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

BSE CONFIRMED IN AN ALBERTAN BULL

Herefore, "So what would be a possible outcome that the R-Calf guys on here and the Canadians on here could live with?"

There are companies that say they have a live test for BSE. Wouldn't that be a handy tool? The USDA doesn't want to even talk to them. I say get serious about it, enact COOL, fix the checkoff and let the chips fall.
 
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Kato said:
Tim, how can you stop people when they are bound and determined to destroy consumer confidence in the product that their livelihood depends on? Maybe they have chicken barns out behind the windbreak??? :wink: :wink:

I believe what MR said was

It is said to be a 2000 year model.

AKA .. rumour. :shock: Just what you guys thrive on. :roll: :roll: :roll: As long as it's in your favour. :shock: Otherwise if the USDA said the sky was blue you wouldn't believe it.

I would be curious to find out just what percentage of Oldtimer's(a retired civil servant), and Sandhusker's(a banker) annual income actually depends on selling any cattle they might own ......two of the most vocal R-calf supporters on this site............vocal at least until they are asked a simple question. Then they get pretty quiet. :D :D

You guys are impossible to please. That 2000 model came from a Canadian.

Not that it's any of your business, Tim, but most of my income does not come directly from cattle. It comes from my job. However, if those that depend directly on selling cattle go down, so does my job and my community. Since cattle are the largest industry in my state, I lose there too. My livelyhood depends on cattle just as much as the guy who's only job if running cows.

Thanks for answering that "mystery" ,Sandhusker. I somehow doubt though, that your "salary" has been cut by 20-30% recently. Anyone that sells feeder cattle has seen their income drop somewhere in that range,over the last few months.
Now how about clarifying your position and/or R-calf's position on this question........
Either the firewalls that the USA currently has in place are adequate to protect consumers from domestic cases of BSE(now that it has been detected in the USA) or they aren't.
Which is it???
 
TimH said:
Now how about clarifying your position and/or R-calf's position on this question........
Either the firewalls that the USA currently has in place are adequate to protect consumers from domestic cases of BSE(now that it has been detected in the USA) or they aren't.
Which is it???

One of the firewalls originally in place was a border closed to countries with BSE. That keeps additional cases out. As well as typical cases since the only native US cattle found with BSE had the atypical variety, a kind that some people think is spontaneous.
 
Bward said:
Every time we find a case, it raises the suspicions of the entire world of why the US isn't.


NO mystery here as to why the usda et al do not find TSE in USA bovine.
it's real simple. after finding the BSE and BASE in the USA, that was simply too much, and they shut the so-called enhanced program down.
but even more worrying, i was told by someone that works for them they were not to find and or document anymore cases of any TSE in the USA cattle. and to think that the so called spontaneous TSE, as far fetched as this theory is, even the USDA has said that IF this happens, there would be about 3 to 6 cases per every 100 million head of cattle. SO, where are they all at here in the USA ??? ill tell you where ;


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


TEXAS BOVINE DISEASE CARCASS DISPOSAL METHOD


"Anthrax is under-reported, because many ranchers in this area automatically dispose
of carcasses and vaccinate livestock when they find dead animals that are bloated or
bloody--common signs of the disease," said Dr. Fancher.


http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2005/2005Jul_Anthrax_Confirmed_in_SuttonCty.pdf



OIG REPORT ON USDA AND HOW NOT TO FIND BSE
Submitted by flounder on Tue, 06/06/2006 - 13:05.

USDA 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND HOW NOT TO FIND BSE CASES (OFFICIAL DRAFT OIG REPORT)

snip...

CATTLE With CNS Symptoms Were NOT Always Tested

snip...

Between FYs 2002 and 2004, FSIS condemned 680 cattle of all ages due to CNS symptoms. About 357 of these could be classified as adult. We could validate that ONLY 162 were tested for BSE (per APHIS records. ...

snip...

WE interviewed officials at five laboratories that test for rabies. Those officials CONFIRMED THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT RABIES-NEGATIVE SAMPLES TO APHIS FOR BSE TESTING. A South Dakota laboratory official said they were not aware they could submit rabies-negative samples to APHIS for BSE testing. A laboratory official in another State said all rabies-negative cases were not submitted to APHIS because BSE was ''NOT ON THEIR RADAR SCREEN." Officials from New York, Wisconsin, TEXAS, and Iowa advised they would NOT submit samples from animals they consider too young. Four of the five States contacted defined this age as 24 months; Wisconsin defined it as 30 months. TEXAS officials also advised that they do not always have sufficient tissue remaining to submit a BSE sample. ...

snip...

