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

Canadian Media Questions Canadian Industry's Commitment

A

Anonymous

Guest
This Canadian author is seeing the Canadian cattlemans attitude much the same way as I posted in a post a couple of months ago...As long as we're back on the US gravy train, we'll just pooh pooh anything new away and when we wake up it'll just have been a dream :roll: ...Canadian producers don't even seem to want to know or care about all these feedban violations- even after the investigations lead the CFIA to announce that there will be more cases in ALL western provinces :???: .... WHY FOLKS-WHY????? WHY WILL THERE BE MORE CASES? WHY ARE THEY SURE THEY WILL BE IN ALL WESTERN PROVINCES?

---------------------------------------------------

Canada must scrutinize the feed industry



Aug. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS

The Star

Canada



Canada's largest market for beef, the United States, postponed plans to allow more imports of Canadian cattle over the age of 30 months in light of this country's latest case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) found in Alberta.



It is Canada's fifth case in 2006 and the eighth since 2003, when the disease was first found in this country.



Number 7 this summer was only 4 years old, though. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) seemed far from concerned, stating that no part of the latest cow's carcass entered the human food or animal-feed systems.



Finding more BSE cases in Canada should be expected, but more work to manage future cases is certainly required.



This summer, the United States announced it would cut its mad-cow testing program by almost 90 per cent, after data collected over two years showed a very low level of the disease in the domestic herd.



This would suggest that North American authorities are perhaps becoming nonchalant about the BSE scare without knowing much about the disease itself.



The last Canadian BSE case in July was born five years after the feed ban that prevented parts from cattle and other ruminants being used in feed for such animals.



For years, the CFIA argued that the 1997 feed ban would eradicate most latent BSE cases from Canadian herds.



With this last case, some have suggested that an old bag of feed produced before the bans or accidents that occurred in feed mills may have caused the disease to spread.



The possibility of maternal transmission of BSE, from cow to calf, was also mentioned after the latest case was found.



As we continue to learn about BSE and international trades concerning food safety, a guessing game is hardly an astute strategy for reassuring our trading partners.



Indeed, surveillance of the disease itself has become an even more important issue.



So far, Canada has tested almost 50,000 cases, a great improvement from 3,000 a few years go — but it is still far from enough.



Increased monitoring across the supply chain would not only serve the purpose of managing risks, it would help us understand how the disease is contracted and how it evolves in time.



Although the CFIA recently strengthened feed control in Canada, the feed industry needs to be better scrutinized. Monitoring will lead to more evidence-based analysis, which is essential for scientific research.



It would also allow the supply chain to equip itself for future threatening diseases that could someday strike the cattle industry.



Methods to detect the disease should also be reviewed.



For example, a Canadian company based in Alberta is confident it has a cheap, groundbreaking test for mad-cow disease. The only approved BSE test in Canada has to be performed post-mortem on the animal.



It is now technologically possible to test live animals and detect the disease at an early stage.



Similar technologies exist in the United States and Europe.



These would decrease the costs of monitoring capabilities while increasing our monitoring capacity and accuracy, and, at the same time, vastly increasing our knowledge of the disease itself.



Over the last three years, we have realized that the Americans are the "canaries" signalling to us when it is time to take action.



Since the Americans are reluctant to test all their cattle for BSE, Canada is synchronistically also not ready to do so, and the CFIA adamantly defends current food-safety policies. It has no other choice but to do so.



The CFIA applies rigorous methods to manage domestic risks, both for the industry and consumers.



Better monitoring, though, would democratize the entire process for both the industry and Canadian consumers.



The focus now should also be on learning, not just on managing risks. Canadian consumers deserve better protection.



In enhancing our BSE monitoring strategy, scientists will acquire better knowledge of the disease itself, and so will our trading partners have better reassurance on the quality of our products.




With the discovery of the eighth BSE case in Canada, study of the disease and improved monitoring clearly represents a far more reasonable course than the "business as usual" tack prevailing in the industry and in the Canadian policy approach since the initial crisis with the discovery of the first BSE case in this country.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sylvain Charlebois is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Business Administration at the University of Regina.





thestar.com
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
...Canadian producers don't even seem to want to know or care about all these feedban violations


Flounder - do you have a running tally of the US feedban violations? Can you please post a grand total (tonnage/number of recalls) from 1997 to present, (those that they are aware of) ?
Thank you
 

flounder

Well-known member
S.S.A.P. said:
Oldtimer said:
...Canadian producers don't even seem to want to know or care about all these feedban violations


Flounder - do you have a running tally of the US feedban violations? Can you please post a grand total (tonnage/number of recalls) from 1997 to present, (those that they are aware of) ?
Thank you


I could not catch all of them, but i tried :shock:


HISTORY TERRY'S USDA/FDA MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS


BSE Ruminant and Mammalian mad cow protein in commerce USA 2000 - 2006 compliments FDA/USDA/TSS et al 'THE BIGGER PICTURE'

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12176




IN this next docket, part 1, you will see a long list of mad cow feed ban warning letters, a short list, and then a older list of FDA mad cow feed ban warning letters, much longer ;



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





TERRY'S MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS GO MISSING IN ACTION, and there excuse ;-)



DATABASE CHANGE

After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that was used to
compile these numbers. The Agency is starting a new database on April
15, 2002, and future updates on BSE enforcement will draw from it.

snip...

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/2002/May_June.htm#Ruminant



NO where did it state that they would cease to publish the
ruminant-to-rumiant feed ban violations after the above
publication. so, again, where are these now being posted
on the web, what URL???

let us look at a review of past ruminant BSE feed ban warning
letters. these are just the ones i found. most of you have
seen them in the past, but it does not hurt to remind us of
why they no longer post them to the public. if that is
the case?

USA 8/4/97 RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED BAN that never was...

'ANIMAL PROTEIN' SEARCH 9/9/02
==============================

Darling International, Inc.
5/07/02
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
HTML:
 All American Feed & Tractor
4/01/02
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
[HTML] Tyson Foods
2/12/02
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
[HTML] The Feed Bucket
12/11/01
Atlanta District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
[HTML] Finlayson Ag Center
11/08/01
Minneapolis District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
[HTML] Dixon Feeds, Inc.
10/24/01
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
[HTML] Buckeye Feed Mills, Inc.
9/20/01
Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
[HTML] Wilcox Farms, Inc.
9/14/01
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed [PDF]
[HTML]

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/full_text.cfm?full_text=animal+protein&Search=Search

now, compare search on 8/8/01...tss
===================================

'ANIMAL PROTEIN' SEARCH 8/8/01
==============================

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:13:43 -0700
Reply-To: BSE-L
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE-L
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS U.S.A. AUGUST 8, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021-4421

Telephone: 426-486-8788 FAX: 426-483-4996

August 8, 2001

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 01-75

William W. Himmelspach, Owner 22195 S.W. 78th Tualatin, Oregon 97062

WARNING LETTER

Dear Mr. Himmelspach:

An investigation at your animal feed manufacturing operation located at
22195 S.W. 78th Tualatin, Oregon 97062, conducted by a Food and Drug
Administration investigator on July 12, 2001, found significant
deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed. The regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Such deviations
cause products being manufactured at this facility to be adulterated
within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C), and 402(a)(4) of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

Our investigation found a failure to separate the receipt, processing,
and storage of the product containing prohibited material from
non-prohibited material; failure to establish a written system,
including clean-out and flushing procedures, to avoid commingling and
cross-contamination of common equipment; and failure to maintain records
sufficient to track the materials throughout the receipt, processing,
and distribution of your products.

In addition, our investigation found a failure to label your products
with the required cautionary, statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other
Ruminants," Your pig feeds, containing prohibited materials, were not
labeled with the cautionary statement, and you reuse poly-tote bags for
ruminant feed and pig feed, where the bags could become contaminated
with prohibited material. The FDA suggests the statement be
distinguished by different type size or color or other means of
highlighting the statement so that it is easily noticed by a purchaser.

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from
the regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed
use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with

William W. Himmelspach Tualatin, Oregon Re: Warning Letter SEA 01-75 Page 2

your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute
are in compliance with the law. We have enclosed a copy of the FDA's
Small Entity Compliance Guide to assist you with complying with the
regulation.

You should take prompt action to correct these violations, and you
should establish a system whereby such violations do not recur. Failure
to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action
without further notice, such as seizure and/or injunction.

You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of
receipt of this letter, of the steps you have taken to bring your firm
into compliance with the law. Your response should include an
explanation of each step being taken to correct the violations, and
prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed in 15
working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the
corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available
documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.

Your reply should be directed to the Food and Drug Administration,
Attention: Bruce Williamson, Compliance Officer. If you have any
questions please contact Mr. Williamson at (425) 483-4976.

Sincerely,

Charles M. Breen District Director

Enclosure; Form FDA 483 Small Entity Compliance Guide

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1619d.pdf

Warning Letters Index - Search Form Results Company Name Date Issued
Issuing Office

Subject

File Adrian Elevator, Inc. 5/03/01 Minneapolis District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Alaska Garden and Pet Supply, Inc. 4/27/01 Seattle District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Bryan Enterprises 2/20/01 Cincinnati District Office Feed
Mill/Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated

View File Carrollton Farmers Exchange 7/12/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Centerburg Mill and General Store, Inc 3/23/01 Cincinnati
District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Centerburg Mill and General Store, Inc. 5/23/01 Cincinnati
District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Central Ohio Farmers Cooperative, Inc. 5/24/01 Cincinnati
District Office Animal Protein Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Champaign Landmark, Inc. 3/05/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Misbranded

View File Countryline Co-Op, Inc. 5/14/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Dorset Milling 4/16/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Earl B. Olson Feed Mill 4/23/01 Minneapolis District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Faler Feed Store, Inc. 3/21/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Farmers Mill & Elevator Company 3/30/01 Atlanta District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Farnam Companies, Inc. 7/20/01 Kansas City District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated

View File Greeley Elevator Company 4/04/01 Denver District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Hartville Elevator Company, Inc. 2/22/01 Cincinnati District
Office Feed Mill/Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated

View File Himmelspach, William W. 8/08/01 Seattle District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Integral Fish Foods, Inc. 6/12/01 Denver District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Jefferson Milling Company 4/16/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Lime Creek Ag Services, Inc. 4/25/01 Minneapolis District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Material Resources LLC 5/04/01 Chicago District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Material Resources, LLC 5/04/01 Chicago District Office Animal
Protein Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Medina Landmark, Inc. 3/23/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Minister Farmers Cooperative Exchange, Inc. 4/10/01 Cincinnati
District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Feed Mill

View File Peco Foods, Inc. 2/23/01 New Orleans District Office CGMP
Requirements for Medicated Feeds/Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Perry Coal and Feed Company 4/16/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Rietdyk's Milling Company 3/05/01 Seattle District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File River Valley Co-Op 3/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibeted in Ruminant Feed

View File River Valley Co-Op 5/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Round Lake Farmers Coop. 5/30/01 Minneapolis District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Rudy, Inc. 3/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins
Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Rudy, Inc. 5/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins
Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Sandy Lake Mills 4/09/01 Philadelphia District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Shields Feed and Supply Company 3/07/01 New Orleans District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Stewart's Farm Supply 3/21/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Superior Feeds 6/06/01 Seattle District Office Animal Proteins
Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File The Scoular Company 5/30/01 Minneapolis District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File University of Minnesota 5/10/01 Minneapolis District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Valley Feed Mill, Inc. 5/22/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc. 5/17/01 Seattle District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc. 5/17/01 Seattle District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Western Reserve Farm Cooperative 3/21/01 Cincinnati District
Office Animal Protein Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Yachere Feed, Inc. 4/09/01 Philadelphia District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File Z & W Mill, Inc. 3/27/01 Denver District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

View File

http://63.75.126.221/scripts/wlcfm/resultswl.cfm

(TYPE IN 'ANIMAL PROTEIN')

we must not forget the ANIMAL PROTEIN FED TO DEER/ELK.
those warning letters were stopped long ago;

Subject: MAD DEER/ELK DISEASE AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:41:46 -0700
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." 
Reply-To: BSE-L
To: BSE-L

8420-20.5% Antler Developer
For Deer and Game in the wild
Guaranteed Analysis Ingredients / Products Feeding Directions

snip...

