Order Code RS22345
Updated September 6, 2006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
BSE (“Mad Cow Disease”): A Brief Overview
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The appearance of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or “mad cow disease”)
in North America in 2003 raised meat safety concerns and disrupted trade for cattle and
beef producers. A major issue for Congress has been how to rebuild foreign markets for
U.S. beef. Other issues include whether additional measures are needed to further
protect the public and cattle herd, and concerns over the relative costs and benefits of
such measures for consumers, taxpayers and industry. This report will be updated if
significant developments ensue.1
What Is BSE?
BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or “mad cow disease”) is a fatal
neurological disease of cattle, believed to be transmitted mainly by feeding infected cattle
parts back to cattle. More than 187,000 cases have been reported worldwide, 183,000 of
them in the United Kingdom (UK) where BSE was first identified in 1986. The annual
number of new cases has declined steeply since 1992. Humans who eat contaminated
beef are believed susceptible to a rare but fatal brain wasting disease, variant Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease (vCJD). About 160 people have been diagnosed with vCJD since 1986,
most in the UK and none linked to any Canadian or U.S. meat consumption.
BSE in North America
BSE has been reported in 11 North American-born cattle. (A 12th case was a U.K.
import into Canada.) The first native case was an Alberta, Canada, beef cow reported in
May 2003. Seven more cases have been found on Canadian soil, five of them in 2006,
most recently in August 2006. The first U.S. case was in a Canadian-born dairy cow
found in Washington state in December 2003. The other two U.S. cases were a 12-year-
old Texas-born and -raised beef cow, found in November 2004 but not confirmed until
June 2005, and a 10-year-old Alabama beef cow found in late February 2006.
1 This report, which replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10127, Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues
for Congress, summarizes and updates information in other CRS reports, listed on page 6.
Sources for facts and citation to reports and studies can be found in these CRS reports.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
In epidemiological investigations of the three U.S. cases, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) was unable to track down all related animals of interest, but those
that were located tested negative for the disease. Despite a beef recall, some meat from
the first U.S. BSE cow may have been consumed, USDA said, adding, however, that the
highest-risk tissues never entered the food supply. No materials from the other two U.S.
cows entered the food supply, USDA also said. In the recent Alabama case, authorities
were unable to determine the cow’s herd of origin. Animal health officials initially
indicated that all of the North American cases were caused by the consumption of BSE-
contaminated feed. However, USDA reportedly now believes that the two native-born
U.S. cattle had “atypical” BSE, which differs from other cases. If these cases are
determined to be “spontaneous,” that may affect future control strategies.
USDA had asked an expert international review team (IRT) to assess its response to
the first (December 2003) U.S. case, and to comment on the adequacy of existing BSE
protections. The IRT generally concluded (in February 2003) that the investigation had
conformed to internationally accepted scientific standards, but urged additional actions,
including an intensive surveillance program to measure the magnitude of the BSE
problem in North America. The IRT had concluded that other infected animals probably
were imported here, some of their parts rendered into ingredients fed to cattle, and
amplified within the cattle herd, indigenously infecting some of them.
While agreeing with some of the conclusions, USDA also responded that the IRT’s
recommendations were based on the premise of a higher incidence of BSE in the United
States than was indicated by current studies. USDA officials have continued to rely
heavily on the findings in a detailed quantitative analysis (using computer simulation)
conducted for them by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and Tuskegee Center for
Computational Epidemiology. This work concluded that BSE was very unlikely to
become established or spread in the United States.
U.S. Safeguards
Import Restrictions. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) is charged with protecting U.S. agriculture from foreign pests and diseases. In
1989, APHIS began to implement increasingly restrictive import controls on ruminants
and associated meat products from countries where BSE has been found. In 2003, the
agency refocused its policy to allow imports of lower risk products from BSE countries,
as long as they could show they had effective BSE controls (Canada was first to qualify).
This approach parallels new BSE guidance supported by the United States and adopted
in May 2005 by the World Animal Health Organization (OIE for its French acronym).
Testing and Surveillance. APHIS has tested cattle deemed of highest risk for
BSE — for example, those that display suspicious neurological symptoms, that are
nonambulatory, or that die on farms. This program tested about 20,000 cattle in each of
FY2002 and FY2003, out of about 35 million slaughtered annually. Following the first
U.S. case, USDA in June 2004 launched an enhanced surveillance program to determine
the extent of BSE in as many higher-risk cattle as possible. After 116 weeks through late
August 2006, nearly 786,000 of these cattle had been tested (about 5,000 weekly on
average). All but those cited above were negative for BSE. Also as part of its enhanced
surveillance, APHIS tested more than 21,000 clinically normal adult animals in late 2005.

