| Q. |
Why is the Government of Canada enhancing targeted
surveillance for BSE in Canada? |
| A. |
As unwelcome as is the possibility of detecting another case of
BSE, it is
important to demonstrate Canada's ability to find additional BSE cases if they
exist. |
| Q. |
Who benefits from enhancing BSE surveillance in
Canada? |
| A. |
Canada considers itself to be a minimal risk country for
BSE, but this
assertion must be backed up by surveillance results. Increasing surveillance
will confirm Canada is actively seeking any infected animals and it will
demonstrate the prevalence of BSE in Canada. These two goals are
critical to keeping domestic consumer confidence high while maintaining or
re-establishing international markets.
Producers and processors benefit because domestic and international
confidence in our regulatory system and our products is enhanced. Indirectly,
Canadian consumers benefit from increased surveillance as it improves our
knowledge of the level of prevalence of BSE in Canada.
|
| Q. |
Will increased testing better protect
consumers? |
| A. |
Surveillance testing is sometimes confused as a food safety
measure. Canada does not test animals to protect human health. Surveillance
testing measures the prevalence of the disease and the effectiveness of the
measures in place to mitigate the spread of the disease through the cattle
population.
The removal of specified risk material (SRM) is the most effective measure to
protect people from BSE. SRM are removed at slaughter from all
cattle destined for the food supply. SRM removal is based on scientific research
that shows that BSE
infectivity is localized in certain tissues. The removal of these tissues from
the food supply reduces the risk of human exposure to BSE. SRM include the skull, brain, trigeminal
ganglia, eyes, tonsils, vertebral column, spinal cord, and dorsal rood ganglia
of cattle older than 30 months of age. The small intestine of cattle of all
ages is also removed.
|
| Q. |
Isn't the feed ban in place to protect
consumers? |
| A. |
The feed ban is one of the measures that indirectly protects
consumers. Although the removal of specified risk material (SRM) is the most effective and direct
measure, the feed ban prevents the spread of BSE within the cattle population
and will, over time, result in the disease being eliminated from the Canadian
cattle population. |
| Q. |
How many samples does Canada have to test? |
| A. |
The CFIA is working in partnership with
producers, industry, veterinary practitioners and provinces / territories to
increase the intensity of BSE surveillance testing.
Targeting a minimum of 8,000 samples in 2004, the national BSE surveillance will continue to
ramp up to achieve a minimum of 30,000 samples in subsequent years. |
| Q. |
Why is Canada increasing testing now? Do we have
BSE because we
didn't test enough before? |
| A. |
Canada has been testing cattle for the presence of BSE since 1990, at a level
consistent with international guidelines and clearly appropriate to a country
with no cases of BSE. In the past, the sole purpose
of Canada's BSE
surveillance was to determine whether the disease was present in the country.
With the detection of BSE in an animal born and raised
in Canada, the objectives of the surveillance program have changed and the
intensity of surveillance testing must be increased to confirm the level of
BSE in the country,
and to monitor the effectiveness of the control measures that are in
place. |
| Q. |
Why isn't Canada testing all cows for BSE like some other
countries say they do? |
| A. |
The purpose of our surveillance program is to establish an
estimate of the prevalence of BSE in Canada and to gauge the
effectiveness of our risk management measures.
Testing all animals slaughtered for human consumption is not supported by
science as an effective food safety measure. The removal of specified risk
materials from animals at slaughter is the most effective food safety measure
that can be taken.
Testing all animals is not recommended by the OIE, the world organization for
animal health and international standards setting body, nor is it recommended
by the majority of countries affected by BSE or the international teams of
experts that reviewed the Canadian and American BSE responses.
Available tests have not been validated for use in animals under the age of
24 months. Canada is looking for BSE in the animal population most
likely to be affected -- animals older than 30 months that are down, diseased,
dead or dying. Testing healthy or young animals would not provide an accurate
estimate of the prevalence of BSE in Canada nor would it add any
level of protection to consumers.
