VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHMO #3181/01 3031436
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 291436Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC PRIORITY 5397
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0554
INFO RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 4674
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 5226

UNCLAS MOSCOW 003181 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
USDA FAS FOR OCRA/KUYPERS; ONA/SALLYARDS, MURPHY 
- OSTA/HAMILTON, BEAN 
PASS FSIS/JONES, DUTROW 
STATE FOR EUR/RUS 
STATE PASS USTR FOR PORTER, KLEIN 
BRUSSELS PASS APHIS/FERNANDEZ 
VIENNA PASS APHIS/TANAKA 
GENEVA FOR USTR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD ECON WTO RS
SUBJECT: RUSSIAN VET SERVICE GOES RENEGADE 
 
REF: A) MOSCOW 1826, B) HANSEN/DUTROW EMAIL, C) 
MOSCOW 2949, D) MOSCOW 2788, E) MOSCOW 2204 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The Russian Federal Veterinary 
and Phytosanitary Surveillance Service (VPSS) 
informed via official letter that it will no 
longer accept certifications from the USDA Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) that U.S. 
importers meet Russia's sanitary norms and are 
authorized to export meat, poultry and pork to 
Russia.  The VPSS refusal to accept FSIS 
certifications violates the side letter agreement 
on meat and poultry plant inspections which was 
signed as part of the U.S.-Russia bilateral WTO 
market access agreement in November 2006.  VPSS 
has also asked FSIS to provide a list of U.S. 
poultry facilities that do not use chlorinated 
anti-microbial washes during chilling, in light 
of the implementation of resolution 33, which 
bans such practice as of January 1, 2009 (REF A). 
The VPSS letter notes that the GOR is available 
after November 20 to consult with the U.S. side 
regarding the side letter agreement on 
meat/poultry inspections and other relevant 
issues.  We view the renewed threat to impose a 
ban on chlorine-treated chicken as a Russian 
attempt to gain negotiating leverage in advance 
of the next round of consultations on the 
meat/poultry quotas under the 2005 U.S.-Russia 
Meat Agreement.  If Russia did impose such a 
ban, it would likely result in major shortages 
of chicken in Russia and lead to an inflationary 
spike in food prices in 2009. END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
VPSS Letter Rejects FSIS Certifications 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) The original scanned copy and courtesy 
translation of the VPSS letter were sent to FSIS 
on October 28 (REF B).  An informal embassy 
translation of the VPSS letter follows. 
 
¶3. (SBU) BEGIN TEXT: 
Moscow, October 24, 2008 
No.  FS-AC-2/10864 
 
Assistant Deputy Administrator 
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
Dr. William James 
 
The Federal Service for Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Surveillance (FSIS) renders its 
respect to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS).  In response to your letters 
dated September 25, 2008 and September 26, 2008 
concerning amendments to the list of U.S. plants 
certified for shipping pork, beef and poultry 
meat to the Russian Federation, I inform you of 
the following: 
 
During signing of the exchange letter (Side 
Letter agreement) regarding inspection and 
certification of U.S. plants on November 19, 2006 
in Hanoi, the American and Russian sides accepted 
to abide by relevant obligations.  Under those 
obligations FSIS was granted the ability to add 
new U.S. plants to the list of eligible exporters 
by certifying that they meet the requirements of 
the Russian Federation. 
 
VPSS agreed to add most of the above-mentioned 
poultry, pork, and beef plants to the list of 
U.S. facilities that are eligible to export 
products to the Russian Federation (under FSIS 
guarantees). 
 
However, as was demonstrated during recent joint 
inspection of the U.S. plants, it became obvious 
that the plants did not comply with the Russian 
veterinary and sanitary requirements. 
 
Thus, 70 enterprises out of 152 livestock plants 
inspected in 2007-2008 were removed from the 
approved list of the U.S. plants eligible to 
export products to Russia roughly - 46.5% of the 
total. 
 
