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

[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0039] RIN 0579-AC61 Recordkeeping

flounder

Well-known member
[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0039] RIN 0579-AC61

Recordkeeping for Approved Livestock Facilities and Slaughtering and Rendering Establishments

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the interstate movement of livestock to require approved livestock facilities and listed slaughtering and rendering establishments to maintain certain records for 5 years. Currently, approved livestock facilities are required to retain certain records for 2 years, and there are no record retention provisions that apply to listed slaughtering and rendering establishments. Requiring the retention of certain records for 5 years would allow us to trace the prior movements of diseased livestock further into the past than is currently possible, thus providing the opportunity to locate potentially infected or exposed livestock that might otherwise remain unidentified. We are also proposing to require the operators of slaughtering and rendering establishments to sign listing agreements to document their agreement to comply with the requirements of the regulations for listed slaughtering and rendering establishments. Such agreements are currently required for approved livestock facilities, but not for slaughtering and rendering facilities. The proposed change would eliminate that inconsistency.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http:// www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0039 to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0039, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0039.

snip...

We recognize that our current regulations require that livestock facilities keep records for no more than two years and that listed slaughtering and rendering establishments are not required to retain records for APHIS purposes. Therefore, we would not expect these establishments to start retaining records for a longer period prior to the adoption of a final rule establishing a longer retention period, only that they would extend their records retention to 5 years after such a final rule became effective.

snip...end

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-15289.htm

Q. Dr. Wiemers, you’ve been working on NAIS almost from the beginning. Give me some perspective – how has the concept changed since the framework for the program was announced by the USDA in 2004? And why has it changed?

A. The National Animal Identification System was initiated several years ago to enhance previously existing disease programs through the establishment of standards that could be used for all state/federal disease programs nationwide. We’ve been very successful in eradicating animal diseases in the United States, brucellosis in cattle for example. Because of this success, fewer animals are now vaccinated or tested for brucellosis and other program diseases, which require individual animal identification, fewer animals are identified. The dramatic reduction in the number of identified animals in recent years impairs our ability to respond quickly and effectively to animal disease events. NAIS can bring back the level of traceability the United States had years ago when a high percentage of cattle were individually identified through disease control programs.

The focus of NAIS is on animals that enter commerce, that is, those animals that move from their farm and ranch to markets and/or locations where they commingle with animals from other premises. This is where the impact of a disease is the greatest, both in terms of value of animals and the potential cost of lost production.

Our overall objective is to establish the infrastructure we need to respond in a timely fashion to an animal disease event. In many cases, we successfully eliminate a disease and conduct a thorough investigation, but this response can take longer than it should. The goal of NAIS is to provide animal health officials the information they need during a disease outbreak on the movement and location of affected animals within 48 hours. This quick response is optimal for efficient and effective disease containment and helps to prevent disease spread.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?ContentId=194952

TEXAS MAD COW, the one that got away $

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

TEXAS also submits suspect mad cow tissue samples for testing 7+ months LATE, something that is suppose to be done in 48 hours, but this only after an act of Congress and thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG ;

USDA ANNOUNCES BSE TEST RESULTS AND NEW BSE CONFIRMATORY TESTING PROTOCOL

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

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/06/0232.xml

"So let me start first with the test results. As you are aware, last November we had an inconclusive report from a rapid screening test. USDA then conducted two IHC confirmatory tests, and both came out negative. A few weeks ago an additional confirmatory test was conducted, and that test is referred to as the Western blot test.

"On June 10 I learned that test was reactive and shared those results at that time.

"We now have the test results from the lab in Weybridge, England, as well as the results from additional testing in our own lab, and again I am here today to share those results with you.

"The results confirm the presence of BSE in this animal, an animal that was blocked from entering the food supply thanks to the firewalls that are in place. It is critically important to note that this animal was identified as a high risk animal. A sample was taken, and the carcass was incinerated. ...snip...end

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/06/0233.xml

QUESTION: Yes, thank you, and good evening. This is Peter Shinn with the National Association of Farm Broadcasters. Until all of the animals in question, herd mates, are identified, will the herd in question be quarantined? That's the first question. And then, secondly, why wait to say that this animal was from Texas until this period of time when that information was almost virtually publicly available.

