Comment from Gary M Weber, National Cattlemen's Beef Association

Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 RE: Docket No. 02-083-1 We have carefully reviewed the proposed rule ?Importation of Meat That Originates in an FMD Region and Is Cured or Cooked in Another Region, Docket No. 02-083- 1, published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2005. The National Cattlemen?s Beef Association (NCBA) is the largest organization representing America?s cattle industry. Initiated in 1898, the NCBA is the industry leader in providing education and in influencing the development and implementation of science and risk analysis-based public policy to protect the health of the U.S. cattle population, provide safe and wholesome food and improve producer profitability. In this regard, the NCBA also strives to preserve the industry?s heritage and ensure our future. We appreciate this opportunity to share with the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) our perspectives on the proposed rule. In addition, this proposed rule also impacts the responsibilities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), in terms of their role in approving plants that process livestock or meat products for export to the United States. The FSIS is also responsible for establishing residue monitoring and surveillance programs and re-inspection of imported meat products at ports of entry. Therefore, we will also include in our comments issues to be considered by FSIS in carrying out their responsibilities as authorized by legislation and regulation. The NCBA closely monitors all advanced notices of proposed rule-making (ANPRM) proposed rules and final rules published by the nearly 50 Federal agencies that regulate one facet or another of our industry. In particular, there are several previously published proposed rules or final rules that are related to this proposal. On May 22, 2002 APHIS published a proposed rule: ?Importation of Cooked Meat and Meat Products.? In the proposed rule APHIS, proposed to amend the regulations governing the importation of certain animals, meat, and other animal products to allow meat cooked in plastic in processing establishments located in regions where rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists to be further processed after cooking and before importation. Additionally, APHIS proposed to allow the pink juice test to be used in determining whether ground meat cooked in such establishments has been adequately cooked. APHIS stated these regulations were proposed to ??provide foreign meat processing establishments with additional processing options while continuing to protect against the introduction of rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease into the United States.? The final Rule regarding ?Importation of Cooked Meat and Meat Products? was published April 2, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 63). The rule allowed for the use of the pink juice test or a temperature indicating device (TID) to be used to determine compliance with cooking temperature requirements. The proper cooking of beef from countries where Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) exists is virtually the ONLY mitigating measure that prevents the potential introduction of FMD virus into the United States. In our comments submitted to APHIS on July 17, 2002 we stated: ?We also want to be on record stating the USDA-FSIS has long been on record challenging the validity of the ?pink juice test? as a reliable means of documenting proper cooking of ground beef from a food safety perspective. There have been numerous studies documenting conditions where premature browning occurs and for which the pink juice test would fail to indicate proper cooking. USDA-FSIS has moved to recommend actual temperature of the product as the only reliable means of assuring proper cooking. This fact leads us to believe the use of TID?s in all cooked products sent to the U.S., coupled with statistically valid sampling to verify compliance may be the only effective means of documenting compliance and ensuring we have science based systems in place to prevent the introduction of foreign animal diseases.? In the final rule, APHIS chose to allow the use of a TID as an option, even though data clearly indicated the pink juice test is not necessarily a reliable indicator of complete cooking. We hope that as APHIS reviews our comments on this most recent proposed rule you will reconsider the technique used to verify that meat is cooked thoroughly. The FSIS and APHIS should not agree to a pink juice test to determine proper cooking. Proper colking is the only mitigating measure that ensures we do not import beef products containing potentially active FMD virus into the United States. This is important in the context of the the proposed rule which would allow the importation of beef from countries know to have the FMD virus. The NCBA has a long history of supporting fair trade. Our comments on this proposed rule relate to protecting the health of the U.S. cattle herd, public health and confidence in our systems. In this regard, we submitted comments April 24, 2003 regarding Docket No. 02- 109-1 published in the Federal Register February 10, 2003 regarding ?Importation of Beef From Uruguay.? In our comments we supported trade with Uruguay as long as they followed all APHIS and FSIS regulations. In addition, we sent a representative to Uruguay to visit their production facilities, government inspection programs and APHIS oversight functions. Role of the Food Safety and Inspection Service in International Trade: Imports The FSIS plays important