A
Anonymous
Guest
NOTE: Under USDA's idiotic rule this cow would have been importable into the US........Another POST feedban 
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Mike
Well-known member
Canada confirms new case of mad cow disease
Reuters
Published: 48 minutes ago
OTTAWA - Canada confirmed a new case of mad cow disease on Tuesday, the 12th since 2003, and said the animal in question was a six-year-old dairy cow from Alberta.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said no part of the animal's carcass had entered the human or animal food supply.
"This case will not affect Canada's Controlled Risk country status, as recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health," the CFIA said in a statement.
The organization said last May it was classifying Canada and the United States as controlled risk, which signified it was happy with both countries' efforts to combat bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), known as mad cow disease.
"Based on science, it is not expected that this case should impact access to any of Canada's current international markets for cattle and beef," the CFIA said.
Canada generally has blamed contaminated feed for its cases of mad cow disease.
The cow was born after Canada and the United States introduced a ban in 1997 on cattle feed that contained ingredients made from rendered cattle and other ruminants.
Canada has now also banned risk material from all types of livestock feed in an effort to eliminate BSE from Canada's herd within 10 years. Until then, the CFIA said it expected to find a few cases of BSE.
Reuters
Published: 48 minutes ago
OTTAWA - Canada confirmed a new case of mad cow disease on Tuesday, the 12th since 2003, and said the animal in question was a six-year-old dairy cow from Alberta.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said no part of the animal's carcass had entered the human or animal food supply.
"This case will not affect Canada's Controlled Risk country status, as recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health," the CFIA said in a statement.
The organization said last May it was classifying Canada and the United States as controlled risk, which signified it was happy with both countries' efforts to combat bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), known as mad cow disease.
"Based on science, it is not expected that this case should impact access to any of Canada's current international markets for cattle and beef," the CFIA said.
Canada generally has blamed contaminated feed for its cases of mad cow disease.
The cow was born after Canada and the United States introduced a ban in 1997 on cattle feed that contained ingredients made from rendered cattle and other ruminants.
Canada has now also banned risk material from all types of livestock feed in an effort to eliminate BSE from Canada's herd within 10 years. Until then, the CFIA said it expected to find a few cases of BSE.
We're finding them they're not entering the food chain.....its ANOTHER dairy cow. I do not understand its like a friggin national holiday for the Americans every time one shows up. I'm proud of it :!: :!: Seriously,at least we're finding and admitting it.
If I remember correctly Robert Mac made a statement about the "dairy" cattle in the US but its different here.
Well....this should make Kathys day.
If I remember correctly Robert Mac made a statement about the "dairy" cattle in the US but its different here.
Well....this should make Kathys day.
Manitoba_Rancher
Well-known member
OT is likely off to the watering hole to spread the word and celebrate :roll:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
You can't say that you're finding them and they're not entering the food supply. You can only say you found THIS ONE and it didn't enter the food supply. What about the positive animals that are slaughtered before showing any outward symptoms? This cow could of been taken to town a month ago and served in burgers today - and you would be saying "We're finding them and they're not entering the food chain".
A
Anonymous
Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
We haven't been running a pool lately since we had an argument a while back when CFIA couldn't positively verify an age- so no big hurry anymore to see if I won.... :wink:
Actually- Yesterday I had to pick up some cattle panels to finish the changes I'm doing on my calving barn- and like normal that old truck of mine just pulls over to the curb when it goes by the water hole :wink: - and ironically we got into a discussion of Canadian BSE...
Lot of folks down here looking for bred cows-- but the prices are out of sight with even old Broken Mouths bringing $900 :shock: I was mentioning the lower prices you Canadians have been talking about- and the possibility of picking up some cheaper cattle to the north- but like me- everyone is scared to death of touching a Canuck cow because of this Cow of the month syndrome- and their fear of importing in a positive cow...
What the availability of a live test would do right now...
don
Well-known member
i don't know oldtimer; you and your friends must not be too bright. even if you did import a positive animal it would never be found because you guys don't test down there and when you do you can't trace anyways!
WHEN YOU HAVE A BSE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM SUCH AS CANADA.
YOU ARE GOING TO FIND MAD COW DISEASE.
when you have a bse surveillance system such as the USA.
your are NOT going to find mad cow disease.
GREAT JOB CANADA!!! your surveillance system is working.
a far cry from USDA et al $$$
BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/
FACTS
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL,
TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST
PRODUCT
a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6;
b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6;
c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6;
d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6.
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone
on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006. Firm initiated recall is
complete.
REASON
Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Dairy feed, custom, Recall # V-134-6;
b) Custom Dairy Feed with Monensin, Recall # V-135-6.