In addition it was detected in the course of the 
joint inspection of U.S. poultry plants in 2008 
that certain inspected plants were not complying 
with the Russian-American criteria for processing 
enterprises supplying poultry meat to the Russian 
Federation. 
 
Thus, the majority of the plants visited did not 
meet the requirements for anti-mortem examination 
of birds: 
 
- Anti-mortem examination of chickens was 
conducted in a random manner instead of 
inspecting each arriving batch; 
 
- Plant employees only keep a record of dead 
chickens which are later reported to the 
representatives of the US government veterinary 
service.  The dead chickens are not opened up or 
sent for lab testing; 
 
- Chemical-toxicological characteristics 
pertaining to arsenic content in poultry are 
higher at certain plants in the United States 
than is stipulated in Russian standards; 
 
- Carcass chilling requirements were not met; 
 
- Temperature in cut-up and packing areas do not 
correspond to the standards defined by the 
Russian-American criteria; 
 
- Sequence and isolation of production areas are 
not met; 
 
- At plants where veterinary and sanitary 
evaluation is conducted in accordance with HIMB 
system, USDA veterinarians do not examine 
internal organs.  This does not comply with point 
4.7 of the veterinary certificate for export of 
poultry into the Russian Federation; 
 
- There were instances when storage temperatures 
and sanitary conditions of refrigeration chambers 
were violated. 
 
A large number of U.S. plants do not take 
measures to address deficiencies and comments 
made in the course of previous audits. 
 
In addition, over the period of 2008, inspectors 
of the U.S. government veterinary service made 
repeated violations when filling out veterinary 
documentation that accompanied livestock products 
(poultry, pork) shipped from the United States to 
Russia. 
 
As a result, numerous discrepancies were detected 
during routine border veterinary control 
regarding the information declared on veterinary 
certificates, i.e. mismatch of a container 
numbers, plant numbers, name of products, 
manufacturing dates, and weight of products.  It 
was also noted that a certificate indicated only 
one manufacturing enterprise while in fact the 
container was filled with products from several 
enterprises.  This indicates a serious lack of 
control of the U.S. veterinary service over 
livestock products shipped to the Russian 
Federation. 
 
Therefore, these facts indicate that the U.S. 
side does not meet the terms of the side letter 
agreement on inspections signed in Hanoi on 
November 19, 2006.  FSIS has a nonchalant 
attitude in certifying enterprises and making 
them eligible to export meat and raw meat 
products to the Russian Federation.  FSIS also 
sends false assurances to VPSS regarding 
enterprises that do not fully meet the Russian- 
American criteria. 
 
In this connection, VPSS cannot accept assurances 
of the U.S. side regarding meat and poultry 
exporting enterprises.  U.S. meat and poultry 
plants will only be added to the list of eligible 
exporters to Russia after joint inspections of 
those facilities takes place which include 
Russian veterinary experts. 
 
In this connection, it is necessary for FSIS to 
review at its own discretion the data available 
and remove enterprises that do not meet the 
Russian-American criteria from the lists of the 
U.S. meat processing enterprises manufacturing 
beef, pork and poultry eligible to export their 
products to the Russia.  In addition , please 
send this information to VPSS. 
 
Simultaneously, we inform you that the list of 
the U.S. poultry plants must be updated in light 
of resolution 33 signed by the Chief State 
Sanitary Inspector of the Russian Federation 
dated June 6, 2008 titled, "On Poultry Production 
and Circulation" (attached).  In accordance with 
this resolution, as of January 1, 2009, 
application of solutions for chicken carcass 
treatment containing chlorine levels exceeding 
the requirements set by SanPin 2.1.4.1074-01 will 
be prohibited.  Resolution 33 is titled, "Potable 
Water Hygienic Requirements to Quality of Water 
in Centralized Potable Water Supply System. 
Quality Control" (registered by the Russian 
Ministry of Justice on October 31, 2001, No. 
3011). 
 
Finally, as was already mentioned in VPSS letter 
FS-HB-2/9932 dated October 1, 2008, VPSS is ready 
to hold consultations to address all of the 
issues above in Moscow anytime after November 20, 
¶2008. 
 
