U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–649 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–451

TO EXAMINE THE CURRENT SITUATION

REGARDING THE DISCOVERY OF A CASE OF

BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY IN

A DAIRY COW IN WASHINGTON STATE AS

IT RELATES TO FOOD SAFETY, LIVESTOCK

MARKETING AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 27, 2004

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

ZELL MILLER, Georgia 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

HUNT SHIPMAN, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

LANCE KOTSCHWAR, Majority General Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

To Examine the Current Situation Regarding the Discovery of a Case of 

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in a Dairy Cow in Washington state 

as it Relates to Food Safety, Marketing and International Trade ................... 01

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from Mississippi, Chairman, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 01

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 07

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................ 02

Coleman, Hon. Norm, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota ........................................ 08

Conrad, Hon. Kent, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota ...................................... 06

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho ...................................................... 03

Daschle, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from South Dakota ...................................... 15

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from Iowa ................................................. 05

Leahy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Senator from Vermont ............................................. 17

Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, a U.S. Senator from Nebraska .................................. 14

Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from Kansas ................................................... 07

Talent, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from Missouri .............................................. 15

WITNESSES 

Panel I 

Allard, Hon. Wayne, a U.S. Senator from Colorado ............................................. 09

Durbin, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from Illinois ............................................. 12

Panel II 

Veneman, Hon. Ann, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture ....................... 18

Crawford, Lester M., D.V.M., Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner, Food and Drug 

Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 22

Panel III 

Torres, Alfonso, D.V.M., M.S., Ph.D., Associate Dean for Veterinary Public 

Policy, and Executive Director, New York State Animal Health Diagnostic 

Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 48

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 58

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 61

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued

Allard, Hon. Wayne .......................................................................................... 88

Baucus, Hon. Max ............................................................................................ 63

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 74

Crawford, Lester M. ......................................................................................... 118

Durbin, Hon. Richard J. ................................................................................... 80

Grassley, Hon. Chuck ....................................................................................... 71

Leahy, Hon. Patrick ................................................................................................. 78

Nelson, Hon. Ben .............................................................................................. 76

Roberts, Hon. Pat ............................................................................................. 65

Torres, Alfonso .................................................................................................. 148

Veneman, Hon. Ann ......................................................................................... 91

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Allard, Hon. Wayne, Biometrics–The Technological Advancement in

Animal Identification .................................................................................... 154

Fitzgerald, Hon. Peter G. ................................................................................. 156

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie .................................................................................... 157

Supplemental Answer from Dr. Alfonso Torres ............................................. 158

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD: 

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 166 & 180

Baucus, Hon. Max ............................................................................................ 161

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 160

Grassley, Hon. Chuck ....................................................................................... 165 & 182

McConnell, Hon. Mitch .................................................................................... 176

(1)

HEARING TO EXAMINE THE CURRENT 

SITUATION REGARDING THE DISCOVERY OF 

A CASE OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY IN A DAIRY COW IN 

WASHINGTON STATE AS IT RELATES TO 

FOOD SAFETY, LIVESTOCK MARKETING, 

AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room SR–

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran, [Chairman of the Committee], presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Cochran, Roberts, 

Coleman, Crapo, Talent, Grassley, Harkin, Leahy, Conrad, 

Daschle, Baucus, and Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MISSISSIPPI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The committee will please come 

to order. 

Today, our committee meets to conduct a hearing to review the 

status of the administration’s response to the discovery of a case 

of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, and to assess the effect BSE has had on the U.S. livestock industry and the safety of 

our nation’s food supply. 

I am pleased to welcome today the distinguished Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable Ann Veneman, and Dr. Lester Crawford, 

Deputy Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 

who are here today to discuss these issues and answer questions 

from the members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. 

I first wish to compliment the Secretary for the prompt, public 

response she organized and led at the Department of Agriculture 

to investigate and make available to all Americans the facts about 

the BSE discovery. It has been an impressive example of responsible leadership, in my opinion. 

Even though the investigation continues and there are questions 

that are not yet fully answered, the marketplace has stabilized and 

there has been no public panic. Most Americans realize that we 

2

have in place inspection and safety procedures that are effective in 

protecting our food supply, and in spite of the fact that we have 

experienced a serious disruption in the U.S. beef trade, market 

prices are higher than last year’s levels. 

We are hopeful that our trading partners around the world will 

apply the principles of sound science when assessing the risks to 

their markets of this isolated event in the State of Washington. I 

am convinced that it is because of the transparency, with which 

Secretary Veneman and others have led the effort to inform and 

educate the public, that there has been such high consumer confidence in American beef products. 

Our committee is ready to cooperate in any way necessary to 

help strengthen our laws to ensure the integrity and safety of our 

nation’s food supply and the restoration of markets for our food 

products. 

I am pleased at this time to yield to other members of the committee for any statement that they may wish to make. 

[The prepared statement for Chairman Cochran can be found in 

the appendix on page 58.] 

Senator Baucus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

my colleagues, Senator Allard and Senator Durbin, for taking such 

an active interest, and I compliment, too, as has the Chairman, 

Secretary Veneman. She has done a great job. It is a difficult time, 

to say the least, and I know how pressured she has been, but I 

thank you, Madam Secretary, and your people. I have a few suggestions that we can talk about when you testify, but you have 

done, quite a good job. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a fairly lengthy statement and I don’t 

want to take too much of the committee’s time, but there are several issues that concern me. I will just talk about them very briefly. 

One is the need for a trade envoy. I know that the USDA has 

spent a good bit of time talking to various countries, encouraging 

them to open up their markets to U.S. beef, but the Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary of Agriculture has a lot of other issues 

on their plates, to say the least. It is very important, because this 

is such a vital industry to America, that the United States appoint, 

that the President appoint a very top-level person with high prestige whose sole mission is to help work with countries and get them 

to reopen their markets to American beef. We need one person to 

work on this full time. 

Second, we ought to spend a little time on the mouthing rule. I 

certainly understand the general point, namely if the number of 

teeth, the third tooth hasn’t come in in 30 months, the animal is 

too old and more likely to be diseased and placed in the category. 

That is a very imperfect rule because different animals develop at 

different rates. We should take a hard look at that one again to 

make sure that we know what we are doing and we don’t throw, 

not the baby out with the bathwater, we just don’t over react with 

that rule. 

3

Another is country of origin labeling. We have to get this through 

the Congress. I am very upset, frankly, that on this appropriations 

bill, the conferees put in language which delays—I think they did, 

I can’t recall if that was put in the bill or not—and the administration has been working in conjunction with that. That is delaying 

the implementation of country of origin labeling. That is just 

wrong. That doesn’t work. This is a consumer confidence matter. If 

consumers know that it is American beef, we have done a very good 

job, and as I said, you have done a good job, too, Madam Secretary, 

in protecting American beef and particularly the safety of American 

beef and we have to work very hard on that. 

Animal ID is something we have to work on. I understand USDA 

has been working on a national system and I appreciate that. I 

want to talk to you, Madam Secretary, when you testify about what 

kind of timeline you are looking at and how that is working out. 

We in Montana are very proud that we brand all of our cattle. 

Cattle, it is my understanding, east of the Mississippi don’t. The 

States do not brand their cattle east of the Mississippi. We have 

a good system and we are very proud of it. Montana producers 

want to go the extra mile in making sure that our cattle are safe. 

That is, they like the ban on downers. They want, are very, very 

interested, intrigued with a national ID system. They want to find 

a mouthing rule that works. 

It is astounding to me—I am so gratified the degree to which 

Montana stockgrowers have come together to make sure that all is 

being done to ensure that their beef is safe. I know this because 

we have had many meetings in Montana the last couple of weeks, 

in ten different communities in Montana, and this is what producers say, this is what the packers say, and this is what the consumers say. There is unanimity in being very firm but fair here 

and I know you have been working hard. 

One final point is potential insider trading. The disease was 

known, it is my understanding—I might have my dates wrong, I 

am pulling it out of the air—about December 9 or something like 

that, and it was not revealed to the public for some time later. At 

that time, the cattle futures market fell about 15 percent. Now, 

there could be possible reasons why the futures market fell, but I 

want at some point for us to perhaps have the CFTC look at potential insider trading due to the delay between discovery of BSE and 

the date of announcement, which was, in my understanding, about 

ten or 12 days later. I may have the facts wrong, but at the very 

least, let us get that out and see what we can do. 

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is extremely 

important to my people and my State and I thank all those that 

worked very hard to try to find a solution. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus can be found in the 

appendix on page 63.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Crapo. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Chairman Cochran. I appreciate the committee holding this hearing. This is a critical hearing to address the discovery of the case of BSE in a cow imported 

4

from Canada through the State of Washington and the related food 

safety, livestock marketing, and international trade issues that 

have arisen in light of this discovery. 

I would like to thank Senator Allard and Senator Durbin for 

being here today to discuss some of the issues that they are advocating with regard to this issue, and Secretary Veneman, Commissioner Crawford, and Dr. Torres for being here with us today, as 

well. 

Beef cattle is my home State of Idaho’s No. 1 commodity. Valued at more than $975 million annually, it is a vital part of Idaho’s 

economy. Like all of you, I am deeply concerned with the discovery 

of BSE in the United States, not only for the safety of our food supply, but also for the effect that this discovery is having on the livelihood of my fellow Idahoans and our agricultural economy as a 

whole. 

I am confident that our beef supply is safe. The precautions and 

safeguards we had in place worked and worked well. U.S. consumers are blessed with an extremely high quality and competitive 

domestic beef industry. Our cattle ranchers and processors meet 

rigorous safety and quality standards and we have every reason to 

have confidence in the continued safety of our beef supply. 

Secretary Veneman, I would like to commend you and the many 

USDA employees for your quick and diligent response to the discovery. I also appreciate the Department’s effort to work with the 

cattle industry, State and local governments, and others throughout this process. 

So far, three of the cows from the indexed herd have been found 

in Idaho. Close contact with the local cattle industry has been essential and I would encourage the continued and increased communication with affected communities. In my view, more cooperation 

and more coordination between all interested parties is always better, and this open dialog has clearly contributed to maintaining our 

consumer confidence. 

That having been said, as has already been raised by others, 

there are a number of critical issues dealing with how we should 

best manage this issue in this country that will be handled both 

here in Congress, in the Department of Agriculture, and in our respective State Departments of Agriculture as they struggle with 

this difficult issue. 

I would like to express my support for the continued efforts to 

reopen our beef export markets. We all understand the importance 

of regaining these markets to the beef industry. Senator Baucus 

has already mentioned the fact that we have encouraged the establishment of a trade envoy, very specific focus in our Federal Government’s efforts to make sure that these markets are reopened. 

Prolonged closure of our markets could have serious long-term effects that will ripple throughout our entire economy. 

I commend the administration’s efforts and encourage continued 

persistence to reopen the doors of our trading partners. We must 

maintain constant dialog with nations that have banned U.S. beef 

and continue to work to restore their faith in our beef exports so 

that they will terminate their bans. 

Collectively, we must ensure that the proper mechanisms are in 

place to prevent and to respond to future cases, and as good as our 

5

efforts were in response to this case, I am certain that we can improve our abilities. 

Understandably, when incidents such as this occur, it is natural 

to immediately enact changes or new programs to address the 

issue. However, we must use a great level of caution in our pursuit 

of reforms and the further development and expansion of tools, 

such as animal identification programs. We owe it to the agricultural industry and consumers to ensure that we carefully consider 

all available options. Any of these reforms which we adopt must be 

guided by sound science. They must be flexible to take into account 

the needs of local communities and our private industry and not be 

overly cumbersome and intrusive to U.S. cattle operations or to 

American consumers. 

Clearly, questions regarding the current and future responses to 

the discovery of BSE remain to be addressed. Overall, however, I 

have been impressed with our timely response and the continued 

work to address this discovery. I appreciate the administration’s efforts to keep consumers and the ranching community well informed 

at every step in the process. 

Again, I thank Secretary Veneman and the Department for their 

prompt response and our chairman for holding this hearing and 

look forward to working with you all to be sure that we are well 

equipped to prevent and respond to incidents of BSE. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo can be found in the 

appendix on page 74.] 

Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this timely opportunity to discuss a crucial issue. The discovery of a Canadian 

cow carrying BSE in the United States shaved off 20 percent of the 

market price for live cattle and devastated our export markets 

within days of the announcement. While the discovery of the Canadian cow has had and will continue to have a devastating impact 

on cattle producers, I need to commend the Department of Agriculture for initially handling the issue well and solidifying domestic 

consumer confidence. 

I plan to raise many questions today which seemingly might 

challenge the Department’s recent choices, but I recognize that the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture has done an outstanding job and 

no one should question my confidence in our meat supply or my belief that we will overcome some of the issues I will raise today to 

further solidify consumer confidence and reopen foreign markets as 

quickly as possible. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley can be found in the 

appendix on page 71.] 

Senator Conrad, an opening statement? You may proceed. 

6

STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator CONRAD. I thank the Chairman. I thank the Chairman 

very much for holding this hearing. I held a hearing in North Dakota on this subject and it was very interesting, the level of concern across the State with respect to the potential effect on our 

economy. 

I just read the Washington Post this morning. I want to commend USDA for additional steps that have been taken. They are 

very important steps. I must say I was somewhat alarmed at our 

hearing to learn that we have actually been feeding poultry litter 

to cattle in the country. I don’t know how widespread that was, but 

it certainly didn’t make any sense to me. I am very pleased that 

USDA has stopped that practice. It is the right step to have taken. 

In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, there is a story headlined, ‘‘U.S. Investigates Cattle Trades,’’ and in it, it says that Federal 

regulators are investigating whether some commodity traders last 

month had advance knowledge that the first U.S. case of ‘‘mad cow’’ disease was confirmed in Washington State. It goes on to say that 

investigators with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are 

interviewing possible witnesses, reviewing documents and phone 

records, and examining trading patterns on the Chicago Mercantile 

Exchange. At issue are investors who took short positions in live 

cattle futures, betting on a price decline in the days just before the 

December 23 announcement by the Department of Agriculture Secretary. 

That is a serious matter and it is something that I heard a lot 

about at the hearing in North Dakota, a very grave concern that 

there was a gap between the time we knew that that cow was diseased and the time it was reported, a gap between the time we 

knew that cow was from Canada and the time that that was reported, and a very serious concern that some had inside knowledge. 

People who raised the concern are very knowledgeable in the futures market and had been watching developments and were convinced that some had insider knowledge. 

Given the very steep price decline, that is a matter that this committee simply must investigate. I have asked the Inspector General 

to investigate the question of a gap between what was released to 

the public and what we knew about the cow’s origin, if there was 

such a gap, and how it occurred, and what the effects of it were. 

Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, at the hearing in North Dakota, 

there were three things that came up and came up repeatedly. One 

was this question of a gap between the time we knew it was a cow 

from Canada and when that was released to the public. 

The second was a livestock ID system. Last week, the committee 

was briefed by an organization that currently has in operation an 

apparently successful livestock identification system, one that is 

based on ear tags with computer chips. According to this organization, they could scale up a national program within 90 days provided it was funded, and they have estimated it would cost about 

$100 million a year. 

The third issue was country of origin labeling. With USDA’s December 30 announcement, it is now a given that we are going to 

have a national livestock identification system. Common sense 

7

would tell us that having an ID system in place will make it much 

easier and much less costly to implement country of origin labeling, 

since under the ID system we will be tracking cattle from the farm 

to the processor. 

A fundamental question has to be asked and answered today on 

the implementation of country of origin labeling. That is of deep interest to the producers of my State, and with a national identification system, which clearly is going to be required, it would appear 

that putting off country of origin labeling for 2 years really is not 

necessary and that we could speed the implementation of country 

of origin labeling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Roberts. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

KANSAS 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my colleagues, Senator Allard and Senator Durbin, eagerly awaiting to 

shine the light of truth into darkness, so I am going to ask that 

my prepared statement be part of the record, with the exception—

and I have about 11 questions for the Secretary, so to move things 

along, I am not going to read my entire statement. 

In the days after this announcement, the No. 1 priority was to 

maintain consumer confidence in our beef supply. Secretary 

Veneman and her team, along with the National Cattlemen’s Beef 

Association and its State affiliates, really jumped on this issue and 

made sure the real facts and information regarding the case and 

the disease were provided to the American public and the press. It 

is in no small part due to these efforts that we have avoided a replay of the alar disaster some years ago where it cost the apple industry $600 million and they deserve a lot of credit. Television and 

newspaper reporting has been relatively balanced and most consumers have responded by continuing to consume beef. 

I want to thank the Secretary, her team, and especially the 

Cattlemen’s Beef Association and all their State affiliates. I will 

wait until the Secretary comes to respond to questions, and I thank 

the Chairman for holding the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Roberts can be found in the 

appendix on page 65.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Harkin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IOWA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I just ask 

that my statement be made a part of the record. 

Just two things. USDA and FDA are to be commended for the 

openness and the speed with which they have responded. While 

both USDA and FDA’s actions are a strong start, I hope that this 

hearing will shed light on some questions that remain unanswered. 

One of those is the renewed interest in a national animal ID system. Five weeks after intensive investigation, we still have only 

found 28 of the 81 cows that entered the U.S. from Canada with 

8

the infected cow, we are really going to have to look at this ID program. 