CODE
None. Bulk product
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Burkmann Feed, Greeneville, TN, by Telephone beginning on
June 28, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL. Firm initiated
recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,484 tons
DISTRIBUTION
TN and WV
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA,
MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
SNIP...END
SEE FULL LIST OF enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy
and Specified Risk Material taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.
SRM SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS
RUMINANT TO RUMINANT ANIMAL PROTEIN IN COMMERCE 2006-2007
http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html
INK ON PAPER, the 8/4/97 mad cow feed ban was nothing but ink on paper.
...tss
FDA Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow
with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a
processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began
an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators
inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the
animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the
slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the
weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as
"mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way
now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule
would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals
(e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing
the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed
only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs
have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the
material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way
through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the
feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein
out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established
its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that
the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will
not be fed to poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed
rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only
one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed
rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
####
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE
sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST
Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty
to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled
guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government
funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his
company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when
they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and
then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services.
In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle
that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors
for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be
submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy
USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently
received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled
for May 2007.
snip...
Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1
include:
soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),
implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System
enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and
improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),
snip...
The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in
future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and
investigations are completed.
4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
THESE are just a few examples for DISEASED cattle that likely entered the food supply.
THE FDA has removed and or made so difficult, you cannot make a simple search for all
archived material. but here are a few i still had in my files. ...tss
On January 18, 2002, FDA's New Orleans District Office issued a Warning Letter to J. Randall Mayes, Pulaski, Tennessee, a dairy farmer. An FDA inspection conducted November 26 28, 2001, confirmed that the farmer sold a cow for use as human food containing gentamicin residues. USDA analysis of tissue samples from the cow sold by Mayes identified the presence of 7.12 ppm of gentamicin in the kidney tissue. There is no established tolerance for gentamicin in cattle. In addition, FDA's investigation found that the dairy farmer held animals under conditions which were so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues were likely to enter the food supply.
http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2002/ch5/cvm1.htm
The Warning Letter also noted that the owner holds animals under conditions which are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply.
http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2001/ch5/default.htm
Mr. Sturm was found to hold animals on his farm under conditions that are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. In addition, he failed to use the drug, Albon, containing sulfadimethoxine, in conformance with the labeling.
A warning letter was issued to the following firms for violations related to 21 CFR Part 589.2000—Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
• Scott Nelson, Owner, Integra Fish Foods, Inc., Grand Junction, CO
• Bruce A. Burgett, General Manager, The Carrollton Farmers Exchange, Carrollton, OH
Violations included failure to label feeds that contain, or may contain, prohibited materials with the required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants," insufficient customer records to track the distribution of products, and lack of written procedures for cleaning or flushing equipment after mixing feeds containing prohibited material.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Sep_Oct01.htm
Mr. Van Dam was found to hold animals under improper conditions whereby diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply.
Ms. Silveira was found to be adulterating the drug Mutual Pharmaceutical brand of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim tablets, since she did not follow her veterinarian's prescribed withdrawal time of thirty days prior to slaughter.
Mr. Edwards did not properly identify treated animals to assure they are not sold for slaughter, did not maintain treatment records, and he did not follow labeling directions for medicated feed.
O & L Dairy was found to lack an adequate system for determining the medication status of animals offered for slaughter, and for assuring that animals which had been medicated had been withheld from slaughter for the appropriate periods of time to deplete potentially hazardous residues of drugs.
Mr. Sturm was found to hold animals on his farm under conditions that are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. In addition, he failed to use the drug, Albon, containing sulfadimethoxine, in conformance with the labeling.
A warning letter was issued to the following firms for violations related to 21 CFR Part 589.2000—Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
• Scott Nelson, Owner, Integra Fish Foods, Inc., Grand Junction, CO
• Bruce A. Burgett, General Manager, The Carrollton Farmers Exchange, Carrollton, OH
Violations included failure to label feeds that contain, or may contain, prohibited materials with the required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants," insufficient customer records to track the distribution of products, and lack of written procedures for cleaning or flushing equipment after mixing feeds containing prohibited material.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Sep_Oct.htm
Our investigation also found that you hold animals on your farm under conditions that are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. For example, you failed to maintain treatment records for bull calves fed medicated milk replacer, lack a system for assuring that the milk replacer is used in a manner not contrary to label instructions, and lack a system for assuring the medicated animals have been withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit depletion of potentially hazardous drug residues from edible tissues. Foods from animals held under such conditions are adulterated under Section 402(a)(4) of the Act [21 U.S.C. Section 342(a)(4)].
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/awl2.htm
Our investigation also found that you hold animals on your farm under conditions that are so inadequate that diseased animals and lormedicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. For example, you lack a system for assuring that drugs are used in a manner not contrary to label instructions, and for assuring animals medicated on your farrn have been withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit depletion of potentially hazardous drug residues from edible tissues. Foods from animals held under such conditions are adulterated under Section 402(a)(4) of the Act.
