EXHIBIT
1
INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATION GUIDELINES
FOR MINIMIZING BSE RISK
|
RECOMMENDATION
OR GUIDELINE AREA
|
ORGANIZATION
|
|
OIE
|
WHO
|
CODEX
|
|
1.
Compulsory notification of BSE
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
2.
Mandatory examination of brain specimens from suspicious
cattle
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
4.
Establishment of continuous BSE surveillance monitoring
system
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
5.
Incineration of confirmed BSE-infected tissues/animals
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
6.
Measures to ensure that rendering procedures eradicate TSEs
|
|
|
|
|
7.
Follow guidelines to determine BSE-free status
|
X
|
|
|
|
8.
Establishment of a risk assessment/management program for
TSE
|
X
|
|
|
Source: WHO, OIE, FAO/CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION
EXHIBIT
2
STRUCTURE
OF RISK ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED BY THE FAO
Source:
FAO/CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION
EXHIBIT
3
OFFICE
OF INTERNATIONAL EPIZOOTICS
BSE
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of International Epizootics’ (OIE’s)
International Animal Health Code sets out minimum surveillance and
monitoring requirements for BSE. These requirements are:
1.
Compulsory notification and clinical investigation of suspect
cases.
2.
Risk assessment that identifies potential hazards for BSE
occurrence, including:
- risk
arising by:
i)
importation of animals or embryos/ova which are potentially
infected with a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE); or
ii)
importation and feeding of potentially contaminated animal
feedstuff to cattle;
- indigenous
risks of:
i)
consumption, by cattle, of contaminated, animal-derived proteins
arising from TSE-infected animals and rendering processes that do not
inactivate the agent; or
ii)
potential vertical transmission of BSE from cows originating from
infected countries.
3.
Continuous BSE surveillance and monitoring with emphasis on the
risks identified in point 2 above.
4. Examination in an approved laboratory of brain material
from cattle older than 20 months displaying signs of progressive
neurological disease in accordance with the diagnostic techniques set
out in the Manual. A sufficient number of investigations as indicated in
Table I of the Guidelines for Continuous Surveillance and Monitoring of
BSE (Appendix VUlb of document 65 SG/ 12/CS1) should be carried out
annually in countries where progressive neurological disease incidence
is low. Surveillance should be targeted at cattle older than four years
of age that display other progressive disease conditions.
5. Maintenance of seven years of records that track the
number and results of investigations.
In addition, the OIE's International Animal Health
Code offers guidelines for determining a country's BSE status. According
to Chapter 3.2.13.2 of the Code, countries may be considered free of BSE
if:
1. They have implemented a risk management strategy to address any
risk, as identified in Article 3;2.13.1 point 2); and
2. They have effectively enforced a ban on feeding cattle
meat-and-bone meal derived from ruminants from TSE-infected countries or
countries that do not have an effective and continuous surveillance and
monitoring system as described in Article 3.2.13.1points 3) and 4);
AND
1.
There has been no clinical case of BSE, the disease is notifiable,
and an effective and continuous surveillance and monitoring system is
practiced, as described in Article 3.2.13.1 points 3) and 4); or
2.
All cases of BSE have been clearly demonstrated to originate
directly from the importation of live cattle originating from BSE-infected
countries, provided that the disease is made notifiable and suspect
animals are slaughtered, investigated and, if disease is confirmed,
completely destroyed and an effective and continuous surveillance and
monitoring system is practiced, as described in Article 3.2.13.1 points
3) and 4), or
3.
BSE has been eradicated (under study).
EXHIBIT
4
WORLD
HEALTH ORGANIZATION
BSE RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to protect public health
from any potential risk from animal TSEs, the World Health Organization
(WHO) recommends that:
·
No part of any animal which has shown signs of a TSE
should enter into any food chain—human or animal;
·
All countries should ensure the killing and safe disposal
of all parts or products of such animals so that TSE infectivity cannot
enter any food chain; and
·
All countries should review their rendering procedures to
ensure that they effectively inactivate TSE agents.
With
regard to surveillance and other BSE issues, WHO has recommended that:
·
All countries should establish continuous surveillance and
compulsory notification for BSE according to recommendations established
by the OIE in Paris. In the
absence of surveillance data, a country’s BSE status must be
considered as unknown.
