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

Release No. 0444.03

USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623

of

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

Saturday, December 27, 2003

OPERATOR: Good morning, and thank you for standing by. I\'d like to
inform all participants that your lines will be on a listen-only mode
until the question/answer sessions of today\'s conference. I would now
like to turn the call over to your first speaker today, Mr. Ed Curlett,
so you may begin.

MR. ED CURLETT: Hello. Welcome and thank you, everyone, for joining us
today for the BSE situation update. Today the way it will work is Dr.
Ron DeHaven will give a statement giving you an update on the
epidemiological investigation in Washington. Dr. Stephen Sundlof of the
Food and Drug Administration will give an update on the feed
investigation, and Dr. Ken Petersen with the Food Safety and Inspection
Service will give a statement.

We will then go to Q and As and then just a couple of things that go
over \-- we have a lot of people on this call. So in the interest of
answering as many questions as we can, we\'re going to ask that you just
limit any follow-up questions after the statement to just one question.

Again, the transcript of today\'s briefing will be on the USDA Home Page
as well as the update information that Dr. DeHaven will be giving. So
with that, I\'m going to turn it over to Dr. Ron DeHaven. He\'s the
chief veterinary officer for the US Department of Agriculture.

DR. RON DEHAVEN: Ed, thank you very much, and let me spell my last name.
It\'s Capital D, small E. Capital H-A-V as in Victor E-N.

Our efforts to trace the origins of this BSE-positive animal have
continued over the last couple of days, and in fact I have some
significant information to report to you on our update today. This
latest information that I\'m about to provide was obtained through our
close cooperation with officials with the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency. We have been in constant contact with our Canadian counterparts
to share information, and we\'ve been gratified by the high level of
cooperation we have received from them. Indeed, we have had an official
from Canada on the ground with us in Washington during our trace-back
process to provide support to our overall efforts. Even as we speak, the
Canadian official who actually headed up the epidemiological
investigation in Canada, when they found their positive case back in
May, is en route to the state of Washington to provide us support in our
investigative efforts.

The information about the source of this animal was information that I
received at about midnight last night, and so it is very preliminary
information. But having said that, that information would suggest that
the affected animal, the positive animal, likely entered the United
States as part of a group of 74 dairy cattle that were imported though
the border crossing at Eastport, Maine originating from a dairy herd in
Canada in 2001. Excuse me. I\'m sorry. Entered through the port of
Eastport, Idaho from a herd in Alberta, Canada in 2001.

There is some discrepancy in the records that we have and the records
that we obtained from the index herd owner and the Canadian records on
this particular animal. U.S. records would indicate that the animal was
4 to 4 1/2 years old. The Canadian records indicate that she was born in
April of \'97, making her a 6 1/2-year-old animal. To definitively
determine that we are indeed talking about the same animal, we will be
initiating DNA testing which is in fact the means that the Canadians
used to definitively determine the birth herd of the affected cattle or
infected animal that they found in May of this year.

We would anticipate that the results from that DNA testing would be
available within about one week.

A few points that I think are very relevant to emphasize here. These
animals were all dairy cattle and entered the U.S. only about 2 to 2 1/2
years ago. And so most of them are likely still alive. Because the
records that are kept on dairy cattle are typically very good, and that
has been the situation that we have found in this situation thus far, we
feel confident that we are going to be able to determine the whereabouts
of most if not all of these animals within the next several days.

Let me also address the relative risk of the other 73 animals that
entered the United States alone with this one infected cow. I would
point out that even in the United Kingdom where the prevalence of this
disease has been the highest, experience has shown that even in the
height of BSE infectivity in a herd usually only one or two animals in a
herd are found to be infected.

It\'s important to emphasize that just because this one positive animal
entered the U.S. in a group of 74 animals. That does not suggest that
all or even one more of those animals is necessarily infected with BSE.
Needless to say, out of an abundance of caution our efforts will
nevertheless focus on tracing out every one of those animals.

Finally, it\'s important to realize that there is no scientific evidence
to suggest that milk or dairy products carry the BSE agent or would
otherwise be infectious material either for humans or other animals.

One other point, we\'ve received numerous questions over the last few
days about how this trace-back and trace-forward process works, and so
let me provide a bit of an explanation there. Much of it is simple,
hard-leather, shoe-leather type work in terms of tracing through
individual personal interviews as well as records where animals might
have been and where they\'ve come from. Our investigators are using
information that they obtained through interviews with herd owners,
livestock dealers, market operators and such in terms of what animals
they have had in their possession verifying that verbal information with
records that would be on-site.

