Brussels, 20th June 2006
O/REF: note N-042-2006-EN
RE: Brazil – Animal Health
At the recent meeting of the Advisory Group on Beef on 22nd May 2006, the Irish spokesman for COPA-COGECA (farmers/agricultural cooperatives) posted a diatribe against the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of Brazil cattle whose meat is destined for the European Union. For this purpose, he relied on the outcome of an investigation that an Irish journal had conducted in Brazil.
- Irish investigation
According to an article published in the Irish Farmers Journal(IFJ) on 20th May 2006 (attached hereto), an investigation had been conducted by the IFJ in Brazil in cooperation with representatives of the Irish Farmers Association(IFA).
The conclusions drawn are harsh:
- FMD controls are inadequate. In an interview to the investigators, Professor Aramio Augusto Pinto (an Adviser to the Minister for Agriculture in Brazil) wondered about the reliability of the vaccination programme (annual two-shot programme), regarding the human resources that are deployed and the control procedure in place (issue of a vaccination certificate when the vaccine is purchased by the farmer and not when the vaccine is administered). The possible gaps in the programme would thus make Brazilian cattle more fragile, more especially as illicit imports from neighbouring countries, which have no vaccination programmes, are not to be ruled out.
The above-named Professor was critical also towards the time limit within which the diagnosis is made and the conditions for the diagnosis (credibility of the test, of reference laboratories).
- Controls on movements of animals are malfunctioning. The investigators on the spot (in the State of Mato Grosso do Sul) noted failures in the control of farm-to-farm movements of animals, in particular in the region affected by the epizootic disease in October 2005 (Eldorado), and of State-to-State movements (eg. Mato Grosso do Sul / Parana), even of country-to-country movements (illicit import of cattle and meat).
- Traceability is non-existent. In the farms visited by the investigators, the animals identified by eartags are not the legion. Movements are rarely registered.
In its general conclusion the article in question sent out an appeal in two directions:
- to the authorities, in particular the EU authorities, so that they ban Brazilian beef imports on accounts of bio-security (Australia, South Korea, Japan, the USA, etc. have already banned beef imports from Brazil).
- to European retailers (supermarkets) so that they link their profit from the growth in beef production in Argentina and Brazil to social consequences (impoverishment of farm workers) and environmental consequences (deforestation).
The article was relayed in the United Kingdom through the National Farmers’ Union (NFU). As a result of this, one of Britain’s supermarket chains (ASDA) decided to remove Brazilian beef from the shelf. A spokesman for the chain explained the decision by the NFU’s concerns about conformity with British standards.
2.Right of reply
In early June, the Brazilian Ambassador to Ireland claimed a right of reply and had an article published in the Irish Farmers Journal (3rd June 2006). In the article he questioned the form of the investigation, he denounced omissions tarnishing partiality, and he underlined the protectionist intentions underpinning the approach (see article attached hereto).
In the same article the Brazilian meat industry (ABIEC) replied on the substance of each of the criticisms that the investigators had levelled.
3.Putting the things straight
In a number of mails to the authorities, to the specialised press, and to the NFU, the International Meat Trade Association (IMTA, UK) reminded about some true facts:
- Special and scientifically validated requirements for imports of meat from South America;
- Checks carried out at the EU’s external posts;
- Deficit in production making foreign supplies necessary to complement indigenous production.
Furthermore, the above-mentioned Association circulated a list of facts demonstrating that meat imported from Brazil is safe from a health point of view. This list is as follows:
The FMD virus cannot survive in boneless beef where the pH value falls below 6.
Beef exported to the EU from Brazil is required to be held above 2°C and below 10°C before deboning for a minimum period of 24 hours following slaughter. The pH value is then measured in both half carcases to ensure that it has fallen below 6.
The EU, including the UK, has imported beef from Brazil and other South American countries for over 30 years with no resulting FMD infection.
The above requirements are those recommended by the International Animal Health Organisation (OIE). This recognised international expert body is responsible for agreeing codes of practice and guidelines based on scientific evidence.
The veterinary division of the European Commission was moved from the Directorate responsible for agriculture in about 1998 to ensure that measures to control animal health status are always taken based on scientific principles and not influenced by by farmers’ economic interests.
With regards to individual animal identification and traceability, it is important to note that these requirements were introduced in the EU as a result of the BSE crisis in the UK. It should also be remembered that BSE has never occurred in Brazil.
FMD is an animal health issue and has no implications for human health.
In such context the inspection missions that the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is to conduct in Argentina and Brazil in July next take a new relief. Their conclusions will no doubt provide clarifications with regard to the question raised in the IFJ article: INFORMATION OR MISINFORMATION?
SECRÉTARIAT & CORRESPONDANCE: 81A rue de la Loi (bte 9) - 1040 BRUXELLES, Belgique
Tel: 32 (0) 2 230 46 03 - Fax: 32 (0) 2 230 94 00