Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live
Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines APHIS-2006-0041
COMMENT FROM TERRY S. SINGELTARY SR.
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801f3412&disposition=attachment&contentType=crtext
snip...
Texan
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 274
Location: East Texas
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:17 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....
flounder wrote:
This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.
I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.
I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...
Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.
Back to top
Bill
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1418
Location: GWN
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:
Texan wrote:
Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....
flounder wrote:
This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.
I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.
I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...
Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.
I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.
_________________
Canadian Beef....A cut above the rest!
my answer to big muddy from canada ;
hello again there Texan,
i don't guess it matters anymore, i don't think ill be testifying for anyone, unless it is my own execution.
i was willing to participate in good faith, and sound science, that is why i think i was never sent to testify,
because in my opinion, R-Calf only wanted to cherry-pick the science, to use to there advantage, to try and
claim that Canada had a worse BSE problem than the USA, and i could not conceed to that. the science did
not confirm this. all one has to do is read the BSE GBR risk assessments, and that is why GW/OIE et al revised
there own risk assessments ;-) the BSE MRR policy.
i don't know, maybe i misinterpreted it all, maybe not, you can be the judge ;
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Your posts to me this week /3rd week of Feb to date
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:25:26 -0800 (PST)
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
Dear Terry:
Well, I am a humbled man...and damn proud of it.
You've already provided us, in the span of a few days,so much important and relevant information, that isnot arguable.Great internet research, Terry. Really, reallygreat.Whether you realize it or not....it's already had animpact....Check.....http://www.usagnet.com About the EU's newBSE tests. Look at the lag time it took from thedate you sent that information to us! And that'sbecause we aren't sending that directly....which Ipersonally believe is the proper way for this topass....because others need to be aware of this whoare setting policies for our future, and I alsobelieve the people I've shared that information areresponsible people, not out for claim of fame,personal gain, nor anything other than helping theirpeers in their beef production industry.I'll be in touch. I am very impressed. And I wantto discuss the List Serv deal with you, in detail.Will communicate with you again, tomorrow (today, it's1:21am CST now) and I need some sleep.Thanks again for being willing to share yourinformation with me.Best Regards, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxP.S. The USDA/Canadian Export of Meat into USAinformation has been sent to R-Calf's Bill Bullard.I did not mention you as the source provider....justlet me know how you want me to deal with this. I havethe contacts that need the info...you have theresearch....and we both deserve a little bit of creditfor our efforts, as I see it.See ya later.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
**********************************************
==============================================
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Our PR Campaign is now official! Please distribute
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:55:08 -0800 (PST)
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
[email protected]
Dear Terry: This press release is a partial resultof contributions you have made to me in the past 10days. Don't ever think there aren't those in thecattle industry that don't care. Some of the peopleon this list are those that have received theinformation you've shared with me, so far, that can beeffective WHEN ACCURATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED THEM! Many of the people on this list are "grass-roots"cattle producers in the United States. They strive toproduce top-quality "safe" beef. And they are usuallypretty open-minded people.Please realize one thing: You are so far ahead ofthese people with your own research, that they mighthave a hard time comprehending the information we"feed" to them. They, too, have been conditioned tobelieve the same sad lies that USDA has been tellingeveryone. It takes time to absorb things.These are usually very conservative people....so weneed to keep the politics out of it.I think we've done a fantastic job of workingtogether, so far, and I really want that to continue.All the Best, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
P.S. It's taken me four years to cultivate the trustwith some of these people on this list. And then,there are others on the list I have known, nearly allmy life.P.P.S. How would you prefer I handle the e-mailsyou've shared with me today?
snip........end..........tss
===============================================================
*************************************************************
===============================================================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Update/R-Calf Suit against USDA March 7, Canadian Border Re-opening
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:54:21 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
hey there xxxxxxxxx,
hello. good speaking with you last night. left me thinking about
the wyoming governor. did he really change his mind due to the
info i sent you? i was trying to explain this to the wife and she
did not understand why r-calf would want me to testify, then
i tried to explain to her about the this and that and then got
confused myself. thought in case some one was to knock on the
door, i would put something together, some good stuff, ill be damn
if i did not run of of ink again. i had already had a briefcase ready
to go from the last time i thought i might have to testify before
congress, but that fell through because of funding at last minute
etc. long story. gotta goo...............terry
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Stand by for a phone call. Gary
------------------------------------------------------
--- "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]> wrote:
---------------------------------
if i testify to anything, it will be everything. all
or none.
testify to whom? where? when? cost$ (i have not worked
since oct. 87 due to my neck) etc$
testify to what?
give me the run down?
terry
xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dear Terry: We've got a chance to make some
progress.Your research will be essential. Are you
willing totestify?I need to know what you want me to
do.Gary
---------------------------------------------------------
"Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]> wrote:
I am still puzzled as to why our USDA is such a
puppet
to the OIE. That's bothered me ever since I
gotinvolved in all the FAD news world-wide in
2000-2001.
hey there burkie, my comments on OIE below.if you do
not hear from me sometimes, i am here,just sometimesi
don't look up for days and reply to my email.every now
and theni come up for air and read and reply to
emails. justnot enough time inthe
day.............later..........terry.