Second, we need more scientific information on BSE, how ruminant feed is fed to non-ruminants, how that feed may recycle back 

into ruminant feed later on. I know that former Under Secretary 

Torres, I believe, is going to be testifying to that, and maybe Senator Allard, who is also a veterinarian, could also testify to that. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Harkin. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Harkin can be found in the 

appendix on page 61.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Coleman, you are recognized for any 

opening statement you may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MINNESOTA 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just 

briefly, I want to thank you for holding this very important hearing. I also want to thank the Secretary for being here today. 

I want to echo the Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial of December 31, 2003, which observed, and I quote, ‘‘Agricultural Secretary 

Veneman and the Bush administration deserve praise for moving 

quickly and decisively to respond to the public health threat and 

to the question of worldwide consumer confidence in the safety of 

U.S. beef.’’ The Star Tribune rightly noted that the public can take 

those assurances to heart, and I believe what was true before December 23, 2003, remains true today. America produces the safest, 

most abundant, most affordable food supply in the world, and the 

evidence I have seen of the continued strong consumer confidence 

in the United States is a testimony to that fact. 

My frustration is that there are about 50 countries out there who 

have chosen to wall off their borders to U.S. beef. I would very 

much like to see us continue to move very aggressively to deal with 

that, using sound science and fact. That is all we are asking for, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I have joined in a letter with Senators Baucus, Craig, Nelson, 

and others. We have talked about perhaps sending a high-level 

envoy there. I am not offering any suggestions, but I would say, 

and I haven’t talked to him, somebody like Walter Mondale, former 

U.S. Ambassador to Japan, somebody of that caliber who has relations working with the Secretary. It has to be the right thing in 

dealing with the international community and I will certainly defer 

to the Secretary’s judgment. We need that kind of approach, to go 

to folks and say, all we are asking is sound science and fact. That 

is what this is about. 

Two other quick observations. One, a matter that was raised in 

the Star Tribune is the need for a national animal identification 

program, and that is important. I know my colleagues have 

touched upon that. Madam Secretary, I do applaud her decision on 

December 30, that you have begun work on the national ID program. That is helpful. 

Then the last comment is the FDA decision of yesterday does 

raise some questions that I hope we address today. Does this announcement make our beef supply safer and by how much? Does 

9

it do anything to reopen our markets? Again, that issue is important for me and my cattlemen. How does it impact our ability to 

feed animals? I look forward to hearing the answers to these and 

other questions. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your leadership in 

bringing this important hearing before us today. Thank you very, 

very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Coleman, for your comments. 

Let me welcome our distinguished colleagues, Senator Durbin 

from Illinois, Senator Allard from Colorado. I am going to ask Senator Allard to proceed with his statement and then we will call on 

Senator Durbin. I hope you can limit your statements to 5 or 10 

minutes at the most, if that is all right. I don’t want to cut you off, 

but we do have the Secretary and the Food and Drug Administration Deputy Commissioner awaiting the opportunity to testify. 

Senator Allard. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

COLORADO 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you will let me 

know when we get to 5 minutes, I will wrap it up. I would ask that 

you put my full statement in the record, if you would. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank you for convening this timely and very important hearing. I appreciate the 

committee making the accommodation to allow me to appear this 

morning. I would also like to extend a welcome to Secretary 

Veneman and Dr. Crawford and also my colleague, Senator Durbin. 

The level of participation in bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

roundtables and panels across the country, as well as the interest 

in this hearing, is one more sign that government, industry, and 

the retail sector are taking this matter very seriously and will take 

all necessary and reasonable measures to isolate this occurrence 

and prevent future incidents. 

Let me start by stating that I believe U.S. beef is safe. When a 

single BSE-positive cow was found in Washington State, our food 

safety policy and safeguards worked. USDA acted quickly and effectively. Where there were room for improvements, I believe 

USDA seized the opportunity to make them. 

Everyone may agree that we have learned a tremendous amount 

from this finding. Future policy recommendations will obviously 

need to take into account those changes that are believed necessary 

as a result of the recent finding, especially as we learn what 

worked and what did not and what we need to know in the future. 

We must continue to implement the requisite measures to protect 

our food supply, but there is no reason to question the integrity of 

American meat safety and the overall safety of the system. 

I believe that the government is taking a hard-line stance 

against further occurences of BSE in the United States, as evidenced by the major announcement by the Secretary several weeks 

ago. While we had hoped this day would never come, it was an 

eventuality that we had to be prepared for. 

10

As Members of Congress, it is our duty to help enact legislation 

that protects the consumer and safeguards our national food supply. However, consumer protection and national security must not 

stifle the ability of the agriculture industry to produce food efficiently and affordably. If they do, we will have undermined the various very goals that we were attempting to accomplish. Overburdensome rules and regulations will hinder the ability of agriculture to provide our nation with food, threatening our nation’s 

independence and security by making us dependent on foreign nations, nations that may not place as much emphasis on safety as 

we in the United States do. 

In simple terms, our food supply policy must avoid the pitfalls of 

our energy policy. We rely some 60 percent on foreign energy 

sources. We don’t want to put ourselves in that position as far as 

beef and food supply. 

We have had our warning and we must take it very, very seriously. If we do not, we will pay for it with the economic life of the 

producer and retailer. If rules are not followed, if regulations are 

not adhered to, no one has more to lose than those who failed to 

follow them. A 75 percent compliance rate when it comes to feed 

regulations will not afford the level of protection we need to maintain the integrity of animal health, and blatant violations are intolerable. 

In the past several weeks, the USDA has taken several steps 

that were not necessarily embraced by all with open arms, but 

most agreed they were the proper response to the task at hand. We 

all realize that the finding of BSE is a serious challenge to consumer confidence and the industry’s financial stability. Government must take strong measures to bolster confidence and ensure 

consumers that American beef is a safe and wholesome product. I 

believe Secretary Veneman took the first step with her policy announcement several weeks ago. 

I believe that these actions by the Secretary will enhance the 

safety of the American food supply. The three major policy directives dealing with downer animals, verification, and specified risk 

material are a step in the right direction, but as is always the case, 

the devil is in the details. 

As a veterinarian, I am committed to the idea that any measures 

imposed must be science-based. While these recent actions do have 

sound footing and are logical decisions given the characteristics of 

BSE, there is still much work to be done to protect both consumer 

safety and the industry. 

Much work must be done on defining and identifying downer animals. This issue has been highly controversial and much discussion 

has taken place on the matter on Capitol Hill. Are animals with 

nerve damage from calving to be forbidden, or only aged and sick 

animals? Who will be the one to determine which case is which? 

These questions must be worked out at great length by those most 

knowledgeable about the industry and food supply. I am also hopeful that the USDA will provide my constituents with further guidance when it comes to matters like dentition and animal age 

verification. 

In terms of verification and traceability, a true verification and 

identification program, perhaps using retinal scanning and other 

11

biometric technologies would provide immediate background resources on the origin and presence of every animal leaving marketing to the retailer and the producer. In fact, Swift and Company 

is using just such technology in Colorado, Idaho, and Nebraska as 

part of the beef industry’s first traceability program. 

This is about tracking the cow and food health, not politics. It 

would provide answers in times of emergency and provide closure 

during the critical first hours of an epidemiological investigation. 

A credible identification plan must take into account identity and 

location, a fact that I encourage the USDA to consider when developing the forthcoming identification plans. 

I would add at this time, Mr. Chairman, and I know one of the 

members on your committee had talked about the tag identification, I hope that the USDA in putting forth rules and regulations 

will allow enough flexibility that they don’t let just one technology 

prevail, that it be open for new technologies that will be coming to 

us in the future so that as they are developed, they can be put to 

use if they are a better system. 

At this time, I would ask the Chairman that the full text of a 

statement I entered into the Congressional Record last week on 

this issue be inserted into the committee’s record, as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Senator ALLARD. While such a verification program will indeed 

cost producers money, I believe that retail chains would eventually 

demand such assurances anyway. In the long run, such verification 

will enhance the value of the product and prove a valuable tool in 

domestic and international sales. 

As implementation of the USDA directives moves forward, I encourage the USDA to continue working cooperatively with the beef 

industry. Together, we will not only improve food safety, but we 

can also restore access to important markets, an important component of our economy. 

Food safety goes hand-in-hand with the restoration of our markets. We have all seen the list of nations that have banned U.S. 

beef. We must work diligently to reopen these markets and to reestablish the trust and confidence that I know the U.S. beef industry deserves. In my own State, employee hours at beef processing 

plants are being cut back, hurting the whole Colorado economy. 

As we continue to trace back, trace forward, verify, confirm, and 

cull, we cannot allow nations to block our products under the guise 

of BSE in order to bolster their own industry or to cultivate relationships with other exporters. A sound process must be in place 

immediately that provides assurances to other nations about the 

quality and safety of the meat they receive. This must be a high 

priority of the Congress and administration and I intend to make 

sure that such discussions take place. 

Thank you, and remember this. Beef is still what is for dinner. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Allard. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Allard can be found in the 

appendix on page 88.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Durbin, you may proceed. 

12

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for your leadership in holding this hearing 

and my special thanks to Secretary Veneman. I want to join on a 

bipartisan basis in thanking her for her leadership. I am sure this 

was a very difficult holiday season for her, but she rose to the challenge and she rallied America to do the right thing, to move in the 

right direction, and that is a very, very important thing and I salute her for that. 

I also want to address, though, some of the elements and questions which still remain. I wrote a letter to the Secretary a few 

weeks ago asking about the delay in diagnosing BSE in the cow 

last month in Washington State. Given the focus of this hearing, 

I would like to discuss some of the questions I asked. 

If the inspectors recognized that the animal was uncoordinated 

or unable to rise on her own, why was she allowed into the human 

food chain at all? I am told by veterinarians that the behavior of 

an animal with calving paralysis and the behavior of an animal 

with a neurological disorder, such as BSE, is virtually indistinguishable. Why was this carcass not held until BSE test results 

were known? It was only after the incident that the USDA adopted 

a test and hold policy on all BSE-tested animals. 

I also wonder why it took 13 days to obtain the presumptive positive result test for BSE. I understand immunohistochemistry analysis usually takes 5 to 7 days. As a result of the delay, the animal 

was processed, according to Dr. Steven Solomon from FDA, into 2.8 

million pounds of consumer product, all of which were potentially 

contaminated. 

To prevent future unnecessary delays in obtaining BSE test results, the USDA should adopt the use of rapid BSE tests on all cattle and bison presented for processing that are either suspect or 

over 30 months of age. If a rapid test had been used on the cow 

in Washington State, the results would have been known within a 

few hours instead of days, avoiding the need for a costly recall. 

How many cattle in America have BSE? Answering that question 

today is similar to trying to estimate the prevalence of HIV by only 

testing individuals who have symptoms of AIDS. At the current 

level of testing, we have no real estimate of the true prevalence of 

BSE in America. Using rapid BSE testing on suspect and older cattle would provide critical surveillance data that could make clear 

whether we truly have a BSE problem in our country and demonstrate to our customers and partners around the world that they 

have nothing to fear. 

Expanding BSE surveillance will cost money. However, a Consumer Union’s poll released today shows that 71 percent of Americans who eat beef said they are willing to pay more to support testing cattle for BSE. Of these, 95 percent say they would pay an additional ten cents a pound for beef that is tested. 

I introduced legislation last week that will reduce the likelihood 

that meat from BSE will reach the food supply. This bill, S. 2007, 

codifies some of the USDA’s recent steps, which I applaud. It restricts the importation of more ruminant-derived materials, plugs 

loopholes in the current ruminant feed restrictions, requires testing 

13

of older cattle, and expands surveillance and research for chronic 

wasting disease in deer and elk and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in 

people. 

I reflected for a moment before this hearing, Mr. Chairman, 

about September 11. On September 11, 3,000 innocent Americans 

lost their lives. Nineteen terrorists were identified. It was one of 

the most tragic moments in American history. 

I wondered if we would have been able to summon the will to respond had that tragedy been averted and one of those terrorists 

been discovered ahead of time and his plot uncovered. I wonder if 

we would have been able to summon the will with that warning 

signal to create a new coordinated Federal agency, to revise laws 

giving our law enforcement more authority, to confront a major industry like the airline industry about the need for more safety, and 

I thought about our hearing today. 

We are dealing with a situation where we have a clear warning. 

What happened in Moses Lake, Washington, is an indication of 

what could happen on a much grander scale. I certainly agree with 

my colleague, Senator Allard, and all of you. We have the safest 

food supply in the world. We now have fair warning. What happened with this cow in Washington is fair warning that we need 

to summon the same political will as we did after September 11, 

to come together on a timely, bipartisan basis to look at some very 

troubling issues, issues which involve the role of government and 

the private sector, issues which really demand of us more efficient 

government response to make certain that we continue to have the 

safest food supply in the world. 

I have said for many years, and I continue to say, we need a single food agency. We currently have over a dozen different agencies 

in our government responsible for food safety, more than 35 laws, 

dozens of committees with jurisdiction. Look at this issue. The feed 

being given to the cattle is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The animal is regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. When we are talking about chronic wasting disease in elk 

and other animals, that is regulated by the Department of the Interior. Why? Why is this spread all over government? Why doesn’t it 

come together, as we did with the Department of Homeland Security, into one science-based operation that we can turn to with confidence? That is our challenge. 

Instead of a dead canary in a cage, Mr. Chairman, we have a 

broken down dairy cow in Washington. The message, however, is 

clear. The safest food supply in the world is vulnerable. Will we 

have the political will to make the important decisions to keep it 

safe? The challenge is not just to reopen our markets. The challenge is to make certain that we do everything humanly possible 

and scientifically sound to close the door on any unsafe food that 

may find its way to the tables of American families and our customers around the world. I sincerely hope on a bipartisan and 

timely basis we can summon the will to respond. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin can be found in the 

appendix on page 80.] 

14

The CHAIRMAN. There have been members of the committee who 

joined the hearing after opening statements have been made, but 

I am going to recognize them for any opening statement they wish 

to make. Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want 

to commend Secretary Veneman and her staff for responding rapidly to this beef crisis and for their efforts to work at the level necessary to deal with the issue in foreign countries. 

Obviously, there are two points here to be made. Food safety is 

one of them, and the actions that they have taken are going to only 

improve the food safety issue. That deals with credibility. There 

has never been that much of a credibility issue with the domestic 

market, but the foreign markets, some of them, have taken this in 

a form of protectionism. 

I learned a new word the other day, or some new words. Instead 

of over reaction, an abundance of caution. There has been an abundance of caution taken by many of the foreign countries in stopping 

the exports for our beef. We have to deal with exports and imports 

as quickly as we possibly can. I have learned a lot of new words 

over the year, credibility, food safety, protectionism, lost markets 

and delays, but the only word that we really want to focus on here 

today is not simply what we are doing but when will we get the 

export markets opened. 

I have said recently that I am interested in sending a person to 

Mars, but I am a lot more interested right now in sending beef to 

Japan and all the other Asian and other markets that we have had 

over the years. In Nebraska, we are at risk for 21,000 jobs that will 

be lost if this continues over a protracted period of time. The question is, when will we get those markets reopened and what will it 

take? 

I have joined several of my colleagues and said the administration needs a special envoy. Also the President needs to make some 

calls to many of the leaders of the foreign countries that are engaging in what may be protectionism or this overabundance of caution. 

It strikes me as odd, if my information is correct, that Mexico is 

denying exports of U.S. beef but permits boxed beef from Canada. 

These issues have to be resolved, and the only question my cattle 

growers in Nebraska and the people who work in the industry that 

supports cattle growers in the beef industry are asking is when will 

this open. Nebraska beef exports during the years when I was Governor went up from $400 million to over $800 million in 7 years. 

I notice that they have gone up since then. Due to this crisis, they 

are dropping, and that is a concern that we must address here 

today. 

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your calling this together, calling us 

together in this hearing. There is an assumption that only the Midwest deals with beef. Quite frankly, every State has a beef industry 

to one degree or another. It just happens that Nebraska relies significantly on this, and one out of five steaks in the United States 

is Nebraska beef. I could say in a partisan way, I am sorry for 

15

those other poor four folks, but there are cattle that are grown outside of Nebraska that are pretty good, too. 

We have a problem, I appreciate it, and I hope that we can get 

the answer to when will this protectionism, when will this embargo 

against United States beef be ended. That is the only question that 

I am interested in today because that is, in fact, the bottom line. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson can be found in the 

appendix on page 76.] 

Senator Talent, do you have an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES TALENT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MISSOURI 

Senator TALENT. Just very briefly. I have one I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to compliment the Secretary and the Department for 

a very quick response. The fact that consumer confidence in the 

food system has stayed high is a testimony to that. In a sense, we 

are dealing with a system that has worked in the sense that it has 

protected the safety of our food supply, and that is why all of us 

can sit here and say we have the safest food supply in the world. 

We do. 

The question is, how can we improve the system so as to ensure 

that there is no leakage of confidence, if you will, that the response 

is so swift that confidence remains high, even when a lack of confidence might not be based on science. Also, as Senator Nelson 

said, no one around the world has an excuse for closing their markets to our product. 

