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

CFIA LAUNCHES MASSIVE BSE MAD COW MBM FEED INVESTIGATION

Sorry to say, you two, that your rhetoric is only feeding the powers that run the real world and not your imaginary one.

Your pride is enviable but the motives of Rcalf are laughable. You have had and will have no say in what happens with any border action. Have that morning shot of Canadian Whiskey Oldtimer - it'll keep the wool over your eyes.

Go back to the COOL issue, OT, it made more sense than thinking you can change Globalism by spouting off about Canadian beef.

OR - take on the one and only issue that can change this multinational North American captive market. BSE testing for Market Access.
 
rkaiser said:
Sorry to say, you two, that your rhetoric is only feeding the powers that run the real world and not your imaginary one.

Your pride is enviable but the motives of Rcalf are laughable. You have had and will have no say in what happens with any border action. Have that morning shot of Canadian Whiskey Oldtimer - it'll keep the wool over your eyes.

Go back to the COOL issue, OT, it made more sense than thinking you can change Globalism by spouting off about Canadian beef.

OR - take on the one and only issue that can change this multinational North American captive market. BSE testing for Market Access.

Actually, with the new Congress coming, globalism isn't going to be nearly as popular as it was.
 
Actually, with the new Congress coming, globalism isn't going to be nearly as popular as it was.[/quote]


THANK GOD! but these bimbos will have to act, or it will be the same old BSe going around ;

LETS be honest with ourselves folks, the feed ban on both sides of the border was nothing more than a damn piece of paper, nothing more. most did not even know about it in 2001, i listened in on a 50 state BSE emergency conference call on Jan 9, 2001 that showed just this. IN reality, there were no feed bans in either Canada, or the USA that anyone adhered to, and when the ones that did get busted for feeding out potential BSE/TSE tainted feed, there were nothing more than a few slaps on the wrist, and a deer producer letter asking not to do it again, and again, and again, some of these folks got many many of the same warning letters. then you have so many smaller companies that are not even on the radar screen that go completely unregulated. it's really a sad joke. but my point here is, Purina, the BIG P, you don't mess with them, and in essence, the FDA has done just that, nothing much, just look at all that potential mad cow feed in USA ;



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
P01-05
January 30, 2001
Print Media: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: On Dec. 23, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a cow in Washington state had tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease). As a result, information on this Web page stating that no BSE cases had been found in the United States is now incorrect. However, because other information on this page continues to have value, the page will remain available for viewing.

FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT


Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.

FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.

It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated.

According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."

Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.

FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.

This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.

FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html


NEWS RELEASE

Texas Animal Health Commission

Box l2966 •Austin, Texas 78711 •(800) 550-8242• FAX (512) 719-0719

Linda Logan, DVM, PhD• Executive Director

For info, contact Carla Everett, information officer, at 1-800-550-8242, ext. 710,

or [email protected]

For Immediate Release--

Feed Contamination Issue Resolved by FDA

Although many of you may have heard the latest regarding the resolution of the cattle feed

contamination situation in Texas, I wanted to ensure that you received this statement issued

by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency in charge of regulating feed

components. The FDA has said the cattle involved are to be rendered and the material will not

enter ruminant or human food channels. The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) will

provided assistance to the FDA as requested and needed.

FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT

Today (Tuesday, Jan. the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken

on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from

other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in

feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was

found in the feed fed to cattle.

FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total,

five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These

animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.

It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely

to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very

low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly

low, even if the feed were contaminated.

According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The

challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One

important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other

ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)

ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent

a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."

Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily

purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed

containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the

human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the

prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply

clearance process as usual.

FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error

that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working

closely with State and Federal authorities.

This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for

protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to

ensure these rules are followed routinely.

FDA will continue working with USDA as well as state and local officials to ensure that

companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S.

food supply.

---30--


http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/News/pr/2001/101FEED_ISSUE_RESOLVED.pdf



http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2001/ch5/default.htm



MORE BSE VIOLATIONS

Warning Letter Issued to Rendering Operation

On May 7, 2002, FDA's Seattle District Office issued a Warning Letter to Darling International, Inc., Tacoma, Washington. FDA conducted an inspection of the rendering operation on February 22 26, 2002. The inspection revealed a significant deviation from 21 CFR Part 589.2000 Animal Proteins in Ruminant Feed. The inspection disclosed that the firm failed to consistently label the meat and bone meal product with the required cautionary statement: "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants." The meat and bone meal contained beef offal along with other ingredients including chicken, fish, and pork.


SNIP...

Warning Letter Issued to Feed Manufacturer
FDA's Seattle District Office issued a Warning Letter to All American Feed & Tractor, Sandpoint, Idaho, for deviations from 21 CFR Part 589.2000, Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The firm failed to maintain sufficient records to track prohibited animal proteins throughout the receipt, processing, and distribution. In addition, the firm failed to maintain sufficient records and written procedures to prevent cross contamination. The firm also failed to maintain written procedures for cleaning out or flushing equipment after mixing feeds containing prohibited material, or for separating products that might contain prohibited material from ingredients used in ruminant feeds.


SNIP...

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
Ruminant Feed Enforcement Activities
FDA Enforcement Plan Includes Education, Inspections and Compliance Actions for Non-Compliance

To help prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed in the United States, FDA implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, became effective on August 4, 1997. To date, active monitoring by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has found no cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in U.S. cattle.

FDA's enforcement plan for the ruminant feed regulation includes education, as well as inspections, with FDA taking compliance actions for intentional or repeated non compliance. The following firms received Warning Letters for violations of FDA's regulation which prohibits the use of most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals:

All American Feed & Tractor April 1, 2002
Dixon Feeds, Inc. October 24, 2001
Finlayson Ag Center November 8, 2001,
Van Dyke Grain Elevators, Inc. April 17, 2002
The Feed Bucket December 11. 2001
Bakery Trading Company July 29, 2002
Darling International, Inc. May 7, 2002
Tyson Foods February 12, 2002



Warning Letters Issued for CGMP Violations
On March 8, 2001, the FDA's New Orleans District Office issued a Warning Letter to Prestage Farms, Inc., West Point, Mississippi. The firm manufactures medicated and non-medicated feeds for its own integrated swine enterprise. An FDA inspection of the facility on February 21 - 22, 2001, disclosed significant deviations from the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements for Medicated Feeds. These deviations included: failure to perform assays for the active drug ingredient in one product since 1999; failure to perform appropriate investigations and/or corrective actions for out of limit assays; and failure to have master production records.
The FDA's Dallas District Office issued a Warning Letter to Purina Mills, St. Louis, Missouri, on March 23, 2001. The Warning Letter followed the an FDA inspection of Purina Mills, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on February 2-6, and 13-14, 2001. The firm failed to follow Purina's SOP for Drug Sequencing Requirements. The SOP provides for sequencing production (without flushing the mixer) of animal feeds for a species for which a drug component of a prior medicated feed is not approved. Additionally, the firm had distributed bagged medicated feeds since June 2000, with faulty tagging equipment and no control to ensure that all bagged feeds were completely labeled.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
To help prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE in the Unites States, FDA implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most mammaliam protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, became effective on August 4, 1997.

On August 23, 2001, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson unveiled a department-wide action plan outlining new steps to improve scientific understanding of BSE, commonly known as "mad cow disease," and related diseases known as TSEs. The plan incorporates a comprehensive approach to further strengthen surveillance, increase research resources, and expand existing inspection efforts to prevent BSE and TSEs from entering or taking hold in the U.S.

Warning Letters for BSE Violations
FDA Inspection Finds Numerous Violations of BSE Regulations
On August 8, 2001, the FDA's Seattle District Office issued a Warning Letter to the owner of an animal feed manufacturing facility located in Tualatin, Oregon. FDA investigators conducted an inspection on July 12, 2001, which disclosed violations of the bovine feed ingredient regulations. The inspection revealed that the firm failed to separate the receipt, processing, and storage of products containing prohibited material from non-prohibited material; failed to establish a written system, including clean-out and flushing procedures, to avoid commingling and cross-contamination of equipment; and failed to maintain records sufficient to track the materials. In addition, the firm failed to label products with the required cautionary statement, "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants."
Gamecock Feedmill Found Violating BSE Regulations
On July 12, 2001, the FDA's Cincinnati District Office issued a Warning Letter to the Carrollton Farmers Exchange, Carrollton, Ohio, a feed mill. FDA investigators conducted an inspection on June 25, 2001, which found the firm was manufacturing gamecock feed containing prohibited proteins. The firm was not labeling the gamecock feed with the cautionary statement, "Do not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants;" was not flushing or sequencing after manufacturing the feed, and was not maintaining distribution information.
Warning Issued for Lack of Required BSE Cautionary Statement
The FDA's New Orleans District Office issued a Warning Letter to Shields Feed and Supply, Coffeeville, Alabama, on March 7, 2001. An inspection conducted on February 1, 2001, of Shields' animal feed operation showed the finished product label lacked the required ruminant cautionary statement. In addition, mixing and distribution records were not maintained; no written procedures were established for mixer cleaning; and the corn used for the mixer cleaning was not labeled and quarantined.
Firm Warned for No Measures to Avoid Commingling of Feed
On May 3, 2001, the FDA's Minneapolis District Office issued a Warning Letter to Adrian Elevator, Inc., a Butterfield, Minnesota, a manufacturer of animal feeds. On March 16, 2001, an inspection conducted by the State of Minnesota (on behalf of FDA) found significant deviations from the BSE regulations. The firm failed to provide adequate measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination and failed to maintain adequate records to assure that prohibited animal proteins were not incorporated into feeds that may be used for ruminants. For example, there was no documentation to verify that the amount of "flush" being used was sufficient, and there were no procedures or documentation to verify that production was properly sequenced and that flushes were performed.
Warned Issued for Failure to Take Adequate Steps to Prevent BSE
The FDA's Seattle District Office issued a Warning Letter on May 14, 2001, to Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc., Enterprise, Oregon, for violations FDA regulations regarding Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. An inspection of the firm on April 11 - 12, 2001, disclosed that the firm was not taking adequate steps to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in that they failed to separate the receipt, processing, and storage of the product containing prohibited materials from non-prohibited material; failed to establish a written system, including clean-out, and flushing procedures to avoid commingling and cross-contamination of common equipment; and failed to maintain records sufficient to track the materials throughout the receipt, processing, and distribution of product.
Contract Feed Manufacturer Found Violating BSE Regulations
On May 1, 2001, the FDA's Chicago District Office issued a Warning Letter to Material Resources, a contract feed manufacturer in Washington Park, Illinois. An inspection of the firm in March 2001, disclosed several deviations from the BSE regulation. These included failure to maintain written procedures and provide adequate means to prevent commingling between feeds containing prohibited protein and all other protein products. The firm also lacked adequate records to track products that contained prohibited protein throughout their receipt and processing.

