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

CDC on Canadian BSE

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Billings, Mont. – The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) will hear oral argument at 9:00 a.m. PDT, this Friday, July 13, in Portland, Ore., in the organization’s litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the agency’s Final Rule on “Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE); Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities,” originally published on Jan. 5, 2005.

On July 3, R-CALF USA requested that the 9th Circuit also take under consideration before Friday’s hearing a recent publication by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that provides CDC’s statistical analysis of BSE testing data for Canada and the United States, concluding that: “The proportion of Canadian-born BSE cases identified by Canadian authorities through the testing of animals in Canada, 2003-April 2007 (10 cases among approximately 160,000 animals tested) is presently statistically significantly higher (26 fold higher) than the proportion of U.S.-born BSE cases identified by U.S. authorities through the testing of animals in the U.S. during the comparable period (2 cases among more than 875,000 animals tested).”

The CDC statistical analysis also concludes that the proportion of known BSE cases in U.S.-born cattle that were at least 10 years of age (100 percent) is statistically significantly different from the portion of the 11 Canadian-born BSE cases known to be at least 10 years of age (one animal, or 9 percent).

“R-CALF believes this analysis of BSE testing data, performed by a federal government agency with responsibility for health protection, is relevant to USDA’s argument that Canadian cattle born long after the 1997 feed ban are ‘extremely unlikely to have been exposed to BSE at all…’,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “The CDC report also demonstrates that USDA’s statement that the agency’s ‘analysis and conclusions with regard to risk had already acknowledged and accounted for the possibility that additional animals with BSE that were born at or near the time the feed ban was implemented would be identified’ misses the point, as most of the recently identified cases in Canada were not born near the time the Canadian feed ban was implemented, as well as flaws with USDA’s assertion that Canada’s feed ban is effective.

“R-CALF is hopeful the 9th Circuit will either immediately reverse the decision not to vacate the Final Rule, or, remand our case back to the District Court of Montana, which would enable full consideration of the scientific evidence we filed in our case,” he continued.

“Since 2005, R-CALF members and supporters have stood firm and faithful in their belief that until Canada has its BSE problem under control, imports of Canadian cattle and beef should be halted,” Bullard commented. “We owe our sincerest gratitude to our members and the U.S. live cattle industry for the overwhelming support and donations that enabled us to continue this fight on their behalf.

“R-CALF argued back in 2005 that USDA should not place the health and welfare of both the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers at risk, and we also pointed out that if USDA relaxed our health and safety import standards by reopening the Canadian border, such a move could threaten U.S. beef exports,” said Bullard. “USDA’s actions have undermined our ability to resume previous levels of beef exports, particularly exports to markets in Asia.

“Litigation has always been our last resort, but we are thankful for the system of checks and balances in this country that will afford us the opportunity to challenge our government when we believe government action is harming our industry,” he added.

“Our nation’s import standards should be based on preventing the introduction of foreign animal diseases instead of the management of such diseases once they’re here,” Bullard emphasized. “Our import standards should not be relaxed simply because USDA wants to create a North American cattle herd instead of placing value on the distinct and unique characteristics of the U.S. cattle herd.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
On July 3, R-CALF USA requested that the 9th Circuit also take under consideration before Friday’s hearing a recent publication by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that provides CDC’s statistical analysis of BSE testing data for Canada and the United States, concluding that: “The proportion of Canadian-born BSE cases identified by Canadian authorities through the testing of animals in Canada, 2003-April 2007 (10 cases among approximately 160,000 animals tested) is presently statistically significantly higher (26 fold higher) than the proportion of U.S.-born BSE cases identified by U.S. authorities through the testing of animals in the U.S. during the comparable period (2 cases among more than 875,000 animals tested).”


I thought this part especially interesting since the Canuck ranchers attorneys' made a comment on Agriville forum today about Dr. Cashman admitting to him the fact there may be 50 infected/diseased cattle right now in Canada...

All of which could end up in the human food chain (could be being slaughtered today)- or shipped to the US as beef or live cattle to further the spread of the disease if the border was open/opens....

Now the U.S. CDC says Canadian cattle pose a threat 26 times those of U.S. cattle...

And as we know the 6 POST feedban positives out of the 12 positives connected to Canada found proves the feed ban did not/is not working and the disease is still manifesting itself in Canada....

