Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Will Mad Cow Now Turn into Angry Dispute Between U.S., Canada?
Aired December 30, 2003 - 08:05 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: There has been a bit of a cross border war during this. Will mad cow now turn into an angry dispute between the U.S. and Canada?
From Ottawa, the chief veterinary officer for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is Dr. Brian Evans.
Dr. Evans, good morning to you.
DR. BRIAN EVANS, CHIEF VETERINARIAN OFFICER, CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY: Good morning, Bill.
HEMMER: Nice to have you here.
We talked with your counterpart on AMERICAN MORNING yesterday. He seemed fairly certain that they can trace this to a cow in Alberta, Canada.
Are you the same, feeling that way?
EVANS: Well, we've said all along that we will take a determination once we have all the available evidence and it all lines up. We've not, from the outset, we've said it's not really that critical as to whether the animal was, in fact, born in Canada or the United States, but we need to make sure that the investigation is thorough and having determined where the animal, in fact, originated from, the most critical part of the investigation then becomes how did she become infected.
HEMMER: Yes, very good questions there. And some of your answers really reflects what Dr. Rhonda Haven (ph) told us yesterday.
When will the DNA testing determine where the origination point for this was?
EVANS: Well, my understanding is that the samples have started to be exchanged that will provide the parallel testing between the DNA extracted from the positive cow's brain and the known father of the animal that was tagged in Canada and then some of the sibling comparisons. Those samples are now on transit between the two countries for laboratory testing. We expect some of the early DNA extraction could start as early as today and as they start to provide us results in the next three to four days.
HEMMER: Certainly you can understand the urgency on this matter.
Could it come today that you can definitively say then? Is that what you're suggesting?
EVANS: No, no, it's premature at this point in time. As I say, the DNA extraction process will be undertaken today. But, again, it's important that the lab follow appropriate protocols so that, again, at the end of the day, neither the U.S. nor Canada want any of these results to be in dispute.
HEMMER: What would it mean, then, if you can trace this to Alberta, trace this to that problem that's in your country?
EVANS: Sure. Well, like I say, we've said all along and as the international panel did from the point that they reviewed our circumstance and even the Harvard risk assessment carried out in the U.S., the finding of a small number of additional cases, having found an initial case back in May, whether in Canada or the United States, is not unexpected given the nature of the disease and the interrogation of the commerce.
What's critical, though, is the fact that both Canada and the U.S. share a commitment to food safety and public health and animal health protection. And the measures that we have in place are very, very complimentary to each other and have evolved over time to provide the maximum protection that our public interest deserves.
HEMMER: Doctor, certainly you would admit, though, there is a huge economic question involved here.
What's at stake for the industry?
EVANS: Well, again, I think what has transpired since the detection in May has been that there has been a different international approach taken. It's been a much more measured response in spite of the economic impacts that people recognize. People are starting to more reflect on the circumstance and starting to recognize that it's more critical the measures that are in place before the disease is detected than what one does after it's detected. And we are starting to see a growing respect for the established international standards that certain products that don't pose a risk should not be restricted. And that's the reward for industries and governments who make appropriate investments.
And so my, yes, there will be economic impacts and they're unfortunate. But at the same time, we need to continue to work in a hemispheric approach, but also at the international level to make sure that the international response are based on true risk and that countries are not penalized for making an appropriate investment to detect disease and report disease, to fulfill those international obligations to protect public health at the broadest level.
HEMMER: Some of the news that broke on the story yesterday afternoon -- a bit of a hypothetical now, but I'll ask it anyway -- back in 1997, apparently this cow was born, born four months before the ban on certain animal feed went into effect. If that ban was in place prior to the birth of this particular Holstein, could this cow have been prevented from being infected? EVANS: We know very well that there are two critical measures in dealing with BSE that have been well established on the collective international experience and the international standing that -- the understanding that's evolved over the last 17 years. To protect public health, the most critical issue is the removal of specified risk materials, those materials within the animal carcass which could potential harbor infectivity.
To protect animal health, the most critical means is an effective feed ban to prevent ruminant material, material derived from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) animals...
HEMMER: So what you're saying...
EVANS: ... to be fed back.
HEMMER: It may have helped, but not preventive?
EVANS: Well, and, again, the reality of the feed ban, given the long incubation period of this disease, we know that the feed ban will break the cycle. It will eliminate any further spread of the disease. Our feed ban and the U.S. feed ban have been in place for six years. And it was not until 1997 that the World Health Organization came out with a recommendation that countries adopt such a restriction at a global level. And both Canada and the U.S. immediately moved to adopt that recommendation when it was announced by the World Health Organization.
HEMMER: Thank you, doctor.
We'll await results, are you are certainly, as well.
Thank you, Brian Evans, in Ottawa, Canada.
EVANS: Thanks very much, Bill.