·
Countries where BSE exists in native cattle should not
permit tissues that are likely to contain the BSE agent to enter any
food chain—human or animal.
·
All countries should ban the use of ruminant tissues in
ruminant feed.
EXHIBIT
5
CODEX
BSE RECOMMENDATIONS
The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) refers to the standards, guidelines, and
recommendations established by the FAO Codex Alimentarius Commission
relating to various food safety issues.
At
an FAO Expert Consultation on Animal Feeding and Food Safety held in
Rome March 10-14, 1997, guidelines for the control of feed-borne hazards
were introduced. Although
it has not been proven that BSE is a feed-borne hazard, the Expert
Consultation concluded that it would not be “prudent” to exclude BSE
as a “potential food-borne hazard.”
The group concluded that “the risk that arises from [BSE]
should be assessed and managed in exactly the same way as other
food-borne hazards.”
Codex
provides guidelines for analyzing this risk, based upon structured risk
assessment, risk management, and risk communication.
Specific
guidance given with respect to BSE includes taking the following
measures:
·
All tissues from cattle with clinical BSE should be
incinerated so that they are eliminated from all feed and food chains.
·
In all countries where BSE has occurred, depending upon
its incidence (as determined by a “competent authority and an
appropriately structured surveillance program”), consideration should
be given to placing restrictions on the use of meat-and-bone meal
derived from specific bovine tissues in ruminant feeds.
A similar consideration should be made in countries where a risk
assessment indicates that the cattle population has been exposed to
infection.
·
In countries where BSE and sheep scrapie have occurred,
consideration should be given to placing restrictions on the use of
ruminant-derived protein in feeds for ruminants.
·
In countries where BSE has not occurred, but where sheep
scrapie is present, consideration should be given to placing
restrictions on the feeding of bovine-derived protein to
ruminants—depending on the incidence (as determined by a “competent
authority and an appropriately structured surveillance program”) of
scrapie and the time/temperature processes used for the rendering of
bovine carcasses and tissues.
EXHIBIT
6
U.S.
BSE SURVELLANCE PROGRAM
ACTIVE
SURVEILANCE
|
PASSIVE
SURVELLANCE
|
·
Education
APHIS educates veterinary practitioners, veterinary laboratory
diagnosticians, and industry producers on the clinical signs and
pathology of BSE.
·
UK
Cattle Monitoring
APHIS monitors the cattle imported from the United
Kingdom before the United States’ ban on cattle imports went
into effect.
·
Laboratory
Examination of Cattle Brains for BSE
Every year since 1990, USDA’s National Veterinary
Services Laboratories along with more than 60 veterinary
diagnostic laboratories across the United States have examined
hundreds of brains from adult cattle displaying neurological
abnormalities either at slaughter or on the farm. FSIS performs
ante-mortem slaughter inspection at all federally inspected
slaughter establishments, and inspectors are alert for central
nervous system disorders. Any suspect animals are condemned and
tested. As of April 30, 1997, a total of 5,621 brains from all
over the United States had been examined. No evidence of BSE has
been detected.
|
·
Referral of Unusual Cases to Veterinary Laboratories
The network of private veterinary practitioners that refers unusual
cases to veterinary schools or state diagnostic laboratories
around the United States provides an informal but extensive and
important surveillance system.
·
BSE Diagnosis Training for Veterinarians
USDA has trained over 250 state and federal field veterinarians to
recognize and diagnose foreign animal diseases, including BSE.
·
Veterinary Data Bases
The Veterinary Medical Data Base maintained by
Purdue University compiles diagnoses submitted by 27 U.S.
veterinary schools. The data base includes many neurological
cases.
The Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Reporting
System (VDLRS)* maintains a data base on selected disease
conditions submitted by 29 state and university veterinary
diagnostic laboratories throughout the United States, including
the results of histologic examinations for BSE.