FULL TEXT 54 PAGES OF HOW NOT TO FIND BSE IN USA ;


http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_july_13_ig_rep.pdf


REMINDER, CATTLE ON FEED IN TEXAS


IN TEXAS, cattle on feed for decades, fda says 5.5 grams ruminant protein, if tainted with TSE, is not enough to kill a cow. actually, it's enough to kill 100+ cows ;-)

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html


real simple, usda et al are covering cases of mad cow disease i.e. TSEs up in the USA bovine, and it's been going on for some time ;


Gerald Wells: Report of the Visit to USA, April-May 1989

snip...

The general opinion of those present was that BSE, as an
overt disease phenomenon, _could exist in the USA, but if it did,
it was very rare. The need for improved and specific surveillance
methods to detect it as recognised...

snip...

It is clear that USDA have little information and _no_ regulatory
responsibility for rendering plants in the US...

snip...

3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach
was to accord it a _very low profile indeed_. Dr. A Thiermann showed
the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought
this was a fanatical incident to be _avoided_ in the US _at all costs_...

snip...

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf

To be published in the Proceedings of the
Fourth International Scientific Congress in
Fur Animal Production. Toronto, Canada,
August 21-28, 1988

Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy
Results from Feeding Infected Cattle

R.F. Marsh* and G.R. Hartsough

•Department of Veterinary Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
Wisconsin 53706; and ^Emba/Creat Lakes Ranch Service, Thiensville, Wisconsin 53092

ABSTRACT
Epidemiologic investigation of a new incidence of
transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) in Stetsonville, Wisconsin
suggests that the disease may have resulted from feeding infected
cattle to mink. This observation is supported by the transmission of
a TME-like disease to experimentally inoculated cattle, and by the
recent report of a new bovine spongiform encephalopathy in
England.

INTRODUCTION

Transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) was first reported in 1965 by Hartsough
and Burger who demonstrated that the disease was transmissible with a long incubation
period, and that affected mink had a spongiform encephalopathy similar to that found in
scrapie-affecied sheep (Hartsough and Burger, 1965; Burger and Hartsough, 1965).
Because of the similarity between TME and scrapie, and the subsequent finding that the
two transmissible agents were indistinguishable (Marsh and Hanson, 1969), it was
concluded that TME most likely resulted from feeding mink scrapie-infecied sheep.
The experimental transmission of sheep scrapie to mink (Hanson et al., 1971)
confirmed the close association of TME and scrapie, but at the same time provided
evidence that they may be different. Epidemiologic studies on previous incidences of
TME indicated that the incubation periods in field cases were between six months and
one year in length (Harxsough and Burger, 1965). Experimentally, scrapie could not be
transmitted to mink in less than one year.
To investigate the possibility that TME may be caused by a (particular strain of
scrapie which might be highly pathogenic for mink, 21 different strains of the scrapie
agent, including their sheep or goat sources, were inoculated into a total of 61 mink.
Only one mink developed a progressive neurologic disease after an incubation period of
22 mon..s (Marsh and Hanson, 1979). These results indicated that TME was either caused
by a strain of sheep scrapie not yet tested, or was due to exposure to a scrapie-like agent
from an unidentified source.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

A New Incidence of TME. In April of 1985, a mink rancher in Stetsonville, Wisconsin
reported that many of his mink were "acting funny", and some had died. At this time, we
visited the farm and found that approximately 10% of all adult mink were showing
typical signs of TME: insidious onset characterized by subtle behavioral changes, loss of
normal habits of cleanliness, deposition of droppings throughout the pen rather than in a
single area, hyperexcitability, difficulty in chewing and swallowing, and tails arched over
their _backs like squirrels. These signs were followed by progressive deterioration of
neurologic function beginning with locomoior incoordination, long periods of somnolence
in which the affected mink would stand motionless with its head in the corner of the
cage, complete debilitation, and death. Over the next 8-10 weeks, approximately 40% of
all the adult mink on the farm died from TME.
Since previous incidences of TME were associated with common or shared feeding
practices, we obtained a careful history of feed ingredients used over the past 12-18
months. The rancher was a "dead stock" feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy
cattle and a few horses. Sheep had never been fed.

