CVM Update
<December 5, 2005
November 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
To help prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed in the United States, FDA implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant Feed Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
This is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant feed regulation. FDA's CVM has assembled data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose final inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of November 26, 2005. As of November 26, 2005, FDA had received over 41,000 inspection reports. The majority of these inspections (around 68%) were conducted by State officials under contract to FDA, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions involving non-ruminant feeds.
An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in total". NOTE - A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually exclusive.
RENDERERS
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 274
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 185 (68% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 185 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
1 firm (0.5%) was classified as OAI
11 firms (5.9%) were classified as VAI
LICENSED FEED MILLS
FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time. This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 1,079
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 426 (39% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 426 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firm (0%) was classified as OAI
8 firms (1.9%) were classified as VAI
FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 5,165
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 2,036 (39% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 2,036 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.1%) were classified as OAI
24 firms (1.2%) were classified as VAI
PROTEIN BLENDERS
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA -- 340
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 147 (43% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 147 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
7 firms (4.8%) were classified as VAI
RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS
This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 6,576
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials - 539 (8.2% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 539 of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.6%) were classified as OAI
23 firms (4.3%) were classified as VAI
OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal feed transporters.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 13,477
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 3,748 (28% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 3,748 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
8 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI
95 firms (2.5%) were classified as VAI
TOTAL FIRMS
Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category; therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 16,476
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 4,553 (27% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 4,553 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
9 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI
107 firms (2.4%) were classified as VAI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued by:
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Communications Staff, HFV-12
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm
==============================
From: TSS ()
Subject: Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA Implemented in 2003 GAO-06-157R, October 11
Date: November 9, 2005 at 12:22 pm PST
GAO
GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
October 11, 2005
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
Chairman
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate
The Honorable Thad Cochran
United States Senate
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
United States Senate
Subject: Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA
Implemented in 2003 With Recommendations for Making the Program a Better
Oversight Tool
In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of most proteins
derived from mammals (referred to as prohibited material) in feed intended for cattle
and other ruminants.1 The feed-ban rule is one of the primary actions taken by the
federal government to protect U.S. cattle from bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE),2 commonly known as mad cow disease, which is believed to be spread through
feed that contains malformed protein found in certain tissue-particularly brain and
central nervous system tissue-of BSE-infected animals.3 Earlier this year, mad cow
disease was found for the first time in a 12-year old animal born and raised in the United
States.
In January 2002, we reported on the effectiveness of federal actions to prevent the
introduction and spread of BSE in the United States and identified a number of areas
where improvements were needed to strengthen FDA's oversight of firms in the feed
1Ruminants are animals with four-chambered stomachs, including, but not limited to, cattle, buffalo, sheep,
goats, deer, elk, and antelope. For the purpose of this report, "cattle" refers to cattle and all other
ruminant animals and "cattle feed" refers to feed for cattle and other ruminant animals.
2
21 C.F.R. §589.2000.
3
Adding protein (derived from animals or plants) to feed is a common nutritional practice used to speed
animal growth.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
2 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
industry.4 In February 2005, we issued a follow-up report that examined the
effectiveness of FDA's actions since the 2002 report to ensure industry compliance with
the feed-ban rule and protect U.S. cattle from BSE.5 Our report concluded that while
FDA has taken a number of positive steps, its processes still have room for improvement.
Our February 2005 report also noted that FDA had begun a small, discrete feed testing
program in August 2003. We reported that we would provide information on this new
feed testing program, which FDA described as a unique effort, once FDA provided us
with data on the feed tests. FDA later gave us the information we required to examine
those feed testing activities. Accordingly, this report assesses FDA's small feed testing
program and examines the extent to which this feed testing program helps FDA better
assure industry compliance with the feed-ban rule. This report is the final component of
our follow-up work on FDA's BSE prevention efforts.
FDA established the feed testing program in an assignment memorandum issued in
August 2003, entitled Assignment Memorandum-Sample Assignment for Domestic
Products, which contained instructions for implementing the program. The purpose of
the feed testing program was to collect and analyze cattle and other types of animal feed
and feed ingredients to determine whether feed that could be fed to cattle might contain
material prohibited by FDA's feed-ban rule. Under the program, FDA collected 641 feed
samples through the end of fiscal year 2004 and planned to collect 900 feed samples
during fiscal year 2005.
