>>> USDA assembled a team of technical experts that arrived in Canada on
Jan. 24 to gather all relevant information to do an in-depth assessment on
Canada's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban and their feed ban inspection
program. USDA took this additional step to ensure compliance with Canada's
feed ban control measures. The feed ban has been determined to be an
important BSE risk mitigation measure to protect animal health.
The inspection team's report states that "Canada has a robust inspection
program, that overall compliance with the feed ban is good and that the feed
ban is reducing the risk of transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
in the Canadian cattle population." <<<
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
tentid=2005/02/0066.xml
HOLY MAD COW, this is like the blind leading the blind. the total lack of
BSE protocol here again shows that the USDA/APHIS et al should NOT be giving
any expert BSE advise to anyone. ...TSS
Questions and Answers on BSE
(Items 14-22 added on May 18, 2005)
[Overall BSE measures/firewalls]
Are all cattle inspected prior to slaughter?
Why isn't USDA testing all cattle slaughtered in the United States?
Do you think you will find more cases of BSE? (APHIS)
[SRM]
Are all SRMs properly removed? What is the procedure? How is SRM-removal and
prevention of cross-contamination ensured?
Isn't Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR) still being used?
[Feed Ban]
Feed ban: The United States claims that it has been implementing a ban on
feeding mammalian proteins to ruminants since 1997, but it still is
primarily a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. How can you prevent
bovine-derived poultry feed, for example, from commingling with cattle feed?
[Compliance]
What was the rate of compliance of the U.S. feed ban in the initial stages
of its implementation?
Please provide an update on the investigation into the recent labor union
allegation of problems with the implementation/compliance of the SRM
regulation.
[About A40]
What is A Maturity?
How can A40 assure that animals are younger than 21 months old?
How can you verify that each inspector correctly and consistently performs
the maturity grading? Do you have any monitoring system in place to assure
the accuracy of the inspector?
[Other]
What is vCJD? How many vCJD cases have been found in the United States? What
about the alleged cases in New Jersey?
With respect to trade between the United States and Canada, now that Canada
has found 3 BSE cases (4 including the one found in Washington state), how
will the United States ensure that no BSE-infected animals will enter the
United States when the U.S.-Canadian border opens?
[Added May 18, 2005]
snip...
Q6. The United States claims that it has been implementing a ban on feeding
mammalian proteins to ruminants since 1997, but it still is primarily a
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. How can you prevent bovine-derived poultry
feed, for example, from commingling with cattle feed?
A6. There is a scientific consensus that BSE cannot be transmitted through
the use of mammalian origin meat-and-bone meal (MBM) tp swine, poultry, or
other non-ruminant species. However, firms that handle or produce feed for
ruminants and non-ruminants are required to have separate equipment or
facilities or have an adequate cleanout process in order to prevent
cross-contamination.
The feed ban's restrictions on the use of mammalian protein apply only to
its use in ruminant feed and not to feed for other species. Therefore,
mammalian origin meat-and-bone meal (MBM) may be used in feed for swine,
poultry, and other non-ruminant species. However, firms that handle material
prohibited for ruminants (but allowed for non-ruminants) and also produce
ruminant feed are required to have separate equipment or facilities or else
have cleanout procedures adequate to prevent cross-contamination. This
requirement applies to firms at all levels, from rendering to on-farm
mixing. They also are required to clearly label prohibited material as not
to be fed to ruminants. Guidance on preventing cross-contamination is
available through FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.
Q7. What was the rate of compliance of the U.S. feed ban in the initial
stages of its implementation?
A7. FDA initiated a feed ban in August 1997. Compliance rates for the first
year showed higher than anticipated for a new program with 50-85 percent of
the renderers and feed manufacturers in compliance with all aspects of the
regulation. The majority of problems were minor, relating to noncompliance
of simple documentation requirements as opposed to serious concerns such as
the presence of prohibited material. As of July 2004, conditions or
practices warranting regulatory sanctions had been found in less than one
percent of inspected facilities. Inspection results are posted in a
searchable online database. In August, 2005, the U.S. will have had an
effective feed ban in place for 8 years, the time period recommended by OIE
to effectively mitigate the spread or introduction of BSE within a domestic
herd.
