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

Alberta cow tests positive for mad cow

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Alberta cow tests positive for mad cow: CTV News
Updated Mon. Jan. 23 2006 9:53 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A cow in Alberta has tested positive for mad cow disease, but officials do not believe parts of the cow were processed for consumption, CTV News has learned.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency will hold a news conference at 11 a.m. ET.

On Sunday, The Canadian Press reported that federal agriculture inspectors had sent a "suspicious sample" to a Winnipeg lab for further testing.

"We have an ongoing testing program for BSE and that means from time to time we undertake confirmatory tests when we come up with a suspicious sample," Mark Van Dusen told CP.

If confirmed by the CFIA, it will be a devastating blow for the Canadian cattle industry, which had just rebounded from a previous case of BSE in Alberta in 2003.

A two-year ban on Canadian beef cost the industry an estimated $7 billion.

But things had started looking up. American reopened its borders to Canadian cattle in July, and Japan -- one of Canada's largest markets -- followed in December.

Mad cow disease, also known as BSE bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is a degenerative nerve disease in cattle. It has been linked to the fatal nerve disorder in humans, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,067
Reaction score
285
Location
Big Muddy valley
If it's from Alberta it is probably just Ann McClellan worried about the election. Maybe we will be getting rid of her beloved Long gun registry.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
R2

Today is election day up here and it looks as though Paul Martin will only be the janitor in the house of Commons after tonite. BMR, I think you are right Anne is probably pretty cranky. Was reading a thing where they said the Liberals in the prairies could all be wiped out. :D
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Geez R2, Calgary is pretty close to me. Give us a call when you come, I'll show you some cows and maybe let you touch one. AND teach you ALL about the science of BSEconomics at the same time. 8)

Doesn't anyone find it interesting that when Canada announces a potential BSE bovine, the results are swift and always positive(or negative however you want o look at it). America plays with the results for a few extra days, moves a pile of dough around, and then pulls a rabbit out of a hat more times than not.

Happy election Day everyone ----- GO GREEN
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
"If confirmed by the CFIA, it will be a devastating blow for the Canadian cattle industry, which had just rebounded from a previous case of BSE in Alberta in 2003."

I doubt this statement. The US is Canada's largest customer by far, and the USDA/AMI doesn't care how many cases are found up there.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Canada has another case of mad cow disease, CFIA source confirms


Updated at 9:57 on January 23, 2006, EST.
Cattle in Iron Springs, Alberta, Jan. 8, 2004. (CP/Jeff McIntosh)
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada has another case of mad cow disease, a source at the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency has confirmed.

The agency has called a news conference in Edmonton for 9 a-m local time,
where the positive test result is expected to be confirmed.

What had been termed as "a suspicious animal" was sent to a Winnipeg lab on
the weekend for final tests.

There's no indication any part of the animal entered the human-food or
animal-feed systems.

Canada's beef and dairy cattle breeding industry has been shut out of the
United States since B-S-E was discovered in an Alberta cow in May, 2003.

The Americans did, however, reopen their border to young Canadian cattle
last July.

The mad cow crisis is estimated to have cost Canada's cattle industry more
than $7 billion.

The Canadian Press, 2006


http://www.cjad.com/content/cp_article.asp?id=/global_feeds/CanadianPress/Na
tionalNews/n012308A.htm


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060123.wcow0123/BNStory
/National/


http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n012308
A


NOTHING YET UPDATED ON CFIA ;

Latest Information
Latest Information (as of December 11, 2005 - 23:00 EST)

TSS



----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:04 PM
Subject: Canada investigates possible mad cow case


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################

Subject: Canada investigates possible mad cow case
Date: January 22, 2006 at 5:42 pm PST
Canada investigates possible mad cow case


www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-23 09:33:01


OTTAWA, Jan. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- Canada could be facing another case of the
deadly mad cow disease as a "suspicious sample" was under confirmatory
tests, said the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on Sunday.

"We are undergoing such testing on a suspicious sample," CFIA spokesman Mark
Van Dusen was quoted as saying by the Canadian Press.

Officials should be able to confirm within 48 hours whether the animal has
mad cow disease, also called bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), Dusen
said.

However, Dusen said officials did not believe parts of the cow had entered
the human-food system, or were used to feed other animals.

The United States opened its borders to Canadian cattle in July,the first
time since May 2003, when an Albertan cow tested positive for the BSE. The
two-year ban cost the Canadian cattle industry an estimated 7 billion
Canadian dollars (about 6 billion US dollars). Enditem



http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/23/content_4087455.htm


January 22, 2006 - 19:34

Federal officials looking into possible case of mad cow disease

DONALD MCKENZIE

OTTAWA (CP) - Federal agriculture inspectors are looking into the
possibility of another case of mad cow disease, a spokesman for the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency said Sunday.

"We have an ongoing testing program for BSE and that means from time to time
we undertake confirmatory tests when we come up with a suspicious sample,"
said Mark Van Dusen.






"We are undergoing such testing on a suspicious sample."

Van Dusen said the animal must go to a Winnipeg lab for final tests.
Inspectors should know within 48 hours if they have another case of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy on their hands.

He said there are no indications that any part of the animal entered the
human-food or animal-feed systems.

Canada's beef and dairy cattle breeding industry remains shut out of
American markets since BSE was discovered in an Alberta cow in May 2003.

The Americans reopened their border to young cattle last July after the
two-year ban brought on by fear of mad cow disease.

When that happened, many people believed the crisis, which has cost Canada's
cattle industry more than $7 billion, was finally over.

But Canada has a surplus of about 900,000 older-cull cattle that can't be
shipped south because of lingering concerns they may harbour a risk of BSE.

Van Dusen couldn't confirm the age of the animal currently being tested but
said it is definitely older than 30 months. Younger cattle are believed to
have a lower risk of developing BSE.

He said he is aware of rumours the animal is from Alberta.

Canadian beef recently returned to some supermarket shelves in Tokyo
following the lifting of a two-year ban on imports. Japanese officials
agreed to allow beef from North America back into the marketplace - provided
it came from animals under 21 months.

Entry into Japan is considered key to the long-term recovery plan of
Canada's battered beef industry.

Cattle officials have pinned their hopes on a growing appetite from Pacific
Rim countries to help reduce the reliance on the U.S. market, which gobbles
up the vast majority of this country's beef exports.

Japan closed its border to American beef a few days ago after inspectors
found cattle backbone in a recent shipment from the United States.

Japan first imposed a ban on U.S. beef in December 2003 after the discovery
of the first case of mad cow disease in a U.S. herd.

It recently agreed to allow a resumption of imports, but only from cows aged
20 months or younger.



http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n012227
A



http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/22/mad-cow-060122.html



TSS

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
####################
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Working Group Report on

the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of

CANADA

2004



snip...



- 2 -

2. EXTERNAL CHALLENGES

2.1 Import of cattle from BSE-Risk2 countries

An overview of the data on live cattle imports is presented in table 1 and
is based on

data as provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on
relevant exports

as available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from
risk

periods are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk
country already

represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR
(SSC July

2000 and updated January 2002).