And of course we also have available in our respective federal and state
offices as well as with the Canadian officials hard copy records that
are all part of this epidemiological investigation.

In a very short period of time we had a significant amount of success in
being able to trace this particular animal. A lot of work has yet to be
done in terms of verifying what we know about this animal and tracing
other animals associated with her. I would only point out that we\'ve
only been successful because we have had tremendous cooperation from the
owner of the index herd, the operators of the slaughter plant and
livestock markets, and of course extensive cooperation as I mentioned
from our colleagues with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Indeed, the thoroughness and rapidity with which the Canadian officials
conducted their epidemiological investigation relative to their find of
BSE in a cow in May gives us a terrific model to strive for in
conducting a thorough and rapid investigation in this situation.

With that, let\'s defer now to Dr. Ken Peterson with the Food Safety
Inspection Service to give you an update from that perspective.

DR. KENNETH PETERSEN (USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service): Good
morning. This is Dr. Kenneth Peterson, P-E-T-E-R-S-E-N \-- with the USDA
Food Safety and Inspection Service to give you a brief update on where
we are with the recall.

Briefly, going back to the beginning of the recall, was from product
that was slaughtered at Verns Moses Lake Meats on December 9. On
December 11 those carcasses were shipped to Midway Meats in Centralia,
Washington. Midway Meats is what we would term a primary consignee. They
were the primary receiver of the recalled meat.

On December 12, Midway Meats shipped a variety of boneless beef
products. They removed the bones from those carcasses and shipped them
to two facilities on December 12.

The first facility is Interstate Meat Distributors in Clackamas, Oregon,
C-L-A-C-K-A-M-A-S. The second facility is Willamette Valley Meat in
Portland, Oregon. Blender State Meats and Willamette Valley are what we
would term secondary consignees. First on Interstate Meats.

Interstate Meats ground all of the product that they received from
Midway Meats into a variety of ground beef or ground beef patties. All
of those products were sold within Washington State and Oregon only.
However, approximately 25 percent of the product that Interstate Meat
received from Midway has never been distributed, so we already have that
product under retention.

On Willamette Valley in Portland, they also received a variety of beef
trimmings, and they have sold those trimmings to approximately three
dozen small mom and pop Asian and Mexican facilities in the states of
Washington, Oregon, California, and Nevada.

Products are beginning to be returned. Over the weekend we will have
investigation, and the Portsmouth officers in all of these facilities as
well as the secondary, tertiary and below that facilities \-- they will
be looking at records, looking for the distribution of this product.

So our recall investigation is ongoing. And we have continued to receive
excellent cooperation from all of the firms involved.

MR. DEHAVEN: Thank you, Ken. And now we\'ll go to Dr. Steve Sundlof with
Food and Drug Administration to give us an update on their investigation
relative to feed and rendered products. Steve?

DR. STEPHEN SUNDLOF: Thank you, Ron. My name is Stephen,

S-T-E-P-H-E-N, Sundlof, S-U-N-D-L-O-F, with the Food and Drug
Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine. My report will seem
rather mundane compared to Dr. DeHaven\'s.

We are trying to trace down any products, any byproducts from the
processing of the indexed cow, the BSE indexed cow, to try and keep it
from getting into any products that FDA regulates including animal
feeds.

We have identified the renderers, both for the Verns Moses Lake\'s Meat
in Moses Lake, Washington and Midway Meats in Centralia, and we have
under control all of the products that went into rendering on that day
from the indexed cow.

We are still trying to determine whether Interstate Meat in Clackamas or
Willamette Meats in Portland, Oregon has an rendering associated with
their processing. If so, we will try to get control over that product as
well. But in all likelihood we will have accounted for all of the
potentially rendered byproducts from this cow.

And that\'s it.

MR. CURLETT: Thank you, Steve. With that, this is Ed Curlett, I would
ask that when you do ask a question please state your name and
affiliation and ask your question. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. If you\'d like to ask a question, that\'s star
\"1\" on your touchtone phone. You will be prompted to record your name
and you will be announced prior to asking your question, and you\'ll
need to state your affiliation. Again, that\'s star \"1\" on your
touchtone phone. Our first question comes from Leah Beth Ward.