·
BSE Examination Conducted on Zoo Animals
Since BSE-like encephalopathies have been diagnosed
in seven species of exotic Bovidae at zoos in England, Veterinary
pathologists at zoos in the United States routinely conduct
post-mortem examinations on the brains of zoo animals exhibiting
neurological abnormalities.
|
|
*
The VDLRS is a cooperative effort of the American Association of
Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, the United States Animal
Health Association, USDA/APHIS/VS Centers for Epidemiology and
Animal Health, and the 29 laboratories that submit data.
|
EXHIBIT 7
MEDIA
STRATEGY
An
important part of AMA’s strategy for convincing the EU to grant the
United States BSE-free status is to use the media to mobilize support
from domestic and European communities.
Domestic
Strategy
AMA
must balance its domestic strategy very carefully. Any media attention
could confuse the public about the safety of U.S. beef. Accordingly, AMA
may want to keep a low profile and avoid using the media. On the other
hand, AMA could use the media to reassure the public that U.S. beef is
safe.
Since
the U.S. government already supports our position, AMA could use a
Washington-focused media strategy to help ensure that the government
gives this issue top priority. Such a strategy would target Congress and
the Administration and would include placing op-ed pieces and letters to
the editor in D.C. publications. Additionally, AMA could post
information about meat industry safety on AMA and coalition web sites,
as well as provide links to other resources, such as APHIS and FSIS.
European
Strategy
The main priority with respect to
the media should be to convince the EU public of the safety of U.S.
animal products. AMA must implement a comprehensive media strategy that
reassures opponents and gives our EU allies adequate facts to bolster
their domestic efforts. AMA should:
·
Conduct a press conference with other coalition members to
share the facts about the United States’ clean BSE record and the
potential consequences of the EU’s ban;
·
Purchase advertising time on radio and television and in
prominent publications (newspapers, journals, magazines) that target
European consumers, governments, industries, and the Commission;
·
Target editorial writers in publications such as the Financial
Times, which is widely read by those involved in EU decision-making;
·
Publish op-ed pieces and letters to the editor in European
publications to target EU consumers, governments, industries, and the
Commission;
·
Post information about meat industry safety on AMA and
coalition web sites in European languages, as well as provide links to
other resources, such as APHIS and FSIS;
·
Publish op-ed pieces and letters to the editor in European
publications to inform the public, as well as EU industries and
governments, about the safety of U.S. animal products.
EXHIBIT
8
SAMPLE
LETTER TO A POTENTIAL U.S. COALITION MEMBER
Dear
Sir or Madame:
As
your organization is well aware, the European Union is planning to ban
the sale of products that may contain, or are made using, specified risk
materials for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Our organizations
have much to gain from preventing implemention of this costly trade
barrier.
I
am writing to propose that we explore opportunities for forming a
coalition to ensure that the EU ban does not block our exports. Together
we can make certain the U.S. government makes this issue a high priority
and continues to pressure the EU to exempt the United States from its
ban based on our BSE-free status.
The
ultimate goal of our coalition would be to ensure that the EU grants the
United States BSE-free status and does not disrupt the flow of U.S.
exports to the EU. Our intermediate goal would be to increase political
awareness of this issue in Washington. We can coordinate our efforts to
educate members of Congress, providing them the real facts about (1) the
safety of U.S. animal products subject to the EU ban, and (2) the
potential negative impact the EU ban will have on U.S. exports and U.S.
jobs. More importantly, we can work together to secure allies in the EU
and reassure EU consumers, industries, the European Commission, and EU
member states about the safety of our products.
With your support we can begin immediately to
coordinate our efforts and ensure that the EU recognizes the United
States as BSE-free. A coordinated effort will undoubtedly go a long way
toward protecting the interests of our members and promoting safe U.S.
products. Thank you for your time and support.
Sincerely,
President
American Meat Association
EXHIBIT
9
SAMPLE LETTER TO MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Dear Senator:
I am writing to you on behalf of the American Meat
Association concerning the proposed EU ban on animal products that
contain specified risk materials for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE),
the so-called “mad cow disease." If implemented, this ban will
prevent $126 million in tallow exports to the EU. For Americans working
in the U.S. livestock and rendering industry, the ban would be
devastating.