======================================================
******************************************************
======================================================
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Update/R-Calf Suit against USDA March 7, Canadian Border Re-opening
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:32:32 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <>
References: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
if i testify to anything, it will be everything. all or none.
testify to whom? where? when? cost$ (i have not worked
since oct. 87 due to my neck) etc$
testify to what?
give me the run down?
terry
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dear Terry: We've got a chance to make some progress.
Your research will be essential. Are you willing to
testify?
I need to know what you want me to do.
xxxx
=============================================
*********************************************
=============================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <
[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Found: BSE Research Expert
> Dear Terry:
>
> This just came in.
>
>
> I've laid the ground work for you to do what you do
> best.
>
> All the best,
>
> xxxxxxxxxxx
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --- RM Thornsberry <xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Mr. xxxxxxxxx,
> >
> > I am chairman of the BSE Committee for R-CALF. I am
> > looking for information
> > concerning a Japanese company developing a live
> > animal BSE test which was to
> > be available by summer of 2005.
> >
> > I would be very interested in visiting with the
> > gentleman you referr to.
> > R-CALF may be conducting a BSE Roundtable again this
> > summer. This gentleman
> > may want to be involved. If he allows, send me his
> > email address and I will
> > send him the Proceedings from the BSE Roundtable
> > that I put together in
> > December, 2003.
> >
> > Dr. Thornsberry
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: R. Max Thornsberry <xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:37 AM
> > Subject: FW: Found: BSE Research Expert
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > P.O. Box xxxxxxxxxx
> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > www.ranchfoodsdirect.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 9:26 PM
> > > To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Found: BSE Research Expert
> > >
> > > [Private to you three recipients]
> > >
> > > Dear xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > >
> > > I have gained the confidence of an individual who
> > > lives here in the States, who probably has done
> > the
> > > most independent catalogueing of BSE research that
> > > exists. He has done over seven years of
> > accumulating
> > > this information, and can supply so much stuff up
> > in a
> > > matter of a few minutes that it just plain boggles
> > my
> > > mind.
> > >
> > > He can site incidents, cases, USDA lies, UK
> > research,
> > > European research, at will.
> > >
> > > His mother died of vCJD....hence the impetus of
> > his
> > > personal interest and research.
> > >
> > > Just like myself and my xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > and
> > > this individual I am talking about, as we all
> > began
> > > studying things independently, it has become more
> > and
> > > more apparent that alot of the "so-called" science
> > > driving world BSE policy has been "a little bit
> > less
> > > than scientific, and much more developed to serve
> > > special interests," which continues to compromise
> > any
> > > policy in any country.
> > >
> > > I have talked personally to this person, find him
> > to
> > > be credible and very much opposed to USDA's flaws
> > and
> > > failures, regarding food safety, in general. He
> > is
> > > colorful and believeable.
> > >
> > > Now then, why I am I writing to tell you this?
> > >
> > > Well, I am just plain wondering, out loud, if
> > R-Calf
> > > would be willing to have him testify at these
> > > hearings.
> > >
> > > I have asked him if he would be willing to
> > testify.
> > > His answer is that he would.
> > >
> > > As with any "expert witness," he would be entitled
> > to
> > > some kind of compensation for his time and
> > research
> > > and testimony. Air fare, hotel accomodation,
> > food
> > > and remuneration for the testimony would seem to
> > be
> > > reasonable for such a witness.
> > >
> > > So, I guess my old commodity brokerage skills come
> > > into play, in that I am asking you folks, if a
> > person
> > > like this could be of use to the R-Calf cause?
> > >
> > > I am asking for your input and feedback.
> > >
> > > I do believe his testimony could be useful.
> > >
> > > What do you all think?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope to hear back from you soon, either way. Yes
> > or
> > > no. Perhaps you can contact your folks at R-Calf
> > to
> > > see what they think, too.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
================================
***************************************************
================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <
[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Found: BSE Research Expert
>
> --- xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Dr. Thornsberry:
> >
> > I am pleased to acknowledge your request. Amazing
> > events with regard to reportable animal disease
> > issues
> > this week, world-wide.
> >
> > I have forwarded your request to the individual I
> > have
> > been corresponding with.
> >
> > He is:
> >
> > Mr. Terry S. Singletary, Sr.
> > Baycliff, Texas
> >
> > e-mail address:
[email protected]
> >
> > I really hope the two of you can work together, to
> > provide insight into the "real" science of BSE.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > P.S. Terry has an unlisted phone number. I don't
> > feel
> > that I have the latitude to reveal that, although I
> > feel certain Terry will be glad to visit with you.
> >
> > P.P.S. My telephone is: xxxxxxxxx. It also
> > works
> > as a voice mail, if we're not able to answer a call.
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I assure you that Terry can be of help to the R-Calf
> > cause.
> >
> >
====================================
*********************************************************
====================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "RM Thornsberry" <
[email protected]>
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease Friday,June 10, 2005
> MR. Singeltary,
>
> Thank you for sending me your email messages. If the USDA is consistent,
> they are inconsistent in following their own rules.
