter \-- they
had in the neighborhood of 4,200 positive animals. Of those 4,200 plus
or minus positive animals two were under 30 months of age, both of them
found in 2001. One of them was 28 months old; one of them was 29 months
old. So very close to the 30 month timeframe.

We also know that the incubation period is dose-dependent. The more
infectious material that an animal consumes, the shorter the incubation
period. So you would also expect that it would be much more likely that
we would have younger-age animals show up as positive in Europe given
that they have had a much higher prevalence of the disease in Europe.

We have in North America and certainly we can validate through our
surveillance testing that we have a very low prevalence of the disease
in North America.

To the issue of whether or not there is a different strain, we know that
our exposure to the disease comes from Europe, comes from animals and
feed that may have been imported before the appropriate or before the
bans were put in place. And so if in fact there are two strains of BSE
\-- and we have no evidence at this point to support that \-- but if the
suggestion that there is a different, more than one strain of BSE, it
would seem logical that we would have the European strain.

And here again, the likelihood of animals under 30 months of having the
disease is extremely remote.

Next question from the telephone bridge, please?

**OPERATOR:** The next question is from Sally Schuff. Please state your
affiliation.

**SALLY SCHUFF**: Yes. This is Sally Schuff with Feedstuffs.

My question is, have you had conversation with states about similar ban
on downer cattle and meat in state-inspected plants? Or is this strictly
a federal ban?

**DR. ENGELJOHN :** The state programs would be required to follow the
requirements that we would have in place at the federal establishments.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** With that, one more question from the telephone bridge,
and then we\'ll go back to the room here.

**OPERATOR:** The next question is from Jeff Sparshott. Please state
your affiliation.

**JEFF SPARSHOTT:** Washington Times.

The DNA tests that may begin this evening, who\'s conducting those, and
when would the results be available?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** I don\'t have the exact names of the laboratories. One
is in, the US laboratory is in Nebraska, and it is a agricultural
research service laboratory. It\'s a USDA laboratory that has that
expertise. The other laboratory, the one in Canada, is in Saskatchewan.
In terms of the results, again this would assume that there are no
problems in terms of delivery of the samples to the laboratory, which
some of those samples are yet to arrive. Assuming that we don\'t have
any laboratory glitches in either of the two laboratories \-- and it
always seems to me when we have the most important samples being run as
quickly as we can that\'s precisely when we have laboratory glitches \--
so assuming no laboratory glitches, then we could have results from both
laboratories early next week.

And so I can assure you once we have those results and have had an
opportunity to analyze them we will be making an appropriate
announcement at that point in time. But my best estimate at this point
would be first part of next week.

And then moving to the room here, the gentleman in the white turtleneck?

**REPORTER:** NBC.

Dr. DeHaven, you said a few minutes ago that you had no means of live
testing the animals, and then you said that 19 million cows in Europe
had been tested. How is Britain going to \-- how are Europeans testing
and the United States not? How is that happening, and why not?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Thank you for the question. Let me clarify.

The 19 million animals that were tested in Europe were animals tested at
slaughter, so they were animals that had been slaughtered and samples
recovered from the brain at the time of slaughter. SO they\'re not using
a live animal test. They indeed are one or more live animal tests that
are currently under development, so we would hope in the future we will
have that tool. It\'s certainly a necessary one.

In the meantime, the Europeans are using one of several or all of the
available screening tests. The rapid screening tests that are available
are being used in one form or another in Europe. Those would be the
tests that we would also be looking at as potentially starting to use
here in the US, but I would emphasize again that none of them are live
animal tests.

Yes, ma\'am.

**TRACEY WRIGHT:** Tracey Wright with Global Television.

(unclear) too early to speculate about the link (unclear) Canada, but
how important or significant would a finding like that be, and also can
you just remind us, put in perspective the importance of the whole feed
(unclear) in this investigation?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Let me take the initial cut at that and then provide
Dr. Sundlof from FDA to respond as well.