Firm Warned for Lack of Written Procedures for Clean-Out to Prevent Commingling
On June 6, 2001, the FDA's Seattle District issued a Warning Letter to Superior Feeds, Chester, Montana. The firm is an animal feed manufacturing operation. An inspection of this firm on April 25, 2001, revealed that the firm failed to label their product with the required statement, "Do Not Feed to Cattle or other Ruminants." In addition, the facility failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out or sequencing procedures used to prevent commingling or cross-contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant containing feeds.
FDA Inspection Discloses Hog Feed Lacks BSE Statement
The FDA's Minneapolis District Office issued a Warning Letter on May 30, 2001, to Round Lake Farmers Coop, Round Lake, Minnesota. The firm manufacturers animal feeds. An inspection by the State of Minnesota (on behalf of FDA) on March 30, 2001, found significant deviations from the requirements for Animal Proteins Prohibited in Animal Feed. The firm failed to label a hog feed with the required BSE caution statement. In addition, they failed to establish and implement procedures for handling prohibited animal proteins and failed to maintain records sufficient to track the receipt of products containing prohibited animal proteins.
Import Detentions


Possible Contamination of Fish Food Leads to Detention
The week of March 7, 2001, the FDA's New York District Upstate Import Operations Branch detained three entries of fish food under Import Alert 99-25 (Detention Without Physical Examination of Animal Feed, Animal Feed Ingredients And Other Products For Animal Use Consisting Or Containing Ingredients of Animal Origin) due to possible contamination with the infectious agent for BSE. The country of origin for the fish food was the Federal Republic of Germany. The local USDA/Philadelphia/PPQ Office was notified.

Vitamin Supplement for Pets Detained
The week of February 14, 2001, the FDA's Atlanta District reported the detention of 8,777 cartons of vitamin supplements for cats, kittens, puppies, and older dogs. The detention included both dog and cat treats. The detention was based on Import Alert 99-25 (BSE). The products were manufactured by Beaphar, Raalte, Netherlands, and were valued at approximately $63,000.
Calf Ration Detained
The FDA's New York District Office reported that during the week of March 21, 2001, FDA investigators detained an entry of Calf Starter Ration and Calf Finisher Ration under Import Alert 99-25, since some of the ingredients originated from France and The Netherlands (both of which are listed on IA 99-25 as BSE susceptible countries). The manufacturer of the feed was Grober Inc., Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, and the consignee was Majestic View Farms in Milan, Pennsylvania. The USDA/APHIS/PPQ Buffalo, New York office was contacted.

Recall of Various Animal Feed Products
The FDA's Cincinnati District Office reported that The Hyland Company, Coalton, Kentucky, conducted a recall of various animal feed products, including Ultra Bloom and Endurance Plus horse feeds, due to cross-contamination with prohibited bovine material. The firm's corrective action involved the application of a sticker-label that contained the required BSE warning statement on the labels of their affected products. The firm initiated the recall by telephone on July 25, 201, and letters on July 31, 2001.
During an FDA inspection by the Cincinnati District Office investigators determined that Central Farm Supply of Kentucky, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, had received poultry feed manufactured by Burkmann Mills, Bowling Green, Kentucky, that contained prohibited protein, but lacked the required caution statement. On May 3, 2001, the district and the University of Kentucky Regulatory Services Division met with the responsible parties of the mill's parent firm, Burkmann Mills London, London, Kentucky. During the meeting the firm volunteered to recall all feed products manufactured at the Bowling Green mill due to the lack of the required caution statement.
FDA Announces Animal Feed Recall
On January 30, 2001, FDA issued a Press Release announcing the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. The results indicated that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.

FDA determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds. It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle was therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated.

According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."

Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., nonetheless announced that it was voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals would not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material was unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.

FDA believes that Purina Mills acted responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities. This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely. FDA continues to work with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.



http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2002/ch5/cvm1.htm#animal



Warning Letters Issued for Violations of BSE Regulations

On May 6, 2003, the FDA's Minneapolis District Office issued a Warning Letter to the President of Barr Animal Foods, Greenwood, Wisconsin. The FDA conducted an inspection of the firm on April 8, 2003. The inspection disclosed that the firm was not labeling their 50 pound blocks of frozen beef and bulk loads of beef bone chips and rendering waste, intended for animal feed with the required cautionary statement.

On August 25, 2003, the FDA's Chicago District Office issued a Warning Letter to the president of Lincoln Land Livestock Co., Inc., Mascoutah, Illinois. On April 14 - 15, 2003, FDA conducted inspection of the animal feed handling facility. The investigator found that products that contained or may contain prohibited material failed to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." The inspection also disclosed that the firm did not maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants.

On November 7, 2002, the FDA's Dallas District Office issued a Warning Letter to the President and Manager of Sunnymead Ranch, Inc., Idalou, Texas. An FDA inspection of this feed mill found significant deviations from 21 CFR 589.2000. FDA's inspection revealed that the firm manufactures feed for sheep, that may contain residues of prohibited material. The sheep feed is mixed in the same equipment that is used for mixing chicken feed containing bovine meat and bone meal. In addition, the firm failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissue to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. The Warning Letter cautioned, "As a feed manufacturer and ruminant feeder of sheep intended for slaughter as food, you are responsible for ensuring that your operations are in full compliance with the law."

On May 22, 2003, the FDA's New Orleans District Office issued a Warning Letter to the Manager and Owner of Millstone Agri Distributors, Maryville, Tennessee. An FDA inspection of the firm on February 13, 2003, found significant deviations from the requirements of Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR), Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed.

FDA's investigation found the following violations of 21 CFR 589.2000:

Failure to separate the receipt, processing, and storage of products containing prohibited material from products not containing prohibited material;
Failure to establish written procedures, including clean-out and flushing procedures, to avoid commingling and cross-contamination of common equipment;
Failure to maintain records sufficient to track prohibited materials throughout the receipt, processing, and distribution of products;
Failure to provide for measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination of feeds intended for ruminants and feeds intended for non-ruminants that may contain prohibited materials;
Failure to label non-ruminant products with the required cautionary statement "Do not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants." The investigation specifically found that dog food containing prohibited material was added as an ingredient to the product "Premium Rooster Kicker." The failure of these feeds to bear the required BSE warning statement causes them to be misbranded.
Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction Against X-Cel Feeds, Inc. Feed Manufacturer Enjoined for Violations of the 1997 Animal Feed Rule

On July 11, 2003, FDA announced the filing of a Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction against X-Cel, Feeds Inc., and individual officers based on violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.


X-Cel, a feed manufacturer headquartered in Tacoma, Washington, failed to comply with FDA regulations (the 1997 Animal Feed Rule) designed to prevent the establishment and spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, also known as "Mad Cow Disease") should it ever be found in the United States and FDA regulations concerning the manufacture of medicated feeds.


The Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Consumer Litigation and the United States Attorney's Office of the Western District of Washington filed the Consent Decree in the United States District Court of the Western District in Tacoma, Washington. It permanently enjoins X-Cel from manufacturing animal feeds in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and requires the firm, its officers, and employees to take specific steps to avoid future violations including, implementing clean-out procedures, obtaining protein supplier certifications and implementing standard operating procedures for compliance until it satisfies FDA that it has corrected its problems.



SNIP...



Pet Foods
Recall of Pet Food from Canadian Manufacturer Pet Food Recalled Because "BSE" Cow May Have Been Used in Dry Dog Food

On May 26, 2003, the FDA learned from the government of Canada that rendered material from a Canadian cow that tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) also known as "mad cow disease" may have been used to manufacture pet food, specifically dry dog food, some of which was reported to have been shipped to the United States. The Canadian government prevented the BSE positive cow from being processed for human food. Therefore, consumers can be assured that their food does not contain any remnants of the BSE positive cow. There is no scientific evidence to date that dogs can contract BSE or any similar disease. In addition, there is no evidence that dogs can transmit the disease to humans.


FDA notified the U.S.pet food firm, The Pet Pantry International, of Carson City, Nevada, when FDA learned that the pet food that the firm received may have included rendered material from the BSE positive cow. The manufacturer of the pet food was Champion Pet Food, Morinville, Alberta. Even though there is no known risk to dogs from eating this dog food, as a prudent measure to help assure that the U.S. stays BSE free, The Pet Pantry International asked its customers who may have purchased the suspect product to hold it for pickup by the distributor so that the dog food would not mistakenly be mixed into cattle or other feeds if any of the dog food was discarded or otherwise not used to feed dogs.


The suspect dog food was produced by Champion Pet Food between February 4, 2003, and March 12, 2003. The Pet Pantry products were packaged in 50 pound bags, distributed to franchises around the country, and sold by home delivery only. There was no retail distribution of the product. Consumers purchase Pet Pantry products by phone or email orders. The product is then delivered by the nearest franchisee directly to the consumer's home.

The product subject to this notification included "Maintenance Diet" labeled with a use by date of "17FEB04" and "Beef with Barley" with a use by date of "05MAR04". Consumers who had purchased dog food from The Pet Pantry since February of this year were asked to check their present supplies and see if any match the description of the product being removed.


If so, consumers were asked to contact The Pet Pantry at 1-800-381-7387 for further information on how to return the product to The Pet Pantry for proper disposal. Consumers were asked not to destroy or discard the product themselves. The Pet Pantry also used its sales records to contact consumers who purchased the affected product. FDA worked closely with the Pet Pantry International to assure for proper disposal of the recovered product.

http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2003/ch5/cvm1.htm#animal



PLEASE NOTE, NO MORE ENFORCEMENT REPORTS HERE. ...TSS



however, it has not stopped there, lets jump to 2006 alone ;



Subject: MAD COW FDA FEED WARNING LETTER NO. 2007-NOL-01 October 26, 2006 H.J. Baker & Bro., Inc.
Date: November 7, 2006 at 9:08 am PST
Food and Drug Administration

New Orleans District

404 BNA Drive, Building 200, Suite 500

Nashville, TN 37217

Telephone: 615-366-7801

Facsimile: 615-366-7802

October 26, 2006

WARNING LETTER NO. 2007-NOL-01

FEDERAL EXPRESS

OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Mr. Christopher V. B. Smith

Corporate President, CEO

H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc.

228 Saugatuck Avenue

Westport, Connecticut 06880

Dear Mr. Smith:

On June 6, 8, 12-15, and 23, 2006, a U.S . Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigator inspected

your animal feed protein supplement manufacturing facility, located at 603 Railroad Avenue,

Albertville, Alabama. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in

Title 21, Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 589.2000 (21 CFR 589.2000), Animal Proteins Prohibited in

Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine

Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to follow the requirements of this regulation, resulting

in products being manufactured and distributed by your facility because they are adulterated within the

meaning of Section 402(a)(4) [21 USC 342(a)(4)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the

Act) and misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Act.

Our investigation determined adulteration resulted from the failure of your firm to establish and

implement measures sufficient to prevent commingling or cross-contamination . The adulterated feed

was subsequently misbranded because it was not properly labeled. Specifically, we found :

" Your firm failed to establish and use cleanout procedures or other means to prevent carry-over of

products which contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein

or feeds which may be used for ruminants, as required by 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(iii)(B) .

Specifically, you failed to establish and use such measures for a screw auger installed in February

2005 . This auger is used to convey both prohibited and non-prohibited material to bulk storage bins.

In addition, you failed to follow the cleanout procedure your firm had developed for the receiving

systems. Your feed is, therefore, adulterated under Section 402(a)(4) [21 USC 342(a)(4)] of the Act.