>
> If I understand the way this testing works; the first test is taken from a
> portion of mascerated brain tissue from the obex portion of the brain stem.
> This ground up tissue sample is several grams, but could include bacteria,
> fungi, prions from other TSE diseases besides BSE, and the six chain amino
> acid string could be identified by tagging it with antibodies. If this
> test is positive (inconclusive), then a histopathological section of the
> brain tissue is washed in antibodies to see if this six chain amino acid
> string is in the tissue itself. The antibodies have a dye attached to them.
> If the antibodies attach to this six chain amino acid string, they it
> confirms that BSE prions are actually in the brain tissue and not just in
> the macerated brain tissue sample. Is this correct? The second test is the
> IHC test and is considered conclusive and positive.
>
>
> Dr. Thornsberry
================================================
****************************************************************************
================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
To: "RM Thornsberry" <xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease Friday,June 10, 2005
> hello Dr. Thornsberry,
>
> had to come up for air and i saw your email.
> can you believe all this crap? simply amazing.
> i see some of the media reports, i belive it was
> cnn, there saying the damn cow tested negative the
> first time. this is not true, the damn cow tested postive
> two different times at first.
>
>
> Dr. Thornsberry, i ask a very good friend about your question,
> to get a better anwer than i could give you. There reply;
>
> >>>If I understand the way this testing works; the first test is taken from
> a
> portion of mascerated brain tissue from the obex portion of the brain stem.
> This ground up tissue sample is several grams, but could include bacteria,
> fungi, prions from other TSE diseases besides BSE, ...<<<
>
> No. these are all red herrings. The obex is completely sterile region of the
> brain stem. Conceivablly they could contaminate the bent spatula used to
> remove the obex and transfer in disease from the previous animal. however i
> think this is highly implausible way of getting two positives in a row.
> Bacteria and fungi are totally irrelevent as first they are not present and
> second contain nothing that cross reacts with these antibodies.
>
> For immunohistochemistry, they keep the cell structure intact. Not
> macerated. histo means cell. they stain the cells with antibody to bovine
> bse and look for ring of infectious prion plaque deposits. Only the US
> considers IHC the gold standard. Of little interest to EU, UK, or Japan
> which are much further along in testing and past the point of denial
>
> For the BioRad and Prionics test, a positive means the brain stem is
> positive. that is part of the brain. it is much more than six amino acids --
> they must be folded correctly in prpsc. It is impossible that maceration
> introduces false positivess -- they have done 20 million controls.
> ..............end..............tss
>
> Dr. Thornsberry,
>
> I addressed this to two of the top TSE scientist;
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: Greetings again Professor Aguzzi ... TSS
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:19:49 +0100
> From: "Adriano Aguzzi" <
[email protected]>
> To: "'Terry S. Singeltary Sr.'" <
[email protected]>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Singeltary
>
> I sympathize with your wish to have the most sensitive assay implemented.
> However, the situation is not as simple as one might think. In the case of
> homogeneously distributed agent, biochemical detection of PrPSc is indeed
> likely to be more sensitive than immunohistochemistry. In the case of
> variegated, punctate distribution of the agent, morphological methods may
> indeed be an asset.
>
> There are also issues of feasibility. In my laboratory, we routinely run
> phosphotungstic acid precipitation followed by Western blotting. However,
> this is an extraordinarily cumbersome procedure. The sensitivity is
> increased vastly, but the amount of work needed is also amazing. There is
> no way I could see our own procedure implemented for mass screening of
> millions of cows - unless one would draft a veritable army of laboratory
> technicians.
>
> For all these reasons, while I see all your points, I feel unable to offer a
> strong public opinion in favor or against any specific methods. The final
> decision needs to take into account a variety of complex factors, and that
> is why I believe that it is best left to a panel of experts rather than to a
> public discussion.
>
> Best regards
> Adriano Aguzzi
> ____________________________
> Prof. Adriano Aguzzi
> (MD PhD hc FRCP FRCPath)
> Institute of Neuropathology, University Hospital of Zürich
> Schmelzbergstrasse 12, CH-8091 Zürich, Switzerland
> Tel. ++41-1-255 2107
> Tel. (direct line): 2869
> Fax: ++41-1-255 4402, cellular: +41-79-320 1516
> http://www.unizh.ch/pathol/neuropathologie/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [mailto:
[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 20:18
> To:
[email protected]
> Subject: Greetings again Professor Aguzzi ... TSS
>
> Greetings again Professor Aguzzi,
>
> A kind greetings from Texas. I hope you do not mind, but I
> must ask you several questions that will put you in the hot seat.
> Someone with credibility must come forward, such as yourself
> and speak out about the fact of the non scientific approach that
> USDA et al has take after the first diagnosis of BSE in the USA.
> This being, the refusal to use Western Blot on any suspicious or
> inconclusive BSE/TSE test. IHC is like a brain biopsy on trying
> to diagnose a CJD case. IF you take the sample from a part of the
> brain that is not that tainted, you will not get a reading. WB is much
> more sensitive, especially now with the Phospohtugstic acid
> precipitation step. IF Prusiners CDI was validated, who knows,
> that might even be more sensitive. Bottom line, we need you to
> come forward and state publicly ''the facts'' about USDA et al
> decision not to use WB on not only questionable samples, but on
> ALL samples. would you be willing to comment on this, to me or
> someone from the media (under the understanding it will be for
> the public)? I have several questions for you??? This is very very
> important in terms of human health (i.e. that nov. pos. pos. incl. neg
> cow).