LEAH BETH WARD: Hi. Leah Beth Ward, Yakima Herald Republic.

Can you tell us exactly where in the federal protocol you stand with
regard to depopulating the quarantined herds and how that process is
carried out?

DR. DEHAVEN: We have within the Department a group that we call the TSE
Working Group. TSE stands for transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.
And that is the family of diseases that includes BSE. And that is a
group of experts within the Department that provide us the scientific
and technical guidance on these kinds of questions.

That group is currently reviewing the situation with the indexed herd,
the herd from which this infected cow was sent to slaughter, and
providing a recommendation to us in terms of which if any of the animals
in that particular herd would need to be depopulated. Part of that
process then is to determine a means of humane euthanasia, with several
possibilities \-- from injection of an anesthetic to a stunning process
similar to what is done at slaughter and then obviously also
consideration as to how to properly dispose of those carcasses in an
environmentally safe way and a way that would obviously preclude any
kind of potential transmission should any of those animals be infected
with the prion.

So we are in that process right now. Those decisions and final
determinations have not yet been made.

Operator, next question, please?

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Richard Hill.

RICHARD HILL: This is Richard Hill at the Oregonian.

Because it\'s likely that some of this meat was consumed because it\'s
been out there quite a while, I was curious if there are any plans in
the works to do more extensive screening of cattle than are presented
for slaughter, perhaps all cattle as Japan does?

DR. DEHAVEN: I think it\'s pertinent that we point out at this point
while the investigation continues and the recall with regard to that
meat, it\'s very important that everyone realize that that recall is
being conducted out of an abundance of caution, and that we know
scientifically that the infectious agent, the prion that causes BSE,
does not go to \-- only goes to specific tissues, primarily central
nervous system tissues.

So it\'s important to recognize that that meat represents a minuscule
risk, and it\'s only being recalled out of an abundance of caution.

We have had in place in this country what we think are appropriate
firewalls and safeguards to protect both animal health and human health
to include the fact that from any non-ambulatory animals those dangerous
tissues, those tissues most likely to contain the infectious agent, have
not gone into the animal food chain. And indeed that was the situation
here.

Having said that that we have had a good system in place both in terms
of surveillance and procedures to protect human and animal health, it
would be certainly prudent for us to, with this new information and this
recent find, to reconsider our overall program and indeed that is what
has been happening and continues within the department even at the
highest levels in terms of should we increase testing, and if so how
would we most benefit or what would be the most beneficial means to
increase that level of testing?

There have been lots of questions, many of them coming from the media,
about the fact that some of these non-ambulatory cattle end up in the
human food chain, and so I think that it is important to recognize the
difference between diseased cattle and non-ambulatory cattle. Sometimes
a non-ambulatory animal is non-ambulatory or has difficulty walking
because of purely physical injuries, those kinds of injuries like a
broken leg, which would have no bearing on the safety of the meat that
might come from that animal. They in fact might be very young animals
well under the age from which would normally expect to find an animal
that would be potentially affected by BSE.

So to suggest we would like to correct the suggestion that there is,
that all non-ambulatory animals are diseased animals. That is not the
case. In fact, most non-ambulatory animals are not diseased, and Food
Safety Inspection Service has been in the business since 1906 of
ensuring that diseased animals do not enter the food chain.

From a purely BSE perspective, we also know that the highest risk
population, that population that we would target for our surveillance
testing, would be those animals first and foremost that are showing some
nervous system disorder, and many times especially in advanced stages of
nervous system disorders they might be non-ambulatory.

So those older animals, the ones that are most likely to be affected,
those that would be non-ambulatory and especially those animals that
would be exhibiting any kind of nervous system disorder, would be the
ones that we would target for our surveillance testing and would be the
ones that would be most likely considered would we increase any level of
testing. And again, those are the kinds of discussions that are
occurring as we speak within the Department.

Anything from a perspective of my colleagues within USDA to add to that?

DR. PETERSEN: We agree with your assessment on the safety of the meat on
this particular recall, and also any non-ambulatory animals are always
inspected by one of our USDA veterinarians prior to entering the
slaughter facility.

C: Thank you. And that was Dr. Ken Petersen from Food Safety Inspection
Service.

Operator, next question?

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Andy Dworkin.