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/awl6.htm
Our investigation also found that you hold animals which are ultimately offered for
slaughter as food, under conditions which are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or
John Weststeyn 2
T & J Dairy
medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food
supply.
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/awl130.pdf
TSS
YOU ARE GOING TO FIND MAD COW DISEASE.
when you have a bse surveillance system such as the USA.
your are NOT going to find mad cow disease.
GREAT JOB CANADA!!! your surveillance system is working.
a far cry from USDA et al $$$
BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/
FACTS
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL,
TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST
PRODUCT
a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6;
b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6;
c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6;
d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6.
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone
on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006. Firm initiated recall is
complete.
REASON
Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Dairy feed, custom, Recall # V-134-6;
b) Custom Dairy Feed with Monensin, Recall # V-135-6.
CODE
None. Bulk product
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Burkmann Feed, Greeneville, TN, by Telephone beginning on
June 28, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL. Firm initiated
recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,484 tons
DISTRIBUTION
TN and WV
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA,
MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
SNIP...END
SEE FULL LIST OF enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy
and Specified Risk Material taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.
SRM SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS
RUMINANT TO RUMINANT ANIMAL PROTEIN IN COMMERCE 2006-2007
http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html
INK ON PAPER, the 8/4/97 mad cow feed ban was nothing but ink on paper.
...tss
FDA Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow
with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a
processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began
an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators
inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the
animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the
slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the
weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as
"mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way
now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule
would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals
(e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing
the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed
only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs
have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the
material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way
through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the
feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein
out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established
its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that
the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will
not be fed to poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed
rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only
one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed
rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
####
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE
sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST
Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty
to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled
guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government
funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his
company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when
they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and
then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services.
In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle
that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors
for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be
submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy
USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently
received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled
for May 2007.
snip...
Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1
include:
soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),
implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System
enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and
improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),
snip...
The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in
future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and
investigations are completed.
4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
THESE are just a few examples for DISEASED cattle that likely entered the food supply.
THE FDA has removed and or made so difficult, you cannot make a simple search for all
archived material. but here are a few i still had in my files. ...tss
On January 18, 2002, FDA's New Orleans District Office issued a Warning Letter to J. Randall Mayes, Pulaski, Tennessee, a dairy farmer. An FDA inspection conducted November 26 28, 2001, confirmed that the farmer sold a cow for use as human food containing gentamicin residues. USDA analysis of tissue samples from the cow sold by Mayes identified the presence of 7.12 ppm of gentamicin in the kidney tissue. There is no established tolerance for gentamicin in cattle. In addition, FDA's investigation found that the dairy farmer held animals under conditions which were so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues were likely to enter the food supply.
http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2002/ch5/cvm1.htm
The Warning Letter also noted that the owner holds animals under conditions which are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply.
http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2001/ch5/default.htm
Mr. Sturm was found to hold animals on his farm under conditions that are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. In addition, he failed to use the drug, Albon, containing sulfadimethoxine, in conformance with the labeling.
A warning letter was issued to the following firms for violations related to 21 CFR Part 589.2000—Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
• Scott Nelson, Owner, Integra Fish Foods, Inc., Grand Junction, CO
• Bruce A. Burgett, General Manager, The Carrollton Farmers Exchange, Carrollton, OH
Violations included failure to label feeds that contain, or may contain, prohibited materials with the required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants," insufficient customer records to track the distribution of products, and lack of written procedures for cleaning or flushing equipment after mixing feeds containing prohibited material.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Sep_Oct01.htm
Mr. Van Dam was found to hold animals under improper conditions whereby diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply.
Ms. Silveira was found to be adulterating the drug Mutual Pharmaceutical brand of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim tablets, since she did not follow her veterinarian's prescribed withdrawal time of thirty days prior to slaughter.
Mr. Edwards did not properly identify treated animals to assure they are not sold for slaughter, did not maintain treatment records, and he did not follow labeling directions for medicated feed.
O & L Dairy was found to lack an adequate system for determining the medication status of animals offered for slaughter, and for assuring that animals which had been medicated had been withheld from slaughter for the appropriate periods of time to deplete potentially hazardous residues of drugs.
Mr. Sturm was found to hold animals on his farm under conditions that are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. In addition, he failed to use the drug, Albon, containing sulfadimethoxine, in conformance with the labeling.