---

CRS-3
In July 2006, USDA announced that it would soon end enhanced testing and transition to
an ongoing program that tests approximately 40,000 cattle yearly.
Meat Safety. On January 12, 2004, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS), responsible for inspecting all live cattle and beef products destined for human
food, published several meat plant regulatory changes. These included declaring, as
“specified risk material” (SRM, which are tissues where the BSE agent can accumulate):
brains, spinal cords, and other nerve tissues from cattle 30 months of age and older and
the tonsils and distal ileum (part of the small intestine) of all cattle — effectively banning
such tissues from the meat supply. FSIS also prohibited the slaughter of “downer”
(nonambulatory) cattle; and restricted certain meat plant mechanical procedures that could
spread BSE infective material into meat products.
Feed Restrictions. BSE is thought to have first spread and magnified by feeding
rendered by-products of infected cattle to other cattle as a protein supplement. Since
August 7, 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned most mammalian
(including cattle) proteins from cattle feed. FDA also registers and monitors renderers,
feed mills, pet food manufacturers, and others. In January 2004, FDA promised to tighten
this rule by also banning poultry litter, plate waste, and bovine blood from cattle feed.
Instead, on October 6, 2005, FDA published a proposed rule banning some SRM
(mainly brains and spinal cords from cattle 30 months of age and older, and from all cattle
not passed for human food) from all animal feeds, including pet food. The agency said
its rule would remove those cattle parts responsible for 90% of potential BSE infectivity.
The public comment period ended on December 20, 2005; a final rule is pending.
Views on Safeguards. Both the adequacy and enforcement of these government
safeguards have been criticized. For example, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) has reported weaknesses in enforcement of the current FDA feed rule. A number
of consumer groups and others have asserted that FDA should have been moving much
more quickly to implement stricter animal feed rules than now proposed. Separately,
USDA’s Inspector General (IG) has questioned both the sampling and reporting aspects
of the Department’s BSE surveillance program. USDA’s efforts to reopen the U.S. border
to Canadian beef also have been sharply criticized; see below.
Others, including many cattle and meat industry leaders, generally have been
supportive of the USDA and FDA safeguards, which the Administration has argued meet
and often exceed OIE guidelines. At the same time, some of these same cattle and meat
industry leaders have expressed concern regarding the need for, and costs of, some of the
newer safeguards, such as the USDA ban on all “downer” cattle regardless of the reason
for their inability to stand or walk, and the FDA proposal to expand animal feed controls.
Industry and Trade Impacts
Exports. Cattle production is the largest single segment of U.S. agriculture,
accounting for 20% of the value of U.S. farm sales. Exports of U.S. beef and other cattle
products are viewed as critical to long-term market growth. The value of beef and beef
variety meat exports was estimated by USDA to exceed $3 billion in 2003 (or about 10%
of the farm value of cattle/calves). Four countries bought approximately 90% of these
exports: Japan (37%), South Korea (24%), Mexico (20%), and Canada (10%).

