• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

17th Case of Canadian origin BSE found

RobertMac

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Reader has a good point, before pointing fingers, get all the facts.

Quite a bit of this debate is based on emotion. The facts and science have not advanced really since this all started in 2003.

Do we know where the feed came from on this cow? Did she catch it from elk? ETC

We got a cause yet, or just the result? Where are all those UK citizens that were supposed to develop vCJD? I haven't heard, have you?

Weren't there supposed to be 1000's by now?

If BSE caused vCJD and we're, (US and CAN), hiding cases, has it resulted in a spike of vCJD? Or are we still talking 1 or 2/million
:agree:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Reader, "Canada tests and finds and reassures the consumers that way that cattle with BSE do not enter the food supply."

What would of kept that last cow, or for that matter the last cows, from entering the food supply had they been taken to town a couple of months before developing the physical signs that led to being tested?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
The US and Canada have taken different tacks to protect their beef industry.

Canada tests and finds and reassures the consumers that way that cattle with BSE do not enter the food supply.

The US does not test systematically in amounts that would find BSE and therefore we are fat, dumb, and happy that our food supply is safe. We are shocked shocked shocked when downer cows end up being fed to our children in school lunch programs and we rush around waving our hands convincingly until the public's short memory loses track and moves on to the next reality TV show. Our strategy is cheap and effective :) This is not like e coli that surfaces immediately. It incubates for decades so no current politician will have to pay the piper, so who cares?
Or is the connection between BSE and vCJD over blown?

http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm

If I remember right, the UK had 186,000 cases of BSE back in the 1980s. This link has the number of confirmed and probable deaths at 164 since 1990. What I think is more telling is the number of definite/probable vCJD cases still alive...4. Hopefully, the link between the two is no where near what has been suggested.
 

burnt

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
reader (the Second) said:
The US and Canada have taken different tacks to protect their beef industry.

Canada tests and finds and reassures the consumers that way that cattle with BSE do not enter the food supply.

The US does not test systematically in amounts that would find BSE and therefore we are fat, dumb, and happy that our food supply is safe. We are shocked shocked shocked when downer cows end up being fed to our children in school lunch programs and we rush around waving our hands convincingly until the public's short memory loses track and moves on to the next reality TV show. Our strategy is cheap and effective :) This is not like e coli that surfaces immediately. It incubates for decades so no current politician will have to pay the piper, so who cares?
Or is the connection between BSE and vCJD over blown?



http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm

If I remember right, the UK had 186,000 cases of BSE back in the 1980s. This link has the number of confirmed and probable deaths at 164 since 1990. What I think is more telling is the number of definite/probable vCJD cases still alive...4. Hopefully, the link between the two is no where near what has been suggested.

I hate to contemplate the long term effect of self-serving, political indifference as suggested. But I am sure that such indifference is a reality, especially when there is financial gain to be had from it.

One indisputable effect that lingers from BSE is that the equity of the Canadian cattle producer has been, in some cases, irreparably damaged.

What makes this such a bitter pill to swallow is that American producers have unjustly, to some degree benefited from our loss while also unjustifiably claiming to have no problem with BSE.

THIS is what makes the average Canadian producer so angry with the finger pointing that some old American drunks like to do.
 

burnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Other than our NCBA parrots, who has claimed that we don't have a problem with BSE?

So you admit, then, that you are feeding a steady stream of BSE infected cattle to your beef consumers? And are making no effort to find them?
 

flounder

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Well dang.... I knew I shouldn't have said anything about bse in that other post. :lol: :lol: :lol: Well, I have been thinking that if our system is working we should be detecting another one any time now. So I guess everything is good in the Canadian beef world.

Which system? The original feed ban?