>
> P.S. there is one other top TSE scientist that has come forward
> and said what the USDA et al did with that cow was ''not logical''.
> (this will not be published for another 3 or 4 weeks).
> ONE other TOP TSE scientist saying the same thing would be
> much better for the public to hear and understand. anyway,
> does not hurt to ask, and i hope you come through here for us.
> I know this is a very loaded question, but times a wasting, and
> human health is at risk here...
>
> thank you,
> with kindest regards,
>
> I am sincerely,
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>
>
> CJD WATCH
>
> http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/349/part1cjd.htm
>
>
> CJD Watch message board
>
> http://disc.server.com/Indices/167318.html
>
>
>
> ===========================================
> ===========================================
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON TEXAS COW
> WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:53:47 -0500
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <
[email protected]>
> To:
[email protected]
>
>
>
> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
>
> Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys
>
> 1. What is the standard regime for testing of suspect animals in the EU?
>
> The regime is an initial screening by a high-output test, the Bio-Rad test.
> If a result raises suspicion, a confirmatory test is conducted with the
> Western blot test.
>
> 2. How long has this been the case?
>
> Its a fairly recent development. Only recently has the Western blot test
> become sensitive enough, with the addition of phospohtungstic acid
> precipitation step. The Bio-Rad test (which Deslys helped develop) is
> extremely sensitive, and the standard Western blot is extremely reliable
> with high-signal test results. However, it had to be made more sensitive for
> low-signal (samples with low density of malformed prions) samples. It has
> been made more sensitive.
>
> Reproducibility is the problem with the IHC test. It is not standardized;
> depending on the lab and its protocols, or even on the technician involved
> in the test, one can get conflicting results.
>
> 3. Is there a way to measure the three tests in sensitivity, accuracy and
> objectivity?
>
> Historically, yes. The IHC was the gold standard at one point, but we have
> shifted to the Western blot. It requires less work, it is more sensitive and
> its results are reproducible. IHC relies on localization. If you have a weak
> signal case, you may get lucky and test a spot with a high concentration of
> prions. But the opposite it true too; you can miss an infection by testing a
> sample with low concentrations. Western blot is much better for low signal
> situations.
>
> 4. The USDA in 2003 used the Western blot to confirm the BSE case in
> Washington state, and it sent samples to the U.K. for independent testing.
> In the case this November, which it announced was negative, it instead used
> the IHC test and did not send samples to the U.K. Is this good science?
>
> Its not logical. If you have two consecutive questionable screenings, you
> do another test. I can only advise, its managements duty at USDA to make
> the decisions. But when you have a discrepancy between the rapid test and
> the IHC, it is only logical to confirm it with another test.
>
> 5. We are hearing now about a new strain of BSE, atypical BSE or aBSE. Or
> BaSE. We have heard that IHC, the so-called gold standard, cannot detect the
> variant. Is this true?
>
> Yes. There have been a few cases, one in Italy, one in Belgium, one here in
> France. It seems to only affect very old animals. The distribution in the
> brain is very different than we see with BSE, it looks very different. The
> IHC test will come back negative.
>
> This his a very recent phenomenon. I have no opinion on its virulence. We do
> not know where it comes from. It could be a version of sporadic infection.
> Western blot caught them, but we would not even know it existed if we
> werent running systematic testing in the EU.
>
> BSE was around for a long time before we caught it and by then, it was
> everywhere. It had become highly infectious. It probably amplified due to
> low-temperature rendering. The disease was recycled through the food chain,
> and was given time to amplify. By the time it was identified, even good
> cooking couldnt eliminate it.
>
> I cant stress enough that systematic testing is necessary. Withdrawing all
> positives from the food chain is the best way to break the cycle.
>
> What can happen with testing of only cattle that are clearly at risk is that
> several can remain undetected. Canada has tested about 30,000 head of cattle
> and has three positives. That would indicate that there are probably
> undiscovered cases. And what happens then is that the disease is allowed to
> amplify. You have to maintain testing.
>
> When people choose to protect their economic interests over public health,
> it can have a boomerang effect. It happened all through Europe. They always
> deny; its not OUR problem, it is our neighbors problem. And then a single
> case is discovered and the public reacts. The economic results are
> devastating. It would be better to just assume BSE is present and use
> systematic testing as protection. That way, the public is reassured that it
> is not entering the food supply.
>
> By systematic testing, I mean doing as we do in the EU, which is to test
> every animal over 30 months of age when it is slaughtered. In Europe, three
> times as many cases of BSE have been caught by systematic testing as by
> clinical testing (of clearly sick animals). In 2004, eight clinical cases
> were discovered, 29 were discovered at rendering plants, and 17 at
> slaughter. We should be using these tests as a weapon to protect the public
> and to give them assurance that the food supply is being protected.
