Issue: Over the past decade, several high-profile food

safety issues have been linked to meat and poultry products (e.g., mad cow disease and Salmonella). Some countries have voiced concerns over the use of antibiotics in

animal production, partly due to limited scientific understanding about the human health implications. How have

food safety hazards affected international trade and how

are public and private sectors responding to minimize or

prevent adverse impacts from these hazards?

Background: Three case studies demonstrate food safety

and trade issues for meat and poultry.

The first case study concerns Bovine Spongiform

Encephalopathy (BSE) or “mad-cow disease,” which

became a human health issue in 1996 when the United

Kingdom announced a connection between BSE and a

variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in humans.

BSE is a major food safety concern and a major animal

health issue affecting beef production, consumption, and

trade for several reasons: (1) the uncertainty of exactly

how the disease is transferred to humans or how to prevent

it; (2) the uncertainty of the total number of BSE and

vCJD cases, partly due to the long incubation periods in

both cattle and humans; (3) the inability to destroy the

“prion,” the agent believed to cause BSE and vCJD; (4)

the lack of a cure for BSE and vCJD; and (5) the limited

(post-mortem) ability to confirm the disease. 

The second case study, chosen to represent trade impacts of

microbial food safety risks, focuses on Salmonella and

some countries’ zero or near-zero tolerance for it in poultry.

The third case study focuses on the relationship between

drug-resistant, foodborne pathogens; livestock drug use; and

the implications for international trade. Links between animal and human health are complex, and not always complementary. For example, the use of antimicrobial drugs for

livestock may protect animal health by reducing pathogens,

but may erode the effectiveness of some antibiotics for

human use. However, these tradeoffs are uncertain, as is the

extent to which livestock drug use is responsible for human

foodborne illnesses due to resistant bacteria. 

Findings: Live cattle and beef exports from the United

Kingdom were decimated by three BSE crises (1988,

1996, and 2000), and have not recovered. European Union

(EU) exports of these products have been far less affected

to date. Immediately after each of the three BSE crises,

EU domestic consumption of beef declined abruptly.

While EU domestic consumption of beef has returned to

its long-term (downward) trend, prices have not recovered,

suggesting some shift in demand. 

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic 

Research

Service

Issues in Diet, Safety, and Health / Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 789-4 February 2004

Food Safety Issues for

Meat/Poultry Products and

International Trade

Kenneth H. Mathews, Jr., kmathews@ers.usda.gov, (202) 694-5183

Jason Bernstein (FAS)

Jean C. Buzby, jbuzby@ers.usda.gov, (202) 694-5370

EU domestic beef consumption during the 

three BSE crises (1988, 1996, and 2000) and

projections through 2011

Million metric tons

Source: USDA Production, Supply, and Distribution database, 

1980-2001; baseline projections, 2002-2011.

6

7

8

9

1980 1990 2000 2010

Beef consumption Trend
2 Economic Research Service / USDA

Food Safety Issues for Meat/Poultry Products and International Trade/ AIB-789-4

BSE has prompted many countries, including the U.S., to

impose additional safeguards, like import restrictions and

other measures to prevent the introduction of the disease.

In response to BSE, beef and cattle markets have changed,

for example, to boneless cuts, or restricted the use of

selected products (e.g., brains, eyes, intestines). BSE has

also affected cosmetic, feed, medical, pharmaceutical, and

other sectors because bovine byproducts and rendered

products are used as intermediate inputs into so many

products. Consequently, trade restrictions have affected

many sectors.

The Salmonella case study found that many countries

impose different standards and regulations to handle the

risks of pathogen contamination from processing and other

stages of production. This diversity illustrates that each

World Trade Organization member has the right to determine its own level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection. In particular, countries’ trade restrictions for

Salmonella in poultry vary by type (specific products or

processing), extent (inspections of slaughter facilities, production practices), and duration. This variance makes

compliance challenging for exporters. 

The technical ability to monitor and detect Salmonella and

other pathogens is increasing, as has the imposition of

zero or near-zero tolerance standards for Salmonella by

some countries. Zero risk may not be feasible from either

a policy or producer standpoint, and may preclude all

poultry imports. Some scientists believe that Salmonella is

ubiquitous in the environment and, with increased

advances in medicine and increased precision of diagnostic tools, the cost to achieve further risk reductions

increases as the risk level approaches zero. Also at issue is

the occasional inconsistency between a country’s standards for domestic and imported poultry.

Some countries have accumulated evidence linking livestock drug use and human antibiotic effectiveness in treating foodborne illness (e.g., Salmonella). These countries

have enacted or proposed regulations to prohibit the lowlevel (subtherapeutic) use of certain antimicrobial drugs as

growth promotants in livestock production. In the United

States, several bills have been introduced to prohibit

antibiotics from at least some uses in animal agriculture.

Information sources:

For full text, see Mathews, K., J. Bernstein, and J. Buzby.

“International Trade of Meat/Poultry Products and Food

Safety Issues,” chapter 4 in International Trade and Food

Safety: Economic Theory and Case Studies. J. Buzby

(ed.). USDA, Econ. Res. Serv., AER-828, Nov. 2003.

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer828/

Orden, D., T. Josling, and D. Roberts. “Product

Differentiation, Sanitary Barriers, and Arbitrage in World

Poultry Markets,” Global Food Trade and Consumer

Demand for Quality, Krissof et al. (eds.), Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2002, pp. 147-

164.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Note: The full report (Mathews et al.) on which this fact sheet was based was published in November 2003, and does not

reflect the confirmation of BSE in a cow in Washington State in December 2003.