" You failed to label all products which contained or may have contained prohibited materials with the

BSE cautionary statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants," as required by 21 CFR

589.2000(e)(1)(i) . Such products are misbranded under Section 403(3) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the

Act. These misbranded products include the three Pro-Pak products mentioned below, as well as

Page 2 - H. J . Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, Alabama Warning Letter No. 2007-NOL-O 1

those bulk loads of individual feed ingredients processed through this common screw auger and

distributed between the time it was installed in February 2005, and June 9, 2006 .

This letter is not intended to serve as an all-inclusive list of violations at your facility. As a

manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for ensuring your overall

operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.

We acknowledge your June 16, 2006, voluntary recall of three products you manufactured from

February 2005 to June 2006. The three products recalled were: Pro-Lak Protein Concentrate for

Lactating Dairy Animals; Pro-Amino II for PreFresh and Lactating Cows; and, Pro-Pak Marine & Animal Protein Concentrate for Use in Animal Feed. Recall effectiveness checks and other measures

will determine the merit of this recall . We recognize you now label all products with the required BSE

cautionary statement and we also acknowledge your intent, given verbally to New Orleans District

management of the FDA, to discontinue the production of supplements which do not contain prohibited

materials. In your written response to this letter, please confirm in writing you have taken these steps.

You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law, including the steps we acknowledge above and any additional steps you have taken. Your response should include an

explanation of each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 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 corrections have been made.

Your reply should be directed to Kari L. Batey, Compliance Officer, at the address above. If you have

questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Ms. Batey at (615) 366-7808.

Sincerely,

,

Carol S . Sanchez

Acting District Director

New Orleans District

Enclosure: Form FDA 483

cc: Craig R. Waterhouse

Plant Manager

H.J. Baker & Bros., Inc.

603 Railroad Avenue

Albertville, Alabama 35951-3419


http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g6104d.pdf




TSS


MORE 2006 FEED BAN VIOLATIONS BELOW, ''IN COMMERCE'' ;


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL,
TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST

PRODUCT
a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6;
b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6;
c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6;
d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6.
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone
on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006. Firm initiated recall is
complete.
REASON
Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Dairy feed, custom, Recall # V-134-6;
b) Custom Dairy Feed with Monensin, Recall # V-135-6.
CODE
None. Bulk product
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Burkmann Feed, Greeneville, TN, by Telephone beginning on
June 28, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL. Firm initiated
recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,484 tons
DISTRIBUTION
TN and WV


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html




Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA,
MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-115-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Hiseville Feed & Seed Co., Hiseville, KY, by telephone and letter on or
about July 14, 2006. FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approximately 2,223 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-116-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rips Farm Center, Tollesboro, KY, by telephone and letter on July 14, 2006.
FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,220 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-117-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Kentwood Co-op, Kentwood, LA, by telephone on June 27, 2006. FDA initiated
recall is completed.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
40 tons
DISTRIBUTION
LA and MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk Dairy Feed, Recall V-118-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Cal Maine Foods, Inc., Edwards, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. FDA
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,150 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-119-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Walthall County Co-op, Tylertown, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
87 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-120-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Ware Milling Inc., Houston, MS, by telephone on June 23, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
350 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Tucker Milling, LLC Tm 32% Sinking Fish Grower, #2680-Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-121-6;
b) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-122-6;
c) Tucker Milling, LLC #31232 Game Bird Grower,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-123-6;
d) Tucker Milling, LLC 31227-Crumble, Game Bird Starter, BMD
Medicated, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-124-6;
e) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-125-6;
f) Tucker Milling, LLC #30230, 30 % Turkey Starter, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-126-6;
g) Tucker Milling, LLC #30116, TM Broiler Finisher,
50 lb bags, Recall # V-127-6
CODE
All products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/20/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Tucker Milling LLC, Guntersville, AL, by telephone and visit
on June 20, 2006, and by letter on June 23, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker and Brothers Inc., Stamford, CT. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Poultry and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein were not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,541-50 lb bags
DISTRIBUTION
AL, GA, MS, and TN

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2006/ENF00964.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL MI MAMMALIAN PROTEIN VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN
COMMERCE 27,694,240 lbs
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:14 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy feds manufactured from concentrates, Recall # V-113-6
CODE
All dairy feeds produced between 2/1/05 and 6/16/06 and containing H. J.
Baker recalled feed products.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Vita Plus Corp., Gagetown, MI, by visit beginning on June 21, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The feed was manufactured from materials that may have been contaminated
with mammalian protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
27,694,240 lbs
DISTRIBUTION
MI


END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL AL AND FL VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125
TONS Products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm PST
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated,
net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6;
d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated,
Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend,
Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted,
Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020,
Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete
Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated,
Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying
Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED,
net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and
visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
125 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and FL


END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL KY VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:19 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
?????
DISTRIBUTION
KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


CJD WATCH MESSAGE BOARD
TSS
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE
Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22
71.248.128.67


RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals,
Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg),
Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL
FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE
a) Bulk
b) None
c) Bulk
d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and
by press release on June 16, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00960.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

New Orleans District
297 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37217

Telephone: 615-781-5380
Fax: 615-781-5391


May 17, 2006

WARNING LETTER NO. 2006-NOL-06

FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner
Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products
2621 State Street
Dallas, Texas 75204

Dear Mr. Shirley:

On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson
Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant
deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in
Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to
follow the requirements of this regulation; products being manufactured and
distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section
403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the Act).

Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient
written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to
maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:

You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent
carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or
feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the
same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use
only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each
species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after
processing mammalian tissues.

You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out
procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from
mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.

As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived
from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR
589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived
from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other
ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein
derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the
poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the
Act.

This letter is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your
facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you
are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you
manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take
prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system
whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these
violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or
injunction, without further notice.

You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving
this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm
into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of
each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If
corrective action cannot be completed within 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
corrections have been made.

Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie,
Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter,
please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.

Sincerely,

/S

Carol S. Sanchez
Acting District Director
New Orleans District


http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5883d.htm


there seem to be enforcement reports for;