That is what I am interested in finding out. There are several 

aspects of the issues I want to go into with the Secretary, Mr. 

Chairman. I have, as I said, a statement I would like to submit for 

the record and I thank you for giving me an opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the statement will be printed 

in full in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daschle. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DASCHLE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator DASCHLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, join with 

others in thanking you for this timely and important hearing. The 

article in the Wall Street Journal today again illustrates the degree 

to which there are still unanswered questions about what happened and why, and the more this committee can aggressively pursue all of those issues and questions, the better off our country will 

be. 

I join with others, as I have personally, in commending the Secretary for many of the actions she has taken, one in particular. She 

took a little heat last week on the downer cattle decision. It was 

the right decision, and I told her personally and want to say publicly that I appreciate the decision she made with regard to downer 

cattle. 

I am concerned that we are virtually the only country in the 

world that now have that policy. There are countries all over the 

16

world that have the policy we once had, that we had until just recently with regard to downer cattle. A lot of that cattle comes into 

this country and we have no guarantee that those downer cattle ultimately don’t enter into the feed and food system at some point. 

That, again, is why many of us have said it is so critical for us 

to have country of origin labeling, so people understand that we 

have, as the Senator from Missouri just noted, a higher standard 

for safety and quality than other countries do. We threaten that 

quality and that safety to a certain extent when we allow downer 

cattle to come in without any indication that this is a foreign product. 

This is yet another illustration, another argument, in my view, 

why country of origin labeling is so critical. In that regard, I am 

also curious, and I am hoping the Secretary can address somewhat 

of a technical intention about her intentions with regard to country 

of origin labeling. The law requires the regulations to be promulgated by September. The law also now stipulates, as we have 

deemed it to be so in the passage of the omnibus appropriations 

bill, not to be implemented until 1 year from now, in September of 

2006. There is a distinction. 

The wild and raised fish regulations will be implemented on time 

this September. The question is, will the regulations for all country 

of origin labeling be promulgated as required by law, and this is 

something I hope that the Secretary can clarify. If I am here, I 

want to be able to ask her that question. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also say, as others have suggested, there 

are a number of other actions that ought to be taken. We ought to 

extend indefinitely this ban on live cattle from Canada. We ought 

to rescind the order on boxed beef that was made last October. I 

believe that we ought to have far greater effort on the prioritization 

for greater testing than what we have seen so far. We can do better 

than we are doing today on testing. We need a regimen, we need 

a plan, and we need to work together to see that that is achieved. 

Also, Senator Nelson made a good point, one that many of us 

have made over a period of time. We need to send the highest-level 

negotiator we possibly can to these countries to tell them to open 

up their borders once again. There is absolutely no reason why 

they shouldn’t be taking U.S. meat products, and beef in particular, 

and we need to make that point as clearly and as emphatically as 

we can and hopefully open those borders as quickly as we can. 

We also need to deal with all of that product that is still out 

there, not able to penetrate those markets. We don’t want it to 

come back here. We need to find a place for it to land. We haven’t 

done that yet, and it is critical we find a suitable market for it. 

Finally, to the point that Senator Durbin made, it is critical we 

consider reorganizing ourselves in this Federal Government in 

order to accommodate the demands, the challenges, and the extraordinary complexity that we face as a country today. We can’t 

do that with the disjointed, bifurcated, and extraordinarily complex 

array of bureaucratic boxes that we have created to address this 

issue in the future. I hope we can work on that, as well. 

This is a good start, a good hearing, an important time to have 

it, and I commend the Chairman for holding it. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

17

Senator Leahy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put a long 

statement in the record, but I do want to thank you for having this 

hearing. It is extremely important and I am glad, notwithstanding 

the weather, that you did not reschedule it. 

I want to thank Secretary Veneman, of course, for being here. 

She and I had a long talk about the hearing yesterday. Of course, 

Deputy Commissioner Crawford, Mr. Torres are coming to this 

hearing on the Department’s response to finding the BSE-positive 

cow in Washington State a month ago. 

At the outset, I want to recognize the Department of Agriculture 

and the Food and Drug Administration’s action in responding to 

what has been a difficult time for American agriculture and American consumers. I want you to know that I believe you have taken 

steps in several areas that I believe are essential to prevent a serious outbreak of BSE, to be able to tame one should an outbreak 

occur. 

As I told the Secretary yesterday, I joined with the Chairman 

and several others from this committee, Senator Roberts and Senator Coleman, who were in South America. This issue was raised, 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, at just about every single meeting we had, 

whether as a head of government or ministers of agriculture. I 

admit that some threw a little bit of crocodile tears about it, but 

there is no question that all of them accept the fact that American 

agriculture pretty well sets the standards for safety and they were 

asking each one of us what is going to happen next. 

It is a time for us to examine the steps necessary to increase the 

safety of all Americans. First, I believe we need to ban downed 

cows from entering the human food chain. Clearly, there is already 

opposition to your regulation. Congress may need to act and assure 

these regulations are not rolled back. 

I am pleased the FDA announced yesterday, just ahead of this 

hearing, stricter regulations on the feed we give our cows. The announcement yesterday may have been a coincidence, but the hearing encouraged them to go forward, another good reason for the 

hearing, Mr. Chairman. Until yesterday’s announcement, FDA regulations allowed blood to be fed to cattle. There is still no restriction on rendering all parts of cattle into feed for pigs and poultry, 

which in turn can be entirely rendered and fed back to themselves 

and to cattle. 

Finally, Madam Secretary, as I said to you yesterday, we have 

to establish a national tracking system for every cow in the United 

States to trace animals from birth to slaughter within 48 hours to 

combat animal disease outbreaks. I know USDA has indicated they 

may soon stop their investigation of the remaining 53 animals and 

cows that were imported from Canada with the infected cow because poor record keeping has limited their ability to locate these 

remaining cows. I know that your people have been working 

around the clock to try to do that. It is another example of the need 

for a national animal ID system. 

18

Madam Secretary, and I will put my full statement in the record, 

I hope you know that all of us up here on both sides of the aisle 

want this to hurt. Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and Senator Harkin on having this hearing. Thank you for doing this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy can be found in the 

appendix on page 78.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Madam Secretary and Dr. Crawford, if you could 

come forward, we appreciate very much your patience and your attendance at the hearing today. The Honorable Ann Veneman is 

Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, as we 

know. Dr. Lester Crawford is a doctor of veterinary medicine and 

has a Ph.D. degree, as well. He is Deputy Commissioner of the 

United States Food and Drug Administration. 

We have copies of statements that each witness has prepared 

and submitted to the committee in advance. We thank you very 

much for that. Those statements will be made a part of the record 

in full. We encourage you to make any summary comments that 

you think would be helpful to the committee’s understanding of the 

issues before us and then we will have an opportunity to ask questions of each of you. 

Secretary Veneman, welcome. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Secretary VENEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 

all the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear 

here today and thank you for holding this hearing. I also want to 

thank you all for your kind comments about the process that USDA 

has gone through over the past month as we confronted this issue 

which we hoped we would never have to deal with. 

In the interest of time, I would like to submit my comments for 

the record in writing, along with an attached timeline of what happened—that was included in our comments—and then just summarize and follow through on a few of the issues. 

As you know, on December 23, we received word that a tissue 

sample taken as part of our routine surveillance system tested presumptive positive for BSE. We had in place a BSE response plan 

which was first developed in 1990 and has been continually updated since then to reflect the latest knowledge about the disease 

and the lessons learned from other countries that have had cases 

of BSE. 

Upon hearing of the BSE find, we immediately began to implement the plan. We began an investigation to determine the origin 

of the cow and to identify and locate her offspring and cohorts. Ultimately, DNA tests and other documentation confirmed that the 

animal originated on an Alberta dairy farm. 

We focused much of our efforts on 81 animals that we know came 

from the Canadian birth herd. International standards also tell us 

that animals of special significance are those born within a year before or after the positive animal. This 2-year window is based on 

animals that are likely to have consumed the same feed source. 

Given that standard, we have now determined that there are 25 

19

out of the 81 animals that fit in that 2-year window around the 

birth of the indexed cow. 

Based upon statistical examination of culling rates, we would 

have expected to find that only 11 of those 25 animals would still 

be found alive. In fact, we have found 14 of those 25 animals of significance. From a statistical standpoint, our tracing efforts to date 

have been remarkable. 

All animals tested in this process so far have tested negative. Although the investigation is ongoing, given the estimates of the 

number culled, it is unlikely that we will find all the remaining 

animals. Even in the case of those animals that are not found, we 

would not expect them to pose a significant risk to public health 

or animal health. 

First, we know that based on the international experience. Even 

at the height of the BSE in the United Kingdom, it was rare to find 

more than one or two positive animals in a single herd. The Harvard risk assessment also found that the risk of spread of BSE in 

the U.S. is very low. 

Second, our protection systems, including those enhancements 

we announced December 30, are those which protect us from widespread cases of this disease. As part of our trace-forward of the 

products, we determined that high-risk products, such as brain and 

spinal cord, did not enter the food system. Nevertheless, we issued 

a recall of all of the meat that came out of that plant for the day 

in question. 

We sent a sample of the indexed cow for confirmation to the 

World Organization for Animal Health Reference Laboratory in 

England. We decided to immediately inform the public on December 23, prior to the ultimate confirmation in England, based on our 

confidence in the accuracy of the test conducted by our scientists 

at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa. 

On December 30, 1 week after the find, I announced a series of 

actions to further enhance our already strong safeguards that protect the public health and animal health and to help maintain consumer confidence. These included an immediate ban on non-ambulatory or so-called downer animals from the food system and further restrictions on specified risk materials, such as brain and spinal cord tissue, from entering the food supply. 

Now, at this point, I would like to answer one of the questions 

raised by Senator Daschle, who indicated that there wouldn’t be a 

guarantee on downers from other countries. In fact, once we announced these regulations and then put them in the Federal Register as interim final rules on the 12th of January, we then required the same treatment or equivalent treatment from other 

countries and our exporting partners have now implemented the 

same or similar regulations to those that we announced on the 

30th. We also announced on December 30 that the meat from any 

cattle tested for BSE will be held until a test has been confirmed 

negative, a so-called test and hold policy. 

We were able to act quickly on these actions because of the advance planning we had undertaken after the find in Canada but 

before the find on December 23 in the U.S. 

We also announced on December 30 that we will be expediting 

the implementation of a verifiable system of national animal identiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:51 May 19, 2004 Jkt 091649 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91649.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
20

fication, and I heard a lot of interest in that subject today. Our goal 

is a nationwide system that is uniform, consistent, and efficient. 

In keeping with our commitment to continually review our systems, I also announced that an international panel of experts 

would be convened to review our investigative efforts and recommend possible further enhancements. They arrived in the U.S. 

last week and began that review. This international review team 

is a subcommittee of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases. Our officials have had a positive 

exchange with them and provided all the information that they 

have requested. The international review team will now compile its 

report for submission in about 2 weeks and we look forward to 

their findings and their recommendations. 

All of the actions that we are taking are in addition to the strong 

safeguards that we had in place before December 23, some of which 

I have already alluded to. As you may know, in November 2001, 

an independent risk assessment by Harvard University found that 

based on those existing safeguards, BSE is highly unlikely to become established in the United States should the disease be detected in our country. As a result of the Harvard analysis, we announced additional preventative actions, such as increased surveillance and the testing of certain ground beef products for central 

nervous system tissue. 

In 2003, we asked Harvard to reassess the situation, taking into 

account the BSE find in Canada in May of 2003. In August, Harvard reaffirmed the findings of the initial study. 

Throughout this process, we have been committed to maintaining 

public health, safety and consumer confidence in our systems. 

Some 90 percent of U.S. produced beef is consumed domestically, 

and all indications are that the confidence of the U.S. consumer in 

the safety of American beef remains very strong. We believe this 

is due in part to the quick and aggressive steps that we took to protect public health. 

Unfortunately, most of our export markets, including our key 

buyers, Japan, Mexico, Korea, and others, immediately closed their 

markets to U.S. beef after the December 23rd announcement. The 

loss of exports had an immediate impact on the cattle market, resulting in an initial drop of 15 to 20 percent in cattle prices on cash 

and futures markets. However, prices have strengthened over the 

past couple of weeks and markets are now down just 5 to 8 percent 

from the levels prior to the BSE finding, with current cattle prices 

still above year-ago levels. 

Regaining our export markets is a top priority for this administration. We are pleased that Poland has become the first country 

to reinstate imports of U.S. beef and we continue efforts with our 

trading partners to resume trade. 

Within days of this finding, we dispatched USDA Senior Trade 

Advisor David Hegwood and Dr. Chuck Lambert, our Deputy 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, to Japan 

and South Korea to explain the investigation and the rigorous safeguards that we already had in place. 

Earlier this month, U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick and I 

each had very encouraging meetings with the Japanese trade minister, and Ambassador Zoellick announced just yesterday that he 

21

will go to Japan the second week in February to discuss the WTO 

and the beef issue with high-level officials in Japan. 

Two weeks ago, I had a lengthy discussion with Japan’s Minister 

of Agriculture Kamei to impress upon him the importance of finding a practical solution to allow resumption of trade and releasing 

into commercial channels beef that was shipped to Japan prior to 

December 23. The minister stated that Japan is looking forward to 

resuming trade. 

Dr. J.B. Penn, USDA’s Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services, is returning this evening after leading a delegation of USDA and FDA officials, including Dr. Crawford, who 

came home early to be here today but was on most of the trip, and 

they had discussions in Japan, the Philippines, Hong Kong, and 

South Korea. These visits have been well received and discussions 

will continue following the completion of our investigation. 

We have also had a team visit China to discuss our response actions. In addition, I have had numerous conversations with the 

ministers from Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, and others on an 

ongoing basis to keep them informed of our progress. 

It is important to note that both Canada and the Philippines 

have allowed at least a portion of their markets to remain open to 

our beef. 

Dr. Penn and Mr. Bill Hawks, Under Secretary for Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs, traveled to Mexico for productive discussions earlier this month. Just yesterday, I again spoke with Secretary Usabiaga, my counterpart in Mexico, and Under Secretary 

Hawks will be in Mexico again next week. 

On January 16, I hosted a meeting of my counterparts from Canada and Mexico, Minister Speller from Canada and Secretary 

Usabiaga from Mexico. We agreed to develop an enhanced consultative process to facilitate a consistent North American response. 

In addition, technical teams from Japan and Mexico spent several days in the United States meeting with technical experts at 

USDA and the Food and Drug Administration. The Japanese team 

also traveled to the State of Washington to review the investigation 

there, and the Mexicans visited processing facilities in Colorado. 

Another Mexican delegation has been visiting the U.S. this week. 

Our efforts to restore our foreign markets continues to be a top 

priority and we urge our trading partners to resume trade based 

on sound scientific principles. 

In summary, our investigation has made a lot of headway in the 

past 5 weeks. We have further enhanced our protection systems. 

Our food supply and the public health remain protected and consumer confidence in the beef supply has been maintained. We are 

working diligently to restore our export markets. I am very proud 

of the accomplishments of our very dedicated USDA team. As our 

efforts proceed, we will continue to provide complete and timely updates to the public. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank you and the members of 

the committee for holding this hearing today. I look forward to discussing all of these issues with the committee members. Thank you 

very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Secretary Veneman. 

22

[The prepared statement of Secretary Veneman can be found in 

the appendix on page 91.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Crawford, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF LESTER M. CRAWFORD, D.V.M., PH.D., DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing addressing the finding 

of a BSE-positive cow in Washington State and activities of the 

Federal Government to safeguard human and animal health in the 

United States from BSE. 

I am Les Crawford, Deputy Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration. I am pleased and honored to be here with Secretary 

Veneman to describe FDA’s contribution to these efforts. 

I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, how much we at FDA admire 

the latest shift that Secretary Veneman has taken. Of all the countries that have had this disease, and I believe there are about 22 

now, no country has stepped forward with a more bold and aggressive program. We are very pleased to be part of that team. 

Our mission is to protect the public health by assuring the safety 

and effectiveness of our nation’s human and veterinary drugs, 

human biological products, medical devices, human and animal 

food supply, cosmetics, and radiation-emitting products. In fulfilling this mission, the agency is responsible for assuring that all 

FDA-regulated products remain safe and uncompromised from BSE 

and related diseases. 

FDA has a longstanding commitment to protecting consumers 

from BSE. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA 

has used adulteration and misbranding provisions to prohibit ruminant feed from containing specified mammalian protein, and the 

same adulteration and misbranding provisions apply to human 

food. Further, for medical products that require premarket approval, such as drugs and medical devices, FDA has addressed 

safety concerns related to BSE through requirements of the application and approval process. 

Yesterday, I am pleased to report that Secretary Thompson and 

FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan announced that the agency intends to issue rules to ban from human food and cosmetics and dietary supplements a wide range of material from cattle so that the 

same safeguards that protect Americans from exposure to BSE 

through meat products also apply to food and other FDA-regulated 

products. We are also adding a series of additional firewalls in our 

feed rule that will make our efforts to protect the public health 

even more robust. 

In my testimony, I am going to briefly describe our current protections against the spread of BSE and also discuss the additional 

science-based steps we announced yesterday. 