|
| Q. |
Canada is often described as a minimal risk country for
BSE. What does
"minimal risk" mean and who decides what countries are minimal
risk? |
| A. |
Minimal risk is a designation that implies that a country's
risk of having a certain level of the disease is very low. The OIE (the World Organization for
Animal Health), an internationally recognized body, has established criteria
that qualify a country as having "minimal risk" for BSE. Countries that meet the
OIE criteria can
identify themselves as minimal risk. |
| Q. |
Since we already say we're a minimal risk country,
why do we need to increase testing? |
| A. |
Although there are compelling reasons to conclude that Canada is
equivalent to the OIE's definition of a
minimal risk country, the only way to validate and confirm this designation is
through increased surveillance testing. Domestic and international consumers
expect that Canada will increase the intensity of BSE surveillance in order to
demonstrate, in a tangible way, that the level of BSE in the country is in fact
minimal. Only after an appropriate number of samples have been tested for
BSE will domestic
consumers and international trading partners fully accept that Canada is a
minimal risk country. |
| Q. |
What happens if Canada find more cases than the OIE says qualifies
countries as minimal risk? |
| A. |
Although the true prevalence of BSE in Canada has not been
determined, all indications are that Canada qualifies as a minimal risk country
as defined by the OIE. In the unlikely event that
BSE surveillance
confirms a disease prevalence that exceeds the OIE definition of a minimal risk
country, although disappointing, it would not alter the soundness of the
preventive measures in place.
Exceeding the OIE definition of a minimal risk
country would extend the period of Canada's BSE recovery, but the beef supply
would remain safe because specified risk materials have been removed, and the
health of the national cattle herd would continue to be protected by the feed
ban.
|
| Q. |
What if we fail to meet our surveillance
targets? |
| A. |
Not testing enough animals would affect Canada's ability to
claim that we are a minimal risk country. Many of our trading partners may
instead categorize us a higher risk, which would affect our ability to export
and force us to reconsider our risk mitigation measures.
In addition, consumer confidence, particularly domestic, may suffer.
Canadians and consumers worldwide have invested their trust in the safety of
Canada's BSE
safeguards. This trust may be lost if our actions to respond to BSE are considered inadequate,
especially at the farm level.
|
| Q. |
How will increased surveillance testing protect the
Canadian herd? |
| A. |
Increased BSE surveillance will determine
the level of disease in Canada, advance the development of appropriate control
measures, and monitor their effectiveness -- all of which are necessary steps
towards eliminating BSE from the cattle
population. |
| Q. |
Is it likely we will find more cases of BSE in Canada? |
| A. |
Animal disease experts from Canada and other countries have
maintained that there may be additional cases in this part of the world.
Indeed, given the collective international experience, it's reasonable to
expect that increased surveillance will lead to some additional North American
cases being found.
The incubation period for BSE is four to six years.
Accordingly, it's important to remember that the detection of additional
cases would not be a reflection of the effectiveness of measures now in place,
but rather of circumstances that took place some time ago.
|
| Q. |
Won't finding more cases of BSE in Canada close our existing
markets or delay opening others? |
| A. |
There is broad recognition at the international level that
Canada has acted responsively and proactively to limit the spread of BSE. There are, however, no
guarantees that the detection of additional cases will not generate negative
reactions from some trading partners. |
| Q. |
Should consumers reconsider their confidence in
Canada’s beef supply? |
| A. |
In Canada, BSE continues to pose a very low
risk to human health. The regulatory requirement for the removal of all
specified risk material (SRM) from carcasses at slaughter
instituted in July 2003 was the most effective public health protection measure
that could be taken. SRM
are tissues that are most likely to contain the BSE agent in infected cattle. This
measure is internationally recognized as the most effective means to protect
public health from BSE.
The prevalence of BSE in North America is low and
the majority of cattle slaughtered in Canade are young cows, considerably less
likely to develop infective levels of the disease. All cattle exhibiting
symptoms consistent with BSE have been, and continue to be,
diverted from the food system. In this regard, it is important to note that
every head of cattle destined for food is and has been subject to a pre- and
post-mortem examination. In regards to birth cohort risk, international
research shows that finding more than one case of BSE in a birth cohort is rare.
This has consistently been shown in North America and internationally, even in
the United Kingdom during the height of the BSE epidemic.
|
| Q. |
Can BSE be transmitted through muscle
meat or from cow's milk? |
| A. |
To date, BSE research continues to
demonstrate that beef (meat) and milk from cattle affected with BSE have not been shown to
transmit the disease experimentally. Based on these studies, Health Canada
continues to agree with the World Health Organization, that with the proper
removal of SRM and sourcing
from healthy cattle, these products are safe. |
| Producer Information |
| Q. |
What would happen to producers if one of their animals
tested positive for BSE ? |
| A. |
First, a professional team of CFIA veterinarians and technicians
would work with an affected producer in carrying out a thorough investigation.