http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2001/default.htm



http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2002/default.htm



http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2003/default.htm



2001 Purina



RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETMED -- CLASS II


RECALL NO.ID NO.PRODUCT

V-033-1 1186 OMOLENE #300
V-034-1 4987 PURINA HORSE PELLET 14
V-035-1 27690 CATTLE COMPLETE #4
V-036-1 10602 HORSEMAN'S EDGE 12 COARSE
V-037-1 5541 GRAIN LND CRS CRKD CRM
V-038-1 1194 HORSE CHOW #100
V-039-1 27313 SHOWCHOW LEAN 50 L160
V-040-1 1199 HORSE CHARGE
V-041-1 6214 CALF STARTER (COARSE) OTC 6
V-042-1 1384 GAME FLIGHT CONDÖÖ--
V-043-1 14971 PREPARE COMP II 18%
V-044-1 28493 CU BRND A/L PLT PK
V-045-1 1381 GAME BIRD STARTENA W/O ETTS
V-046-1 27459 LN GN ST S2 CPSTZ
V-047-1 7375 SHOW CHOW PREMIUM DEV DTC 7
V-048-1 28394 CU 1 CATTLE HOLDING
V-049-1 28383 RANGE CAKE 20.SM CKR
V-050-1 1505 START & GROW W/O ETTS
V-051-1 39335 ACCURATION CTL DEV-
V-052-1 28515 CU CAKE CUBE N
V-053-1 38056 COMM CATTLE ST CTC140
V-054-1 37883 RANGE CAKE 20N 5/32
V-055-1 36668 CATTLE GROWER 32 RM 175
V-056-1 28450 WILD TURKEY CON MP.025%
V-057-1 28443 PURINA ELK CHECKERS 20%
V-058-1 28452 BB SCRATCH GRAIN
V-059-1 39356 ACCURATION CTL COND.
V-060-1 39747 NATURAL BEEF BUILDER COARSE
V-061-1 26753 HORSEMAN'S EDGE PELLET 14%
V-062-1 1506 START & GROW MP 0.0125% 50#
V-063-1 1386 GAMEBIRD BRDR LAYENa ETTS
V-064-1 27917 SWEET GRAIN MIX 9
V-065-1 19283 COMM CATTLE ST CTSM
V-066-1 27310 SHWCHPIG G17-XL L160
V-067-1 18346 COMP SOW OVAL
V-068-1 28255 HOG FINISHER LND W/O
V-069-1 27140 CALF GROWENA 16% BVT 60
V-070-1 27460 SH CH PIG ST20-XL L140
V-071-1 28103 MAZ OSTRICH BREEDER
V-072-1 5540 GRAIN LAND WHOLE CORN
V-073-1 1195 HORSE CHOW #200
V-074-1 28340 LAMB SHOW RATION CTC50
V-075-1 43289 OMOLENE #300 GROWTH
V-076-1 28387 FORAGE BALANCER 20N 3/8
V-077-1 43771 HFC SHOW PIG 20% T 100
V-078-1 28863 CS ACU-MN VEG PS#1, 2 RM300
V-079-1 28555 CU STANDRIDGE GRW RM700
V-080-1 43660 HF&C SHOW CHOW PIG STR W/O
V-081-1 38255 PHEASANT FLIGHT COND HM BMD50
V-082-1 37504 COMM TX CATTLE STR CTSM 77.7
V-083-1 28451 BB WHOLE MILO
V-084-1 28448 WILD TU COND. MP-BMD
V-085-1 28441 HI-PRO DEER CHECKERS
V-086-1 43661 HF&C SHOW CHOW PIG STR T100
V-087-1 39357 HI-ENERGY BEEF CKR
V-088-1 40849 NATURAL BEEF BREEDER
V-089-1 16647 PHEAS FLIGHT COND BMD 50
V-090-1 1822 EQUINE ADULT
V-091-1 16645 PHEASANT FLIGHT COND W/O
V-092-1 11040 ACCU CONCENTRATE
V-093-1 9798 CATTLE FINISHER 40 W/O..
V-094-1 23778 ACCU - CREEP
V-095-1 19353 CATTLE FIN 40 RM1200
V-096-1 19293 LAMB SHOW GRO/FIN CRS
V-097-1 26720 SW DROUGHT CUBE
V-098-1 6912 PURINA ELK CHECKERS 20% 5/32
V-099-1 24566 FOR BAL ML4 1:3 CTC70
V-100-1 28310 SOUTHWEST 14N BVT 80
V-101-1 28304 SOUTHWEST 12N HI - F
V-102-1 28296 SOUTHWEST 14 N CTC28
V-103-1 44627 SHOW CH PIG ST/GR L1 200
V-104-1 28332 SOUTHWEST 12N RM 25
V-105-1 27357 FORAGE BALANCER 20M 3/4
V-106-1 28292 SOUTHWEST 14N 3/8"
V-107-1 28291 SOUTHWEST 14N 1/4"
V-108-1 25035 STABLE STAR SWEET 12
V-109-1 9803 RABBIT COMP BLEND 50 %
V-110-1 27923 STABLE STAR SWEET GRAIN 9
V-111-1 5639 LAYENA CRUMBLES LG ETT
V-112-1 1185 OMOLENE #200
V-113-1 1209 EQUINE SENIOR
V-114-1 27354 RANGE CAKE 20 3/4
V-115-1 9732 SHOW CHOW PREMIUM GLD FN CTC7
V-116-1 28293 SW 14N 3/4" W/O
V-117-1 27312 LEAN GEN 110 L140
V-118-1 4701 PRE - COND - REC CHOW DO .0025%
V-119-1 28021 FEEDLOT 40 W/O MEAL
V-120-1 11415 WHOLE CORN
V-121-1 16283 ACCU CONCENTRATE RM150
V-122-1 19383 ACCU - CHICKEN BLEND GSÖ
V-123-1 17632 STOCKYARDS CHOW
V-124-1 24544 FORAGE BAL ML 4 1:3
V-125-1 25064 MAZ OSTRICH GR/MAINT
V-126-1 24745 WILD TU STARTER MP - BMD
V-127-1 28106 HI - PRO DEER CHRS - WC
V-128-1 28308 SOUTHWEST 38N
V-129-1 28299 BB STEER RATION
V-130-1 28311 SOUTHWEST 38N RM 200
V-131-1 28338 SOUTHWEST 14N BVT 60
V-132-1 27352 RANGE CAKE 20N 3/4
V-133-1 4998 STRATEGY - GX
V-134-1 1102 PRECONDITION/RECEIVING CTSM 1/4
V-135-1 28405 STABLE STAR SWEET GRAIN 14
V-136-1 1206 EQUINE JUNIOR
V-137-1 28348 CATTLE COMPLETE #3ÖÖ
V-138-1 1184 OMOLENE #100
V-139-1 5628 LAYENA PELLETS
V-140-1 28376 RANGE CAKE 20N 3/8"
V-141-1 388 COMPLETE SOW III W/O
V-142-1 5887 SHOW CHOW LAMB G/F CRSE CTC50
V-143-1 10603 HORSEMAN'S EDGE 14% COARSE
V-144-1 1403 GOAT CHOW
V-145-1 1560 SCRATCH GRAINS
V-146-1 19319 HORSE & MULE
V-147-1 28245 HOG GROWER OTC50
V-148-1 28321 SOUTHWEST 14N DO.0037%
V-149-1 28236 LN GN STR S1 CPSTZ - 250
V-150-1 28207 PREP PLUS COMP HL 18
V-151-1 28240 SHOW CHOW PIG ST.20-XL
V-152-1 28290 SOUTHWEST 14N 5/32"
V-153-1 1480 MAZURI EMU STARTER
V-154-1 1189 PURE PRIDE #200
V-155-1 1508 MEATBUILDER MP 0.0125%
V-156-1 27921 SWEET GRAIN MIX 12
V-157-1 26671 GOLDEN MILK B16
V-158-1 28397 B.B. HORSE & MULE
V-159-1 28456 BB WHOLE OATS
V-160-1 1371 ADV- NUT PROF FORM RABBIT
V-161-1 40996 MAZURI PRIMATE MAINTENANCE BISCUIT
V-162-1 43288 OMOLENE #200 PERFORMANCE
V-163-1 28601 HORSEMAN'S EDGE 14%
V-164-1 28612 BEEF PROMIX#100 CTSM
V-165-1 28419 SOUTHWEST 12N RM 150
V-166-1 28371 GRASS STR 16 NÖÖÖ.
V-167-1 28361 CTL LIM RTN #4 RM110
V-168-1 28360 CTLE LIM RTN #3 RM70
V-169-1 27326 PUR-LYX 21
V-170-1 672 HOG CHOW 40 MEAL
V-171-1 28287 COMM CATTLE ST W/O
V-172-1 28322 CS SW 14 N, TRM
V-173-1 28239 MEAL
V-174-1 28235 PIG STARTENA - 61900
V-175-1 1488 MAZ EMU MAINTENANCE
V-176-1 1165 ACCURATION 2 HL MEAL
V-177-1 1461 GRAIN LAND WHOLE OATS
V-178-1 28241 SHOW CHOW PIG GROW-17-XL
V-179-1 1493 PURINA OSTRIGRO COMPLETE
V-180-1 28246 PIG STARTENA CP-STZ
V-181-1 1190 PURE PRIDE #300
V-182-1 26957 CTLE LIM RAT #1 RM40
V-183-1 26860 COM CALF S/G CRS BVT60
V-184-1 27325 COMM CATTLE ST DO
V-185-1 12837 CATTLE FINISHER 50 W/O..
V-186-1 43287 OMOLENE #100 PLEASURE
V-187-1 43770 HFC SHOW PIG 20%
V-188-1 28615 SOUTHWEST 12N
V-189-1 28616 SOUTHWEST 12N
V-190-1 28408 BEEF PRO MIX 50
V-191-1 28363 CTLE LIM TRN #5 RM180
V-192-1 43337 HF&C SHOW CHOW PIG STR CDX 50
V-193-1 28372 FRG BAL ML4 1:3 CTC750
CODE:
70YY-99, 69YY-99.
MANUFACTURER:
Purina Mills, Oklahoma City, OK 73106.
RECALLED BY:
The manufacturer initiated the recall by letter dated 2/16/01 flagged
"URGENT RECALL" to all direct accounts. Firm-initiated recall ongoing.
DISTRIBUTION:
OK, AR, KA.
QUANTITY:
161 Units.
REASON:
The products have missing or incomplete labeling; items lacking include
statement of ingredients, lot number, place of manufacture, percent fat &
protein, etc. Most products are bagged into bags with a pre-printed unique
product name, less than 5% are not.



END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MAY 23, 2001.





####
http://69.20.19.211/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2001/ENF00694.html


WE know now, and we knew decades ago, that 5.5 grams of suspect feed in TEXAS was enough to kill 100 cows.


look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused 7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;


Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys
Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can prevent transmission of BSE to man.


snip...


BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%) 1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected orally with similar BSE brain inocula


Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa


It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf


2

6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley's answer (that it would take less than say 100

grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one

considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise that it

could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route within the

same species. This information did not become available until the "attack rate"

experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment

designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to ensure

that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the study

and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to trigger

infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that time

ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the designing

scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the

dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf


Re: BSE .1 GRAM LETHAL NEW STUDY SAYS via W.H.O. Dr Maura Ricketts

[BBC radio 4 FARM news]


http://www.maddeer.org/audio/BBC4farmingtoday2_1_03.ram


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm


2) Infectious dose:

To cattle: 1 gram of infected brain material (by oral ingestion)


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/bio/bseesbe.shtml



Purina Mills Voluntarily Recalls Antlermax Deer 20 Feed


http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/purina04_05.html



Purina Mills Voluntarily Recalls Purina Layena® Sunfresh Recipe ...

http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/purina02_06.html



Purina Mills response to FDA concerns "unsatisfactory" - WSJ

http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/purina41601.cfm



PRODUCT Purina Top-16 Dairy & Cattle Wormer, in 50 pound bags.
Recall #V-004-4.
CODE Lot #F9265.

-6-MANUFACTURER Purina Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota.
RECALLED BY Manufacturer, by telephone October 16 & 17, 1993. Firm-
initiated recall complete.
DISTRIBUTION Minnesota, Wisconsin.
QUANTITY 48 bags were distributed.
REASON Product is superpotent in Morantel Tartrate.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/ENF00290.html



VETERINARY PRODUCTS

Class I -
NONE
Class II -

Product: (a) Purina Lean Generation Chow Gro-Fin Pak W/O, bulk
nonmedicated swine feed;
(b) Purina Lean Generation Chow 321 40T, bulk medicated
swine feed;
(c) Purina Lean Generation Chow Concentrate w/o, bulk
nonmedicated swine feed;
(d) Purina Sow Chow 2901, in 50 lb bags, nonmedicated
animal feed supplement (swine);
(e) Purina Lean Generation Chow-Gro-Fin Pak w/o, bulk
nonmedicated swine feed in crumble form.
Recall #V-002/006-2.
Code: Lot numbers: 7-11-91, 43-071591, 7-16-91.
Manufacturer: Purina Mills, Inc., Sioux City, Iowa.

-12-



Recalled by: Manufacturer, by telephone August 6-8, 1991.
Firm-initiated recall complete.
Distribution: Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota.
Quantity: 86,000 pounds were distributed; firm estimates none
remain
 
VETERINARY PRODUCTS

Class I -
NONE
Class II -

Product: (a) Purina Lean Generation Chow Gro-Fin Pak W/O, bulk
nonmedicated swine feed;
(b) Purina Lean Generation Chow 321 40T, bulk medicated
swine feed;
(c) Purina Lean Generation Chow Concentrate w/o, bulk
nonmedicated swine feed;
(d) Purina Sow Chow 2901, in 50 lb bags, nonmedicated
animal feed supplement (swine);
(e) Purina Lean Generation Chow-Gro-Fin Pak w/o, bulk
nonmedicated swine feed in crumble form.
Recall #V-002/006-2.
Code: Lot numbers: 7-11-91, 43-071591, 7-16-91.
Manufacturer: Purina Mills, Inc., Sioux City, Iowa.

-12-



Recalled by: Manufacturer, by telephone August 6-8, 1991.
Firm-initiated recall complete.
Distribution: Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota.
Quantity: 86,000 pounds were distributed; firm estimates none
remains on the market.
Reason: Products were improperly sequenced with no
intervening flush during manufacture.



http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/ENF00103.html



RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY PRODUCT
S -- CLASS II
UPDATE
Recall #V-050-8, Purina Commercial Lean Generation #74 XG CTC 100 (type C medicated feed for swine only), which appeared in the September 23, 1998 Enforcement Report should read:

MANUFACTURER
/FEEDMILL: Purina Mills, Orrville, Ohio.



http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/ENF00559.html



FDA's enforcement arm 'tied behind its back'

By Gregory Roumeliotis



03/07/2006 - A report on the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) enforcement record by US Democratic lawmakers has highlighted a plunge in the number of warning letters the agency has sent to drug manufacturers since 2000, citing several examples where violations spotted in site inspections were not followed through.

The investigation found that officials at the FDA headquarters routinely rejected the recommendations of field officers, resulting in fewer enforcement actions.
The number of warning letters issued by the agency for violations of federal requirements has fallen by over 50 per cent, from 1,154 in 2000 to 535 in 2005, a 15-year low according to the report.

Crucially, the decline in enforcement does not appear to be the result of increased compliance by manufacturers since the number of "483 forms," which record the number of violations observed by field inspectors, was higher most of the years between 2000 and 2005.

Nevertheless, the report does not look before 2000 to see if the recent drop in warning letters is part of a long-term trend, eager to point to the close relationship of the Bush Whitehouse to big pharma.

"I was primarily interested in seeing what has happened to FDA enforcement during the Bush administration," House Government Reform Committee ranking member Henry Waxman, the congressman behind the report, told In-PharmaTechnologist.com.

"The time period we studied includes the end of the Clinton administration to the present."

Waxman alleges that political appointees at FDA headquarters set both the tone and written policies of the agency.

He points to the record of Daniel Troy, who President Bush named Chief Counsel of FDA in 2001.

"Before his appointment, Mr Troy had been a lawyer for the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, aggressively fighting FDA regulation," Waxman said.

"On his arrival, Mr Troy implemented a new policy that all warning letters and notices of violations issued by the agency had to go through him, resulting in serious delays and a dramatic decline in enforcement."