• According to the CD, 231 cattle were imported from UK during the years
1980 to

1990 and no cattle imports from UK were recorded after 1990.

• According to Eurostat, altogether 198 cattle have been imported from the
UK during

the years 1980 to 1990, Additionally 500 were recorded in 1993; this import
is

1 For the purpose of the GBR assessment the abbreviation "MBM" refers to
rendering products, in particular

the commodities Meat and Bone Meal as such; Meat Meal; Bone Meal; and
Greaves. With regard to imports

it refers to the customs code 230110 "flours, meals and pellets, made from
meat or offal, not fit for human

2 BSE-Risk countries are all countries already assessed as GBR III or IV or
with at least one confirmed

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-14 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 3 -

mentioned in Eurostat and the updated UK export statistic as male calves,
but not

mentioned in the original UK export statistics. According to the CD,
detailed

investigations were carried out and it is very unlikely that the 500 calves
have been

imported. Therefore, they were not taken into account.

• According to the CD, in 1990 all cattle imported from UK and Ireland since
1982

were placed in a monitoring program.

• Following the occurrence of the BSE index case in 1993 (imported from UK
in 1987

at the age of 6 months), an attempt was made to trace all other cattle
imported from

UK between 1982 and 1990.

• Of the 231 cattle imported from the UK between 1980 and 1990, 108 animals
had

been slaughtered and 9 had died. From the remaining, 37 were exported, 76
were

sent to incineration and one was buried; these were not entering the
rendering system

and therefore not taken into account.

• According to the CD, 16 cattle were imported from Ireland (according to
Eurostat

20), of which 9 were slaughtered, 3 died. The remaining 4 were incinerated
and did

therefore not enter the rendering system. According to the CD, the 6 animals
which

were imported in 1990 according to Eurostat, were never imported.

• Moreover 22 cattle have been imported from Japan (through USA), of which 4
were

exported (excluded from the table) and 14 were destroyed and therefore not
entering

the rendering system, 4 were slaughtered.

• Of 28 imported bovines from Denmark, 1 was destroyed and 1 was exported.
Of the

19 buffalos imported in 2000, 1 was incinerated and the others were ordered
to be

destroyed.

• Additionally in total 264 cattle according to the CD (276 according to
other sources)

were imported from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands
and

Switzerland.

• The numbers imported according to the CD and Eurostat are very similar.
Some

discrepancies in the year of import can be explained by an extended
quarantine;

therefore it is likely that imports according to Eurostat in 1980 and
imports

according to the CD in 1981 are referring to the same animals.

• Additionally, between 16.000 and 340.000 bovines have annually been
imported

from US, almost all are steers and heifers. In total, between 1981 and 2003,

according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to other sources 1.5
million

cattle have been imported.

• According to the CD, feeder/slaughter cattle represent typically more than
90% of

the imported cattle from the USA; therefore, only 10% of the imported cattle
have

been taken into account.



snip...



Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

2.2 Import of MBM or MBM-containing feedstuffs from BSE-Risk

countries

An overview of the data on MBM imports is presented in table 2 and is based
on data

provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant
exports as

available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from
risk periods

are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country
already

represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR
(SSC, July

2000 and updated January 2002).

According to the CD, no imports of MBM took place from UK since 1978
(initially

because of FMD regulations).

• According to Eurostat data, Canada imported 149 tons MBM from the UK in
the

period of 1993 to 2001. According to up-dated MBM statistics from UK (August

2001) no mammalian MBM was exported to Canada from 1993 – 1996. As it was

illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and MBM from UK since

27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have included
nonmammalian

MBM. Therefore, these imports were not taken into account.

• According to the CD, imports of MBM have taken place from Denmark,
Germany,

France, Japan and US.

• According to Eurostat Canada imported MBM from Denmark, Belgium, France
and

Ireland.

• According to the CD further investigations concluded that all imported MBM
from

Denmark consisted of pork and poultry origin and was directly imported for

aquaculture, the imported MBM from France was feather meal, the imported MBM

from Germany was poultry meal for aquaculture and the imported MBM from

Belgium was haemoglobin; therefore these imports were not taken into
account.

• The main imports of MBM were of US origin, according to the CD around
250.000

tons, according to other sources around 310.000 tons between 1988 and 2003.



snip...



2.3 Overall assessment of the external challenge

The level of the external challenge that has to be met by the BSE/cattle
system is

estimated according to the guidance given by the SSC in its final opinion on
the GBR of

July 2000 (as updated in January 2002).

Live cattle imports:

In total the country imported according to the CD more than 2.3 million,
according to

other data 1.5 million live cattle from BSE risk countries, of which 231
(CD)

respectively 698 (other sources) came from the UK. The numbers shown in
table 1 are

the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for the
assessment of

the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the resulting external
challenge is

as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the different
aspects discussed

above that allow to assume that certain imported cattle did not enter the
domestic

BSE/cattle system, i.e. were not rendered into feed. In the case of Canada,
the 500 cattle

imported from UK according to Eurostat were not taken into account and it is
assumed

that all incinerated, buried, exported animals and the animals still alive
did not enter the

rendering system and were therefore excluded from the external challenge.

MBM imports:

In total the country imported according to the CD around 300.000 tons,
according to

other sources nearly 360.000 tons of MBM from BSE risk countries, of which
149 tons

came from the UK. The majority consisted of MBM imported from the US. The

numbers shown in table 2 are the raw import figures and are not reflecting
the adjusted

imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year
periods the

resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment takes
into account

the different aspects discussed above that allow to assume that certain
imported MBM

did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system or did not represent an
external challenge

for other reasons. As it was illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone
meal and

MBM from UK since 27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only
have

included non-mammalian MBM. In the case of Canada all imported MBM from UK,

Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France was not taken into account.



snip...



3. STABILITY

3.1 Overall appreciation of the ability to avoid recycling of BSE

infectivity, should it enter processing

Feeding

The annual Canadian production of MBM is approximately 575,000 tons of which

approx. 40,000 tons are exported each year, mainly to USA.

Use of MBM in cattle feed

• Before the feed ban, dairy cattle received supplementary feed containing
MBM

during their productive life (maximum 200-400 g MBM per day). Beef cattle in
the

western part of the country do not usually receive complementary feed. Beef
cattle

in the eastern part receive normally no supplement protein but the calves
could have

access to creep feeds containing MBM, after weaning the ratios may have
contained

supplemental protein containing MBM (100-400 g per day).

• According to the CD, MBM is mainly fed to pigs and poultry and included in
pet

food.

• According to the CD, only a proportion of dairy cattle may have received
MBM.

Feed bans

• Before 1997, there was no legal restriction to include MBM into cattle
feed.

• An MBM-ban was introduced in August 1997; it is forbidden since to feed

mammalian MBM to ruminants except if of pure porcine, equine and non

mammalian origin, i.e. in practice a ruminant-to-ruminant ban (RMBM-ban).

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 9 -

Potential for cross-contamination and measures taken against

• Cross-contamination in the about 600 feed mills is assumed to be possible
as long as

cattle and pig feed is produced in the same production lines, and premises.