>
> 6. USDAs list of specified risk materials excludes some products, like
> blood and bone meal, that are banned in the EU and UK. Is our feed supply
> safe?
>
> With SRMs, where do you stop? Tests have found prions in meat, nerves travel
> through meat, and so on. The main infectivity is in the brain and the spinal
> cord. A blood and bone meal ban in animal feed is not really necessary,
> because except in cases of highly infective animals, it is unlikely that
> they are dangerous in themselves. If you combine systematic testing and
> targeted SRM removal, the brain and the spinal column in cattle over 30
> months, you can have a compromise that is both safer and less costly than
> expanded feed bans.
>
> Certainly, you can stop the spread of BSE with a total ban on offal. But it
> has to be a total ban. It cant be given to sheep or swine or poultry. It
> would be very expensive and virtually impossible to accomplish. You can have
> farmers using the wrong feed or transportation errors.
>
> Systematic testing makes far more sense. I think of it as a thermometer. It
> not only allows us to catch the disease, it also allows us to monitor its
> progress. We can watch the levels of infectivity and if they start going up
> instead of down, we can take measures.
>
> To an extent, our environment is contaminated. About 10 percent of wild
> animals test positive for TSEs. If you recycle these agents, they can evolve
> and get more dangerous. This is probably what happened with BSE. It wasnt
> very dangerous until it evolved to the disease we know today.
>
> People complain that testing is very expensive. It is much more expensive to
> kill and test whole herds.
>
> 7. In your opinion, is infected feed the sole method of transmission of BSE,
> apart from the very rare maternal transmission?
>
> Feed is the main problem. However, we are seeing some other possibilities,
> including through fat and greases. Calves are fed milk extracts, with the
> cream removed. To make it nutritious, they are using fat and grease from
> cattle.
>
> (FOLLOW QUESTION: Would that allow BSE to develop into an infective level in
> cattle younger than 30 months, assuming they might be getting infected at a
> younger age?)
>
> 8. You were involved in a study that tested two primates who were fed
> infected brain tissue. One eventually died of TSE; the other survived. The
> press reported that the main finding was that it would take something on the
> order of 1.5 kilograms of infected matter to create an infection, but that
> seems to be an oversimplification. Could you explain it further?
>
> The findings suggest that as little as five grams is enough to infect. The
> 1.5 kilo figure is the amount of infected tissue that would have to be
> ingested from an animal that would be below the threshold of infection, and
> would test negative. In other words, even though a younger animal may be
> developing the disease, it would take a considerable amount of tissue to
> transmit the disease.
>
> An animal could be just below the testing level, and not be particularly
> dangerous. But that is why you have to keep testing. Once it reaches the
> threshold, it can become highly infective.
>
> 9. BSE is a pretty horrifying disease, but overall, it has killed less than
> 200 humans, and only a handful in recent years. Listeria, by comparison,
> kills thousands every year. Overall, how do you rate the threat from BSE?
>
>
> The overall risk is not particularly high. Over two million infected animals
> went into the food chain in Europe, 400,000 of them before the SRMs, the
> brains and spinal column, were removed from the carcass. Less than 200 died,
> and less than 4,000 are at risk of developing the disease. What we know now
> is that one particle is not going to kill you. There has to be condensation
> of the prions to be truly dangerous.
>
> This is not a sterile world. But the danger is that now that the crisis
> appears to be over, attention will turn elsewhere and that will allow the
> disease to amplify again. Just as we stopped paying attention to AIDS when
> medication seemed to control it, then were surprised when a new and more
> infectious and aggressive strain appeared, we could be surprised by a more
> serious strain of BSE. That is why I support systematic testing for the long
> term. The object is to keep levels of BSE low, and to recognize the danger
> if it suddenly pops back up. ...END
>
> TSS
>
> ######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON TEXAS
> COW WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:14:14 -0500
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <
[email protected]>
> To:
[email protected]DE
> References: <
[email protected]>
>
>
>
> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
>
> IN FACT, i must bring this up again.
> IN TEXAS, when they are really worried about a mad cow,
> when the cow is clinical and stumbling and staggering, TEXAS
> does not bother TESTING the cow at all. nope, they just send
> it directly to be rendered head and all to get rid of all evidence.
> the june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up was just that. the USA
> could test every cow that goes to slaughter, and it would be meaningless
> unless properly done with the most sensitive testing to date.
> but not in TEXAS or any other state in the USA.............
>
>
> FDA Statement
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Statement
> May 4, 2004
>
> Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
> Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
>
>
> Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
>
> On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow
> with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a
> processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
>
> FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began
> an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators
> inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the
> animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the
> slaughterhouse.
>
> FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
> rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the
> weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
> material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
>
> Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
> because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as
> "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way
> now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule
> would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals
> (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
>
> FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing
> the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed
> only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs
> have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the
> material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way
> through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the
> feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
>
> To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein
> out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established
> its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that
> the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
>
> Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
> allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
> specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will
> not be fed to poultry.
>
> FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely
> with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed
> rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only
> one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed
> rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
>
> ####
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
>
>
> Hello again Dr. Thornsberry,
>
> I hope this helped you out.