MR. ANDY DWORKIN: Hi. This is Andy Dworkin also with the Oregonian.

You mentioned that for a standard downer that has a not very interesting
injury like a broken leg or something there\'s no need necessarily to
inspect that, which is the case with this cow. So why is it that this
cow and all the 20 cows killed at Verns Bay were sampled, and were those
all from the same herd, and are all 20 of those cows possibly from the
same group of 74 that came from Canada?

MR. CURLETT: Sir, you\'re breaking up. We can\'t hear that. We can\'t
hear your question. So we\'re going to \--

MR. DWORKIN: Okay. Can you hear now?

MR. CURLETT: Okay. Try it again.

MR. DWORKIN: Okay. The question is, since this cow had a pretty standard
injury and was a younger cow, it wouldn\'t seem to necessarily be
targeted for this sampling. But I heard that all 20 cows slaughtered at
Verns were targeted. So why were all 20 cows sampled, and do you know
did they all come from the same farm and made be all from the same group
of 74 from Canada?

MR. CURLETT: We\'re still only getting about half of what you\'re
asking, sir. If anyone else heard, perhaps you can ask the question.
We\'re going to have to go to the next question.

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Scott Kilman (sp).

SCOTT KILMAN: Yeah, hi. This is Scott Kilman with the Wall Street
Journal. I\'ll repeat Andy\'s question and then I\'ll ask my question.
His question was, he said he understood that all 20 cows that were
slaughtered at Moses Lake were tested, where the samples were collected
for testing for BSE and I assume shipped to the Ames Lab. Is that true?
And if so, why was that done?

MR. CURLETT: And ask your question too.

SCOTT KILMAN: Okay. Well, why don\'t you answer him, and then I\'ll ask
my question, so we\'ll keep them separate?

MR. CURLETT: Well, you better ask in case you\'re cut off in the queue.
So ask them both.

SCOTT KILMAN: Okay. Then my question is, I wanted some more details if
possible about the dairy cow from Canada that you suspect is from
Canada. Are you saying that you\'ve been able to figure out the birth
herd is from Canada in Alberta? Or are you \-- because when you say that
the cow originated in 2001 I\'m not quite sure you\'re saying if this is
was a herd that was somewhere along in this cow\'s life or was actually
the birth herd.

And then the follow-up question to that is, if it is from Canada how
does that change the scope of the problem in the United States? Does it
narrow it in any way, or just from your perspective from the
investigation how does it change how you proceed from here on out?

DR. DEHAVEN: To the first question were all 20 slaughtered at the Moses
Lake Facility on December 9 tested, and my understanding is that is not
correct. There were three downer animals that day \-- the one that
tested positive and two others. All three were tested. The other two
were negative, and only this one obviously was positive.

Again, our surveillance has focused on, especially animals exhibiting
central nervous system disorder and those animals that were, that are
nonambulatory, and all three of the animals that were tested that day at
Moses Lake were nonambulatory as I understand the reports that we\'ve
received.

I mentioned, going to your second question, the information that we have
now is very early preliminary information that I only received about
midnight last night, so understand that this investigation is ongoing.
What we have is a match to an ear-tag that was recovered from the animal
at slaughter and records in Canada with that same ear-tag number. That
information would suggest that the animal came to the United States from
this herd in Alberta, Canada, and we have not yet been able to
absolutely determine that the herd in Canada was the birth herd. That
will be one of the areas that our investigation will be, that our
follow-up investigation will be attempting to confirm yet today.

If we assume that the birth herd, whether it be this one or another one,
is in Canada, that certainly does put a different light or a different
perspective on things. But as we have said since May 20, when Canada
disclosed their very first case, is that we acknowledge that the
movement of cattle and products from cattle between the United States
and Canada has been extensive, that it\'s very much an integrated
market, and while it may certainly change the perspective in this
particular situation, it\'s important to recognize that we have highly
integrated livestock markets between Canada and the U.S.

Next question?

Or let\'s follow up from Dr. Ken Petersen, please.