Based on internal FDA documents, the report found 99 cases where drug manufacturing standards where violated and insufficient or no enforcement action was taken.

It cites several examples, including GlaxoSmithKline's facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico, where the agency's field inspectors spotted several violations of current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) between 2002 and 2004, even recommending the site's closure. Yet it was not until 2005 that the FDA censured the drugmaker, but did not impose a fine, shut down the facility or order a recall of the products it was unable to seize, such as the diabetes treatment Avandamet and the antidepressant Paxil.

In another case, FDA field inspectors found significant violations at the Chiron vaccine production plant in Liverpool, England, in June 2003 and recommended the initiation of enforcement action, but their recommendation was rejected, catching the agency by surprise when British regulators closed the facility after discovering sterility problems in some batches of FluVirin vaccine.

There was even an incident where no active ingredient was found in an analgesic and itch cream made by a small unnamed company, but the FDA headquarters, eleven months after field inspectors brought the issue to their attention, decided not to issue a warning letter on the basis that the manufacturer "is a very small operation."

However the FDA has responded strongly to the report, stressing that criminal fines and restitutions resulting from the FDA's enforcement actions alone since 2000 have amounted to more than $2.5bn (€2bn), a figure that exceeds the agency's annual budget.

"FDA enforcement cannot be properly judged by counting the number of actions taken by the agency," David Elder, director of FDA's Office of Enforcement, said in a statement.

"The FDA has increasingly used an enforcement strategy based on efficient risk management principles that focuses on combating the greatest public health risks and maximising our deterrent effect against potential violators."

When a violation of FDA standards is documented during an inspection, the FDA can send out a warning letter, which notifies a firm of violations, requires a written response, and warns that failure to correct the violations can be expected to lead to additional enforcement action.

But the FDA has several options and one of them is to send an untitled letter, which is a significantly less serious step, simply informing a firm of observed violations and not requiring a written response or warning that enforcement action may ensue if violations are not corrected.

The report is expected to have little impact on FDA enforcement, political analysts say, as long as the Republicans control both chambers of the US legislature.

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/news/ng.asp?n=68817-fda-violations-warning-letter


Study Cites Marked Drop In FDA's Warning Letters

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Page A19

The number of serious "warning letters" sent by the Food and Drug Administration to drug, device and food companies has dropped by half over the past five years, leading to a situation where the agency's ability to ensure that products are being made properly has been "significantly compromised," according to a study by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee.

In addition to a drop of almost 50 percent in the number of on-site inspections at manufacturing plants, the 15-month probe found that in some cases, FDA headquarters rejected the enforcement recommendations of agency field offices despite inspectors' findings that violations had led to deaths or serious injuries.

In 32 cases, investigators found, field inspectors recommended that the FDA issue a warning letter, seize the product or seek a court injunction, but the agency sent a significantly weaker letter alerting the company to possible problems.

"Under the Bush administration, enforcement efforts have plummeted and serious violations are ignored," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who requested the study. "FDA can't do its job when its enforcement arm is tied behind its back."

Office of Enforcement Director David Elder responded that regulators have been focusing on situations that pose the greatest risk to consumers and the public health.

"FDA enforcement cannot be properly judged by counting the number of actions taken by the agency," he said in a statement. "FDA has increasingly used an enforcement strategy based on efficient risk management principles that focus on combating the greatest public health risks and maximizing our deterrent effect against potential violators."

In addition, Elder said, the agency has won unprecedented legal actions against firms found to be in violation of the law. Fines and penalties from those major prosecutions and settlements have brought more than $2.5 billion since 2000, he said.

According to the committee's minority report, the number of warning letters declined from 1,154 in 2000 to 535 in 2005. The biggest-percentage decline occurred in the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, which had 66 percent fewer warning letters issued in 2005 than in 2000. That center regulates defibrillators and a number of other devices that have been the subject of recalls and controversy over defective and failed products. At the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the number of warning letters dropped 39 percent.

The inspections, warning letters and enforcement actions described in the report involve questions of whether manufacturers are following good manufacturing practices -- whether their pills, medical devices and food products are being produced in a reliably safe manner.

Over the past decade, the agency has to some extent moved from on-site inspections to assure quality toward trying to make sure that companies have proper manufacturing and quality-control systems.

The minority staff's report concludes that the number of warning letters has not been halved because the plants are safer and better run. They found that FDA inspectors wrote about as many reports describing significant violations in 2000 as in 2005, a sign that problems remained. Those violation reports, however, were less likely to result in warning letters or other enforcement activities.

Waxman asked for the study because of reports that FDA inspectors who identified problems at Chiron Corp.'s flu-manufacturing plant in England were overruled by their supervisors. British drug authorities closed the plant because of the manufacturing problems, leaving the United States with a major shortage of flu vaccine for the winter of 2004-2005.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601125.html



IS THE PARTY OVER $$$


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

>>http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/349/part1cjd.htm


>>==========================================================



>> >>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?


>> >>you can see a list of sample USA madcow warning letters;


>> >>


http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912238.html


>>


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html




TSS
 
flounder, it seems economies of scale and concentration of the feed industries has caused the problems it has in the human food chain---huge risks associated with contamination.

When will the USDA see that these food related risks are to be taken seriously and one way to do that is to have less concentrated food/feed industries.


We need a Competition Title in the Farm Bill!!!
 
Cargill recalls contaminated Canadian cattle feed
By Roberta Rampton
Sat Nov 18, 11:01 PM ET

Source of Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/wl_canada_nm/canada_madcow_canada_feed_col_1

WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - Cargill Ltd. has recalled feed from about 100 Canadian farms because it may contain trace amounts of an ingredient banned to prevent the spread of mad cow disease, the company said on Saturday.

Canadian veterinary officials are trying to determine how many and what kind of cattle ate the feed, and whether the feed could contain any infective material, the country's chief veterinarian said.

"The younger animals are the ones that we'll be particularly interested in, if there were younger animals on these farms," Brian Evans of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said in an interview.

Cargill, the Canadian division of privately held U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill Inc., said it shipped a cattle feed ingredient between October 31 and November 14 in a rail car previously used to ship meat and bone meal made from cattle and other ruminant livestock.

The meat and bone meal can be used in hog and poultry feed, but has been banned from cattle feed since 1997 by Canada and the United States because of the risk of spreading bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.

An estimated 400 to 500 tons of feed were affected in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but Cargill did not know how much was eaten before the recall, which began on Friday, said spokesman Rob Meijer.

"What happened in terms of the cross-contamination is a no-no, and we are taking a very precautionary step here in a voluntary way and we're cleaning it up," Meijer said.

Canada has uncovered eight cases of mad cow disease in its domestic herd since May 2003, and hopes to eliminate the disease within a decade by tightening its feed rules.

By July, cattle brains, spines and other material thought to create the most risk for spreading mad cow disease will be banned from all types of animal feed.

The materials have been kept out of human food since May 2003.

Young livestock are most susceptible to contracting the disease, which takes an average of four to seven years to incubate, he said.

By next week, the agency hopes to be able to assess the risk posed by the contaminated feed, Evans said.

"If there is a determination that the potential is that these animals could incubate BSE and express BSE several years into the future, then that will be part of how we'll work with the producers, to ensure that does not happen," he said.

"It may or may not turn out to be a non-event, but we're treating it with the type of diligence that we feel is appropriate to make sure that we are on a track to eradicate BSE as quickly as possible," he said.

Investigators believe six of Canada's eight diseased animals consumed tainted feed before or shortly after the introduction of the 1997 feed ban.

Another contracted the disease five years after the ban, but investigators said it ate feed from a plant that failed to clean its equipment properly after making hog and poultry rations.
 
Oldtimer said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Oldtimer,


Go play you rmind games somewhere else!! Your a protectionist you should build your lil fort around yourself to protect yourself from the sky falling. :roll:

Yep- I am, and I think the majority of the country is going that way...The true conservatives always were, believing in the Jefferson/Madison old theory of only doing what trading we needed to do/ and whats beneficial for us- and not signing the country in to any long term trade agreements that threaten or reduce our sovereignty or that of any of the states... And now many of the rest- the moderates and the liberals are seeing the failures of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO- the sellout of our country and industries and infrastructure to China and the rest of the world- and the consequences of fighting the wars of the world while the other so called allies sit back and do nothing, but bring in the money they made off this so called "free trade" that we've kept free for them.... Yep I probably am a protectionist...

As a historian- I keep remembering what won two world wars, and it wasn't that Americans were tougher or better fighters than anyone else- it was our industrial/agricultural might that supplied the allied world with fighting machinery, arms, and food...And now we are selling/have sold most of that out to countries that may or may not be our allies tomorrow...Not a smart move in my book- because like it or not history keeps repeating itself....We've turned the county from being an industrial/agricultual might into a service provider.....Maybe in the next war- when we find out our allies ain't really our allies anymore and won't provide the supplys we need- or like many today "fair weather allies"-- we can meet the invasion on the beachs and fight them off with our Mickie D's hamburger spatulas..... :roll: :cry:

Christopher Ruddy
NewsMax.com

Our enemies are now controlling America's financial future -- and your financial future, if you are invested in dollars and the U.S. economy.

It's a worrisome thought, but a real one.

Nearly 70% of global currency reserves are now held by developing countries. The irony is that the three countries in the world adding reserves the fastest, and thus buying the most U.S. debt now are China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia -- none of them democracies. Venezuela and Iran -- two countries seeking to undermine the U.S. are close behind.

We are increasingly counting on a group of creditors who are not our closest friends but have a bigger and bigger stake in America.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, economists are increasingly concerned that China or another American rival could someday use its huge holdings of U.S. debt as a geopolitical weapon -- regardless of the harm it would cause to its own economy.
 
Oldtimer said:
Oldtimer said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Oldtimer,


Go play you rmind games somewhere else!! Your a protectionist you should build your lil fort around yourself to protect yourself from the sky falling. :roll:

Yep- I am, and I think the majority of the country is going that way...The true conservatives always were, believing in the Jefferson/Madison old theory of only doing what trading we needed to do/ and whats beneficial for us- and not signing the country in to any long term trade agreements that threaten or reduce our sovereignty or that of any of the states... And now many of the rest- the moderates and the liberals are seeing the failures of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO- the sellout of our country and industries and infrastructure to China and the rest of the world- and the consequences of fighting the wars of the world while the other so called allies sit back and do nothing, but bring in the money they made off this so called "free trade" that we've kept free for them.... Yep I probably am a protectionist...

As a historian- I keep remembering what won two world wars, and it wasn't that Americans were tougher or better fighters than anyone else- it was our industrial/agricultural might that supplied the allied world with fighting machinery, arms, and food...And now we are selling/have sold most of that out to countries that may or may not be our allies tomorrow...Not a smart move in my book- because like it or not history keeps repeating itself....We've turned the county from being an industrial/agricultual might into a service provider.....Maybe in the next war- when we find out our allies ain't really our allies anymore and won't provide the supplys we need- or like many today "fair weather allies"-- we can meet the invasion on the beachs and fight them off with our Mickie D's hamburger spatulas..... :roll: :cry:

Christopher Ruddy
NewsMax.com

Our enemies are now controlling America's financial future -- and your financial future, if you are invested in dollars and the U.S. economy.

It's a worrisome thought, but a real one.