Nope- we need to keep that border closed to old cows a few more years until Canada gets this new feedban in place - and we have some PROOF its working this time....
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
You can make anything look bad when taken out of context. The theroy of the CDC is based on the assumption that there have never been any other cases of BSE positive animals in the US. Yeah sure :wink: :wink: :wink: :roll: there have been only 2 animals indeginous that had the disease. :wink: :wink: :wink:
If there has been more the CDC theroy is shot to heck. Nothing new here you lose, too bad ,try again with some cooked up numbers. LMAO
I guess desperate times demand desperate measures. What next canadian cows are being used to sneak in WMD's into the US by terrorists. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: LMAO
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
You can make anything look bad when taken out of context. The theroy of the CDC is based on the assumption that there have never been any other cases of BSE positive animals in the US. Yeah sure :wink: :wink: :wink: :roll: there have been only 2 animals indeginous that had the disease. :wink: :wink: :wink:
If there has been more the CDC theroy is shot to heck. Nothing new here you lose, too bad ,try again with some cooked up numbers. LMAO
I guess desperate times demand desperate measures. What next canadian cows are being used to sneak in WMD's into the US by terrorists. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: LMAO

To be equal, you would also have to say the CDC theory is based on the assumption that there have never been any other cases of BSE positive animals in Canada. Yeah, sure, there have never been more than 12 indiginous that had the disease :wink: :wink: However, common sense tells us that that's not the case, either.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
It seems everyone wants to argue about the peas instead of the steak. The reality is there is BSE on both sides of the border and pointing fingers and saying it is worse over there is a load of bull ShLt. We have to work together as cattlemen to eliminate this disease before it causes more serious problems. Let's go scorched earth -every bovine OTM as of today in north america should be slaughtered and tested and none of the SRM or any part of any animal go into the foodchain be it animal or human unless it is tested and negative for BSE and BASE. Who else is willing to do what is needed to save the beef industry in north america and take the power away from the packers. Anyone else have the stones to do this? Or do you just want to cower in the corner?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why not just TEST ALL- still get some value from the SRM's from all the UNDISEASED animals by using them in petfood and the other uses that don't involve livestock feed (fertilizer, etc.)... I agree that SRM's should not be in any livestock feed in any country.....

You then don't have the huge disposal cost of large amounts of SRM's (unless all the cows in Canada are infected :???: :roll: )-- you still recover some value from them, have less cost for testing than for this SRM disposal, find out the true extent of the disease in Canada- along with a guideline that shows if you are eradicating it , regain confidence with the consumer- and most important, offer the the consumer a safer product.......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What I think is a load of bull **** is when our own government agency in charge of the safety of our food and our herd reverses a policy they claimed was science based and needed to protect us in favor of corporate profits - THAT is BS!
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
I don't give a flying f**t what the packers want or don't want let's push politicians to get it done it , they work for us- remember we elect them. If we don't try we will never know. So is eveyone else going to stand around a work as slaves for the packers, who will be sparticus ? Who else is willing to take the lead. Is everyone else chicken sh**.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
I don't give a flying f**t what the packers want or don't want let's push politicians to get it done it , they work for us- remember we elect them. If we don't try we will never know. So is eveyone else going to stand around a work as slaves for the packers, who will be sparticus ? Who else is willing to take the lead. Is everyone else chicken sh**.

Hey, don't talk to us about not doing anything, we're taking the bastards to court!
 

flounder

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
It seems everyone wants to argue about the peas instead of the steak. The reality is there is BSE on both sides of the border and pointing fingers and saying it is worse over there is a load of bull ShLt. ..........snip.........quote]


question, havn't you figured it out by now, the USA does not have mad cow disease :disagree: :liar: :wink:



TEJAS MAD COW, THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA



Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.

FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####



http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html



TSS REPORT ON 2ND TEJAS MAD COW Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600 (the one
that did NOT get away, thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong)





Aug 30, 2005 USDA Texas BSE Investigation—Final Epidemiology Report
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/bse_final_epi_report8-05.pdf



TSS REPORT ON 2ND TEJAS MAD COW Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600 (the one
that did NOT get away, thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong)


-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from
TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask] us>


Greetings Carla,still hear a rumor;

Texas single beef cow not born in Canada no beef entered the food chain?

and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up forsomething,
but they forgot a url for update?I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET...can you
confirm???terry

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


-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from
TEXAS ???
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:21 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <[log in to unmask]>


The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all callers to the USDA
web site. We have no informationabout the animal being in Texas. CarlaAt
09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:>Greetings Carla,>>i am getting
unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from>TEXAS. can you
comment on this either way please?>>thank you,>Terry S. Singeltary Sr.>>
===================
===================


-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from
TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:20 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask] us>
<[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
us> <[log in to unmask]>


our computer department was working on a place holder we could postUSDA's
announcement of any results. There are no results to be announced tonightby
NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA
announcementwhen we hear something.At 06:05 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote:>why
was the announcement on your TAHC site removed?>>Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy:>November 22: Press Release title here >>star image More BSE
information>>>>terry>>Carla Everett wrote:>>>no confirmation on the U.S.'
inconclusive test...>>no confirmation on location of
animal.>>>>>>==========================
==========================

THEN, 7+ MONTHS OF COVER-UP BY JOHANN ET AL! no doubt about it now $$$


NO, it's not pretty, hell, im not pretty, but these are the facts, take em
or leave em, however, you cannot change them.

with kindest regards,

I am still sincerely disgusted and tired in sunny Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.