DR. PETERSEN: Dr. Petersen with FSIS. Just so we\'re clear on the 20
animals that were slaughtered that particular day, three of the animals
were tested by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for BSE.
Only one of those animals was positive. That one animal proceeded into
slaughter. It completed the slaughter process and all of the central
nervous system tissue \-- the brain, the spinal cord and the distal
ileum from that specific animal \-- were sent to inedible rendering. We
know that the meat from that particular carcass is of virtually zero,
very low risk for human exposure to BSE. Nevertheless, we decided it
would be abundantly prudent to recall all of the carcasses that were
slaughtered on that particular day, so only one animal was affected, but
we decided to initiate everything that was slaughtered, all of the
cattle that were slaughtered that day. That\'s how we got to the number
20.

MR. CURLETT: Thank you, Ken.

Operator, next question, please?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Sean Curvet Dontam (sp).

SEAN CURVET DONTAM Hi. This is Sean Curvet Dontam at the Washington
Post.

Dr. DeHaven, you said there 74 cows that came in from Canada in October
2001 along with this one. Can you give us some sense on whether they all
came to the same farm or whether they were dispersed to multiple farms,
how many may be still alive, and where they may be in the country right
now?

DR. DEHAVEN: I mentioned that if I didn\'t say I should have said that
we believe that this shipment occurred on or about August of 2001, and
it was approximately in October of 2001 that the positive animal
presumably moved to the indexed herd. She came in a group of 74 animals.
It\'s my understanding that all 74 went to the dairy operation that
we\'ve previously described in Mattawa, Washington. It is premature, too
early in our investigation to speculate on where the remaining 73
animals went from there. We just don\'t have that information at this
point, but clearly that is one of the focal points of our ongoing
investigation.

Next question, please?

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Holly Ferfer (sp).

HOLLY FERFER: Yes. Holly Ferfer with CNN.

The question is, you had mentioned briefly other products containing
some of these rendered animal parts, and you mentioned some other animal
feed and perhaps dog food. What about cosmetics? Is there any other
possibilities where some of these rendered animal parts would go to? And
also a follow-up question, can you test a live cow, or do they have to
be slaughtered?

DR. DEHAVEN: I\'ll take the last question and defer the first question
to our colleague with Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Sundlof.

As to the testing procedure, all of the tests that are currently
available anywhere in the world depend upon post-mortem tissues. There
is no live animal test available. Having said that, there is clearly a
lot of research that is ongoing. We are hopeful and would certainly like
to have a live animal test in the not-too-distant future. But presently
we do no have any live animal tests available to us.

For your first question, Steve?

DR. SUNDLOF: Yes. This is Dr. Steve Sundlof from the FDA.

First of all, one of the products that is used comes from rendering that
is used in cosmetics is tallow, and that is the fat portion of the
products that come out of rendering. Generally when you talk about
rendering you\'re really talking about two main products that derive
from rendering. One of them is the fats and oils, tallow being one of
those. The other is a protein. Protein is largely used as a component of
animal feed.

But the tallow can be used for production of cosmetics. However, one
important fact to note is that tallow does not transmit the disease. And
the reason for that is that the disease-causing organism, the prion, is
a protein. In the separation products between proteins and fats, the
proteins are completely separated leaving only the fat, which is not
capable of transmitting the disease.

So there should be no concern among the public that cosmetics may
contain products from this animal.

The other thing though to remember is that we are accounting for all of
the rendered products that came from this animal, so none of that should
be getting into any product, whether it\'s in animal feed, pet food, or
cosmetic.

MR. CURLETT: Thank you, Steve.

Operator, next question, please?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Antonio Regilotto (sp).

ANTONIO REGILOTTO: Hi, there. I\'m from the Wall Street Journal.

I had just a follow-up question on the risk. You said that there\'s no
evidence that this meat that was sold and possibly consumed could carry
the agent. Can you cite the scientific evidence for that and whether
there\'s any evidence that there is a risk or that it could carry the
agent?

DR. DEHAVEN: I can\'t off the top of my head give you the literature
citations on that, but clearly there have been numerous studies done in
Europe and elsewhere where animals have been infected artificially and
then follow-up studies on those animals to identify the infectious agent
from various tissues. So it\'s been through extensive research,
particularly on livestock species like beef and dairy cattle to
determine where the infections agent is found to harbor.

So we can I\'m sure separately give you some literature citations to
support that, but it\'s clearly recognized in the international
community and indeed the international standards set by the OIE
recognize that meat is a commodity that can safely be traded even from
those countries that have had a high prevalence of the disease.