In 1998, the USDA commissioned the Harvard Center for Risk 

Analysis to conduct an analysis and evaluation of the U.S. regulatory measures to prevent the spread of BSE in the U.S. and to 

reduce the potential exposure of U.S. consumers to BSE. The Harvard study concluded, among other things, that even if introduced 

23

into the United States, due to the preventative measures currently 

in place in this country, BSE is extremely unlikely to become established in this country. 

Our existing firewalls are effective and our new ones will add 

even greater security and enhanced public confidence. Our existing 

firewalls are based on a five-prong regulatory strategy. 

The first one is formed through regulations and enforcement to 

protect U.S. borders from potentially infective materials utilizing a 

regime of import controls. Major restrictions on imports were put 

in place by the USDA beginning in 1989 and more restrictive import controls have been introduced as we have learned more about 

the science of BSE and as the worldwide epidemiology has 

changed. FDA remains a committed partner with the Department 

of Agriculture and Customs and Border Protection in protecting our 

borders. 

The second firewall is surveillance of the U.S. cattle population 

for the presence of BSE. Surveillance of the cattle population is the 

primary responsibility of USDA, and USDA has recently announced steps to increase surveillance. 

The third firewall is prevention of the amplification of BSE 

through feed provided to cattle and other ruminants, and this responsibility falls primarily on FDA. FDA’s animal feed ban regulations form the basis of this third firewall and have been cited as 

one of the most significant elements needed to prevent the spread 

of BSE in the United States. FDA implemented this rule to establish in our country feeding practices consistent with the best available science to prevent the spread of BSE throughout herds of U.S. 

cattle. We have taken intensive steps to get an extremely high level 

of compliance with this feed ban, and as a result, we have been 

able to work with the animal feed industry to achieve more than 

a 99 percent compliance rate and we intend to continue to work for 

full compliance. 

As a result of this rule and the other firewalls that make up the 

U.S. framework, the risk of exposure to BSE through products FDA 

regulates remains extremely low in the United States. 

The fourth firewall is making sure that no bovine materials that 

can transmit BSE will be consumed by people. Even if a BSE-positive cow made it through all of the previous firewalls, which is extremely unlikely, it would not pose any risk to people. USDA and 

FDA have long had steps in place to help prevent any possible exposure to BSE in bovine products. Recently, USDA announced additional major steps to prevent any of the tissues known to carry 

BSE from entering the beef supply as well as to restrict use of certain downer cows that might be at higher risk of carrying BSE. 

Yesterday, we announced comparable measures to prevent human 

exposure to the bovine products that potentially harbor BSE. 

The fifth firewall is effective response planning to contain the potential for any damage from a BSE-positive animal if one is discovered at some point in the system. This response plan went into 

place immediately upon the discovery of a BSE-positive cow in 

Washington State on December 23. We have inspected and traced 

products to 22 facilities, including feed mills, farms, dairy farms, 

calf feeder lots, slaughterhouses, meat processors, transfer stations, 

and shipping terminals. We have accounted for all the high-risk 

24

materials related to the BSE-positive cow that FDA regulates and 

none have gone into human or animal consumption. Moreover, 

FDA has conducted inspections at all the rendering facilities involved and found they were fully in compliance with our feed rule. 

The goal of our firewall after firewall approach is to provide full 

protection of the public against BSE without adding unnecessary 

cost or restricting the consumption of safe beef products. Working 

with USDA, we intend to maintain an extremely high level of compliance with each firewall. In addition, a multi-layered approach 

makes sure that even if each firewall doesn’t function perfectly, the 

U.S. consumer is nonetheless protected from exposure to the BSEinfected material. 

To maximize protection afforded by the feed regulation, FDA has 

also developed and implemented a BSE ruminant feed ban inspection compliance program and established the goal of 100 percent 

compliance. FDA and its State counterparts conduct, at least annually, BSE inspections of 100 percent of known renderers, protein 

blenders, and feed mills processing products containing material 

prohibited from use in ruminant feed. 

As of December 20, 2003, FDA had received over 26,000 inspection reports. The total number of inspection reports represent 

13,672 firms, 1,949 of which are active and handle materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed. The 1,949 active firms that handle prohibited material have been inspected by FDA, and as of December 31, 2003, only five were found to have significant violations 

resulting in official action indicated. FDA is working with these 

firms to bring them into compliance. 

In addition, FDA remains firmly committed to bringing better 

science to the public to provide better health protection at a lower 

cost. That is why a key part of our strategy involves fostering the 

development of better technologies to deal with the disease. To enhance the ability of our public health system to detect prohibited 

materials in animal feed, we will continue to support the development and testing of diagnostic tests to identify prohibited materials. As these tests are developed, FDA will evaluate the utility of 

such tests promptly and thoroughly. 

Although the risk of exposure to BSE in the United States remains extremely low and the measures in place are working as a 

result of the recently discovered infected cow in the State of Washington, yesterday, we announced the following further measures. 

We announced that we will publish an interim final rule that will 

ban the following materials from FDA-regulated human food, dietary supplements, and cosmetics: Downer cattle—all bovine sources 

for these products must be animals that have passed USDA inspection for human food; dead cattle—these are cattle that die on the 

farm before reaching the slaughter plant; specified risk materials 

that are known to harbor the highest concentrations of the infectious agent for BSE, such as the brain, skull, eyes, and spinal cord 

of cattle 30 months or older; the product known as mechanically 

separated beef, a product which may contain SRMs. Meat obtained 

by advance meat recovery may be used since USDA regulations do 

not allow the presence of SRMs in this product. 

Concerning animal feed, we announced that we will be taking 

the following four additional actions. First, FDA will act to elimiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:51 May 19, 2004 Jkt 091649 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91649.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
25

nate the present exemption in the feed rule that allows mammalian 

blood and blood products at slaughter to be fed to other ruminants 

as a protein source. Recent scientific evidence suggests that blood 

can carry some infectivity for BSE. 

Second, FDA will also ban the use of poultry litter as a feed ingredient for ruminant animals. 

Third, FDA will ban the use of plate waste as a feed ingredient 

for ruminants. Plate waste consists of uneaten meat and other 

meat scraps that are currently collected from some large restaurant 

operations. 

Fourth, the Food and Drug Administration will act to further 

minimize the possibility of cross-contamination of animal feed by 

requiring equipment, facilities, or production lines to be dedicated 

to non-ruminant animal feeds if they use so-called prohibited protein. 

Finally, we are increasing our inspection of feed mills and renderers in 2004. Now, 2001 base funding for BSE-related activities 

was $3.8 million. We shifted resources internally in 2001 and received a substantial increase from Congress in 2002. Our funded 

level for 2004 is $21.5 million, almost a fivefold increase over the 

2001 base. We will conduct 2,800 inspections and will make our resources go even further by working with State agencies to fund 

3,100 contract inspections of feed mills and renderers and other 

firms that handle animal feed and feed ingredients. Through partnerships with the States, FDA will receive data on 700 additional 

inspections, for a total of 3,800 State contract partnership inspections in 2004. 

The agency looks forward to continuing to assist Congress as it 

evaluates the risk associated with BSE and considers science-based 

approaches to further strengthen regulatory protections and bolster 

the resources available to assure that BSE does not present a 

threat to human or animal health in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Crawford. Thank you, Madam 

Secretary. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Crawford can be found in the appendix on page 118.] 

The CHAIRMAN. My first question to Secretary Veneman is do you 

recommend any change in our food safety statutes as a result of 

your experience in dealing with this case of BSE? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, we 

have not recommended specific changes to our food safety statutes. 

All of the actions that we have announced thus far have been done 

through our existing authorities by announcing and implementing 

new regulatory measures. We are awaiting the results of the recommendations of the international panel that I discussed in my 

testimony to see if they recommend additional actions, and whether 

or not that would include anything that would require statutory 

change, I cannot predict changes at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder also whether there would be any necessity to enact new authorization for funding on a supplemental basis 

or in next year’s budget request to enable you to discharge your responsibilities under the law in connection with this case of BSE? 

26

Secretary VENEMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are looking at funding 

possibly through the CCC for moneys that we may need for 2004, 

particularly for animal identification. In our 2005 budget, we are 

also looking at enhancing measures pertaining to BSE. We will be 

announcing our 2005 budget next Monday, on the 2nd of February. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Crawford, I wonder whether or not your 

agency has the adequate statutory authority it needs to take the 

steps necessary to ensure the protection of Americans against harm 

from this case of BSE. 

Dr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, we are evaluating that as we go 

forward with these new feed ban changes and we look forward to 

working with the Congress in terms of the authorities we have and 

what might be done in order to consider whether or not we need 

more. We don’t have a position on that at this point, but we are 

very interested in that because we are aware of, as we expand 

these activities under the 1997 feed ban rule, we are going further 

than was anticipated then, and so that possibility certainly exists, 

that we will need to review the authorities. 

The CHAIRMAN. In connection with the budget submission that 

we will be receiving, is there any need that you anticipate for a 

change in statutory authority for spending money by the FDA to 

carry out your duties in connection with this case of BSE? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. No. We don’t think this stresses the system in 

that way and we believe that we are working well with USDA and 

obviously it has been a coordinated approach. I have no reason to 

think that we need anything further. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yu are both to be congratulated for the dispatch 

and the concentration of effort that you made to make Americans 

aware of this situation, to disclose the discovery of the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy when you did and as you did. I 

was very impressed by the fact that you conveyed everything you 

were doing with full transparency to the public, engaging our trading partners around the world, too, and acquainting them with all 

the facts and the steps that we are taking to ensure continued safety of American beef exports. Hopefully, that will pay off for us in 

the decisions in the near future to continue to buy and resume purchases of American beef products. 

Do you have any expectation along that line, Madam Secretary, 

in talking with our Trade Representative or other members of the 

cabinet or at the White House at the highest levels, of steps that 

are going to be taken to try to accelerate the purchase of U.S. beef 

products in the future? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Again, Mr. Chairman, we have been very 

proactive on the trade front. As I indicated in my testimony, we immediately dispatched a team to Japan and Korea even in that week 

between Christmas and New Year’s. We must keep in mind that 

this was a difficult time of the year for so many people that gave 

up a lot of holidays to do the right thing in terms of our response 

to this issue. 

We then had two of our under secretaries travel to Mexico. Mexico is our No. 1 market by volume, our No. 2 by value. Japan is 

our No. 1 by value. Those are two of our biggest markets, along 

with Korea. As I indicated, we have a team that is just coming 

back today from Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Hong Kong. 

27

Ambassador Zoellick and I both had extensive meetings with the 

trade minister from Japan. We have had—and we continue—ongoing dialog, in person and on the telephone. We have had teams of 

experts from both Mexico and Japan in the United States. 

We are hopeful that we can resume trade as quickly as possible. 

I would remind the committee, however, that in the case when we 

terminated all imports from Canada after their May 20 find, it took 

us until just the end of August to resume imports from Canada 

AFSU a completion of the investigation. A number of countries are 

looking at our actions and looking forward to the recommendations 

of our committee. We will review the actions that we have taken 

to basically mirror what we did in response to the find in Canada. 

We are appreciative of the fact that Canada maintained their 

market open for boxed beef. This was similar to what we did in 

terms of opening up our market to boxed beef from Canada. The 

Philippines keep their market open and Poland just opened. We are 

seeing some progress. 

We continue to work very closely and aggressively with our trading partners at every level. Ambassador Zoellick and I talk frequently about our actions and those of our team in terms of opening of trade. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Harkin. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, Secretary Veneman, as I said in my opening statement, 

you have done a great job at the Department of Agriculture in responding to this and getting on top of this situation. 

My line of questions is going to take a little bit different tack, 

and this is a question both for you, Secretary, and for Dr. 

Crawford, and I will ask Dr. Torres later when he comes up. I will 

start by just asking this question. How much increased research on 

BSE or TSE, the transmissible form, and prion—or ‘‘pry-on,’’ I have 

heard it pronounced both ways. Maybe one of you can tell me if 

that is acceptable, or whatever it is. I have heard it both ways. 

How much increased research on BSE, TSE, prion research in general do you believe is needed now that we have experienced a BSE 

case in the United States and what increases in our diagnostic capacity are needed? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Mr. Harkin, I don’t know that I can give 

you a number on increases in research per se, but there is research 

going on not only in USDA but on the human health side in some 

HHS agencies, including National Institutes for Health. We are 

part of that coordinated process as we look to some of the kinds of 

research that is being done. 

As you say, research is important in the case of these prion diseases, primarily because until the find in England in the 1980’s or 

so, we really didn’t know much about this disease. In many ways, 

we are in our infancy in some of this research. There is a lot of 

research being done in other countries, there is a lot of research 

being done in the private sector, and we are going to continue to 

be very proactive. 

As you now, we recently made a pre-budget announcement about 

funding the Ames Laboratory in Iowa, and I appreciate you being 

with me for that announcement. 

28

Senator HARKIN. Thank you. 

Secretary VENEMAN. That is a significant amount of money that 

we will be asking the Congress for. That was going to be in our 

budget before this find. This modernization of the Ames Laboratory 

is very important because this is our flagship laboratory and research facility as it pertains to these prion diseases. 

We will be happy to work with you and other members of the 

committee to look at some of these needs, but the Ames announcement is very important in this regard. 

Senator HARKIN. Are you the central person, department, on this 

research? Is it NIH? Is it FDA? Who is coordinating all this research? Some of it is being done by you. You say some is being 

done in other countries, some being done in the private sector. I 

don’t know what is being done through NIH. I am trying to find 

out right now. FDA may have something going on that I don’t even 

know about. Who is coordinating all this? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Well, through our research agencies, we are 

looking at a coordinated effort. Particularly in light of this particular find, we will strengthen the coordination and find ways to 

better coordinate even than what has been done in the past. As we 

look at all of these prion disease issues, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. 

Senator HARKIN. Did you have a response to my question? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes. I agree with the Secretary. The disease has 

always been considered to be a veterinary medical disease with 

public health implications, so the lead for the coordination should, 

in my view, continue to be USDA. Now, the National Institutes of 

Health has conducted research on this class of diseases, as you 

know, for many, many years, and as a matter of fact, a worker at 

NIH discovered the first of these diseases in terms of what actually 

caused it. 

On your question about the prion, the man who—— Senator HARKIN. Now wait. Secretary Veneman called it ‘‘preeon.’’

Dr. CRAWFORD. Well, that is the difference between the two departments. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. CRAWFORD. The man who discovered the entity does call it 

a ‘‘pree-on’’. He was on our TSE advisory committee, and I want 

to expand on that a little bit. The Secretary is right, as always. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. CRAWFORD. There are committees that are coordinated in 

this way. There are research committees for the prion class of diseases in the National Institutes of Health that have representatives from the Department of Agriculture and also from FDA itself 

on them, and the reverse is true in USDA. 

The principal one that we pay attention to is the TSE advisory 

committee that this Dr. Prusner used to be on. I was on before I 

came back to the government. It has gotten a lot of notice because 

it puts in the restrictions on blood donations and also the consumption of gelatin and the use of gel-caps and these kinds of things and 

it has a USDA representative on it and always has had as a full 

voting member. As a matter of fact, I believe there are more than 

one at the present time. The coordination is good. 

29

I would——

Senator HARKIN. Excuse me. Let me get to my point. Do we need 

any increase in diagnostic capacity? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes. We are working on three things now. One 

is that our Center for Food Safety is in the final year of funding 

a 2-year project to develop sensors to detect abnormal prion protein 

in food. Work on the project should be completed in early 2004. I 

am sure it will branch out and we will need some more work. 

There are no tests for the rapid diagnosis of new variant CJD in 

people. They haven’t been validated. A reliable blood screening test 

for VCJD, the kind that occurs in people, is an extremely important 

goal and it hasn’t been done. 

FDA has conducted and supported research efforts in the process 

of validating a rapid DNA-based method for the detection of animal-derived materials in animal feed. We don’t have that now, either. We have to depend on other means for doing it. There is a 

lot of work. 

Senator HARKIN. That is what I assumed. One last thing is why 

has the U.S. chosen 30 months as the, quote, ‘‘age of concern’’ for 

defining specified risk materials while the EU has chosen an age 

of 12 months? Since BSE can be detected in animals younger than 

30 months, how confident are scientists that there is no risk of material from cows under 30 months being ineffective? Is there a period where prions are detected in an animal but not believed to be 

infectious? 

Secretary VENEMAN. We chose the 30-month level based upon the 

current international standards under the OIE. That is a regulation that is out for public comment at this point, so I assume that 

we may get some comments on the number of months that is in 

it. It is based upon the current international standard and we really do need to rely on the OIE for the basis of setting the internationally recognized scientific standards. We have tried to utilize 

those recommendations from the international organization as 

much as possible. 

I might just note in response to your previous question, one other 

announcement that we made recently is a partnership funding on 

the bovine genome mapping project. We can map genomes of various animals and insects and plants, and learn a lot more about 

them. We are hoping that by getting bovine mapping project started, we will learn much more about this disease down the road. This 

will give us more of the answers to some of the research that you 

are talking about. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a second 

round. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daschle, I am going to recognize you. I 

understand you have another commitment. 