The 2003 guidance gave FDA's district offices responsibility for collecting samples and
submitting them to an FDA laboratory where analysts test the samples using a procedure
called feed microscopy-a visual (microscopic) examination for potentially prohibited
material, such as particles of bone, hair, or muscle fiber from certain animals. If an
analyst detects what appears to be prohibited material, the findings are confirmed by a
second analyst. According to FDA officials, some samples were tested using a more
specialized method called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a test that FDA has been
piloting, which can differentiate ruminant DNA from other animal DNA.6
The guidance noted that because FDA had designated a number of cattle-derived
exemptions to the feed-ban rule, including blood, milk protein, and plate waste, the
laboratory tests could not definitively determine violations but, rather, could identify
potential violations. The guidance directs the districts to conduct follow-up reviews on
each potential violation to determine whether the facility represented by the sample
actually violates the feed ban. On the basis of the follow-up reviews, the districts assign
final compliance determinations-that the facility where the sample was collected has
complied with or has violated the feed-ban rule.
In June 2005, FDA issued a directive that all feed sample analysis and follow-up actions
4GAO, Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Areas Would
Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts, GAO-02-183 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2002).
5
GAO, Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses
Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness, GAO-05-101, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2005).
6The PCR test works by aiding in the differentiation of mitochondrial DNA between animal species.
3 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
be recorded in FDA's central data system-the Field Accomplishments and Compliance
Tracking System (FACTS)-and that districts complete follow-up reviews of potential
violations within 30 working days. In July 2005, FDA issued a revised assignment
memorandum that, among other things, enhances the testing protocol by adopting the
PCR test for sample retesting and directs districts to provide sufficient narrative
explanation in FACTS to explain their final determination on samples that laboratories
identify as potential violations.
For the purpose of this report, we use the term "feed testing program" to distinguish the
samples FDA collected for the feed-testing assignments from samples FDA and states
collected in conjunction with routine BSE inspections. We included only the samples
that FDA collected for the assignments. To examine the extent to which FDA's feed
testing program provides better assurance of industry compliance with the feed-ban rule,
we reviewed FDA's data on 1,206 samples collected through June 2005. We identified
989 feed samples collected by FDA's district offices and analyzed by FDA laboratories
between August 2003 and June 2005, under the feed testing assignment/program
implemented under the August 2003 guidance document. We compared sample
collection, analysis, and follow-up with the program instructions in the August 2003
assignment memorandum. In order to assess FDA's timeliness in analyzing feed samples
and to determine results of these analyses, we analyzed data on feed sample collection
and laboratory analysis maintained in FACTS on the 989 feed samples. In order to assess
the types of follow-up activities carried out by the districts and the basis for their final
determinations on potential violations, we obtained and analyzed additional electronic
files from FDA districts and discussed those activities and determinations with officials
in the 19 FDA district offices. We also obtained detailed district-specific data and
information on sample collection, follow-up, and enforcement activities in interviews
with the officials in the 19 FDA district offices and discussed this information with FDA
headquarters officials. To assess the reliability of the FACTS data, we analyzed the feed
sample records in this database as of June 7, 2005. We analyzed the data to identify
problems with completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of data entry, and reviewed system
documentation on controls. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report. The testing program data assessed for this report, including
documentation in FACTS, spreadsheets maintained by individual district offices,
documents describing district follow-up actions for individual samples, and all written
guidance documents, were provided in response to our specific requests for all such
documentation and data related to the feed testing program. Finally, we examined the
feed testing program guidance that FDA provided in the June 2005 field management
directive and the July 2005 assignment memorandum and compared it with the
instructions and guidance FDA provided in the August 2003 memorandum. We
performed our work from February through August 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Our work included an assessment of FDA's
feed testing program data reliability and internal controls.