>
> I wish i could have been a fly on the wall at that BSE ROUNDTABLE event the
> other day.
>
>
> kind regards,
> terry
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "RM Thornsberry" <xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease Friday,June
> 10, 2005
>
>
> > MR. Singeltary,
> >
> > Thank you for sending me your email messages. If the USDA is consistent,
> > they are inconsistent in following their own rules.
> >
> > If I understand the way this testing works; the first test is taken from
> a
> > portion of mascerated brain tissue from the obex portion of the brain
> stem.
> > This ground up tissue sample is several grams, but could include bacteria,
> > fungi, prions from other TSE diseases besides BSE, and the six chain amino
> > acid string could be identified by tagging it with antibodies. If this
> > test is positive (inconclusive), then a histopathological section of the
> > brain tissue is washed in antibodies to see if this six chain amino acid
> > string is in the tissue itself. The antibodies have a dye attached to
> them.
> > If the antibodies attach to this six chain amino acid string, they it
> > confirms that BSE prions are actually in the brain tissue and not just in
> > the macerated brain tissue sample. Is this correct? The second test is
> the
> > IHC test and is considered conclusive and positive.
> >
> >
> > Dr. Thornsberry
> >
=========================================
*****************************************************************
=========================================
----- Original Message -----
From: RM Thornsberry
To:
[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: USDA Round Table in St. Paul
Mr. Singeltary,
I was at the USDA Dog and Pony show. It was pure propaganda. Thank you for your email and the responses from Europe. They have been very helpful
Have you had time to read any of my articles are the Roundtable Proceedings I sent to your a few weeks ago?
Dr. Thornsberry
=======================================================
***************************************************************************************
=======================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "RM Thornsberry" <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Found: BSE Research Expert
> Sir,
>
> Thank you for your response. Thank you for all the excellent information.
> I have attached to a separate email, to keep the downloading quicker, two
> MS-Word files. These are the actual proceedings of the BSE Roundtable
> conducted by R-CALF in December, 2003, and a cowboy edit. You may find them
> interesting. I have also attached two articles I have authored.
>
> Dr. Thornsberry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <
[email protected]>
> To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <>
> Cc: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Found: BSE Research Expert
>
>
> > Greetings Gentleman,
> >
> > please note my new email address...
> >
> > Indeed my mother did die a most hideous death, one like i have never seen
> > before. The Heidenhain Variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease, an extremely
> > rare strain of sporadic CJDs, now documented (under current system) as 6
> > different phenotypes (i am only speaking of sporadic CJD). Simply meaning
> > they do not know the source and route yet. What source and route i do not
> > know, but all human and animal TSEs have a route and source. The theory of
> > all these human and animal TSEs are a spontaneous happening from a
> > misfolding protein is crap. i am no doctor, i have no PhDs, but i can
> assure
> > you of that.
> >
> > sorry, i just tend to get going when i talk about this. another time and
> day
> > for that. i will send you a bit of data i have accumulating and my
> comments
> > over the last few days. the OIE and the weakening of the BSE trading rules
> > etc. if you like, i can forward this. let me know about that.
> >
> > as far as the live BSE test in Japan coming out. i will check my sources
> > there. i know they had a symposium
> > last year and some disturbing factors were coming out ;
> >
> > According to Nov. 2 Yomiuri Newspaper, researchers of the Prion
> > Disease Research Center, the National Institute of Animal Health
> > of Japan reported in the International Symposium of Prion Diseases
> > held in Sendai from October 31 to November 2., 2004, that they
> > detected prion in the adrenal gland and peripheral (sciatic and
> > peroneal) nerves of the 11th BSE case of Japan (a 94-months old
> > cow found dead on the farm on March 4 this year).
> >
> > http://www.maff.go.jp/www/press/cont2/20041101press_7.htm
> > (only in Japanese)
> >
> >
> > > > I would be very interested in visiting with the
> > > > gentleman you referr to.
> > > > R-CALF may be conducting a BSE Roundtable again this
> > > > summer. This gentleman
> > > > may want to be involved. If he allows, send me his
> > > > email address and I will
> > > > send him the Proceedings from the BSE Roundtable
> > > > that I put together in
> > > > December, 2003.
> >
> >
> > WELL Dr. Thornsberry, my name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr. and I am very
> > pleased to meet you. wish it could have been under different
> circumstances.
> > i have a great deal on this plate of BSeee right now, more than either of
> > you can imagine, and more than i ever wanted to deal with. but someone had
> > to. there is much more to these TSEs than a hamburger. but the heart of it
> > is amplification and transmission.
> >
> > i suppose we could talk and i would testify if need be, as per Burkie said
> > in Feb. 27, 2005 email.
> >
> > Another ROUND TABLE event on BSE. There has been many, but no much ever
> > became of them. lot of chit chat, the 'sound science' has been there, but
> > nobody wants to go by that. SAME thing going on right now about BSE in
> sheep
> > and
> > goats. s*** they have known this for decades, but again, floundered. you
> > should see what we have imported here. we will have to deal with that
> sooner
> > or later too. but that is another chapter, along with those atypicals from
> > belgium that was in vermont.