_animal protein_

http://www.surefed.com/deer.htm

BODE'S GAME FEED SUPPLEMENT #400
A RATION FOR DEER
NET WEIGHT 50 POUNDS
22.6 KG.

snip...

_animal protein_

http://www.bodefeed.com/prod7.htm

Ingredients

Grain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain By-Products,
Forage Products, Roughage Products 15%, Molasses Products,
__Animal Protein Products__,
snip...

http://www.bodefeed.com/prod6.htm
===================================

MORE ANIMAL PROTEIN PRODUCTS FOR DEER

Bode's #1 Game Pellets
A RATION FOR DEER
F3153

GUARANTEED ANALYSIS
Crude Protein (Min) 16%
Crude Fat (Min) 2.0%
snip...

Ingredients

Grain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain By-Products,
Forage Products, Roughage Products, 15% Molasses Products,
__Animal Protein Products__,
Monocalcium Phosphate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Salt,
snip...

FEEDING DIRECTIONS
Feed as Creep Feed with Normal Diet

http://www.bodefeed.com/prod8.htm

INGREDIENTS

Grain Products, Roughage Products (not more than 35%), Processed Grain
By-Products, Plant Protein Products, Forage Products,
__Animal Protein Products__,
L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Monocalcium/Dicalcium
snip...

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

Deer Builder Pellets is designed to be fed to deer under range
conditions or deer that require higher levels of protein. Feed to deer
during gestation, fawning, lactation, antler growth and pre-rut, all
phases which require a higher level of nutrition. Provide adequate
amounts of good quality roughage and fresh water at all times.

http://www.profilenutrition.com/Pro...er_pellets.html

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

April 9, 2001 WARNING LETTER

01-PHI-12
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Brian J. Raymond, Owner
Sandy Lake Mills
26 Mill Street
P.O. Box 117
Sandy Lake, PA 16145
PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

Tel: 215-597-4390

Dear Mr. Raymond:

Food and Drug Administration Investigator Gregory E. Beichner conducted
an inspection of your animal feed manufacturing operation, located in
Sandy Lake, Pennsylvania, on March 23, 2001, and determined that your
firm manufactures animal feeds including feeds containing prohibited
materials. The inspection found significant deviations from the
requirements set forth in Title 21, code of Federal Regulations, part
589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The regulation
is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) . Such deviations cause products being
manufactured at this facility to be misbranded within the meaning of
Section 403(f), of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

Our investigation found failure to label your swine feed with the
required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to cattle or other Ruminants"
The FDA suggests that the statement be distinguished by different
type-size or color or other means of highlighting the statement so that
it is easily noticed by a purchaser.

In addition, we note that you are using approximately 140 pounds of
cracked corn to flush your mixer used in the manufacture of animal
feeds containing prohibited material. This flushed material is fed to
wild game including deer, a ruminant animal. Feed material which may
potentially contain prohibited material should not be fed to ruminant
animals which may become part of the food chain.

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from
the regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal
feed use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation
and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with
the law. We have enclosed a copy of FDA's Small Entity Compliance Guide
to assist you with complying with the regulation... blah, blah, blah...

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1115d.pdf
===================================================

snip...

Subject: USA BSE/TSE RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED BAN VIOLATIONS ''cover-up''
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." 
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:17:40 -0600
To: BSE-L

Greetings List members,

i have tried to inquire about the USA BSE/TSE feed ban
violations with no luck via USDA/APHIS. since about april
or may of 2002, the warning letters have ceased to be posted
publicly, and at the site CVM and Ruminant feed inspections
site url, they have not been updated either. it seems to
me the new administration has taken away all rights for
the public to view these violations.

where are they now being posted ???

you can hide it, but it will not make it go away.

would/could the USDA/APHIS whom lurk on this list,
please comment?

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/InpectionListDescriptionforHP.htm

http://www.testcowsnow.com

GBR risk assessment of BSE should be changed to all TSEs.

USA GBR II should be changed to GBR III immediately!

now about those ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations
that have ceased to be published? why you may ask?

Subject: Re: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ???
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:08:13 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." 
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L
References: 

<[email protected]> <[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>

hello Dr. Dealler,

please do not hold your breath for any USA
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters
since May of 2002 to be released anytime soon,
this could be fatal for you;-)
i have not gotten them yet, if any exist.
but i am trying.
hopefully GW et al will not think i am one of
the terrorist, and will allow for this information
to be released (with no charge attached$$$)...

kindest regards,
terry

Steve Dealler wrote:

> This was absolutely excellent for Terry to have got this from the US
> Government...you should have tried getting this sort of thing from 
MAFF in the UK
> at the beginning of the nineties!
> Steve Dealler
>
> "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Greetings List Members,
>>
>>as you know, i finally had to request to the FOIA
>>for the USA madcow feed ban warning letters. so i thought
>>some of you may be interested in an update on this matter.
>>
>>so here it is;
>>
>>Subject: Request to FDA via FOIA of ALL USA Ruminant-to-Ruminant Feed
>>Ban Violations Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003
>>Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:32:43 -0600
>>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." 
>>Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>To: BSE-L
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration
>>Office of Information Resources Management
>>Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35)
>>5600 Fishers Lane
>>Rockville, MD 20857
>>
>>Or requests may be sent via fax to: (301) 443-1726. If there are
>>problems sending a fax, call (301) 443-2414.
>>
>>1/6/03
>>
>>Request to FDA via FOIA of ALL USA Ruminant-to-Ruminant Feed Ban
>>Violations Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003
>>
>>Greetings FDA and To Whom it may concern,
>>
>>i wish to request all ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations from Jan.
>>2001 to Jan. 2003. it seems none has been posted since May 2001 on the
>>FDA site. I also kindly request that all fees be wavered due to the fact
>>this is public information, public health is at risk, and this
>>will be distributed 'freely' to the public...
>>
>>thank you,
>>kind regards,
>>
>>I am sincerely,
>>
>>Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>>P.O. Box Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
>>CJD Watch
>>
>>==========================================================
>>
>>now since then, just this past Friday 1/10/03, i get this from
>>FDA;
>>
>>REPLY FROM DPH/FDA to TSS;
>>
>>PLEASE note, my request was for all R-T-R feed ban
>>violations from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003. BUT in the
>>reply, they posted Jan. 2002 to Jan. 2003. i called
>>and this is to be corrected. hopefully this FOIA
>>request will ignite some enthusiasm from the FDA
>>into posting to the public any R-T-R MAD COW
>>FEED BAN violations, since GW et al new policy
>>on secrecy took effect on this matter in May of 2002
>>(correcting my below 'since May 2001).
>>
>>TSS
>>
>>Department of Health & Human Services
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration
>>Rockville MD 20857
>>
>>1/7/03
>>
>>In reply refer to;
>>
>>xxxxxxx
>>
>>Dear Requester,
>>
>>The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received your
>>Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records
>>regarding;
>>
>>RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED - BAN VIOLATIONS 1/02 - 1/03
>>
>>We will respond as soon as possible and may charge you a fee
>>for processing your request. If you have any questions
>>about your request, please call Edna G. Wilkerson,
>>Information Technician, at 301-827-6564 or write to us
>>at;
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration
>>Division of Freedom of Information
>>5600 Fishers Lance, HFI - 35
>>Rockville, MD 20857
>>
>>If you call or write, use the reference number above
>>which will help us to answer your questions more quickly...
>>===========================================================
>>now, Sunday, i read this in the Houston Chronicle 1/12/03;
>>
>>SENATOR AIMS TO UPGRADE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
>>
>>TEXAS Sen. John Coprnyn says he wants to improve public access to
>>government records in Washington, a position that appears to put
>>him at odds with the Bush administration.
>>
>>Cornyn, a moderate Republican who sits on the Senate Judiciary
>>Committee, said he'll work on legislation in the coming weeks to
>>improve the Freedom of Information Act.
>>
>>"FOIA needs to be strenghened," he said, "We need to quicken the
>>turnaround time and create a mechanism that allows an indepentent,
>>third party to decide whether a record should be kept secret."
>>
>>Echoing sentiments he expressed while serving as Texas attorney
>>general, Cornyn added: "I believe in a system of governement
>>that allows consent of the people. And people can't consent if they
>>don't what their elected officials are doing."
>>
>>Since taking office two years ago, the Bush Administration has
>>taken steps to restrict access to governement information, an effort
>>that was accelerated in the name of national security following
>>the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks......
>>
>>Greetings again BSE-L list members,
>>
>>how would _USA_ ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning
>>letters have anything to do with terrorism and National
>>Security?

snip...

 