Results in Brief
The feed testing program is a small part of FDA's BSE oversight effort and is one of
several methods FDA uses to monitor for compliance with the feed-ban rule. However,
4 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
several weaknesses in the design and implementation of the feed testing program need to
be addressed to improve its effectiveness. Specifically, under the program guidance,
. FDA did not require districts to document their follow-up reviews or the basis for
their final determinations on samples that the laboratories identified as
potentially containing banned protein products. Although the districts may have
conducted rigorous follow-up and exercised sound judgment, the basis for their
decisions cannot be reviewed and confirmed.
. For nearly half the 989 samples, FDA took longer than 30 days from the date the
sample was collected until the date the laboratory completed its analysis-
including 21 samples that took longer than 100 days. This extended period does
not include the time FDA's districts would have spent following up on samples
that indicated potential violations. FDA and industry agree that cattle feed is
consumed very quickly. By the time FDA conducted its follow up to determine
whether a violation had occurred, the feed may have been consumed.
. FDA managers in headquarters did not adequately oversee the feed testing
program. Specifically, FDA managers did not receive periodic reports or have
other oversight controls in place to assure that the program was implemented
correctly. Moreover, FDA did not identify intended program goals and, as a
result, does not know whether or to what extent the feed testing program is
contributing to the agency's BSE oversight efforts.
FDA's June 2005 directive and July 2005 revised instructions-issued nearly 2 years into
the program-includes (1) a requirement that follow-up actions and compliance
determinations be fully documented in FDA's centralized FACTS compliance tracking
system with sufficient explanation to allow the reader to understand the basis for the
decision and (2) a time limit for districts to complete follow-up reviews.
To ensure that the feed testing program contributes to FDA's BSE oversight efforts, we
are recommending that FDA (1) fully implement the June 2005 field management
directive and July 2005 assignment memorandum, (2) assure that districts and
laboratories adhere to time limits on collecting samples, completing sample analysis, and
carrying out follow-up activities to minimize cattle's exposure to potentially
contaminated feed, and (3) require sufficient oversight by headquarters managers to
assure the program is achieving its intended goals.
In commenting on a draft of this report, FDA expressed concern that GAO was issuing a
report that focused on one small aspect of FDA's BSE oversight efforts. We agree that it
is a small component of FDA's overall efforts, but it vies for FDA's limited BSE oversight
resources. Furthermore, as we pointed out in our more comprehensive February 2005
report, we looked at this small program separately because FDA did not provide program
data in time for its inclusion in the broader report. FDA also disagreed with two of our
recommendations in a draft of this report: that it set a time period for laboratories to
complete sample analyses and that headquarters managers exercise sufficient oversight
to assure the program operates as intended. FDA indicated that it had some target
timeframes for laboratories. Because we could not pinpoint where delays were
occurring, we revised our recommendation to address the need to minimize overall
time-from sample collection through analysis and follow-up activities-in order to
minimize cattle's exposure to potentially dangerous feed. With regard to our
recommendation for better management oversight, FDA disagreed with our assertion
that the program was not sufficiently monitored and noted the activities its managers
have undertaken. We modified that recommendation to clarify what we believe is
needed in terms of management oversight.
SNIP...FULL TEXT 29 PAGES ;
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06157r.pdf
Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA Implemented in 2003 With Recommendations for Making the Program a Better Oversight Tool. GAO-06-157R, October 11
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-157R
Docket No, 04-047-l Regulatory Identification No. (RIN) 091O-AF46 NEW BSE SAFEGUARDS (comment submission)
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08d?OpenDocument
Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed
Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in
Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
Comment Number: EC -10
Accepted - Volume 2
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html
PART 2
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html
PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary
Sr. [[email protected]] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf
Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine
genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable
from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary
Page 1 of 17
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM
To: [email protected].
Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements
for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Greetings FSIS,
I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;
snip...FULL TEXT ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffItemDetailView?objectId=090007d480993808
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffAttachDownloadPDF?objectId=090007d480993808
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffCollectionDetailView?objectId=0b0007d48096b40d
MOM DOD 12/14/97 HEIDENHAIN VARIANT CREUTZFELDT JAKOB DISEASE
TSS
<December 5, 2005
November 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
To help prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed in the United States, FDA implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant Feed Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
This is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant feed regulation. FDA's CVM has assembled data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose final inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of November 26, 2005. As of November 26, 2005, FDA had received over 41,000 inspection reports. The majority of these inspections (around 68%) were conducted by State officials under contract to FDA, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions involving non-ruminant feeds.