Q14. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 19
percent of the feed industry has not been re-inspected in the past five
years. How can the FDA ensure the Japanese people that U.S. cattle are not
consuming meat-and-bone meal?
A14. To maximize enforcement of the ruminant feed ban, FDA inspects firms
(renderers, feed mills, etc.) considered to be of highest risk more
frequently than low risk firms. High-risk firms are those which manufacture,
or process feeds or feed ingredients containing prohibited meat-and-bone
meal (which is allowed for non-ruminants). High-risk firms are inspected at
least once every year to ensure their compliance with FDA requirements
preventing cross contamination.
Low risk firms are those that purchase feed or feed ingredients from
high-risk firms, but do not further process or re-manufacture the feed or
feed ingredients. For most of these firms there is no commercial handling of
meat-and-bone meal since they are handling only packaged products like pet
food. As a result, it would be highly unlikely that cattle would have access
to any of these products.
Once FDA has established through inspection that these firms do not
manufacture or process feeds containing meat-and-bone meal, the frequency of
re-inspection is reduced so that greater enforcement activities can be
focused on the high-risk firms. The 19 percent of the feed industry cited in
the GAO report consist entirely of low risk firms.
snip...
Q22. What is the U.S. response to the EU's classification of the U.S. as
having a risk level III in its geographical bovine encephalopathy risk
assessment (GBR)?
A22. The U.S. has expressed its disappointment to the EU over this
determination, which was based on unsubstantiated assumptions and uses
worst-case scenarios without proper justification. In fact, we feel that the
U.S. has learned many lessons over the past 15 years from GBR III countries
with demonstrated risks (as in Europe). We used this information to develop
a strong BSE control program that ensures that the risk to consumers in the
U.S. is negligible.
More specifically, we implemented BSE control measures such as an import ban
and a feed ban long before the 1st case of BSE was discovered in Canada. As
a result, despite extensive surveillance, BSE has never been disclosed in an
animal born in the United States. Also the U.S. and Canada both implemented
multiple BSE controls to prevent the spread of BSE in North America. That is
why the U.S. has had no domestic cases of BSE except for one Canadian cow,
and why Canada has had only 4 cases confined to a small geographical area.
...
http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20050304-71.html#14
National Renderers Association Public Response to USDA-APHIS
ANPR "Risk Reduction Strategies for Potential BSE Pathways Involving Downer
Cattle and Dead Sock of Cattle and Other Species"
Docket No. 01-68-1, Federal Register, Vol.68, No.13: 2703 – 2711, 01/21/2003
http://www.rendermagazine.com/news/USDA-ANPRDownersApendices.doc
Infected and Source Flocks
As of August 31, 2005, there were 115 scrapie infected and source flocks (figure 3). There were 3 new infected and source flocks reported in August (Figure 4) with a total of 148 flocks reported for FY 2005 (Figure 5). The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 are 102 (Figure 6), with 5 flocks released in August. The ratio of infected and source flocks released to newly infected and source flocks for FY 2005 = 0.69 :
1. In addition, as of August 31, 2005, 574 scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which 122 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 55 newly confirmed cases in August 2005 (Figure 8). Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat case was reported in May 2005.
snip...
full text ;
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html
SCRAPIE USA JULY 2005 UPDATE
AS of July 31, 2005, there were 120 scrapie infected soure flocks (figure 3). There were 16 new infected and source flocks reorted in July (Figure 4) with a total of 143 flocks reported for FY 2005 (Figure 5). The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 are 89 (Figure 6), with 8 flocks released in July. The ratio of infected and source flocks released to newly infected and source flocks for FY = 0.62 : 1. IN addition, as of July 31, 2005, 524 scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which 116 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 76 newly confirmed cases in July 2005 (Figure 8). Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat case was reported in May 2005. ...........
snip...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html
SCRAPIE USA JUNE 2005 UPDATE
AS of June 30, 2005, there were 114 scrapie infected and source flocks
(Figure 3). There were 14 new infected and source flocks reported in June
(Figure 4) with a total of 123 flocks reported for FY 2005 (Figure 5).
snip...