• Cross-contamination during transport is possible, particularly if the same
trucks are

used for transporting ruminant MBM (RMBM) and non-ruminant MBM (porcine or

poultry MBM which still might be included into cattle feed) or for
transporting

pig/poultry feed and cattle feed.

• On-farm cross-contamination is regarded to be possible.

• Cross-contamination of cattle feed with RMBM can not be excluded. Hence,
as

reasonable worst case scenario, it has to be assumed that cattle, in
particular dairy

cattle, can still be exposed to RMBM and hence to BSE-infectivity, should it
enter

the feed chain.

Control of Feed bans and cross-contamination

• With the introduction of the RMBM ban (1997) the feed mills (approximately
600)

were checked for compliance with the ban, including good manufacturing
practices

(GMP) and record keeping, i.e. the separation in production of MBM
containing

ruminant material (RMBM) from non-ruminant MBM.

• The feed mills had previously – since 1983 – been regularly checked in
relation to

production of medicated feed.

• No examinations are performed to assess cross-contamination with RMBM of
the

protein (e.g. non ruminant MBM) that enters cattle feed. Differentiation
would

anyway be difficult.

Rendering

Raw material used for rendering

• Ruminant material is rendered together with material from other species,
but

according to the CD only in the production of MBM prohibited for use in
ruminant

feeds.

• Slaughter by-products, including specified risk material (SRM) and fallen
stock are

rendered.

• The country expert estimated that 20% of the rendering plants, processing
20% of

the total amount of raw material, are connected to slaughterhouses. Their
raw

material is more than 98 % animal waste from these slaughterhouses while
less than

2 % is fallen stock. No estimation was given for the remaining 80% of the
rendering

capacity.

• There are 32 rendering plants of which 3 are processing blood exclusively.

Rendering processes

• The rendering systems (parameters) were specified for 6 plants producing
mixed

MBM, none of these fulfilled the 133/20/3 standard. Of these, 5 have
dedicated

facilities to produce products for use in ruminant feed and products not
permitted for

use in ruminant feed.

• The remaining plants process porcine or poultry material exclusively.

SRM and fallen stock

• There is an SRM ban for human food in place since 2003.

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 10 -

• However, SRM are rendered together with other slaughter waste and fallen
stock.

However, according to the CD, MBM with SRM is not permitted to be fed to

ruminants.

Conclusion on the ability to avoid recycling

• Between 1980 and 1997 the Canadian system would not have been able to
avoid

recycling of the BSE-agent to any measurable extent. If the BSE-agent was

introduced into the feed chain, it could have reached cattle.

• Since 1997 this ability gradually improved with the introduction of the
ruminant

MBM ban and its implementation.

• Since cross-contamination cannot be excluded, and as SRM is still rendered
by

processes unable to significantly reduce BSE-infectivity, the system is
still unable to

avoid recycling of BSE-infectivity already present in the system or
incoming.

3.2 Overall appreciation of the ability to identify BSE-cases and to

eliminate animals at risk of being infected before they are processed

Cattle population structure

• Cattle population: 12.15 Million in 1988 increasing to 14.6 Million in
2001;

• Of the total cattle population, 2.2 million are dairy cattle and 12.4
million are beef.

• The cattle population above 24 months of age: approx. 6.0 Million.

• Of the approximately 2.2 Million dairy cattle 2 Million are located in the
two eastern

provinces Ontario and Quebec.

• Mixed farming (cattle and mono-gastric species) is usually not practiced;
the

country expert estimated the proportion of mixed farming to be less than 1%.

• Individual regions traditionally have ID systems under provincial
authorities. Brand

inspectors are present when cattle are assembled. It is estimated by the
Canadians

that the level of a national, uniform ID for cattle is less than 10%; most
of those

individual pedigree animals. Mandatory ID for the milk-fed veal sector was

implemented in Quebec in 1996, but does not contain information on the herd
of

origin. An agreement of the relevant industries to develop a national cattle
ID and

trace back strategy was reached on 1 May 1998 (starting in 2001).Since 2002,
a

national identification program is existing. Al cattle leaving any farm
premises must

be uniquely identified by ear tag.

BSE surveillance

• BSE was made notifiable in 1990.

• Every cow over one year of age exhibiting central nervous system signs
suggestive

of BSE submitted to a laboratory or presented at an abattoir is subjected to
a BSE

laboratory diagnostic test (histology and over the past years also
PrPSc-based

laboratory tests).

• In addition, cattle submitted for rabies examination and found rabies
negative are

examined for BSE. Samples are prepared immediately upon arrival to the
federal

laboratory responsible for the rabies diagnostic for possible later BSE
examination,

i.e. formalin fixation.

• Since the 1940’s, a rabies control program has been in place, where
farmers,

veterinarians and the general public are well educated about this
neurological

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 11 -

disease. In 1990, when BSE was made notifiable, this awareness was extended
to

suspicions of BSE.

• Since 1993 the number of brains examined per year did exceed the number

recommended by OIE (300 - 336 for countries with a cattle population over 24

months of age of 5.0 to 7.0 Million) in all years, except in 1995 (table 4).

year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

samples 225 645 426 269 454 759 940 895 1´020 1´581 3´377 3´361

Table 4: Number of bovine brains annually examined for CNS diseases,
including BSE.

• According to the CD approx. 98% of the examined cattle were older than 24
months

and approx. 90% exhibited neurological symptoms. Although the identification

system of Canada does not document the birth date or age of the animals,
according

to the CD, examination of the dentition is used to ascertain the maturity of
the

animals.

• The list of neurological differential diagnoses for the 754 brains
examined in 1997

included encephalitis (70 cases), encephalomalacia (19), hemophilus (7),

hemorrhage (2), listeriosis (38), meningoencephalitis (36), rabies (22),
tumors (2),

other conditions (135) and no significant findings (423).

• Compensation is paid for suspect BSE cases as well as for animals ordered
to be

destroyed (90-95% of market value with a maximum of 2,500 Can$ per cow).

• Diagnostic criteria developed in the United Kingdom are followed at ADRI,

Nepean. According to the very detailed protocol for the collection, fixation
and

submission of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) specimens at abattoirs

under inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the specimen shall
be

shipped to National Center for Foreign Animal Disease, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

• In 2003, around 3000 animals from risk populations have been tested.

• According to the CD, it is aimed to test a minimum of 8000 risk animals
(animals

with clinical signs consistent with BSE, downer cows, animals died on farm
animals

diseased or euthanized because of serious illness) in 2004 and then continue
to

progressively increase the level of testing to 30,000.

• In May 2003, Canada reported its first case of domestic BSE. A second case
was

detected in the US on 23 December 2003 and traced back to Canadian origin.
Both

were born before the feed ban and originated from Western Canada.

3.3 Overall assessment of the stability

For the overall assessment of the stability, the impact of the three main
stability factors

(i.e. feeding, rendering and SRM-removal) and of the additional stability
factor,

surveillance, has to be estimated. Again, the guidance provided by the SSC
in its

opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as updated January 2002) is applied.