An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in total". NOTE - A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually exclusive.
RENDERERS
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 274
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 185 (68% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 185 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
1 firm (0.5%) was classified as OAI
11 firms (5.9%) were classified as VAI
LICENSED FEED MILLS
FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time. This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 1,079
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 426 (39% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 426 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firm (0%) was classified as OAI
8 firms (1.9%) were classified as VAI
FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 5,165
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 2,036 (39% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 2,036 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.1%) were classified as OAI
24 firms (1.2%) were classified as VAI
PROTEIN BLENDERS
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA -- 340
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 147 (43% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 147 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
7 firms (4.8%) were classified as VAI
RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS
This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 6,576
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials - 539 (8.2% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 539 of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.6%) were classified as OAI
23 firms (4.3%) were classified as VAI
OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal feed transporters.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 13,477
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 3,748 (28% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 3,748 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
8 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI
95 firms (2.5%) were classified as VAI
TOTAL FIRMS
Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category; therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 16,476
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed - 4,553 (27% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 4,553 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
9 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI
107 firms (2.4%) were classified as VAI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued by:
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Communications Staff, HFV-12
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm
==============================
From: TSS ()
Subject: Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA Implemented in 2003 GAO-06-157R, October 11
Date: November 9, 2005 at 12:22 pm PST
GAO
GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
October 11, 2005
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
Chairman
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate
The Honorable Thad Cochran
United States Senate
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
United States Senate
Subject: Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA
Implemented in 2003 With Recommendations for Making the Program a Better
Oversight Tool
In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of most proteins
derived from mammals (referred to as prohibited material) in feed intended for cattle
and other ruminants.1 The feed-ban rule is one of the primary actions taken by the
federal government to protect U.S. cattle from bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE),2 commonly known as mad cow disease, which is believed to be spread through
feed that contains malformed protein found in certain tissue-particularly brain and
central nervous system tissue-of BSE-infected animals.3 Earlier this year, mad cow
disease was found for the first time in a 12-year old animal born and raised in the United
States.
In January 2002, we reported on the effectiveness of federal actions to prevent the
introduction and spread of BSE in the United States and identified a number of areas
where improvements were needed to strengthen FDA's oversight of firms in the feed
1Ruminants are animals with four-chambered stomachs, including, but not limited to, cattle, buffalo, sheep,
goats, deer, elk, and antelope. For the purpose of this report, "cattle" refers to cattle and all other
ruminant animals and "cattle feed" refers to feed for cattle and other ruminant animals.
2
21 C.F.R. §589.2000.
3
Adding protein (derived from animals or plants) to feed is a common nutritional practice used to speed
animal growth.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
2 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
industry.4 In February 2005, we issued a follow-up report that examined the
effectiveness of FDA's actions since the 2002 report to ensure industry compliance with
the feed-ban rule and protect U.S. cattle from BSE.5 Our report concluded that while
FDA has taken a number of positive steps, its processes still have room for improvement.
Our February 2005 report also noted that FDA had begun a small, discrete feed testing
program in August 2003. We reported that we would provide information on this new
feed testing program, which FDA described as a unique effort, once FDA provided us
with data on the feed tests. FDA later gave us the information we required to examine
those feed testing activities. Accordingly, this report assesses FDA's small feed testing
program and examines the extent to which this feed testing program helps FDA better
assure industry compliance with the feed-ban rule. This report is the final component of
our follow-up work on FDA's BSE prevention efforts.
FDA established the feed testing program in an assignment memorandum issued in
August 2003, entitled Assignment Memorandum-Sample Assignment for Domestic
Products, which contained instructions for implementing the program. The purpose of
the feed testing program was to collect and analyze cattle and other types of animal feed
and feed ingredients to determine whether feed that could be fed to cattle might contain
material prohibited by FDA's feed-ban rule. Under the program, FDA collected 641 feed
samples through the end of fiscal year 2004 and planned to collect 900 feed samples
during fiscal year 2005.
