Carly Weeks, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, August 08, 2007

OTTAWA - The federal government has issued nearly 90 food recalls and alerts so far this year - and only four involved meat contaminated with potentially dangerous bacteria.
Many people think of tainted meat when they hear food poisoning horror stories. In reality, federal health officials say they’re actually becoming more worried about the risks presented by contaminated fruits and vegetables.
That’s because while produce safety is a relatively new concept, any meat products that are sold in Canada are subject to tough checks and high levels of scrutiny before they’re allowed on store shelves.
It’s a system that was created out of necessity as a result of past food scares involving tainted meat and the mad cow crisis of 2003, which devastated Alberta’s beef industry.
Canadians got a stark reminder of the destruction that can result from the slightest hint of problems with the meat supply this week after news of a new foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Britain.
Almost immediately, Canada shut its border to imports of British meat products and began the daunting task of determining if any potentially contaminated products had already made it into the country.
“Based on what we’ve been able to identify so far, we haven’t identified anything that would be considered significant risk at all,” said Dr. Debbie Barr, a veterinarian and national manager of import and export with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
A new outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease could spell major devastation for Britain’s meat industry. But rather than economic catastrophe, this week’s developments provide a significant indication of how far advanced meat safety systems have become since the last major outbreak in 2001, according to Dr. Chris Clark, professor of food animal medicine at the University of Saskatchewan’s Western College of Veterinary Medicine.
“They were put under so much scrutiny at the time,” he said. “I think people are now more aware of issues that are related to animal health and public health. Therefore, the system has been put under more scrutiny.”
Countries that have faced crises involving meat, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, have been forced to overhaul their safety systems in order to win consumer confidence and be permitted to export products. As a result, health officials have the tools to catch and mitigate many problems involving meat before they reach consumers.
Now, meat that is imported into Canada and produced domestically may be safer than ever.
Although the changes have created greater accountability and assurance that meat for sale in grocery stores is safe to eat, they have also exacted a toll on the Canadian beef industry, which is still struggling to recover from the chaos left by the mad cow crisis. As a result, Canadian ranchers are spending more on safety measures, and in some cases, the cost is passed onto the consumer.
“Certainly whatever you do adds costs. Most of the things we do don’t add an enormous amount of cost but when they’re all added together it can be significant,” said Hugh Lynch-Staunton, president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.
In order to win back consumer trust, meat producers and importers in Canada must make more of an effort than ever to ensure their products are free of disease and are processed safely. For many, it has meant sweeping changes to the way they do business, which adds extra cost and strain to an industry that is already under significant pressure. It’s a price they have to pay in order to stay in business.
“Yes there are costs involved and everything, but remember that it’s almost an investment as well,” Clark said. “If you didn’t have all those things in place, you wouldn’t have access to those international markets.”
It’s a reality that Canadian beef ranchers live every day.
For Ryan Copithorne, ranch manager at CL Ranches Ltd. outside Calgary, the changes are a necessary step to prove to consumers the industry and its practices are safe.
“I think the industry’s moving toward more accountability of what we’re feeding,” he said. “I think we’re a lot better off than we were.”
While the changes require an investment by Canadian farmers, the mad cow scare also means many beef producers feel compelled to go above and beyond federal requirements just to convince consumers their product is safe, Copithorne said.
“It’s a difficulty but that’s the way life is,” he said. “The whole secret is learning how to market what extra steps you’re going through.”
An increasing number of farmers are also starting to change the way they raise and feed cattle in response to the consumer demand for cleaner, safer products, he said.
“It’s starting to put more pressure on the industry to be more natural or organic or whatever, just because people are more concerned with food safety,” Copithorne said. “If you market it well, you should be able to benefit well.”
Unlike fresh produce, the majority of which isn’t inspected before it’s allowed to be sold in Canada, the federal government inspects 100 per cent of meat products, including poultry, beef and pork, before they’re allowed in the country.
“They certainly are subject to our highest level of scrutiny,” said Paul Mayers, executive director of the animal products directorate at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. “We provide the highest level of scrutiny because meats have that potential to cause illness in humans if not properly produced and prepared and handled. They have the potential to bring foreign animal diseases into the country.”
One of the major changes Canada has implemented to help prevent issues and more easily track down the source of problems is identity tagging. Under the country’s new rules, put in place after the mad cow problems in 2003, cattle must have special electronic tags in their ears before they can be moved. Now, any suspected cases of mad cow can be tracked easily and other problems identified and dealt with before cows make it into the marketplace.
“We can source any health concerns right back to the original herd where they came from, and it’s much easier to follow if there’s a problem,” Copithorne said. “You can isolate which cattle came into contact with each other and things like that.”
The federal government also now requires beef producers to remove certain parts from the cattle when they’re slaughtered to reduce the risk of mad cow disease. Those parts, referred to as specified risk material, were once allowed to have their protein extracted to be used in animal feed. That was restricted in the last few years, when the government said any material from ruminant species, such as cattle and sheep, could not be fed to other ruminants.
Earlier this month, that restriction was further expanded so that specified risk material is no longer allowed to be used in feed given to any type of animal, including chickens and swine.
“You want to eliminate the possibility that a little piece of SRM got stuck somewhere in a grinder in your production process,” Richard said.
Before meat is allowed into Canada, the country of origin has to prove it’s disease-free and have a testing program in place to catch any potential health problems, said CFIA spokesman Marc Richard.
“It’s not good enough to say you’re free (of disease), you have to have a testing program,” he said.
Federal officials also maintain discussions with foreign governments to ensure they have adequate programs in place and operating to maintain the safety and quality of meat products that may enter Canada.
But meat safety is considered so important that the checks go even further. In addition to the other safeguards, the CFIA regularly sends veterinarians to slaughterhouses or plants around the world to inspect operations and determine whether they are meeting the standards set out by Canada.
“There is a lot of pre-work that has to happen,” Richard said.
The pressure to keep the meat on grocery store shelves safe has likely never been higher. Yet, despite the added work, cost and frustration these changes have brought, Canadian ranchers say the only way to survive is to meet or exceed the regulations that now govern their business.
“I think perhaps the demands might be a bit unrealistic,” Lynch-Staunton said. “At the same time, we’re all consumers as food as well and we want to eat things that are the highest standard.”