Meat
* Meat Inspection Regulations - means the edible part of a carcass that is
the muscle associated with the skeleton, tongue, diaphragm, heart, gizzard
or mammalian oesophagus, with or without accompanying and overlying fat,
together with those parts of the bones, skin, sinews, nerves, blood vessels
and other tissues that normally accompany the muscle and are not ordinarily
removed in dressing a carcass, but does not include the muscle associated
with the lips, snout, scalp or ears, mechanically separated meat or meat to
which an ingredient other than meat has been added.
Meat product
* Meat Inspection Act - means (a) a carcass, (b) the blood of an animal or a
product or by-product of a carcass, or (c) a product containing anything
described in (b);
* Meat Inspection Regulations - means edible blood, an edible organ or
edible tissue that was derived from the carcass of a food animal, but does
not include meat or mechanically separated meat.
Ruminant
* Health of Animals Regulations - means an animal of the suborder Ruminatiae
and includes an animal of the family Camelidae.
Specified risk material
* Food and Drug Regulations and Health of Animals Regulations - means (a)
the skull, brain, trigeminal ganglia, eyes, tonsils, spinal cord and dorsal
root ganglia of cattle aged 30 months or older; and (b) the distal ileum of
cattle of all ages.
o Through the application of the Meat Hygiene Directive (2003-18 of July 24,
2003), issued under the Meat Inspection Regulations, the tissues that are to
be removed to ensure that SRM are excluded consist of:
+ the skull including the brain, trigeminal ganglia and eyes, the tonsils,
the spinal cord and the vertebral column excluding the vertebrae of the
tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the
wings of the sacrum from all cattle 18 aged 30 months or older;
+ the small intestine from cattle of all ages.
o For the purpose of this BSE import policy this same list of tissues, not
only from cattle but also from bison, is defined as SRM, that is:
+ the skull including the brain, trigeminal ganglia and eyes, the tonsils,
the spinal cord and the vertebral column excluding the vertebrae of the
tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the
wings of the sacrum from all bovine animals aged 30 months or older;
+ the small intestine from bovine animals of all ages.
Veterinary biologic
* Health of Animals Act means (a) a helminth, protozoa or micro-organism,
(b) a substance or mixture of substances derived from animals, helminths,
protozoa or micro-organisms, or (c) a substance of synthetic origin that is
manufactured, sold or represented for use in restoring, correcting or
modifying organic functions in animals or for use in the diagnosis,
treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal
physical state, or the symptoms thereof, in animals;
* Health of Animal Regulations - includes any veterinary biologic derived
through biotechnology.
1 Integrated Taxonomic Information System.
http://www.itis.usda.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt
2 Products intended for human consumption from a Category 2 country
(controlled BSE-risk) or a Category 3 country (undetermined BSE-risk) must
not be prepared from material containing SRM or be derived from bovine
animals subjected to a stunning process, prior to slaughter, with a device
injecting compressed air or gas into the cranial cavity or to a pithing
process.
3 Details of the process deemed to be equivalent and supporting data and
references should be provided to CFIA for approval prior to the importation
of this commodity.
4 In some situations it may not be possible to complete the risk assessment
as a result of insufficient and or poor quality data.
5 The Ultimate Ungulate Page. http://www.ultimateungulate.com/index.html
6 OIE, Technical Disease Cards, BSE, 2004.
http://www.oie.int/eng/maladies/fiches/a_B115.htm Bovidae (domestic cattle,
nyala [Tragelaphus angasi], greater kudu [Tragelaphus strepsiceros] and
presumed similar origin for cases in gemsbok [Oryx gazella], Arabian oryx
[Oryx leucoryx], eland [Taurotragus oryx], scimitar-horned oryx [Oryx
dammah] and bison [Bison bison]). Felidae (domestic cat and presumed bovine
origin in cheetah [Acinonyx jubatus], puma [Felis concolor], ocelot [Felis
pardalis] and tiger [Panthera tigris]). Experimentally transmissible to
cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, mice, mink, marmosets and macaque monkeys.