---

CRS-4
Most countries halted imports of U.S. beef and cattle soon after the December 23,
2003, U.S. BSE announcement. Many but not all of these countries are again accepting
at least some U.S. beef and other products. USDA reports that U.S. beef and veal exports
globally reached 461 million pounds in 2004 and 689 million pounds in 2005, compared
with a 2003 level of 2.523 billion pounds. The U.S. share of the world beef/veal export
market declined from 18% in 2003 to about 3% in 2005. The 2006 export estimate (as
of August 2006) is approximately 1.1 billion pounds.
Cattle Prices. Domestic cattle and beef prices had reached record highs in 2003
due to a tight supply-demand situation. Immediately after the first U.S. BSE case in
December 2003, these prices dropped sharply, but then recovered substantially. A decline
in U.S. cattle supplies, due in part to widespread drought conditions in cattle country
along with strong domestic demand for beef, kept farm prices relatively high during much
of 2004 and into 2005. USDA has reported that annual average U.S. prices for fed steers
(i.e., slaughter-ready cattle) were $84.75 in 2004, near the lower end of a USDA forecast
of $84-$91 per cwt. (100 pounds) that had been made just before the BSE case. The 2005
price was $87.28, and the 2006 forecast (as of August 2006) was $82-$84.
In a 2005 study of the impact of the BSE situation, Kansas State University estimated
that total U.S. beef industry losses due to the loss of beef and offal exports in 2004 ranged
from $3.2 billion to $4.7 billion. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association earlier in
2005 had placed cattle producers’ export-related losses at $175 per head.
Japan Situation. In October 2004 the United States and Japan had announced a
framework for restarting beef trade. Among other things, Japan (where more than two
dozen BSE cases have been found) promised to ease its domestic policy of universal BSE
testing, and to admit lower risk U.S. beef if the United States could verify that it had come
from cattle under 21 months old and that all SRM from the cattle, regardless of age, had
been removed at slaughter. However, the market did not reopen until December 2005,
when the Japanese finalized their decision to permit such U.S. imports.
On January 20, 2006, the Japanese again halted all U.S. beef imports after finding
vertebral column bones (a prohibited material) in several boxes of veal shipped by a New
York processor. Despite U.S. apologies and promises of stronger oversight measures,
Japan did not reopen its market until July 27, 2006. Japanese safety inspections of U.S.-
certified beef plants were among a number of new concessions made by the United States.
Meanwhile, Japanese consumers have been substituting other proteins and other beef
sources (notably, Australia and New Zealand) for U.S. beef, which once accounted for
25%-30% of Japanese beef consumption.
Korea Situation. Although South Korea had indicated in January 2006 that it
could soon open its own market, progress there has been slow. One major issue has been
U.S. insistence that Korea accept all plants that USDA has certified as eligible to ship in
accordance with U.S.-Korea beef export requirements — not just those that Korea
believes are acceptable. In other words, Korea should accept the integrity of the U.S.
meat inspection system, in accordance with international trade rules, American officials
have indicated. The Koreans also reportedly have expressed concerns over whether U.S.
slaughter plants are properly segregating older from younger cattle, among other things.
Nonetheless, a Korean market opening could be announced as early as September 8, 2006,
according to some industry trade reports.