A warning letter was issued to the following firms for violations related to 21 CFR Part 589.2000—Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
• Scott Nelson, Owner, Integra Fish Foods, Inc., Grand Junction, CO
• Bruce A. Burgett, General Manager, The Carrollton Farmers Exchange, Carrollton, OH
Violations included failure to label feeds that contain, or may contain, prohibited materials with the required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants," insufficient customer records to track the distribution of products, and lack of written procedures for cleaning or flushing equipment after mixing feeds containing prohibited material.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Sep_Oct.htm
Our investigation also found that you hold animals on your farm under conditions that are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. For example, you failed to maintain treatment records for bull calves fed medicated milk replacer, lack a system for assuring that the milk replacer is used in a manner not contrary to label instructions, and lack a system for assuring the medicated animals have been withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit depletion of potentially hazardous drug residues from edible tissues. Foods from animals held under such conditions are adulterated under Section 402(a)(4) of the Act [21 U.S.C. Section 342(a)(4)].
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/awl2.htm
Our investigation also found that you hold animals on your farm under conditions that are so inadequate that diseased animals and lormedicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. For example, you lack a system for assuring that drugs are used in a manner not contrary to label instructions, and for assuring animals medicated on your farrn have been withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit depletion of potentially hazardous drug residues from edible tissues. Foods from animals held under such conditions are adulterated under Section 402(a)(4) of the Act.
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/awl6.htm
Our investigation also found that you hold animals which are ultimately offered for
slaughter as food, under conditions which are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or
John Weststeyn 2
T & J Dairy
medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food
supply.
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/awl130.pdf
TSS
I should not have even said Americans,because 99% of the Americans on here are awesome.....the other 1% are most annoying :lol: :lol:Hooks said:
Sandhusker....I refuse to answer you cause its the SAME fight we've fought for three years now :roll: :roll: :roll:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
You don't need to answer nor was I looking for one. I wasn't asking a question, I was stating simple facts.
hillsdown
Well-known member
I think it is like the quote "Build it and they will come."
Test them and you will find..........
I am just wondering the percentage of 6 yr old in the States that are tested?????????
All I can say is let's keep testing them especially these younger ones as there is more to BSE than infected feed.
Hurry up with that live test so we can test them all.
I am proud to be an Alberta beef producer let alone a Canadian one.
Test them and you will find..........
I am just wondering the percentage of 6 yr old in the States that are tested?????????
All I can say is let's keep testing them especially these younger ones as there is more to BSE than infected feed.
Hurry up with that live test so we can test them all.
I am proud to be an Alberta beef producer let alone a Canadian one.
PORKER
Well-known member
WERE All for your Comments hillsdown;
Hurry up with that live test so we can test them all.
I am proud to be an Alberta beef producer.
We want a live test TOO !
Hurry up with that live test so we can test them all.
I am proud to be an Alberta beef producer.
We want a live test TOO !
I still have the same thoughts. Does Canada test every cow? If not this one could have been eaten by my grandkids in school lunch. That is what scares me. I'm sorry I am one of the annoying 1% but I'm concerned with the USA and Canada food safety issues.
elwapo
Well-known member
I was speaking with a director of the Alberta Beef Producers last week and he said that the Chino plant in California was able to get away with processing downer cows and putting them into your kids lunch because federal inspectors attended that plant for approximately 30 minutes each day. Here in Canada processing plants of that size have inspectors on staff all day every day! There is no possible way our Canadian plants would ever get away with processing downers......... period. Even the mom and dad butcher shops have inspectors attend on kill days for the entire kill.
Kato
Well-known member
That's true. :!: :!:
No inspector, no kill. Besides, downers don't make it to the plant in the first place. The only way a downer would arrive at a plant here is if it had a mishap and went down in a truck. In that case the vet is called, and it is euthanized right in the truck, and then disposed of. No matter the age of the animal.
I think if I was an American consumer I'd be much more worried about the kind of meat that came out of that Chino plant than anything we process up here. I personally know a few CFIA inspectors, and I would trust them with my children's food supply any day.
Randy ..... maybe this cow will help boost the testing proposed for the Canada Gold beef ........ Could be a blessing in disguise.
No inspector, no kill. Besides, downers don't make it to the plant in the first place. The only way a downer would arrive at a plant here is if it had a mishap and went down in a truck. In that case the vet is called, and it is euthanized right in the truck, and then disposed of. No matter the age of the animal.
I think if I was an American consumer I'd be much more worried about the kind of meat that came out of that Chino plant than anything we process up here. I personally know a few CFIA inspectors, and I would trust them with my children's food supply any day.
Randy ..... maybe this cow will help boost the testing proposed for the Canada Gold beef ........ Could be a blessing in disguise.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
elwapo said:
The USDA won't staff as needed because that might cost the packers a few dollars and would slow down the money machine if the chain ever had to be stopped. This is what you get when the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. You can't have safety and trade at the same time - something has to be compromised and when the AMI picks up the fiddle, the USDA puts on their dancing shoes.
elwapo
Well-known member
so you are saying Canadian beef is safer than yours?