7 EUROPA - Food and Feed Safety. BSE/Scrapie - TSE in goats. February 2005.
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biosafety/bse/goats_index_en.htm
8 Lasmezas CI. The transmissible spongiform encephalophathies. Rev. sci.
tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2003, 22 (1), 23-36
9 Schreuder BEC, Somerville RA. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in sheep?
Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2003, 22 (1), 103-120
10 Lasmézas CI, Comoy E, Hawkins S, Herzog C, Mouthon F, Konold T, Auvré F,
Correia E, Lescoutra-Etchegaray N, Salès N, Wells G, Brown P, Deslys J-P.
Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in
primates. The Lancet, Volume 365, Issue 9461, 26 February 2005-4 March 2005,
Pages 781-783
11 Salman MD. Chronic Wasting Disease in Deer and Elk: Scientific Facts and
Findings. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 65 (7): 761-768, 2003
12 Prince MJ, Bailey JA, Barrowman PR, Bishop KJ, Campbell GR, Wood JM.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz, 2003, 22
(1) 37-60
13 Heim D. Kihm U. Risk management of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies in Europe. Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz, 2003, 22 (1),
179-199
14 VLA lunches new discriminatort diagnostic test. April, 2005.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050404h.htm
15 In this policy the term bovine refers to animals belonging to the Genus
Bos, which includes cattle (Bos taurus and Bos indicus) and bison (Bos
bison).
16 The average incubation period is approximately 5 - 6 years.
17 In some situations it may not be possible to complete the risk assessment
as a result of insufficient and or poor quality data.
18 The Meat Hygiene Directive defines cattle as animals of the species Bos
taurus or Bos indicus; but not including other ruminants such as bison,
muskox, yak or water buffalo.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/policy/ie-2005-9e.shtml
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retriev
econtent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/3/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?
PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F12%2F0543.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_p
arentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=TRANSCRIPT#7_2_5JM
>>>The other thing I would tell you about Japan, and this is really unique
to Japan -- as you know we've agreed in this first phase with Japan to start
at meat from animals 20 months and under. And you're just not going to find
BSE there. It's just not there. So from a number of standpoints, I can
safely assure the Japanese consumer that beef is safe. <<<
r i g h t! kinda like the WMD issue and gitmo, no lies here either.
the myth that cattle under 30 months of age are free from BSE/TSE is just
that, a myth, and it's a false myth !
the youngest age of BSE case to date is 20 months old; As at: 31 May
2003 Year of onset Age youngest case (mnths) Age 2nd youngest case
(mnths) Age 2nd oldest case (yrs.mnths) Age oldest case (yrs.mnths) 1986
30 33 5.03 5.07 1987 30 31 9.09 10.00 1988 24 27 10.02 11.01(2) 1989 21
24(4) 12.00(2) 15.04 1990 24(2) 26 13.03 14.00 1991 24 26(3) 14.02 17.05
1992 20 26 15.02 16.02 1993 29 30(3) 14.10 18.10 1994 30(2) 31(2) 14.05
16.07 1995 24 32 14.09 15.05 1996 29 30 15.07 17.02 1997 37(7) 38(3)
14.09 15.01 1998 34 36 14.07 15.05 1999 39(2) 41 13.07 13.10 2000 40 42
17.08 19.09 2001 48(2) 56 14.10 14.11 2002 51 52 15.08 15.09(2) 2003 50
62 11.11 14.11
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-statistics/bse/yng-old.html
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/index.html
The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the most
BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten in
Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of that
age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet accumulated
enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to develop BSE on
record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are fast incubators.
Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months per year are infected
with BSE and enter the food chain currently in Britain. Of these 3-5
could be fast incubators and carrying detectable quantities of prion.