---

CRS-5
Canada Situation. USDA banned all imports of Canadian cattle, beef, and other
ruminants and products in May 2003. In August 2003, USDA announced (without
publishing a formal rule) that it would issue permits to import some lower-risk Canadian
products, notably boneless beef. USDA soon began expanding the types of permitted beef
imports in late 2003 and early 2004. In response to a Montana cattle group’s lawsuit, a
federal judge temporarily blocked this effort, largely on the grounds that USDA was
expanding product eligibility outside of the prescribed rulemaking process.
On January 4, 2005, USDA published a formal final rule to reopen the border to
additional Canadian products, including cattle 30 months and younger. The judge again
blocked implementation, but a federal appeals court overruled this decision in July 2005.
Since then, Canadian cattle have been entering the country. In 2006 USDA was preparing
a proposed rule that also would permit imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age.
Speculation is that publication of this proposal has been delayed while U.S. officials more
closely review Canada’s seventh BSE case, reported in July 2006 in a 50-month-old cow,
born long after Canada’s own 1997 “feed ban” was implemented. Canadian authorities
believe the cow may have contracted the disease after a commercial feed mill, which also
processes ruminant-derived material for non-ruminant use, shipped BSE-contaminated
feed to the cow’s birth farm.
In a February 2005 report, USDA’s IG had earlier concluded that the Department’s
actions on Canada were sometimes arbitrary and undocumented, policy decisions were
poorly communicated to the public and between APHIS and FSIS, and controls over the
regulatory process were inadequate. USDA’s defenders countered that Canada’s
safeguards are at least equivalent to those of the United States, and that restoring all cross-
border trade is critical for the United States to convince other countries that U.S. beef is
safe, they asserted.
In Congress
A major issue for Congress has been how best to regain lost markets like Japan and
Korea. Among other issues have been whether expanded federal actions are needed to
further protect the public and cattle herd; the validity of the evolving science behind such
actions; and the costs and benefits of such actions for consumers, taxpayers and industry.
Besides the safeguards discussed above, Congress has also examined such BSE-related
issues as the need for improved labeling and/or traceability of livestock and livestock
products, and funding for the government’s BSE activities.
Japan. The sluggish progress on Japan (and Korea) has frustrated the beef industry
and many lawmakers, several of whom have proposed retaliatory action. For example,
several bills (S. 3364; S. 3538; H.R. 5675) introduced in June 2006 would require trade
sanctions against Japan if the market does not soon open. The pending Senate version of
the FY2007 USDA appropriation (H.R. 5384) includes a committee-approved,
nonbinding amendment recommending such sanctions. In 2005, a Senate floor
amendment to the FY2006 USDA appropriation (H.R. 2744), which would have blocked
a new U.S. rule to permit some Japanese beef imports unless Japan lifted its own ban, was
deleted from the final conference agreement (H.Rept. 109-255, P.L. 109-97).
COOL. Under the 2002 farm bill, mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for
fresh beef (among other commodities) in supermarkets was initially slated to take effect

---

CRS-6
on September 30, 2004, but Congress has twice delayed implementation, most recently
(under P.L. 109-97) until September 30, 2008. Pending in the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees are various proposals (H.R. 2068, S. 1300, S. 1333,) to replace
the mandatory program for meats with a voluntary program, among other bills. On the
other hand, several bills have been introduced to reinstate an earlier implementation date
for mandatory COOL (S. 2038, S. 1331, H.R. 4365).
Animal Identification (ID). Some Members have complained that lack of a
nationwide animal ID system has hindered the investigations into the U.S. BSE cases.
USDA, state animal health authorities, and industry groups have been working to create
such a program for several years, but progress has been slowed by differences over such
issues as whether it should be publicly or privately run; if, and how, to protect the privacy
of producer records; and who should pay. H.R. 1254 would require USDA to establish
a nationwide electronic animal identification system. H.R. 1256 deals with protecting the
information provided by producers from unauthorized scrutiny and use. H.R. 3170 would
create a “Livestock Identification Board” with voting members from industry to oversee
a national program. The pending FY2007 USDA appropriation (H.R. 5384) would bar
USDA from spending money on animal ID until it publishes for public comment more
details on the program.
BSE Funding. Total USDA spending for BSE in FY2005 was estimated at $123
million, of which $69 million was for BSE testing (and most of that for the special
surveillance program noted above), $49 million to launch the animal ID effort, and $3
million for research. For FY2006, the Administration requested $66 million for USDA’s
BSE-related activities, including $33 million to continue work on an animal ID program,
$21 million for BSE testing/surveillance, and $12 million for research. FDA’s BSE
request for FY2006 was for nearly $30 million. The FY2006 USDA appropriation (P.L.
109-97) generally covers these requests.
For More Information
CRS Reports.
! CRS Report RL32199, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or
‘Mad Cow Disease’): Current and Proposed Safeguards
! CRS Report RL32932, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or
‘Mad Cow Disease’) in North America: A Chronology of Selected Events
! CRS Report RS21709, Mad Cow Disease and U.S. Beef Trade
! CRS Report RL32012, Animal Identification and Meat Traceability
! CRS Report 97-508, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods
Selected BSE Websites.
! APHIS: [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse.shtml]
! FSIS:[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Bovine_Spongiform_Enc
ephalopathy_BSE/index.asp]
! FDA: [http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/bse.html]
! Canada:
[http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bs
eesbindexe.shtml]
! OIE: [http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esb.htm]

---