|
USDA Scientific
Delegation Press Conference on April 22, 2005
Seoul, Korea
MODERATOR: Good
afternoon. I would like to introduce
the head of the team, Dr. Charles Lambert, Deputy Under Secretary of
Agriculture, and ask him to introduce the rest of his colleagues.
DR. LAMBERT: Thank
you and welcome. We’re very pleased to
be here. I’m Chuck Lambert. We had a fifteen member delegation from the
U.S. and various members of the staff from the Embassy here in the
delegation. I have representatives from
the various agencies that were at the technical discussions here with me today
and we’ll introduce them.
On my right is Dr.
Valerie Reagan, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Service. She was designated to represent the chief
veterinary officer, as our technical head of delegation for these
discussions. To Valerie’s right,
Patrick Clerkin, who is the Technical Advisor for the Foreign Agricultural
Service. To my left is Dr. Armia
Tawadrous, Senior International Policy Advisor, Food and Safety Inspection
Service. And to his left is Dr. Burt
Pritchett, he’s a veterinarian and Veterinary Medical Officer for the Office of
Surveillance and Compliance at the Food and Drug Administration.
Other members of the delegation, who have not returned to
the U.S. are: Dr. Jacek Taniewski, Senior Staff Veterinarian and Regional Trade
Director for Asia with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS);
Anne Dawson, International Economist, Foreign Agricultural Service; Andy Ball,
Area Director (APHIS), U.S. Embassy Seoul; Larry Senger,
Minister-Counselor for Agricultural Affairs, U.S. Embassy Seoul; Ms. Kim
Yeon-hee, Agricultural Specialist at APHIS.
We came here feeling and believing that it is the U.S.
government’s responsibility to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Korean
government the safety of U.S. beef. To
that end, we held another round of technical talks over the last three days
with representatives of the Korean government here in Seoul and have had a very
productive, very thorough and focused discussion on the issues.
The U.S. team included many of the top experts at the U.S.
government and some of the foremost veterinarians and animal health and food
safety experts that we have in the U.S.
The resolution of this issue is an ongoing process and the
U.S. government and the government of Korea will continue to work to resolve
this issue. We have both stated that we
will work in good faith and make an earnest effort to resolve this issue
expeditiously; but, we will continue to focus on the scientific and technical
aspects in order to do so.
The talks focused on five principle areas of
discussion. The first of those is risk
of BSE in the U.S. The second was the
feed ban on ruminant animals and measures to prevent cross-contamination at the
feed mill for protection against BSE infection. The third was surveillance program for the detection of BSE in
cattle. The forth was the removal and disposal
of SRMs in the slaughter and processing plants. And, the fifth was an individual animal identification system to
allow for tracing to premises.
The attachments to the press release, which are available,
try to spell out the positions that the U.S. government took and the questions
or the concerns that were raised by the Korean side. I won’t go through all of those today. But, I would like to highlight the points that we made from the
standpoint of the U.S. position.
Primarily, we are absolutely confident that we have taken
the measures necessary to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of U.S.
beef. We have a number of steps in
place; it is a multiple-step process to ensure that U.S. beef is safe for U.S.
consumers as well as international consumers.
We have not imported meat and bone meal, or livestock, from
the U.K. or other BSE-infected countries since 1989. In 1990, we banned the import of those products from all of
Europe.
We have banned the feeding of rendered ruminant meat and
bone meal to ruminants domestically since August 4, 1997. For nearly eight years we have had that ban
in place.
We have been testing since 1990 and we have been looking at
the high-risk population. That
population is where, if we do have BSE, we would be most likely to find it. We have been testing since 1990, and it is
important to remember that, to date, we have found one cow. That cow was of Canadian origin and it was
found on December 23, 2003.
Following the finding of that cow and the conclusion of the
epidemiological investigation after that find, we had an international review
team evaluate how we managed that investigation and the measures we put into
place. One of the recommendations of
that review team was that we conduct an enhanced surveillance and extensive
surveillance program for a year to eighteen months to sample as many of the
high-risk population as we can identify and to accurately determine if we had
the disease and, if we did, how prevalent it was. Since June 1, 2004, we have conducted that enhanced surveillance. As of last week, we have tested 323,000 high-risk
animals; they were all negative. To
date, we have never identified a domestic-born case of BSE.