Nearly 70% of global currency reserves are now held by developing countries. The irony is that the three countries in the world adding reserves the fastest, and thus buying the most U.S. debt now are China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia -- none of them democracies. Venezuela and Iran -- two countries seeking to undermine the U.S. are close behind.

We are increasingly counting on a group of creditors who are not our closest friends but have a bigger and bigger stake in America.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, economists are increasingly concerned that China or another American rival could someday use its huge holdings of U.S. debt as a geopolitical weapon -- regardless of the harm it would cause to its own economy.


They already have as it relates to their currency manipulation case. Bush backed down. It shows you the power of money over morals in this administration.
 
Good Name Recongetion ; Cargill Ltd. has recalled feed from about 100 Canadian farms because it may contain trace amounts of an ingredient banned to prevent the spread of mad cow disease, the company said on Saturday.

Canadian veterinary officials are trying to determine how many and what kind of cattle ate the feed, and whether the feed could contain any infective material, the country's chief veterinarian said.

****** How many loads in last 8Years from Cargill LTd.??
 
Subject: CFIA MAD COW FEED INVESTIGATIONs ABOUT AS WORTHLESS AS USDAs UPDATE
Date: December 1, 2006 at 1:32 pm PST

Update - Contaminated Feed Investigation
Update - 2006-11-30

Potentially contaminated feed recently distributed to farms in Ontario and Quebec posed, at most, a negligible risk to animal health, according to a risk assessment completed by veterinary experts in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

The assessment determined that the probability of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) being present in the feed was extremely remote, making it highly unlikely that exposed animals could develop the disease in the coming years.

There is no food safety concern associated with any exposed animals. Canada requires the removal of all tissues known to harbour BSE infectivity from every animal slaughtered for human consumption. Furthermore, in the context of BSE, Canadian and international health experts agree that milk and milk products are safe. Consequently, these animals can enter slaughter streams and continue to be used for milk production.

All exposed animals will be permanently identified, which will enable Canada to continue to meet specific technical import requirements of certain trading partners.

Feed distributed to farms has been removed, disposed of and replaced. Feed that had not yet entered the distribution system has also been accounted for and disposed of under CFIA supervision.

This incident represents a violation of Canada's feed ban, and the CFIA's precautionary actions were taken to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the ban and to limit the level of BSE in Canada. An enforcement investigation is underway.




http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/20061130investe.shtml



> All exposed animals will be permanently identified, which will enable Canada to


> continue to meet specific technical import requirements of certain trading partners.




YEP, to hell with the consumer in North America that may be exposed to a sub-clinical TSE.

There going to just keep a close watch out for ''certain trading partners''.

SO, there gonna keep a watchful eye out on these animals, all the while feeding them out to the public

in North America.

SO, 4, 5, 6 years or so down the road, some of these animals DO go down with BSE from some of this feed,

what is the CFIA going to do, call all these folks up that consumed these products and say, OOOPS, sorry again.


jimmany cricket, give me a break. ...TSS
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
Flounder do you personlly eat beef? Just curious. Don't answer if you don't want to.
It's a simple yes or no, flounder. No manifesto necessary.
 
Texan said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Flounder do you personlly eat beef? Just curious. Don't answer if you don't want to.
It's a simple yes or no, flounder. No manifesto necessary.

i have answered this before when science facts does not please you.
if any of yo bozo's would have been paying attention, i have said time and time again, i am a meat eater. i think the last time i quoted here was that i had eaten a tough ash steak that was from texas. i have also said that my intentions were to get this BSe right i.e. correct, i have also said i have become more exposed to the TSE agent through my 6 different surgeries FOR my neck, than from oral consumption, due to the fact i have also said that the medical and surgical arena is more of a risk factor, please pay attention, i am tired of wasting my time. believe me i am backed by no corporate interest, or anyone else, simple fact is i have wasted 9 years, daily, as of 12/14/97 DOD Mom of the Heidenhain Variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease, and i am really getting tired of accusations such as where you two bozos are going. it's been discussed here before and i am not going to waste time going there. it's industry such as you that we are in the shape we are in. i.e. just curious my ash.............. i get a bit testy around this time of year 12/14/97 and i am not asking for any pitty or anything else, just GET IT RIGHT DAMNT........sorry...............terry


P.S. No manifesto intended ..........
 
Econ101 said:
flounder, it seems economies of scale and concentration of the feed industries has caused the problems it has in the human food chain---huge risks associated with contamination.

When will the USDA see that these food related risks are to be taken seriously and one way to do that is to have less concentrated food/feed industries.


We need a Competition Title in the Farm Bill!!!


competition like this ???

STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995

snip...

To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed
compounders.

To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity.

To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
changes which may be required.

snip...

THE FUTURE

4..........

MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
handling potentially explosive issues.

5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.

6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...

SEE full text ;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf



Subject: U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan
Summary
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 18:25:12 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: [email protected]

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas......

I thought it might be interesting for those of you who have not seen
this plan, to do so. So here it is...........

The mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is to enhance
the quality of life for the American people by supporting production
agriculture; ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible
food supply; caring for agricultural, forest, and range lands;
supporting sound development of rural communities; providing economic
opportunities for farm and rural residents; expanding global markets for
agricultural and forest products and services; and working to reduce
hunger in America and throughout the world.

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible
for ensuring the health and care of animals and plants. APHIS improves
agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contributes to the
national economy and the public health. USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for protecting the Nation's
meat and poultry supply--making sure it is safe, wholesome,
unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. These two agencies
have come together to lead USDA's actions in the prevention, monitoring,
and control of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the U.S.
livestock and food supply.
The public knows BSE as "MAD COW DISEASE", a disease linked to human
cases of new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD). USDA knows BSE
as the disease that devastated the livestock industry in the United
Kingdom and shattered consumer confidence in Europe. BSE has affected
international trade and all aspects of the animal and public health
communities. It has called even greater attention to the U.S.
Government's accountability for a safe food supply.
No case of BSE has ever been found in the United States. Since 1989,
USDA has had a number of stringent safeguards in place to prevent BSE
from entering the country. USDA conducts an ongoing, comprehensive
interagency surveillance program for BSE. This surveillance program
allows USDA to monitor actively for BSE to ensure immediate detection in
the event that BSE were to be introduced into the United States.
Immediate detection allows for swift response. As an emergency
preparedness measure, USDA has developed this BSE Response Plan to be
initiated in the event that a case of BSE is diagnosed in the United
States. The Plan details comprehensive instructions for USDA staff as to
who is to do what, when, where, and how in the event that BSE were to be
diagnosed in the United States.

BACKGROUND

APHIS is responsible for being prepared for potential FOREIGN animal
disease outbreaks. The purpose of such preparation is to provide a
step-by-step plan of action in the event that a FOREIGN animal disease,
such as BSE, is detected in the United States. These plans, often
referred to as "RED BOOKS", provide guidance by outlining certain
actions that should take place, such as identification of a suspect
animal, laboratory confirmation, epidemiologic investigation, and animal
and herd disposition activities. Copies of Red Books for specific
FOREIGN animal diseases are distributed to agency headquarters and each
regional and field office to have in preparation for a disease outbreak.

In 1990, APHIS developed a plan to respond to a confirmation of BSE in
the United States. In August 1996, a joint APHIS-FSIS working group
updated the BSE Red Book in accordance with current science and research
surrounding BSE and the related family of disease called transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's). The BSE Red Book is officially
entitled BSE EMERGENCY DISEASE GUIDELINES.
The APHIS-FSIS working group determined that the BSE Red Book, which
detailed laboratory and field activities to be carried out in an
emergency, needed another component. After the March 1996 announcement
by the United Kingdom that BSE was linked to nvCJD, it became apparent
to the working group that the Plan needed to address communication
issues, both internally within USDA and the Federal Government and
externally to the public at large. A confirmed case of BSE would affect
such a vast array of stakeholders-consumers, cattle producers, the food
animal industry, international trading partners, animal and public
health communities, media, and others. Having clear, accurate
information readily available would build trust and credibility and
facilitate any response measures needed. There needed to be a
notification plan. Who was responsible for notifying who, what, when,
and how? The plan needed to identify clear channels of communication as
to ensure immediate collection and dissemination of accurate
information.
The joint APHIS--FSIS working group became formally known as the BSE
Response Team and is responsible for the development of this BSE
Response Response Plan. BSE Response Team members represent a mix of
backgrounds and expertise, including veterinary medicine, food safety,
public health, epidemiology, pathology, international trade, and public
affairs. The Team is coordinatied by two Team Leaders, one each from
APHIS and FSIS, who serve as liaisons and technical advisors to their
respective agencies on regulations and policies regarding BSE.
Over the past 2 years, the BSE Response Plan has been reviewed, edited,
revised, and approved by officials at all levels of APHIS, FSIS, and
USDA. The Plan has also been shared with other Government agencies, such
as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), and other stakeholders, such as the Animal Ag Coalition.
The BSE Response Team monitors and assesses all ongoing events and
research findings regarding TSE's. The Team leaders are responsible for
ensuring that prevention and diagnostic measures are continually revised
and adjusted as new information and knowledge become available.

NOTIFICATION: Roles and Responsibilities

Surveillance

As part of USDA's surveillance program for BSE in the United States,
veterinary pathologists and field investigators from APHIS and FSIS have
received training from British counterparts in diagnosing BSE. FSIS
inspects cattle before they go to slaughter; these inspection procedures
include identifying animals with central nervous system conditions.
Animals with such conditions are considered suspect for BSE, prohibited
from slaughter, and referred to APHIS for examination as explained
below.
Pathologists at APHIS National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL)
histopathologically examine the brains from these condemned animals. In
addition, samples are tested using a technique called
immunohistochemistry, which tests for the presence of the
protease-resistant prion protein (a marker for BSE). NVSL also examines
samples from neurologically ill cattle and nonambulatory ("DOWNER")
cattle identified on the farm or at slaughter and from rabies-negative
cattle submitted to veterinary diagnostic laboratories and teaching
hospitals.

NOTIFICATION

Because of their responsibility for examining condemned or BSE-suspect
animals, NVSL is the organization responsible for activating the
notification and BSE response process. It is NVSL that will begin the
activation of the BSE Response Plan. From the time a sample is
submitted, it takes 14 to 18 days to confirm a diagnosis of BSE In the
first 10 to 13 days, pathologists at NVSL have enough information to
either rule out BSE or determine the need for additional tests. If it is
determined that there is no evidence of BSE, the results are added to
the more than 7,500 others that have also been negative. NVSL maintains
these data.
If additional tests do suggest a presumptive diagnosis of BSE, an NVSL
pathologist will hand carry the sample to the United Kingdom for
confirmation. It is at this critical point, when NVSL suggests a
diagnosis of BSE and is preparing to send the sample to the United
Kingdom, that this BSE Response Plan is initiated. The Plan begins the
preliminary notification from NVSL to APHIS.

Prelimanary Notification

The director of NVSL is responsible for immediately notifying the APHIS,
Veterinary Services (VS) deputy administrator when tests suggest a
presumptive diagnosis of BSE.
Once NVSL has made a presumptive diagnosis of BSE, APHIS and FSIS field
activities will also be initiated. APHIS will receive notification
(either confirming or not confirming NVSL's diagnosis) from the United
Kingdom anywhere between 24 and 96 hours. (The international animal
health community has recognized the United Kingdom's Central Veterinary
Laboratory {CVL} as the world's reference laboratory for diagnosing BSE.
Other countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland, have all sent samples to this
lab to confirm their first case of BSE).

