Improved documentation and animal tracking are among 22 recommendations to improve BSE surveillance and packing plant procedures in the United States.
Released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s office of the inspector general at the end of January, the 130-page report is part of a two-year study into how the U.S. has handled its BSE situation since 2004.
“We reached agreement with the inspector general’s recommendations,” U.S. agriculture secretary Mike
Johanns said at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association convention in Denver Feb. 4.
Read Also
Beef check-off collection system aligns across the country
A single and aligned check-off collection system based on where producers live makes the system equal said Chad Ross, Saskatchewan Cattle Association chair.
The secretary said many recommendations are already being executed, while some may take until 2007. The enhanced BSE surveillance program is one recommendation that has been acted upon. So far, about 600,000 cattle have been tested.
“There is a point at which we will make a decision on what future surveillance will look like,” Johanns said. “We are still going to continue the surveillance for awhile yet.”
The audit questioned the scope of the testing program, which obtains 90 percent of its samples from 123 rendering facilities through voluntary agreements with the government.
Sampling gaps exist in Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee because the government does not have agreements with local renderers to submit suspect cases.
“We could not determine whether APHIS (the USDA’s animal and plant health inspection service) achieved either geographical representation or representation of the desired surveillance stream (clinical suspects, fallen stock, casualty slaughter fallen stock and routine slaughter),” the report said.
The audit concluded the effective target population is significantly larger than APHIS estimated when it expanded testing in March 2004. The audit suggested the target population is closer to one million per year rather than a minimum sample size of 268,500. However, it did say it may not be necessary to conduct a million tests.
Auditors were especially critical of testing procedures when inspector general Phyllis Fong ordered a sample retested in the U.S. and England last year. It subsequently came back positive and proved to be the U.S.’s first domestic case.
Following confirmation of the positive case, USDA scientists were directed to work with international experts to develop new protocols that include dual confirmatory tests when an inconclusive BSE test appears.
The audit also said U.S. screening laboratories were not following regular accreditation procedures or periodic quality assurance reviews to assure customers of precision, accuracy and repeatability of results. To attain and maintain laboratory accreditation, internal and external reviews are necessary to ensure quality standards are in place.
In the United Kingdom, proficiency testing is done three or four times a year. In Canada, accredited labs run quality assurance tests monthly.
The audit also found deficiencies in U.S. record keeping in various facilities inspected by investigators.
Owner names and cattle ages were often unavailable.
“During our visits to 12 plants, we found that records generally did not exist to document the ages of cattle presented for slaughter,” the report said.
