(Updated to include the U.S. ban on European meat and livestock.) 
  
    --------------------------------------------- 
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy 
    and related agricultural issues. 
    --------------------------------------------- 
  
* After Stumbling So Noticeably Over Mad Cow, No One Is Taking Any   
  Chances With Foot-And-Mouth Disease 
  
  
    By David Walker, agricultural economist 
    BridgeNews 
    NORWICH, England--If obtaining harmony in international trade is  
challenging, in agricultural trade it is difficult and in meat and livestock  
trade it's next to impossible.  
  
    The United States was undoubtedly mindful of the offense it would cause in  
Europe with its foot and mouth disease-related ban on imports of meat and  
livestock, even though this action was fully justified. 
  
    Circumstances may, however, be forcing a change of political attitudes in  
Europe on food health and hygiene issues as they relate to international trade. 
  
    Member states of the European Union (EU) could until recently have been  
accused of being too laid back about food safety and animal hygiene aspects of  
intra community trade in livestock and meat. Conversely they were almost  
paranoid about meat sourced from third countries.   
  
    It is this dichotomy that made the European ban on North American beef,  
produced with 40-year-old technology involving growth hormones, difficult to  
accept as a genuine food safety issue. 
  
    Having been well and truly spooked by BSE, Europe is now giving the  
appearances of taking no chances with foot-and-mouth disease. They may,   
therefore, be understanding of a recent ban imposed by the United States on  
imports of livestock or meat from Europe and even rue the day they chose to  
pick a fight over growth hormones. 
  
    Relaxed attitudes came to an abrupt end five years ago this month when a  
poorly worded news release created the perception that a definite and dangerous  
link existed between Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE, or mad cow disease)  
and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), a rare but fatal human  
disease. 
  
    Just how laid-back EU member states were prior to this is evident from  
their continued importation and feeding of British meat and bone meal years  
after it was known it transmitted BSE and had been banned as a ruminant feed in  
Britain. 
  
    In contrast to foot-and-mouth, mad cow disease takes years rather than days  
to develop. Hence the legacy of importing and feeding British meat and bone  
meal has hung around to haunt the EU. 
  
    At the time European countries were almost solely concerned about the  
immediate food safety issue of British beef. Understandably, they imposed  
demanding precautionary programs on Britain as a condition for lifting the beef  
trade ban. 
  
    Even in August 1999, when Britain had met these conditions and the ban was  
officially lifted by the EU in Brussels, Germany initially refused to accept  
the EU decision, and France to this day refuses. The pretext was food safety  
concerns, with the implication that their domestic beef supplies were clean. 
  
    Yet at the time veterinarians at the European Commission were becoming  
frustrated that member states, who were at risk of having BSE due to their past  
trade with Britain, opposed measures to limit the potential spread of the  
disease in Europe. 
  
.5 
    Their claim was that, as they did not have BSE, the measures were  
irrelevant to them. This unfortunate situation came to a head when BSE was  
confirmed where the Brussels vets suggested it would be found. 
  
    The trauma caused by its sudden discovery across most of northern Europe  
was every bit as great for the beef market and beef producers as the 1996  
incident. 
  
    Just as Germany, France and others were getting into full stride in the  
debate over how they should handle the situation, foot-and-mouth broke out in  
Britain. 
  
    This may have been timely politically, as dissension was beginning to  
appear in the ranks. Although Britain imposed export restrictions as soon as  
the first case was diagnosed, it seems the original source of the outbreak had  
gone undetected for several weeks and the disease had been shipped in sheep to  
all corners of the country and even across the English Channel. 
  
    These expatriate sheep and any they came in contact with were condemned to  
a shorter life expectancy than second lieutenants making the same journey  
during the First World War. 
  
    Nobody was taking any chances after stumbling so noticeably with BSE.  Most  
EU countries have simply slaughtered all sheep imported from Britain.   
Intra-community trade has been banned and livestock markets closed. 
  
    Despite these precautions, France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark have at  
various times quarantined flocks while they are tested for BSE. France has  
confirmed the country's first cases of the ailment.  
  
    Any lame sheep, it seems, are in danger of being condemned without trial.  
It is Ireland, however, which is at greatest risk. A single case of  
foot-and-mouth imported from the British mainland has been reported in Northern  
Ireland, close to the border with the republic. The Irish army has been  
mobilized to assist the police in patrolling the border and preventing any  
livestock crossing.  
  
    Britain's challenge with European beef imports has received less publicity.  
Spinal cord material continues to be found in beef imported from Germany, the  
Netherlands and Spain. EU law requires this material to be removed from beef,  
as it is believed to be more liable to contain BSE infection than is muscle. 
  
    What does all this mean in terms of the other, longer standing, trade  
dispute with North America over the use of growth hormones in beef production  
and the supposed health hazard of that technique? 
  
    The European ban on beef imports produced with growth hormones from North  
America has been around for 15 years and the courts have ruled against the EU,  
enabling punitive tariffs to be imposed on EU exports.  With a real crisis to  
deal with in its own market, it might have seemed logical for the EU to want to  
resolve the growth hormone dispute. 
  
    Unfortunately, this is unlikely. The French have shown no inclination to  
drop their ban on British beef imports even after it has emerged that French  
beef is potentially more dangerous than British beef. 
  
    With beef markets in disarray and cattle farmers demonstrating, no real or  
perceived advantage will be yielded. Europe may therefore not benefit from the  
international sympathy it may feel it deserves.  End 
  
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm   
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London  for  
the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of  the  
Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. He also maintains a Web site at  
http://www.openi.co.uk/. His views are not necessarily those of BridgeNews,  whose  
ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/. 
  
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions to  
Sally Heinemann, editorial director, BridgeNews, 3 World Financial Center, 200  
Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009.  You may also call (212)  
 
 
 
 
372-7510, fax (212)  372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com. 
  
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo Service.