Feeding

Until 1997, it was legally possible to feed ruminant MBM to cattle and a
certain fraction of

cattle feed (for calves and dairy cattle) is assumed to have contained MBM.
Therefore

feeding was "Not OK". In August 1997 a ruminant MBM ban was introduced but
feeding

of non-ruminant MBM to cattle remained legal as well as feeding of ruminant
MBM to

non-ruminant animals. This makes control of the feed ban very difficult
because laboratory

differentiation between ruminant and non ruminant MBM is difficult if not
impossible.

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

Due to the highly specialised production system in Canada, various mammalian
MBM

streams can be separated. Such a feed ban would therefore be assessed as
"reasonably

OK", for all regions where this highly specialised system exists. However,
several areas

in Canada do have mixed farming and mixed feed mills, and in such regions,
an RMBM

ban would not suffice. Additionally, official controls for cattle feeds to
control for the

compliance with the ban were not started until the end of 2003. Thus, for
the whole

country, the assessment of the feeding after 1997 remains "Not OK".

Rendering

The rendering industry is operating with processes that are not known to
reduce infectivity.

It is therefore concluded that the rendering was and is "Not OK".

SRM-removal

SRM and fallen stock were and are rendered for feed. Therefore SRM-removal
is assessed

as "Not OK"



snip...



4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing

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.

4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated

A risk that BSE-infectivity was recycled and propagated exists since a
processing risk

first appeared; i.e. in the early 90s. Until today this risk persists and
increases fast

because of the extremely unstable BSE/cattle system in Canada.

5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE-RISK

5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge

The current geographical BSE-risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is confirmed
at a lower level

that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the
BSE-agent.

This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000)
because at

that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.

snip...

full text;




http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_a
nnexes/563/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_annex_en1.pdf




EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR)
of the United States of America (USA)
Publication date: 20 August 2004
Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

Report

Summary
Summary of the Scientific Report

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.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573_en.html
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
R2 -
My read is that BSE is less likely to enter the food chain in Canada than the US. However the new cow in Alberta suggests that increased surveillance and possibly additional actions need to take place in Alberta.

You got that right R2 - ------- Soil Air and Water samples to identify metal imbalance. That would be action. :wink:

Anybody know if the USDA actually played by international rules and followed the testing regime set for countries with a DOMESTIC CASE OF BSE.

In Canada we had numbers to meet, and these numbers included only 4D cattle. Is the USDA following the same or did they make their own AGAIN.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
RandyK wrote:
Doesn't anyone find it interesting that when Canada announces a potential BSE bovine, the results are swift and always positive(or negative however you want o look at it). America plays with the results for a few extra days, moves a pile of dough around, and then pulls a rabbit out of a hat more times than not.

The false positives announced by the USDA were predicted beforehand because the tests that were approved by the USDA had the highest false positives of any test available.

I read (don't remember where) then that the USDA was using that particular test in order to "Fatigue" consumers on BSE issue. If that was the case, in my opinion it was a bad choice in strategy. It made them look dishonest. (See Japs & Phyllis Fong)

Canada's choice of tests was far better than the USDA's. Just think. The USDA had the experience of the UK's dishonesty to glean info from and still screwed it up.

The USDA's lack of transparency is costing us points with the Japs today.

Honesty works best everytime.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
rkaiser said:
R2 -
My read is that BSE is less likely to enter the food chain in Canada than the US. However the new cow in Alberta suggests that increased surveillance and possibly additional actions need to take place in Alberta.

You got that right R2 - ------- Soil Air and Water samples to identify metal imbalance. That would be action. :wink:

Anybody know if the USDA actually played by international rules and followed the testing regime set for countries with a DOMESTIC CASE OF BSE.

In Canada we had numbers to meet, and these numbers included only 4D cattle. Is the USDA following the same or did they make their own AGAIN.

Although it has been made into one, this BSE issue should be a disease control issue, not an issue between the U.S. and Canada. Unfortunately, the USDA (and Canada agencies) want to control the information about the disease instead of confronting it and treating it like a disease to be traced and eliminated. That strategy is not honest to consumers and producers.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
You are correct Econo. The problem is two fold however.

#1 - The economic opportunities were and still are too much fo most to pass up - thus BSeconomics. And yes we are stuck with that reality and will never fully recover.

#2 - BSE is not a disease. And authorities all over the world continue to ignore the only true way that control can even come close to being effective. Once again a matter of money. How could, after all these years, the governments of the world admit to being wrong about feed transmission or their fairy tale world of species leaping. It would cost them billions.

And the beat goes on -----------and the beat does on.

I apolgize to you Econo, or any other American who took my previous posts as anti American. Canada is simply a little slower and a little more ass kissing than America when it comes to high stakes economic games like BSE. :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
rkaiser said:
You are correct Econo. The problem is two fold however.

#1 - The economic opportunities were and still are too much fo most to pass up - thus BSeconomics. And yes we are stuck with that reality and will never fully recover.

#2 - BSE is not a disease. And authorities all over the world continue to ignore the only true way that control can even come close to being effective. Once again a matter of money. How could, after all these years, the governments of the world admit to being wrong about feed transmission or their fairy tale world of species leaping. It would cost them billions.

And the beat goes on -----------and the beat does on.

I apolgize to you Econo, or any other American who took my previous posts as anti American. Canada is simply a little slower and a little more ass kissing than America when it comes to high stakes economic games like BSE. :wink:

Hey, I think we need a little bit more study on BSE also. I think all the producers are being used as pawns in this and the captive supply issue. I saw on Good Morning America Lou Dobbs talking about how our trade negotiators have sold out producers (in this instance it was the auto business) in the trade agreements. If we do not make sure that economic protections of laws protecting producers like the PSA are in our trade agreements, then the trade negotiators are selling producers out. Fast tracking of these trade deals has given the President the ability to garnish huge favors from industry at the expense of producers. In essence, they are selling out domestic producers for the Big C (Corporations, not your deal).

The heat is being turned on politically. We have a bunch of crooks or incompetents in leadership running our country right now and we need to turn it around. I am sure it is the same in yours.
 

Dunkin

New member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Brooks
Canada needs to start doing what Klein suggested.

Shoot, shovel and shut up.

The americans have had cases of BSE too, they have to have...but they are just covering it up.
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
Econ101 said:
rkaiser said:
R2 -
My read is that BSE is less likely to enter the food chain in Canada than the US. However the new cow in Alberta suggests that increased surveillance and possibly additional actions need to take place in Alberta.

You got that right R2 - ------- Soil Air and Water samples to identify metal imbalance. That would be action. :wink:

Anybody know if the USDA actually played by international rules and followed the testing regime set for countries with a DOMESTIC CASE OF BSE.

In Canada we had numbers to meet, and these numbers included only 4D cattle. Is the USDA following the same or did they make their own AGAIN.