NVSL

NVSL will provide all laboratory support in carrying out this BSE
Response Plan and serve as the liaison with CVL. NVSL will prepare its
facility to receive and process additional samples from the suspect
animal's progeny or herdmates or other suspects. NVSL will also
coordinate any other assistance from State or university diagnostic
laboratories if necessary.

APHIS, VS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

Veterinary Services is the animal health arm of APHIS and the program
responsible for carrying out field actions in response to BSE. Upon
notifiction of a presumptive diagnosis from NVSL, the APHIS, VS deputy
administrator immediately notifies the FSIS, Office of Public Health and
Science (OPHS) deputy administrator. APHIS and FSIS deputy
administrators will alert the BSE Response Team and activate the
Response Plan. The VS deputy administrator serves as the liaison between
the BSE Response Team and the APHIS administrator.
The APHIS, VS deputy administrator notifies the APHIS administrator and
the VS regional director of the State from which the suspect animal
originated.

APHIS Administrator

The APHIS Administrator immediately notifies the USDA Assistant
Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. This immediate
notification will be followed by an official informational memorandum
from the APHIS Administrator, through the Assistant Secretary for
Marketing and Regulatory Programs, to the Secretary of Agriculture. This
memorandum will be prepared by the BSE Response Team; a draft is
maintained by the Team leaders in the reserved section of their plans.
The APHIS Administrator is responsible for securing indemnity funds for
depopulation of the herd if CVL confirms NVSL's diagnosis.

Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

The Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, in
conjuction with the Undersecretary for Food Safety, is responsible for
notifying the Secretary. The Assistant Secretary serves as the liaison
between APHIS and Department-level officials.

Secretary of Agriculture

The Secretary has the authority to declare a Federal EMERGENCY if
appropriate and approve funding as necessary. Information will be
provided to the Secretary up the chain of command from the BSE Response
Team.

FSIS, OPHS Deputy Administrator

The OPHS Deputy Administrator, together with the APHIS, VS Deputy
Administrator, alert the BSE Response Team leaders and instruct them to
assemble the BSE Response Team and activate the Plan. The OPHS Deputy
Administrator serves as the liaison between the BSE Response Team and
the FSIS Administrator.
The OPHS Deputy Administrator is responsible for notifying the FSIS
regional director in charge of the State from which the suspect animal
originated.

FSIS Deputy Administrator

The FSIS Deputy Administrator is responsible for notifying the
Undersecretary for Food Safety.

Undersecretary for Food Safety

The Undersecretary for Food Safety, in conjuction with the Assistant
Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, notifies the Secretary
of Agriculture.

APHIS, VS, Regional Director

The APHIS, VS regional director in charge of the State from which the
suspect animal originated notifies the VS Area Veterinarian-in-Charge
(AVIC) for that State. The regional director is the liaison between VS
field staff and the VS Deputy Administrator at headquarters. In
addition, the regional director shares all information with the BSE
Response Team.

APHIS, VS, AVIC

The VS AVIC, in cooperation with State animal health authorities, is
responsible for coordination the field activities surrounding the
emergency response to BSE. The AVIC assembles the local VS staff to
initiate activities outlined in the BSE Red Book including tracing the
progeny and herdmates of the suspect animal and beginning an
epidemiologic investigation. The VS AVIC coordinates with the State
Veterinarian to quarantine the suspect animal's herd of origin. The
State has the authority to order a routine quarantine for a neurological
disease. The BSE Response Team surveyed every State to determine if they
would utilize this authority in the event that NVSL identifies a
presumptive diagnosis of BSE. All States responded that they would issue
a quarantine.

BSE Response Team

The BSE Response Team leaders will notify each team member and instruct
them to assemble in the Situation Room at APHIS headquarters in
Riverdale, MD. The Team leaders are responsible for ensuring that all of
the Team's duties are fulfilled. It is their responsibility to ensure
that the technical information and expert recommendations reach the
decisionmakers in a timely fashion. Together with VS Emergency Programs
staff, the Team leaders will obtain APHIS, VS administrative support
staff in Riverdale, MD, to ready the room for use as BSE headquarters.
The Team will begin gathering and assembling information from APHIS and
FSIS region and field staff. The Team will pull the draft documents from
the third section in the Team leaders manuals and begin filling in
current information as it becomes available.

Public Notification

Should NVSL receive notice from CVL confirming a case of BSE, the next
level of notification is activated. Each player will follow the same
notification protocol as described above for preliminary notification to
confirm the diagnosis of a case of BSE.

BSE Response Team

The BSE Response Team will complete the informational memorandum for the
Secretary. The Team will prepare the letter to the Office of
International Epizootics (OIE), the international animal health
organization, for signature by the APHIS, VS Deputy Administrator. OIE
requires that all countries submit official notification within 24 hours
of confirming a diagnosis of BSE.
The BSE Response Team and the office of the APHIS, VS Deputy
Administrator would coordinate a teleconference to inform all APHIS
regional directors and AVIC'S.
The BSE Response Team and the office of the FSIS, OPHS Deputy
Administrator would coordinate a teleconference to inform all regional
and field FSIS offices.
The BSE Response Team would coordinate a teleconference to notify other
Federal agencies.
The BSE Response Team would coordinate a teleconference to notify key
industry/consumer representatives.
The BSE Response Team and APHIS International Services would notify
foreign embassies.
The BSE Response Team would establish a toll-free 800 telephone line for
industry representatives, reporters, and the public.
The BSE Response Team would coordinate with APHIS Legislative and Public
Affairs and USDA office of Communications to issue a press release the
day the diagnosis is confirmed. The press release would announce a press
conference to be held the morning after the diagnosis is confirmed......

THE END



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





Approved-By: [email protected].
References: <v04011752b35edb875a7f@[12.7.122.12]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 08:07:19 -0500
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: hunkering down in the APHIS BSE Situation Room





Dr. Pringle or Anyone, why is it, in the U.S.'s B.S.E. Response Plan, the U.S.D.A. refers to it as a FOREIGN ANIMAL DISEASE. With the feeding and rendering practices of the U.S. over the years, scrapie in the U.S. for years, (it was proven in the defense of Oprah Winfrey trial that neurologically ill cattle went to the renderers showed pictures of sheep heads in 55 gallon drums, along with all kind of road-kill at the rendering plants.)
Why do they call this a Foreign Disease, or a U.K. disease???
Under the circumstances, could it not happen here, because of OUR OWN STUPIDITY???
I also find it odd, that the letters, of the announcement of the first case of BSE, are already drafted and ready to go, for a disease, they say, can't happen here, because of the EXTENSIVE B.S.E. program that has been in place for years.
Under the present circumstances, out of the 900 MILLION cattle raised since 1990, and the examination of ONLY 7,535 brains since 1990, It would have to be a FREAK ACCIDENT, for the U.S. to ever find a case of B.S.E.
I believe, this could be a WORLD PROBLEM, AND COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE, where the feeding and rendering practices were that of the U.K. or U.S.//////

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Bacliff, Texas, U.S.A.

tom wrote:

> i am looking now a bizarre Oct 98 internal USDA publication describing a james bond-type US effort to control media



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



Subject: hunkering down in the APHIS BSE Situation Room
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 01:55:54 -0800
From: tom
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: [email protected]

i am looking now a bizarre Oct 98 internal USDA publication describing
a james bond-type US effort to control media should the long-anticipated
first case of BSE in the US be admitted.

'Players' on the 27 member BSE Response Team are to be flown in from all
over the country to a BSE Headquarters 'situation room' apparently an
underground bunker in Riverdale, Maryland under the command of the
Assistant Secretary of Marketing.

Authentic press releases are already prepared and ready to go out after a
few specifics have been filled in. They are spelled out in a separate
document, the BSE Red Book, aka BSE Emergency Disease Guidelines.

Aphis' National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) activates team
assembly. From the time a bovine brain sample is submitted, it takes
14-18 days to confirm a diagnosis of BSE. In the first 10-13 days, NVSL
have enough information to determine the need for additional tests. If a
provisional BSE diagnosis is made, the sample is 'hand-carried' (are
they going to tell the airline and customs?) to the Central Veterinary
Laboratory in England for confirmation, where they are expecting a 24 to
96 hour turn-around.

I guess that means we can get the white tiger brain analyzed by Friday
despite the 22 year delay to date. Maybe we could throw in a few cougar
brains from NE Colorado too.

A Team Member is designated to silently monitor this listserve and
www.mad-cow.org (among others) -- for what, it doesn't say. The
Freedom of Information Act request from the East Coast consumer group
turned up numerous top-secret USDA downloads from that site and
Dealler's.

After 24 hours of secret briefings for 'select industry and trading
partners' (to allow them to take positions on the commodities markets
opposite the 'non-select' industry and trading partners?), a press
conference will be held the next day.

There are plans to trace the cow, its lineage, its herdmates, the
renderer, traceout of product, buyout of herd, farm of origin, to get the
state involved to quarantine the herd (pre-arranged for all 50 states),
expectations for trade bans, notification of OIE within 24 hours, media
800 numbers, spokespersons and backups, notify CDC, FDA, NIH, and many
other commendable activities. The Flow Chart is a sight to behold, I
will try to scan it in tomorrow.

In short, that cow is going to be toast by the time the public first
hears about it.

The Plan does not speak to the scenario in which the CVL says, yes, this
is bovine spongiform encephalopathy all right but it is one of your
strains, not ours. Invoking their Absence of Evidence is Evidence of
Absence principle, there may be no perceived need for public disclosure
in this case.

USDA is caught completely unprepared if BSE first turns up in a US zoo
animal. These animals could easily be diagnosed outside the "system"
and be the subject of a publicity-seeking lab press release. I think
this is a more likely scenario because the US has likely imported many
thousands of zoo animals with advanced infections from Britain and
France and there has been zero monitoring. Unlike with downer cows,
anyone with the right colleagues can get ahold of a fallen zoo animal.
Zoo animals enter the food chain in some cases after being rendered.

Another scenario would be some stock market speculator obtaining the Red
Book and issuing a flurry of bogus but authentic-looking press releases
that included bogus 800 and hacked USDA web links. The press here is so
lazy and so accustomed to putting out public relation handouts as news
that the objectives would be accomplished for a few hour (or days,
depending on the Response Team's paralysis vis-a-vis off-flow chart
events). Some people think a practise run for this happened in the
Indiana case a year or two back.