Senator DASCHLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to follow–up, if I could, with a comment you just made with 

regard to downer cattle, Madam Secretary. You indicated that 

other countries that have now exported to the United States have 

adopted, is it exactly the same regulations or the equivalent of our 

regulations? I guess there is some confusion as to what are they 

actually agreeing to. 

30

Secretary VENEMAN. What we require is that they have the same 

or an equivalent regulation in place. This regulation obviously 

wasn’t the normal process, where you go out for notice and public 

comment and as a proposed rule. I’ve spent a lot of time to working 

with other countries. We put these out as interim final rules because of the change in status of our country of now finding BSE. 

We notified all of the countries that export to us. We are working 

with them to ensure that they have the same or equivalent regulations in place. For example, Canada did institute a downer ban 

mirroring what we did because they do export the boxed beef to us. 

Senator DASCHLE. Do I understand you to say that all countries 

that are now exporting to the United States have equal or equivalent regulations with regard to downer cattle? We have 100 percent 

compliance? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Yes. 

Senator DASCHLE. How do we determine equivalency? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Well, we have a team of experts in the Food 

Safety Inspection Service that work with our trading partners, that 

review regulatory requirements as well as review plants in other 

countries to determine that the food safety inspection process in 

the foreign country is indeed equal to or equivalent to that which 

we have in the United States. That is a requirement to ship into 

this country. 

Senator DASCHLE. There is some form of a certification of equivalency that they have to agree to or comply with? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Yes. Countries have to maintain their status as being equivalent to our system. We consistently do reviews 

of countries that ship to us and oftentimes we de-list plants or 

whole countries because they are not complying with our equivalence requirements. 

Senator DASCHLE. Again, I commend you for making progress 

with these countries. I guess Dr. Crawford listed and you have listed other actions that the United States has taken unilaterally, and 

again, the point I made earlier is one that applies here. While it 

appears we have had good cooperation from our trading partners 

with regard to downer cattle, it would be great if they could also 

comply with these other steps we are taking. 

Because of our boundaries and because of our trade practices, 

clearly, these steps are only so good as it applies to our domestic 

production. We still don’t have any assurance that actions taken in 

other countries will preclude the problems that we are designed to 

address with regard to these higher safety standards without insisting that they take them, too. 

Let me ask a second question with regard to the point I made 

in my opening remarks with regard to regulation and implementation. We are going to be implementing and promulgating the regulations with regard to raised and wild fish in September. The law 

requires that we also promulgate the regulations on country of origin labeling across the board in September, even though they 

wouldn’t be implemented for another year. Is it still your intention 

to comply with the law in that regard? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Yes. Let me address briefly the comment 

you made about other countries and taking equivalent actions. The 

action we took with regard to specified risk material mirrors the 

31

action that Canada took following their find. We now have, at least 

in the U.S. and Canada, equivalent regulations with regard to specified risk materials. The conversations that I had when I hosted 

the meeting with my counterparts from Mexico and Canada is how 

do we find even more uniformity in the regulations that we promulgate on regulatory issues that would pertain to BSE? 

On the issue of country of origin labeling, as you know, this was 

part of the Farm bill and it required basically a two-stage regulatory process. The first part was that the USDA implement voluntary guidelines or regulations on voluntary country of origin labeling. That indeed has been done and those were implemented on 

time. 

We then began also the process of the regulatory process for the 

mandatory country of origin labeling regulations. We began that 

process within the time frame specified by the law. A proposed rule 

is now open for public comment. We will continue to take public 

comments on that. 

The omnibus appropriations bill delays our implementation of 

that bill a 2-year period of time. This was done to provide time to 

look again at the statute legislatively. 

The USDA has continued to follow the time frames that were 

specified in the law and that we have implemented the regulations 

according to schedule. 

Senator DASCHLE. Well, the promulgation of the regulations and 

the implementation are two distinct actions. Do I understand then 

you to say that the promulgation of the regulations will be on 

schedule, which as I understand it is September of this year? 

Secretary VENEMAN. We have continued the regulatory process. 

The rule is still out as a proposed rule for comment. The office of 

General Counsel’s in USDA is looking at how to implement/promulgate in light of the language that is in the appropriations bill. 

Senator DASCHLE. Mr. Chairman, I just emphasize again, that 

the law is very clear and I would like to follow-up later, if I could, 

with you with regard to the requirement that they be promulgated 

on time and that we understand because of the appropriations bill 

implementation will be postponed. If there is some confusion about 

that, we need to make some adjustment in whatever form required, 

because the law is fairly clear. I would love to get more information 

from you about that. 

Secretary VENEMAN. We will be happy to work with you. As I 

said, the regulatory process is continuing as proposed at this point 

in time. We have not made any changes in the process. It is ongoing since the appropriations language was implemented. 

Senator DASCHLE. I will not ask the question, I just ask that you 

answer it for the record, but I would like to know, we have about 

200 million pounds of beef that was supposed to be exported and 

it is still on the high seas. We don’t want it to come back into the 

domestic market. It can’t go into the foreign markets because of the 

prohibition by most countries to accept U.S. product today. I would 

be interested in knowing what the Department of Agriculture may 

be contemplating with regard to how to deal with that product. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesies and appreciate 

your answers, Madam Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

32

Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 

Madam Secretary and also Dr. Crawford. 

When I was turning on the heater to my car to get the ice off 

of the windshield this morning, I went back into the house and 

happened to spot television and it had something of note in regards 

to you. They were announcing the Academy Awards and the nominees and I understand that the nominee for the best supporting 

Secretary for Agriculture for the real life drama, ‘‘Beef Exports: 

Something Has Got to Give,’’ and the movie, ‘‘Beef Biscuit,’’ and ‘‘Lord of the Feedlots’’——

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS [continuing]. That you were the only nominee. 

You are probably deserving of not an Academy Award. As I say, 

these are real life dramas. 

Second, there have been 15 Senators, maybe 16, all extolling 

your virtues. That is a record, more especially with a Secretary of 

Agriculture, on the job that you have done. 

Now, Senator Leahy and I constantly get reminders, since this 

is televised, that there may be a glare that could be of some difficulty, so I am going to loan him this after I am through with it, 

but to join you in your support for consumer confidence, I have the 

‘‘Beef, It’s What’s For Dinner’’ cap that I thought I would put on 

and then we would continue the questions, if that would be all 

right with you. 

Secretary VENEMAN. It’s fine with me. 

Senator ROBERTS. Congratulations on your nominations. 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Roberts, would you—— Senator ROBERTS. I am not yielding. 

Senator LEAHY [continuing]. Would you put——

Senator ROBERTS. I am not yielding. We will change the hat in 

just a minute. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. I was going to say, putting the hat on changed 

the whole dynamics of the lighting in this room. 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I will just have to make this part back here 

a little bigger when I give it to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Secretary Veneman, it has been suggested by 

some—not some, a lot—that we should be testing every animal 

slaughtered in the United States, and I understand these arguments and it is a policy discussion. I am concerned that such suggestions may not be based on science and would result in a tremendous new burden on the industry in regards to the economy. Does 

the best science indicate that it is not necessary to test all animals, 

particularly those under 30 months, although the question by Senator Harkin was a good one? What is the estimated cost per herd 

and to the total market if we were to test every animal? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Senator, first of all, we are testing in accordance with internationally recognized standards. The OIE has a 

rather complicated formula by which they identify the kinds of animals that are at highest risks and the amount of tests that you 

33

ought to be conducting based upon the risk level of your country. 

That is how we have been conducting our testing program. As you 

know, we are going to about double our tests this year, from about 

20,000 to about 40,000. Even with the 20,000, we were well in excess of OIE guidelines. 

The other thing that we are doing is we are specifically asking 

the international committee, the review committee, to give us recommendations in terms of testing. We think it is important that we 

have that international committee—the experts on BSE from 

around the world—to give us guidance on testing. We do know that 

we clearly exceed what the OIE guidelines would require for testing. The OIE does not recommend the testing of every animal. 

They recommend a representative sample to ensure that you are 

able to detect the disease to a high level of confidence. 

Senator ROBERTS. I understand the integration of the U.S. cattle 

market, but I want to relay to you a lot of concern from producers, 

and I am sure this is true with every beef cattle State, over this 

event being labeled a North American problem. Since it was obviously two cattle from Canada that were diseased, does calling it a 

North American problem hurt the U.S. in trying to reopen our export markets? I have been trying to think of something else we 

could call it other than just a Canadian problem, but I haven’t been 

able to do that. Has that posed a problem for us? I know it has 

posed a problem at least in the minds of a lot of producers. 

Secretary VENEMAN. Regarding the reference to this being an 

issue of North America—I don’t know about calling it a North 

American problem— but the fact of the matter is there has been 

a lot of trade in animals and animal products in North America. 

We have quite an integrated market, which has been obviously disrupted by the find in Canada on May 20, 2003. Our producers do 

have a lot of interrelationships in terms of trading cattle back and 

forth among the three countries involved in North America. 

That is one of the reasons we think it is important to work together on our regulatory structures. They need to be as uniform as 

possible in terms of what we require with regard to BSE, because 

we want to make sure that we all have protections in place so that 

this disease does not spread. 

Both of these cattle, the one found in Canada in 2003 and—the 

one found in May, and the one found in December in the United 

States, which also came from Canada, both predated the feed ban. 

The feed ban went into effect in Canada and the U.S. in 1997. Both 

these cattle were born before the feed ban, which hopefully can explain how these cattle might have gotten this disease. 

In terms of our trading partners, it is important to emphasize 

the actions that we, the United States, are taking. There are also 

protections in terms of uniform regulations to the greatest extent 

possible with our trading partners to the north and the south. 

I understand the question you are raising, but it is important 

that we understand it in a global context, as well. 

Senator ROBERTS. Prior to the discovery, and Mr. Chairman, I 

only have about two more questions and I apologize to my colleagues for the time, prior to the discovery of the diseased animal 

in Washington State, there were some international discussions 

and they were ongoing in regard to changes to any international 

34

guidelines for countries that have experienced isolated cases of 

BSE, specifically changes that would keep an entire country’s exports from being suspended in such a situation. 

Are these discussions continuing on this issue or were they simply suspended with this new issue? What kind of support are we 

receiving from the other major beef exporting countries in this regard? 

Secretary VENEMAN. I thank you, Senator, for bringing that up 

because the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, after the Canadian find in 

May, I signed a letter to the OIE asking them to look at this whole 

issue. When we were made aware of the find of Canada, we immediately cutoff trade because that is what our process told us to do. 

What we are now learning is that we are in a situation where 

there was a single animal. There is a single animal here. Most of 

our trading partners took equivalent action, the same action as we 

took against Canada and we have taken against every other country where there has been a BSE find. 

In light of the knowledge that we now have about the disease, 

what we have learned from the outbreak in Europe, from doing the 

Harvard risk assessment, the importance of banning ruminant-toruminant feeding because that is the way this disease spreads all 

around the world people are realizing that the trade actions that 

one country would take against another in the event of a single 

find, should be reviewed. 

Clearly, when we opened up to the lowest-risk product from Canada, we were taking a step in that direction. Working with the 

OIE, we are asking the OIE to specifically look at this question and 

make further recommendations which are expected this spring. 

Yes, indeed, we are working with a number of other countries 

around the world through the international organizations at ways 

to make sure that a find in a country doesn’t become a major trade 

problem. In both Canada and the U.S. thus far, it has been a single 

find. When you look at the kinds of precautions that we have 

taken, both in terms of our feed ban as well as what we have taken 

in terms of the kinds of risk materials we have taken out of the 

food supply, we have taken the kind of precautions that protect 

public health and, therefore, it should not impair trade. 

Senator ROBERTS. I have a question for Dr. Crawford. We have 

heard a lot about inspections and the current compliance rate at 

the feed mills in regards to feed inspections. Can you tell us what 

an inspection entails very briefly? For example, is any ruminant 

feed tested during these inspections to ensure that the meal does 

not include any banned material? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes. Essentially what we do, Senator, is we come 

into a plant—these are unannounced inspections—we come into the 

plant. We evaluate their records. We primarily want to know where 

they source the ingredients from and whether or not they actually 

are using meat and bone meal. The technical violations that have 

been reported in terms of getting our compliance rate up to 99 percent have generally been their inability to keep records or to keep 

records that satisfy FDA. 

We do have—we are using microscopy now, basically using microscopes to examine the feed if we have any doubts. Just recently, 

we had a shipment of non-meat feed that was sent in from Canada 

35

and we were able to detect the presence of some animal protein in 

there and we, of course, took regulatory action. In the plants, we 

do the same thing. We have a test. We want to have a better test 

so that we basically have a chemical test that is very fast, very accurate, rather than having to go through this laborious process of 

using the microscope, and we think that is not very far off. 

We are able to do both things. We check the records, which is 

the strongest thing we have to deal with, and the second thing is 

that when we have doubts, we actually look at the feed samples 

and evaluate them for the presence of animal protein. 

Senator ROBERTS. That gets back to Senator Harkin’s comment 

in regards to research. 

I am going to ask you a question that has nothing to do with 

BSE, Madam Secretary. It is not BSE related and it is sort of a 

hand grenade without a pin in it. There is another factor at play 

in the beef industry that should be raised. As you know, there were 

reports last week that the administration had decided to take 

sugar off the table—we have some Senators here that are very instrumental in that and I understand that—in regard to negotiations of a free trade agreement with Australia. What I want is assurance that the administration will not provide excessive concessions to other commodities, more especially beef and in reforming 

the Australian Wheat Board, in exchange for taking sugar off the 

table. 

Secretary VENEMAN. Mr. Roberts, I am fully aware of the concerns that you are raising and certainly we have heard a number 

of the same concerns expressed in conversations that we have had 

with various people. I have discussed this issue on several occasions with Ambassador Zoellick. As you know, every trade agreement is a balance of give and take. The agriculture issues are particularly difficult in the Australia agreement. We are certainly not 

at a point yet where concessions are being given in any specific 

commodity. I pledge to you to continue to work closely with Ambassador Zoellick on these issues because I know of the concerns of so 

many people that represent agricultural interests. 

Senator ROBERTS. We have a similar problem in regards to Iraq 

and that State Grain Board in reference to purchasing wheat from 

Australia to a criteria that used to be Saddam Hussein, and I understand that that has been rescinded and that the provisional government will try again to say, OK, look at all the different criteria 

so that you could, i.e., Iraq, purchase grain from the United States. 

It is in that same vein and I would expect that these negotiations 

with the Australians, who have been our friends, will be meaningful dialog. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Conrad. 

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Earlier, Madam Secretary, I attributed a decision made to ban 

the feeding of cow blood and chicken waste to cattle to USDA action. Apparently, it was FDA action, so I want to correct that for 

the record. I assume you support that move by the FDA. I do think 

it is—I see you nodding. It was the right move to take. 

I must say, in reading what poultry litter consists of, they said 

it consists of bedding, spilled feed, feathers, and fecal matter swept 

36

from the floors of chicken coops. I don’t know why that was ever 

permitted to be fed to cattle. Do you have any idea how widespread 

that practice was? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. We don’t think it was very widespread. It obviously would occur, if it does occur, in those areas that have both 

a significant chicken industry or turkey industry and also cattle, 

and that wouldn’t include very many parts of the United States. I 

suspect that it wasn’t very widely used. 

Senator CONRAD. Madam Secretary, would you agree that that is 

a most unwise practice and this ban is welcome? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Well, I certainly agree with the ban. It has 

been one that has certainly gotten a lot of attention and a lot of 

questions have been raised about it. We have been working closely 

with FDA or the actions that they have decided to take and are 

supportive of those actions. 

Senator CONRAD. Dr. Michael Hansen, a scientist at Consumers 

Union, said that is a good step, but it is not good enough. He said 

a remaining loophole is allowing rendered matter from cows to be 

fed to pigs and chickens, and rendered pigs and chickens to be fed 

back to cows. In theory, that sequence could bring the disease full 

circle back to cows. In Europe, cows cannot be fed any animal matter. What is your reaction to Dr. Hansen’s criticism that we are 

still allowing something here that could cause a problem? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. The actions that we take will be the subject of 

an interim final regulation, as you know, so they have to be under 

the FDA law, as you know far better than me, science-based. There 

has to be a risk, either an animal health risk or a public health 

risk, and this has to be accepted in the scientific community. That 

is not the case. Pigs and chickens are not known to be susceptible 

to BSE and so we do not believe there is a risk in terms of this, 

and yet it is a useful animal protein. We would respectfully disagree with Dr. Hansen. 

We have discussed this with him and with Consumers Union and 

are aware of their disagreement with our conclusions. We will continue to discuss it with them and we also will continue to evaluate 

this. At the present time, the scientific consensus holds that pigs, 

chickens, and turkeys are not susceptible to BSE so there would be 

no basis for prohibiting the feeding of this material to them. 

Senator CONRAD. All right. Madam Secretary, let me just ask 

you, in your testimony—this is on the question of whether there 

was a gap in the reporting of knowing it was a Canadian cow—you 

say, ‘‘On Saturday, December 27’’—this is from your testimony, 

page four at the bottom—‘‘we learned that the ear tag matched 

that of a Canadian cow that was exported to the U.S. We made the 

public announcement of that information that same day.’’ Your testimony is on December 27, you learned that there was a Canadian 

tag and made the announcement that same day. 