Although it has been made into one, this BSE issue should be a disease control issue, not an issue between the U.S. and Canada. Unfortunately, the USDA (and Canada agencies) want to control the information about the disease instead of confronting it and treating it like a disease to be traced and eliminated. That strategy is not honest to consumers and producers.
Econ: You continue to amaze me in your unrelenting quest to be seen as an expert on everything. The only thing you have proved is your absolute and total ignorance of the realities of the Canadian Industry! :mad: While he is quick to respond and definately has his opinions Randy Kaiser DOES NOT speak for our industry as his ideas are opinion only and often go directly against recognized industry scientific opinion!
As to CFIA's BSE strategy we have been recognized by the OIE as running a model operation for dealing with the problem. We ARE dealing with and testing the most vulnerable part of our cattle population; the 4D's! We are using reliable tests and are testing far more animals than OIE regulations call for; our industry fully expects to find more cases but the few found to date point to the fact that BSE infects only a handful of cattle, a number so small that it is statistically neglible. Our surveilance program, our SRM removal and feed bans go the rest of the way in preventing new exposure. CFIA's protocols DO set the basis for testing and eradication contrary to your naive beliefs :!:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
rkaiser said:
R2 -
My read is that BSE is less likely to enter the food chain in Canada than the US. However the new cow in Alberta suggests that increased surveillance and possibly additional actions need to take place in Alberta.

You got that right R2 - ------- Soil Air and Water samples to identify metal imbalance. That would be action. :wink:

Anybody know if the USDA actually played by international rules and followed the testing regime set for countries with a DOMESTIC CASE OF BSE.

In Canada we had numbers to meet, and these numbers included only 4D cattle. Is the USDA following the same or did they make their own AGAIN.

Although it has been made into one, this BSE issue should be a disease control issue, not an issue between the U.S. and Canada. Unfortunately, the USDA (and Canada agencies) want to control the information about the disease instead of confronting it and treating it like a disease to be traced and eliminated. That strategy is not honest to consumers and producers.
You got that one right and that is exactly what R-Calf has done and why Canadian producers take such exception to them and their supporters. Right from the beginning R-Calf made it an US / Canada issue.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
So, cowsense, has the U.S. followed the OIE guidelines and tested the numbers of 4D cattle set out for a country with a domestic case of BSE?

Love that "Opinion Only" thing cowsense. BSE is full of opinion. What is yours? Does it follow the opinion of others concerning feed transmission?

Not looking for a fight; just always interesting when folks with names like "cowsense" like to use my whole name "RANDY KAISER" when pointing out my inability to follow the FACTS.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
"If confirmed by the CFIA, it will be a devastating blow for the Canadian cattle industry, which had just rebounded from a previous case of BSE in Alberta in 2003."

I doubt this statement. The US is Canada's largest customer by far, and the USDA/AMI doesn't care how many cases are found up there.

Wait a few years until the first case of American or Canadian vCJD and people will wake up and care. It had better not be in a state bordering the Canadian West.

My read is that BSE is less likely to enter the food chain in Canada than the US. However the new cow in Alberta suggests that increased surveillance and possibly additional actions need to take place in Alberta.
Would it be better if the cases of had been spread across Canada? This cluster campaign Oldtimer is trying to promote is nothing more than more R-Calf sensationalism. I predict the markets and consumers will continue to see this for what it is and respond accordingly.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
Feed Transmission......

When cows were fed meat and bone products they joined humans at the top of the food chain.

All scientists know, that the animals that eat meat are at, or very near, the top of their food chain in their environment.

The bio-accummulation of metals found in animals was being recycled via the practice of feeding cattle meat/blood/SRMs.

The experimental BSE transmission studies require special and specific criteria to "transmit" this disease.

Attempts to transmit BSE via the consumption of meat and bone meal spiked with brain homogenate failed in the UK (a ten year trial with apprx. 1000 animals). They finally resorted to drenching highly concentrated, denatured prions into animal stomachs, in order to transmit the disease.

No study lists the metal contents of the prion material used in any of theses experimental transmission procedures.

Why is this important? Because BSE can, has, and will continue to happen spontaneously, even long after the practice of feeding MBM to cows stops.

The bioaccummulation of metals, including radio-active metals, is well known when we talk about seafood, eg. high mercury content in tuna, etc.

The environmental contamination of our planet is reaching such devastating levels, that no one is "chemical or toxic metal free".

The slow chronic consumption of potentially toxic metals explains what the "infectious" camp calls a long incubation period.

Bio-accumulation of metals, combined with exposure to chemicals, alters our body's healthy chemistry.

The breakdown of our ability to fight theses oxidative stresses must contribute to the disease process as Dr. D.R. Brown of the UK states in his reveiw (posted earlier). If we want to start fighting these disease processes, we need to consume alot of foods/supplements that provide anti-oxidant functions. Eg. Vit C, Vit E to name a couple.

This BSE cow was born after the 1997 feed ban in Canada. It is more likely a spontaneous case due to metal imbalance, than a case of transmission of a so-called infectious agent.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Mike wrote;

The false positives announced by the USDA were predicted beforehand because the tests that were approved by the USDA had the highest false positives of any test available.

I read (don't remember where) then that the USDA was using that particular test in order to "Fatigue" consumers on BSE issue. If that was the case, in my opinion it was a bad choice in strategy. It made them look dishonest. (See Japs & Phyllis Fong)

Canada's choice of tests was far better than the USDA's. Just think. The USDA had the experience of the UK's dishonesty to glean info from and still screwed it up.

The USDA's lack of transparency is costing us points with the Japs today.

Honesty works best everytime.

=====================================


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Possible mad cow case shocks cattle industry
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:26:45 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

Possible mad cow case shocks cattle industry


> The sample was sent to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in
> Ames, Iowa, where it could take four to seven days to analyze. But the
> manufacturer of the screening test, Bio-Rad, told Reuters that the
> sample was screened twice, which makes it far more likely to be positive.
>

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2908555


USDA advised against mad cow test in 2002

By Steve Mitchell
United Press International

Published 7/13/2004 7:57 AM

WASHINGTON, July 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture in late
2002 warned against using the same mad cow disease test the agency now
is using in its expanded surveillance program for the deadly disorder,
United Press International has learned.

The USDA said governments should not authorize the test, which is
manufactured by Bio-Rad Laboratories in Hercules, Calif., because it can
give false positives -- results that are ruled negative on follow-up
testing -- and "will cause loss of consumer confidence in beef and beef
products," the agency wrote in a letter to the World Organization for
Animal Health in Paris.

The OIE, as it is known by its French initials, establishes
international standards for animal disease issues.

The USDA recommended countries employ a different test manufactured by
the Swiss firm Prionics -- a test the agency has licensed but has not
yet put into use. The USDA's reason for the delay is the Prionics test,
which has not yielded a false positive in more than 20 million tests in
Europe, still must pass through the agency's validation procedures.

Concerns about false positives with the Bio-Rad test became a reality
recently during the first month of the USDA's expanded surveillance
plan, launched June 1 in response to the only confirmed U.S. case of mad
cow last December. The agency reported two preliminary positive results,
which caused concern among the public and havoc in the cattle futures
markets until both were ruled negative on follow-up testing several days
later.

So far, seven of the 12 state laboratories participating in the USDA's
mad cow surveillance plan are using the Bio-Rad test and the remaining
five are expected to opt for the test when they begin testing operations.

Experts on testing and mad cow disease have suggested one reason the
USDA might have opted for Bio-Rad is the same reason it advised against
it in 2002: its potential to yield false positives.

By releasing preliminary positives -- or inconclusives, as the USDA has
deemed them -- that are later ruled negative, the agency could
desensitize markets, consumers and foreign trading partners to real
positive cases when and if they occur, the sources said.