Again, the information that the Canadians have with regard to the
tracing of this feed is very preliminary. And I don\'t know the exact
details, and I think the most important part is that they don\'t have
all of the information to definitively make any kind of link
epidemiologically between the feed that may have been fed to the cow
that was found positive in Canada in May of this year and our more
recent find in the state of Washington this year.

Whether or not it came from the same plant or not is certainly relevant.
However, even if it is determined that the feed came from the same
plant, recognize that each of these feed plants have multiple sources
for the raw product that goes into that. So to draw conclusions based on
the fact that the feed may or may not have come from the same feed mill
would be premature to make any definitive conclusion.

As we have mentioned over the last couple of days, as we have been able
to get better information on the age of the cow that we found positive
in the state of Washington on the cow that was slaughtered December 9,
and have now information to suggest that she was 6 to 6 1/2 years old at
the time of slaughter, is extremely relevant because again the most
likely source of infection is through consumption of contaminated
proteins in feed.

And that confirms in fact that if this animal consumed the feed before
the feed ban, there\'s \-- it confirms the validity, the importance of
the feed ban in terms of precluding any further spread after those feed
bans went in place in August of \'97.

Steve, anything to add?

**DR. STEPHEN SUNDLOF (FDA):** Yes, just to put in perspective the
question, what is the significance, how does that fit into the overall
story?

Back in \'97 \-- well prior to \'97, even back in the late \'80s when
BSE was a new disease in Great Britain, the United States acted very
quickly in erecting what we have referred to in the past as firewalls.
The first firewall was to ensure that no materials, no potentially
infectious material would enter the United States from countries where
BSE was found.

And Canada has basically, we\'ve been in lock-step basically with
Canada. So that as we\'ve proposed regulations and restrictions, they
have basically taken the same measures themselves.

So that was, the first firewall was to prevent any infectious material
from getting into the United States or North America in this case.

The second firewall was the surveillance efforts to detect the disease
if it were to enter the United State.

And the third firewall is the feed ban. And the feed ban is a measure
that if any of those, if the first firewall fails, if infectious
material does get into North America, then the feed ban should prevent
that infectious material from getting into the infected host which in
this case is cattle.

So that is the significance of that.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** It occurred to me our NASA colleagues call those
\"redundant systems.\" So we have redundant systems, and if one fails,
we\'ve got a back-up in place.

Last question in the room here? Yes?

**MARK SHERMAN:** Mark Sherman with Associated Press.

Dr. DeHaven, on the 71 other (unclear), records indicate actually
entered the United States, how many farms might be involved and in how
many states?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Again, our information is preliminary at this point in
time. And so I hesitate to give you information that at this point is
very preliminary. Let me say that at this point in time we don\'t have
positive trace-backs to any other state outside of the state of
Washington. As far as we know now all of the traces take us back to the
state of Washington.

Having said that, as we continue this tracing \-- and it\'s always
possible in livestock marketing channels for animals to have been in
multiple locations \-- I\'m not excluding the possibility that some of
our traces might eventually take us to another state. But certainly at
this point in time as far as we know in terms of those remaining animals
that we haven\'t confirmed location on yet, all of those traces would be
within the state of Washington.

Again, this is the focal point of our investigation at this point in
time, so as that information develops I\'ll keep you posted, but as far
as we know, limited to the state of Washington at this point in time.

With that, Operator, we\'ll go to the telephone bridge, please.

**OPERATOR:** Our next question\'s from Dawn Walton . Please state your
affiliation.

**DAWN WALTON:** Oh, hi. I\'m with the Globe and Mail in Canada.

With your ban on downer cows entering the human food chain, what does
that mean for a country like Canada which tests every downer cow, holds
it, and then the meat\'s cleared it can go into the human food chain?
What would that mean for trade relations?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** As you probably know, early in November we published a
proposed rule that would create a, what we refer to as a minimal risk
country or zone, and from those countries that qualify as minimal risk
or zone would permit certain commodities and certain live animals to
include cattle under 30 months of age into the United States.

Given this situation, that rule \-- well, let me first explain that
rule, the comment period for that rule is still open and will be open at
least until January 5. So we are still receiving comments on that rule,
and we would welcome and encourage those comments.

