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

A Proposed Roll-out Of 100% BSE Testing

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
To start with, I'll say that I'm restricting this to the Canadian market and the CFIA. I'm sure there are logistic struggles within the US, and I simply won't know enough of them to make sound comments.

Secondly, while I've been thinking about this topic for a week or so, I've not put anything down in writing before. There are certain to be holes, and this should be considered a rough draft. Please, point out errors or shortcomings.

Edit: This is coming out a little disjointed since its 11:05 pm and I'm feeling a little worn, but with any luck you can make head or tails of it.

Who Does The Testing?

I think this should be between the company who wishes to ship product and the customer. My original thought was that even the type of BSE test to be used would be negotiated by both parties, but with the wide array of testing apparatus required, it would be difficult for the CFIA to maintain a staff who would be qualified in the use of all BSE tests. So, at least initially, the official BSE test recognized by the CFIA would be used.

For the customer who wishes the CFIA to do the testing, I believe the CFIA should operate much the same as an independent private lab does for other tests. Guarantee a certain level of response (X hundreds or thousands of tests per day), with full billing detailing of each expense. I believe the company requesting the BSE tests should pay the CFIA, as long as the CFIA maintains sound and reasonable judgement on the billings. The company can then charge the customer a premium, all or a portion of the cost of the test, depending on what they've negotiated with the customer.

Now for the company who feels they can make their own lab pay, and the customer who would prefer the company do the testing. This opens a whole can of worms, vis-a-vis reliability, accountability and accuracy. I believe that the company should be forced to be "BSE testing accredited". For those of you who are familiar with custom spray applicators, all operators of the equipment are put through a mini-school, then a written test which they must pass before they are licenced to operate the sprayer. I haven't given this much thought, but I think the people who are going to work in the lab should first be placed in positions with CFIA testing staff and learn how the tests work. Following a demonstration of knowledge, this would qualify the people to work in the companies' lab. For a given amount of time, at least until the CFIA feel the lab staff is capable of proceeding on their own, a staff of CFIA "experts" will oversee the operations within the lab. While the CFIA is on site, the company will re-imburse the CFIA for the wages of the staffers. Once the company's lab is declared fit for duty, the CFIA will then only conduct random spot checks to ensure that standards are being met. Any violation of those standards means the company loses their BSE testing ability AND (this one may be too strong) their ability to export beef at all.

I actually see an opportunity here for independent labs to open that specialize in BSE testing. Qualification same as above and if a random spot check finds that standards are being violated, the lab loses their certification. Hard line stance to ensure the integrity of the system remains in effect.

Should a company lab, or an independent lab find a positive, confirmation would be required by a CFIA lab test, since they are the governing body.

What Tests To Use?

Initially, only the currently approved by the CFIA tests will be used. However, there are beginning to be more and more rapid, batch and live animal BSE tests available from numerous sources. The CFIA must make a conscious effort to maintain knowledge of the tests, and MUST accept requests from third parties to "test a new test". I don't envision allowing a BSE test creator to petition the CFIA, but rather the test creator must "sell" his product to a company that wishes (or is already) exporting BSE tested beef. This should provide a buffer against the CFIA being hammered by dozens of fly by night companies with no truly new offerings while still allowing access to those companies with something to offer the market.

OK, I'm whupped tonight. More tomorrow.

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Before I sack out:

Who Gets To Test?

Eventually, everyone. Initially, since the necessary infrastructure is not in place at this time, only those companies who have a sound need for BSE testing for exports will be allowed access. What comprises a sound need? For starters, a definite customer who wants BSE tested beef. If a customer should require BSE tested beef, they should have no problems making this statement during negotiations. The company should establish this early on, so they can get the ball moving with the CFIA and take care of scheduling lab time, or gettting their own accreditation in place.

While the CFIA has a testing infrastructure in place, and with limiting testing only to those companies who actually have a market, this should allow the CFIA time to expand the existing facility or build new to handle the gradual increase in testing amounts. As I mentioned above, the CFIA must commit to maintaining a certain level of response and excellence, and this includes expansion to meet the needs of companies.

Rod
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Rod: I've been extremely busy and haven't had a lot of time to follow this thread but I've had first hand experience with the question of BSE testing through our provincial vet. diagnostic lab. The reason CFIA does not condone testing is that the OIE states that testing for food safety is a waste of resources and that the efforts should be directed towards surveillance, feed bans and removal of SRM's. Invariably the countries that have initiated food testing are the ones that through severe negligence have severe problems with the disease and suffered catastrophic consumer reaction to beef. Testing is being used as a political tool!
Your scenario on opening testing labs whereever wanted has one major flaw; WHERE are these "labs" going to obtain liability insurance to cover their operations. When you were in business could you run or expect your employees to operate without liability coverage in today's marketplace? Check and you'll find this is the reason the provincial lab networks quit their BSE diagnostic work!
 