>>Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:04:42 -0700
>>Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." 
>>Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS USA 'update' (where did
>>all Terry's MAD COW warning letters go?)
>>
>>snip...
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration Kansas City District Southwest Region 11630
>>West 60 Street P.O. Box 15905 Lenexa, Kansas 66265-4905 Telephone: (913)
>>752-2100
>>
>>July 29, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED WARNING LETTER
>>Ref. KAN 2002-09
>>
>>Jerry Behimer, Owner Bakery Trading Company/Ingredient Exchange 401 N.
>>Lindbergh Blvd., Suite 315 St. Louis, MO 63141-7816
>>
>>Dear Mr. Behimer:
>>
>>An inspection of your animal feed premix-manufacturing operations,
>>located at 14521 2nd Ave., Ottumwa, Iowa, was conducted by an
>>Investigator from our office on June 18 & 19, 2002. During this
>>inspection, a significant deviation from the requirements set forth in
>>Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins
>>Prohibited in Ruminant Feed was identified. The regulation is intended
>>to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform
>>Encephalopathy (BSE). Under 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(g)(2), such a deviation
>>causes products being manufactured and/or distributed by your facility
>>to be deemed misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(l) of the
>>Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), and these products may
>>not be lawfully introduced, or delivered for introduction, into
>>interstate commerce.
>>
>>Our investigation found a failure to label your Powdered Cooked Beef,
>>Product No. 5013, produced during the period of 2/13/02 to approximately
>>4/18/02, with the cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other
>>Ruminants," as required by 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(d). The FDA suggests the
>>statement be distinguished by different type size or color, or other
>>means of highlighting the statement so that it is easily noticed by a
>>purchaser.
>>
>>The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from
>>the regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed
>>use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
>>the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with 
the law.
>>
>>You should take prompt action to correct this violation, and you should
>>establish a system whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to
>>promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action
>>without further notice, such as seizure and/or injunction.
>>
>>It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. We request
>>you provide our office documentation of corrective action and final
>>disposition for Lot 030402, approximately 21 tons, which was on hand
>>during the inspection. Let this office know in writing within fifteen
>>(15) working days from the date you received this letter what steps you
>>are taking to correct the problem.
>>
>>Your reply should be sent to Nadine Nanko Johnson, Compliance Officer,
>>at the above address.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>/s/
>>
>>Charles W. Sedgwick
>>
>>District Director
>>
>>Kansas City District
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g3430d.htm
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd
>>Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021-4421 Telephone: 425-466-6766 FAX: 426-483-4996
>>
>>May 7, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED In reply refer to
>>Warning Letter SEA 02-46 WARNING LETTER
>>
>>Mr. Philip C. Anderson, General Manager Darling International, Inc. 2041
>>Marc Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98401
>>
>>Dear Mr. Anderson:
>>
>>An inspection of your rendering operation conducted by Investigator
>>Donald B. McKechnie, on February 22 and 26, 2002, found a significant
>>deviation from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal
>>Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed. The regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
>>amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Such deviation
>>causes products being manufactured and/or distributed by your facility
>>to be misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(f) of the Federal
>>Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
>>
>>Our investigation found a failure to consistently label your meat and
>>bone meal product shipped to [redacted], with the required cautionary
>>statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants". The meat and bone
>>meal contains beef offal along with other ingredients including chicken,
>>fish, and pork. The FDA suggests the statement be distinguished by
>>different type size or color or other means of highlighting the
>>statement so that it is easily noticed by a purchaser.
>>
>>The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from
>>the regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed
>>use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
>>the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the
>>law. We have enclosed a copy of the FDA?s Small Entity Compliance Guide
>>to assist you with complying with the regulation.
>>
>>You should take prompt action to correct this violation, and you should
>>establish a system whereby such violation does not recur. Failure to
>>promptly correct this violation may result in regulatory action without
>>further notice, such as seizure and/or injunction.
>>
>>You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of
>>receipt of this letter, of the steps you have taken to bring your firm
>>into compliance with the law. Your response should include an
>>explanation of each step being taken to correct the violation, and to
>>prevent its recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed in 15
>>working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the
>>corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available
>>documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.
>>
>>Please send your reply to the Food and Drug Administration, Attention:
>>Thomas S. Piekarski, Compliance Officer, 22201 23rd Drive SE, Bothell,
>>Washington 98021. If you have questions regarding any issue in this
>>letter, please contact Mr. Piekarski at (425) 483-4975. Sincerely,
>>Charles Breen District Director
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g3276d.htm
>>
>>where, oh where, did all Terry's mad cow feed ban warning letters go$
>>
>>FDA Cuts Back on Warnings
>>
>>10/01/02
>>
>>WASHINGTON -- The Food and Drug Administration has substantially cut
>>back on warnings sent to companies that run afoul of its rules, a move
>>the agency contends will result in more-effective enforcement but that
>>critics say lets violators off the hook.
>>
>>The drop results from a policy change in late February that requires the
>>FDA chief counsel's office to clear all warning letters to ensure they
>>are legally sound. Before the change, division and district offices
>>around the country issued such letters unilaterally. In the six months
>>since, the agency issued 279 warning letters, a drop of 64% from the
>>same period last year, a review of agency records shows. The FDA says
>>the chief counsel's office rejected only 6% of the 699 warning letters
>>and other citations it reviewed. At the same time, division and district
>>enforcers may be holding back letters they once would have sent.
>>
>>SEE FULL STORY
>>
>>http://online.wsj.com/
>>
>>snip...
>>
>>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:21:00 -0700
>>Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." 
>>Subject: 'TONNAGE' OF TAINTED FEED $ what's up with the mad cow 
warning
>> letters
>>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>since the FDA has apparently stopped issuing some warning letters;
>>
>>10/7/02
>>
>>Senate Questions FDA Commissioner Nominee
>>
>>In testimony today before the U.S. Senate, Dr. Mark McClellan, the Bush
>>administration nominee for Commissioner of Food and Drugs, said that
>>under his leadership, the FDA would uphold its enforcement authority to
>>ensure the safety and effectiveness of the products it regulates and to
>>ensure that accurate and truthful information is conveyed to the public.
>>
>>Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education,
>>Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, expressed concern at the start of
>>the hearing that the FDA may be backing away from its regulatory
>>authority, noting a drop in the number of Warning Letters issued by the
>>agency, rumors that the FDA may regulate certain contact lenses as
>>cosmetics rather than as devices and the agency's re-examination of its
>>policies in light of First Amendment challenges.
>>
>>Although McClellan did not comment directly on any of the specific
>>examples cited by Kennedy, the nominee said that he sees "no intent on
>>FDA's part to retreat from its mission" of protecting the public 
health...
>>
>>snip...
>>
>>http://www.thompson.com/fda
>>
>>maybe i was not too far off when i acting in haste on the previous
>>thread on BSE-L, see archived thread;
>>
>>Subject: USA/THOMPSON TURNS TO COMMUNISM TACTICS, FDA TURNS TO SECRECY
>>ON MAD COW FEED WARNING LETTERS Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:07:02 -0700
>>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." Reply-To: BSE-L
>>
>>so, i was nosing around the FDA warning letters and other files, came
>>across these and thought since 1/2 to 1 GRAM is lethal to a cow, i
>>thought these TONNAGE in some of these violations i ran across most
>>interesting. no telling how many dead road-kill CWD infected carcasses
>>were rendered into this, along with whatever type TSE in USA cattle, and
>>we can't forget about all the scrapie infected sheep that may have been
>>added to the soup. with a combination of CWD, SCRAPIE, TME and all the
>>different variants that may have come from them over the years, what in
>>the world would you call the TSEs in USA cattle, once they test to find,
>>and then find? could be a nasty one. or maybe none at all? doubtful
>>though (just my opinion, if i still allowed one here);
>>
>>PRODUCT BioFlavor F2425, BioFlavor F21002 and BioFlavor C20058. The
>>product, packaged in 50 lb. bags, is labeled in part, " *** PALATABILITY
>>ENHANCER INTENDED FOR CAT FOOD USE AT LESS THAN 10% *** INGREDIENT
>>LISTING: *** Beef Broth *** ". Recall # V-140-2 CODE Product Codes F2425
>>107B-RB-1 107B-RB-2 149C 201D 202C 205D 210A F21002 143B 143D 146D 144B
>>144D 139D 142D 150D 151D 152C 152D 201C 205C 206C 208A 211A C20058 143D
>>144C 146C 208B RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Bioproducts,
>>Inc., Fairlawn, OH, by telephone and letter on April 5, 2002.
>>Manufacturer: Bioproducts, Inc., Aurora, MO. Firm initiated recall is
>>ongoing. REASON Animal feed product with beef protein does not contain
>>required BSE statement on labels.
>>
>>VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 354,150 lbs.
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION TX, KS, MO and MI. _______________________
>>
>>PRODUCT Steamed Bonemeal in 50-lb. bags, product code C# 13581, packaged
>>under two different labels: Premium Steamed Bonemeal Manufactured by
>>Buchheit Premium Feeds, Perryville, MO, and Steamed Bonemeal
>>Manufactured for Siemer's Enterprises Inc., Teutopolis, IL. Recall #
>>V-141-2. CODE Not coded. RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Buchheit, Inc.,
>>Perryville, MO, by telephone on May 14, 2002. FDA initiated recall is
>>ongoing. REASON Label lacks BSE warning statement.
>>
>>VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
>>
>>Approx. 902/50-lb. bags.
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION MO and IL.
>>
>>END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JUNE 5, 2002
>>
>>####
>>
>>PRODUCT
>>
>>The following custom mixed animal feeds are recalled --- a)
>>[non-ruminant]: Horse Feed, Hog Feed, and 14% Pig Feed. Recall #
>>V-157-2; b) [ruminant]: Dairy Feed, Steer Feed, New Goat Feed, Cattle
>>Feed, and Beef Feed. Recall # V-158-2. CODE The product is coded only
>>with the manufacturing date and invoice numbers. All feed products
>>manufactured and shipped since July 9, 2001 are affected by this recall.
>>RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Shepard Grain Company, Inc.,
>>Urbana, OH, by telephone on January 11, 2002. Manufacturer: Shepard
>>Grain Company, Inc., W. Liberty, OH. FDA initiated recall is complete.
>>REASON Ruminant and non-ruminant animal feeds contain BSE prohibited
>>material, and are either misbranded or adulterated.
>>
>>VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
>>
>>41,129 LBS (20.5 tons).
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION OH.
>>
>>END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 28, 2002 ####
>>
>>PRODUCT:
>>
>>Buckeye 40% Poultry Concentrate. Recall #V-016-1. CODES: The bags are
>>uncoded. Firm is recalling product manufactured since December 1998;
>>however, they are only completing field corrections on product
>>manufactured within the last six months (November 2000). MANUFACTURER:
>>Yachere Feed, Inc. Rockwood, Pennsylvania. RECALLED BY: Manufacturer, by
>>visit on 3/19/01 and 3/20/01. Firm-initiated recall complete.
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>
>>Pennsylvania.
>>
>>QUANTITY:
>>
>>Nine containers, each weighing 100 pounds.
>>
>>REASON: The animal feed contains product derived from mammalian tissues
>>and must bear the statement "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants"
>>on the label to prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE
>>through feed. This statement does not appear on the label. ________
>>
>>PRODUCT:
>>
>>"Our Own Pig & Hog Grower" hog feed, packaged in 50 pound bags, with
>>paperboard tags sewn onto the bags. Recall #V-017-1. CODES: The bags are
>>uncoded. MANUFACTURER: The Perry Coal and Feed Company, Perry, Ohio.
>>RECALLED BY: Manufacturer, by telephone on March 22, 2001.
>>Firm-initiated recall complete.
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>
>>Ohio.
>>
>>QUANTITY:
>>
>>Approximately 350 pounds of hog feed (7/50 pound bags).
>>
>>REASON: The animal feed contains protein derived from mammalian tissues
>>and must bear the statement "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants"
>>on the label to prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE
>>through feed. This statement does not appear on the label. ________
>>
>>PRODUCT
>>
>>Loweís 40% Hog Concentrate - swine feed for mixing grower and finisher
>>rations, in 50-pound bulk bags. Recall #V-057-0. CODE All codes between
>>August 1, 1999 and November 23, 1999. MANUFACTURER Lowe's Feed & Grain,
>>Inc., Bowling Green, Kentucky. RECALLED BY Manufacturer, by letter dated
>>November 18, 1999, and by telephone. Firm-initiated recall complete.
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION
>>
>>Ohio.
>>
>>QUANTITY
>>
>>12.46 tons were distributed.
>>
>>REASON Product contained protein derived from mammalian tissue and
>>according to regulation must bear the statement "Do not feed to cattle
>>or other ruminants" on the label. This regulation is designed to prevent
>>the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed. This statement
>>does not appear on the label. ________
>>
>>RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETMED -- CLASS II
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>RECALL NUMBER, PRODUCT AND CODE: V-353-1 through V-370-1, Chicken feed
>>products: Recall # Tag # Product V-353-1 587 B. Challenger Scratch Feed
>>V-354-1 588 B. 18% Gamebird Conditioner V-355-1 2060 B. Kickin' Chicken
>>Premium Game Cock Feed V-356-1 2066 B. Kickin' Chicken Premium Gamebird
>>16% V-357-1 586 B. Scratch Grain V-358-1 2051 B. Pit Performer 17%
>>V-359-1 575 B. Classic Yard Feed V-360-1 576 Eliminator Maintainer
>>V-361-1 578 Eliminator Conditioner V-362-1 586 Producer Scratch Grain
>>V-363-1 4587 Producer 12% Gamebird Yard Feed V-364-1 2065 Cleveland
>>Trophy Cock Feed V-365-1 80181AAA Consolidated Hen Scratch V-366-1 2051
>>B&B Maintenance 12 V-367-1 2052 B&B Conditioner 14 V-368-1 2050 B&B
>>Scratch 10 V-369-1 4590 Kingsport Original Prater Mix V-370-1 2062 PC 10
>>(unlabeled bags) ALL CODES The "B" indicates that the Burkmann Feeds
>>brand name is listed on the tag labels. The suspect products are also
>>bagged and distributed under the following private labels:
>>
>>Producer Feeds, Louisville, Kentucky Kingsport Milling, Kingsport,
>>Tennessee Consolidated Nutrition, L.C., Omaha, Nebraska B&B Feeds,
>>Knoxville, Tennessee Eagle Roller Mill Co., Inc., Shelby, North Carolina
>>Central Farm Supply of Kentucky, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky
>>
>>REASON: The chicken feed products may contain proteins derived from
>>mammalian tissues. The products are not labeled with the required BSE
>>caution statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants."
>>
>>MANUFACTURER/RECALLING FIRM: Burkmann Feeds, London, Kentucky
>>
>>RECALLED BY: On May 5, 2001, the firm mailed recall letters with
>>attached BSE sticker-labels to all customers outside the state of
>>Kentucky. The recall notices were hand- delivered to customers within
>>the state of Kentucky by Burkmann's Sales Representatives. Customers
>>were asked to complete and return a recall response form that was
>>included with each letter documenting the numbers of bags and varieties
>>of products for which the customers affixed the BSE sticker-labels. The
>>firm expanded their recall on May 10, 2001, and mailed recall letters
>>with BSE labels and response forms to the affected customers. FIRM
>>INITIATED RECALL:
>>
>>Ongoing DISTRIBUTION: KY, GA, NC, TN, VA
>>
>>QUANTITY:
>>
>>933 tons _______________________________
>>
>>RECALL NUMBER, PRODUCT AND CODE: V-377-1, Renner's brand 45% meat and
>>bone meal, packed in 100 pound bags. REASON: The product contained
>>protein material derived from bovine mammalian tissues; however, the
>>bags are not labeled with the required BSE cautionary statement.
>>MANUFACTURER/RECALLING FIRM: F. W. Renner & Sons, Inc., Canton, Ohio
>>RECALLED BY: The recalling firm contacted the consignees by telephone on
>>June 19, 2001. FIRM INITIATED RECALL: Complete
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION: OH
>>
>>QUANTITY: 2,500 lbs _______________________________
>>
>>RECALL NUMBER, PRODUCT AND CODE: V-378-1 to V-384-1, RenPro 58% (brand
>>name) swine and poultry feeds in bulk, as follows: V-378-1 - Poultry
>>Layer #215 - guaranteed analysis 15% crude protein, 3% crude fat, and
>>3.5% crude fiber. V-379-1 - Poultry Layer #216 - guaranteed analysis 16%
>>crude protein, 3% crude fat, and 3.5% crude fiber. V-380-1 - Poultry
>>Layer #217 - guaranteed analysis 17% crude protein, 3% crude fat, and
>>3.5% crude fiber. V-381-1 - Poultry Layer #218 - guaranteed analysis 18%
>>crude protein, 3% crude fat, and 3.5% crude fiber. V-382-1 - Poultry
>>Layer #219 - guaranteed analysis 19% crude protein, 3.5% crude fat, and
>>4% crude fiber. V-383-1 - Poultry Prelay #115 - guaranteed analysis 16%
>>crude protein, 3% crude fat, and 5% crude fiber. V-384-1 - Poultry
>>Developer #110 - guaranteed analysis 14% crude protein, 3% crude fat,
>>and 5.5% crude fiber. MANFACTURER: Esbenshade Mills, Mount Joy, PA
>>RECALLED BY: On 5/24/01, the manufacturer notified their customers of
>>the labeling requirement via letter. FIRM INITIATED RECALL: Complete
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION: PA
>>
>>QUANTITY: None. The product turn over is two weeks or less.
>>
>>END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 25, 2001.
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/
>>
>>on second thought, i now see why they are cutting back on these warning
>>letters of the infamous 8/4/97 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in the USA,
>>that never was. same reason they are not testing cows in sufficient
>>numbers to find any TSEs.
>>
>>they simply don't want to know, and don't want the public to know
>>either, thus keep the gold card 'BSE FREE'.
>>
>>one more time, to all EU/SEAC members please re-evaluate the current GBR
>>of the USA, and change from GBR II to GBR III. the complete GBR
>>assessment should be changed to include _all_ TSEs...
>>
>>P.S. i wonder how deer/elk feed would be listed on FDA site? odd with
>>all the products i sent through the list on deer/elk feed with _animal
>>protein_, i have not seen any warning letters on deer/elk feed. course,
>>it could be filed with the infamous and very handy 'non-species coding
>>system' that is used on imports (i documented here many times).
>>
>>still disgusted in Bacliff, Texas USA Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>>
>>Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:
>>
>>>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 
>>>#########
>>>
>>>Greetings and Happy Holidays,
>>>
>>>hi Linda,
>>>
>>>many thanks for this reply, was just checking in to see
>>>if anything new had happened since our last correspondence.
>>>i thought i had missed something?
>>>
>>> > Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated than
>>>
>>> > the old one, and it does not lend itself to presenting data in
>>>
>>> > a simple spreadsheet as we did in the past.
>>>
>>>how convenient;-) i had no problems with the old one...
>>>
>>> > Please be assured that CVM is working to solve this problem,
>>>
>>> > and we do plan to post this data in the future.
>>>
>>>thank you, if USDA/APHIS are lucky, i will hold my breath until
>>>that time;-)
>>>
>>>nothing personal Linda, take care, and may the New Year bring
>>>
>>>PEACE...
>>>
>>>TSS
>>>
>>>CVM HomePage wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Mr. Singeltary:
>>>>
>>>>As mentioned in my e-mail of December 4, FDA's Center for Veterinary
>>>>Medicine never posted the Warning Letters for ruminant feed 
violations on
>>>>our "BSE" page -- http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bse/bsetoc.html. 
However,
>>>>these Warning Letters have been included on the FDA "Warning Letters"
>>>>page
>>>>-- http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning.htm that is located on the FDA's
>>>>"Electronic Freedom of Information Reading Room" page. But, not as a
>>>>separate category of Warning Letters for violations of the ruminant 
feed
>>>>rules.
>>>>
>>>>I checked the Warning Letter page, and found that quite a few Warning
>>>>Letters have been posted since May; however, I did not find any more
>>>>recent
>>>>than May 7, 2002, regarding "Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>>>Feed/Misbranded" (ruminant feed rule violations.) You may wish to
>>>>file a
>>>>Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to determine if more recent
>>>>Warning Letters have been issued, but not posted on the FDA Home Page.
>>>>Information about filing a FOIA request may be found at:
>>>>http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foiahand.html
>>>>
>>>>As mentioned on the "CVM and Ruminant Feed (BSE) Inspections" site --
>>>>
>>>>"After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that was used to
>>>>compile these listings. The Agency started a new database on April 15,
>>>>2002,
>>>>and future updates on BSE enforcement and inspectional findings 
will draw
>>>>from it. The format of the information presented here may change, 
due to
>>>>design changes of the new database. This site will be updated after a
>>>>period
>>>>of time that allows for transition into the new database system."
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated than the old
>>>>one,
>>>>and it does not lend itself to presenting data in a simple spreadsheet
>>>>as we
>>>>did in the past. Please be assured that CVM is working to solve this
>>>>problem, and we do plan to post this data in the future.
>>>>
>>>>We have nothing new to report at this time.
>>>>
>>>>I hope that this information is helpful.
>>>>
>>>>Sincerely yours,
>>>>
>>>>Linda A. Grassie for the FDA Home Page
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:03 PM
>>>>To: [email protected]
>>>>Subject: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Greetings,
>>>>
>>>>i have noticed the inspections and warning letters
>>>>from firms not complying with the ruminant-to-ruminant
>>>>feed ban violations has not been updated since (March 11, 2002)?
>>>>
>>>>2) Firms Currently Considered as Not in Compliance with the BSE Feed
>>>>Rule
>>>>
>>>>The following spreadsheet is a subset of Spreadsheet 1 and contains the
>>>>name, address, and firm identifier of all firms that were considered as
>>>>not being in compliance with the BSE feed regulation at their most
>>>>recent inspection, according to the BSE inspection database. Compliance
>>>>status was determined by examination of the BSE Inspection Checklist.
>>>>The dates of the inspections and the specific BSE provision violations
>>>>for each inspection are also included. The listing is organized
>>>>alphabetically first by the FDA District and then by the state in which
>>>>the inspected facility is located.
>>>>
>>>>Most Recent BSE Inspections, Firms Not in Compliance
>>>>
>>>>http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/InpectionListDescriptionforHP.htm
>>>>
>>>>i would be interested to know if all firms are now complying and 
that no
>>>>warning letters have been issued since may of 2002, or have they 
just not
>>>>been posted?
>>>>
>>>>if so, how can i locate them?
>>>>
>>>>thank you,
>>>>kind regards,
>>>>terry
=======================================================