Experimental Transmission. The clinical diagnosis of TME was confirmed by
histopaihologic examination and by experimental transmission to mink after incubation
periods of four months. To investigate the possible involvement of cattle in this disease
cycle, two six-week old castrated Holstein bull calves were inoculated intracerebrally
with a brain suspension from affected mink. Each developed a fatal spongiform
encephalopathy after incubation periods of 18 and 19 months.

DISCUSSION
These findings suggest that TME may result from feeding mink infected cattle and
we have alerted bovine practitioners that there may exist an as yet unrecognized
scrapie-like disease of cattle in the United States (Marsh and Hartsough, 1986). A new
bovine spongiform encephalopathy has recently been reported in England (Wells et al.,
1987), and investigators are presently studying its transmissibility and possible
relationship to scrapie. Because this new bovine disease in England is characterized by
behavioral changes, hyperexcitability, and agressiveness, it is very likely it would be
confused with rabies in the United Stales and not be diagnosed. Presently, brains from
cattle in the United States which are suspected of rabies infection are only tested with
anti-rabies virus antibody and are not examined histopathologically for lesions of
spongiform encephalopathy.
We are presently pursuing additional studies to further examine the possible
involvement of cattle in the epidemiology of TME. One of these is the backpassage of
our experimental bovine encephalopathy to mink. Because (here are as yet no agent-
specific proteins or nucleic acids identified for these transmissible neuropathogens, one
means of distinguishing them is by animal passage and selection of the biotype which
grows best in a particular host. This procedure has been used to separate hamster-
adapted and mink-udapted TME agents (Marsh and Hanson, 1979). The intracerebral
backpassage of the experimental bovine agent resulted in incubations of only four months
indicating no de-adaptation of the Stetsonville agent for mink after bovine passage.
Mink fed infected bovine brain remain normal after six months. It will be essential to
demonstrate oral transmission fiom bovine to mink it this proposed epidemiologic
association is to be confirmed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
These studies were supported by the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-Madison and by a grant (85-CRCR-1-1812) from the United
States Department of Agriculture. The authors also wish to acknowledge the help and
encouragement of Robert Hanson who died during the course of these investigations.

REFERENCES
Burger, D. and Hartsough, G.R. 1965. Encephalopathy of mink. II. Experimental and
natural transmission. J. Infec. Dis. 115:393-399.
Hanson, R.P., Eckroade, R.3., Marsh, R.F., ZuRhein, C.M., Kanitz, C.L. and Gustatson,
D.P. 1971. Susceptibility of mink to sheep scrapie. Science 172:859-861.
Hansough, G.R. and Burger, D. 1965. Encephalopathy of mink. I. Epizoociologic and
clinical observations. 3. Infec. Dis. 115:387-392.
Marsh, R.F. and Hanson, R.P. 1969. Physical and chemical properties of the
transmissible mink encephalopathy agent. 3. ViroL 3:176-180.
Marsh, R.F. and Hanson, R.P. 1979. On the origin of transmissible mink
encephalopathy. In Hadlow, W.J. and Prusiner, S.P. (eds.) Slow transmissible
diseases of the nervous system. Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, pp 451-460.
Marsh, R.F. and Hartsough, G.R. 1986. Is there a scrapie-like disease in cattle?
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Western Conference for Food Animal Veterinary
Medicine. University of Arizona, pp 20.
Wells, G.A.H., Scott, A.C., Johnson, C.T., Cunning, R.F., Hancock, R.D., Jeffrey, M.,
Dawson, M. and Bradley, R. 1987. A novel progressive spongiform encephalopathy
in cattle. Vet. Rec. 121:419-420.

MARSH

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf



18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7
December 2006 are now available.


snip...



64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was
presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more
virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE.

Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform
encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the
prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A
MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.


snip...



http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf




3:00 Afternoon Refreshment Break, Poster and Exhibit Viewing in the Exhibit
Hall


3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse

Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve
University

Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain
discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases
were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of
these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with
Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have
inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain
homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half
of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time
of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to
be infected after more than 2 years. ***These results indicate that BASE is
transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than
classical BSE in humans.

6:30 Close of Day One


http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp




SEE STEADY INCREASE IN SPORADIC CJD IN THE USA FROM
1997 TO 2006. SPORADIC CJD CASES TRIPLED, with phenotype
of 'UNKNOWN' strain growing. ...


http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html



There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last
week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance
collection.