The Canadian system is much better than the USA. at least they know. the USA just SHOOTS, SHOVELS, AND SHUTS UP I.E. THE SSS POLICY.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Identification and characterization of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases diagnosed and not diagnosed in the United States

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/05/identification-and-characterization-of.html

Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA) Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083 Adopted date: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)

Document (0.2Mb)

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620779461.htm

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_annex_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_summary_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true

Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of CANADA Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083 Adopted July 2004 Summary The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC), to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Canada, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Canada. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Canada as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003. The BSE agent was probably imported into the country middle of the eighties and could have reached domestic cattle in the early nineties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Canada reached domestic cattle and led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries. EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of Canada is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the system remains unstable, it is expected that the GBR continues to grow, even if no additional external challenges occur.

http://www.mvo.nl/wetgeving-dierlijk-vet/onderzoek/download/EFSA%20on%20BSE%20risk%20Canada%20jul%202004.pdf

Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of MEXICO Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083 Adopted July 2004 Summary The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Mexico, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Mexico. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Mexico as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003. The BSE agent was probably imported into Mexico and could have reached domestic cattle. These cattle imported could have been rendered and therefore led to an internal challenge in the mid to late 1990's. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Mexico reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge around 1993. It is likely that BSE infectivity entered processing at the time of imported 'at - risk' MBM (1993) and at the time of slaughter of imported live 'at - risk' cattle (mid to late 1990s). The high level of external challenge is maintained throughout the reference period, and the system has not been made stable. Thus it is likely that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated from approximately 1993. The risk has since grown consistently due to a maintained internal and external challenge and lack of a stable system. EFSA concludes that the current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSEagent. The GBR is likely to increase due to continued internal and external challenge, coupled with a very unstable system.

http://www.mvo.nl/wetgeving-dierlijk-vet/onderzoek/download/EFSA%20on%20BSE%20risk%20Mexico%20jul%202004.pdf

Saturday, April 11, 2009

CJD FOUNDATION SIDES WITH R-CALFERS NO BSE OR HUMAN TSE THERE OF IN USA 'don't be fooled'

http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html

Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program

An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services. In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2007.

snip...

Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1 include:

soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),

implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),

snip...

The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and investigations are completed.

4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf

-MORE Office of the United States Attorney District of Arizona FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Information Contact Public Affairs February 16, 2007 WYN HORNBUCKLE Telephone: (602) 514-7625 Cell: (602) 525-2681

CORPORATION AND ITS PRESIDENT PLEAD GUILTY TO DEFRAUDING GOVERNMENT'S MAD COW DISEASE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

PHOENIX -- Farm Fresh Meats, Inc. and Roland Emerson Farabee, 55, of Maricopa, Arizona, pleaded guilty to stealing $390,000 in government funds, mail fraud and wire fraud, in federal district court in Phoenix. U.S. Attorney Daniel Knauss stated, "The integrity of the system that tests for mad cow disease relies upon the honest cooperation of enterprises like Farm Fresh Meats. Without that honest cooperation, consumers both in the U.S. and internationally are at risk. We want to thank the USDA's Office of Inspector General for their continuing efforts to safeguard the public health and enforce the law." Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee were charged by Information with theft of government funds, mail fraud and wire fraud. According to the Information, on June 7, 2004, Farabee, on behalf of Farm Fresh Meats, signed a contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the "USDA Agreement") to collect obex samples from cattle at high risk of mad cow disease (the "Targeted Cattle Population"). The Targeted Cattle Population consisted of the following cattle: cattle over thirty months of age; nonambulatory cattle; cattle exhibiting signs of central nervous system disorders; cattle exhibiting signs of mad cow disease; and dead cattle. Pursuant to the USDA Agreement, the USDA agreed to pay Farm Fresh Meats $150 per obex sample for collecting obex samples from cattle within the Targeted Cattle Population, and submitting the obex samples to a USDA laboratory for mad cow disease testing. Farm Fresh Meats further agreed to maintain in cold storage the sampled cattle carcasses and heads until the test results were received by Farm Fresh Meats.

Evidence uncovered during the government's investigation established that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee submitted samples from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population. Specifically, Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee submitted, or caused to be submitted, obex samples from healthy, USDA inspected cattle, in order to steal government moneys.