Suffice it to say that this current situation that has been evolving
since that proposed rule was published is an important factor, and the
entire epidemiological investigation needs to be taken into account as
we determine what action that we would take once this proposed rule has
the comment period closed, and we make all due consideration in terms of
how we proceed from there.

So it would be premature for me to speculate on where we might go as it
references your question simply because that\'s directly tied to the
rule that we proposed, and we obviously haven\'t made any determination
on how we will proceed with that proposed rule since we\'re still in the
middle of the comment period.

Next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** The next question\'s from Beth Gorum (sp). Please state
your affiliation.

**BETH GORUM:** Hi. Beth Gorum from the Canadian Press Wire Service.

Dr. DeHaven, you said the last couple of days that US trading partners
were reacting based on perceptions rather than science. And I was
wondering how that squares with the US closing its borders to Canadian
beef and cattle after the May case of Mad Cow.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** I have stated in previous press briefings that in fact
in the past the United States has been part of the international problem
in terms of only having two standards or two categories in place \--
either countries have BSE or don\'t have BSE. But I\'ve also said very
emphatically that we have been very proactive since the finding of the
case in Canada which brought home the fact that this reaction hasn\'t
been consistent with international standards and therefore hasn\'t been
consistent with the science that we know about the disease because
indeed those international standards are based on the science.

Because of that and that recognition, it was the US that really has
taken the first bold step to implement the international standards and
the science-based standards.

We do so by allowing certain commodities, most notably boneless beef
from animals under 30 months of age, to begin coming into the United
States from Canada, and we did so not too long after the finding of that
case, and we proposed this rule in November that would contemplate not
only codifying those products but adding additional products or
commodities that come into the United States as well as live animals.

That action is unprecedented in the international arena. So in fact
while we may have been part of the problem in the past, we have taken a
very active role in terms of trying to change that standard. We\'ve been
working very closely since then with our international North American
partners, officials in Canada and Mexico, to develop a North American
strategy.

And we are working through the international community, going to the OIE
to help their effort to get more countries to adopt the existing
international standard.

One last question from the telephone bridge, please?

**OPERATOR:** The next question is from Jim Dugan (sp). Please state
your affiliation.

**JIM DUGAN:** Yes. This is Jim Dugan with Ag Day Television.

I\'d like to ask a follow-up question if I could to a question that was
asked earlier from I think someone from United Press International,
relating to the fact that these cows in Japan perhaps younger than 30
months tested positive.

If it\'s not clear whether or not those cows in fact have BSE or not,
how can it be definitively said that all cows under 30 months are safe?

**DR. DEHAVEN**: International standards and national policy are
established based on the preponderance of evidence that\'s available and
established based on the recommendations of the international scientists
whose job it is to stay current on the current research and current
thinking with that regard.

If we were to, excuse the phrase, respond in a \"knee-jerk reaction\" to
every aberrant finding in the scientific community, I\'m afraid we would
be having such knee-jerk reaction all of the time. And because there\'s
always the abnormal situation that occurs in the scientific community.

And so again, we have to take the preponderance of scientific evidence
that is available and base our international policies on that.

We also have in that regard the international standard-setting body
whose job it is to establish those standards based on science, and
clearly we would look to them as part of their responsibility to
evaluate the new science and make adjustments accordingly. So i would
certainly be premature to make any changes internationally based on
these recent finds until there\'s been more opportunity to evaluate and
draw some real science-based conclusions from them.

With that, Ed, we\'ll take some more questions in the room. Yes?

**SHANKAR VEDANTAM:** Dr. DeHaven, Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post.

I had a two-part question for you. Would you clarify on the SRM issue
exactly what is you are preventing certain SRMs before yesterday from
entering in the food supply, and you seem to have changed that in some
way, perhaps added.

Could you give us a clear sense of exactly what has been added \-- in
other words, what was there before and what has been added? And I guess
the question is, why would it not have been added before the Washington
state cow was discovered?

The second part of my question has to do with surveillance. Given that
the surveillance system which was essentially a flag system picked out
the case of mad cow in the US, have any changes been made to ascertain
questions of prevalence more accurately now?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** With that first question let me refer to Dr. Dan
Engeljohn from Food Safety and Inspection Service.