He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively
SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf



TSS
 
Sandhusker -
There are companies that say they have a live test for BSE. Wouldn't that be a handy tool? The USDA doesn't want to even talk to them. I say get serious about it, enact COOL, fix the checkoff and let the chips fall.

I am with you one most of this Sandhusker. Don't even mind the cool thing. But when we are allowed to test in this country, cool will be ineffective because we will jump in and satisfy even more American consumers with BSE tested product. Your battle will continue with your multinational packers and our problemns will be solved.

One question Sandhusker. When this happens, will Rcalf stop cherry picking BSE sceince and scaring the American consumer? :lol:
 
rkaiser said:
Sandhusker -
There are companies that say they have a live test for BSE. Wouldn't that be a handy tool? The USDA doesn't want to even talk to them. I say get serious about it, enact COOL, fix the checkoff and let the chips fall.

I am with you one most of this Sandhusker. Don't even mind the cool thing. But when we are allowed to test in this country, cool will be ineffective because we will jump in and satisfy even more American consumers with BSE tested product. Your battle will continue with your multinational packers and our problemns will be solved.

One question Sandhusker. When this happens, will Rcalf stop cherry picking BSE sceince and scaring the American consumer? :lol:

We're not cherry picking science, Randy. The USDA supposedly did their homework in 1997 and said "this is what science says and what we should do based on that science". We haven't seen anything to suggest that science has changed.
 
JOHANNS AND HIS CLOWNS ARE SENDING BSE ''EXPERT'' TO CANADA

probably to better educate them on ''cover-ups'' of TSE. ...TSS



http://www.usda.gov/2007/02/0031.xml


Release No. 0031.07
Contact:
Keith Williams (202) 720-4623


STATEMENT BY AGRICULTURE SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS REGARDING A NEW DETECTION OF BSE IN CANADA

February 8, 2007

"Last night, Canada announced a detection of BSE in a mature bull from Alberta, Canada. I have visited with Canada's Minister of Agriculture, Chuck Strahl, who welcomes our participation in the investigation. I am dispatching a USDA expert to Canada for that purpose.

Based on what is known at this time, I would not expect this Canadian detection to impact our trade with Canada. Regarding the proposed minimal risk rule that specifies additional movement of cattle and beef into the United States, we remain in an open comment period until March 12, 2007. While the risk assessment for the proposed rule factors in the possibility of additional cases, the open comment period allows for consideration of additional information that might result from this investigation."



#
USDA News
[email protected].
202 720-4623



TSS
 
Sandhusker said:
rkaiser said:
Sandhusker -
There are companies that say they have a live test for BSE. Wouldn't that be a handy tool? The USDA doesn't want to even talk to them. I say get serious about it, enact COOL, fix the checkoff and let the chips fall.

I am with you one most of this Sandhusker. Don't even mind the cool thing. But when we are allowed to test in this country, cool will be ineffective because we will jump in and satisfy even more American consumers with BSE tested product. Your battle will continue with your multinational packers and our problemns will be solved.

One question Sandhusker. When this happens, will Rcalf stop cherry picking BSE sceince and scaring the American consumer? :lol:

We're not cherry picking science, Randy. The USDA supposedly did their homework in 1997 and said "this is what science says and what we should do based on that science". We haven't seen anything to suggest that science has changed.

How can you say you are not cherry picking Science You tell everyone that will listen our Beef is unsafe due to our firewalls. Then you turn around and claim you have the safest beef in the world due to yours. We all know your firewalls aren't as stringent, your testing isn't as stringent and you compliance has been proven by your own government to be LACKING. So on what science are you basing the idea you are raising the safest beef in the World? Tell us Sandhucker WHAT science says your beef is safer?
 
What good does it do to have the strongest firewalls in the world on paper if they're not being followed? Your firewalls are great on paper, but in real life you've got post-ban positives. Now, what does that say about those firewalls? You don't have to use science, you can use your eyes!
 
Hereford76 said:
Man... how long has this arguement been going on between you guys?

What arguement?? It's real tough to argue with someone when they refuse to state their position.......even after repeated requests.
For some reason, they choose not to state whether or not they believe that the firewalls currently in place in the USA are adequate to protect consumers from domestic BSE.
One can only wonder WHY they would refuse to answer such a simple and straightforward question. :?
 