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail/html-home/28-html/0359.html
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?O
penDocument&AutoFramed
SO, with GWs BSE MRR policy, like i said, it is nothing more than a legal
tool to trade ALL STRAINS of this mad cow agent around the globe. WE know of
atypical TSE in USA via Marsh et al, and we know when USA scrapie is
transmitted to USA cow, it does not look like UK BSE. BUT what about Japans
beef brought into USA? seems they have atypical TSE in Japan cattle that is
in very young cattle and evidently, there TSE agent has even been detected
in the peripheral nerves (sciatic nerve, tibial nerve, vagus nerve), so why
would USA want to import that into USA$ With our much superior BSE/TSE
surveillance system in USA cattle and the fact we have had this fabulous
ruminant to ruminant mad cow feed ban in effect since 8/4/97, where no
cattle have been fed ruminant protein since then;-), why should we risk this
new phenotype of TSE to the USA, since we have all the other TSEs here in
the USA under control:-(not)$
Muscle tissue has recently been detected with PrPSc
in the peripheral nerves (sciatic nerve, tibial nerve, vagus nerve) of the
11th BSE
cow in Japan (Yoshifumi Iwamaru et al). also recently, Aguzzi et al Letter
to the Editor
Vet Pathol 42:107-108 (2005), Prusiner et al CDI test is another example of
detection
of the TSE agent in muscle in sCJD, Herbert Budka et al CJD and inclusion
body myositis:
Abundant Disease-Associated Prion Protein in Muscle, and older studies from
Watson
Meldrum et al Scrapie agent in muscle - Pattison I A (1990), references as
follow ;
PrPSc distribution of a natural case of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy
Yoshifumi Iwamaru, Yuka Okubo, Tamako Ikeda, Hiroko Hayashi, Mori-
kazu Imamura, Takashi Yokoyama and Morikazu Shinagawa
Priori Disease Research Center, National Institute of Animal Health, 3-1-5
Kannondai, Tsukuba 305-0856 Japan
[email protected]
Abstract
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a disease of cattle that causes
progressive neurodegeneration of the central nervous system. Infectivity
of BSE agent is accompanied with an abnormal isoform of prion protein
(PrPSc).
The specified risk materials (SRM) are tissues potentially carrying BSE
infectivity. The following tissues are designated as SRM in Japan: the
skull including the brain and eyes but excluding the glossa and the masse-
ter muscle, the vertebral column excluding the vertebrae of the tail, spinal
cord, distal illeum. For a risk management step, the use of SRM in both
animal feed or human food has been prohibited. However, detailed
PrPSc distribution remains obscure in BSE cattle and it has caused con-
troversies about definitions of SRM. Therefore we have examined PrPSc
distribution in a BSE cattle by Western blotting to reassess definitions of
SRM.
The 11th BSE case in Japan was detected in fallen stock surveillance.
The carcass was stocked in the refrigerator. For the detection of PrPSc,
200 mg of tissue samples were homogenized. Following collagenase
treatment, samples were digested with proteinase K. After digestion,
PrPSc was precipitated by sodium phosphotungstate (PTA). The pellets
were subjected to Western blotting using the standard procedure.
Anti-prion protein monoclonal antibody (mAb) T2 conjugated horseradish
peroxidase was used for the detection of PrPSc.
PrPSc was detected in brain, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia, trigeminal
ganglia, sublingual ganglion, retina. In addition, PrPSc was also detected
in the peripheral nerves (sciatic nerve, tibial nerve, vagus nerve).
Our results suggest that the currently accepted definitions of SRM in
BSE cattle may need to be reexamined. ...
179
T. Kitamoto (Ed.)
PRIONS
Food and Drug Safety
================
ALSO from the International Symposium of Prion Diseases held in Sendai,
October 31, to
November 2, 2004;
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Japan
snip...
"Furthermore, current studies into transmission of cases of BSE that are
atypical or that develop in young cattle are expected to amplify the BSE
prion"
NO. Date conf. Farm Birth place and Date Age at diagnosis
8. 2003.10.6. Fukushima Tochigi 2001.10.13. 23
9. 2003.11.4. Hiroshima Hyogo 2002.1.13. 21
Test results
# 8b, 9c cows Elisa Positive, WB Positive, IHC negative, histopathology
negative
b = atypical BSE case
c = case of BSE in a young animal
b,c, No PrPSc on IHC, and no spongiform change on histology
International Symposium of Prion Diseases held in Sendai, October 31, to
November 2, 2004.
