Scientific Committees
Scientific Steering Committee
(former MDSC)
Outcome of discussions
Opinion on the
Geographical risk of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (GBR)
in Uruguay adopted on 12/01/2001
The Question
The Scientific Steering Committee (SSC)
was asked by the Commission to express its scientific
opinion on the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR), i.e. the
likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being
infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, at
a given point in time, in a number of Third
Countries.
This opinion addresses the GBR of
Uruguay.
The Background
In December 1997 the SSC expressed its
first opinion on Specified Risk Materials where it stated,
inter alia, that the list of SRM could probably be
modulated in the light of the species, the age and the
geographical origin of the animals in question.
In June 2000 the European Commission
adopted a Decision on SRM (2000/418/EC), prohibiting the
import of SRM from all Third Countries that have not been
"satisfactorily" assessed with regard to their
BSE-Risk.
In July 2000 the SSC adopted its final
opinion on "the Geographical Risk of Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (GBR)". This opinion described a method and
a process for the assessment of the GBR and summarised the
outcome of its application to 23 countries. Detailed
reports on the GBR-assessment were published on the
Internet for each of these countries.
In September 2000 the Commission invited
46 Third Countries, which are authorised to export products
to the EU that are listed in annex II to the above
mentioned SRM-Decision, to provide a dossier for the
assessment of their GBR.
Until today 28 dossiers have been
received and 27 are in an advanced state of
assessment.
This opinion concerns only one country,
Uruguay, that for several reasons could be finalised
earlier than all other files.
The Commission requested this SSC
opinion on the GBR of this, and of all Third Countries that
provide the necessary information, as essential input into
its Decision concerning the treatment of SRM that will be
requested from Third Countries exporting certain products,
listed in Annex II to the Commission Decision on SRM, to
the EU.
The Analysis
Uruguay was exposed to an overall
negligible external challenge throughout the
reference period (1980-1999). Neither the imports of live
cattle nor of MBM, MM, BM or Greaves from countries that
were affected by BSE reached non-negligible levels. Hence
it is highly unlikely that the BSE agent was imported into
the country.
In addition to this negligible external
challenge, the BSE/cattle system of Uruguay was and is
neutrally stable; mainly because SRM are used for human
consumption or, as all condemned material, are rendered for
fertiliser use.
It is therefore concluded that it is
highly unlikely that one or several cattle that are
(pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE agent
are currently present in the domestic herd of Uruguay.
Given the neutrally stable system it is unlikely that the
GBR will increase in the future, at least as long external
challenges can be avoided.
This favourable assessment is mainly depending on
the negligible external challenge. If this assumption
should be proved wrong, the assessment would have to be
revised.
A summary of the reasons for the current assessment is
given in annex 1 to this opinion.
A detailed report on the assessment of the GBR of
Uruguay is published separately on the Internet. It was
produced by the GBR-task force of the SSC-secretariat and
peer reviewed by the GBR-Peer group. The country had two
opportunities to comment on different drafts of the
report before the SSC took both, the report and the
comments, into account for producing this opinion. The
SSC appreciates the good co-operation of the country's
authorities.
URUGUAY - Summary of
the GBR-Assessment, January 2001
|
|
EXTERNAL
CHALLENGE
|
STABILITY
|
INTERACTION EXTERNAL
CHALLENGE/STABILITY
|
|
Negligible
|
Neutrally stable
|
GBR-Level
|
Live Cattle
|
MBM
|
Feeding
|
Rendering
|
SRM-removal
|
Surveillance,
cross-contamination
|
A neutrally stable system
was never exposed to any non-negligible external
challenge. Even if an external challenge had
occurred, recycling and amplification of it would
have been unlikely.
|
I
|
10 cattle were imported
from UK (8 in 1980 and 2 in 1988). No animals were
slaughtered or rendered, all were destroyed on the
farm.
|
No imports have ever
taken place from UK or other BSE-affected
countries.
|
Reasonably OK:
pasture feeding with plant
derived supplements, MBM-ban in '96. Before: no price
incentive for MBM; sufficient protein-supply from
grazing; fear that excess protein would have negative
impact on productivity.
|
Not OK:
not equivalent to 133/20/3
standard, condemned material rendered for use as
fertiliser.
|
OK
: human consumption of
cattle brains, spinal cord and most other edible
offal.
|
Surveillance
: passive, retrospective
+ active since '98, good.
Cross-contamination: Sufficient controls, all
negative, but no separate production lines in feed
mills.
|
|
INTERNAL CHALLENGE
|
GBR-trend
|
Þ
|
Highly unlikely to have
been present at any time.
|
|
Scientific Committees
Scientific Steering Committee (former
MDSC)
Outcome of discussions
FOOD SAFETY |
PUBLIC HEALTH
|
CONSUMER
PROTECTION |
DIRECTORATE
GENERAL "HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION"
|