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

Canada Exceeds Testing Target

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,037
Reaction score
255
Location
Big Muddy valley
Transmitted by CNW Group on : June 24, 2005 10:45
Canada Exceeds BSE Testing Target for 2005


OTTAWA, June 24 /CNW Telbec/ - Canada has surpassed its testing target
established for 2005 for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) surveillance.
The target for this year was 30,000 cattle and, as of June 17, there have been
32,363 samples collected and tested through the provincial and federal
laboratory network in Canada.
The level and design of BSE testing in Canada is in full accordance with
the guidelines recommended by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).
The samples collected target the highest risk cattle within the national herd.
This includes all animals over 30 months of age that are dead, down, dying or
diseased, and clinical suspects of any age. This targeted surveillance program
is crucial to defining the level of BSE in Canada and to confirming the
effectiveness of the suite of measures in place to protect human and animal
health from the disease. Based on the intensity and sensitivity of the testing
program and the information collected in Canada's BSE investigations, the
evidence continues to demonstrate that the prevalence of BSE in Canada is
extremely low and continuing to decline.
"Surpassing this surveillance target at the mid-year point illustrates
the effectiveness of the national BSE surveillance program and the high level
of commitment from Canadian producers to finding the disease," said Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food Andy Mitchell.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
Looks like Canada is testing at about double the rate of the U.S.. (And using a test that works?!). I sure hope the U.S. raises their standards to meet ours, otherwise we might want to rethink our import policies on U.S. beef and cattle. :wink:
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
I was informed on this board that Canada and USA were using the same tests. Where do you get off saying you use a test that works. What were you implying?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
feeder said:
I was informed on this board that Canada and USA were using the same tests. Where do you get off saying you use a test that works. What were you implying?

I aint implying anything. I'm coming right out and saying it. We don't use the same tests. The rapid test is the same, Canada uses the western blot on inconclusives, US uses the gold standard. Unless of course I am wrong, which has been know to happen on rare occasions in the past.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Silver said:
feeder said:
I was informed on this board that Canada and USA were using the same tests. Where do you get off saying you use a test that works. What were you implying?

I aint implying anything. I'm coming right out and saying it. We don't use the same tests. The rapid test is the same, Canada uses the western blot on inconclusives, US uses the gold standard. Unless of course I am wrong, which has been know to happen on rare occasions in the past.

New Generation BSE test approved by CFIA

ZURICH, Switzerland, June 17 /CNW/ - Prionics AG announced today that the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has granted approval of the
Prionics(R)-Check PrioSTRIP, the latest generation of testing technology for
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
A breakthrough in BSE testing, the Prionics(R)-Check PrioSTRIP combines
speed with reliability. The test, which represents an innovative mass-
screening application of the proven lateral flow technology, is simple, easy
and fast providing results in about 100 minutes. It received EU approval in
February 2005 and has been successfully introduced in European laboratories.
The Prionics(R)-Check PrioSTRIP represents a considerable improvement
over existing BSE testing platforms, which typically deliver results between
4 to 5 1/2 hours. It allows high throughput processing with minimal
requirements for specialized equipment. Also, the use of the Prionics(R)-Check
PrioSTRIP requires only minimal training of laboratory personnel while
delivering the highest standards of sensitivity and specificity.
"The combined benefits of the new PrioSTRIP help to significantly reduce
operation costs," says Ernst Zollinger, head of marketing and sales at
Prionics. "BSE-testing has never been more efficient."

About Prionics

Prionics AG is the world leader in BSE testing, with approximately
50% market share of the world BSE testing market. Prionics is the only company
that has developed and launched three independent BSE testing platforms
approved by the EU. The Prionics(R)-Check product family consists of the
Prionics(R)-Check WESTERN, Prionics(R)-Check LIA and Prionics(R)-Check
PrioSTRIP. The different platforms are compatible and share the sample
preparation procedure. The Prionics(R)-Check WESTERN and the Prionics(R)-Check
LIA have been approved for use by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). In January 2004, the Canadian Food inspection Agency (CFIA) chose
Prionics(R)-Check WESTERN for the federal enhanced BSE disease surveillance program.
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
feeder said:
I was informed on this board that Canada and USA were using the same tests. Where do you get off saying you use a test that works. What were you implying?

Don, t you find it a little funny that the Washington cow got the western blot right away.