In addition, as of June 30, 2005, 448 scrapie cases have been confirmed and
reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which
106 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 81 newly confirmed cases in
June 2005 (Figure 8). Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported
since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat case was reported in May 2005.
snip...end
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html
From: TSS ()
Subject: SCRAPIE USA UPDATE MARCH - JUNE 2005
Date: August 24, 2005 at 7:03 pm PST
SCRAPIE USA MONTHLY REPORT 2005
AS of March 31, 2005, there were 70 scrapie infected source flocks (Figure
3). There were 11 new infected and source flocks reported in March (Figure
4) with a total of 51 flocks reported for FY 2005 (Figure 5). The total
infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 are 39 (Figure
6), with 1 flock released in March. The ratio of infected and source flocks
released to newly infected and source flocks for FY 2005 = 0.76 : 1. IN
addition, as of March 31, 2005, 225 scrapie cases have been confirmed and
reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which
53 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 57 newly confirmed cases in
March 2005 (Figure 8). Fourteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported
since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat cases was reported in January 2005. New
infected flocks, source flocks, and flocks released or put on clean-up plans
for FY 2005 are depicted in Figure 10. ...
FULL TEXT ;
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html
Published online before print October 20, 2005
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0502296102
Medical Sciences
A newly identified type of scrapie agent can naturally infect sheep with resistant PrP genotypes
( sheep prion | transgenic mice )
Annick Le Dur *, Vincent Béringue *, Olivier Andréoletti , Fabienne Reine *, Thanh Lan Laï *, Thierry Baron , Bjørn Bratberg ¶, Jean-Luc Vilotte ||, Pierre Sarradin **, Sylvie L. Benestad ¶, and Hubert Laude *
*Virologie Immunologie Moléculaires and ||Génétique Biochimique et Cytogénétique, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France; Unité Mixte de Recherche, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique-Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, Interactions Hôte Agent Pathogène, 31066 Toulouse, France; Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, Unité Agents Transmissibles Non Conventionnels, 69364 Lyon, France; **Pathologie Infectieuse et Immunologie, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 37380 Nouzilly, France; and ¶Department of Pathology, National Veterinary Institute, 0033 Oslo, Norway
Edited by Stanley B. Prusiner, University of California, San Francisco, CA, and approved September 12, 2005 (received for review March 21, 2005)
Scrapie in small ruminants belongs to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), or prion diseases, a family of fatal neurodegenerative disorders that affect humans and animals and can transmit within and between species by ingestion or inoculation. Conversion of the host-encoded prion protein (PrP), normal cellular PrP (PrPc), into a misfolded form, abnormal PrP (PrPSc), plays a key role in TSE transmission and pathogenesis. The intensified surveillance of scrapie in the European Union, together with the improvement of PrPSc detection techniques, has led to the discovery of a growing number of so-called atypical scrapie cases. These include clinical Nor98 cases first identified in Norwegian sheep on the basis of unusual pathological and PrPSc molecular features and "cases" that produced discordant responses in the rapid tests currently applied to the large-scale random screening of slaughtered or fallen animals. Worryingly, a substantial proportion of such cases involved sheep with PrP genotypes known until now to confer natural resistance to conventional scrapie. Here we report that both Nor98 and discordant cases, including three sheep homozygous for the resistant PrPARR allele (A136R154R171), efficiently transmitted the disease to transgenic mice expressing ovine PrP, and that they shared unique biological and biochemical features upon propagation in mice. These observations support the view that a truly infectious TSE agent, unrecognized until recently, infects sheep and goat flocks and may have important implications in terms of scrapie control and public health.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author contributions: H.L. designed research; A.L.D., V.B., O.A., F.R., T.L.L., J.-L.V., and H.L. performed research; T.B., B.B., P.S., and S.L.B. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; V.B., O.A., and H.L. analyzed data; and H.L. wrote the paper.
A.L.D. and V.B. contributed equally to this work.
To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Hubert Laude, E-mail:
[email protected]
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0502296102
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0502296102v1
TSS
#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################