Initially, the farm would be placed under quarantine while an investigation is
carried out to determine how the animal may have been infected. While the
quarantine is in place, animals would be unable to move onto or off of the farm
without prior authorization from the CFIA. |
| Q. |
Would an investigation involve a producer's entire
herd? |
| A. |
Future investigations would target only animals of equivalent
risk to the affected animal. This includes the most recent born progeny and
animals in the birth herd born within a year of the affected animal.
It may also be possible, with current accurate animal records and
identification, to delay the destruction of animals of genetic value to a
producer for as long as they remain productive, until they either die or are
slaughtered.
|
| Q. |
Who's responsible for Canada's BSE surveillance program?
|
| A. |
The CFIA is primarily responsible for
the delivery of the enhanced surveillance testing program. These
responsibilities include:
- establishing the objectives and framework of the national surveillance
program to meet international expectations for BSE surveillance testing;
- administering the surveillance program so that it more accurately estimates
the prevalence of BSE in Canada and to gauge the
effectiveness, over time, of the suite of preventative measures Canada has
introduced;
- facilitating education and awareness to promote compliance with regulations
and understanding of the value and benefits of the surveillance program;
- maintaining the National BSE Reference Laboratory;
- inspecting and enforcing compliance with the relevant acts and regulations;
and
- reporting the results of the surveillance testing, including the detection
of any additional cases, to the Canadian public, international organizations
and trading partners.
|
| Q. |
What are the provinces/territories doing? |
| A. |
Provincial governments also contribute to BSE surveillance testing through:
- collaboration with stakeholders in the procurement of appropriate
samples;
- development or maintenance of sufficient laboratory capacity; and
- participation in ongoing education and awareness activities in support of
national surveillance objectives.
|
| Q. |
What’s the role of producers? |
| A. |
Producers have the most to lose, if confidence in Canada's
cattle industry erodes. Producers are in the best place to spot the high-risk
animals the CFIA
needs to test. It's up to producers to report animals that die on the farm,
those that are downers, those that display neurological symptoms and those that
are dying. |
| Q. |
Do private veterinary practitioners have a
role? |
| A. |
Local veterinary practitioners have an extremely important role.
The role of the veterinary practitioner as a "first responder" is
critical to the response to a disease outbreak, both in terms of the impact it
has on an individual producer and on the national herd as a whole.
To facilitate the role of veterinary practitioners in the enhanced
surveillance testing program, the CFIA is providing them with
resource materials that will clarify their role as a primary contact for the
reporting of dead, dying, diseased or downer animals and to strengthen their
ability to consult with their clients on BSE issues.
|
| Q. |
Will there be any financial help for producers who
submit samples? |
| A. |
Yes. As one of a number of measures intended to help Canada meet
its enhanced national surveillance targets, the CFIA has launched a program where
producers and veterinarians will receive payment when services are provided to
the CFIA. Such
payment will assist the producers in covering a portion of the veterinary
examination fees and carcass disposal costs. |
| Q. |
If the CFIA ordered one or more animals
destroyed, would the producer be fairly compensated? |
| A. |
If an animal is ordered destroyed and sampled, the fair market
value would be assessed. The compensation could be up to a total of $2,500 per
animal. Consideration could be given to postponing the depopulation and
sampling of traceback animals until the end of their productive life, as a
potential way to limit the disruption to producers as much as possible.
Once the value of the animal has been assessed and the producer has provided
the necessary documentation, compensation payments take approximately
four-to-six weeks.
|
| Q. |
Producers may be concerned about participating in the
surveillance program. Why should they want to participate? |
| A. |
Diligence and dedication is required of all cattle producers and
the animal health community if Canada is to meet its surveillance targets.
Failing to successfully test these relatively small numbers of animals could
prove disastrous. Our claims about being a minimal risk country will be without
scientific backing and our commitment to following science and international
standards could be questioned. If Canada's surveillance program is to
fulfill the expectations of consumers and trading partners, it requires the
co-operation and participation of cattle producers and industry to achieve
sufficient samples. The responsibility to strengthen the cattle industry rests
on each farm, with industry and within the national animal health community
across Canada. |