So again, the international standards that are established by
international experts from around the world clearly state that there are
certain commodities that can be traded even from countries that have
moderate to high levels of the disease and first and foremost among
those commodities are meat cuts, particularly cuts from animals that
would normally be slaughtered even if they would be showing clinical
signs of the disease.

Next question, please?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Andrew Martin.

ANDREW MARTIN: Hi. I\'m from the Chicago Tribune.

Dr. DeHaven, any indication that this animal \-- where in Alberta it
came from or if there\'s any connection to the cow that got BSE in
Canada last May?

DR. DEHAVEN: I know that that information is available in that we, the
Canadian officials have records and in fact have contacted the herd
owner of that herd in Alberta, Canada. I don\'t have that information
and certainly out of respect for the privacy of that individual it\'s
not information that we would be releasing at this point anyway. I
personally do not have that knowledge.

Next question, please?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Sandra Young.

SANDRA YOUNG: Yes, hi. Sandra Young with CNN. I have a follow-up
question on the testing.

My question is, since this particular downer cow was sent to processing
before the test actually came back, are you considering changing that
policy and keeping the downer cows separate until tests come back with
definitive results?

DR. DEHAVEN: I mentioned earlier that we\'ve had what we think is an
appropriate and as this case shows a very effective program in terms of
identifying infection and then protecting human and animal health.
Having said that, now that we have had a case of BSE found in the United
States it would only be prudent that we consider modifications to our
program and indeed the one that you describe where we would hold the
carcass or product from downed, non-ambulatory animals until we had
results from a test is one of the many things that are currently under
consideration within the Department.

So we, indeed, are looking at that as one of the possible options at
this point.

Next question, please?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Ray Rivera.

RAY RIVERAS: Ray Rivera of the Seattle Times.

Can you clarify the dates? I\'d understood that the herd of 74 crossed
in April \'97, but was it August 2001 that it crossed the Idaho border?
The second thing, on the rendered products if they present no safety
hazard why are they being recalled?

DR. DEHAVEN: I\'ll take the first question I think the second question
was rendered product and would go to Dr. Sundlof with FDA.

Let me be clear on the dates because I think there\'s some confusion.
Based on the records obtained by our Canadian colleagues on this
particular cow or I should say on the ID number associated with this
positive cow, the records in Canada would indicate that this animal\'s
date of birth is April of \'97. She would have entered the United States
with that group of 73 other animals sometime around the August 2001
timeframe and would have, the infected cow would have entered the index
herd at about October 2001.

So again, birth date on this cow by Canadian records April 1997,
entering the United States in the August 2001 timeframe, movement to the
index herd about the October 2001 timeframe and sent to slaughter at
Moses Lake Meats on December 9 of 2003.

For your second question, Dr. Sundlof, please?

DR. SUNDLOF: The reason that \-- the question was, if rendered products
are safe why are we recalling them?

We are actually working with the renderers to recall voluntarily,
they\'re recalling the products. Our concern is that these products, our
major concern is that these products do not get back into cattle feed
because that, if that were to happen then we could have a true expansion
of the or amplification within the U.S. cattle herds.

So our primary concern is with keeping this out of the cattle feed.

Now we do have regulations in place that are intended to do that in
particular, but again as USDA has done we want to exercise also an
abundance of caution to make sure that there is no possibility that any
of these products might find their way back into the cattle feed.

Operator, next question?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Emily Gersema.

EMILY GERSEMA: Yeah. I was curious how much of the recalled meat we have
gotten back. Have we gotten any back?

DR. PETERSEN: All of the companies, the primary and secondary consignees
that I mentioned, have notified their customers exactly which products
they were sold on exactly which dates, and informed them, their
customers, what they should do with those products.

Many of those \-- and again this really began in earnest yesterday
morning because of the Christmas holiday \-- so the customers have been
notified of what they should do with the product. Many of the customers
out of a practical nature what they do is, they put that product on hold
until the individual who sold them those products can either pick it up
or make other arrangements. So products are not universally returned
immediately, but they are to the extent that they\'re known put on held
at the facility that has them and then it\'s only later that we begin to
get the amounts related to those returned products.

But that the total amounts are something that we do track, and we will
be doing that over the proceeding days.

MR. DEHAVEN: Operator, before the next question, I just want to let you
know, we\'re expecting another briefer. Could you let us know when that
briefer is on, please?

OPERATOR: I did have a Dr. Brian Evans join you.