The hardback book title is 'PRIONS' Food and Drug Safety
T. Kitamoto (Ed.)
Tetsuyuki Kitamoto
Professor and Chairman
Department of Prion Research
Tohoku University School of Medicine
2-1 SeiryoAoba-ku, Sendai 980-8575, JAPAN
TEL +81-22-717-8147 FAX +81-22-717-8148
e-mail;
[email protected]
Symposium Secretariat
Kyomi Sasaki
TEL +81-22-717-8233 FAX +81-22-717-7656
e-mail:
[email protected]
snip...end
THIS brings up about another 9,200 points of concern. IF you look above at
these two atypical TSE cows from Japan, (of which we could very well export
more just like it), please notice the testing protocol;
>>># 8b, 9c cows Elisa Positive, WB Positive, IHC negative, histopathology
negative <<<
9,200 points of mad cow concern is the fact the USDA et al DID NOT use rapid
TSE test OR WB test to test for BSE/TSE on 9,200 cattle, they used the least
likely to find the agent only, the IHC, of which, DID NOT show up on two of
those very young atypical positive Japanese cows, PLUS, like the one TEXAS
cow they did finally confirm after 7+ months of trying to cover up. besides
this, we have some 500,000 bse/tse test, the infamous June 2004 enhanced
BSE/TSE surveillance (cover-up) program, where here the testing protocol was
terribly flawwed on all these cows, where only IHC and rapid testing was
used, no WB. Dr. Detwiler warned of this problem way back;
USDA 2003
We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.
Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.
snip.............
Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important.
If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We
have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.
Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.
snip...
FULL TEXT;
Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE
Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado
National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) Immunohistochemistry (IHC)
Testing Summary
The BSE enhanced surveillance program involves the use of a rapid screening
test, followed by confirmatory testing for any samples that come back
"inconclusive." The weekly summary below captures all rapid tests conducted
as part of the enhanced surveillance effort. It should be noted that since
the enhanced surveillance program began, USDA has also conducted
approximately 9,200 routine IHC tests on samples that did not first undergo
rapid testing. This was done to ensure that samples inappropriate for the
rapid screen test were still tested, and also to monitor and improve upon
IHC testing protocols. Of those 9,200 routine tests, one test returned a
non-definitive result on July 27, 2005. That sample underwent additional
testing at NVSL, as well as at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in
Weybridge, England, and results were negative. ...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse_testing/test_results.html
APHIS et al forgets to add here that on that one additional non-definitive
test of July 27, 2005, here again they could not use WB due to samples being
preserved. Here in 2005 we have still not gotten the proper BSE/TSE testing
protocol done correctly, after being told that we did since 1997.
hey, but its not about 'sound science' or 'human health'. GWs enhanced SRM
program was nothing more than commodities and futures in action;
Our analysis suggests that if all slaughter animals are tested, but
there is no increase in access to either the Japanese or
South Korean markets, the result would be a net loss of
$17.50 (the estimated cost of testing) per head. Alternatively,
if full access to the Japanese and South Korean
markets is regained without implementing a broad
based BSE testing program, the potential revenue gain
ranges from about $45 to $66 per head (Figure 1).
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/agec2/MF2679.pdf
GW seems to get his cake and eat it too $
nothing like 'sound science' in this administration, to hell with human
health.