"Bio-Rad was approved as a way of getting people used to a possible case
if there ever was one," a veterinarian with expertise in mad cow disease
told UPI.

"They (USDA officials) know it has a high false positive rate ... The
more inconclusives they have, the easier it is to 'mix something up' and
have all negative tests," said the veterinarian, who requested anonymity.

The veterinarian's comments were echoed by other experts in this field,
who also declined to be named.

USDA spokeswoman Julie Quick did not respond to UPI's question of
whether this was the agency's intended strategy. However, John Clifford,
USDA's chief veterinary officer, acknowledged at a recent news
conference that release of the inconclusive results could have that affect.

"We want to minimize the impacts upon the markets," Clifford said. "We
feel like that after we get this information out there a couple of times
that hopefully it will continue to minimize that impact."

To date, more than 15,000 cows have been tested under the surveillance
plan and USDA officials have said they expect many more false positives
as the agency seeks to conduct thousands of mad cow tests per week over
the next 12 to 18 months.

Mad cow disease is otherwise known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy
or BSE. Officials have said they also expect to find additional BSE cases.

Consumer groups and some members of Congress expressed concern about the
USDA's decision to use the Bio-Rad test after the two false positives.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., recently sent a letter to Agriculture
Secretary Ann Veneman urging her "to seriously consider the reliability
of your tests and to rigorously evaluate BSE screening tests used
internationally that may offer more accurate results."

The concern to consumers is people can contract an incurable brain
disorder called variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease from eating meat
infected with the mad cow pathogen. More than 150 people worldwide have
become infected, but none of the cases has been linked to U.S. beef.

"Why are we using Bio-Rad instead of Prionics if they are as bad as the
(USDA) would have us believe with all these 'inconclusives?'" asked
Terry Singletary, coordinator of CJD Watch, an advocacy group for
patients and family members. His mother died of a rare form of CJD
called Heidenhain Variant, which has not been linked with mad cow disease.

"Do they really want to find all the cases, or are we just playing a
(public relations) game?" asked Singletary, who has been sharply
critical of the USDA's approach to mad cow. "How many more are we going
to expose to this deadly pathogen?"

Brad Crutchfield, Bio-Rad's vice president, said the science and
experience with his company's test in Europe establishes its soundness
and reliability. Bio-Rad has yielded false positives only once every
300,000 tests, he said, adding that the false positives will decrease as
the U.S. labs acquire more experience.

"The issue has nothing to do with the test, it has to do with the
notification process," Crutchfield said, referring to the USDA's
decision to notify the public of inconclusive results before they were
confirmed or ruled out with confirmatory tests.

Heads of several state labs contacted by UPI said the agency allowed
them to choose among five licensed rapid tests, including Bio-Rad's.
However, outside testing experts said it was curious that all the labs
chose the same test.

"It is slightly peculiar that it went all to one supplier for no other
reason than you would want different tests because they give different
results," said Roger Rosedale, chairman of Microsens Biotechnologies, a
company in London that manufactures technology used in tests for
detecting mad cow disease and similar disorders. One of Microsens'
clients is Idexx Laboratories, which makes a competing mad cow test to
Bio-Rad and Prionics.

At the time the labs were making their choices, the USDA said Bio-Rad
was the only test the agency had "field tested," which apparently is a
prerequisite for putting the tests into use.

The Bio-Rad test "was the only one that had been field tested, so that's
limiting," said USDA's Quick. So although the USDA had licensed the
other rapid tests, they may not have been available for use even if the
laboratories had selected them.

The department also purchased the equipment needed to run the Bio-Rad
test for the labs, some of which otherwise would not have been able to
afford the machinery due to budget constraints.

A source with an American company that manufactures tests for detecting
animal disease said it was unusual for the USDA to approve a test and
then require field testing. Field trials are usually done before
approval, the source said.

"With other tests, if you get USDA approval, you're all set," the source
said. "This is something new."

Asked why the USDA was not using the Prionics Check test, as it had
recommended in the 2002 OIE letter, Quick said it is still being "field
tested." In the letter, however, the agency did not cite the need for a
field test or validation procedure.

"Certain tests, such as the rapid tests, may not give an accurate
picture of the BSE situation in a country or zone," the USDA wrote. "It
is well known that certain rapid tests such as the Enfer and Bio-Rad
tests have recorded false positive BSE results. For BSE-free countries
or zones, the use of rapid BSE tests that give false positive results
will cause loss of consumer confidence in beef and beef products."

A better approach would be to use the Prionics Check test, the agency
wrote.

"For BSE free countries or zones, the use of histopathology,
immunohistochemistry and the Prionics 'check' immunoblot test would
provide a definitive diagnosis of a BSE suspect case," the letter stated.

Quick insisted the agency's statement was not intended to recommend
against the Bio-Rad test. Instead, she said, it was meant to recommend
that countries not simply rely on rapid screening tests as a way to
confirm a case of mad cow disease.

No other testing experts UPI contacted interpreted the statement that
way and Quick, who acknowledged she was not familiar with the technical
details of the tests, declined to make Clifford or other USDA officials
available to discuss the issue or offer clarification.

The USDA's decision not to release the samples from the two
inconclusives for verification by outside labs has also come under
question. The agency used a test called immunohistochemistry, or IHC, to
determine the animals were not infected with mad cow, but experts said
this is not always a foolproof test and it can miss cases.

Markus Moser, Prionics' chief executive officer and a molecular
biologist, noted that Germany was considered BSE-free when using the IHC
test. When officials there began using the Prionics rapid test in 2000,
he said, they found several cases and so far have detected more than 300
infected animals.

Stuart Wilson, Microsens' scientific director and a molecular
pathologist, noted in a document he recently prepared on false positives
that there have been instances when Bio-Rad was used more than a few
months before the animal developed symptoms and they were found
correctly to be positive, but IHC incorrectly ruled them negative.

"In a cow that you don't know is infected or not, it can always appear
IHC positive (or negative) simply by changing the IHC timing," Wilson
wrote in the document.

"This was one of the biggest problems with investigating tonsils in
asymptomatic humans in the United Kingdom," the document said, referring
to a recent study that indicated as many as 3,800 people in England may
be unwittingly incubating vCJD.

In the December mad cow case, the USDA had the results confirmed by the
Weybridge laboratory in the United Kingdom, which is one of the three
mad cow disease testing reference laboratories recognized by the OIE.
The other two are in Switzerland and Japan.

"It must by definition create doubt if they're not allowing any other
... OIE reference laboratory have access to them," Rosedale said. "It's
not to suggest (the USDA) guys are not competent, but why would they not
release it?"

--

Steve Mitchell is UPI's Medical Correspondent. E-mail [email protected]

Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040712-060601-3233r



TSS

################# [email protected] #################


Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/do..._emc-000001.txt




Dr. Ron DeHaven DOING THE MAD COW TEXAS TWO-STEP AGAIN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Dr. Ron DeHaven DOING THE MAD COW TEXAS TWO-STEP AGAIN
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:35:24 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

Release No. 0528.04
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720 4623



Statement By Dr. Ron DeHaven Administrator, Animal & Plant Health
Inspection Service

December 30, 2004

"USDA is confident that the animal and public health measures that
Canada has in place to prevent BSE, combined with existing U.S. domestic
safeguards and additional safeguards announced yesterday provide the
utmost protections to U.S. consumers and livestock.