http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=30390


EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA, CANADA, AND MEXICO is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases. that is why GW et al changed the rules to the legal trading of all strains of TSE, i.e. BSE MRR policy, and from the recent USDA/FDA mad cow feed violations, there are literally hundreds of thousands of tons and tons out there in commerce, and it is still being funneled out there today.  ...TSS

 
 
 
EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of Canada

Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)


[Last updated 08 September 2004]
[Publication Date 20 August 2004]
 
 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564.html




EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of Mexico

Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)


[Last updated 08 September 2004]
[Publication Date 20 August 2004]
 
 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/565.html
 




EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)

Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)


[Last updated 08 September 2004]
[Publication Date 20 August 2004]
 
 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573.html
 
 
TSS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
S.S.A.P. said:
Oldtimer said:
...Canadian producers don't even seem to want to know or care about all these feedban violations


Flounder - do you have a running tally of the US feedban violations? Can you please post a grand total (tonnage/number of recalls) from 1997 to present, (those that they are aware of) ?
Thank you

But we don't have the Mad Cow of the Month showing up, 4 of which have been POST feedban - or 50 month old cattle infected with ultrapotent infectivity being found- or are shipping God only knows how many infected live cattle daily across the line into the US, while crying, whining, and lobbying to allow even higher risk cattle across...

S.S.A.P.-- Don't you even wonder a little bit what CFIA found to issue such a broad and profound statement about all western provinces being infected :???:
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
No Oldtimer I don't wonder ... I read the investigation, I'm not happy it occured but I understand the comments.

What I do wonder about is the US's feedban violations ... and to use your terminology .... "100's- yes, 1000's- maybe". And if what Bullard said is true, everyone will be questioning how many US cattle and calves in feedlots and slaughterhouses today are infected.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
S.S.A.P. said:
No Oldtimer I don't wonder ... I read the investigation, I'm not happy it occured but I understand the comments.

I guess that just goes to show the good professor is probably right...

"business as usual" tack prevailing in the industry
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
S.S.A.P. said:
No Oldtimer I don't wonder ... I read the investigation, I'm not happy it occured but I understand the comments.

I guess that just goes to show the good professor is probably right...

"business as usual" tack prevailing in the industry

Yes, I do see it is business as usual, you "tactfully" avoid your feedban violations by divertion ..... another "opinion" about Canada.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
But you have the option to not take our cows if you feel the feed ban is not working. Last I looked we are two seperate countries. You use the reports of our feed bans not working to try and convince us that it is ok to take your feed ban misused cows. Something smells here.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
S.S.A.P. said:
Oldtimer said:
S.S.A.P. said:
No Oldtimer I don't wonder ... I read the investigation, I'm not happy it occured but I understand the comments.

I guess that just goes to show the good professor is probably right...

"business as usual" tack prevailing in the industry

Yes, I do see it is business as usual, you "tactfully" avoid your feedban violations by divertion ..... another "opinion" about Canada.

CFIA and Canadians have apparently already accepted our USDA's evaluation that:
USDA's "conclusion is that this disease is very, very rare in our livestock herd."

since CFIA opened the border to ALL US cattle/beef last month---which makes our feedban a moot issue....

On the other hand tho Canada is trying to push their cattle into the US- is experiencing multiple POST feedban positives all of which apparently trace to some type of feedban violation....And since the US has not approved opening to all cattle/beef yet, I think open and transparent examination of the Canadian feedban is a very vital issue for us to make an informed decision with......

What did the good professor say:
In enhancing our BSE monitoring strategy, scientists will acquire better knowledge of the disease itself, and so will our trading partners have better reassurance on the quality of our products.
 

don

Well-known member
from article: So far, Canada has tested almost 50,000 cases, a great improvement from 3,000 a few years go — but it is still far from enough.



Increased monitoring across the supply chain would not only serve the purpose of managing risks, it would help us understand how the disease is contracted and how it evolves in time.



i hope consumers will demand more testing so that we get a program in place which ensures consumer confidence and will be of sufficient credibility that cattlemen can say they want imports from the usa restricted to product that meets our standards. cca and cfia won't listen to cattlemen so hopefully consumers can help to install a program which meets confidence requirements.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
S.S.A.P. said:
Oldtimer said:
I guess that just goes to show the good professor is probably right...