**DR. ENGELJOHN:** On the specified risk materials that were not allowed
before announced yesterday versus those we announced yesterday,
clarified that the tonsils have always been allowed to not be let in to
human food supply or at least in the meat supply that goes in this
country.

We\'re clarifying in the codified language to make it explicit that the
tonsils cannot be there.

We also had in place a requirement that spinal cord tissue could not be
in boneless meat, mainly being derived through the advanced meat
recovery process. The policy that we put in place yesterday that we
announced would add to the boneless meat restrictions, dorsal root
ganglia, which is a risk material that can be incorporated into the
product simply because of the process of pressing meat off the bone.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Shankar, as it relates to your question about
surveillance in our current system, would we make any changes to it? \--
I would just clarify that surveillance is just that. The purpose of
surveillance is to determine whether or not we have the disease. It\'s
not intended to provide food safety in terms of 100 percent testing, but
rather determine the prevalence. And it\'s the other measures that have
been taken that protect food safety \-- most notably the SRM removal
that we\'ve had in place and now we\'ve expanded upon it as Dr. Inglejon
just explained.

With the announcement yesterday we made a major shift in our
surveillance system in that we have always targeted our surveillance at
that high risk population, those animals that are over a certain age and
particularly those animals that are exhibiting central nervous system or
nervous system disorders as well as those that have been nonambulatory.

With this announcement yesterday, since we have been obtaining most of
those samples at slaughter I think our job, one, is to still be able to
focus on that population, but we\'ll have to get those samples
elsewhere. We\'ll now have to work with the animal disposal industry,
all of the components of that industry, obviously most notably the
renderers, to try and still be able to target that population at the
level of the renderers.

There will certainly be some nonambulatory animals at other
concentration points such as livestock markets, and we\'re going to have
to focus as well on the farm. I think we have a well-established, good
working relationship with the American Veterinary Medical Association.
One of their allied groups is the American Association of Bovine
Practitioners, and I would anticipate int he near future working very
closely with them so that we can continue to target that population.

But in addition to getting them through other concentration points such
as renderers and livestock markets, also move some of that emphasis on
to the farm. So we recognize that the best surveillance targets that
population. We just need to make the shift from slaughter plants to
other points of concentration.

**REPORTER:** (unclear) CNN. I\'d like to ask you, Dr. DeHaven or Dr.
Engeljohn, will the new guidelines for processing mean that (unclear)
inspectors will (unclear)?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Dr. Engeljohn?

**DR. ENGELJOHN:** Yes. This is Dr. Engeljohn.

At this time it\'s preliminary to identify exactly what will happen with
regards to our inspection program. We have inspectors in every plant in
this country. We have a veterinarian on hand every day at ante-mortem
inspection.

So we will adjust our work to accomplish the new policies that will go
into place when they\'re published in the Federal Register.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** One last question here in the room?

**MR. CURLETT:** With all due respect to everyone in the room, we have a
very large queue on the audio bridge, so why don\'t we do three or four
more on the audio bridge, and that that will probably wrap it up.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Okay. So, Operator, next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** The next question\'s from Jackie Vadco (sp). Please state
your affiliation.

**JACKIE VADCO (sp):** Hello. I\'m from Farm Progress Publications.

And my first question is, downer animals that arrive at a slaughter
plant say that they had head stress in the trailer or had something that
happened while in transit, what are you planning to do with those?

And when you\'re talking about downer animals, does that also include
swine or any other animals that might end up at a slaughter plant that
aren\'t necessarily cattle?

**DR. ENGELJOHN:** The policy on nonambulatory animals that FSIS has put
into place yesterday, our intention will be that we will enforce the
policy on the animals that arrive at the premise where the animals would
be slaughtered. So when they are intended to be delivered to the
slaughter facility when they arrive at that facility, then we will
ensure that no nonambulatory animals will in fact go into the human food
supply.