DR. CLIFFORD: I didn't hear the last part of the question.

QUESTION: "Well, we'll start with the first one again, if I don't -- the first one is more important to me, which is the issue of quarantine. Will the herd in question be quarantined until all traceback efforts have been completed?"

DR. CLIFFORD: " The state of Texas, yes, has applied a hold order on this herd. As far as the second part of the question, I didn't understand."

QUESTION: I'm just asking why did you wait to confirm that this animal in question was from Texas, when it's been published that it was from Texas for some time. It seems like you're trying to clear up confusion and minimize questions and market disruption. And it seems like disclosing all information that you have, like for example that this animal was slaughtered at a facility in Texas might be useful in calling some of that market disruption. ...snip...end

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/06/0235.xml

EXACTLY, thus, two weeks later GWs and the OIE legal trading of all strains of TSE globally was finalized, it was all about timing ;

7/15/05 Importation of Bovines (Cattle or Bison) from Canada for Feeding PDF BSE Minimal-Risk Regions and the Importation of Live Animals Importers, Brokers, and Other Interested Parties PDF BSE Minimal-Risk Regions and the Importation of Live Animals Accredited Veterinarians or Other Interested Parties PDF USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export: Protocol for The Importation of Cattle or Bison for Feeding from Canada PDF USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export: Protocol for the Importation of Cattle, Bison, Sheep and Goats for Immediate Slaughter from Canada PDF USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export: Protocol for the Importation of Sheep and Goats for Feeding from Canada PDF Animal Products Implementation: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities from Canada PDF Johanns Announces Next Steps for Importing Canadian Cattle Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities— FINAL RULE— 9 CFR Parts 93, 94, 95, and 96 [Docket No. 03-080-3] Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities; Partial Delay of Applicability [Docket No. 03-080-6] — Final rule; partial delay of applicability — 9 CFR Parts 94 and 95 Published March 11, 2005 — 70 FR 12112-12113 Text | PDF • Risk Document PDF • Economic Analysis PDF • Appendices to economic analysis PDF • Final environmental assessment PDF • Final Rule on BSE and Minimal-Risk Regions (Factsheet) • Questions and Answers for Minimal Risk/Canada Rule • Port of Entry for Eligible Ruminants

WHAT the Honorable Phyllis Fong and the OIG found ;

USDA Testing Protocols and Quality Assurance Procedures

In November 2004, USDA announced that its rapid screening test produced an inconclusive BSE test result. A contract laboratory ran its rapid screening test on a brain sample collected for testing and produced three high positive reactive results. As required, the contract laboratory forwarded the inconclusive sample to APHIS’ National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) for confirmation. NVSL repeated the rapid screening test, which again produced three high positive reactive results. Following established protocol, NVSL ran its confirmatory test, an immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, which was interpreted as negative for BSE.

Faced with conflicting results between the rapid screening and IHC tests, NVSL scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy but APHIS headquarters officials concluded that no further testing was necessary since testing protocols were followed and the confirmatory test was negative. In our discussions with APHIS officials, they justified their decision to not do additional testing because the IHC test is internationally recognized as the "gold standard" of testing. Also, they believed that

USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC/ Page iv

conducting additional tests would undermine confidence in USDA’s testing protocols.

OIG obtained evidence that indicated additional testing was prudent. We came to this conclusion because the rapid screening tests produced six high positive reactive results, the IHC tests conflicted, and various standard operating procedures were not followed. Also, our review of the relevant scientific literature, other countries’ protocols, and discussions with experts led us to conclude that additional confirmatory testing should be considered in the event of conflicting test results.

To maintain objectivity and independence, we requested that USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) perform the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) Scrapie-Associated Fibrils (SAF) immunoblot test. The additional testing produced positive results. To confirm, the Secretary of Agriculture requested that an internationally recognized BSE laboratory in Weybridge, England (Weybridge) perform additional testing. Weybridge conducted various tests, including their own IHC tests and three Western blot tests. The tests confirmed that the cow was infected with BSE. The Secretary immediately directed USDA scientists to work with international experts to develop new protocols that include performing dual confirmatory tests in the event of an inconclusive BSE screening test.