"Last night Canada announced the finding of a "suspect" animal, which is
their term for inconclusive. If this animal proves to be positive, it
would not alter the implementation of the U.S. rule announced yesterday
that recognizes Canada as a Minimal-Risk Region. In the extensive risk
analysis conducted as part of the rule making, we considered the
possibility of additional cases of BSE in Canada. Because of the
mitigation measures that Canada has in place, we continue to believe the
risk is minimal.

"When Canadian ruminants and ruminant products are presented for
importation into the United States, they become subject to domestic
safeguards as well. Beef imports that have already undergone Canadian
inspection are also subject to re-inspection at ports of entry by the
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to ensure only eligible
products are imported

"We are working closely with Canadian officials as they conduct their
investigation into this situation."

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/3/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2004%2F12%2F0528.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM

Greetings list members,

IF you remember correctly, i posted this ;

Subject: Re: USDA/APHIS JUNE 2004 'ENHANCED' BSE/TSE COVER UP UPDATE
DECEMBER 19, 2004 USA
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:27:06 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr.


BSE-L

snip...

>
> OH, i did ask Bio-Rad about this with NO reply to date;
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: USA BIO-RADs INCONCLUSIVEs
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To: [email protected]
>
>
>
> Hello Susan and Bio-Rad,
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> I wish to ask a question about Bio-Rad and USDA BSE/TSE testing
> and there inconclusive. IS the Bio-Rad test for BSE/TSE that complicated,
> or is there most likely some human error we are seeing here?
>
> HOW can Japan have 2 positive cows with
> No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP- ,
> BUT in the USA, these cows are considered 'negative'?
>
> IS there more politics working here than science in the USA?
>
> What am I missing?
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: USDA: More mad cow testing will demonstrate beef's safety
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:26:19 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> snip...end
>
>
> Experts doubt USDA's mad cow results



snip...END

WELL, someone did call me from Bio-Rad about this,
however it was not Susan Berg.
but i had to just about take a blood oath not to reveal
there name. IN fact they did not want me to even mention
this, but i feel it is much much to important. I have omitted
any I.D. of this person, but thought I must document this ;

Bio-Rad, TSS phone conversation 12/28/04

Finally spoke with ;


Bio-Rad Laboratories
2000 Alfred Nobel Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Ph: 510-741-6720
Fax: 510-741-5630
Email: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

at approx. 14:00 hours 12/28/04, I had a very pleasant
phone conversation with XXXX XXXXX about the USDA
and the inconclusive BSE testing problems they seem
to keep having. X was very very cautious as to speak
directly about USDA and it's policy of not using WB.
X was very concerned as a Bio-Rad official of retaliation
of some sort. X would only speak of what other countries
do, and that i should take that as an answer. I told X
I understood that it was a very loaded question and X
agreed several times over and even said a political one.

my question;

Does Bio-Rad believe USDA's final determination of False positive,
without WB, and considering the new
atypical TSEs not showing positive with -IHC and -HP ???

ask if i was a reporter. i said no, i was with CJD Watch
and that i had lost my mother to hvCJD. X did not
want any of this recorded or repeated.

again, very nervous, will not answer directly about USDA for fear of
retaliation, but again said X tell
me what other countries are doing and finding, and that
i should take it from there.
"very difficult to answer"

"very political"

"very loaded question"

outside USA and Canada, they use many different confirmatory tech. in
house WB, SAF, along with
IHC, HP, several times etc. you should see at several
talks meetings (TSE) of late Paris Dec 2, that IHC- DOES NOT MEAN IT IS
NEGATIVE. again, look what
the rest of the world is doing.
said something about Dr. Houston stating;
any screening assay, always a chance for human
error. but with so many errors (i am assuming
X meant inconclusive), why are there no investigations, just false
positives?
said something about ''just look at the sheep that tested IHC- but were
positive''. ...


TSS

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your questions
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800
From: To: [email protected]



Hi Terry:

............................................snip Let me know your phone
number so I can talk to you about the Bio-Rad BSE test.
Thank you

Regards



Bio-Rad Laboratories
2000 Alfred Nobel Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Ph: 510-741-6720
Fax: 510-741-5630
Email: =================================