DR. DEHAVEN: Ah, excellent. Let me provide Dr. Evans an opportunity to
make an opening comment if he wishes and by way of introduction Dr.
Brian Evans is the chief veterinary officer with the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency. He is at my level has been my primary point of
contact, and I can\'t emphasize enough the level of cooperation that we
have had with our Canadian colleagues. I can\'t emphasize enough the
thoroughness and integrity with which they conducted the investigation
relative to their find of a case of BSE in May of this year, and we\'ve
had nothing but that kind of ongoing level of cooperation and support in
our investigation with this most recent situation.

So Brian, I\'m very pleased that you are able to join us, and the
microphone is yours.

DR. BRIAN EVANS: Thanks very much, Ron. And thank you for the
opportunity to speak with both those of interest on the line and to
continue as you say the type of relationship that we enjoy.

From, we very much want to make very clear at this point in time
Canada\'s ongoing efforts to be helpful and our full commitment as Ron
has indicated to work in parallel with the U.S. investigation with the
same degree of thoroughness and comprehensiveness that we brought to the
investigation in May in Canada and the same level of thorough and
comprehensiveness that the U.S. are applying to the investigation in the
United States.

We, as Canada, as Ron has indicated have been actively pursuing
information relative to one of the lines of inquiry that the U.S. had
identified of being of particular interest to them and have shared
information based on demands or requests for specific information from
the U.S. pertaining to particular animal identification scenarios.

We feel at this particular point in time with the staff that we have on
the ground in Washington State working with the U.S. officials there
that we are well positioned to work forward with them in meeting the
needs of the investigation. We want to point out at this point in time,
as well very clearly that from Canada\'s perspective we will be
continuing our efforts to follow up on the information that has been
provided to us from the United States. We continue to work in a very
close manner as Ron has described.

At the same time, we as Canada feel it\'s important to recognize at this
point that we do not have a definitive diagnosis or confirmation of the
individual animal and/or of its birthplace. We are working with
information pursuing a particular group of animals as Ron has indicated
which were certified out of Canada in August of 2001. We have verified
the source of those particular animals, but there continues to be some
level of discrepancy in the information between that gathered on the
U.S. side relative to the age of the animal of primary interest to them
versus the age of the animal, which in Canada bears the ear-tag that we
have been pursuing.

There are other areas I think at this point in time in terms of the
information which is continuing to be verified that warrants that we
don\'t make a premature conclusion that the definitive animal or the
definitive birthplace has been located, and at that same juncture I
think it\'s important to also point out that in coming to those
determinations we need to fully use all the means available to us.

It is our understanding on the U.S. side calves derive from the animal
which they feel to be the primary suspect animal are available and
restricted in the U.S. at this point in time. Early information on our
investigation in Canada would indicate that the animal here in Canada
had calves as well. This is one of the areas of inconsistency of
information that we\'re continuing to explore in parallel with our U.S.
colleagues on the basis that the information out of the U.S. suggests
that the animal entered the herd in the United States as a two-year-old
springing heifer, but the animal which we certified through this herd
process was an older animal that in fact had had two calves already in
Canada and on the basis that we may have access to those calves in
Canada as well as potential sire information on that animal it does
provide us the opportunity to pursue through DNA means an actual
verification of identity preservation to ensure that we are in fact
talking about the same animal as this line of inquiry continues to move
forward.

DR. DEHAVEN: Thank you, Brian. And for the media, spelling of Dr.
Evans\' last name is, E-V-A-N-S. First name B-R-I-A-N. And he is the
chief veterinary officer for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

DR. EVANS: Thank you, Ron.

DR. DEHAVEN: Questions, Operator? We have I think just a few more
minutes.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will come from Ken Moore.

KEN MOORE: Yes. Dr. DeHaven, a couple follow-ups. First, a simple one.
You said the Mattawa Washington facility already described. Is that the
one you described as the place where the replacement heifers got
conditioned before? And the second one is, talk a bit about your other
lines of inquiry on trace-back for herd whether you\'ve dropped them in
view of the Canadian find or whether you are continuing with them. And
if you are, what\'s the progress.

DR. DEHAVEN: In answer to your first question, you are correct. The
facility where the 74 animals went to is the dairy finishing or dairy
holding facility in Mattawa, Washington. And that\'s the facility from
which the animal in questioned moved from there to the index herd in
October of 2001.