Yes, I do see it is business as usual, you "tactfully" avoid your feedban violations by divertion ..... another "opinion" about Canada.

CFIA and Canadians have apparently already accepted our USDA's evaluation that:
USDA's "conclusion is that this disease is very, very rare in our livestock herd."

since CFIA opened the border to ALL US cattle/beef last month---which makes our feedban a moot issue....

On the other hand tho Canada is trying to push their cattle into the US- is experiencing multiple POST feedban positives all of which apparently trace to some type of feedban violation....And since the US has not approved opening to all cattle/beef yet, I think open and transparent examination of the Canadian feedban is a very vital issue for us to make an informed decision with......

What did the good professor say:
In enhancing our BSE monitoring strategy, scientists will acquire better knowledge of the disease itself, and so will our trading partners have better reassurance on the quality of our products.



OT, your only kidding yourself with this nonsense of the USA beef being safer than Canada. The June 2004 enhanced BSE surveillance program was nothing more than a cover-up, and they even failed at that. all one has to do is look at the testing protocols, and even one of the TOP CDC TSE scientist says he would not trust anything USDA did before 2005 because of this terribly flawed surveillance program. those 700 or 800 thousand BSE test were meaningless, the whole program was a sham. Paul Brown said it, the OIG said, other top TSE scientist said it, seems the only one that believes in it is the USDA (and even not all there), and you believe this bull sh!t. I would feel safer sitting in Alberta eating a steak, or in Tokyo eating a kobe, than any steak from Texas or the USA. the last steak i had was from Texas and it was tougher than nails anyway. the USDA is only kidding themselves and the fools that believe them. ...


THE USDA JUNE 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WAS TERRIBLY FLAWED ;



CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006



The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005 suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end


http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r





CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ...
Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05, ...


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm



USDA ANNOUNCES BSE TEST RESULTS AND NEW BSE CONFIRMATORY TESTING PROTOCOL

WASHINGTON, June 24, 2005 -- Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has received final test results from The Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, England, confirming that a sample from an animal that was blocked from the food supply in November 2004 has tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Johanns also directed USDA scientists to work with international experts to thoughtfully develop a new protocol that includes performing dual confirmatory tests in the event of another "inconclusive" BSE screening test.


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/



HOWEVER, when Dr. Detwiler tried to tell them this in 2003, they shot the messenger ;





USDA 2003

We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip.............


Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important.
If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We
have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.

Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip...


FULL TEXT;


Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE


Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado


2005

=============================


AFTER this administration put Dr. Detwiler out to pasture cause she did not agree with there BSE protocols, she was so wrong, she now works to make sure our beef at McDonald's is safe cause McDonalds saw the writing on the wall ;



International Scientific Advisory Council
McDonald's International Scientific Advisory Council adds further strength to our beef safety program by providing independent expert scientific and medical advice on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

COUNCIL MEMBERS

Dr. Neil Cashman. Diener Professor of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Director, Neuromuscular Disease Clinic, Sunnybrook & Women's Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto. Specialist in motor neuron diseases and the cell biology of amyloid encephalopathies, including prion illnesses. Author of over 250 publications. Recipient of the 2000 Jonas Salk Prize for biomedical research.

Dr. Dean Danilson. Vice President QAFS, Tyson Foods, Inc. Responsible for quality assurance and food safety programs for the retail division for fresh beef, pork, poultry and ready-to-eat meats.

Dr. Linda Detwiler. Adjunct Professor, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Maryland. Also provides private animal health consulting services, with specializations in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, emergency preparedness, and animal product issues related to imports and exports. Formerly Senior Staff Veterinarian, Emergency Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the unit principally responsible for surveillance, prevention, and education activities related to BSE. Member of various international working groups and advisory committees on TSEs. Author of numerous articles on the issues.

Alan A. Harris, M.D. Professor of Internal Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Senior Assistant Chairman, Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Epidemiologist, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center. Specialist in public health and foodborne illnesses. Fellow, Infectious Diseases Society of America. Fellow, American College of Physicians. Member, Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Author or co-author of more than 140 scientific publications.

Dr. Beat Hörnlimann, MPH. Managing Director, SVISS Consulting, BSE 7192 Ltd., an organization that provides expert advice on public and animal health, particularly with respect to BSE. Formerly Chief Veterinary Officer, Public Health Department, Kanton Zug, Switzerland. Led Swiss BSE and scrapie eradication program and served in numerous other senior-level staff and advisory positions related to TSEs. Author of a book on prions and prion diseases in humans and animals.

Dr. David Kessler. Dean, School of Medicine, Yale University and former Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Author of A Question of Intent (on federal tobacco regulation efforts) and numerous articles in major medical journals. Member, Board of Directors, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Doctors of the World, National Center for Addiction and Substance, Henry Kaiser Family Foundation. Recipient of numerous medical public service awards, including the American Heart Association National Public Affairs Special Recognition Award, American Academy of Pediatrics Excellence in Public Service Award, and American Cancer Society Medal of Honor.

Dr. Colin Masters. Professor and Head, Department of Pathology, University of Melbourne. Specialist in neuropathology. Member, numerous national and international medical professional societies.

Dr. Carols Messuti. Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fishing, Government of Uruguay and Delegate to the OIE, the UN's principal agency for animal diseases.

Dr. Jeffrey W. Savell. Professor, E.M. ?Manny? Rosenthal Chairholder, and Leader, Meat Science Section, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University. Specialist in meat quality/consistency, food safety and nutrition. Past President, American Meat Science Association; member, Institute of Food Technologists, American Society of Animal Science, HACCP Alliance. Author or co-author of more than 250 articles and co-author of the Laboratory Manual for Meat Science. Recipient of numerous awards for research and teaching.

Dr. James Toole. Walter C. Teagle Professor of Neurology, Professor of Public Health Sciences, and Director, Stroke Research Center, Wake Forest University School of Medicine. President, International Stroke Society; member and past-president, World Federation of Neurology; member and past-president American Neurological Association; fellow, Royal College of Physicians; master, American College of Physicians. Author of Cerebrovascular Disorders and over 600 medical textbook chapters; co-editor Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Former editor, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.


http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/resrecog/expert_advisors0/international_scientific.html






September 13,2004

USDA, FSTS

Docket Clerk

300 12* Street, SW

Room 102, Cotton Annex

Washington, DC 20250

04-021ANPR

04-021ANPR-70

Richard L. Crawford

Re: Docket No: 04-02 1 ANPR Federal Measures to Mitigate BSE Risks: Considerations

for Further Action

Dear Sir or Madame:

On behalf of McDonald’s Corporation, which operates more than 13,000 restaurants in

the United States, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very

important Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). 69 Fed. Reg. 42288 (July

14,2004).

In previous comments submitted to FSIS regarding the removal of SRI&, McDonalds

fully supported this rule and its immediate implementation. The removal of SRMs from

human food is the primary firewall to protect the US consumer from being exposed to the

BSE agent. While we applaud the requirement for SRM removal, we feel that it is

equally important for FSIS to insure that each slaughterplant which processes cattle have

systems in place which prevent cross contamination between edible tissue and SRMs.

This should include but not be limited to the use of separate equipment, such as knives,

blades, etc. where appropriate. In addition, it is also important that appropriate and

effective disinfection procedures for equipment used to handle SRMs be developed and

approved for use.

It is our opinion that requiring SRM removal without a procedure to prevent cross

contamination is inadequate as a protective public health measure. The TSE agents

@ions) are sticky and highly resistant to disinfection. If SRMs such as brain and spinal

cord are allowed to contact equipment and other surfaces such as deboning tables which

then are used to handle and process edible tissue this could allow contamination and

negates the intention of the ban. This is true not only in plants slaughtering fed cattle

both under and over 30 months but also in plants slaughtering predominately older cattle.

It is important that measure be taken to prevent cross contamination between carcasses

and SRms in the cull plants. McDonalds requires their suppliers to prevent cross

contamination and audits against certain measurable standards such as requiring spinal

cord to bc removed on the kill floor. We would be willing to share these standards with

FSIS as an example.

FSIS Docket No. 04-02 1 ANPR

dooqhl- =w c1qo -

McDonalds again recommends that dura (the covering around the brain and spinal cord)

be added to the list of SRMs. While skull and vertebral column are included as SRMs,

dura is not. If dura is not removed prior to processing on the fabrication floor, it may

come loose and be incorporated into ground product. Bovine dura was never tested for

infectivity. It was assumed that due to direct contact with spinal cord, it may serve as a

vehicle to transmit disease. In addition, human dura has been the source of human to

human transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD). (personal communication - Dr.

Danny Matthews, UK, VLA) Our ISAC committee recommended that McDonalds add

the removal of dura as a specification in the production of our product.

McDonalds urges the USDA to make the appropriate adjustments in the SRM ban if new

scientific findings and/or the results of the increased surveillance warrant a change.

In regards to imported meat products from other countries, McDonalds suggests that no

SRM exemption be made for countries based on BSE risk. The long incubation period

and limited surveillance in many countries can limit the ability to accurately determine

risk. Also, the risk level of a country could potentially change over night if the trading

patterns of a country changed. It seems logistically impossible to maintain a system

which could continually monitor the world’s trading patterns. In addition, science has

not provided all of the answers in regards to the transmission of BSE. Requiring SRMs

to be removed from imported products for human food is prudent. If the US would wait

until disease is confirmed the exposure would already have occurred.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these very important issues.

Richard L. Crawford

Corporat,e Vice President, Government Relations

McDonalds Corporation

1 Kroc Drive

Oak Brook, Illinois 60523

FSIS Docket No. 04-021ANPR


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/sep04/092104/04n-0264-c00140-vol22.pdf





[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)



http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf



TSS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
flounder- What do you think OIE's ruling will be?

Not being a betting man- but if I was I'd wager the farm that its already a done deal that OIE will come back with a "negligible risk" status....

As far as the Canadian cattle vs. US cattle- you could be right...But we can openly see that Canada has a major problem....

So since we now think we may have a rattlesnake living under the porch, we should just go out and bring a couple dozen more in :???:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Flounder wrote "OT, your only kidding yourself with this nonsense of the USA beef being safer than Canada. The June 2004 enhanced BSE surveillance program was nothing more than a cover-up, and they even failed at that. all one has to do is look at the testing protocols, and even one of the TOP CDC TSE scientist says he would not trust anything USDA did before 2005 because of this terribly flawed surveillance program. those 700 or 800 thousand BSE test were meaningless, the whole program was a sham. Paul Brown said it, the OIG said, other top TSE scientist said it, seems the only one that believes in it is the USDA (and even not all there), and you believe this bull sh!t. I would feel safer sitting in Alberta eating a steak, or in Tokyo eating a kobe, than any steak from Texas or the USA. the last steak i had was from Texas and it was tougher than nails anyway. the USDA is only kidding themselves and the fools that believe them. ..."


I agree with you Flounder , not that I wish BSE on the US but that those on here that argue that Canada has a huge problem and the US has no problem realize that we are in this together. At least we have a fairly credible testing program to find BSE cows and all we hear frm Old timer is about their cow of the month betting pool. Maybe we should have a Cover up of the month pool to see how long between initial tests and the truth comes out on the next US cow.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
flounder- What do you think OIE's ruling will be?

Not being a betting man- but if I was I'd wager the farm that its already a done deal that OIE will come back with a "negligible risk" status....

As far as the Canadian cattle vs. US cattle- you could be right...But we can openly see that Canada has a major problem....