On January 10, I had a hearing in North Dakota on this question. Glen Ullin, North Dakota rancher Terry DuPong said that 

cattlemen knew the infected Holstein was imported from Canada 

days before the USDA made it public. He said the cow had a Canadian export ear tag. He is a member of R–CALF, the United 

Stockgrowers of America. He said the group urged USDA to make 

the information public to prevent the market from over reacting. 

37

He went on to say in his testimony, that his group knew of the 

cow’s link to Canada on December 24. The USDA did not make the 

announcement until December 27. 

Julie Quick, a spokesman for the Agriculture Department, said 

her agency reported the cow was from Canada as soon as it was 

confirmed, but she goes on to say that the USDA knew the cow had 

a Canadian ear tag on December 23. 

There is a discrepancy here between what she told the press in 

response to our hearing and your testimony here today. Can you 

help us understand the discrepancy? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Yes, Senator. Thank you for that question. 

I know there has been some concern on this, and let me just run 

down the time line, because I do think it is important because so 

many questions were asked. I asked a lot of questions about this 

myself, and this is the information that I have been given. 

When the results came back on December 23, we had with it a 

number of the cow but not the actual ear tag. The ear tag apparently was sent with the brucellosis sample and that was—and the 

tag was then destroyed. When they went to look on farm on the 

24th——

Senator CONRAD. Can I just stop you there. They destroyed the 

tag? 

Secretary VENEMAN. That is my understanding, because it went 

with the brucellosis sample. 

Senator CONRAD. Gosh. Didn’t somebody realize that is a pretty 

important piece of evidence as to where this cow might have come 

from? 

Secretary VENEMAN. The brucellosis test was negative. That is 

standard procedure when the ear tag apparently was with the brucellosis sample. Senator, I am just going to tell you the way this 

has worked. Now, as we go through an animal identification system, which many people have talked about today, we are going to 

be looking at all of these issues. I just want to tell you what happened in this case. 

On December 24, they went to the farm and they determined 

that the number on this tag was similar to the numbers on some 

other cow tags that were still on the farm, and on the back of these 

tags there was a reference to terminology that the Canadian Food 

Inspection Agency uses. Only the number, not the tag, was with 

the BSE sample. 

As a result they immediately notified the veterinarian, Ron 

DeHaven’s counterpart in Canada—to see if they could trace this 

ear tag to any Canadian cow. This was because of the similarity 

of number of the tag. They confirmed this. He got called at midnight on the evening of 26th/27th, and we announced it on the 

27th. We had confirmation on the 27th. 

I will tell you that there was some reluctance on the part of the 

Canadians to allow us to announce that, but for us, it was a preliminary finding. It had to be released to the public. We then said 

we would confirm with DNA tests. They would have preferred we 

waited for those DNA tests, but we knew those would take some 

time and we needed to let the public know of this information. 

38

I understand what you are saying in terms of people think they 

knew, but there was no confirmation by tracing this at all until the 

27th, and we did announce it on the same day. 

Senator CONRAD. Let me just say that I don’t know exactly what 

happened here. It adds to the confusion when your spokesperson 

says that USDA knew the cow had a Canadian ear tag on December 23, but officials had to follow a paper trail to say with certainty 

that the cow came from that country. She went on to say there was 

no gap in reporting. She then follows that by saying, ‘‘It took us 

3 or 4 days of working with our Canadian colleagues to say, in fact, 

the cow did come from Canada.’’ The representative of R–CALF said at the hearing that the gap 

in reporting resulted in a worst case scenario for U.S. beef producers. He said the market value for a 1,200-pound steer dropped 

more than $190 by the end of the year. He is saying that the domestic cattle market received insufficient information and the 

international markets were equally uninformed. 

I do think that is an important thing. We need to establish when, 

in fact, it was known that this cow carried a Canadian tag and 

when it was reported. I take you at your testimony that as far as 

you know, from what you have been able to ascertain, you learned 

of it on the 27th and reported it on the 27th. I would ask you to 

go back, if you could, to your spokesperson, Julie Quick, and ask 

her why she said to the press that the USDA knew the cow had 

a Canadian tag on December 23. If you could do that, I would be 

interested to know why she said that. 

It is important because, obviously, the lag in information had a 

potential effect on markets and people took an enormous hit. When 

we knew it was a Canadian cow, we saw markets recover substantially, and that is the concern that people have at the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission about some people knowing and other 

people not knowing. This is important for us to determine. 

Secretary VENEMAN. I will be happy to do that, Senator, and I 

would also be happy to make available our chief economist to talk 

about how the markets reacted. You know, there are limits on how 

much the market can go down each day. We saw the markets go 

down initially, but they have started to come back up. A lot of that 

was based upon the market not knowing what was going to happen 

with consumer confidence domestically, 90 percent of our market. 

We saw the markets continually go down for the first few days and 

then they began to level off. It was market reaction that was much 

along the lines of what our chief economist predicted, he thought 

might happen if we could maintain consumer confidence domestically. 

Senator CONRAD. Let me just conclude by saying the one thing 

I heard loud and clear at home was a deep concern about this gap 

and that some people had knowledge and took advantage of it in 

the markets and there was such a dramatic swing that there was 

a potential for some people to lose a lot of money, and some people, 

of course, did. On the other hand, there was the potential for some 

people who might have inside information to make a lot of money. 

That is the story that we see in the Wall Street Journal this morning, the suggestion that somehow, some had insider knowledge as 

to where that cow came from and whether or not it was diseased. 

39

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Talent. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have two areas I want to get into briefly, Madam Secretary and 

Dr. Crawford. Let me preface it by explaining a comment I made 

in my brief opening statement when I said I thought what has happened shows that the system has worked, and I do think the food 

safety system has worked. Some may be wondering why, if we all 

believe that, we have all said that, well then why are we then inquiring into all these additional measures and why are you taking 

additional measures? 

I say the system worked because the animal was identified as 

needing testing. She was tested on a timely basis. The risky material in the animal was not put into the food system. The disease 

was identified on a timely basis. Other meat that was put into the 

system was recalled for confidence purposes. No other animal has 

been identified as having BSE and no human being has contracted 

the equivalent. 

The system worked, but I do think it is important that we make 

a distinction. You have two purposes. One is to protect food safety 

and another is to protect the markets, and to do the second, you 

have to create a level of confidence and take steps that may not 

strictly be necessary to do the first. 

This leads to my first question, because the steps that were 

taken with regard to downers, I don’t want anybody to believe that 

by allowing downers to go into the food system in the past we have 

done something that we thought subjected the food system to risk. 

What we are trying to do here is to create greater confidence. 

The question I have for you is, if the downers cannot—the meat 

from the downers, the good meat, the muscle meat—cannot be put 

into the food system now, will the producers have the incentives to 

take the downers to market, to the auction barns or the processors 

in the first place, and if they don’t, if they just destroy the animal 

and bury it on the ranch, are we going to be deprived of an opportunity to test an animal that may possibly have a disease we need 

to know about? Might the ban have a counterproductive aspect in 

terms of food safety if we are not careful or don’t take some steps, 

and have you done any thinking along those lines. Then I have one 

other area I want to go into. 

Secretary VENEMAN. Absolutely, Senator, we have very much 

looked at that issue. As you indicate, a number of the animals that 

were part of our testing of animals for BSE were those downer animals that were presented for slaughter at slaughter plants. Those 

are certainly not the only high-risk animals, but the reason they 

are being tested is because they are high-risk. Once we found a 

BSE-positive cow in this country, we thought it was prudent to protect the public health to take the downers out of the system. We 

entered a different period when we found it in this country. 

We think that there are ample opportunities to get and test all 

of the test samples that we need, whether it is through rendering 

plants or through veterinarians with appropriate training and information on what to look for. The highest risk are those with some 

kind of central nervous system disorder and we want to make sure 

that veterinarians all across the country are looking for this. 

40

A couple of years ago, we were looking at the potentially devastating impacts to cattle of foot and mouth disease. Now, that disease doesn’t have any human health problem, but we were helping 

veterinarians all over the country understand what to look for. 

Likewise, we are going to be making sure that people have in mind 

what kinds of symptoms to look for. We are going to be testing 

more frequently at rendering plants, at animal food plants, at the 

areas where these downers are not going into human food but 

going in for other purposes. We are also asking our international 

committee of experts to give us recommendations in that regard. 

As you indicate, we have done a lot of thinking on this issue. We 

are having a lot of discussions on this issue with everyone from 

State veterinarians to rendering plants to a whole variety of other 

interested parties. 

Senator TALENT. I am certain of that. I wanted to hear from you 

that the issue is by no means closed in your mind or any of the 

ramifications of it, because I understood why you took the step. 

There are certain respects in which I am not satisfied with it, but 

all of us are continuing to look at it and will in the future. 

Let me—this is switching subjects, but the national identification 

system that the administration is working on with industry, it is 

an idea whose time has come. A lot of us are reaching that conclusion. Two aspects of it. Could you compare and contrast the USAIP 

system with the FAIR program that are being proposed here. What 

are the pluses and minuses in your mind of both. 

Also, the latest draft I have seen indicates that the USAIP plan 

would be in place sometime in 2006. Do you have any intention or 

desire to accelerate that schedule? Is it possible? Do you need any 

help from here, funding or anything like that? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Those are very good questions and I appreciate the opportunity to expand a little bit more on animal ID. It 

is important to recognize, Senator Allard talked about a technology. 

USAIP is based upon a certain technology. The FAIR program is 

part of USAIP, but there are people that are participating in that 

that have different technologies. 

One of the things that is becoming very clear as we look at animal ID systems and the potential for them is that we should be 

looking at ways not to preclude technologies but to set the standards for the information that we need to have an effective and efficient national animal ID system. That is the direction that we 

want to go in in terms of looking at how we structure a national 

animal ID system. 

I have asked our chief information officer, along with our chief 

economist, because there are so many economic issues involved in 

all of this, and our general counsel, because there are legal issues, 

as well, to oversee the implementation process. 

It is also important to recognize, I mentioned in my House hearing last week that we are getting more and more indications that 

other parts of the food chain are going to give incentives, for example, to have identification systems. For example, McDonald’s announced in the fall, before BSE, that they would pay a premium 

for meat product that could be traced back to its origin of birth. We 

have actually talked with some producers who are getting that preVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:51 May 19, 2004 Jkt 091649 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91649.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
41

mium now because they have systems in place that allow them to 

give that kind of information to the purchaser of the product. 

What we don’t want to do with any kind of animal ID system is 

overlay several layers of requirement onto our producers. We want 

to have an efficient system that allows the information to be put 

into a nationwide system and that will be one that allows technology to develop and become more efficient with time. 

Senator TALENT. Well, I agree. I am going to look more into this 

both personally and in the subcommittee, and I am glad you are 

sensitive to the fact that so many of our producers are part-time 

producers. In Missouri, 42 percent of our producers run fewer than 

50 cows. Also that technology is evolving. We don’t want to through 

regulations or anything freeze this into one technology and then 

have to go through a whole regulatory process if better technology 

comes along. 

For so many reasons, this, the BSE, the terrorism, everything 

else, it is just more and more pointing me, anyway, in the direction 

of we are going to have to bite the bullet and have some kind of 

a system. 

I thank you and thank you, Dr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Let me just follow-up a little bit on 

that, Madam Secretary. You and I discussed this yesterday. We 

talked about the program that the Holstein Association has developed in Brattleboro, Vermont, and USDA spent a lot of money with 

my encouragement to get them to develop that program. They have 

around a million bovines in over 7,000 farms, 42 States, and they 

know it works. 

I understand your concern about mandating a particular program and then having somebody find a better one. We all do that. 

I look at what happened. We had 27 of the 81 cows that came from 

Canada were able to be identified. Senator Specter and I have introduced legislation to require USDA to do a national animal identification program. 

If we go to tracking, as many of us have suggested may be the 

thing to do, is that system going to be mandatory or voluntary? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Well, we have indicated we want a 

verifiable system. We first need to get—— Senator LEAHY. Let us assume we get one. 

Secretary VENEMAN. Ultimately, the kind of information you will 

want to have fed in will probably be required after a period of time. 

This will allow pilot programs to demonstrate how it is going to 

work. We are going to need some time to phase it in to be required 

of all of the animals. I do think, over time, the only way it will 

work is if we have the requirement that everybody participate in 

it. 

Senator LEAHY. I don’t pretend to speak for the industry, but I 

would think that they would want a mandatory one, because the 

good producers, the people who have a huge amount invested in 

this who are being very careful, if there is such a tracking system 

out, they are going to use it anyway. They are going to use it because they want to sell, whether it is to McDonald’s, the school 

42

lunch program, and so on and so forth. It doesn’t help them if they 

are then undercut by some of the smaller producers who may want 

to save $3 or $4 an animal to not use the tracking system. 

I would think that as the major ones are going to do that so that 

they can point to it if something goes wrong, they are going to want 

everybody to be doing it, and I would think if we want to keep the 

kind of credibility that we have always kept of our food supply here 

in the United States, we would want it to be mandatory. 

Secretary VENEMAN. Well, the example you use of the effectiveness of so many of these systems, particularly in the dairy industry, whether it is the Holstein Association or a number of systems 

that are used in dairies throughout the country that can give you 

the productivity of any animal, gives the producer the ability to 

make good, solid management decisions about certain animals. You 

can have a whole range of information from those kinds of technologies that are now available and that are being developed. 

Senator LEAHY. I absolutely agree with that, but I would hope 

that this pressure to bring those together sooner than later. We 

have one more of these incidences and then if we tell the world we 

really can’t track where the animal came from, you can imagine 

what that is going to do to our export business, what it is going 

to do to our internal business. 

I would urge you to take whatever your target date is and look 

at it very carefully and see if you couldn’t make it a lot quicker, 

because we have hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars at 

stake just for our industries. 

Secretary VENEMAN. I couldn’t agree with you more, Senator, and 

that is why, with all of the work that has gone on in the last 18 

months in looking toward an animal identification system for animal health purposes, I announced on the 30th of December that we 

were going to make this a priority. 

I would also point out that because the cow in question was in 

fact, a dairy cow, it did have an animal ID on it. This was one of 

the reasons we were able to track it so quickly. As we move forward with this process, we want to do it with as much speed as 

possible, but we also want to do it right. 

Senator LEAHY. Of course, the other part of this, we have all expressed concern about the industry, which is a major part of our 

economy in this country. With the growing, actually unbelievably 

huge trade deficit this country now has, anything that we can export, we are very much in favor of. 

We also have the other overriding—overriding—question, and 

that is to protect our consumers themselves, the parents who buy 

beef products for their children or for themselves. These are important. I have long supported Senator Akaka’s Downed Animal Act. 

I tried to get it in the 2002 Farm bill. The administration opposed 

it and it did not go in there. Now we have it back. You have done 

it by regulation and I applaud you for that. 

Does the Department have any plans to amend their Federal 

Register notice, I believe it was January 12, regarding the prohibition of downed animals in the human food chain? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Well, we published it as an interim final 

rule. It is open for public comment and so it would be inappropriate 

for me to prejudge what the outcome of that comment period may 

43

be. Obviously, by announcing it through an interim final rule, making it effective immediately, we thought it was the right thing to 

do. 

Senator LEAHY. Do you have any plans to start testing downed 

animals on the farm? I understand there are about a million of 

those a year. 

Secretary VENEMAN. We, again, are working with—we do already 

work with veterinarians and we want to enhance the understanding of our veterinarians that deal with bovines, particularly 

to recognize the kinds of symptoms of this disease so that we will 

get the kind of high-risk cattle into the testing population that we 

need. We will work with people at rendering plants. We already 

have agreements with a number of these kinds of plants where we 

can get animals for testing. 

We are working with all of the various places where we may find 

the highest risk animals whether it is on the farm or in the rendering plant or other places. 

Senator LEAHY. The reason I ask that, we have, what is it, 

190,000 or so downed animals delivered to slaughter, but about a 

million more on the farm. One of the things I get thrown back, to 

other countries, is what they do. Japan tests 100 percent of the cattle, I am told, that enter the food chain. In the EU, they test about 

25 percent of all slaughtered cattle, but they test 100 percent of 

those in certain high-risk categories. That is about a million cattle 

per month. 

Now, in the U.S., we test about half of 1 percent of the cattle 

slaughtered. EU is testing about 500 times more than we do. UPI 

submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Agriculture for information. UPI is a respected major news agency. They came out 

with this. They said during the first 7 months of 2003, not a single 

cow was tested in Washington State—surprising, because the May 

2003 outbreak of BSE was in Canada in the Alberta Province. The 

Alberta Province is about as close to Washington State as any part 

of Canada could be. 

We found out from them having made that Freedom of Information request that fewer than 100 of the 700 plants known to 

slaughter cattle were tested. Some of the biggest slaughterhouses 

weren’t tested at all. Cows in the top four beef-producing States—

that is 70 percent of the cattle slaughtered in the U.S. each year—

are only 11 percent of the animals screened. In some cases, we 

found out that the USDA veterinarians were not in charge of selecting the animals for testing, rather the plant personnel were. 

