It was a classic example of the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario when the most recent case of BSE was discovered and announced.
Though Canada’s 17th case of the disease was confirmed in a 72-month old Black Angus Alberta cow on Feb. 25, it was not known by the public or posted on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website until March 10.
The delay gave rise to accusations from various quarters – mostly in the United States – that Canada was trying to cover up additional cases of BSE.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Among the detractors, as one would expect, was R-Calf, the protectionist American cattle group that wants to eliminate Canadian cattle and beef exports to the U.S.
Some factions used an even broader brush: “Mad cow disease case hidden for weeks by Canadian and U.S. agencies,” read a headline on the Huffington Post website, which features left-leaning opinion and commentary.
Both the CFIA and U.S. Department of Agriculture denied the charge.
Such hyperbole might have been forestalled had the CFIA made an announcement sooner. It would behoove the agency to consider that if future cases arise – though everyone hopes they won’t.
“The announcement was only delayed when compared to the previous case reporting strategy,” said Canadian Beef Export Federation president Ted Haney, in an e-mail to the Producer.
That’s where the “damned if you do” comes in.
The CFIA had been issuing a news release as every case of BSE was confirmed. The releases over the seven-year period and 16 cases became nearly identical – case confirmed, no beef entered the food chain, no disease found in herdmates, additional cases not unexpected as testing continues.
Latter-year cases barely rated a mention in media, though each announcement probably raised eyebrows in countries with whom Canada wanted to trade cattle and beef.
So, on Aug. 17, 2009, the CFIA announced a revision to its reporting. It would post new cases on its website, updated monthly. The plan was in keeping with requirements of the world animal health organization.
Ho hum, was the general response, and the hiatus between the last case, in May 2009, and the most recent case, in February 2010, allowed memories of the new reporting plan to fade – if they had ever registered at all.
Then came the “damned if you don’t” moment: another case, but the first to be reported using the new CFIA protocol, via posting on its website. That didn’t happen until March. The case wasn’t reported in the same manner as all the others, prompting cries of a coverup.
It didn’t help that the CFIA is not exactly co-operative or quick when it comes to handling media queries, and that delays the process of informing the public.
The upshot of the scenario was an unwelcome spotlight on Canada’s beef industry that caused some to question the integrity of the country’s animal health reporting system. It was attention the industry does not need.
The CFIA did what it said it would do and met international responsibilities and protocols surrounding disease reporting. It met its by-the-book obligations.
But it should take a lesson from this incident and reconsider how it releases information to the public relative to BSE. What would prevent it from posting confirmed cases to its website immediately? For that matter, what prevents it from issuing a news release?
With the fallout from BSE continuing to plague the cattle industry, it’s important to be transparent in the handling of animal disease reporting. Failure in that respect can only prolong the agony that this disease has imposed.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