And with this one they waited till nowwhats up with that. Were the western blot tests to be used only on cattle with Canadian earings.
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Good mornig Frenchie, Yes I think it is a disgrace what choices the USDA has made. I have been preaching all along the corruption seems to be rampant in the higher powers. That is why I believe R-Calf or any others that want to step up and try to clean house is welcome. I do have a question. If there never was R-Calf, who then would you take your frustrations out on. I feel it is human nature to find something or somebody to blame for problems, and then focus all your anger toward that. I have certain beefs about the cattle industry and would like to see some things changed, but to blame just one factor and not look at all the others wouldn't be constructive. I would like to see all of us list the problems we face and a possible solution. I bet we wouldn't be all that different. Enough babble from me.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
I do have a question. If there never was R-Calf, who then would you take your frustrations out on.

And yet, another question, if there was no BSE cow ever found in Canada, who would RCALF have taken their trade frustrations out on on?

I bet it changes who the pick on now? They nee a new scapegoat!
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
feeder: I was informed on this board that Canada and USA were using the same tests. Where do you get off saying you use a test that works. What were you implying?

i posted it twice here that canada and the us have used different ihc (gold standard) tests. canada's uses 15 microclonal antibodies and the american test uses 1. my understanding is that the test used by the us is less sensitive and less reliable. this would explain why a negative american ihc test could come up positive on the western blot.
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Don, I looked back to the topic (Canadians Recognize Firewalls Are Missing) There I was told We use the same tests. But all the different stories floating around It's hard to know what is accurate.
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
feeder said:
Good mornig Frenchie, Yes I think it is a disgrace what choices the USDA has made. I have been preaching all along the corruption seems to be rampant in the higher powers. That is why I believe R-Calf or any others that want to step up and try to clean house is welcome. I do have a question. If there never was R-Calf, who then would you take your frustrations out on. I feel it is human nature to find something or somebody to blame for problems, and then focus all your anger toward that. I have certain beefs about the cattle industry and would like to see some things changed, but to blame just one factor and not look at all the others wouldn't be constructive. I would like to see all of us list the problems we face and a possible solution. I bet we wouldn't be all that different. Enough babble from me.

Let them clean house :lol: ..just remember the truth hurts.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
feeder said:
Don, I looked back to the topic (Canadians Recognize Firewalls Are Missing) There I was told We use the same tests. But all the different stories floating around It's hard to know what is accurate.

Feeder did you not read the last post of that thread that included this statement
In the AAFRD FSD rapid testing lab, if the initial Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA screening test generates either an “inconclusive” or “positive reaction”, duplicate samples of the obex are prepared and both are tested again. If both repeat tests are negative, the brain sample is considered negative for BSE. If however, both of the repeat tests yield an “inconclusive” or “positive reactor” test result, further testing, using immunohistochemistry staining (the international “gold standard” test for detecting prions) and a western blot technique, is conducted to determine if the sample is truly positive or negative. This testing is performed at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) National BSE Reference Laboratory in Winnipeg. If the CFIA test on the sample is positive, confirmatory testing is performed at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency in Weybridge, UK (World Reference Laboratory for BSE Testing). This is all completed before the CFIA announces the test results to the international community.
Did the US use the Western Blot on this sample in Nov.?
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
Tam said:
feeder said:
Don, I looked back to the topic (Canadians Recognize Firewalls Are Missing) There I was told We use the same tests. But all the different stories floating around It's hard to know what is accurate.

Feeder did you not read the last post of that thread that included this statement
In the AAFRD FSD rapid testing lab, if the initial Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA screening test generates either an “inconclusive” or “positive reaction”, duplicate samples of the obex are prepared and both are tested again. If both repeat tests are negative, the brain sample is considered negative for BSE. If however, both of the repeat tests yield an “inconclusive” or “positive reactor” test result, further testing, using immunohistochemistry staining (the international “gold standard” test for detecting prions) and a western blot technique, is conducted to determine if the sample is truly positive or negative. This testing is performed at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) National BSE Reference Laboratory in Winnipeg. If the CFIA test on the sample is positive, confirmatory testing is performed at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency in Weybridge, UK (World Reference Laboratory for BSE Testing). This is all completed before the CFIA announces the test results to the international community.
Did the US use the Western Blot on this sample in Nov.?

Tam I was sent this awhile back


Consumers Union says Suspected USA Mad Cow Should be Retested


Consumers Union Asks Feds to Retest Suspect Mad Cow After Crucial Test
Omitted; USDA Urged to Follow Intl Recognized Procedures

2/24/2005 8:49:00 AM

____________________________

To: National Desk, Health and Environment Reporter

Contact: Michael Hansen, 914-378-2452 or Jean Halloran, 914-378-2457,
both of Consumers Union,

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports, today asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
retest a cow suspected in November 2004 of having mad cow disease, using
a critical, internationally recognized test that the agency failed to
use. The test, called the "Western blot," is used by authorities in
Japan and Europe when making a final determination as to whether a
suspect cow has the fatal brain-wasting affliction, which can be passed
on to humans.