Evidence collected also demonstrated that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee failed to maintain cattle carcasses and heads pending test results and falsified corporate books and records to conceal their malfeasance. Such actions, to the extent an obex sample tested positive (fortunately, none did), could have jeopardized the USDA's ability to identify the diseased animal and pinpoint its place of origin. On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee pleaded guilty to stealing government funds and using the mails and wires to effect the scheme. According to their guilty pleas:

(a) Farm Fresh Meats collected, and Farabee directed others to collect, obex samples from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population, which were not subject to payment by the USDA;

(b) Farm Fresh Meats 2 and Farabee caused to be submitted payment requests to the USDA knowing that the requests were based on obex samples that were not subject to payment under the USDA Agreement;

(c) Farm Fresh Meats completed and submitted, and Farabee directed others to complete and submit, BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms to the USDA's testing laboratory that were false and misleading;

(d) Farm Fresh Meats completed and submitted, and Farabee directed others to complete and submit, BSE Surveillance Submission Forms filed with the USDA that were false and misleading;

(e) Farm Fresh Meats falsified, and Farabee directed others to falsify, internal Farm Fresh Meats documents to conceal the fact that Farm Fresh Meats was seeking and obtaining payment from the USDA for obex samples obtained from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population; and

(f) Farm Fresh Meats failed to comply with, and Farabee directed others to fail to comply with, the USDA Agreement by discarding cattle carcasses and heads prior to receiving BSE test results. A conviction for theft of government funds carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Mail fraud and wire fraud convictions carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Convictions for the above referenced violations also carry a maximum fine of $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations. In determining an actual sentence, Judge Earl H. Carroll will consult the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide appropriate sentencing ranges. The judge, however, is not bound by those guidelines in determining a sentence.

Sentencing is set before Judge Earl H. Carroll on May 14, 2007. The investigation in this case was conducted by Assistant Special Agent in Charge Alejandro Quintero, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. The prosecution is being handled by Robert Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona, Phoenix. CASE NUMBER: CR-07-00160-PHX-EHC RELEASE NUMBER: 2007-051(Farabee) # # #

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2007/2007-051(Farabee).pdf

Thu Dec 6, 2007 11:38

FDA IN CRISIS MODE, AMERICAN LIVES AT RISK

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/dec0407fda.html

FDA SCIENCE AND MISSION AT RISK

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_01_FDA%20Report%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf

10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. BLOOD LACED MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007

Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II

___________________________________

PRODUCT

Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007

CODE

Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.

Firm initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

42,090 lbs.

DISTRIBUTION

WI

___________________________________

PRODUCT

Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal, TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI - 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J - PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY, A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007

CODE

The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.

REASON

Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

9,997,976 lbs.

DISTRIBUTION

ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html

Thursday, March 19, 2009 MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA WITH ONGOING 12 YEARS OF DENIAL NOW, WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE $$$

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html

P04.27

Experimental BSE Infection of Non-human Primates: Efficacy of the Oral Route

Holznagel, E1; Yutzy, B1; Deslys, J-P2; Lasmézas, C2; Pocchiari, M3; Ingrosso, L3; Bierke, P4; Schulz-Schaeffer, W5; Motzkus, D6; Hunsmann, G6; Löwer, J1 1Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany; 2Commissariat à l´Energie Atomique, France; 3Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy; 4Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease control, Sweden; 5Georg August University, Germany; 6German Primate Center, Germany

Background:

In 2001, a study was initiated in primates to assess the risk for humans to contract BSE through contaminated food. For this purpose, BSE brain was titrated in cynomolgus monkeys.

Aims:

The primary objective is the determination of the minimal infectious dose (MID50) for oral exposure to BSE in a simian model, and, by in doing this, to assess the risk for humans. Secondly, we aimed at examining the course of the disease to identify possible biomarkers.

Methods:

Groups with six monkeys each were orally dosed with lowering amounts of BSE brain: 16g, 5g, 0.5g, 0.05g, and 0.005g. In a second titration study, animals were intracerebrally (i.c.) dosed (50, 5, 0.5, 0.05, and 0.005 mg).

