VZCZCXYZ0002
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHMO #2688/01 2521405
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 081405Z SEP 08
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC PRIORITY 5363
INFO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9888
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 4648
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 5192

UNCLAS MOSCOW 002688 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
USDA FAS FOR OCRA/FLEMINGS, KUYPERS; 
- OSTA/HAMILTON, BEAN 
PASS FSIS/HARRIES, DUTROW 
PASS APHIS MITCHELL 
STATE FOR EUR/RUS, EB/ATP/SINGER 
STATE PASS USTR FOR PORTER 
BRUSSELS PASS APHIS/FERNANDEZ 
VIENNA PASS APHIS/TANAKA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD TBIO WTO RS
SUBJECT: RUSSIA LOSING PATIENCE WITH TYPOS ON VET 
CERTIFICATES 
 
REF: A) HANSEN/HAMILTON EMAIL, B) MOSCOW 269, C) 
MOSCOW 2134, D) MOSCOW 2435 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The Russian Federal Veterinary 
and Phytosanitary Surveillance Service (VPSS) 
informed via official letter that it is running 
out of patience with the amount of errors being 
discovered on veterinary documentation 
accompanying U.S. poultry and pork shipments to 
Russia.  VPSS accuses USDA's Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS) of incompetence and 
demands that immediate steps be taken to prevent 
more violations in the future.  Original scanned 
copy and courtesy translation were sent to 
FAS/OSTA on September 5 (REF A).  An informal 
embassy translation of the backdated letter 
follows. END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (SBU) BEGIN TEXT: 
Moscow, September 3, 2008 
No. FS-NV-2/8901 
 
Assistant Administrator 
FSIS Office of International Affairs, USDA 
Dr. William James 
 
The Federal Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Surveillance Service (VPSS) extends its regards 
to FSIS, USDA and would like to inform you of 
the following. 
 
During 2008, U.S. veterinary services repeatedly 
committed violations in filling out veterinary 
documents that accompanied veterinary products 
(poultry, pork) exported from the United States 
to the Russian Federation. 
 
During routine border veterinary inspection, 
discrepancies were repeatedly found between 
information indicated in veterinary certificates 
and actual facts, namely: container numbers, 
establishment numbers, name of product, 
manufacturing dates, and product weight.  It was 
found also that one establishment was indicated 
in the veterinary certificate; however products 
from several establishments were actually found 
in the container. 
 
Thus in veterinary certificates for poultry no. 
RFA-045214, RFA-045220, RFA-045222, RFA-045232, 
the container number was indicated with errors; 
in veterinary certificate for pork no. RFA- 
087116, the indicated weight did not correspond 
to actual weight; in veterinary certificate for 
poultry no. RFA-031184, the issue date was signed 
by different signatures; in veterinary 
certificate for poultry no. RFA-027567, the 
product name was indicated incorrectly (chicken 
leg boneless instead of actually shipped chicken 
breast); in veterinary certificates for poultry 
no. RFA-045202, RFA-045242, RFA-045244, RFA- 
045246, RFA-044171, RFA-044172 the number of 
certificates were indicated with errors on the 
packaging; in certificates for turkey meat no. 
RFA-043877, RFA-006822, RFA-006823 the 
manufacturing dates were indicated incorrectly; 
in veterinary certificate for poultry no. RFA- 
027352, RFA-003133, RFA-019871, RFA-044340 and in 
veterinary certificates for pork no. RFA-076495, 
RFA-078125, the number of containers were 
indicated incorrectly; in veterinary certificates 
no. RFA-078405, RFA-075197, RFA-075198, it was 
indicated that the products were shipped from one 
establishment; however the product found in the 
containers were actually from two establishments; 
in veterinary certificate for pork no. RFA-082413 
the product name was indicated with errors (head 
 
trimming, actually cheek trimming was shipped); 
in veterinary certificates for pork no. RFP- 
078410 and RFP-078411 and in veterinary 
certificates for poultry no. RFA-044247, RFA- 
044239 the manufacturing dates were indicated 
incorrectly as were the certificate numbers on 
the packaging; in veterinary certificate for pork 
no. RFP-097458 the establishment number was 
indicated as no. 31965 but the number on the 
packaging was stamped no. 20239. 
 
In July 2007, VPSS sent FSIS list of 1,071 
veterinary certificates that accompanied meat 
products shipped from the United States to 
Russian importers.  VPSS asked that you confirm 
or deny issuing of the suspect certificates.  In 
addition in April 2008, a list of 534 veterinary 
certificates was sent to FSIS with the same 
request. 
 
In the end of April 2008, VPSS received a 
response from FSIS with confirmation of 
authenticity for 860 certificates out of 1,071 
which were sent in 2007.  However, the United 
States veterinary service requested from VPSS 
copies of 534 certificates to confirm their 
authenticity. 
 
The facts mentioned above show the absence of 
appropriate control that FSIS has to provide in 
shipments of veterinary products to the Russian 
Federation. 
 
In this connection, we ask you to take urgent 
measures to prevent shipments of veterinary 
products to the Russian Federation with 
veterinary certificates prepared with violations. 
We also ask you to provide VPSS with 
comprehensive information about the undertaken 
measures. 
 
Dr. James, please accept my assurances of the 
deepest respect. 
 
Deputy Head 
N.A. Vlasov 
END TEXT. 
 
¶3. (SBU) This is not the first time that VPSS has 
complained about the number of errors being found 
on U.S. veterinary certificates that accompany 
meat and poultry shipments to Russia. 
Periodically, VPSS summarizes all of the typos 
found on veterinary certificates and, as in this 
instance, sends the list to FSIS via official 
letter with a threat to ban either the facilities 
in question and/or the entire U.S. meat and 
poultry industry unless measures are taken to 
stop the number of "gross violations of Russian 
veterinary rules and regulations" (REF D).  Post 
has reminded VPSS officials on numerous occasions 
that typos on veterinary certificates have 
nothing to do with food safety or quality of the 
product in question.  Nevertheless, VPSS views 
minor and inadvertent clerical mistakes as "gross 
violations of veterinary regulations" putting 
them in the same category as Salmonella and 
anthrax (REF B). 
 
¶4. (SBU) In 2007 the United States exported 
approximately 1 million metric tons of meat and 
poultry to Russia valued at an estimated USD 851 
million dollars.  The quantity of meat that 
arrived with accompany veterinary certificates 
that had typographical errors totaled 2,515 
metric tons or just 0.25 percent of total U.S. 
meat shipments to Russia.  An example of a minor 
clerical error is a missing number of the meat 
processing facility listed on a certificate. 
 
 
¶5. (SBU) COMMENT: VPSS is apparently building a 
case against FSIS to show that it is incapable of 
ensuring that U.S. meat and poultry meet Russian 
veterinary regulations so that trade can be 
restricted when deemed necessary.  Post's 
internal investigation showed that only 0.25 
percent of total U.S. meat shipments to Russia in 
2007 arrived with veterinary certificates with 
typos.  While most would consider this to be an 
acceptable margin of error that comes with large 
trade volumes, VPSS believes otherwise and 
enforces a strict zero tolerance policy towards 
human error.  Post encourages Washington 
addresses to seek higher-level intervention to 
prod Russia into accepting international 
scientific standards in such cases as called for 
by international bodies.  We should avoid the 
prospect of VPSS delisting U.S. meat and poultry 
facilities that produce and export safe products 
simply because of typographical errors on 
accompanying certificates. END COMMENT. 
BEYRLE