Report No.230705

NEWS

- International -

The U.S. Offers a Note of Reflection on the 'Unique Case' of the Beef SRM Shipment to Japan

While the government of Japan lifted the ban on the U.S. beef import in December 2005, the import was brought under total banned again on January 20, 2006, following the discovery at the Japanese port of entry of vertebral columns in the export packages. The commingling of vertebral columns is an obvious breach of 'the Beef Export Verification Program for Japan (EV)' that requires the removal of specified risk materials and should be observed by the United States. The Japanese government took the matter seriously and has asked the United States to make a thorough-going investigation into the causes and to erect measures to prevent recurrence.

In response, the United States Department of Agriculture submitted on February 17, a 'USDA Findings and Actions Report' on Japan export verification program, according to which the incident of commingled vertebral columns was characterized as a mistake of exceptional nature, because "the circumstances surrounding this ineligible shipment were unique." The report also revealed the fact that the USDA veterinary officers, who put signature on the export document submitted by the export firm, did not know about the requirements for beef export to Japan.

On the basis of findings from the investigation, the USDA came up with and announced 15 action steps to prevent repeat occurrence of this type of incident. The steps included training of responsible inspection program personnel and stronger liaison and coordination within the Department.

In response to the USDA report, the Japanese government returned 20-point inquiries on March 6 that included the following two questions:

1)	Despite the premise that compliance with Japan EV Program should have been ensured by appropriate functioning of each of the measures including establishment approval, FSIS inspection/verification, monitoring by establishments themselves, and FSIS export certification, why did this incident occur? Shouldn't problems at each stage be identified, sorted out, and verified in a recapitulating manner?
2)	Was exporting of veal with vertebral column and ineligible offal a unique incident? Were audits/accreditation and inspections at other establishments properly conducted in that there is no possibility for similar incidents occurring? Shouldn't verification be made in that regard together with the basis for such argument?

The USDA replies to the inquiries were published on March 20, which said, among others, as follows:
As regards question 1) above, "This incident occurred as a result of the establishment not following its approved Quality System Assessment Manual and the deviations not being detected by the FSIS inspector. The investigation revealed that FSIS inspection program personnel at both establishments were unaware that Atlantic Veal and Lamb, Inc., or its supplier, Golden Veal Corp., had been recently approved under the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Export Verification (EV) program to export to Japan," and "FSIS inspectors are now required to participate in the establishment certification application process." "The problems have been identified and appropriate actions have been taken."

As regards question 2), the reply said that "The FSIS inspection program personnel at Atlantic Veal and Lamb, Inc. were not sufficiently aware of the EV program," but with respect to other approved plants they "are confident that FSIS personnel are knowledgeable of the requirements, and only approved products are exported." "It was determined that all audits/accreditations were properly conducted." It added by saying that "USDA is very confident that this detection of ineligible product in a single veal shipment does not indicate weakness in the overall U.S. beef processing, inspection or export systems. Moreover, based upon the findings of the investigation, USDA has incorporated additional protections into the U.S. system to avoid repetition of this incident," to again make the point that the mingling of vertebral columns was a 'unique case.'

At the subsequent meetings of experts from Japan and the United States held on March 28 and 29, the United States, on the hitherto underlined point of the case being 'unique,' elaborated a bit further by saying "the manual should have been made a little more clear," and accepted to take further concrete action steps including reappraisal of Japan EV approved establishments, while Japan will hold risk-communication sessions with consumers.

[Top of Page]