Having seen that news story, does that concern you? Is USDA 

doing enough testing, is my basic question. 

Secretary VENEMAN. Senator, as I indicated in response to a previous question about the testing, we are targeting the highest-risk 

populations. We are targeting the populations based upon what the 

international guidelines would tell us. We know that our testing far 

exceeds the number of tests that would be required of a country in 

the same or similar circumstances as the United States. We are 

doubling our testing this year, from approximately 20,000 animals 

per year to about 40,000, again, of the highest-risk animals. 

It is important to recognize that we are—and I would again reiterate that we are depending upon this international committee of 

44

experts to give us further guidance on our testing protocols and 

procedures. 

As you indicated, Japan tests every animal. Japan tests every 

animal not based on a scientific analysis, but rather when they had 

their first find of BSE, which as the trade minister reminded me 

was September 10, 2001, the day before September 11, they were 

hit with something that devastated certainly their food sector. 

Their consumption of beef went down substantially. Their consumer confidence plummeted, and they really took this action to regain consumer confidence rather than as a testing protocol for 

highest-risk animals. 

My understanding is that their testing primarily targets those 

animals that go into the food chain as opposed to those that may 

not and may be the highest-risk animals, where you might be most 

likely to find it. It is a different strategy with regard to testing. 

Ours would follow the international guidelines, which indicate that 

you ought to be testing high-risk populations where you might be 

most likely to find the disease. 

We will be testing as part of the overall protocols of part of the 

40,000. Some animals that are going to slaughter that are older 

animals, because we know that older animals do have a higher 

risk. 

We would be happy to continue to discuss all of these issues with 

regard to testing with you and I would be happy to make staff 

available to discuss this—— Senator LEAHY. We will. You are talking about testing 40,000. 

We do slaughter 35 million. Let us follow-up some more on that. 

I will issue some questions for the record. As I said yesterday, I 

am pleased, when I talked to you, I am pleased with the steps you 

are taking. I want to tell you publicly that. I told you that privately. I want to tell you publicly. 

I also—my last point—I have just been notified that the Department is going to implement a regional equity provision in the 2002 

Farm bill, something I wrote into that. That was to put those areas 

especially along the Eastern Seaboard and others that get very little out of the Farm bill but do have major conservation programs, 

that you are going to be implementing that. It means about $12 

million to Vermont and other traditionally underserved States in 

conservation funds that protect our farmland and restore our waters. That is good news and I applaud you for it. 

As you have heard from what the Chairman and all the other 

members have said, we share your concern on this matter. We 

want to ensure that our consumers, our children, our other consumers are eating products that are safe. We have a well-deserved 

reputation for safety in the United States. We want to keep that 

up. We want to be able to tell our trading partners that when they 

buy from us, it is also safe. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud you again for having this hearing. It 

is one of the most important ones we will have at the beginning 

of our session. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Leahy, and for your participation in the hearing. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

45

I want to start with Secretary Veneman. My Midwestern common sense tells me that there is an inconsistency that I want to 

point out and ask you about, because we all know that there is 

blood in meat. We also know that milk contains blood cells and 

other blood proteins. Now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

readily, and rightly so, assures us about the safety of both meat as 

well as milk. Then on the other hand, the Food and Drug Administration less than 14 hours ago limited blood for ruminant feed. Is 

the FDA’s position inconsistent with your position? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Senator, that it is important to point out, as 

you did, that there is no scientific evidence that would indicate that 

there is any presence of the prion or that there is any problem with 

the muscle cuts of meat or with any milk or milk products. There 

is no scientific evidence that I am aware of or that I have been informed of by any of the many people I have talked to who have scientific knowledge that there is any risk with regard to these. 

I don’t want to speak for the science behind the FDA actions, but 

the fact of the matter is, that as part of the ruminant-to-ruminant 

ban, this was one of the gaps in the overall ruminant-to-ruminant 

ban that they have acted to correct. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Well, blood is blood, so I would ask Dr. 

Crawford. It is my understanding that the scientific community 

supports the safety of blood and blood proteins. The World Health 

Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, and the World Organization for Animal Health categorizes 

blood in a Category 4, which is tissue with no detectable infectivity. 

While hypotheticals were raised to determine potential risk, the 

Harvard report states, and I quote, ‘‘No detectable infectivity has 

been found in blood or blood components of cattle infected with 

BSE,’’ end of quote. It is my understanding that the Harvard report 

concluded that feeding bovine blood to cattle will not spread BSE. 

Other groups have implied that the blood proteins could have the 

potential to be a risk. 

As you know, blood has never been found to carry BSE, so upon 

what scientific basis has FDA come to the decision that you announced yesterday? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. The concern about blood has been changing in 

the last few weeks. There is a case of variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in England, which is, as you know, the human form of mad 

cow disease, or BSE. That person did receive a transfusion from a 

BSE-infected patient, that is a VCJD-infected patient, and then 

over a period of time, in this case 6 years, the individual that received the blood did come down with the disease. They are checking very hard to be sure that that was the cause of the disease. 

As you also know, the Food and Drug Administration and many 

other governments have limited blood donations from those individuals that lived in the United Kingdom during the time of the major 

outbreak, before they got it under control. We also have imposed 

restrictions on donations of blood from U.S. servicemen because 

those that served south of the Alps did receive meat from the 

United Kingdom during the time of the apogee of the outbreak. 

We review the blood donation restrictions every 6 months with 

our Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee 

and we adjust these on a regular basis. I must say that the new 

46

case in England has caused shockwaves around the globe, and that 

is new information. 

In terms——

Senator GRASSLEY. How does that comport with the decision 

made yesterday not to use animal blood in animal feed? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. Because it means that the prions may be found 

in the blood. As a matter of fact——

Senator GRASSLEY. What about the blood in the meat I eat? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. Well, the blood in the meat you eat is minimal 

compared to something like a blood transfusion or being fed a diet 

of blood and it is not thought to be a risk factor. In fact, there is 

no risk for the so-called purge that is found in meat. What we are 

concerned about are blood transfusions that go right into the bloodstream, into the system. We are also concerned about the consumption of blood in dairy calf replacement rations. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Would that blood that is fed in replacement 

rations, as an example, be a higher percentage of blood in that animal’s diet compared to my diet of the meat I eat? 

Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes, it would be, much higher. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I would like to ask Secretary Veneman about 

the downer issue. The ban troubles me, and I want to take my hat 

off as a member of the Agriculture Committee and speak to you as 

I do often about my concerns about international trade, because my 

Finance Committee deals with this. In international trade, we have 

always argued that standards affecting trade must be based on 

sound science. This means well recognized standards accepted by 

the scientific community. 

My question is, what scientific standards are you relying on 

when banning all downers as opposed to being discriminating in 

some, like broke a leg as opposed to those that might be sick? 

Secretary VENEMAN. Senator, it is important—first of all, I would 

like to also recognize your work on trade. You do a terrific job as 

Chairman of the Finance Committee, and as you know, we are very 

dependent upon trade as an agricultural industry in this country 

and we appreciate your leadership and your knowledge of both agriculture and trade. 

In the situation with regard to the downers, we do know that the 

downers are among the highest-risk animals. Of the cattle that 

have been found to be infected in other countries, including in Europe, when the disease did become established, it was much more 

prevalent in downer animals than other animals. 

Second, we have had three finds of BSE in North America the 

two in 2003 and one back in the early 1990’s, which was a single 

cow that was imported from, I believe, the U.K. In all three of 

those cases, the animals were downer animals. One just simply had 

the symptoms of a broken leg. 

When you make decisions about regulations, they are based upon 

an evaluation of the science and a determination of the risk. Given 

the fact that we found a case of BSE in this country, we determined that based upon the science and the risk that these animals 

posed—we should take them out of the food chain itself. 

That is why we made the decision. It is clearly a decision that 

can be defended in an international setting. Certainly it doesn’t 

47

violate national treatment and I believe that any panel would support our decision in terms of the science as well as the risk. 

Senator GRASSLEY. In that 1990 case, the broken leg was not the 

only symptom, though, was it? 

Secretary VENEMAN. I am not intimately familiar. That was the 

symptom that I was told, in addition to the fact that the animal—

the animal was tested also because it was identified as having 

come from the U.K., as I understand it. It was presented as a nonambulatory broken leg cow. 

Senator GRASSLEY. In regard to whether or not sound science 

was used, or can be used in this particular case, the United States 

has been so far out in front on making sure, at least since 1993 

when the last WTO dealt with the sanitary and phytosanitary 

rules, was to make sure that we did have sound science. 

The extent to which this might be questionable in this case, it 

puts us at a disadvantage in the arguments we have been making, 

particularly with Europe, on the standards that could ban genetically modified organisms or the beef hormone issue that we won 

the WTO case on, and also the extent to which we might be playing 

to the European goal in this area of their use of the precautionary 

standard, which to me can ignore sound science and might be a 

way around the sanitary and phytosanitary rules, kind of a loose 

science. We have to be careful that we don’t get other nations encouraged to go that same direction after we have taken such a 

strong stand against it. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the end of my questioning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Grassley, for your contribution to the hearing. 

Madam Secretary, Dr. Crawford, thank you so much for being 

here and testifying before our committee today. I congratulate you 

again on the fine work you are doing. We commend you for your 

efforts and wish you the best. 

Our final witness is Dr. Alfonso Torres, who is Associate Dean 

of Veterinary Public Policy and Executive Director of the New York 

State Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory. He is a professor, as 

well, at the College of Veterinary Medicine of Cornell University. 

He served as Director of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center 

before working at the Department of Agriculture as the Chief Veterinary Officer. 

It was at the request of Senator Harkin that we invited an outside witness, someone who is not currently employed by the U.S. 

Government, to give us the benefit of observations and testimony 

concerning BSE and our government’s efforts to deal with the 

threat, if any, to our food supply and the effect that it may have 

had on our domestic beef cattle industry. Dr. Torres comes to us 

highly recommended because of his previous experiences and his 

knowledge in this area. 

We have a copy of the statement which you have submitted to 

the committee and we will make that a part of the record in full. 

I would invite you to make whatever summary comments you think 

would be helpful to our further understanding of your assessment 

of the actions that our government has taken and the effectiveness 

of those actions. You may proceed. 

48

STATEMENT OF ALFONSO TORRES, D.V.M., M.S., Ph.D.,

ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR VETERINARY PUBLIC POLICY, AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW YORK STATE ANIMAL HEALTH 

DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY

MEDICINE, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK 

Dr. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me, and Senator Harkin and members of the committee. 

While we are now experiencing the impact of BSE in our country, 

BSE is not a new disease for us in the veterinary community. We 

have been following this disease since it was first recognized as a 

brand new one in the United Kingdom in 1986, and all the 

proactive regulations from the USDA and the FDA dating back to 

1988 have worked well in protecting us against an outbreak of 

BSE. 

As Secretary Veneman indicated, we have followed BSE response 

plans that had been in place in 1990. Thanks to that, the Federal 

agency has been remarkably effective in dealing with the current 

situation, as has been pointed out before here. Now that we have 

BSE in our soil, we need to modify our plans. I know that both 

USDA and FDA have indicated before they are doing so. 

Given the nature of BSE, there are three areas that I would like 

to provide some comments. The first one is in the area of trade of 

ruminants and ruminant products. Recognizing that we have been 

very proactive in implementing regulatory safeguards to prevent 

introduction of BSE-affected animals or products containing the 

BSE agent, all these regulations have so far followed the scientific 

knowledge about this disease, which is evolving. Consequently, our 

policy of how to respond to BSE-affected countries needs to be also 

adjusted accordingly. 

In the past, we had a set policy of implementing some trade embargoes on countries that had BSE regardless of how many animals or regardless of the risk factor that they had, and that needs 

to be modified. Actually, the Federal agencies, Secretary Veneman 

pointed out, are beginning to do in cooperation with trading partners and in cooperation with the OIE. 

It is important to point out that our response to Canada must 

be different than to respond to many countries in Europe. I also 

want to point out that while we only have two animals, Canadianborn animals diagnosed with BSE, we still have several hundred 

cases of BSE every year in EU member countries. When I hear 

comments that France is doing more testing of that than we do, it 

is because they do have a lot of cases of BSE. We don’t. 

Our nation will not be able to overcome the restrictions that 

other countries have placed on our export of animals and animal 

products until we continue to adjust our import trade restriction to 

other countries in an equivalent and proportional way under similar situations. I believe that the trade restrictions imposed by 

many countries, as pointed out, are not science-based, and that includes boxed beef, embryos, and semen. Those should be lifted. The 

restrictions on live animals are going to take a little bit longer 

term to be lifted, until we are in a position to lift similarly restrictions in other countries. 

The second point that I want to make some comments, Mr. 

Chairman, is in the targeted domestic surveillance. As pointed out 

49

by previous testimony here, USDA has had an effective surveillance system to provide for an early detection of BSE in our country. The system has worked well, as demonstrated by the detection 

of the first BSE-affected cow in the State of Washington. 

The task now is to maintain and expand an effective surveillance 

program in face of the recently announced USDA ban on the 

slaughter of non-ambulatory animals for human food. This is the 

segment of the cattle population that has been our best target for 

sampling and testing. A new system of BSE surveillance that statistically represents the entire cattle population of the U.S. and 

that meets international guidelines and recommendations will be a 

challenge. The system for transportation to and sampling at 

slaughter establishments that process only downer animals are not 

well developed at the present time. 

There is a need, in my estimation, to find a safe and economically viable means to humanely slaughter non-ambulatory animals 

and to provide for safe disposal and sampling of on-farm dead animals. Such actions will avoid potential welfare issues of injured 

animals at the farm and will restore a well-established source of 

samples for a credible BSE surveillance at the national level that 

is based on sound epidemiologic science. 

Animal ID is an integral component of surveillance, and while I 

recognize and appreciate the many efforts that USDA and the animal industries are doing in developing and implementing a national ID system, the weakness of such a system is that it is voluntary at this time. I am encouraged by the statements from Secretary Veneman and others at USDA on the acceleration of the national animal ID plans. However, I respectfully suggest that Congress, in cooperation with the USDA and the industry, needs to 

make this national animal ID system a mandatory program. 

My final comment, Mr. Chairman, is in regard to ruminant feed 

bans. I applaud the efforts from the FDA in tightening enforcement 

of the regulations banning the feeding of ruminant proteins to cattle and the additional safeguard measures just announced. I understand the reasons for those at this point in time. 

Still, the very best way to prevent the amplification and the 

spread of BSE from affected cattle to other animals is by preventing the use of potentially BSE-contaminated feeds for all susceptible animals. Given the fact that BSE prion agent is primarily 

present in relatively few tissues of the infected animal, the socalled specified risk materials, or SRM, I urge the USDA and the 

FDA to extend the ban on the use of SRMs from all downers and 

from cattle older than 30 months of age, not only for use in the 

human food chain, but also for use in the animal feed chain. Such 

action will further enhance the safety of protein supplements used 

in ruminant and feline diets. 

This recommendation has been proposed by the World Health 

Organization as part of scientific measures to prevent the spread 

of BSE in the world. This recommendation was also made to Canada last June by the international review panel that evaluated the 

actions after the case in the Province of Alberta last year. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to be on record to congratulate the USDA 

and the FDA for their effective actions following the BSE finding 

and announcement December 23 of last year. These actions have 

50

maintained consumer confidence in the safety of our beef products, 

and while trade embargoes were to be expected in a situation like 

this, I hope that with continued implementation of actions as suggested today by members of the panels we will continue to enhance 

the defense of our nation against BSE and sustain domestic and 

international confidence in our animal industries and the safety of 

our food and feed supply. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee for inviting me to testify, and I would be glad to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Torres. We appreciate 

your attendance at our hearing and your help in our understanding 

of the issues involved in this BSE situation. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Torres can be found in the appendix on page 148.] 

The CHAIRMAN. In your statement, you suggest that even though 

we have learned a lot since the outbreak of BSE in Europe, our research has some scientific gaps in it. With your experience with 

BSE and other diseases, can you give us your thoughts about how 

we could better coordinate research efforts both domestically and 

internationally to close those gaps? 

Dr. TORRES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Certainly this group of diseases 

have been difficult ones to do research on because of a number of 

things. One is a unique type of agent for which the technologies 

that we use for infectious diseases do not work. Second is a very 

long incubation period. Even if you were to use mice, you need to 

inject these mice and then wait a year and a half to 2 years to have 

the results. If you were to use the host species, cattle, you have to 

wait 4 to 7 years. Then you have to do those experiments under 

proper, biocontainment, isolation. It becomes very cumbersome and 

very difficult and expensive to do it. 

There is one issue that I have to caution all of you about and 

that is the extrapolation of scientific information from other TSEs 

into BSE. Let me use an example. Variant CJD is the BSE infection in humans, but the findings of vCJD in humans could not be 

directly extrapolated to humans. Yes, there was a case, as pointed 

out by Dr. Crawford, of a transfusion that led to a vCJD case in 

a human, and that is because humans with vCJD have the prions 

in the bone marrow, which is the tissue or the organ of the body 

that forms blood. 