Results:

In an ongoing study, a considerable number of high-dosed macaques already developed simian vCJD upon oral or intracerebral exposure or are at the onset of the clinical phase. However, there are differences in the clinical course between orally and intracerebrally infected animals that may influence the detection of biomarkers.

Conclusions:

Simian vCJD can be easily triggered in cynomolgus monkeys on the oral route using less than 5 g BSE brain homogenate. The difference in the incubation period between 5 g oral and 5 mg i.c. is only 1 year (5 years versus 4 years). However, there are rapid progressors among orally dosed monkeys that develop simian vCJD as fast as intracerebrally inoculated animals.

The work referenced was performed in partial fulfilment of the study "BSE in primates" supported by the EU (QLK1-2002-01096).

http://www.prion2007.com/pdf/Prion%20Book%20of%20Abstracts.pdf

look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused 7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;

Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can prevent transmission of BSE to man.

snip...

BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%) 1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected orally with similar BSE brain inocula

Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa

It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf

6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley's answer (that it would take less than say 100 grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise that it could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route within the same species. This information did not become available until the "attack rate"

experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to ensure that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the study and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to trigger infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that time ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the designing scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf

Friday, November 21, 2008

Plasma & Serum Proteins Receive Continued FDA Approval

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/11/plasma-serum-proteins-receive-continued.html

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/

Thursday, November 27, 2008 Prion diseases are efficiently transmitted by blood transfusion in sheep

http://vcjdblood.blogspot.com/2008/11/prion-diseases-are-efficiently.html

Scientists warn of first ever case of human mad cow disease from blood plasma

http://vcjdtransfusion.blogspot.com/2009/02/scientists-warn-of-first-ever-case-of.html



Monday, May 11, 2009

Rare BSE mutation raises concerns over risks to public health



http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/05/rare-bse-mutation-raises-concerns-over.html




TSS



Saturday, May 16, 2009


BSE CASE CONFIRMED IN ALBERTA OTTAWA, May 15, 2009



http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/05/bse-case-confirmed-in-alberta-ottawa.html



P.S. in all reality, if i were a Canadian producer and or consumer, i would want the Canadian border closed to USA beef and beef products, due to the total disregards for human and animal health, in relations to human and animal TSE. IN FACT, it's very possible the USA exported tainted feed to Canada, and that's where the problem started with BSE in Canada. who knows? it's not impossible. but to continue this SSS policy in the USA, the Global trading networks should shut them down until they comply. OH, that's right, that's regulated by the OIE, another totally farce organization that bends over backwards to the industry, not public health, and proven to be so via the infamous BSE MRR negotiations and final rule i.e. the legal trading of all strains of TSE globally. ...TSS
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
burnt said:
Sandhusker said:
Other than our NCBA parrots, who has claimed that we don't have a problem with BSE?

So you admit, then, that you are feeding a steady stream of BSE infected cattle to your beef consumers? And are making no effort to find them?

No, I will not admit that because I don't know that to be true, and neither do you. What I will admit is that we don't know what we're feeding our consumers because, as you have correctly pointed out, we're not looking for BSE. Therefore, we don't know the level of infection that we have. It could be fairly large, which I doubt, and it could be next to nothing, which is probably the case. So, since the USDA refuses to treat BSE as a health issue but rather as a trade issue, we're all just gambling down here. We're all in the pot and we haven't looked at our cards.

R-CALF has always wanted to get to the bottom of the deal. They've been the ones stumping for more testing and even voluntary testing. I don't know why you're shaking your finger at them when when you should be shaking your finger at NCBA and the USDA. They're the ones who's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is the one we're following now.
 

burnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
burnt said:
Sandhusker said:
Other than our NCBA parrots, who has claimed that we don't have a problem with BSE?

So you admit, then, that you are feeding a steady stream of BSE infected cattle to your beef consumers? And are making no effort to find them?