The first case of nvCJD in an American will also be a public relations
fiasco. In the dim bulb of the public mind, any American with mad cow
disease would have gotten it from eating meat here. USDA has no way to
prove that the victim acquired it on a three week trip to England in
1987. This will sound lame even to the press. All CJD is synonymous with
mad cow disease in the public perception; the more often the different
kinds are explained, the more their suspicions are aroused. The first
case of nvCJD in an American will simply validate what they already know
and just be viewed as an overdue admission from the government.

tom



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





Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Approved-By: Nora E Wineland <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <"990528151900Z.WT26810.
14*/PN=Nora.E.Wineland/OU=APHISNOTES/O=APHIS/PRMD=GOV+USDA/ADMD=ATTMAIL/C=US/"@MHS>
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 09:05:10 -0600
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
From: Nora E Wineland <[email protected]>
Subject: More on the USDA:APHIS BSE Response plan



I would like to add some more information from APHIS in response to some recent postings to the list:

Tom Pringle suggests that the 27 member team he labels as the "BSE swat team" be directed at TSE science and education. I would like to clarify that of the APHIS employees designated to travel to our headquarters and assist with the communication aspect of a BSE outbreak only two of us are involved with the TSEs on a nearly full time basis. The others are those in APHIS which have experience working with scrapie, CWD or BSE prevention and surveillance policy. They work either in the field, at headquarters, at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) or the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH). Their duties include all of our other programs such as preventing the entry of other foreign animal diseases such as Foot and Mouth, Classical Swine Fever, etc., tuberculosis, brucellosis, pseudorabies (etc) eradication, regulating the importation of animals and animal products, facilitating the exportation of healthy animals and safe animal products, as well as the oversight of the veterinary accreditation program. Our webpage at www.aphis.usda.gov can provide you with more detailed information on the multitude of tasks and complexities involved with the APHIS mission.


Linda A. Detwiler
Senior Staff Veterinarian


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




Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Approved-By: tom <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <v04011708b3655266fa39@[12.7.122.107]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 21:21:34 -0800
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
From: tom <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: hunkering down in the APHIS BSE Situation Room
In-Reply-To: <"990514144119Z.WT11141.





>"The updated BSE Response Plan has been posted on the APHIS website for months. It was also distributed to the contact list which includes other government agencies, industry and consumer groups. I would hardly call it an internal document. I will only address one of the many misinterpretations in Tom Pringle's posting: In the event of a BSE case, the person assigned to monitoring the APHIS BSE website will keep this site up to date on an almost hourly basis, there is no intention of monitoring the sites of others. If anyone has questions about the document I can be reached as follows:
>
>Linda A. Detwiler
>Senior Staff Veterinarian
>USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Services
>609-259-5825"
>

Yes, I had four questions:

1. Could you please post on this listserve or the APHIS site the contact list of industry and consumer groups? My concern is that these are not bona fide consumer groups but simply industry-funded shells. It is important as a tax-supported public agency for USDA to promote a level informational playing field.

2. How do I go about getting my name added to this contact list to receive future messages?

3. Could you please post here a list of the "select industry and trading partners" that get the one-day advance warning that mad cow disease has been confirmed in the US? There are many stakeholders in this issue including public health and consumer interests -- I am hoping this list will demonstrate balance. Please add my stockbroker to this list.

4. Could you please post here copies of the press releases that have been made up in advance of this hypothetical event? The facts are not in, how it is possible to issue reassurances to the consumer already? Maybe the actual event won't be all that reassuring.

Thanks,
Tom


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



TSS/2006
 
flounder said:
Texan said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Flounder do you personlly eat beef? Just curious. Don't answer if you don't want to.
It's a simple yes or no, flounder. No manifesto necessary.

i have answered this before when science facts does not please you.
if any of yo bozo's would have been paying attention, i have said time and time again, i am a meat eater. i think the last time i quoted here was that i had eaten a tough ash steak that was from texas. i have also said that my intentions were to get this BSe right i.e. correct, i have also said i have become more exposed to the TSE agent through my 6 different surgeries FOR my neck, than from oral consumption, due to the fact i have also said that the medical and surgical arena is more of a risk factor, please pay attention, i am tired of wasting my time. believe me i am backed by no corporate interest, or anyone else, simple fact is i have wasted 9 years, daily, as of 12/14/97 DOD Mom of the Heidenhain Variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease, and i am really getting tired of accusations such as where you two bozos are going. it's been discussed here before and i am not going to waste time going there. it's industry such as you that we are in the shape we are in. i.e. just curious my ash.............. i get a bit testy around this time of year 12/14/97 and i am not asking for any pitty or anything else, just GET IT RIGHT DAMNT........sorry...............terry


P.S. No manifesto intended ..........

Sorry about asking. I was just curious because Reader doesn't blame Beef for her husbands problem but does't say that her kids won't eat beef because of it.
I do understand your passion for CJD and sorry to hear about your neck problems.
I also have to admit that i don't read much of what you post because most of it is hard to follow.
Are you as intense about scrutinizing the medical field as you are the cattle industry?
Also you should try to get some good Canadian Beef if that Texas stuff is to tough. :wink:
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
flounder said:
Texan said:
It's a simple yes or no, flounder. No manifesto necessary.

i have answered this before when science facts does not please you.
if any of yo bozo's would have been paying attention, i have said time and time again, i am a meat eater. i think the last time i quoted here was that i had eaten a tough ash steak that was from texas. i have also said that my intentions were to get this BSe right i.e. correct, i have also said i have become more exposed to the TSE agent through my 6 different surgeries FOR my neck, than from oral consumption, due to the fact i have also said that the medical and surgical arena is more of a risk factor, please pay attention, i am tired of wasting my time. believe me i am backed by no corporate interest, or anyone else, simple fact is i have wasted 9 years, daily, as of 12/14/97 DOD Mom of the Heidenhain Variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease, and i am really getting tired of accusations such as where you two bozos are going. it's been discussed here before and i am not going to waste time going there. it's industry such as you that we are in the shape we are in. i.e. just curious my ash.............. i get a bit testy around this time of year 12/14/97 and i am not asking for any pitty or anything else, just GET IT RIGHT DAMNT........sorry...............terry


P.S. No manifesto intended ..........

Sorry about asking. I was just curious because Reader doesn't blame Beef for her husbands problem but does't say that her kids won't eat beef because of it.
I do understand your passion for CJD and sorry to hear about your neck problems.
I also have to admit that i don't read much of what you post because most of it is hard to follow.
Are you as intense about scrutinizing the medical field as you are the cattle industry?
Also you should try to get some good Canadian Beef if that Texas stuff is to tough. :wink:

To show your good will, BMR, why don't you send him some? Texan could too and flounder could tell us the results of the taste test.
 
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
flounder said:
i have answered this before when science facts does not please you.
if any of yo bozo's would have been paying attention, i have said time and time again, i am a meat eater. i think the last time i quoted here was that i had eaten a tough ash steak that was from texas. i have also said that my intentions were to get this BSe right i.e. correct, i have also said i have become more exposed to the TSE agent through my 6 different surgeries FOR my neck, than from oral consumption, due to the fact i have also said that the medical and surgical arena is more of a risk factor, please pay attention, i am tired of wasting my time. believe me i am backed by no corporate interest, or anyone else, simple fact is i have wasted 9 years, daily, as of 12/14/97 DOD Mom of the Heidenhain Variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease, and i am really getting tired of accusations such as where you two bozos are going. it's been discussed here before and i am not going to waste time going there. it's industry such as you that we are in the shape we are in. i.e. just curious my ash.............. i get a bit testy around this time of year 12/14/97 and i am not asking for any pitty or anything else, just GET IT RIGHT DAMNT........sorry...............terry


P.S. No manifesto intended ..........

Sorry about asking. I was just curious because Reader doesn't blame Beef for her husbands problem but does't say that her kids won't eat beef because of it.
I do understand your passion for CJD and sorry to hear about your neck problems.
I also have to admit that i don't read much of what you post because most of it is hard to follow.
Are you as intense about scrutinizing the medical field as you are the cattle industry?
Also you should try to get some good Canadian Beef if that Texas stuff is to tough. :wink:

To show your good will, BMR, why don't you send him some? Texan could too and flounder could tell us the results of the taste test.


I would love to. The border Nazis won't even let across a roast beef sandwich in my sons lunch when he goes to work.
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
flounder said:
Texan said:
It's a simple yes or no, flounder. No manifesto necessary.

i have answered this before when science facts does not please you.
if any of yo bozo's would have been paying attention, i have said time and time again, i am a meat eater. i think the last time i quoted here was that i had eaten a tough ash steak that was from texas. i have also said that my intentions were to get this BSe right i.e. correct, i have also said i have become more exposed to the TSE agent through my 6 different surgeries FOR my neck, than from oral consumption, due to the fact i have also said that the medical and surgical arena is more of a risk factor, please pay attention, i am tired of wasting my time. believe me i am backed by no corporate interest, or anyone else, simple fact is i have wasted 9 years, daily, as of 12/14/97 DOD Mom of the Heidenhain Variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease, and i am really getting tired of accusations such as where you two bozos are going. it's been discussed here before and i am not going to waste time going there. it's industry such as you that we are in the shape we are in. i.e. just curious my ash.............. i get a bit testy around this time of year 12/14/97 and i am not asking for any pitty or anything else, just GET IT RIGHT DAMNT........sorry...............terry


P.S. No manifesto intended ..........

Sorry about asking. I was just curious because Reader doesn't blame Beef for her husbands problem but does't say that her kids won't eat beef because of it.
I do understand your passion for CJD and sorry to hear about your neck problems.
I also have to admit that i don't read much of what you post because most of it is hard to follow.
Are you as intense about scrutinizing the medical field as you are the cattle industry?
Also you should try to get some good Canadian Beef if that Texas stuff is to tough. :wink:



greetings big muddy and texan,


sorry for my tirade, just thought i had finally answered that question long ago and everyone knew my position.


big muddy ask;


> Are you as intense about scrutinizing the medical field as you are the

> cattle industry?


indeed i do, you should ask Dr. Freas at FDA ;-)



my submission to the dec. 15, 2006 TSE advisory committe on blood.
now ya'll don't get all shook up, but it is not posted yet at fda dockets,
usual takes over a month, and that is if they decide to post it. so i always document my submission at my madcow board at vegsource, they give me all the room i need to post studies and documents, and i thank jeff for this. but i have gotten this to enough people i.e. COTT;

http://www.cott1.org/welcome.html;jsessionid=BA258FBE115808652F108008A5369B11


even if fda does not publish it, the data will be in the hands of the proper folks all the way around. it's too long to post here, there are 3 parts (so far;-) but for those that might be interested, and for those that can get by the fact it is a vegsource url (they dont bite, and you cannot change the science of the data, just because it's on that url) but for anyone interested, even if you dont eat beef, and thats' probably not anyone here, you have been exposed, and like i said long ago, the medical and surgical arena will play a big roll in the spreading of this agent ;


TSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 15, 2006 [TSS SUBMISSION] - TSS

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/1001062.html

Re: TSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 15, 2006 [TSS SUBMISSION PART II] - TSS


http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/1001064.html



Re: TSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 15, 2006 [TSS SUBMISSION PART III] - TSS


http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/1001067.html



cjd and blood


http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&edition=us&q=cjd+blood+tss&btnG=Search




kind regards,
terry
 
Terry at times we rub each other to wrong way on these boards some times intentional and other times not. What does bother the cattle industry is the contined refferal to BSE as "madcow".
Cows aren't the only animal that has problems with TSE's so why do we not refer to it with it;s proper name.
In doing that it would remove one irritatant from the process of trying to resolve this issue.
Maybe you could mention this to your contacts at vegscource and see if they would like to lead the wat by changing the name of their web site to"Bse at vegscource". Just a suggestion.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top