So since we now think we may have a rattlesnake living under the porch, we should just go out and bring a couple dozen more in :???:



OT, YOU SAID IT, and that is the whole point, and the most frightening, the fact that we can openly see what Canada has, but the USDA has concealed, covered-up, done every gd thing they could to conceal just how mad BSE/TSE is in the USA. i hesitate to post this next piece of data because of what part of it contains, but you must filter out the aliens and filter in what this cop is trying to say, there has been an ongoing epidemilogy cover up of BSE in the USA for a decade or more. i get a lot of BSe in the mail, i like to stick with peer review studies, and i know i will catch hcll for posting this, but you can take this with however many grains of salt you wish ;


hello Mr. Oliphant,

very interesting, and does not surprise me. colm kheller was in contact with me several times while he was writing 'brain trust' and he mentions these cattle mutilations in his book. i find your conclusion of the cattle mutilations as 'troubling' an understatement. i find it frightening. frightening that our government has come to be capable of doing 'anything' they want, whenever they want, with absolutely no accountability what so ever. They hide behind fear and God. I only hope that God gets justice on these bastards some day, and i am alive to see it.

thanks for writing, i found your investigation of "Dead Cow's I've Known" very very interesting, i posted the full text at the end of your message to me for my files. ...tss



with kindest regards,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.



Subject: [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf



----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Oliphant
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 1:34 AM
Subject: BSE News


Mad Cow Disease news from Texas and Alabama (Where I was a cop investigating Cattle Mutilations 1992-1993) is most troubling.

I concluded over ten years ago that these "Cattle Mutilations" were actually the result of the Epidemiology of BSE in America. Later Robert Bigelow's National Institute For Discovery Science (now de-funct) and Baker, Levengood & Talbott Research agreed with me, one concluded it was "the government" (NIDS) and the other that it was "Aliens" (BLT). I had 36 cases of "Cattle Mutilations" in six months when I was a cop.

I suspect the next BSE case will be found in Northern California, somewhere near Red Bluff.

For more information do a web search on "Dead Cow's I've Known" which I penned a decade ago.

Regards,

Ted Oliphant
Las Vegas, Nevada


==========================================================TSS

Cattle Mutilations

Dead Cows I've Known

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dead Cows I've Known
By Ted Oliphant III www.realityb.com

©1998 All Rights Reserved

In the first two parts of this essay, I discussed Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as "Mad Cow Disease," and recent admissions by British Government Officials that this is a species-jumper and that some of the British blood supply is likely contaminated. I also discussed the connection between bovine excision sites and unmarked helicopters in 35 cases in Northern Alabama in 1992 & 1993. In Part #3 I will discuss other facts and events not covered in the previous two installments.

By February, 1993 another phenomenon appeared in and over DeKalb, Jackson, Cherokee and Marshall counties -- UFOs.

In early February of 1993, Reverend Roger Watkins and his family were startled at 3 a.m. A sound "like a tornado, or freight train" woke them up, according to Brother Roger. Looking out their bedroom window, they saw a large illuminated disc shaped object, with multi colored lights on its rim, moving in opposite directions. The disc hovered over their cow pasture at fence level. It finally ascended and disappeared into the sky. The next morning they found their goldfish bowl empty. The fish were lying dead on the table covered in water, but the bowl was still upright. The family dog was missing, never to be seen again.

Rev. Watkins' family had seen this same object four years earlier during the UFO wave of 1989. At that time, Rev. Watkins was out of town preaching at a revival in another state. He got an unexpected phone call from his son Chris, who described the mutli-colored flying saucer that flew over his mother's car while they were driving near Gilbert's Crossroads. It was the same location where the Fyffe Police had seen a large triangular shaped object fly silently over them a week before.

Chris was very upset, so much so that Rev. Watkins came home a day early to be with his family. Mrs. Watkins wasn't disturbed at all, in fact she dropped Chris off at home while she drove back to Gilbert's Crossroads, in search of the mysterious object. It would be four years before the entire Watkins family got their own, private light show, courtesy of the same flying disc.

This time, the UFO caused an uproar at the Rainsville First Baptist Church where Rev. Watkins had been pastor for the last seven years. Seven years that saw his flock grow from a little under a hundred to over four hundred parishioners. When word got out that the Watkins had seen a UFO, it started a chain of events that spelled doom for the pastor. Rumors and lies were circulated throughout the parishioners and clergy.

Then when journalist Linda Moulton Howe arrived on Sand Mountain, I recommended that she talk to Rev. Watkins. After he agreed to be interviewed on camera, the clergy took Rev. Watkins aside. They told him they didn't want him to go on camera, that "It wasn't any body's business." Watkins backed down and canceled the interview. But the pressure didn't stop. Private plans were made to "get rid of" Rev. Watkins. Friends betrayed him and turned a cold shoulder on their pastor, the man who had made their church grow. (No good deed goes un-punished.) When his departure became imminent, Rev. Watkins changed his mind and went ahead with the on-camera interview. It was the end of his career at Rainsville's First Baptist Church.

What makes Rev. Watkins' story equally important is the fact that he is also a cattle farmer. Though the UFO hovered over his pasture, the cows were not molested. So here's a case where UFOs were seen over a cow pasture at 3 a.m., but there were no mutilations. It's important to consider that fact because the cattle mutilations that did occur, started in October of 1992, four months before UFOs were first reported. Though the mutilations continued during the UFO wave of 1993, they were never reported at the same time or locations of the crime scenes. The aliens had an alibi. It doesn't mean they weren't involved, just that nobody ever connected them to the crimes law enforcement officials were investigating. But although there were no UFOs, there were plenty of unidentified helicopters.

Flip-Flopping Veterinarians, The Silencing of Law Enforcement & State Employees.

The first five months of the investigations into mysterious livestock deaths was conducted in concert by the Fyffe Police Department, The Albertville Police Department and The Alabama Department of Public Safety, particularly the Alabama State Troopers. My partners in this investigation, Chief of Detectives Tommy Cole, Albertville Police, and Ron Ogletree, Post Commander of the State Troopers, were actively involved in the investigation. They, like myself, made several statements about the reality of these crimes to the local and outside news media. Tommy Cole appeared on CNN after being quoted in many newspaper headlines. Sgt. Ogletree also made statements about the investigation and was quoted as well. They were important allies in the investigation and their public statements helped back up what I was telling reporters.

Veterinarians also were of great help, in the beginning of the investigations. Vets would initially show a great deal of interest in the cases, and were glad to show up in the pastures, examine the carcasses and even perform autopsies in the field, or accept the animals into their labs for analysis. When Tommy Cole lost his steer on January 9, 1997, He called Dr. Adams, a local Albertville veterinarian. Dr. Adams took fluid samples from the animal's eye, and he also took blood samples. When Dr. Adams called Chief Detective Cole back, he reported neither he nor the State Labs at Auburn University could determine the cause of the steer's death. But he was still interested and was willing again to inspect another fresh mutilation case in Albertville, should it occur. It did.

On January 14, 1993 a local cow farmer found his 10 year old cross-bred Gert cow mutilated and dead with an enormous, mysterious round wound in its hind quarters. This looked totally different from any of the other cases Cole, Ogletree and I had investigated. Not only had this cow's sex organs been removed, but there was a large, irregular incision around the entire hind quarters. We called Dr. Adams and he performed an autopsy on site. He also took blood and eye fluid samples. He couldn't determine the cause of death from what he inspected, but promised to send the physical evidence to Auburn for analysis.

As Chief Detective Cole and I left the crime scene, he looked at me and asked what I thought. "This is a diversion, Tommy, it's not what we've been seeing." Tommy agreed, "No it isn't." "Somebody is trying to throw us off, and I think that cow's been cut on twice. I think the original incisions have been excised." Tommy just looked at me and didn't say anything. I drove home and got ready for work, not looking forward to another 18 hour day.

I called Tommy a week later to see what the Vet told him. "He hasn't returned my call," explained the Chief of Detectives. I called Dr. Adams, but he couldn't come to the phone. His secretary took my number, but he never called me back. Finally I got him on the phone and he said he couldn't explain the animal's cause of death. I asked him about Tommy Cole's steer that he had examined two weeks earlier, and he denied ever taking blood or fluid samples. I called Tommy Cole who said, "That's a damn lie, he did too, I watched him do it."

Then Tommy Cole tried calling Dr. Adams but his secretary explained that he was busy. Cole called again, but the doctor wasn't in. After that Dr. Adams never again returned our calls, or talked to us. Tommy and I just hunched our shoulders and threw up our hands in dismay. Soon this became a recurring theme.

In Fyffe, I took crime scene photographs to veterinarian Dr. Danny Thrash. I explained that we were investigating these strange deaths and if he ever saw something suspicious, I wanted to know about it. I didn't have to wait long. On February 1, 1997 I got a call from Dr. Thrash saying he'd just received a call from a ranch hand in the Grove Oak community, just outside of Fyffe. He asked me to meet him at his office and we'd ride out together.

When we arrived at the Glen Fricks ranch, a cowboy met us at the gate and escorted us out to the crime scene. There were two cows in various states of decay. One was missing its udder and jaw, while the other was missing it's rectum and vagina. All the incisions were clean and bloodless. Dr. Thrash and I examined the animals and took pictures. On the way back to the Vet's office Dr. Thrash said it indeed "Looked suspicious" to him, but we agreed the animals were too far gone to determine the cause of death. We left it at that until the local newspaper reporter, Steven Smith, called and interviewed us. Dr. Thrash made a statement that echoed mine, and it went it the newspaper. A week later Dr., Thrash was interviewed again in another newspaper. This time he said, "This whole thing is getting blown out of proportion," and contradicted his previous statements by saying, "Predators are probably responsible for these two cases." When I read that in the newspaper I called Dr. Thrash and challenged his reversal. He got mad at me and we never spoke again.

On February 4, 1997 I decided to get an early start and drop in on Chief Detective Cole in Albertville. I sat down across from his desk and we started talking about what we thought should be done next. Tommy explained that he'd talked to the State Diagnostic Lab in Boaz and they'd be willing to look at the next case we investigated, as long as the animal was "fresh."

Five minutes into our conversation, the phone rang. It was DeKalb County Sheriff's Department Assistant Chief Deputy Dale Orr. He wanted Tommy to meet him at the Waymon J. Buttram ranch in the Martling Community. Though it was in Marshall County, in Tommy Cole's jurisdiction, the call had gone to DeKalb County. We hopped in Tommy's unmarked police car and arrived at the scene around 10 a.m. When we pulled up, we were greeted by Dale Orr who recognized me and said, "How the hell did you know to be here?". I just grinned and followed him out to the crime scene. Soon Sgt. Ogletree arrived, and as usual, his presence made the locals breath easier. They all knew and respected him. Sgt. Ogletree has a great reputation with the locals, because his professionalism, like Chief Detective Cole's, was unparalleled. Soon other officers and ranchers arrived, and everyone was deeply concerned.

We examined the crime scene. It was a black Angus cow and it lay on its right side. There was a tear drop shaped incision on its left jaw, and it was very bloody. The animal had been dead for about seven hours, but the blood hadn't coagulated, and was still flowing out of the animal. Dale Orr called DeKalb County Sheriff Harold Richards on the radio and advised him about what he had found. We waited for him to arrive, and Dale handed me his camera and asked me to take pictures for him, and made me promise to give him copies of all the photos I was taking. Soon, the rest of the cows in this pasture "surrounded" us.

They had to be scared off twice before Sheriff Richards arrived and examined the animal. He agreed it looked suspicious. At that point Tommy Cole took over the investigation. He asked me what I thought we should do. I just looked at him with a cocked eyebrow. He said to me, "You want to take it to the State Lab and have it examined right?" I nodded, and we loaded it up into rancher Buttram's livestock trailer. Tommy called the State Lab and made arrangements. While we were waiting, a helicopter flew over the southern edge of the pasture. I took a picture of it. Then we drove to the Sate Diagnostic Lab at Boaz and tracked down the Lab director, Dr. Rick Sharpton.

When we had finished unloading the animal, and attached it to a chain hoist, we all heard a helicopter approaching. I went outside with Tommy to look, and we saw a black Hughes helicopter fly directly over us. We went back inside and said nothing about it.