Dr. James, accept my assurances in the deepest 
respect. 
 
Deputy Head 
A.I. Saurin 
END TEXT. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
Threatened Ban on Chlorine-Treated Chicken 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) The VPSS letter means that no additional 
facilities will be allowed to import meat, pork 
and poultry to Russia unless they have undergone 
a joint physical inspection by FSIS and VPSS that 
establishes to VPSS' satisfaction that the 
facility meets Russia's sanitary and safety 
norms.  With inspections and audits currently 
only occurring once a year, some new facilities 
could wait several months before they would be 
authorized to ship to Russia.  We do not believe 
that the latest letter will have any impact on 
facilities that are currently authorized to ship 
product to Russia, though we are currently 
attempting to confirm this understating with VPSS 
officials. 
 
¶5. (SBU) We view the VPSS request for a list of 
U.S. poultry facilities that do not use 
chlorinated anti-microbial washes as an attempt 
to hold a "Sword of Damocles" over U.S. importers 
and trade negotiators in the run-up to the next 
round of consultations on the meat/poultry quotas 
under the 2005 Meat Agreement.  Since the vast 
majority of U.S. poultry producers use 
chlorinated antimicrobial washes to kill 
foodborne pathogens before the product reaches 
consumers' plates, a ban on chlorine-treated 
chicken would effectively prevent the export of 
U.S. poultry products to Russia.  Russian poultry 
producers are also expressing concern with the 
new resolution.  Domestic industry contacts 
informed Post that roughly half of all domestic 
poultry producers use chlorinated antimicrobial 
washes in their facilities, although most will 
not publically admit it.  Many put labels on 
their product stating that it is "chlorine free" 
when, in fact, it is not. 
 
¶6. (SBU) In late July 2008, representatives of 
the U.S. poultry industry signed (under duress) a 
memorandum of understanding with their Russian 
counterparts in Moscow which requires the U.S. 
poultry industry to forego 17 percent of its 
share of Russia's 2009 tariff-rate quota (REF E). 
In exchange, the U.S. industry received 
assurances that the proposed ban on using 
chlorine in poultry production would be 
rescinded.  The fact that the latest VPSS letter 
requests an updated list of U.S. poultry 
facilities that do not use chlorine in poultry 
production insinuates that the ban will indeed be 
implemented as planned, and those facilities that 
use chlorine will be shut out of the Russian 
market. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) We are skeptical that Russia would 
actually implement a ban on chlorine-treated 
chicken, because it would inevitably lead to an 
inflationary spike in food prices in Russia. 
Domestic producers only meet around 55% of the 
current consumer demand for chicken in Russia. 
The major poultry exporters to Russia (the United 
States and Brazil) chill slaughtered chicken with 
a chlorine-water solution that would run afoul of 
the ban.  In addition, the EU is not currently 
producing enough chicken to meet internal EU 
demand, and EU poultry prices are in any event 
too high to be competitive in the Russian market. 
 
¶8. (SBU) This is the first time that VPSS has 
explicitly stated that it will not abide by the 
side letter agreement on plant inspections signed 
as part of the U.S.-Russia WTO market access 
agreement in November 2006.  The letter confirms 
that protectionist elements within the Ministry 
of Agriculture are intent on protecting the 
domestic agriculture sector and delaying or 
derailing Russia's WTO accession.  As we continue 
to engage with Russian officials on the 
accession, we will emphasize that other senior 
officials and ministries, including the Ministry 
of Economic Development, need to manage the 
accession process more coherently and rein in 
these protectionist elements within the GOR. 
During the next WTO multilateral working party 
meeting in Geneva, we also recommend that USTR 
and USDA representatives discuss with Russian 
trade negotiators our concerns with the recent 
protectionist letters from VPSS.  Likewise, any 
meat/poultry quota reached during consultations 
should be contingent on Russia's agreement not to 
implement trade-restrictive sanitary and phyto- 
sanitary measures, including 'esolution 33. 
 
BEYRLE