No, I will not admit that because I don't know that to be true, and neither do you. What I will admit is that we don't know what we're feeding our consumers because, as you have correctly pointed out, we're not looking for BSE. Therefore, we don't know the level of infection that we have. It could be fairly large, which I doubt, and it could be next to nothing, which is probably the case. So, since the USDA refuses to treat BSE as a health issue but rather as a trade issue, we're all just gambling down here. We're all in the pot and we haven't looked at our cards.

R-CALF has always wanted to get to the bottom of the deal. They've been the ones stumping for more testing and even voluntary testing. I don't know why you're shaking your finger at them when when you should be shaking your finger at NCBA and the USDA. They're the ones who's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is the one we're following now.

So you will not deny that you may be feeding the American consumer a steady stream of beef from BSE infected cattle because you do not test, you do not have adequate firewalls, and there is no will for improvement in your system.

And after all that, you still like to bash our system - a system that has not eliminated BSE within our borders but is taking every conceivable action short of testing every animal (which has its own inherent shortcomings, but that's another debate . . .)

And you want to supply ME with the round scissors and edible glue!!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Maybe you still believe in this fella too? :santa:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
burnt said:
Sandhusker said:
burnt said:
So you admit, then, that you are feeding a steady stream of BSE infected cattle to your beef consumers? And are making no effort to find them?

No, I will not admit that because I don't know that to be true, and neither do you. What I will admit is that we don't know what we're feeding our consumers because, as you have correctly pointed out, we're not looking for BSE. Therefore, we don't know the level of infection that we have. It could be fairly large, which I doubt, and it could be next to nothing, which is probably the case. So, since the USDA refuses to treat BSE as a health issue but rather as a trade issue, we're all just gambling down here. We're all in the pot and we haven't looked at our cards.

R-CALF has always wanted to get to the bottom of the deal. They've been the ones stumping for more testing and even voluntary testing. I don't know why you're shaking your finger at them when when you should be shaking your finger at NCBA and the USDA. They're the ones who's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is the one we're following now.

So you will not deny that you may be feeding the American consumer a steady stream of beef from BSE infected cattle because you do not test, you do not have adequate firewalls
, and there is no will for improvement in your system.

And after all that, you still like to bash our system - a system that has not eliminated BSE within our borders but is taking every conceivable action short of testing every animal (which has its own inherent shortcomings, but that's another debate . . .)

And you want to supply ME with the round scissors and edible glue!!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Maybe you still believe in this fella too? :santa:

And will you also not deny that Canada may be feeding their consumers a steady stream of beef from BSE infected cattle because you don't test ALL- and are still finding young infected cattle which means the disease is still manifesting itself.... :???:

And along with feeding your Canadian consumers these infected cattle- you could be feeding US consumers infected cattle with the current border policies allowing cattle of this age to be shipped to US slaughter plants- and Canuck beef from OTM cattle to be shipped to the US....
:???:

Its just a continuation of the legacy of the past few years that permeated the business world and government-- of putting the GREED of the Multinational Corporate and Big Business world ahead of ETHICS, MORALS, and/or RESPONSIBILITY-- and shortterm profiteering ahead of longterm viability...
 

Silver

Well-known member
What's really scary to me is that Canada imports cattle and beef from the US.

OT, odds are good that importing Canadian beef and cattle actually dilutes the percentage of bse infected beef on US supermarket shelves.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Burnt, "So you will not deny that you may be feeding the American consumer a steady stream of beef from BSE infected cattle because you do not test, you do not have adequate firewalls, and there is no will for improvement in your system. "

Correct. I won't deny it because I can't prove otherwise. It is a possibility.

Will you deny that you may be feeding consumers a steady stream of BSE infected beef because you're finding BSE positive animals that had years where they could of entered the food supply untested prior to their discovery?


Burnt, "And after all that, you still like to bash our system - a system that has not eliminated BSE within our borders but is taking every conceivable action short of testing every animal (which has its own inherent shortcomings, but that's another debate . . .) "

Hey, I"m bashing our system, too. Let's be honest, both have holes that our governments are looking the other way on.
 

Latest posts

Top