We attribute the failure to identify the BSE positive sample to rigid protocols, as well as the lack of adequate quality assurance controls over its testing program. Details of our concerns are discussed in Findings 3 and 4.

snip...

see findings 3 and 4 starting on page 44 of full text ;

Office of Inspector General

Great Plains Region

Audit Report

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase II

and

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat Recovery Products - Phase III

Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf

Volume 12: Livestock Farming 4. Cattle production and movement Record-keeping and cattle-tracking Identification and record-keeping requirements when BSE emerged Influence of BSE Problems with farmers' records

4.15 Systems to identify farm animals have been used in the UK for centuries. Historically, owners identified their animals for day-to-day farm management purposes such as breeding, feeding, and milk yield records. More recently, national policies on disease control have led to a succession of record-keeping and animal identification requirements for farmers to implement. The first fully national identification scheme in the UK was introduced for cattle in 1953, as part of efforts to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. All cattle that were not already registered with a breed society had to be identified with an ear tag or tattoo. The system has undergone some modifications, but still forms the basis for the identification and registration scheme that operates in the UK. 1 Since 1992 national systems of identification and tracking have been required to help identify livestock for payments made to farmers under the various livestock schemes introduced as part of CAP reforms.

4.16 Cattle-tracking comprises:

the physical identification of an individual animal and the recording of its details; recording the movements of individual animals; and using the above: to trace an animal's movements over time, identifying all locations at which it has been held, and all other animals held concurrently at those, or nearby, locations; and to trace an animal's dam or progeny. 2 4.17 This section describes farmers' obligations with respect to (i.) and (ii.), and how they changed in response to the BSE outbreak. Further details about policy development on national tracking systems relevant to BSE can be found in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96. ...

SNIP...

SEE FULL TEXT ;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume12/chapte45.htm

Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96 5. Cattle-tracking New record-keeping requirements come into force

5.61 On 4 September 1990 Mr Alan Lawrence, AHD, BSE and Related Issues, forwarded a submission to Mr Gummer, inviting him to make the following orders:

the Bovine Animals (Identification, Marking and Breeding Records) Order 1990, which would require owners of bovine animals to identify them and keep a record of calves born into the herd, including the identification of the dam. This would have to be done within 36 hours of birth in the case of dairy animals or within seven days for all other cattle. The Order would also impose a duty on subsequent owners to link any replacement identification in their records to the previous one. The movement of an unidentified animal would be prohibited; the Movement of Animals (Records) (Amendments) Order 1990, which would make a simple amendment to the 1960 Order, requiring that records be retained for ten years instead of the current three years; and the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 1990, to 'amend the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Order 1984 by removing the identification and marking provisions from the Order and incorporating them (with minor amendments) into the Bovine Animals (Identification, Marking and Breeding Records) Order 1990'. 1 5.62 The Bovine Animals (Identification, Marking and Breeding Records) Order 1990, the Movement of Animals (Records) (Amendments) Order 1990, and the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 1990 came into force on 15 October 1990. ...

SNIP...

SEE FULL TEXT ;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume5/chapte54.htm

Friday, January 18, 2008

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0026] RIN 0579-AC45 BSE MRR; Identification of Ruminants, and Processing and Importation of Commodities

[Federal Register: January 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 13)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 3379-3385] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18ja08-2]

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

SEE FULL TEXT ;

http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/01/docket-no-aphis-2006-0026-rin-0579-ac45.html

Attachment to Singletary comment

January 28, 2007

Greetings APHIS,

I would kindly like to submit the following to ;

BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01

[Federal Register: January 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 5)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 1101-1129] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09ja07-21]

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f8152

BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01 Date: January 9, 2007 at 9:08 am PST

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f3412

APHIS-2006-0041-0006 TSE advisory committee for the meeting December 15, 2006

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801f3413&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw8

Response to Public Comments on the Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Update, October 31, 2005

INTRODUCTION

The United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) held a public meeting on July 25, 2006 in Washington, D.C. to present findings from the Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Update, October 31, 2005 (report and model located on the FSIS website:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/Risk_Assessments/index.asp

Comments on technical aspects of the risk assessment were then submitted to FSIS. Comments were received from Food and Water Watch, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), Farm Sanctuary, R-CALF USA, Linda A Detwiler, and Terry S. Singeltary. This document provides itemized replies to the public comments received on the 2005 updated Harvard BSE risk assessment. Please bear the following points in mind:

snip...see full text 33 pages ;