With regards to how we\'re clarifying the issue of nonambulatory
animals, this would be related at this time strictly to cattle.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** In terms of testing those animals at slaughter, I think
you\'re right \-- some of them will be come nonambulatory at slaughter
or en route to slaughter. I mentioned earlier that we want to continue
to target that high-risk population, so we will be working with our
colleagues at FSIS to further develop our system that is already in
place that would allow us to test those animals that do end up at
slaughter and get samples from them \-- whether it be there at the
slaughter plant or if they go elsewhere for disposal get them at that
disposal point.

But nevertheless, we will continue to work on getting those samples for
those animals that do end up nonambulatory at the point of slaughter.

Next question, Operator?

**OPERATOR:** The next question is from Andy Dowton. Please state your
affiliation.

**SANDY DOWTON:** No, this is Sandy Dowton from the Seattle Times.

My question is, what happens to the downer animals and the specified
risk materials in the rendering process? What can they be used for after
they\'re rendered?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** We\'ll give that to Dr. Steve Sundlof with FDA.

**DR. STEPHEN SUNDLOF (FDA):** Thank you. Well, currently they can go
into animal feeds, or they can go into \-- there\'s other products,
specifically tallow, fats and oils that have many purposes, industrial
purposes. They can be again used for cosmetics. The majority of the
protein that is derived from those animals is allowed in animal feeds,
other than ruminants. They cannot be fed back to cattle, sheep, goats or
anything else that qualifies as a ruminant.

That\'s what the FDA feed ban is currently all about.

Certainly with the announcements yesterday we are at the FDA looking at
any implications that involve the products that we regulate, including
things like animal feeds, pet foods, etcetera. In working with our
colleagues in the US Department of Agriculture, working with some of the
industries that are involved in the rendering process in the animal feed
industry to determine how this may impact on us. We are actively
involved in those discussion right now.

It will be some time I believe before we\'ve reached any final
decisions, but in the interim the feed ban is still in effect. We will
exercise even greater vigilance with the new event that has taken place
with the cow, and make sure that any products that derive from that
rendering process maintain the safety of the food supply and the animal
feed supply.

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Thanks, Steve.

Next question, please?

**OPERATOR:** The next question is from Leah Beth Ward. Please state
your affiliation.

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

Dr. DeHaven, you said in prior briefings that the feeding side operation
was a bull calf ranch. Yesterday you talked about sorting the calves by
gender. Can you be more precise in your description of that operation?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** Yes. As was originally reported to us, that was a bull
calf feeding operation, and that is still, the information we have that
is still largely accurate. However, as we went through the group of
animals on that premises we did identify a number, small percentage of
those animals. I think it was in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 of the
total 464 animals that in fact were female. So it is largely a calf
feeding or bull calf feeding operation, although it would be my guess
that there are some heifer calves that are born that would for whatever
reason not be suitable for going or being raised for milk replacers that
would also end up in this kind of operation. So it\'s basically a
feeding operation. I don\'t know exactly then what the intended purpose
of the animals are after having been feed.

We understand that the ages of the animals on that premises vary from as
little as seven days old to as much as five or six months of age, but in
essence it\'s a calf feeding operation and for the most part we\'re
talking about bull calves, although there are some heifers that get in
there.

One more question \-- two more questions from the telephone bridge. So
next question, Operator, and then we\'ll take one more after that.

**OPERATOR:** The next question is from Seth Borenstein. Please state
your company name.

**SETH BORENSTEIN:** Yes. This is Seth Borenstein with Knight Ridder
Newspapers.

For Dr. Sundlof, you keep talking about 99 percent compliance on the
feed ban, but I understand that\'s only on feed-making facilities. Do
you actually look on farms? What\'s the enforcement on farms, if any?
And what\'s the compliance on farms? Because that\'s where they can mix,
I guess, ruminant and poultry feed.

**DR. SUNDLOF:** Well, a lot of the large feeding operations are
themselves feed mills that we inspect, so some of that, in fact a large
proportion of the feed lots for instance, have registered feed mills
that we inspect. So they\'re part of the equation.