The 2003 guidance gave FDA's district offices responsibility for collecting samples and
submitting them to an FDA laboratory where analysts test the samples using a procedure
called feed microscopy-a visual (microscopic) examination for potentially prohibited
material, such as particles of bone, hair, or muscle fiber from certain animals. If an
analyst detects what appears to be prohibited material, the findings are confirmed by a
second analyst. According to FDA officials, some samples were tested using a more
specialized method called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a test that FDA has been
piloting, which can differentiate ruminant DNA from other animal DNA.6
The guidance noted that because FDA had designated a number of cattle-derived
exemptions to the feed-ban rule, including blood, milk protein, and plate waste, the
laboratory tests could not definitively determine violations but, rather, could identify
potential violations. The guidance directs the districts to conduct follow-up reviews on
each potential violation to determine whether the facility represented by the sample
actually violates the feed ban. On the basis of the follow-up reviews, the districts assign
final compliance determinations-that the facility where the sample was collected has
complied with or has violated the feed-ban rule.
In June 2005, FDA issued a directive that all feed sample analysis and follow-up actions
4GAO, Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Areas Would
Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts, GAO-02-183 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2002).
5
GAO, Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses
Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness, GAO-05-101, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2005).
6The PCR test works by aiding in the differentiation of mitochondrial DNA between animal species.
3 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
be recorded in FDA's central data system-the Field Accomplishments and Compliance
Tracking System (FACTS)-and that districts complete follow-up reviews of potential
violations within 30 working days. In July 2005, FDA issued a revised assignment
memorandum that, among other things, enhances the testing protocol by adopting the
PCR test for sample retesting and directs districts to provide sufficient narrative
explanation in FACTS to explain their final determination on samples that laboratories
identify as potential violations.
For the purpose of this report, we use the term "feed testing program" to distinguish the
samples FDA collected for the feed-testing assignments from samples FDA and states
collected in conjunction with routine BSE inspections. We included only the samples
that FDA collected for the assignments. To examine the extent to which FDA's feed
testing program provides better assurance of industry compliance with the feed-ban rule,
we reviewed FDA's data on 1,206 samples collected through June 2005. We identified
989 feed samples collected by FDA's district offices and analyzed by FDA laboratories
between August 2003 and June 2005, under the feed testing assignment/program
implemented under the August 2003 guidance document. We compared sample
collection, analysis, and follow-up with the program instructions in the August 2003
assignment memorandum. In order to assess FDA's timeliness in analyzing feed samples
and to determine results of these analyses, we analyzed data on feed sample collection
and laboratory analysis maintained in FACTS on the 989 feed samples. In order to assess
the types of follow-up activities carried out by the districts and the basis for their final
determinations on potential violations, we obtained and analyzed additional electronic
files from FDA districts and discussed those activities and determinations with officials
in the 19 FDA district offices. We also obtained detailed district-specific data and
information on sample collection, follow-up, and enforcement activities in interviews
with the officials in the 19 FDA district offices and discussed this information with FDA
headquarters officials. To assess the reliability of the FACTS data, we analyzed the feed
sample records in this database as of June 7, 2005. We analyzed the data to identify
problems with completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of data entry, and reviewed system
documentation on controls. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report. The testing program data assessed for this report, including
documentation in FACTS, spreadsheets maintained by individual district offices,
documents describing district follow-up actions for individual samples, and all written
guidance documents, were provided in response to our specific requests for all such
documentation and data related to the feed testing program. Finally, we examined the
feed testing program guidance that FDA provided in the June 2005 field management
directive and the July 2005 assignment memorandum and compared it with the
instructions and guidance FDA provided in the August 2003 memorandum. We
performed our work from February through August 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Our work included an assessment of FDA's
feed testing program data reliability and internal controls.