A Consumers Union delegation met earlier this month with USDA officials
and today issued a letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns (
http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/Dear_Secretary_Johanns.pdf
<http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=43493&Link=http://ww
w.consumersunion.org/campaigns/Dear_Secretary_Johanns.pdf> ) urging the
agency to revise its testing methods. CU is asking the agency to retest
the November cow using the Western blot and to send samples from the cow
to the United Kingdom for an independent evaluation.

"Given the potential consequences to both public health and the cattle
industry if this brain-wasting disease were to become established here,
it is extremely important that every scientifically justifiable step be
taken to prevent it," said the letter signed by Michael Hansen, PhD., a
biologist with Consumers Union and spokesperson for its
http://www.NotinMyFood.org
<http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=43493&Link=http://ww
w.NotinMyFood.org> campaign and Jean Halloran, director of CU's
Consumer Policy Institute.

The USDA limited its confirmatory testing in November 2004 to the
immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, which it describes as the "gold
standard." The result of the IHC test was negative. USDA did not perform
the Western blot test, even though it had previously used both IHC and
the Western blot test in confirming the first U.S. case of mad cow
disease, from Washington State in December, 2003. The USDA also sent
material from the 2003 Washington State cow to the United Kingdom for
further review of its results.

Scientists in Japan and Belgium have reported that suspect cows may be
negative on the IHC and still register as positive on the Western blot.
Such cows are universally regarded as infected.

The IHC test is more subjective than the Western blot test, relying on
the judgment of a skilled scientist is assessing the appearance of thin
slices of brain material under a microscope," Hansen said. "The Western
blot test is more objective, with results that can be read by any
technician." In the U.S., the IHC test is performed by a USDA scientist
at a USDA laboratory in Ames, Iowa.

The cow USDA assessed in November 2004 had come up as "suspect" for mad
cow disease in two runs of the Biorad "quick test." The Biorad test has
been used to screen over 200,000 cows for mad cow disease since USDA
began a new testing initiative in July 2004. However, all international
authorities agree that the Biorad screening test can give a false
positive result. Thus it must be confirmed by other tests. CU urges USDA
to use both Western blot and IHC for confirmation.

"The USDA should operate out of an "abundance of caution" in its efforts
to keep the U.S. food supply safe from (mad cow disease)," the letter to
Johanns stated. The experience of the United Kingdom, where millions of
cattle have been destroyed, beef exports blocked for many years and 147
people have died, painfully demonstrates the consequences of
insufficient action to prevent the spread of mad cow disease."

------

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, is an independent,
nonprofit testing and information organization serving only the
consumer. Consumers Union is a comprehensive source of unbiased advice
about products and services, personal finance, health nutrition, and
other consumer concerns. Since 1936, Consumers Union's mission has been
to test products, inform the public, and protect consumers.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Tam said:
feeder said:
Don, I looked back to the topic (Canadians Recognize Firewalls Are Missing) There I was told We use the same tests. But all the different stories floating around It's hard to know what is accurate.

Feeder did you not read the last post of that thread that included this statement
In the AAFRD FSD rapid testing lab, if the initial Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA screening test generates either an “inconclusive” or “positive reaction”, duplicate samples of the obex are prepared and both are tested again. If both repeat tests are negative, the brain sample is considered negative for BSE. If however, both of the repeat tests yield an “inconclusive” or “positive reactor” test result, further testing, using immunohistochemistry staining (the international “gold standard” test for detecting prions) and a western blot technique, is conducted to determine if the sample is truly positive or negative. This testing is performed at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) National BSE Reference Laboratory in Winnipeg. If the CFIA test on the sample is positive, confirmatory testing is performed at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency in Weybridge, UK (World Reference Laboratory for BSE Testing). This is all completed before the CFIA announces the test results to the international community.
Did the US use the Western Blot on this sample in Nov.?

NO!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
I know they didn't but I was asking Feeder as this should have proved to him that the USDA wasn't using the same test as Canada when it came to the three US cows that tested inconclusive. They only used the Western Blot on the Canadian cow that tested inconclusive. And I would sure like to know why the testing protocal changed, once then claimed they had a more aggresive testing system in place, to a less reliable test? :???:
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Thankyou Tam and others for pointing out to me what was different in our tests. I was only made aware that they were the same until now being that the western blot test wasn't used with the Nov. cow. And Tam, I'm not a guy, I am of that female gender and I think I will just stay that way. Too old to change!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sorry about the mistake I know of others that have been mistaken on here because of their handle. I stand corrected and don't expect you to change anything because of Bull Session on Ranchers :wink:
 

Latest posts

Top