END...TSS


######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########



> From today's Washington post:
>
> "The animal had been deemed disease-free last fall, but when a sample was
> subjected to a more precise test, the result was a "weak positive," said
> USDA Secretary Mike Johanns."
>
> "Weak positive"; is that like being a "little bit pregnant"?
>
>
> > The beef cow, which was nine years old and could not stand, was first
> tested last November and passed three initial tests
>
>
> SO, TSS TEXAS MAD COW STILL LIVES ;
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: ''INCONCLUSIVE'' IS NEGATIVE or so they claim...OFFICIAL REPORT
> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:59:27 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> To: [email protected]
> References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
>
>
> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
>
> INTERESTING comments in this old newspaper article i ran
> across ;
>
> Nov 22 2004 07:09 PM MST CBC News
>
> USDA approves live cattle, border reopening could take months
>
> snip...
>
> Also on Monday, the USDA said test results on a suspected case of mad
> cow are inconclusive, which means further tests will be done. Canadian
> authorities have been told that the cow, from Texas, didn't have the
> metal ID tag that cows born here are given.
>
> snip...
>
> http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed-mad-cow20041122
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:07:51 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To: Carla Everett
> References: <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
>
>
> ok, thank you Carla.
> i hate rumors and 'inconclusive' announcements.
>
> kind regards,
> terry
>
> Carla Everett wrote:
>
> > our computer department was working on a place holder we could post
> > USDA's announcement of any results. There are no results to be
> > announced tonight
> > by NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA
> > announcement
> > when we hear something.
> >
> >
> > At 06:05 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote:
> >
> >> why was the announcement on your TAHC site removed?
> >>
> >> Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy:
> >> November 22: Press Release title here
> >>
> >> star image More BSE information
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> terry
> >>
> >> Carla Everett wrote:
> >>
> >>> no confirmation on the U.S.' inconclusive test...
> >>> no confirmation on location of animal.
>
>
> I still want my Texas mad cows confirmed BY WB!
>
> TSS
>
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:
>
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #####################
> >
> > Greetings list members,
> >
> >
> > I find this very very disturbing. IN fact i will say that if the
> > USDA/APHIS
> > do not get a second opinion from the experts overseas, I would say
> > that there is a cover-up. WE now know that they are willing to do
> > anything to cover-up BSE in the USA by what they did with the other
> > stumbling and staggering cow they refused to TSE test and sent to the
> > render in TEXAS. IN fact I am hearing from International experts on
> > TSE that they do NOT buy the latest USDAs test result. why should they?
> > Seems they did not even do a western blot from what i was told. They run
> > two rapid test that turn up positive, but the USDA finds that to be
> > inconclusive.
> > They also said they would not be telling us of any 'inconclusive', but
> > they did.
> > SO, why was it announced? I will tell you why, because the likelihood
> > of it
> > being positive was very high. Even the CEO of BioRAD and Prionics said
> > this.
> > IN fact, USDA has never said they would run 2 IHC, so again, why did they
> > this time? I will tell you why, they wanted a negative so bad, they
> > would test
> > the samples until they found a portion of the brain/tissue sample that
> > would not show a positive. THIS REEKs of industry/political
> > manipulation. I cannot believe that our foreign alies/exporting
> > countries (if there is any left), continue
> > to risk there people through the lies from this administration. why won't
> > USDA et al send samples for independent examinations if they are still
> > having
> > such a hard time with this? what do they have to hide? IF both the
> > TSE laboratory in Waybride, England and the University of Bern,
> > Switzerland
> > (OIE Reference Laboratory) dont get a sample of this tissue from this cow
> > to give second opinions, then in my opinion that cow was positive.
> > Hell, we get official slides of Japan's infected samples to survey.
> > but in the USA, it's all closed doors now and they will test the damn
> > animal
> > as many times as it takes to get a negative. total bull sh!t
> > encephalopathy this
> > is, what i call BSeee, politics at it's finest hour. when will it all
> > end$
> >
> > IF we look at the original U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform
> > Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary i posted in 1999,
> > it states very clearly;
> >
> >> If additional tests do suggest a presumptive diagnosis of BSE, an NVSL
> >> pathologist will hand carry the sample to the United Kingdom for
> >> confirmation. It is at this critical point, when NVSL suggests a
> >> diagnosis of BSE and is preparing to send the sample to the United
> >> Kingdom, that this BSE Response Plan is initiated. The Plan begins the
> >> preliminary notification from NVSL to APHIS...
> >
> >
> >
> > snip...end
> >
> > BUT this administration has clearly shown they have no rules and
> > regulations, they change them with the wind to suit there needs$
> >
> > for full text,
> >
> > ORIGINAL POSTING;
> >
> > Subject: U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan
> > Summary
> > Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 18:25:12 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: BSE-L
> > To: BSE-L
> >
> > IT'S IN THE ARCHIVES at BSE-L...TSS
> >
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:
> >
> >> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> >> #####################
> >>
> >> Release No. 0508.04
> >>
> >> Statement by John Clifford, Deputy Administrator- Animal & Plant
> >> Health Inspection Service
> >>
> >> November 23, 2004
> >>
> >>
> >> "The USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames,
> >> Iowa, has determined that the inconclusive screening test sample
> >> reported on Nov. 18 has tested negative for BSE upon confirmatory
> >> testing.
> >> "The Nov. 18 sample is the first that has tested inconclusive under
> >> an APHIS protocol announced in August that calls for public reporting
> >> of screening results only after two reactive screens. NVSL used the
> >> immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, an internationally-recognized gold
> >> standard test for BSE, and received a negative result on Nov. 22.
> >> Because the Nov. 18 screening test results were reactive in both the
> >> first and second screens, NVSL scientists made the recommendation to
> >> run the IHC test a second time. On Nov. 23 they reported the second
> >> IHC test was negative. Negative results from both IHC tests makes us
> >> confident that the animal in question is indeed negative for BSE.
> >>
> >> "APHIS began an enhanced surveillance program on June 1 and to date
> >> has tested over 121,000 samples for BSE. Screening tests are
> >> designed to be extremely sensitive and false positives are not
> >> unexpected. APHIS has reported three inconclusives including the
> >> Nov. 18 sample and all have tested negative on confirmatory testing."
> >>
> >>
> >> #
> >>
> >>
> >> USDA News
> >> [email protected]
> >> 202 720-4623
> >>
> >>
> >> TSS
> >>
> >> ############## [email protected]
> >> ##############
> >>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' IN USA, FROM TEXAS ???
> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:03:55 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> To: [email protected]
>
>
> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
>
> Greetings BSE-L members,
>
> i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from
> TEXAS. could any official on this list either confirm or deny this on this
> forum or in private (in confidence) to me via [email protected]
>
> many thanks,
> terry
>
> ################# [email protected] #################
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:21 -0600
> From: Carla Everett
> To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> References: <[email protected]>
>
>
> The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all
> callers to the USDA web site. We have no information
> about the animal being in Texas. Carla
>
>
> At 09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:
> >Greetings Carla,
> >
> >i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from
> >TEXAS. can you comment on this either way please?
> >
> >thank you,
> >Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> >
> >
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:12:06 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> To: [email protected]
>
>
> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
>
> US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
>
> The US plans to measure the incidence
> of mad cow disease in its cattle with a
> test that its own officials have said gives
> too many false positives. Some experts
> fear the choice reflects an official desire
> to downplay the impact of the first
> positive BSE tests that emerge, when
> they turn out not to be confirmed.
>
> Last week the US Department of
> Agriculture (USDA) approved two tests,
> including one made by the Californian
> firm BioRad, for screening up to 300,000
> cattle for BSE, starting in July. No more
> tests will be licensed for months.
> Announcing the testing plan, chief
> veterinary officer Ron DeHaven cautioned
> that "there will be positive results",
> many of them false.
>
> BioRad's antibody-based test for the
> prion protein that causes BSE has given
> numerous false positives in Belgium and
> Germany. And in Japan only 8 of 113 cattle
> that repeatedly tested positive with
> BioRad were confirmed by slower tests
> that do not give false positives.
>
> The USDA even wrote last May that
> "it is well known" that tests like
> BioRad's give false positives. It states
> that other kinds of quick tests are more
> suitable for testing for very low levels of
> BSE, which are expected in the US.
>
> The second quick test approved by
> the USDA, made by Maine-based IDEXX,
> could also in theory give false positives.
> It remains unclear how reliable it is,
> because there has been little practical
> experience with the test so far. It is not
> yet approved for use in Europe, where
> the vast majority of BSE tests are done.
>
>
> Debora MacKenzie,
> Brussels correspondent,
> New Scientist.
> tel +32-2-245-0412
> fax +32-2-245-0552
> mobile +32-49-754-0444
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/
> =======================
>
> Greetings,
>
> odd that the USDA et al approves two US-OWNED tests that are
> _known_ to give false positives, when they know other rapid
> TSE test are much more reliable. IT's like they purposely do
> not want to find any TSE in the USA bovine, so they pick the
> worst test available. The USDA own experts think BioRad is
> not suitable for supposedly BSE/TSE free and low incidence
> areas, so why did they choose this test and or the IDEXX,
> which i dont think has even been submitted to the EU for evaluation
> and has no commercial experiance to my knowledge. You could
> almost get the feeling they are deliberately skipping over
> Prionics for the least supperior TSE rapid test. I believe
> the Canadians finally did choose prionics. maybe paul or marcus
> might comment? seems if North America is going to be a
> consolidated BEEF trading market amongst themselves and expect
> to export there tainted products everywhere, they could at least
> come up with the same TSE rapid Test. how can one use a less
> reliable test and the other use a more reliable test, and it
> all be the same? i know there is a word Dehaven used, but it
> slips my mind now, (consolidated markets) that's not it,
> but you get the just of my thoughts, i think;-)...TSS
 

Latest posts

Top