Results in Brief
The feed testing program is a small part of FDA's BSE oversight effort and is one of
several methods FDA uses to monitor for compliance with the feed-ban rule. However,
4 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
several weaknesses in the design and implementation of the feed testing program need to
be addressed to improve its effectiveness. Specifically, under the program guidance,
. FDA did not require districts to document their follow-up reviews or the basis for
their final determinations on samples that the laboratories identified as
potentially containing banned protein products. Although the districts may have
conducted rigorous follow-up and exercised sound judgment, the basis for their
decisions cannot be reviewed and confirmed.
. For nearly half the 989 samples, FDA took longer than 30 days from the date the
sample was collected until the date the laboratory completed its analysis-
including 21 samples that took longer than 100 days. This extended period does
not include the time FDA's districts would have spent following up on samples
that indicated potential violations. FDA and industry agree that cattle feed is
consumed very quickly. By the time FDA conducted its follow up to determine
whether a violation had occurred, the feed may have been consumed.
. FDA managers in headquarters did not adequately oversee the feed testing
program. Specifically, FDA managers did not receive periodic reports or have
other oversight controls in place to assure that the program was implemented
correctly. Moreover, FDA did not identify intended program goals and, as a
result, does not know whether or to what extent the feed testing program is
contributing to the agency's BSE oversight efforts.
FDA's June 2005 directive and July 2005 revised instructions-issued nearly 2 years into
the program-includes (1) a requirement that follow-up actions and compliance
determinations be fully documented in FDA's centralized FACTS compliance tracking
system with sufficient explanation to allow the reader to understand the basis for the
decision and (2) a time limit for districts to complete follow-up reviews.
To ensure that the feed testing program contributes to FDA's BSE oversight efforts, we
are recommending that FDA (1) fully implement the June 2005 field management
directive and July 2005 assignment memorandum, (2) assure that districts and
laboratories adhere to time limits on collecting samples, completing sample analysis, and
carrying out follow-up activities to minimize cattle's exposure to potentially
contaminated feed, and (3) require sufficient oversight by headquarters managers to
assure the program is achieving its intended goals.
In commenting on a draft of this report, FDA expressed concern that GAO was issuing a
report that focused on one small aspect of FDA's BSE oversight efforts. We agree that it
is a small component of FDA's overall efforts, but it vies for FDA's limited BSE oversight
resources. Furthermore, as we pointed out in our more comprehensive February 2005
report, we looked at this small program separately because FDA did not provide program
data in time for its inclusion in the broader report. FDA also disagreed with two of our
recommendations in a draft of this report: that it set a time period for laboratories to
complete sample analyses and that headquarters managers exercise sufficient oversight
to assure the program operates as intended. FDA indicated that it had some target
timeframes for laboratories. Because we could not pinpoint where delays were
occurring, we revised our recommendation to address the need to minimize overall
time-from sample collection through analysis and follow-up activities-in order to
minimize cattle's exposure to potentially dangerous feed. With regard to our
recommendation for better management oversight, FDA disagreed with our assertion
that the program was not sufficiently monitored and noted the activities its managers
have undertaken. We modified that recommendation to clarify what we believe is
needed in terms of management oversight.
SNIP...FULL TEXT 29 PAGES ;
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06157r.pdf
Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA Implemented in 2003 With Recommendations for Making the Program a Better Oversight Tool. GAO-06-157R, October 11
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-157R
Docket No, 04-047-l Regulatory Identification No. (RIN) 091O-AF46 NEW BSE SAFEGUARDS (comment submission)
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08d?OpenDocument
Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed
Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in
Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
Comment Number: EC -10
Accepted - Volume 2
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html
PART 2
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html
PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary
Sr. [[email protected]] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf
Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine
genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable
from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary
Page 1 of 17
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM
To: [email protected].
Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements
for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Greetings FSIS,
I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;
snip...FULL TEXT ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffItemDetailView?objectId=090007d480993808
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffAttachDownloadPDF?objectId=090007d480993808
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffCollectionDetailView?objectId=0b0007d48096b40d
MOM DOD 12/14/97 HEIDENHAIN VARIANT CREUTZFELDT JAKOB DISEASE
TSS