Since
the United States has not had any cases of BSE and maintains a rigorous
monitoring system, it qualifies as BSE-free, and international
organizations have recognized the United States as such. The EU,
however, has refused to recognize our BSE-free status. Moreover, it has
not provided scientific evidence to justify this decision—although
such evidence is required by the WTO Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
In short, the EU ban is a trade barrier that
violates World Trade Organization rules and will prevent us from
exporting our products to the EU.
American companies, as well as European consumers,
need to be assured that we will be able to continue to provide the EU
market with our safe products. We gratefully acknowledge the U.S.
government's efforts to resolve this issue with the EU, but we also want
to encourage the Administration to step-up its efforts to find a
satisfactory solution to the problem.
As you are aware from your past experience working
in the livestock industry, our industry is committed to providing
consumers around the world with safe products. If implemented, the
EU’s ban will result in undeniable damage to our industry, as well as
animal product dependent industries.
Senator, your support for the swift resolution of
this problem would be very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
President
American Meat Association
EXHIBIT 10
SAMPLE
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY
Testimony to the
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy and Poultry,
Committee on Agriculture
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I am the President of the American Meat Association
(AMA). The Institute is a national trade association that represents
the interests of packers and processors of 70 percent of the nation's
beef, pork, lamb, veal and turkey production, as well as their
suppliers across the United States.
We appreciate this opportunity to share with the
Subcommittee AMA’s views on the proposed EU ban on animal products
that contain animal proteins or parts called specified risk materials.
Still recovering from its epidemic of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE), the so-called “mad cow disease,” the EU fears that animal
products that contain specified risk materials may contain this
disease.
AMA understands and shares the EU’s desire to
prevent the spread of BSE, but the EU is not justified in erecting a
ban. AMA supports domestic and international food safety policies
based on sound science as required by the WTO Agreement on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures. The EU ban, however, is not scientifically
based. There has never been a U.S. case of BSE, and the United States
maintains a highly sophisticated and comprehensive monitoring and
surveillance system for BSE.
Accordingly, the U.S. Trade Representative has
asked the EU to recognize the United States as BSE-free and to allow
U.S. companies to continue to export to the EU. The U.S. Trade
Representative has emphasized that the United States meets
international guidelines for recognition as a BSE-free country, but
the EU refuses to follow these guidelines and accept our exports as
BSE-free.
Our industry is committed to providing
high-quality, safe products for domestic and international consumers. But an outright removal of the opportunity to export to the
EU will mean hundreds-of-millions of dollars in lost exports for our
industry. Exports that
would be affected by the ban include food products, animal feed and
gelatin.
Sales of tallow, one of the most important
products for our members, would also be banned. Cosmetic and other
companies use tallow to make products such as soap, margarine, and
candles. Although international scientists have found that tallow is
free from BSE if processed under certain temperature and pressure
conditions, the EU still plans to ban more than $125 million in U.S.
tallow exports.
The Unites States is by far the world’s largest
producer and exporter of tallow, and the EU is the second largest
export destination for U.S. tallow.
The BSE epidemic in the EU greatly affected U.S. tallow
exports, and the EU refusal to recognize the United States as BSE-free
will only make things worse.
The effects of the ban are already being felt.
The mere threat of the ban in early 1997 made EU tallow buyers
reluctant to purchase U.S. tallow. For the first seven months of the
year, U.S. tallow exports were down 23 percent. If the EU does not
recognize our BSE-free status, there is little hope for recovery. For
our members, this would be devastating.
What it comes down to is that exports are
essential for our industry. We rely upon exports to support industry
growth, and we will need increasing exports in the future to ensure
economic opportunity for the next generation.
The ban would also affect other Americans. The
United States Department of Agriculture has found that each dollar
received from agricultural exports in 1996 generated another $1.32 in
supporting activities to produce the products we shipped overseas.
This means that a loss of $125 million in our exports to the EU would
cost Americans $165 million. Clearly these figures
show that we must work harder to ensure that U.S. exports will not
be blocked.
AMA would like to acknowledge the support that you, Mr.
Chairman, and the members of this Subcommittee have given us in the
past. Today, we call upon you to continue that support by encouraging
the Administration to work harder to stand up for the safety of U.S.
beef and animal products. Anything less than a prompt and satisfactory
resolution to this issue will seriously injure our industry.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members
of the Committee might have. I thank you.