We told Dr. Sharpton what we wanted to know. Then we watched as the blood was washed from the jaw, revealing the large, tear drop incision. He stripped the hide off the cow, looking for bruises or other injuries. None were found. Then the whole cow was dissected, piece by piece. Dr. Sharpton couldn't find anything unusual, outside of the jaw excision. We asked him what he thought, "It looks like this was done with a sharp knife, by someone experienced with field stripping animals." He echoed this sentiment, under condition of anonymity, to a local newspaper.

For the next week at the Buttram ranch, the remaining herd defecated and urinated all over the site where the animal was originally found, as if it would make what had happened, go away. The remaining livestock were noticeably upset.

The silencing of Dr. Rick Sharpton, director of the State Lab at Boaz.

A week later the TV camera crew from "Sightings" arrived in Alabama to cover the story. Dr. Sharpton agreed to meet with them for an interview. When he did, his boss, Dr. Lee Alley, the State Veterinarian, was looking over his shoulder. With the camera rolling, Dr. Sharpton totally reversed his prior position, explaining that it was "All the work of predators." Dr. Alley also went on camera explaining that Tommy Cole, Sgt. Ogletree and I didn't know what we were talking about, because of our inexperience.

A week later, Dr. Sharpton had "resigned" as director of the State Lab. I asked Tommy about it and he said that he learned Sharpton had "resigned under fire." He had been pressured out. This was our third case of flip-flopping veterinarians. It was our 20th livestock mutilation case in four months.

On February 6, 1997 I got a call from Geraldine Police dispatcher Corey Dobson. He told me he'd just heard about a new case near Crossville and gave me the directions to the crime scene. By the time I got there, the Crossville Police Chief, Ron West, and Dekalb County Sheriff's Department Assistant Chief Deputy, Dale Orr, had already left the scene. The farmer took me to the crime scene, explaining that he'd heard a helicopter over his pasture the previous evening, but he hadn't thought anything about it until he found his calf dead. I asked him how knew it was hovering over his pasture? He replied, "I used to fly choppers invite Nam, and I know what a hovering helicopter sounds like."

I decided not to argue with him, and inspected the victim. This cross-bred beef calf was lying on its right side, with an enormous circle of hide missing from its back, neck and rib cage, and much muscle was missing. The esophagus was exposed and an eight inch length of it was missing. It appeared to have been snipped cleanly by a pair of scissors, and there was foam at the end of each side. There was still color in the animal's blue eyes, and they were just beginning to get cloudy.

This animal was alive when it was cut, and it hadn't been dead long. I looked closely at the cuts on the animal and found no blood on the hide or ground. The farmer told me that the police who had just been there told him it was the work of predators. They had offered that explanation before they looked at the animal! When they did inspect it, they just said the same thing, "Yeah, that look's like predators all right, go ahead and bury it." They didn't even file an incident/offense report.

There was minor damage on some of the tissue from scavenging or predatory animals. I could understand how the previous investigators thought it might have been the work of predators, but it still didn't add up. I told the farmer that the incision looked like it had been made by a straight edge of some kind, and that he should have a veterinarian look at it. He took my advice and called Dr. Creel in Boaz, and the Vet came out and examined the carcass.

Dr. Creel agreed with me and said, "I don't know what killed it, but animals were not involved in it's death." Dr. Creel stuck to his guns and never flip flopped. He was the exception to the rule.

By mid-February, these cases were the talk of police in both Marshall & DeKalb Counties. At month's end, I had filled out 12 reports covering 14 strange livestock deaths. Even without considering the sinister agencies causing them, the crimes by themselves were very disturbing. Large animals had been incapacitated and vivisected in plain view of ranch houses and farms. One was even found outside a bedroom window. Nobody heard anything except barking dogs at 3 a.m., which were ignored. Then came the grizzly discoveries.

While 90% of the farmers reported seeing helicopters before or after their animals were found dead, no one saw them at the critical time. This made me wonder, until I got a call from local gun dealer and pilot, Clyde Barksdale. He told me that the previous evening he arrived home and was walking around his house when he looked up and saw a helicopter flying only two hundred feet above him. He said it was almost silent. Clyde is also a helicopter pilot, and he couldn't understand why it only made a faint sound. "Whisssp whisssp, whisssp," he imitated the chopper's sound. "I couldn't believe it," he explained. A silent helicopter. A silent helicopter?

The Silencing of Sgt. Ron Ogletree.

One evening in late February when I was on duty in Fyffe, I met with Alabama State Trooper Ron Ogletree, who was post commander in Gadsden. Ron and I had been working together on the livestock cases for four months together. He explained that his boss in Montgomery had instructed him to cease interviews with the media. "No more talk about Cattle Mutilations, no more talk about UFOs, you're out of the business." Ron just took it in stride. He never spoke to the media again. I took it in stride too. Then it happened again.

The Silencing of Chief of Detectives Tommy Cole.

It was about a month later when the Boston Globe came to Sand Mountain to interview Tommy Cole and me. I finished the interview and drove with the reporter to Albertville, where we were scheduled to meet Tommy. When I arrived I went into the Albertville Police Department, but was denied entry.

Tommy Cole came out the back door and took me aside, away from the reporter. He wanted to talk privately. "Ted, I can't talk to this guy, I'm sorry. I've been told not to talk about it any more." He looked irritated but resigned to the fact that he wasn't allowed to talk to the media. I walked back to the Globe reporter and explained that the Chief of Detectives had been ordered to keep his mouth shut. He looked at me suspiciously, but accepted it, and gave me a ride back to Fyffe.

Snow Job. The Silencing of the entire Law Enforcement Community.

A special, secret briefing was organized and police officers and deputies from both counties were invited. Every police department, that is, except Fyffe. DeKalb County Chief Of Detectives Mike James ( A direct descendent of Frank and Jesse James) and his drinking buddy, Tom Price from the Marshall County Sheriff's Department, started the briefing and introduced David Pratt, a jewelry salesman from Chattanooga, Tennessee. They described him as a man who had been involved in so-called "cattle mutilations" while a member of a secret, well funded "Satanic Cult."

Pratt outlined how the "cult" he was once a "member" of was responsible for the mutilations, and that they had backing that covered the expense of using helicopters to retrieve bovine organs for "their rituals." Pratt also proclaimed that his former cult "loved the publicity" and embarrassing local authorities.

Every cop present "bought" this story, except Tommy Cole. Even Sgt. Ogletree believed this con artist. Tommy Cole later told me, "That guy didn't impress me in the least. It's obvious why they didn't want you there, they said you were intentionally not invited" I could have challenged this guy and he couldn't have held up under my questioning. That's why I was kept out of it. The briefing was concluded with Detectives James and Price explaining that "These Satanist love the publicity, and if we ignore them, they'll stop what they're doing and go away." The assembled officers concurred.

In the first two parts of this essay, I discussed Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as "Mad Cow Disease," and recent admissions by British Government Officials that this is a species-jumper and that some of the British blood supply is likely contaminated. I also discussed the connection between bovine excision sites and unmarked helicopters in 35 cases in Northern Alabama in 1992 & 1993. In Part #3 I will discuss other facts and events not covered in the previous two installments.

By February, 1993 another phenomenon appeared in and over DeKalb, Jackson, Cherokee and Marshall counties -- UFOs.

In early February of 1993, Reverend Roger Watkins and his family were startled at 3 a.m. A sound "like a tornado, or freight train" woke them up, according to Brother Roger. Looking out their bedroom window, they saw a large illuminated disc shaped object, with multi colored lights on its rim, moving in opposite directions. The disc hovered over their cow pasture at fence level. It finally ascended and disappeared into the sky. The next morning they found their goldfish bowl empty. The fish were lying dead on the table covered in water, but the bowl was still upright. The family dog was missing, never to be seen again.

Rev. Watkins' family had seen this same object four years earlier during the UFO wave of 1989. At that time, Rev. Watkins was out of town preaching at a revival in another state. He got an unexpected phone call from his son Chris, who described the mutli-colored flying saucer that flew over his mother's car while they were driving near Gilbert's Crossroads. It was the same location where the Fyffe Police had seen a large triangular shaped object fly silently over them a week before.

Chris was very upset, so much so that Rev. Watkins came home a day early to be with his family. Mrs. Watkins wasn't disturbed at all, in fact she dropped Chris off at home while she drove back to Gilbert's Crossroads, in search of the mysterious object. It would be four years before the entire Watkins family got their own, private light show, courtesy of the same flying disc.

This time, the UFO caused an uproar at the Rainsville First Baptist Church where Rev. Watkins had been pastor for the last seven years. Seven years that saw his flock grow from a little under a hundred to over four hundred parishioners. When word got out that the Watkins had seen a UFO, it started a chain of events that spelled doom for the pastor. Rumors and lies were circulated throughout the parishioners and clergy.

Then when journalist Linda Moulton Howe arrived on Sand Mountain, I recommended that she talk to Rev. Watkins. After he agreed to be interviewed on camera, the clergy took Rev. Watkins aside. They told him they didn't want him to go on camera, that "It wasn't any body's business." Watkins backed down and canceled the interview. But the pressure didn't stop. Private plans were made to "get rid of" Rev. Watkins. Friends betrayed him and turned a cold shoulder on their pastor, the man who had made their church grow. (No good deed goes un-punished.) When his departure became imminent, Rev. Watkins changed his mind and went ahead with the on-camera interview. It was the end of his career at Rainsville's First Baptist Church.

What makes Rev. Watkins' story equally important is the fact that he is also a cattle farmer. Though the UFO hovered over his pasture, the cows were not molested. So here's a case where UFOs were seen over a cow pasture at 3 a.m., but there were no mutilations. It's important to consider that fact because the cattle mutilations that did occur, started in October of 1992, four months before UFOs were first reported. Though the mutilations continued during the UFO wave of 1993, they were never reported at the same time or locations of the crime scenes. The aliens had an alibi. It doesn't mean they weren't involved, just that nobody ever connected them to the crimes law enforcement officials were investigating. But although there were no UFOs, there were plenty of unidentified helicopters.

Flip-Flopping Veterinarians, The Silencing of Law Enforcement & State Employees.

The first five months of the investigations into mysterious livestock deaths was conducted in concert by the Fyffe Police Department, The Albertville Police Department and The Alabama Department of Public Safety, particularly the Alabama State Troopers. My partners in this investigation, Chief of Detectives Tommy Cole, Albertville Police, and Ron Ogletree, Post Commander of the State Troopers, were actively involved in the investigation. They, like myself, made several statements about the reality of these crimes to the local and outside news media. Tommy Cole appeared on CNN after being quoted in many newspaper headlines. Sgt. Ogletree also made statements about the investigation and was quoted as well. They were important allies in the investigation and their public statements helped back up what I was telling reporters.

Veterinarians also were of great help, in the beginning of the investigations. Vets would initially show a great deal of interest in the cases, and were glad to show up in the pastures, examine the carcasses and even perform autopsies in the field, or accept the animals into their labs for analysis. When Tommy Cole lost his steer on January 9, 1997, He called Dr. Adams, a local Albertville veterinarian. Dr. Adams took fluid samples from the animal's eye, and he also took blood samples. When Dr. Adams called Chief Detective Cole back, he reported neither he nor the State Labs at Auburn University could determine the cause of the steer's death. But he was still interested and was willing again to inspect another fresh mutilation case in Albertville, should it occur. It did.

On January 14, 1993 a local cow farmer found his 10 year old cross-bred Gert cow mutilated and dead with an enormous, mysterious round wound in its hind quarters. This looked totally different from any of the other cases Cole, Ogletree and I had investigated. Not only had this cow's sex organs been removed, but there was a large, irregular incision around the entire hind quarters. We called Dr. Adams and he performed an autopsy on site. He also took blood and eye fluid samples. He couldn't determine the cause of death from what he inspected, but promised to send the physicalevidence to Auburn for analysis.