> > 2 years ago they DECLARED AN EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY DUE TO ATYPICAL TSE
> IN
> > SHEEP.
> > they announced immediately they were to due mouse bio-assays that were to
> > start right then. did not happen, has not
> > yet i dont think. USDA et al blamed MAFF and MAFF blamed USDA. i have it
> > all. more BSeee, more humans exposed.
> >
> > Transmission studies do not lie, only industry, lobbiest and Gov. (3 peas
> in
> > a pot) do. IN fact, Johann is having himself a BSE ROUNDTABLE EVENT ;-)
> >
> >
> > Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 22:24:23 -0500
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <
[email protected]>
> > Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <
[email protected]>
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
> > Subject: BSE June 9: USDA roundtable discussion on beef safety open
> to
> > public
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #####################
> >
> >
> > June 9: USDA roundtable discussion on beef safety open to
> public
> >
> > 5/25/2005, 10:42 AM CDT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns recently announced USDA
> will
> > hold a roundtable discussion on June 9 regarding the safety of North
> > American beef and the changing infrastructure of the industry.
> >
> > The event will bring together USDA experts, producers,
> packers,
> > other industry groups and academia to discuss the science of BSE and the
> > economic impacts on the US beef industry.
> >
> > The roundtable discussion, "The Safety of North American Beef
> > and the Economic Effect of BSE on the US Beef Industry," will be open to
> the
> > public and held on Thursday, June 9, from 9:30-2:30 at the Andrew Boss
> > Laboratory, University of Minnesota, St. Paul campus, St. Paul, Minnesota.
> >
> > Johanns noted that data illustrating the success of USDA's
> > enhanced BSE surveillance program will be part of the roundtable
> discussion.
> >
> > "It is time to clearly present the science that underlies the
> > safety of North American beef and examine the changing infrastructure of
> the
> > industry," Johanns said.
> >
> > USDA notes that the enhanced surveillance program targets the
> > population of animals in which BSE is most likely to be detected. That
> > includes non-ambulatory or downer animals, animals exhibiting signs of a
> > central nervous system disorder or any other signs that could be
> consistent
> > with BSE and animals that die from unknown causes.
> >
> > More than 350,000 animals have been tested under the program
> and
> > all have been negative, USDA says.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml;jsessionid=BXPT15IBME4IDQFIBQNSBHQ
> >
> ?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/agNews_050525crBSEMTG.xml&catref=ag1040
> >
> >
> > > The event will bring together USDA experts, producers, packers, other
> > industry groups and academia to discuss the science of BSE and the
> economic
> > impacts on the US beef industry. <
> >
> >
> > WELL, we know how that works ;
> >
> > STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed
> > compounders.
> >
> > To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse
> > publicity.
> >
> > To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
> > maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
> > material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
> > changes which may be required.
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > THE FUTURE
> >
> > 4..........
> >
> > MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
> > handling potentially explosive issues.
> >
> > 5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
> > contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
> > test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
> > supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.
> >
> > 6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
> > compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
> > linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
> > the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...
> >
> > SEE full text ;
> >
> > http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf
> >
> >
> > >"It is time to clearly present the science that underlies the safety of
> > North American beef and examine the changing infrastructure of the
> > industry," Johanns said. <
> >
> > >USDA notes that the enhanced surveillance program targets the population
> of
> > animals in which BSE is most likely to be detected. That includes
> > non-ambulatory or downer animals, animals exhibiting signs of a central
> > nervous system disorder or any other signs that could be consistent with
> BSE
> > and animals that die from unknown causes. <
> >
> >
> > not true;
> >
> >
> >
> > PLEASE note, the june 2004 BSE enhanced surveillance
> > was meaningless and ''NOT SCIENTIFIC'' without WB.
> >
> > just ask the experts ;
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON TEXAS COW
> > WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:53:47 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <
[email protected]>
> > To:
[email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
> >
> > Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys
> >
> > 1. What is the standard regime for testing of suspect animals in the EU?
> >
> > The regime is an initial screening by a high-output test, the Bio-Rad
> test.
> > If a result raises suspicion, a confirmatory test is conducted with the
> > Western blot test.
> >
> > 2. How long has this been the case?
> >
> > Its a fairly recent development. Only recently has the Western blot test
> > become sensitive enough, with the addition of phospohtungstic acid
> > precipitation step. The Bio-Rad test (which Deslys helped develop) is
> > extremely sensitive, and the standard Western blot is extremely reliable
> > with high-signal test results. However, it had to be made more sensitive
> for
> > low-signal (samples with low density of malformed prions) samples. It has
> > been made more sensitive.
> >
> > Reproducibility is the problem with the IHC test. It is not standardized;
> > depending on the lab and its protocols, or even on the technician involved
> > in the test, one can get conflicting results.
> >
> > 3. Is there a way to measure the three tests in sensitivity, accuracy and
> > objectivity?