EXHIBIT 11
LEGISLATIVE
STRATEGY
In order to ensure that USTR and USDA give high
priority to gaining the EU’s recognition of the United States as BSE-free,
AMA must secure domestic support including support of Congress.
Increased political awareness of the ban will help USTR and USDA in
their discussions with the EU.
In securing the support of Congress, AMA should:
·
Provide members of Congress and their staff with 1)
scientific data relevant to the United States’ BSE status, and 2)
trade figures that demonstrate the potential impact of the proposed
ban;
·
Reassure Congress that the EU has no scientific grounds
for implementing the ban;
·
Write letters (Exhibit 9) to key members of Congress and
meet with them to encourage their support;
·
Provide testimony on the importance of establishing BSE-free
status for the United States and on the potential impact of the ban
(Exhibit 10) to both the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry
of the House Committee on Agriculture, and the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; and
·
Encourage members of Congress who support our position
to consider introducing legislation to ensure that imports into the
United States are BSE-free.
Prior to meeting with members of Congress and
testifying, AMA should evaluate these members propensities to support
our position considering their past support of agricultural export
interests and food and livestock safety issues:
House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy and Poultr
Democrats:
Collin C. Peterson, MN (Ranking Minority Member)
Earl F. Hilliard, AL
Tim Holden, PA
Jay W. Johnson, WI
Gary A. Condit, CA
Calvin M. Dooley, CA
Sam Farr, CA
Leonard L. Boswell, IA
Republicans:
Richard W. Pombo, CA (Chair)
John A. Boehner, OH (Vice Chair)
Bob Goodlatte, VA
Nick Smith, MI
Frank D. Lucas, OK
Ron Lewis, KY
John N. Hostettler, IN
Roy Blunt, MO
Charles W. “Chip” Pickering, MS
William L. Jenkins, TN
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry
Democrats:
Tom Harkin, IA
Patrick J. Leahy, VT
Kent Conrad, ND
Thomas A. Daschle
Max Baucus, MT
J. Robert Kerry, NB
Mary Landrieu, LA
Tim Johnson, SD
Republicans:
Richard G. Lugar, IN (Chair)
Jesse Helms, NC
Thad Cochran, MS
Mitch McConnell, KT
Paul Coverdell, GA
Rick Santorum, PA
Pat Roberts, KS
Charles Grassley, IA
Phil Gramm, TX
Larry E. Craig, ID
EXHIBIT 12
SAMPLE
LETTER TO U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE AND
U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
The Honorable Charlene Barshefsky
United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20508
Dear Ambassador
Barshefsky:
The American Meat Association (AMA) appreciates
the attention that you and your staff are giving to an issue of
serious concern to the U.S. livestock industry. If implemented, the
European Commission Decision of July 30, 1997, to ban certain animal
products containing specified risk materials for BSE will cause our
industry to lose hundreds-of-millions of dollars in export sales. I am
writing to share with you AMA's concerns and recommendations regarding
this proposed ban.
The EU’s lack of sound scientific evidence in
support of its EU ban clearly puts the EU in violation of the WTO SPS
Agreement. Indeed, under the International Office of Epizootics’
international guidelines concerning BSE, the United States should be
considered BSE-free. The EU continues to ignore these guidelines, and
it refuses to recognize that the United States’ state-of-the-art BSE
monitoring system has found absolutely no signs of BSE in U.S. cattle.
Given the United States’ clean record on BSE,
anything less than a full derogation from the ban for U.S. animal
product exports is unacceptable. We recommend that the United States
continue to press the EU on this issue in bilateral meetings and other
fora. The ban would undoubtedly have a devastating affect on our
industry unless we are exempted from it.
Again, I thank you for your attention to this
matter and encourage you to continue to press the EU for a
satisfactory resolution to this problem. As always, your leadership in
protecting the international trade interests of the United States is
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
President
American Meat Association
EXHIBIT 13
NEGOTIATION STRATEGY
MEMORANDUM
November 1, 1997
To:
President, American Meat Association
From: Jeanette
Kelly, Trade Policy Consultant
Re:
Strategy for U.S. Government Negotiations with EU on Proposed
SRM Ban
AMA should share with the U.S. government its ideas for
approaching negotiations with the EU on the proposed SRM ban.