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/BSE_Risk_Assess_Response_Public_Comments.pdf

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:09 PM To: FSIS RegulationsComments Subject: [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)

Page 1 of 98

8/3/2006

Greetings FSIS,

I would kindly like to comment on the following ;

FULL TEXT ;

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

An Evaluation of Central Nervous System Cross-Contamination Due to Carcass Splitting in Commercial Beef-Packing Plants

Authors: Bowling, M.B.1; Yemm, R.S.1; Belk, K.E.1; Sofos, J.N.1; Smith, G.C.1; Scanga, J.A.1

Source: Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 71, Number 1, January 2008 , pp. 83-92(10)

Publisher: International Association for Food Protection

Abstract:

Four experiments were conducted in commercial beef-packing facilities The objectives of these experiments were to: (i) determine and validate a carcass sampling technique and location to determine if central nervous system (CNS) cross-contamination exists/occurs; (ii) determine if residual CNS tissue contamination remains on splitting saws after sanitation procedures; (iii) determine the prevalence of CNS cross-contamination in commercial slaughter facilities; (iv) determine whether washing treatments reduce or eliminate CNS tissue presence in carcass-splitting saws; (v) determine the effectiveness of commercial spray-washing systems in removing CNS tissue from beef carcasses; and (vi) compare residual CNS tissue levels on the blade and in the housings of the Jarvis Buster IX and Buster IV carcass-splitting saws. CNS tissue remained, albeit at very low levels, in the housings and on the blades of carcass-splitting saws after carcass splitting and operational sanitation. Additionally, after splitting carcasses, CNS tissue remaining in the splitting saw housings and on saw blades was found to cross-contaminate subsequent carcasses during splitting. Most splitting saw operational sanitation procedures reduced the amount of CNS tissue remaining in the splitting saw housings and on splitting saw blades, but no treatment eliminated CNS tissue from either to levels below the detection limit of the assay (6 ng/100 cm2). Washing in carcass spray-washing cabinets at three of the five commercial beef-packing facilities reduced, but did not eliminate, presence of CNS tissue in the aitch bone area of carcasses. Carcass spray washing in cabinets at three of the five facilities reduced (P < 0.05) the concentration of CNS tissue in the fourth thoracic vertebra area. While extremely low concentrations of CNS tissue remained in the splitting saw housings, on the splitting saw blades, and on carcasses, it is unknown whether these levels would pose a human food safety risk because the exact amount of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected spinal cord capable of transmitting the disease to humans is dependent on the infectivity titer, which is not readily known.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2008/00000071/00000001/art00013#aff_1

Brilliant, 2008 and we are still pondering this in the USA, what will they think of next......

VETERINARSKI ARHIV 75 (1), 83-100, 2005* Contact address:prof. Dr. vet. med. Spyridon Basilios Ramantanis, Department of Food Technology, Technological Educational Institution (T.E.I.) of Athens, Agiou Spyridonos Str., 122 10 Egaleo, Athens, Greece, Phone: +30 210 5385 506; Fax: +30 210 5314 874; E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 0372-5480Printed in Croatia

Preventive measure against possible BSE-hazard: Irreversible electrical cattle stunning - a review

http://www.vef.hr/vetarhiv/papers/2005-75-1-11.pdf

course tam et al figured this out a long time ago ;

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Docket #03-025IF -- Docket #03-038IF -- Docket #01-033DF -- SUBMISSIONS -- USDA ISSUES NEW REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS BSE Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:33:20 -0600 From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]

Greetings FDA,

I would kindly like to make a submission to Federal Docket Docket #03-025IF -- Docket #03-038IF and Docket #01-033DF -- TSS SUBMISSIONS -- USDA ISSUES NEW REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS BSE

Garland et al (1996). “Brain emboli in the lungs of cattle after stunning,” Lancet 348(9027), p. 610.).

end...tss

see full text ;

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08d?OpenDocument

Seoul must end curbs on US beef for FTA, but why $

http://usdameatexport.blogspot.com/2008/01/seoul-must-end-curbs-on-us-beef-for-fta.html

TSS
 

Latest posts

Top