roles in the process of importation through the approval of foreign plants to process cattle and beef products for export to the United States. In addition, the FSIS is responsible for determining the appropriate science and risk analysis based residue monitoring program for beef from specific countries and the re-inspection at ports of entry. In this regard, it is imperative that if this rule allows beef cattle to be processed in country A and the beef shipped to country B to be cooked or cured that FSIS knows with certainty who these respective countries are to ensure all FSIS requirements are met. In addition, FSIS must be capable of determining what science and risk analysis based protocol for residue testing and appropriate, statistically valid re-sampling and testing of these products. To illustrate the significance of the role of FSIS in this process the NCBA carefully reviewed and commented October 14, 2004 on Docket No. 03-033P ?Frequency of Foreign Inspection System Supervisory Visits to Certified Foreign Establishments.? The NCBA made some very important points in the submitted comments, including: 1. To date, a significant measure of that (consumer) confidence is derived from the equivalency measures that FSIS currently has in place to ensure that the safety of foreign produced beef is the same as that of our domestic production. FSIS needs to continue to work with foreign governments and establishments to further strengthen their science-based inspection programs. A great example of this is the new Food Safety Institute of the Americas. We encourage FSIS to find additional ways to help other countries assure the safety of the beef that they produce, but particularly when it is imported into the U.S. 2. How will FSIS determine what constitutes a ?periodic? supervisory visit? Secondly, how does such a change affect equivalency standards? For example, if one country conducts supervisory visits once every four months, and another continues with the monthly visits, will they still be considered equal or equivalent? Is a visit once every four months ?periodic?? Our domestic supervisors are in constant (example: daily or as needed) contact with plant inspectors and these establishments making required visits within a specific time period unnecessary. However, foreign governments may not have the same (equivalent) level of interaction with their local inspectors (including contact by phone, e-mail, meetings or reports) that our domestic system provides. NCBA urges FSIS to carefully consider this type of interaction as an important component of the supervisory inspection system before making this proposed regulatory change. 3. Furthermore, even when sound regulatory procedures are in place, there are continual changes in regulations and procedures in today?s fast-moving world of international beef trade. Our point is that even if a country exporting beef to the U.S. is able to demonstrate regular interaction between government and the local inspector, there is still a need for a more timely routine for ensuring that the latest regulations and procedures are in place in that country. 4. FSIS is a public health agency that must continue to aggressively employ science-based measures to improve the safety of domestic and foreign produced meat and poultry products. Summary The NCBA believes that proper processing of meat products and resultant importation of cured or cooked shelf-stable meat derived from ruminants or swine that originate in a region where rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists and if the meat is cured or cooked in another region can safely be imported IF the cooking and curing process is carried out properly. We continue to challenge the validity of the use of the ?pink juice test? to verify complete cooking and request APHIS require use of TID methods or enzymatic inactivation tests which are more definitive. Our second request is to ensure the FSIS is certain they know which countries process the cattle that produced the beef products that were shipped to another country for cooking or curing. The FSIS must have this information to ensure the following conditions are met: 1. The plant processing cattle are approved and follow all appropriate FSIS requirements and are re-inspected as often as needed to document compliance. 2. The plant processing beef from other countries must also pass all FSIS requirements and be re-inspected at a frequency necessary to be confident conditions are met. 3. FSIS must develop a science and risk-analysis based residue testing program based on the country?s situation that both produce the cattle for processing and those processing the beef as product could be commingled during processing. 4. FSIS must develop a statistically valid re-inspection program at ports of entry for these specific products and countries. Our third request is that APHIS publish the FSIS requirements that support this rule, specifically how will they address the issues of approval of the process in plants, determine science and risk-based residue testing, frequency of inspecting foreign plants and statistically valid retesting at ports of entry. If these conditions are met and verified on a routine basis the NCBA will accept the proposed rule provisions. If APHIS or FSIS has questions regarding our comments they can be directed to Dr. Gary Weber, Executive Director, Regulatory Affairs at gweber@beef.org or by phone (202) 347-0228. Respectfully submitted by: Jim McAdams President, National Cattlemen?s Beef Association Gary Weber NCBA 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20004-1701 202-347-0228 http://hill.beef.org