> >
> > Historically, yes. The IHC was the gold standard at one point, but we have
> > shifted to the Western blot. It requires less work, it is more sensitive
> and
> > its results are reproducible. IHC relies on localization. If you have a
> weak
> > signal case, you may get lucky and test a spot with a high concentration
> of
> > prions. But the opposite it true too; you can miss an infection by testing
> a
> > sample with low concentrations. Western blot is much better for low signal
> > situations.
> >
> > 4. The USDA in 2003 used the Western blot to confirm the BSE case in
> > Washington state, and it sent samples to the U.K. for independent testing.
> > In the case this November, which it announced was negative, it instead
> used
> > the IHC test and did not send samples to the U.K. Is this good science?
> >
> > Its not logical. If you have two consecutive questionable screenings, you
> > do another test. I can only advise, its managements duty at USDA to make
> > the decisions. But when you have a discrepancy between the rapid test and
> > the IHC, it is only logical to confirm it with another test.
> >
> > 5. We are hearing now about a new strain of BSE, atypical BSE or aBSE. Or
> > BaSE. We have heard that IHC, the so-called gold standard, cannot detect
> the
> > variant. Is this true?
> >
> > Yes. There have been a few cases, one in Italy, one in Belgium, one here
> in
> > France. It seems to only affect very old animals. The distribution in the
> > brain is very different than we see with BSE, it looks very different. The
> > IHC test will come back negative.
> >
> > This his a very recent phenomenon. I have no opinion on its virulence. We
> do
> > not know where it comes from. It could be a version of sporadic infection.
> > Western blot caught them, but we would not even know it existed if we
> > werent running systematic testing in the EU.
> >
> > BSE was around for a long time before we caught it and by then, it was
> > everywhere. It had become highly infectious. It probably amplified due to
> > low-temperature rendering. The disease was recycled through the food
> chain,
> > and was given time to amplify. By the time it was identified, even good
> > cooking couldnt eliminate it.
> >
> > I cant stress enough that systematic testing is necessary. Withdrawing
> all
> > positives from the food chain is the best way to break the cycle.
> >
> > What can happen with testing of only cattle that are clearly at risk is
> that
> > several can remain undetected. Canada has tested about 30,000 head of
> cattle
> > and has three positives. That would indicate that there are probably
> > undiscovered cases. And what happens then is that the disease is allowed
> to
> > amplify. You have to maintain testing.
> >
> > When people choose to protect their economic interests over public health,
> > it can have a boomerang effect. It happened all through Europe. They
> always
> > deny; its not OUR problem, it is our neighbors problem. And then a
> single
> > case is discovered and the public reacts. The economic results are
> > devastating. It would be better to just assume BSE is present and use
> > systematic testing as protection. That way, the public is reassured that
> it
> > is not entering the food supply.
> >
> > By systematic testing, I mean doing as we do in the EU, which is to test
> > every animal over 30 months of age when it is slaughtered. In Europe,
> three
> > times as many cases of BSE have been caught by systematic testing as by
> > clinical testing (of clearly sick animals). In 2004, eight clinical cases
> > were discovered, 29 were discovered at rendering plants, and 17 at
> > slaughter. We should be using these tests as a weapon to protect the
> public
> > and to give them assurance that the food supply is being protected.
> >
> > 6. USDAs list of specified risk materials excludes some products, like
> > blood and bone meal, that are banned in the EU and UK. Is our feed supply
> > safe?
> >
> > With SRMs, where do you stop? Tests have found prions in meat, nerves
> travel
> > through meat, and so on. The main infectivity is in the brain and the
> spinal
> > cord. A blood and bone meal ban in animal feed is not really necessary,
> > because except in cases of highly infective animals, it is unlikely that
> > they are dangerous in themselves. If you combine systematic testing and
> > targeted SRM removal, the brain and the spinal column in cattle over 30
> > months, you can have a compromise that is both safer and less costly than
> > expanded feed bans.
> >
> > Certainly, you can stop the spread of BSE with a total ban on offal. But
> it
> > has to be a total ban. It cant be given to sheep or swine or poultry. It
> > would be very expensive and virtually impossible to accomplish. You can
> have
> > farmers using the wrong feed or transportation errors.
> >
> > Systematic testing makes far more sense. I think of it as a thermometer.
> It
> > not only allows us to catch the disease, it also allows us to monitor its
> > progress. We can watch the levels of infectivity and if they start going
> up
> > instead of down, we can take measures.
> >
> > To an extent, our environment is contaminated. About 10 percent of wild
> > animals test positive for TSEs. If you recycle these agents, they can
> evolve
> > and get more dangerous. This is probably what happened with BSE. It wasnt
> > very dangerous until it evolved to the disease we know today.
> >
> > People complain that testing is very expensive. It is much more expensive
> to
> > kill and test whole herds.
> >
> > 7. In your opinion, is infected feed the sole method of transmission of
> BSE,
> > apart from the very rare maternal transmission?
> >
> > Feed is the main problem. However, we are seeing some other possibilities,
> > including through fat and greases. Calves are fed milk extracts, with the
> > cream removed. To make it nutritious, they are using fat and grease from
> > cattle.
> >
> > (FOLLOW QUESTION: Would that allow BSE to develop into an infective level
> in
> > cattle younger than 30 months, assuming they might be getting infected at
> a
> > younger age?)
>