FULL 130 LASHINGS TO USDA BY OIG again
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf


Link: TSS


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0612&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=23557



Since previous incidences of TME were associated with common or shared feeding
practices, we obtained a careful history of feed ingredients used over the past 12-18
months. The rancher was a "dead stock" feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy
cattle and a few horses. Sheep had never been fed.

Experimental Transmission. The clinical diagnosis of TME was confirmed by
histopaihologic examination and by experimental transmission to mink after incubation
periods of four months. To investigate the possible involvement of cattle in this disease
cycle, two six-week old castrated Holstein bull calves were inoculated intracerebrally
with a brain suspension from affected mink. Each developed a fatal spongiform
encephalopathy after incubation periods of 18 and 19 months.

DISCUSSION
These findings suggest that TME may result from feeding mink infected cattle and
we have alerted bovine practitioners that there may exist an as yet unrecognized
scrapie-like disease of cattle in the United States (Marsh and Hartsough, 1986). A new
bovine spongiform encephalopathy has recently been reported in England (Wells et al.,
1987), and investigators are presently studying its transmissibility and possible
relationship to scrapie. Because this new bovine disease in England is characterized by
behavioral changes, hyperexcitability, and agressiveness, it is very likely it would be
confused with rabies in the United Stales and not be diagnosed. Presently, brains from
cattle in the United States which are suspected of rabies infection are only tested with
anti-rabies virus antibody and are not examined histopathologically for lesions of
spongiform encephalopathy.
We are presently pursuing additional studies to further examine the possible
involvement of cattle in the epidemiology of TME. One of these is the backpassage of
our experimental bovine encephalopathy to mink. Because (here are as yet no agent-
specific proteins or nucleic acids identified for these transmissible neuropathogens, one
means of distinguishing them is by animal passage and selection of the biotype which
grows best in a particular host. This procedure has been used to separate hamster-
adapted and mink-udapted TME agents (Marsh and Hanson, 1979). The intracerebral
backpassage of the experimental bovine agent resulted in incubations of only four months
indicating no de-adaptation of the Stetsonville agent for mink after bovine passage.
Mink fed infected bovine brain remain normal after six months. It will be essential to
demonstrate oral transmission fiom bovine to mink it this proposed epidemiologic
association is to be confirmed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
These studies were supported by the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-Madison and by a grant (85-CRCR-1-1812) from the United
States Department of Agriculture. The authors also wish to acknowledge the help and
encouragement of Robert Hanson who died during the course of these investigations.

REFERENCES
Burger, D. and Hartsough, G.R. 1965. Encephalopathy of mink. II. Experimental and
natural transmission. J. Infec. Dis. 115:393-399.
Hanson, R.P., Eckroade, R.3., Marsh, R.F., ZuRhein, C.M., Kanitz, C.L. and Gustatson,
D.P. 1971. Susceptibility of mink to sheep scrapie. Science 172:859-861.
Hansough, G.R. and Burger, D. 1965. Encephalopathy of mink. I. Epizoociologic and
clinical observations. 3. Infec. Dis. 115:387-392.
Marsh, R.F. and Hanson, R.P. 1969. Physical and chemical properties of the
transmissible mink encephalopathy agent. 3. ViroL 3:176-180.
Marsh, R.F. and Hanson, R.P. 1979. On the origin of transmissible mink
encephalopathy. In Hadlow, W.J. and Prusiner, S.P. (eds.) Slow transmissible
diseases of the nervous system. Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, pp 451-460.
Marsh, R.F. and Hartsough, G.R. 1986. Is there a scrapie-like disease in cattle?
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Western Conference for Food Animal Veterinary
Medicine. University of Arizona, pp 20.
Wells, G.A.H., Scott, A.C., Johnson, C.T., Cunning, R.F., Hancock, R.D., Jeffrey, M.,
Dawson, M. and Bradley, R. 1987. A novel progressive spongiform encephalopathy
in cattle. Vet. Rec. 121:419-420.

MARSH

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf



tss
 

Kato

Well-known member
It's all in how you want to interpret the numbers. The method of calculating risk is now based on a point system, with animals being assigned more points according to their risk factors. A ten year old cow that is down will be allotted more points for instance, than a 20 month old animal with no symptoms. According to a study I read yesterday, this system rates Canada's risk at about .68 per million, while APHIS rates the U.S. risk at slightly less than one per million.

This is essentially the same on both sides of the border. This is also backed up by the findings of the international panel that designated Canada and the U.S. as being the same risk level.

No one has ever explained how Canadian cattle pose a higher risk. The only way I can think of is if American packers are not processing cattle according to proper procedures, or if your feed ban is not working. This is not a deficiency on our part. This is a home grown American lapse of concern for your own citizens' safety. You have found BSE in your country. It is there. The cattle could not be traced. You have no idea where they came from, so you have no idea where more may be found.

If this is what is happening, then American consumers are already at a higher risk than Canadian consumers will ever come close to. Consumers in this country are totally confident in the safety of Canadian beef, but I'm sure that if they were to read some of the rhetoric that is being thrown around in the American courts, they would think twice about eating American processed beef.
 
Top