After the find of the cow on December 23, 2003, we did
implement additional mitigation measures to ensure the safety of the product
for consumers. Included in those
measures were: the removal of specified risk materials; the banning of air or
pneumatic stunning; all downer animals were prohibited from being slaughtered
for human food production; and we added increased restrictions for advanced
meat recovery.
So, we are confident that we have taken the measures that we
need to ensure that consumers receive a safe and wholesome product. We presented our facts and then the Korean
experts queried our experts. While they
were productive, they were very long and in depth discussions. We went twelve hours one day – until 9:00;
last night we were working until 10:00.
So, we have had some very in depth discussions. Korean experts challenged our experts and
are working to get the facts and represent the concerns of Korean consumers to
make sure that we are answering and responding to the concerns that are being
raised by Korean consumers to the Korean government.
To continue to answer unanswered questions, and to address
these issues, both sides agreed that another technical consultation would be
held in the U.S. in early June and that those discussions would be held in
parallel with an on-site verification visit where Korean government officials
could visit U.S. production and processing facilities, feed mills and
production systems, to verify for themselves that what we are saying is true,
and to further be able to address any concerns that have been raised.
It was also understood by both sides that, prior to this
technical discussion in June, representatives of domestic consumer groups would
be sent to visit U.S. farms, slaughter plants, and feed mills, so that they
would have an opportunity to observe safety measures on a first hand
basis. This visit will take place in
early May.
As I said at the outset, we realize that resolution of this
issue is going to be an ongoing process.
Representatives from both governments will continue to work to resolve
this issue expeditiously. But, we will
continue to focus on the scientific and technical aspects of the issue to get
this issue resolved.
Thank you and I’d be glad to address your questions.
QUESTION: You
mentioned that the United States and the Republic of Korea will hold the third
round of technical consultations in the U.S. in June. I would like to ask you about the schedule beyond that. What will take place after the third
consultation?
DR. LAMBERT: We have
not thoroughly defined the process beyond that timeline. We agreed here that the basis of these
discussions would be technical and that we would continue to work to resolve
those issues. We will have to just wait
and see if there are unresolved issues, once government officials have had an
opportunity to see our system and to see if we have answered those unresolved
questions. At that time, a decision
will be made about what additional measures may be needed.
QUESTION: I would
like to know what the portion of the Korean market is, out of the total export
market for U.S. beef. The second
question is, at this current round of technical talks, were there any
conditions that the Korean government laid-out as a precondition for resuming
its import of U.S. beef.
DR. LAMBERT: Prior
to the find of the Canadian cow on December 23, 2003, it depended on where
Korea was compared to Mexico, but Korea was either our second or third largest
beef market. It was very close to
Mexico; sometimes second and sometimes third.
So, they were a very important market and that is the reason we feel
we’ve earned the right and we’d very much like to gain access to this market.
The only preconditions that were set on these talks were
that they be based on science and technology.
We were asked to bring a lot of scientific expertise to the table. That is way we had such a large delegation
of experts. Other than addressing these
issues based on science and technology, there were no preconditions.
I would say that there absolutely was no linkage to any
other issues in any other commodities or any other areas.
QUESTION: I am from
Bloomberg News. I have three questions,
and they may be interlinked. There seem
to be a lot of efforts by the U.S. government and the Korean government and it
seems to be very productive. But, I
also understand that this prolonged state of a beef ban is increasing political
tension in the U.S. These talks have
been very long and very productive and they need more work, but I was just
wondering how the outcome of your meeting in Korea – I understand you are going
on to Tokyo – how will that outcome affect politics or companies like Cargill,
Tyson’s, and their reactions? My second
question is why you came to Korea first because Japan is a bigger market. My third question is are you talking of any
deadlines because this has gone on for over year and is raising tensions for
both countries. How much longer can
this last? And, is the U.S. considering
any measures to speed up the process?
DR. LAMBERT: You’re
right – it has been sixteen months since December 23, 2003 and we feel that we
have taken the measures, as I said, to justify that we have a system in place
to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of U.S. beef.
I think the U.S. industry and the organizations that
represent them – both the packers and the producers – are willing to provide us
some time to get this resolved as long as both sides are working in a good
faith effort and we are seeing progress to the end objective. That objective is reestablishing trade. I think there is a willingness to maintain
some patience and we are going to continue to work on this. We are attempting to be very responsive –
to respond to questions just as fast as we can. And, we are seeing that on the other side as well.