TimH said:
Hereford76 said:
Man... how long has this arguement been going on between you guys?

What arguement?? It's real tough to argue with someone when they refuse to state their position.......even after repeated requests.
For some reason, they choose not to state whether or not they believe that the firewalls currently in place in the USA are adequate to protect consumers from domestic BSE.
One can only wonder WHY they would refuse to answer such a simple and straightforward question. :?

When did you ever ask?
 
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Hereford76 said:
Man... how long has this arguement been going on between you guys?

What arguement?? It's real tough to argue with someone when they refuse to state their position.......even after repeated requests.
For some reason, they choose not to state whether or not they believe that the firewalls currently in place in the USA are adequate to protect consumers from domestic BSE.
One can only wonder WHY they would refuse to answer such a simple and straightforward question. :?

When did you ever ask?

I hope you are joking. If not you can read back through this thread. The question is there. More than once. :)
 
Well, Tim, we've both been saying that we need to close the loopholes in our feed ban and that we need to test more and open testing up. Now doesn't that tell you something? You need to ask?
 
sandhusker explain to me how american beef is gaining credibility with your offshore customers when you can't find bse and canada can. the whole world knows the history of trade in cattle and feeds between the two countries. it's seems that it's reached the point where the more cases canada finds the more problem the usa will have opening more markets. you can crow over these positives and point fingers but i have to think every positive we find makes usda, ncba and r-calf look more suspect in their claims regarding american beef safety.
 
Sandhusker said:
Well, Tim, we've both been saying that we need to close the loopholes in our feed ban and that we need to test more and open testing up. Now doesn't that tell you something? You need to ask?

Yes, apparently I do need to ask. Since you declined to give a simple yes or no answer, your above post seems to imply that you are saying "No,the current firewalls are not adequate to protect consumers from domestic bse". Am I reading that correctly???
 
TimH said:
Sandhusker said:
Well, Tim, we've both been saying that we need to close the loopholes in our feed ban and that we need to test more and open testing up. Now doesn't that tell you something? You need to ask?

Yes, apparently I do need to ask. Since you declined to give a simple yes or no answer, your above post seems to imply that you are saying "No,the current firewalls are not adequate to protect consumers from domestic bse". Am I reading that correctly???



WHAT ABOUT BASE ???


18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7
December 2006 are now available.


snip...



64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was
presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more
virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE.

Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform
encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the
prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A
MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.


snip...



http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf




3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse

Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve
University

Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain
discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases
were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of
these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with
Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have
inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain
homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half
of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time
of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to
be infected after more than 2 years.

***These results indicate that BASE is transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than
classical BSE in humans.***


6:30 Close of Day One


http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp




SEE STEADY INCREASE IN SPORADIC CJD IN THE USA FROM
1997 TO 2006. SPORADIC CJD CASES TRIPLED, with phenotype
of 'UNKNOWN' strain growing. ...


http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html



There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last
week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance
collection.

He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively
SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf




TSS
 
Subject: MAD COW RECALLS Bulk Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, 1,366,128 lbs., DISTRIBUTION WI, TX, NE, TN, CO, and MN
Date: February 8, 2007 at 11:34 am PST

MAD COW RECALLS Bulk Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, 1,366,128 lbs., DISTRIBUTION WI, TX, NE, TN, CO, and MN


RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, distributed in totes and in 1-ton bags (for one customer only), Recall # V-012-2007
CODE
Blood meal distributed between 9/7/2006-2/3/2007.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Darling National LLC, Omaha, NB, by telephone on January 12, 2007. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Some of the exempt bovine blood meal was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and the labeling did not bear the cautionary BSE statement that it should not be fed to ruminants.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,366,128 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI, TX, NE, TN, CO, and MN

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 7, 2007

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00990.html




TSS
 
TimH said:
Sandhusker said:
Well, Tim, we've both been saying that we need to close the loopholes in our feed ban and that we need to test more and open testing up. Now doesn't that tell you something? You need to ask?

Yes, apparently I do need to ask. Since you declined to give a simple yes or no answer, your above post seems to imply that you are saying "No,the current firewalls are not adequate to protect consumers from domestic bse". Am I reading that correctly???

Yes, you are correct. You win a prize from the bottom shelf. Do you know how a pencil works?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top