We have done approximately 3,000 inspections on farms in addition to all
of the facilities that mix feed or render or haul feed or are protein
blenders. We do things such as trace-forwards and trace-backwards, so
that if we go to \-- for instance if we go to a feed mill and find out
that that feed mill is not in compliance we trace the product from that
feed mill down to the farm level where it\'s actually being fed and
looking at everything downstream to make sure that there is compliance.

There are we estimate somewhere in the order of 1 million ruminant
feeders in this country, which is obviously a larger number than we can
get to on a yearly basis. So we concentrate our efforts at the top of
the pyramid which is the renderers and the feed mills making sure that
if they are in compliance that the probabilities are very great that the
feeders will be in compliance.

And at this time we have no permanent feeders that we are aware of that
are not in compliance. All of them that we have inspected are in
compliance.

**DR. DEHAVEN**: Last question from the telephone bridge, Operator.

**OPERATOR:** And the next question is from Johanna Newman. Please state
your affiliation.

**JOHANNA NEWMAN:** This is Johanna Newman at the Los Angeles Times.

Japan does not seem overly impressed with the reforms that you announced
yesterday. I\'m wondering if the USDA \--

Dr. DeHaven, you keep\-- for the last week you\'ve said that everything
was on the table. Now that these reforms have been announced, would you
contemplate testing of all slaughter if that is the price of resumption
of foreign exports?

**DR. DEHAVEN:** I would just emphasize at this point that we are early
in our investigation. Still we are in if I\'m not mistaken our eighth
day. To suggest that we would take as dramatic an action as you\'re
suggesting, testing all animals, I think it\'s just too premature to
make any kind of determination or any kind of predication as to what we
may or may not do at this point in time.

I think job one is to conclude our investigation, confirm where this
animal came from, what the other exposure there might have been with
regard to this new find on December 23, convey that information to the
Japanese, and not to suggest any radical changes in terms of what we
might or might not do for trading partners at this point in time.

I wouldn\'t exclude any possibilities at this time, but to suggest that
we might be taking that kind of action at this point is just simply too
premature.

We will continue to have discussions with our trading partners,
especially with the Japanese. I understand that we will have a technical
team that will be visiting the US from Japan in the not-too-distant
future, and with those kinds of activities and discussions ongoing,
again just too premature to predict what we might or might not do for
Japan or any of our trading partners.

With that, just a couple of closing comments.

We have had a good system in place. You\'ve heard me say time and again
about the safeguards and fireballs that have been in place and the fact
that that system as is evident by this case, as unfortunate as it was,
has worked; that all of the things came into place. We\'ve had redundant
systems in place, and the protections that they have afforded have
ensured that US beef is safe.

I think the announcements made by the Secretary yesterday show a very
proactive and aggressive approach to bolstering that system to ensuring
that we not only have a good system but further redundancies in that
system to ensure the safety of US beef.

I don\'t think there is any reason for doubt in terms of the safety of
US beef before yesterday. But clearly if there were, with the fact that
nonambulatory animals will no longer be going into the food chain, with
the fact that even if through those redundant systems we were to get
another infected animal in the United States, removal of the specified
risk materials, those tissues that harbor the infectious agents, would
no longer go into the food chain from any animal over 30 months of age
\-- should certainly satisfy anyone that had lingering doubts about the
safety of the US food supply.

So we will be doing our best to aggressively implement those
announcements that the Secretary made yesterday, and again feel that the
system that we had in place plus the additional safeguards that were
announced should continue to satisfy consumers in the US that we have a
very safe meat supply.

With that, again thank you very much. And Ed, I\'ll pass it back to you
for announcements on any future press conferences.

**MR. CURLETT:** Thank you very much, Dr. DeHaven.

The next press conference, press availability, will be on Friday. Time
to be announced. The monitor to be USDA website. Again that will be
tentatively scheduled on Friday, so nothing tomorrow.

Again, transcripts are available on the USDA website, and hopefully the
audio bridge can hear me \-- the next scheduled media availability will
be on Friday. We\'ll announce the time. Check out the USDA website for
that.

If you have questions based on today\'s technical briefing, call
202-720-4623. We do have a system in place to get back to everybody. And
with that, I\'d like to thank everybody for coming and we\'ll see you on
the next time.

\#