As Chief Detective Cole and I left the crime scene, he looked at me and asked what I thought. "This is a diversion, Tommy, it's not what we've been seeing." Tommy agreed, "No it isn't." "Somebody is trying to throw us off, and I think that cow's been cut on twice. I think the original incisions have been excised." Tommy just looked at me and didn't say anything. I drove home and got ready for work, not looking forward to another 18 hour day.

I called Tommy a week later to see what the Vet told him. "He hasn't returned my call," explained the Chief of Detectives. I called Dr. Adams, but he couldn't come to the phone. His secretary took my number, but he never called me back. Finally I got him on the phone and he said he couldn't explain the animal's cause of death. I asked him about Tommy Cole's steer that he had examined two weeks earlier, and he denied ever taking blood or fluid samples. I called Tommy Cole who said, "That's a damn lie, he did too, I watched him do it."

Then Tommy Cole tried calling Dr. Adams but his secretary explained that he was busy. Cole called again, but the doctor wasn't in. After that Dr. Adams never again returned our calls, or talked to us. Tommy and I just hunched our shoulders and threw up our hands in dismay. Soon this became a recurring theme.

In Fyffe, I took crime scene photographs to veterinarian Dr. Danny Thrash. I explained that we were investigating these strange deaths and if he ever saw something suspicious, I wanted to know about it. I didn't have to wait long. On February 1, 1997 I got a call from Dr. Thrash saying he'd just received a call from a ranch hand in the Grove Oak community, just outside of Fyffe. He asked me to meet him at his office and we'd ride out together.

When we arrived at the Glen Fricks ranch, a cowboy met us at the gate and escorted us out to the crime scene. There were two cows in various states of decay. One was missing its udder and jaw, while the other was missing it's rectum and vagina. All the incisions were clean and bloodless. Dr. Thrash and I examined the animals and took pictures. On the way back to the Vet's office Dr. Thrash said it indeed "Looked suspicious" to him, but we agreed the animals were too far gone to determine the cause of death. We left it at that until the local newspaper reporter, Steven Smith, called and interviewed us. Dr. Thrash made a statement that echoed ine, and it went it the newspaper. A week later Dr., Thrash was interviewed again in another newspaper. This time he said, "This whole thing is getting blown out of proportion," and contradicted his previous statements by saying, "Predators are probably responsible for these two cases." When I read that in the newspaper I called Dr. Thrash and challenged his reversal. He got mad at me and we never spoke again.

On February 4, 1997 I decided to get an early start and drop in on Chief Detective Cole in Albertville. I sat down across from his desk and we started talking about what we thought should be done next. Tommy explained that he'd talked to the State Diagnostic Lab in Boaz and they'd be willing to look at the next case we investigated, as long as the animal was "fresh."

Five minutes into our conversation, the phone rang. It was DeKalb County Sheriff's Department Assistant Chief Deputy Dale Orr. He wanted Tommy to meet him at the Waymon J. Buttram ranch in theMartling Community. Though it was in Marshall County, in Tommy Cole's jurisdiction, the call had gone to DeKalb County. We hopped in Tommy's unmarked police car and arrived at the scene around 10 a.m. When we pulled up, we were greeted by Dale Orr who recognized me and said, "How the hell did you know to be here?". I just grinned and followed him out to the crime scene. Soon Sgt. Ogletree arrived, and as usual, his presence made the locals breath easier. They all knew and respected him. Sgt. Ogletree has a great reputation with the locals, because his professionalism, like Chief Detective Cole's, was unparalleled. Soon other officers and ranchers arrived, and everyone was deeply concerned.

We examined the crime scene. It was a black Angus cow and it lay on its right side. There was a tear drop shaped incision on its left jaw, and it was very bloody. The animal had been dead for about seven hours, but the blood hadn't coagulated, and was still flowing out of the animal. Dale Orr called DeKalb County Sheriff Harold Richards on the radio and advised him about what he had found. We waited for him to arrive, and Dale handed me his camera and asked me to take pictures for him, and made me promise to give him copies of all the photos I was taking. Soon, the rest of the cows in this pasture "surrounded" us.

They had to be scared off twice before Sheriff Richards arrived and examined the animal. He agreed it looked suspicious. At that point Tommy Cole took over the investigation. He asked me what I thought we should do. I just looked at him with a cocked eyebrow. He said to me, "You want to take it to the State Lab and have it examined right?" I nodded, and we loaded it up into rancher Buttram's livestock trailer. Tommy called the State Lab and made arrangements. While we were waiting, a helicopter flew over the southern edge of the pasture. I took a picture of it. Then we drove to the Sate Diagnostic Lab at Boaz and tracked down the Lab director, Dr. Rick Sharpton.

When we had finished unloading the animal, and attached it to a chain hoist, we all heard a helicopter approaching. I went outside with Tommy to look, and we saw a black Hughes helicopter fly directly over us. We went back inside and said nothing about it.

We told Dr. Sharpton what we wanted to know. Then we watched as the blood was washed from the jaw, revealing the large, tear drop incision. He stripped the hide off the cow, looking for bruises or other injuries. None were found. Then the whole cow was dissected, piece by piece. Dr. Sharpton couldn't find anything unusual, outside of the jaw excision. We asked him what he thought, "It looks like this was done with a sharp knife, by someone experienced with field stripping animals." He echoed this sentiment, under condition of anonymity, to a local newspaper.

For the next week at the Buttram ranch, the remaining herd defecated and urinated all over the site where the animal was originally found, as if it would make what had happened, go away. The remaining livestock were noticeably upset.

The silencing of Dr. Rick Sharpton, director of the State Lab at Boaz.

A week later the TV camera crew from "Sightings" arrived in Alabama to cover the story. Dr. Sharpton agreed to meet with them for an interview. When he did, his boss, Dr. Lee Alley, the State Veterinarian, was looking over his shoulder. With the camera rolling, Dr. Sharpton totally reversed his prior position, explaining that it was "All the work of predators." Dr. Alley also went on camera explaining that Tommy Cole, Sgt. Ogletree and I didn't know what we were talking about, because of our inexperience.

A week later, Dr. Sharpton had "resigned" as director of the State Lab. I asked Tommy about it and he said that he learned Sharpton had "resigned under fire." He had been pressured out. This was our third case of flip-flopping veterinarians. It was our 20th livestock mutilation case in four months.

On February 6, 1997 I got a call from Geraldine Police dispatcher Corey Dobson. He told me he'd just heard about a new case near Crossville and gave me the directions to the crime scene. By the time I got there, the Crossville Police Chief, Ron West, and Dekalb County Sheriff's Department Assistant Chief Deputy, Dale Orr, had already left the scene. The farmer took me to the crime scene, explaining that he'd heard a helicopter over his pasture the previous evening, but he hadn't thought anything about it until he found his calf dead. I asked him how knew it was hovering over his pasture? He replied, "I used to fly choppers invite Nam, and I know what a hovering helicopter sounds like."

I decided not to argue with him, and inspected the victim. This cross-bred beef calf was lying on its right side, with an enormous circle of hide missing from its back, neck and rib cage, and much muscle was missing. The esophagus was exposed and an eight inch length of it was missing. It appeared to have been snipped cleanly by a pair of scissors, and there was foam at the end of each side. There was still color in the animal's blue eyes, and they were just beginning to get cloudy.

This animal was alive when it was cut, and it hadn't been dead long. I looked closely at the cuts on the animal and found no blood on the hide or ground. The farmer told me that the police who had just been there told him it was the work of predators. They had offered that explanation before they looked at the animal! When they did inspect it, they just said the same thing, "Yeah, that look's like predators all right, go ahead and bury it." They didn't even file an incident/offense report.

There was minor damage on some of the tissue from scavenging or predatory animals. I could understand how the previous investigators thought it might have been the work of predators, but it still didn't add up. I told the farmer that the incision looked like it had been made by a straight edge of some kind, and that he should have a veterinarian look at it. He took my advice and called Dr. Creel in Boaz, and the Vet came out and examined the carcass.

Dr. Creel agreed with me and said, "I don't know what killed it, but animals were not involved in it's death." Dr. Creel stuck to his guns and never flip flopped. He was the exception to the rule.

By mid-February, these cases were the talk of police in both Marshall & DeKalb Counties. At month's end, I had filled out 12 reports covering 14 strange livestock deaths. Even without considering the sinister agencies causing them, the crimes by themselves were very disturbing. Large animals had been incapacitated and vivisected in plain view of ranch houses and farms. One was even found outside a bedroom window. Nobody heard anything except barking dogs at 3 a.m., which were ignored. Then came the grizzly discoveries.

While 90% of the farmers reported seeing helicopters before or after their animals were found dead, no one saw them at the critical time. This made me wonder, until I got a call from local gun dealer and pilot, Clyde Barksdale. He told me that the previous evening he arrived home and was walking around his house when he looked up and saw a helicopter flying only two hundred feet above him. He said it was almost silent. Clyde is also a helicopter pilot, and he couldn't understand why it only made a faint sound. "Whisssp whisssp, whisssp," he imitated the chopper's sound. "I couldn't believe it," he explained. A silent helicopter. A silent helicopter?

The Silencing of Sgt. Ron Ogletree.

One evening in late February when I was on duty in Fyffe, I met with Alabama State Trooper Ron Ogletree, who was post commander in Gadsden. Ron and I had been working together on the livestock cases for four months together. He explained that his boss in Montgomery had instructed him to cease interviews with the media. "No more talk about Cattle Mutilations, no more talk about UFOs, you're out of the business." Ron just took it in stride. He never spoke to the media again. I took it in stride too. Then it happened again.

The Silencing of Chief of Detectives Tommy Cole.

It was about a month later when the Boston Globe came to Sand Mountain to interview Tommy Cole and me. I finished the interview and drove with the reporter to Albertville, where we were scheduled to meet Tommy. When I arrived I went into the Albertville Police Department, but was denied entry.

Tommy Cole came out the back door and took me aside, away from the reporter. He wanted to talk privately. "Ted, I can't talk to this guy, I'm sorry. I've been told not to talk about it any more." He looked irritated but resigned to the fact that he wasn't allowed to talk to the media. I walked back to the Globe reporter and explained that the Chief of Detectives had been ordered to keep his mouth shut. He looked at me suspiciously, but accepted it, and gave me a ride back to Fyffe.

Snow Job. The Silencing of the entire Law Enforcement Community.

A special, secret briefing was organized and police officers and deputies from both counties were invited. Every police department, that is, except Fyffe. DeKalb County Chief Of Detectives Mike James ( A direct descendent of Frank and Jesse James) and his drinking buddy, Tom Price from the Marshall County Sheriff's Department, started the briefing and introduced David Pratt, a jewelry salesman from Chattanooga, Tennessee. They described him as a man who had been involved in so-called "cattle mutilations" while a member of a secret, well funded "Satanic Cult." Pratt outlined how the "cult" he was once a "member" of was responsible for the mutilations, and that they had backing that covered the expense of using helicopters to retrieve bovine organs for "their rituals." Pratt also proclaimed that his former cult "loved the publicity" and embarrassing local authorities.

Every cop present "bought" this story, except Tommy Cole. Even Sgt. Ogletree believed this con artist. Tommy Cole later told me, "That guy didn't impress me in the least. It's obvious why they didn't want you there, they said you were intentionally not invited" I could have challenged this guy and he couldn't have held up under my questioning. That's why I was kept out of it. The briefing was concluded with Detectives James and Price explaining that "These Satanist love the publicity, and if we ignore them, they'll stop what they're doing and go away." The assembled officers concurred. ...

===================================


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

snip...

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

snip...

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

snip...

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

snip...

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


''Dr. A Thiermann showed
the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought
this was a fanatical incident to be _avoided_ in the US _at all costs_...''


and he meant it!


===================================




P.S.


Oldtimer wrote:
flounder- What do you think OIE's ruling will be?

Not being a betting man- but if I was I'd wager the farm that its already a done deal that OIE will come back with a "negligible risk" status....



I AGREE !!!


TSS
 
Top