Table Of Content

Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. %y Reserve aSF793 -A74 1997 Uy sys 9! anu 49:90 FAA JUL (0% JO9Y UovA-ArOALoO-6 LV : WJ UUE ARGENTINE BEEF RISK ASSESSMENT </ Ly 1\4 Richard Fite, Robert McDowel Ti ke Craig Chioino, Adam Grow oN. ced ,, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’... A United States Department of Agriculture QO / ys Z ~ y. eu? LON he 4 The purpose of this document is to assess the probability that beef exported from Argentina as allowed by APHIS's Final Rule, CFR 94.21, would be contaminated with foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus. This document answers the question, "What is the probability that fresh, chilled, or frozen beef imported from Argentina according to the requirements specified in the Final Rule and other existing USDA regulations regarding imported beef will be contaminated with FMD?" The analysis assumes that beef exported in full compliance with CFR 94.21 will have a negligible risk of contamination with FMD virus. The document evaluates the probability that fresh, chilled, or frozen beef exported in response to the Final Rule but not in full compliance with certain requirements of the Rule will be contaminated with FMD. The assessment begins by identifying three "un-planned" risk pathways linking an initiating activity --cattle slaughtered for export-- to an adverse outcome --the export of FMD contaminated beef. These pathways are identifieadn d are shown diagrammatically in a scenario tree (Figure 1). The pathways are: 1) Beef which was not maturated to pH 5.8 and not diverted to domestic Argentine use; 2) Beef from which lymph nodes, bones, and/or blood clots were not completely removed; and 3) Beef from which lymph nodes, bones, and/or blood clots were not completely removed and which was not maturated to pH 5.8 and not diverted for domestic use in Argentina. Beef exported in full compliance with CFR 94.21 follows the "as- planned" pathways in the scenario tree. Other unplanned pathways are possible and with some creativity and imagination, perhaps several dozen unplanned pathways could be identified. Time and resource limitations do not permit the evaluation of every conceivable unplanned risk pathway. The three unplanned pathways evaluated in this assessment were selected because in the authors' opinion, they represent the most probable sources of disease risk. The next step in the assessment requires assigning quantitative probability values to each branch point in the pathways. As much as was possible, values were assigned based on factual evidence and the evidence is listed and referenced. Ideally, values should be based on the results of specific, focused, replicated research results and surveillance data. However, such results and data are rarely, if ever, available for risk assessment, and the use of ‘ oer (eey : Tie 4 ~ 2 Y< eA ie o « ee |) aa ( 1 ( d Y ¢ 4SU MS vmy (rP ¥sU MS Av ysU ou oD (35oe oOp) buh 675a9 so F IY y4e) MSI romyvg) éP2I4 ¥su ou Ou A Oo) Peuaaigq é3sm J1s2wWop Qu on) 6 ar r$e2a}p1 d101p14 uwmew) as 24 Th tT srai, t Sy sajdwos p icy) (2"b6 (FSH doj Prinje) 7 g o e 4 qu 4 3 U c S O seyu n o L A e G es y A seq Ub SS < 1O a e2i 4y 4 ( p o s 3o ysis 6) sa1jdwos jerpy é(!) 1766 Yiu U‘onpqoo po lg) wSaasp opuu e g o Ov poyi22-ysod juux> S JU! OAq p2 woy 6? N 122)ow 2 43 Ou ee sajdwoo 18ajy é(21)7 'GSI qi peluo? ON) 31q131j2ut-Lodxa (ieous Y ° 4O3U) ysouu a U01)92JU! GW -aju8 Aq papeisp GweWxasy ow Qu P 4 a € ai oY e ewiny oustjdwos usC?) 126 GI Jay x AaUWLysPEABUNUId d c OLary TE IY q NSSW a WNunsU Toy t AoE JUIABd orequy payajos jewiuy lwaW 2dnpard of ywodxa *§°7) JO) yim aauetdwo. uy (3)G)(P)1(42)6( ®) (sjewiue jo #) a DS dwyy ENS Joag | CooF ddd-SIHdV-Vdsi 668S PCL Toc XVd LE:CT MHL 26/6T/90 7 .» 06/27/97 FRI 14:28 FAX JU1 754 9899 USDA-ArNLS-Frry Wj) UUY (9epA Beeff ChilledImport SCEN Figure # of animals) 4.21 (a) (b) (d) (f) (9). xport in compliance withroduce meat for U.S. nimal selected to InitiaEtvienng t4 i A r n o oAmr gentina orF rozen g Fresh, RIO TREE 1 4 No exam: ? 3 ante-mortem s detected by FXeM D infectionY D with 94.21 (2)? given compliance no riskAnimal has FMD no risk ) a meat) export-ineligible (No contact with with 94.21 (c)? Meat complies no risk & © 4 epdF : ) xam? ost-mortem etected by MD infection a Y No removebone a(Blood with 94Meat c : d) nd nodesclots, .21 (i)? omplies FMD Meat 1 (PathwaoN RISKN, 8 domestic use? Diverted to No aN, % (Matured to pH 5.8) no ris94.21 (h)? cs Meat complies with no risAYk E FMD virus? 1S Meat has J 1Vir2us killed? O S/ (Pathway 2) noR IriSskK no( Priastk hway 1) ON RISK ny virus? ‘4 domestic useha?s Diverted to No > Ny 7) (Matured to pH 5.8) no risk 0 / 94.21 (h)? Meat complies with nV ry no risk y k 3 ) eS C xa w s e9 S a aw s? e CR h 125 e e n ye Sti) PP N ew s O( efh ee y aay y - t al We e l a r e s a ’ : a / s tt, \ HN, O08 casi < ~ ’ a ‘¢ Foam ceuipe Oe sacs PEP venaI G ar 4Lei oa ae :f ee, Fe eM oes has \ oN y P \ INDY eesere ra (yep Ojeny fe ri n \ h( Cn p pp a ‘ )aa p vb, e% t e ay ath a o m y : i — S , % ae | w W m\ S e u n e s o o y p o oe l y M p i e a > , y f i h B i i gee : oK k :