As long as we are seeing good progress, I think the industry
is willing to be patient for at least some time to give the process the time to
work.
As far as the order of the meetings, to the best of my
knowledge, there was no strategic thinking involved. It was primarily based on when representatives of the governments
were available and when we could put the teams together to meet. The meetings here were much more technical
in nature and so we had the technical team here. We have been in ongoing technical discussions with Japan. We are at a different stage in that market;
the team there will be conducting much more communication and outreach efforts
in Japan.
The timing was primarily determined by “who was available
when.”
As far as the talk about deadlines and pressure to speed the
process, generally it is our feeling that those would be
counter-productive. The pressures that
we see, I think, are more market pressures.
We have seen reopening of the market in Taiwan. There will be product clearing customs, from
at least one company, next week. We
have seen the reopening of the market in Egypt and product is on the water that
will go there.
We have international guidelines to follow as to when trade
can and cannot take place and the conditions under which that trade can occur;
so the pressure will be from the international guidelines and market
pressures. We are not here to set deadlines
and make demands. We are here to be
responsive. We want to move as fast as
we can. As long as we see good-faith
efforts on the other side that they are moving as fast as they can – that is
all we can reasonably expect. We will
continue to work the process
QUESTION: I
understand that in early May, the consumer groups will visit the U.S. for an
on-site investigation. In early June an
on-site Korean government of facilities, in conjunction with the third round of
technical talks will take place. When
these groups visit the U.S., are you confident that you will be able to
persuade those people about the safety measures that are in place?
DR. LAMBERT: Those
people will have to make up their own minds, based on what they see. I am very confident that we can show them
the systems that are in place and that we can make a good case that we are
providing every reasonable protection to ensure the safety of the product. I’m confident that we can show them that our
consumers are accepting those measures readily and are continuing to be strong
demanders of U.S. beef. Whether I can
be confident that I can convince them or not, that will be up to the
individual. But, I am confident that we
can present a very compelling case that will show to the best of our ability
that those systems are there and they are working.
QUESTION: You said
these meetings were focused on technical areas and science. Can you please explain, in layman’s terms,
what the South Korean side was most concerned about regarding the processing of
beef in the U.S.? Was this a
precondition set or agreed to by the two sides, that consumer groups will visit
the U.S.? And, do you expect things to
be resolved by the third talks – is that why you set no further meetings?
DR. LAMBERT: On the
consumer visit to the U.S. in May, both sides agreed that it would or could
happen. It will not be a government
event. But, it will be an
organization-to-organization type of event.
Both sides have agreed that it will be allowed to happen. There was consensus on both sides that it
would happen.
As far as the timeline, both sides agreed that we wanted to
do this technical discussion and set the date and the time for the next round
to allow the consumer groups to come and see and see what questions may be
raised and then allow the Korean government officials to come and see and
resolve as many of those questions as can be addressed at the third
meeting. Then we will have to reassess,
at that time, if we have made adequate progress and if the Korean officials
feel we have adequately addressed their concerns. Then, they may move into whatever rule-making process
follows. If there are unanswered
questions that we need to address further, we will just have to take that up at
that time.
As far as the agenda, prior to this meeting, we did ask for
a list of questions and concerns. Those
five areas in the press release that I went through were identified. Korean officials asked questions and we
responded in writing the answers to those questions in those areas. That then became the basis for further
discussion to address further questions and issues. To that degree there was a pre-set agenda for what would be
discussed.
As I said, we responded with research material. In discussions on the next steps, as we say,
a picture is worth a thousand words; so, we will have the officials to come and
see if many of the remaining concerns can be addressed by seeing the system. And
then we will just have to see which issues remain. We will make arrangements for the officials to see feed
processing facilities, packing facilities, and production facilities so they
can see for themselves how the regulatory system works within those operations
to see how many of the concerns we can address.
MODERATOR: Does
anyone have a final question?
You have answered all of them Dr. Lambert. Do you have any closing remarks?
DR. LAMBERT: I
appreciate the opportunity to address the media here and to present our side
and to reflect our viewpoint about our participation in these discussions. We look forward to a continuation of the
process and successful conclusion as soon as possible.
Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Thank you
all for coming and thank you to the delegation for taking the time to do this
press conference.
|