TimH

Well-known member
Diamond S wrote-
I believe the CFIA should operate much the same as an independent private lab does for other tests. Guarantee a certain level of response (X hundreds or thousands of tests per day), with full billing detailing of each expense. I believe the company requesting the BSE tests should pay the CFIA, as long as the CFIA maintains sound and reasonable judgement on the billings. The company can then charge the customer a premium, all or a portion of the cost of the test, depending on what they've negotiated with the customer.

By this statement are agreeing that there are other costs involved over and above the cost of the test kit????

Are you also suggesting that just "maybe" :D any legitimate testing would require government oversite of some sort????? :D :D :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TimH said:
Are you also suggesting that just "maybe" :D any legitimate testing would require government oversite of some sort????? :D :D :D

TimH- There is nothing you do these days that doesn't have some sort of government oversite...

You can't walk across a street without government oversite- WALK-DON"T WALK.............

Its just the matter of the amount of oversite needed that would have to be decided...
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
TimH said:
By this statement are agreeing that there are other costs involved over and above the cost of the test kit????

Are you also suggesting that just "maybe" :D any legitimate testing would require government oversite of some sort????? :D :D :D

I never once suggested there weren't other costs besides the kits. But when the Japanese can do testing for $40 and Creekstone is sure they can do it for $20, I take notice.

And again, I never once suggested there shouldn't be any government oversite. Quite the opposite in fact. BSE testing, because of the sensitivity of the tests, needs to be monitored. We can't risk a private or independent lab taking shortcuts.

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
cowsense said:
Your scenario on opening testing labs whereever wanted has one major flaw; WHERE are these "labs" going to obtain liability insurance to cover their operations. When you were in business could you run or expect your employees to operate without liability coverage in today's marketplace? Check and you'll find this is the reason the provincial lab networks quit their BSE diagnostic work!

Cowsense, just out of curiosity, over how many animals did the provincial labs calculate out the cost of the liability insurance? If a lab is allowed the use of a test that puts through 2000 animals in a day, at 200 days/year, thats 400,000 animals. Even if the liability insurance ran $5 million, thats only $12.50 per animal. And I doubt liability would run anywhere near that dollar amount.

Besides, I wouldn't forsee too many labs springing up overnight. As I mentioned in the previous messages, I think a company should first have to have a customer who wants BSE testing, with X tonnes of beef spoke for, before even being allowed to test or schedule the CFIA for testing. I think it would take at least a year, if not two, before any significant amount of beef would begin shipping.

Rod
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Rod: You missed the point- There was NO Liability coverage for ANY diagnostic lab for BSE & Avian Flu (amongst others). As soon as a disease hits the news and sensationalism steps in the Underwriters pull in their policies and enter new occlusions! I would imagine it is the same for any human diagnostic labs dealing with HIV, Hepatitis, etc.. There is no way any private company can or will operate in today's business climate without liability coverage!!
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Cowsense, there are 17 or 18 indepedent labs in the US who are accredited for BSE testing. If they could find liability insurance, then its out there. Ditto Alberta. They selected that Bio-Rad (I believe it was that one) test. Did they select a test with no place to administer the test? The provincial lab simply didn't look in the right place, or there wasn't any available at the time. Any insurance company will offer insurance, as long as the premiums are there.

Rod
 

Mike

Well-known member
No need for insurance. The incubation period is longer than the Statute of Limitations for "negligence". :lol: :lol:

I would say that someone who contracted vCJD from eating meat that was NOT tested would have a better claim because tests are available and the USDA won't let them use it!

To me, that is negligence!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Didn't the UK government do a big claim settlement with all the beneficiaries of the vCJD victims because of the fact the government had mishandled the situation so bad and had outright covered it up?

Thought I remember reading something about it- that they still have people tying on to the claim........
 

Mike

Well-known member
Call for inquiry into vCJD trust
vCJD graphic
The disease has claimed the lives of 156 people
Families of the victims of the human form of mad cow disease are calling on the Department of Health to investigate the body set up to compensate them.

So far the vCJD Trust, created in October 2001, has awarded £30m to families under the scheme.

But BBC Two's Newsnight revealed it had spent £7m in legal costs and expenses.

Liberal Democrat Nick Harvey, speaking on the programme, said he would ask the National Audit Office to launch an inquiry into the scheme.

The Department of Health said the trust is an independent body, which must make its own decisions but that it is committed to keeping the costs of administering it as low as possible.

Complexities

Under the scheme, each victim or their family receives an automatic payment of up to £125,000, with more available to those suffering particular hardship.

But Newsnight revealed that Charles Russell solicitors - the law firm administering the scheme - is earning up to £5 in fees for every £1 paid out in discretionary payments for particular hardship.

Sir Robert Owen, the trust's chair, said it largely came down to the "complexity of the trust fund".

"I think all now accept that this is not the way that such a trust fund ought to be set up for the future, it is far too complicated.

"But if we are to discharge our duties as trustees of public money properly, we have to do the job properly, and that means we have to scrutinise every claim with great care," he told the programme.

Richard Vallance, a senior partner at Charles Russell, said most complications arose from small discretionary claims.