This memorandum outlines an approach the U.S. government could
use in building its negotiation strategy.
PREFERRED
OUTCOME
The U.S. objective of these negotiations should be to persuade
the EU to recognize the United States as BSE-free. This will protect
U.S. exports to the EU and set an important precedent to ensure that
other countries also recognize the United States as BSE-free.
ALLIES
The United States should form a coalition with EU
industry associations and EU member states that share our interests.
Denmark and Germany have already expressed their opposition to the
ban. Other potential allies include the cosmetics, pharmaceutical and
medical associations in these countries. The attached interest charts
(Exhibit 18) provide additional details on potential allies.
BASIC
ARGUMENTS
In negotiations with the EU, the United States should base its
arguments on the following facts and background information:
·
The United States understands and shares the EU desire
to prevent the spread of BSE.
·
The United States acknowledges that the EU has the right
under the SPS Agreement to take measures (SPS measures) to protect
human and animal health.
·
The United States maintains a sophisticated monitoring
and surveillance program to protect U.S. beef from BSE. This system
has not found any cases of BSE in the United States.
·
No cases of the new variant strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob
(nv-CJD) disease have been diagnosed in the United States.
·
The SPS Agreement calls for SPS measures, such as the EU
ban, to be based on scientific evidence.
·
The SPS Agreement calls for SPS measures to take into
consideration relevant international standards.
·
With respect to BSE, the international veterinary
organization (OIE) has defined guidelines for determining BSE status,
and OIE has recognized that the United States meets these guidelines.
·
Because the United States has a lower level of risk for
BSE than any other country, U.S. products deserve to be treated
differently than products from countries with higher BSE risks.
·
The United States believes that it has provided ample
scientific evidence to show that it has no BSE.
NEGOTIATION
TACTICS
The United States should consider using the following
negotiation tactics to show the EU it is serious about achieving BSE-free
status:
·
Reveal what the United States will do if agreement is
not reached. (The United States could present a very strong case to a
WTO Dispute Settlement Panel.)
·
Remind the EU that Congress is following this issue and
may decide to retaliate if this issue is not resolved.
·
Focus on the negative impact the ban will have on EU
consumers, particularly medical patients.
If the United States is not successful in these
negotiations, it should continue to communicate with the EU. We must
identify all possible options for coming to a mutually beneficial
solution to this problem. If the EU refuses to accept the arguments we
have given to justify our BSE-free status, the United States can apply
pressure on the EU by emphasizing that:
·
The United States deserves access to any scientific
evidence that allows the EU to disregard guidelines established by
international organizations concerning the safety of SRMs.
·
The United States deserves a full explanation of the EU
method of risk analysis (to enable a comparison of the EU methods with
those recommended by the OIE International Animal Health Code).
If the EU refuses to provide this information, we
must again emphasize that our final alternative, if an agreement is
not reached, is to ask the WTO to form a DSB panel.
EXHIBIT 14
SAMPLE PRESS RELEASE
MEDIA
ADVISORY
American Meat Association
EU Violates
Global Rules,
Has No Scientific Evidence to Ban U.S. Animal Products
U.S. industries
deserve the right to provide EU suppliers
and consumers
with high-quality, safe products.
WHAT:
Representatives
from the U.S. meat, pharmaceuticals and
cosmetics industries to brief press on the proposed EU ban on
animal products and its impact on U.S. exports.
WHEN: Monday, November 1, 1997, 9:00-10:00 a.m.
WHERE: American
Chamber of Commerce
Avenue des Arts 50-55 Kuntslaan, 1000 Brussels
WHO: AMA President
National
Renderer's Association President
Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturer's Association
(PhRMA)
President
Call the
American Chamber of Commerce at XX/XXXX to confirm your attendance.
EXHIBIT
15
SAMPLE ADVERTISEMENT AIMED AT EU CONSUMERS
U.S.
MEAT PRODUCTS:
PROVEN QUALITY AND SAFETY
The
American meat industry has extremely strict standards for safety and,
in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, diligently
works every day to monitor the health of U.S. cattle. The United
States’ food safety surveillance program for meat is one of the most
comprehensive and effective in the world.
