|
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.
|