"In a lot of claims, the one thing that is still outstanding are the particular hardship claims, and those are the ones that are causing the most difficulty.

"They're relatively small amounts but a lot of the current files relate to that."

Early concerns

A letter obtained by the programme, under the Freedom of Information Act, showed the Department of Health had expressed concern about the costs as early as February 2003.

Mr Harvey said: "I think it's perfectly clear the Department of Health has been uncomfortable about this we now know for a very long time."

He added he would be persuading the National Audit Office to investigate the matter.

Janet Gibbs, a bereaved mother who also chairs the Human BSE Foundation, said some members no longer wanted the law firm to continue running the compensation scheme.

"If that's possible I think that will be of great benefit to the families and the administration of the Trust," she said.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Is the number of deaths cited all in Great Brittain, and what is the time frame?

I'm asking because I have read (within the past five years) that there have been approximately 150 deaths worldwide since the first case of vCJD was identified.

Where can I access and read about the direct link or cause of vCJD as being ingestion of BSE tainted beef as verified and accepted by the international scientific community?

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
Link to PubMed:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=books

Latest Number Deaths by Prion diseases. UK:

http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm
 

TimH

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
TimH said:
By this statement are agreeing that there are other costs involved over and above the cost of the test kit????

Are you also suggesting that just "maybe" :D any legitimate testing would require government oversite of some sort????? :D :D :D

I never once suggested there weren't other costs besides the kits. But when the Japanese can do testing for $40 and Creekstone is sure they can do it for $20, I take notice.

And again, I never once suggested there shouldn't be any government oversite. Quite the opposite in fact. BSE testing, because of the sensitivity of the tests, needs to be monitored. We can't risk a private or independent lab taking shortcuts.

Rod

You never once suggested that there shouldn't be govt. oversite???? :???:
Well then what did you mean (in the "Rod and Sandhusker" thread) when you said (para-phrasing) that "neither option is acceptable"??????
The options were obviously govt. oversite or NO govt. oversite.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Rod: I guess I was not making myself clear; The insurance underwriters pulled all coverage for BSE testing everywhere;Premium levels had nothing to do with it; Just the sensationalism that something serious could happen! THE only labs left doing testing are the government labs of the various countries with their respective taxpayers holding the liability accounts. I do know for a fact that the only labs in Alta. testing are the CFIA (Lethbridge and possibly Edmonton) with the new Alta. lab having capability but I'm not current with their present status. AS WELL Canada uses the Prionics rapid tests for BSE; the BIO-RAD tests are prone to false positives(ask the USDA about this!) and are presently only used to test Cervids for TSE's.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The real liability should go to those who are not testing and spread BSE through the known transmission routes, not those who are making every effort to test for it and eliminate the risk. If the govt. (executive, legislative and judicial systems) can not make that happen, then what good are they? The insurance liability issue should not stand in the way of progress towards food safety, no matter how the issue is framed. It just seems to be another excuse for not getting the job done.


To me, these issues show how incompetent our governments have become in being able to carry out efficient and logical policies.

Bse testing should not be seen as something that goes on forever. If we control Bse through finding it and eliminating it and its sources, maybe we will not have to continue bse testing.

This is just the step we have to take because our governments were lax on their duties of allowing bse into the country in the first place.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
TimH said:
Well then what did you mean (in the "Rod and Sandhusker" thread) when you said (para-phrasing) that "neither option is acceptable"??????

Your options were too simple, Tim, so neither of them was anywhere close to being acceptable. I believe that, as I wrote above, that there should be full government oversite in the beginning, followed by random compliance checks. Why is this a problem?

Besides, once again, we're getting far too hung up on the private lab wild hair and straying away from the important points.

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
cowsense said:
Rod: I guess I was not making myself clear; The insurance underwriters pulled all coverage for BSE testing everywhere;Premium levels had nothing to do with it; Just the sensationalism that something serious could happen! THE only labs left doing testing are the government labs of the various countries with their respective taxpayers holding the liability accounts. I do know for a fact that the only labs in Alta. testing are the CFIA (Lethbridge and possibly Edmonton) with the new Alta. lab having capability but I'm not current with their present status. AS WELL Canada uses the Prionics rapid tests for BSE; the BIO-RAD tests are prone to false positives(ask the USDA about this!) and are presently only used to test Cervids for TSE's.

Interesting. I found this link from a couple weeks ago:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10446

I guess the Bio-Rad tests have gotten better.

As far as insurance goes, I see the CFIA doing the testing for at least the first couple years anyway. Tyson and Cargill have no interest in BSE testing or sending Canadian beef to Japan, so all we'll see is the smaller packers doing it. Should BSE testing become widespread, and once the insurance companies are able to post some firm actuarial numbers, insurance will be available. It may cost alot, but it'll be there.

Rod
 

Jason

Well-known member
Who is sending Canadian beef to Japan now?

I have read the reason more isn't being sent is a lack of age verified cattle.
 
Top