The
American meat industry is committed to providing high-quality, safe
products for domestic and international consumers.
Anyone
that challenges the safety of our products does not have all of the
facts:
§
Scientific
studies conducted by the U.S. government confirm that the United
States has never had a case of "mad cow disease" or Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
§
The
United States meets international guidelines for being considered BSE-free.
§
The
United States’ system for monitoring the health and safety of its
cattle population is sophisticated and comprehensive.
These
are the facts, plain and simple. Choose the proven quality and safety
of U.S. meat products.
To
learn more about the safety of U.S. meat and animal products, please
write to the American Meat Association, P.O. Box ABC, Washington,
D.C., 12345 or visit our website at www.abcdefghijk.
Sponsored
by the American Meat Association
EXHIBIT
16
SAMPLE LETTER TO EU MEMBER STATES
November 1, 1997
His Excellency K. Erik Tygesen
Royal Danish Embassy
3200 Whitehaven St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20008
Dear Ambassador Tygesen:
As Denmark is well aware, the European Union is planning to ban
the sale of products that may contain, or are made using, specified
risk materials for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). The
American Meat Association is a national trade association that
represents the interests of packers and processors of 70 percent of
U.S. beef, pork, lamb, veal, and turkey production, as well as their
suppliers. We believe that our organization and your country have
similar interests: securing BSE-free status for our countries to
certify the safety of our animal products. On behalf of AMA, I am
writing to ask for your support concerning this issue.
The United States has already begun meeting with the Commission
to discuss the proposed ban. We believe that if Denmark, the United
States and others work together, we can ensure that the EU Commission
realizes it has no choice but to alter its decision. The ban should
not apply to products from countries that 1) have effective BSE
monitoring systems in place and 2) have found no evidence of BSE.
Our industry is committed to providing
high-quality, safe products for domestic and international consumers.
So far, the Commission refuses to recognize the safety of our products
and our BSE-free status. Unless the Commission grants the United
States BSE-free status, we will not have the opportunity to provide
your consumers with these products. As I am sure you are aware, these
products include life-saving pharmaceuticals. Any delay in access to
these products could affect the lives of your citizens, and only the
Commission can prevent this from happening.
With your support, we can begin immediately to
coordinate and ensure that the EU recognizes our countries as BSE-free.
Thank you for your time and support.
Sincerely,
President
American Meat Association
EXHIBIT 17
SAMPLE LETTER TO EU INDUSTRIES
November 1, 1997
Dr. Vincenzo Costigliola
European Medical Association
Place de Jamblinne de Meux, 12
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Dear Dr. Costigliola:
As the European Medical Association is well
aware, the European Union is planning to ban the sale of products that
may contain, or are made using, specified risk materials for Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). The ban includes U.S. pharmaceutical
products.
The American Meat Association is a national trade
association that represents the interests of packers and processors of
70 percent of U.S. beef, pork, lamb, veal and turkey production and
their suppliers across the United States. We believe that our
organizations have similar interests: preventing implementation of
this ban in order to continue supplying the EU with U.S. products,
including pharmaceuticals. On behalf of AMA, I am writing to ask for
your support concerning this issue.
The United States has already begun meeting with
the Commission to discuss the proposed ban. So far, the Commission
refuses to recognize the safety of our products and our BSE-free
status. We believe that if our organizations work together, we can
ensure that the EU Commission realizes it has no choice but to alter
its decision and allow the United States to continue supplying the EU
medical community with safe and effective products at a reasonable
cost.
Our industry is committed to providing high-quality, safe
products for domestic and international consumers. Unless the
Commission grants the U.S. BSE-free status, we will not have the
opportunity to provide EU consumers with these products. As I am sure
you are aware, any delay in access to U.S. pharmaceutical products
will affect the lives of your patients. Only the Commission can
prevent this from happening.
With your support we can begin immediately to coordinate and
ensure that the EU recognizes the United States as BSE-free, thus
allowing us to continue supplying the EU with life-saving
pharmaceuticals. Thank you for your time and support.
Sincerely,
President
American Meat Association
|