OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's $8-billion mad cow catastrophe can be squarely attributed the failure with the Canadian Meals Inspection Firm to assess monetary consequences of even a one infection, says a leading qualified.
I'm a WomanMan in search of a ManWoman
Grow older: to Zip code:
Bill Leiss from the University of Ottawa, who is also a past president with the Royal Culture of Canada, said the CFIA assessed the risk of crazy cow to animal health insurance and human well being, but not the chance of losing export markets. Yet Canada was party to a worldwide agreement offering for a ban on export products from any country with even a solitary case of the disease. The policy was known as "one cow and you're out. "
"What would be the economic impact of just one or just some cases of BSE (bovine spongiform encepalopathy) in the Canadian herd? inch Leiss asked at a new Health Organization conference about risk management.
"We failed entirely to manage or even to recognize this kind of risk for our great cost. inches
He stated Canada implemented U. S. policies in adopting a minor testing program. But Canada's risk account is completely not the same as that of the usa.
At the time, Canada exported 75 per cent of beef creation while the United states of america exported just 10 per cent. Losing export markets has not been a serious issue for the Americans, this individual said.
"In food problems we are cursed with the political attitude that we've got to be onside with the U. S. and nothing else matters. inches
He said the CFIA also used the U. S. lead in making a half-hearted efforts to stop recycling infected protein in ruminant food, which can be widely believed to be the cause of mad cow disease.
Leiss stated the CFIA ban on feeding aminoacids from ruminants to ruminants remains "full of holes. "
Leiss said the United States conducted a complete risk analysis in 1997-98, but Canada did not carry out one right up until six years later.
CFIA spokesman Marc Richard stated the agency didn't include economic outcomes in its evaluation because which is not the agency's mandate.
"We don't generally address the economic stuff, " said Richard in an interview. "The risk evaluation was primarily based strictly on the disease. Overall we're the administrators of the Animal Well being Act.
"The CFIA's risk assessments need to do with pet disease. That is our mandate and in the mandate all of us specifically don't address economics. "
But another CFIA official, mature veterinarian Darcy Undseth, explained economic outcomes of a angry cow infection in Canada were considered within a 2002 risk assessment though they were certainly not quantified.