HEMMER: You've got it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Canada?>
Aired December 30, 2003 - 08:05 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: There has been a bit of a cross border war during this. Will mad cow now turn into an angry dispute between the U.S. and Canada?
From Ottawa, the chief veterinary officer for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is Dr. Brian Evans.
Dr. Evans, good morning to you.
DR. BRIAN EVANS, CHIEF VETERINARIAN OFFICER, CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY: Good morning, Bill.
HEMMER: Nice to have you here.
We talked with your counterpart on AMERICAN MORNING yesterday. He seemed fairly certain that they can trace this to a cow in Alberta, Canada.
Are you the same, feeling that way?
EVANS: Well, we've said all along that we will take a determination once we have all the available evidence and it all lines up. We've not, from the outset, we've said it's not really that critical as to whether the animal was, in fact, born in Canada or the United States, but we need to make sure that the investigation is thorough and having determined where the animal, in fact, originated from, the most critical part of the investigation then becomes how did she become infected.
HEMMER: Yes, very good questions there. And some of your answers really reflects what Dr. Rhonda Haven (ph) told us yesterday.
When will the DNA testing determine where the origination point for this was?
EVANS: Well, my understanding is that the samples have started to be exchanged that will provide the parallel testing between the DNA extracted from the positive cow's brain and the known father of the animal that was tagged in Canada and then some of the sibling comparisons. Those samples are now on transit between the two countries for laboratory testing. We expect some of the early DNA extraction could start as early as today and as they start to provide us results in the next three to four days.
HEMMER: Certainly you can understand the urgency on this matter.
Could it come today that you can definitively say then? Is that what you're suggesting?
EVANS: No, no, it's premature at this point in time. As I say, the DNA extraction process will be undertaken today. But, again, it's important that the lab follow appropriate protocols so that, again, at the end of the day, neither the U.S. nor Canada want any of these results to be in dispute.
HEMMER: What would it mean, then, if you can trace this to Alberta, trace this to that problem that's in your country?
EVANS: Sure. Well, like I say, we've said all along and as the international panel did from the point that they reviewed our circumstance and even the Harvard risk assessment carried out in the U.S., the finding of a small number of additional cases, having found an initial case back in May, whether in Canada or the United States, is not unexpected given the nature of the disease and the interrogation of the commerce.
What's critical, though, is the fact that both Canada and the U.S. share a commitment to food safety and public health and animal health protection. And the measures that we have in place are very, very complimentary to each other and have evolved over time to provide the maximum protection that our public interest deserves.
HEMMER: Doctor, certainly you would admit, though, there is a huge economic question involved here.
What's at stake for the industry?
EVANS: Well, again, I think what has transpired since the detection in May has been that there has been a different international approach taken. It's been a much more measured response in spite of the economic impacts that people recognize. People are starting to more reflect on the circumstance and starting to recognize that it's more critical the measures that are in place before the disease is detected than what one does after it's detected. And we are starting to see a growing respect for the established international standards that certain products that don't pose a risk should not be restricted. And that's the reward for industries and governments who make appropriate investments.
And so my, yes, there will be economic impacts and they're unfortunate. But at the same time, we need to continue to work in a hemispheric approach, but also at the international level to make sure that the international response are based on true risk and that countries are not penalized for making an appropriate investment to detect disease and report disease, to fulfill those international obligations to protect public health at the broadest level.
HEMMER: Some of the news that broke on the story yesterday afternoon -- a bit of a hypothetical now, but I'll ask it anyway -- back in 1997, apparently this cow was born, born four months before the ban on certain animal feed went into effect. If that ban was in place prior to the birth of this particular Holstein, could this cow have been prevented from being infected? EVANS: We know very well that there are two critical measures in dealing with BSE that have been well established on the collective international experience and the international standing that -- the understanding that's evolved over the last 17 years. To protect public health, the most critical issue is the removal of specified risk materials, those materials within the animal carcass which could potential harbor infectivity.
To protect animal health, the most critical means is an effective feed ban to prevent ruminant material, material derived from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) animals...
HEMMER: So what you're saying...
EVANS: ... to be fed back.
HEMMER: It may have helped, but not preventive?
EVANS: Well, and, again, the reality of the feed ban, given the long incubation period of this disease, we know that the feed ban will break the cycle. It will eliminate any further spread of the disease. Our feed ban and the U.S. feed ban have been in place for six years. And it was not until 1997 that the World Health Organization came out with a recommendation that countries adopt such a restriction at a global level. And both Canada and the U.S. immediately moved to adopt that recommendation when it was announced by the World Health Organization.
HEMMER: Thank you, doctor.
We'll await results, are you are certainly, as well.
Thank you, Brian Evans, in Ottawa, Canada.
EVANS: Thanks very much, Bill.
HEMMER: You've got it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Canada?>