That has not been determined in cattle. We have never seen 

prions be accumulated in the bone marrow of cattle. That is why 

the OIE, the WHO, and other agencies still argue that the blood 

of cattle is safe for consumption or for use, because there is no evidence of that in cattle. There is evidence of that in humans. 

What I am trying to say is that there are a lot of gaps in research in these diseases as they apply to animals. A lot of the research, funding for research on these diseases has been directed to 

the human aspects of these diseases. There is very little money 

going to understand the effect of these diseases on the host animals 

themselves. We know still very little how chronic wasting disease 

is transmitted. We still have some gaps in the understanding of 

BSE in animals, especially what could happen with BSE infection 

in sheep, for example. 

51

Mr. Chairman and Senator Harkin, I know that both of you are 

interested in this area, but when it comes down to the funding 

available for universities like ourselves at Cornell University to 

conduct animal health research, it is a very, very small portion of 

the pool of the money that is available to do biomedical research 

for human purposes to NIH, and I will argue that the biomedical 

sciences are as expensive whether you are working for disease in 

animals or in humans and I would urge the Congress to revisit the 

issue of funding for agricultural-based animal health and public 

health research. 

I hope that I have answered some of your question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your mentioning the World Animal Health Organization is helpful to us. Many people have heard of the World 

Health Organization. It is commonly discussed in the decisions that 

are made by the World Health Organization. 

You suggested in your statement that specified risk materials 

from cattle over 30 months of age should not enter the human food 

chain. You recommend that they should not enter the human food 

chain or animal feed chain and that this recommendation has been 

proposed by the World Health Organization. I wonder if that is the 

same position that the World Animal Health Organization has, or 

have they taken a position on that issue? You were a delegate to 

that World Animal Health Organization. 

Dr. TORRES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. They are coordinating their recommendations to be uniform. One of the reasons why—first of all, 

let us keep in mind that the SRM is where the major infectivity 

exists. There could be 5,000 infective doses in the brain of an affected animal, 2,000 infected doses for cattle in the spinal cord of 

affected cattle. If you remove just brain and spinal cord, you are 

taking more than 80 percent of the infectivity that is in the system. 

There are always leaks in the system, even though you may have 

a ruminant feed ban in place, there are leaks in the system as has 

been pointed out here before. The chicken litter feed is one of the 

sort of leaks of the system that have been plugged now. There are 

also leaks in the system of spent pet food being fed to cattle. 

That is one of the recommendations, elimination of all SRMs 

from even the feed, is to prevent these infection materials to be 

available through the feed channels that perhaps accidentally could 

be leaked into the ruminant feed chain. That is also why FDA 

wants to have separate lines of production of these products, to 

prevent this cost-contamination. The additional removing of all 

SRMs even from the feed chain is going to help us to remove that 

risk from ruminants. 

Also, we have to keep in mind that although there have been 

very few cases, about 100 cases of domestic cats have suffered infection of BSE. These cases have been mostly in the U.K., a few 

cases in other parts of Europe. The elimination of SRMs from the 

feed chain is an added safeguard in preventing the spread of BSE 

in a given country. 

The CHAIRMAN. When you mention the acronym SRMs, you are 

referring to specified—— Dr. TORRES. Specified risk materials. 

The CHAIRMAN. Specified risk materials? 

Dr. TORRES. That is correct, yes. 

52

The CHAIRMAN. With respect to the national animal identification system, do you see this as an area where the Federal Government should mandate the system, including any type of technology 

that should be employed, or do you see the potential for USDA to 

be able to use existing ID systems developed by commercial entities 

or State governments or breed associations? 

Dr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my testimony, the 

national animal ID system needs to be, in my estimation, mandatory. The mandatory part will be the standardization of systems, 

of nomenclature and maybe computer data bases that can gather 

information but allow the marketplace to establish what is placed 

on the animal. This could be an implant, it could be an ear tag, 

it could be different methodologies. 

What needs to be mandatory and standardized is the nomenclature system and the system to collect that information and being 

made available when needed. Unless we have all the systems that 

are compatible in the data bases, then we are not going to accomplish what we need. 

It needs to be also ISO certifiable. That means that internationally, it is going to be accepted by trading partners. Some of these 

animals that we are going to ear tag or ID tag are going to be exported. Our system needs to be also recognized internationally. 

There are many, many systems that many companies are promoting now. Many of them are not ISO certifiable, and that needs 

to be part of the standards that are mandatory. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Your presence here and your testimony has been very helpful and we appreciate your assistance to 

our committee. 

Senator Harkin. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to get 

back here. I had to take a small break, but I wanted to be here 

for Dr. Torres’ testimony, basically just to cover a couple of things 

with you, Dr. Torres. 

I am not certain, I listened to the answer that Dr. Crawford gave 

to Senator Conrad, and I believe there may have been a misinterpretation or misperception from that answer. Dr. Crawford said 

that BSE does not manifest itself—that is the word he used—in 

poultry, for example. Chickens don’t get BSE. Therefore, the implication was that if you feed ground up chickens, bones and everything else, to ruminants, that is no problem. 

Is it not a fact, Dr. Torres, that these prions are highly indestructible molecules that can go—let us say you can take a ruminant, you can grind it up, use that as feed and feed it to poultry. 

If that animal is infected with those prions, that ruminant, those 

prions then will be picked up by the chicken. The chicken may 

never manifest BSE, but the prions could be there in the chicken’s 

system. If that chicken is then slaughtered and ground up and fed 

back to another ruminant animal, those prions may have completed 

that cycle, is that not true? 

Dr. TORRES. Senator Harkin, there is a need to have a certain 

amount of material in order to infect an animal, a bovine. Chickens——

Senator HARKIN. Do we know how much that is? 

53

Dr. TORRES. It has been estimated to be probably a tenth of a 

gram or maybe less. 

Senator HARKIN. A tenth of a gram? 

Dr. TORRES. Or less. 

Senator HARKIN. That is very small. 

Dr. TORRES. It is a very small amount, yes. 

Senator HARKIN. Very small. 

Dr. TORRES. A very small amount. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you. I didn’t want to leave the impression there that a ruminant had to eat a thousand chickens before 

it would ever get prions. A tenth of a gram. 

Dr. TORRES. Now, if chickens, following your example, are fed 

materials contaminated with that prion—let us assume that that 

is the case. 

Senator HARKIN. Yes. 

Dr. TORRES. The materials are going to be passed through the 

gastrointestinal tract of the chicken without being destroyed because of the nature of those proteins. They are not going to be 

taken into the body of the chicken, nor do they have an ability to 

replicate or multiply or accumulate in the chicken. The only part 

that could be in the chicken, if it is ground up, following your example, to be used as a protein supplement for cattle, it would be 

whatever minute amounts are still present in the lining of the intestinal tract of that chicken fed that material. 

Senator HARKIN. Let me just clear up one thing, Dr. Torres. You 

are saying that if a chicken eats ground up ruminant material that 

contains these prions, those prions cannot go beyond the gastrointestinal tract? They cannot be absorbed in the bloodstream? 

Dr. TORRES. That is correct. That is what is estimated to be the 

case, yes. 

Senator HARKIN. Estimated, or—I really want to pin you down 

on this, because I have heard other information that those prions 

may be deposited in other parts of the chicken’s body, where they 

won’t do any harm, but they are still there. Now, if I am wrong, 

I would like to know that. 

Dr. TORRES. I don’t have a recollection now of a specific scientific 

paper that deals with quantifying how much of this material may 

be absorbed in chickens or not. I am basing my answer on general 

principles that we know about what is absorbed from the intestinal 

tract of animals or not. 

Senator HARKIN. OK. 

Dr. TORRES. In my estimation, the amount of prion, the large 

molecule that the chicken may absorb into the bloodstream, will be 

either nil or very minute amounts. 

Senator HARKIN. I need to get more information on that because 

it seems there is a fair amount unknown about whether those 

prions could deposit themselves in various parts of the chicken’s 

body. The chicken will never manifest any illness, but the prions 

would be there. I need to get some more information on that because I thought these was some uncertainty regarding that, and I 

will have to check that out some more from scientists. 

The other point, if there is that possibility, and I don’t know if 

there is, but it seems to me that the one way to stop all this is just 

54

to ban the feeding of any ruminant parts to any animal. Wouldn’t 

that just stop it right there? 

Dr. TORRES. Sure, or the elimination of all SRMs to get into the 

feed chain, what I have suggested, as well. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, but that is the way it gets in the feed 

chain, isn’t it? 

Dr. TORRES. No. The SRMs are still allowed to go into the feed 

chain. Now, that feed cannot be fed to ruminants, but can be fed 

to other animals, chickens, pigs, and so forth. 

Senator HARKIN. Right. 

Dr. TORRES. If you were to eliminate all SRMs from the feed 

chain—— Senator HARKIN. Yes. 

Dr. TORRES [continuing]. Then you remove the majority of the potentially infectious agent from the feed chain, period, whether it is 

fed to chickens——

Senator HARKIN. The majority or all of it? 

Dr. TORRES. Well, there is still some residue, but if you eliminate 

the SRMs, you are eliminating 90 percent plus of all infectious, or 

all tissue that potentially could contain the prion agent of a ruminant. 

Senator HARKIN. Those prions in a bovine animal, in a steer, 

cow, whatever, those prions actually could also attach themselves 

to nearby tissues of the spinal column, for example, along the ribs. 

Dr. TORRES. Well, that is—Mr. Harkin, there are some ganglions, 

some nearby ganglions. As the nerves exit the spinal cord—— Senator HARKIN. Right. 

Dr. TORRES [continuing]. There is a ganglion there. That is called 

a dorsal ganglia. They are part of the SRM definition. If you remove all SRMs, you are removing that nerve tissue that is there 

as the nerves exit the spinal cord through the muscle to the ribs. 

Senator HARKIN. These prions could not attach themselves to 

anything beyond that that we know of? 

Dr. TORRES. These prions are associated with nerve cells. Most 

of our nerves in the body are not the cells. The cells are in the spinal cord, the brain, or the ganglia. What we have in our tissues is 

just the extensions of those cells but not the nucleus of the cell and 

that is where the prions are. The nerve tissue, pure nerve tissue 

that may be in a muscle mass, does not contain the prions. 

Senator HARKIN. I see. Is it my understanding that some countries, Japan, France, I don’t know how many, have actually banned 

all feeding of ruminant feed to anything? 

Dr. TORRES. That is correct, and part of that is because the systems, as I understand, of rendering and processing, they have 

plants that process and render ruminants or non-ruminant species 

in the same plant. The possibility of cross-contamination for them 

is quite high. The FDA has implemented rules that separate the 

production lines of ruminant feed from other lines that produce 

feed for other species. It is a little bit different systems in how the 

rendering unit is organized, as I understand, why some countries 

have banned all ruminant feeding to other animals versus ourselves doing the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. 

Senator HARKIN. My last question would be this. I was told the 

other day that France inspects more animals in 1 month than we 

55

do in a decade. I saw your testimony as I was walking out of my 

office that you said, of course, they have BSE. They have more 

BSE. That is why they do more testing. I understand that. 

Is there not a quick—test right now that other countries have 

adopted, which before any slaughtered animal goes to market, 

there is a test done and then the animal is released to go to market 

based upon that test, and that test only takes a couple days, 

maybe, two or 3 days, less than that, maybe. I don’t know. What 

can you tell us about that as a possibility of perhaps ensuring the 

public that the meat they eat contains absolutely none of these 

prions? 

Dr. TORRES. Senator Harkin, there are a variety of diagnostic 

tests for prions, BSE or chronic wasting disease or the like. The 

majority of the tests are very good for surveillance but they are not 

intended, many of them, to be for food safety purposes, and there 

is a difference there. These tests, only they take the positive animal when the animal is just a few months or a few weeks before 

the animal becomes clinical. We cannot detect animals that may 

have the prions in their tissues too much before the animal becomes clinical. 

The feeling is that many of these tests are very good for surveillance, targeting the high-risk population like we have been doing 

here in the past, the downer animals and the like. Testing animals 

older than 30 months of age makes sense. 

Testing animals below that age, 24 to 30—I know that you asked 

that question because there are differences in establishing when 

there is sufficient prion accumulated in an animal for that animal 

to be infectious to others. Experiments were done using mice, but 

now they are getting the results after 4 to 7 years of the same experiments doing calves and the data looks a little different. There 

is a range between 24 to 30 months. Some countries have elected 

to take 24 months, but most countries have elected to take 30 

months. Testing eventually 30 months of all the animals, the test 

becomes more valid for food safety purposes than testing animals 

lower than that age. 

Senator HARKIN. Lower than that age, those prions could still be 

there. They may not manifest themselves in any illness or anything 

like that, but they would still be there. 

Dr. TORRES. It appears, Senator, that the accumulation of these 

prions in the SRM tissues of the animal, affected animal, increases 

exponentially with time. Prior to that age, even if the animal were 

to be incubating the disease, the scientific community estimated 

that those animals do not pose a risk for human or animal safety 

because there is not enough material there to infect other animals. 

Senator HARKIN. How about to infect humans? 

Dr. TORRES. Less likely. The human infective dose, although it 

is not established because nobody has done the direct experiment, 

but is estimated to be maybe a thousand or more fold greater than 

the dose used for infecting cattle. Every time that you jump species, the infective dose increases dramatically. The amount to infect 

a human is many, many folds, a thousandfold or more, greater 

than the amount that is used or needed to infect cattle. 

Senator HARKIN. Yes, but we really don’t know the answer to 

that and that is why more research is needed on this. 

56

Is there any difference between poultry and swine? When swine 

eat ruminant parts and stuff, could these prions then be ingested 

and find their way to other parts of the swine rather than. 

Dr. TORRES. I am not aware, Senator Harkin, of swine being, 

first, susceptible to these diseases, or—— Senator HARKIN. I know it is not susceptible to disease. I am just 

talking about eating ruminant parts, having those prions attach 

themselves or get in the blood stream and settle in various other 

parts of the swine’s body that may either be consumed by humans 

or may be consumed by other ruminant animals as feed later on. 

Dr. TORRES. Yes. I am not aware of the swine to be accumulating 

these prions in their tissues—— Senator HARKIN. OK. 

Dr. TORRES [continuing]. Enough to pose any human or animal 

health hazard. 

Senator HARKIN. OK. You are not aware that that is possible. 

Thank you. That was very informative. I appreciate it very much, 

Dr. Torres. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Harkin. 

Thank you, Dr. Torres, for your participation in our hearing. We 

have had a very successful hearing today. We had the full participation of the members of the committee and we have been enlightened and better advised because of the fact that we have had our 

witnesses before us today. 

Congratulations again to the Department of Agriculture and the 

Food and Drug Administration for the expeditious effort that they 

have put forward in containing and explaining and helping to reassure not only the consuming public here in the U.S. about the BSE 

and what the threats are and the lack of threats to our food supply, 

and also to re-establish and restore markets for our beef cattle industry and our beef products around the world. This has been a 

very constructive hearing. 

The hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X

JANURAY 27, 2004

58


91649.001
59


91649.002
60


91649.003
61


91649.004
62


91649.005
63


91649.006
64


91649.007
65


91649.008
66


91649.009
67


91649.010
68


91649.011
69


91649.012
70


91649.013
71


91649.014
72


91649.015
73


91649.016
74


91649.017
75


91649.018
76


91649.019
77


91649.020
78


91649.021
79


91649.022
80


91649.023
81


91649.024
82


91649.025
83


91649.026
84


91649.027
85


91649.028
86


91649.029
87


91649.030
88


91649.031
89


91649.032
90


91649.033
91


91649.034
92


91649.035
93


91649.036
94


91649.037
95


91649.038
96


91649.039
97


91649.040
98


91649.041
99


91649.042
100


91649.043
101


91649.044
102


91649.045
103


91649.046
104


91649.047
105


91649.048
106


91649.049
107


91649.050
108


91649.051
109


91649.052
110


91649.053
111


91649.054
112


91649.055
113


91649.056
114


91649.057
115


91649.058
116


91649.059
117


91649.060
118


91649.061
119


91649.062
120


91649.063
121


91649.064
122


91649.065
123


91649.066
124


91649.067
125


91649.068
126


91649.069
127


91649.070
128


91649.071
129


91649.072
130


91649.073
131


91649.074
132


91649.075
133


91649.076
134


91649.077
135


91649.078
136


91649.079
137


91649.080
138


91649.081
139


91649.082
140


91649.083
141


91649.084
142


91649.085
143


91649.086
144


91649.087
145


91649.088
146


91649.089
147


91649.090
148


91649.091
149


91649.092
150


91649.093
151


91649.094
(153)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JANUARY 27, 2004

154


91649.095
155


91649.096
156


91649.097
157


91649.098
158


91649.099
(159)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

JANUARY 27, 2004

160


91649.100
161


91649.101
162


91649.102
163


91649.103
164


91649.104
165


91649.105
166


91649.106
167


91649.107
168


91649.108
169


91649.109
170


91649.110
171


91649.111
172


91649.112
173


91649.113
174


91649.114
175


91649.115
176


91649.116
177


91649.117
178


91649.118
179


91649.119
180


91649.120
181


91649.121
182


91649.122
183


91649.123
184


91649.124
185

Æ


91649.125