We are reporting, as to your second question, we are reporting this
trace-back information to Canada because it certainly is our most likely
line of inquiry at this point in time. Having said that, we\'ve also
said that we are going to do an absolutely thorough and comprehensive
job of this investigation. We will pursue absolutely every possible lead
in conjunction with the investigation, any possible line of inquiry that
might lead us to the previous premises of residence and birth-herd of
this particular animal.

So while we are clearly focusing a lot of our efforts within our
investigation towards this most likely line of inquiry that sends us
back to Canada, we will continue to pursue all possible leads relative
to the investigation.

Next question, please?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Camille El Asani (sp).

CAMILE El ASANI: Hi. This is Camille El Asani from ABC News. My question
is about the delegation that\'s going to Japan to try to allay their
fears. Who is going? Who are they meeting with? When and where are they
leaving from?

DR. DEHAVEN: That delegation is being headed up by David Hegwood who is
the Secretary\'s trade advisor. He is being accompanied by Dr. Charles
Lambert the Deputy Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
within the Department, and that is the delegation that is actually in
the air as we speak.

Now we do have colleagues within our Animal, Plant Health Inspection
Service as well as Foreign Agricultural Service employees who work out
of Tokyo, and they will be joining up with David Hegwood and Dr. Lambert
in Japan and I should also mention also joining up with Food Safety
Inspection colleagues who work out of Tokyo as well.

So the two of them leaving from Washington as we speak joining up with
USDA colleagues who work in Japan with Foreign Ag Service, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, and Food Safety Inspection Service.

MR. CURLETT: Operator, we have time for one more question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. And our next question will be from Alison Young.

ALISON YOUNG: Hi. This is Alison Young from Knight Ridder Newspapers.

Given the time that\'s passed since the slaughter of this particular
animal, how much of the recalled meat is believed to have already been
sold at the retail level already? And secondly, there have been some
previous concerns raised during other recalls about the adequacy of
records held by the various plants that have handled meat. Was that a
concern in this case? And did the wholesalers and other plants involved
in this have recall plans?

DR. DEHAVEN: Let me refer your questions to Dr. Ken Petersen with Food
Safety Inspection Service.

DR. PETERSEN: Dr. Petersen, FSIS.

As I indicated much of the initial product that was sold out of
Interstate Meats was a ground product, and those are typically fresh
products, and so it is quite possible that much of that product has been
produced. Some of them were frozen, and the retailers are looking for
those products.

And as I indicated, approximately 25 percent of the products from
Interstate Meats was never distributed, and so we have that.

It\'s too early for us to know how much of it has in fact been sold, and
if it has been sold whether it has in fact been consumed. But that is
the type of records and information that we are looking for.

What I have seen so far as far as the records and given the short
timeframe, the companies that I indicated we have been to tells me that
these firms had sufficient records for us to be able to find these
products. And as we work on down the list, we will see how much farther
we go with the recalled products. But to date it\'s too early to know
how much of the product has been brought back, though we know that some
of the product is beginning to at least be held at the retail
facilities.

DR. DEHAVEN: We\'ve come to our last question, and I just wanted to
before I turn the microphone back to Ed Curlett thank everyone again for
your participation. We will certainly continue to hold these and provide
you updated information. I also wanted to take the opportunity to again
thank Dr. Brian Evans for joining us on this call and to the extent that
he is able and we have relevant information we would certainly welcome
Brian\'s continued participation in these conference calls. Thank you,
Brian.

DR. EVANS: You\'re very welcome, Ron.

DR. DEHAVEN: All right. Let me refer it back to Ed Curlett for details
on where we go from here.

MR. CURLETT: Thank you, sir. Just a couple of things to go over. For
follow-up questions after this briefing this is the number that you
should call: 202-720-4623. Leave a message if you don\'t get a live
body. We do have a system in place to get back to all the calls. You\'ll
get a call back, but just bear with us as we\'re getting hundreds of
calls. We will get back to you. Again, 202-720-4623. The next briefing
will be tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. And transcripts of today\'s
briefing will be put on the USDA Home Page. That\'s www.usda.gov. And we
also encourage you to look at the USDA APHIS Home Page for background
information on BSE. That would be www.aphis.usda.gov. You could get
there through the USDA Home Page.

So with that, we\'ll talk to you later. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Operator.

OPERATOR: Thank you.

\#