>>>Then you do a comparison of the countries. We have a herd size of about
90 million. We process about 30 million animals a year, thereabouts,
probably a little bit more than that. We've been able to identify since the
enhanced surveillance started one case that was actually so difficult to
find we had to test and test and test to find it even. <<<
IN TEXAS we feed our cattle 5.5 grams of potentially BSE/TSE tainted
protein, and that's o.k. per the FDA;
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
WE know what happens to most stumbling and staggering suspect mad cows in
TEXAS too. THERE tissue samples either sit up on a shelf for 7+ months
waiting for everyone to forget about, OR ;
FDA Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow
with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a
processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began
an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators
inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the
animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the
slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the
weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as
"mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way
now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule
would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals
(e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing
the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed
only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs
have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the
material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way
through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the
feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein
out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established
its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that
the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will
not be fed to poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed
rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only
one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed
rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
####
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
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 (icip 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.
icip=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
SADLY, DEC 2005 SHOWS THAT WE STILL HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH BSE/TSE MAD
COW DISEASE FEED
GAO
GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program
October 11, 2005
SNIP...FULL TEXT 29 PAGES ;
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06157r.pdf
Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA
Implemented in 2003 With Recommendations for Making the Program a Better
Oversight Tool. GAO-06-157R, October 11
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-157R
CVM Update
November 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of
BSE
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, here called the Ruminant
Feed Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
This is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant feed
regulation. FDA's CVM has assembled data from the inspections that have been
conducted AND whose final inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's
inspection database as of November 26, 2005. As of November 26, 2005, FDA
had received over 41,000 inspection reports. The majority of these
inspections (around 68%) were conducted by State officials under contract to
FDA, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to
reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the
objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are
reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated
(VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable
conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in
order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation.
An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of
manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not
contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI
violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions
to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or
practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory
significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of
findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with
VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These
include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions
involving non-ruminant feeds.
An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or
practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the
documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in
total". NOTE – A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a
result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually
exclusive.
RENDERERS
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal
proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein
blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
274
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 185 (68% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 185 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
1 firm (0.5%) was classified as OAI
11 firms (5.9%) were classified as VAI
LICENSED FEED MILLS
FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The
license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent
drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time.
This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under
the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required
to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
1,079
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 426 (39% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 426 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firm (0%) was classified as OAI
8 firms (1.9%) were classified as VAI
FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
5,165
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 2,036 (39% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 2,036 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.1%) were classified as OAI
24 firms (1.2%) were classified as VAI
PROTEIN BLENDERS
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing
quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA --
340
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 147 (43% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 147 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
7 firms (4.8%) were classified as VAI
RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS
This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited
material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial
inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,576
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with
prohibited materials – 539 (8.2% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 539 of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing
with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.6%) were classified as OAI
23 firms (4.3%) were classified as VAI
OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food
manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal
feed transporters.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
13,477
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 3,748 (28% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 3,748 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
8 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI
95 firms (2.5%) were classified as VAI
TOTAL FIRMS
Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category;
therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be
more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
16,476
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 4,553 (27% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 4,553 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
9 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI
107 firms (2.4%) were classified as VAI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Issued by:
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Communications Staff, HFV-12
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/5580.htm
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary
Page 1 of 17
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [
[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM
To:
[email protected].
Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified
Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements
for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Greetings FSIS,
I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS
Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;
snip...FULL TEXT ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1]
RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffItemDetailView?objectId=090007d48099
3808
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffAttachDownloadPDF?objectId=090007d48
0993808
http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffCollectionDetailView?objectId=0b0007
d48096b40d
========================================================
========================================================
OLD TSS SUBMISSIONS;
Docket No, 04-047-l Regulatory Identification No. (RIN) 091O-AF46 NEW BSE
SAFEGUARDS (comment submission)
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08
d?OpenDocument
Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?O
penDocument&AutoFramed
Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in
Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
Comment Number: EC -10
Accepted - Volume 2
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html
PART 2
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html
PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary
Sr. [
[email protected]] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf
Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine
genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable
from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm
Docket Management Docket: 96N-0417 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice
in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients a
Comment Number: EC -2
Accepted - Volume 7
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/031403/96N-0417-EC-2.htm
[PDF] Appendices to PL107-9 Inter-agency Working Group Final Report 1-1
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Agent, Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations Unit Federal Bureau of
those who provided comments in response to Docket No. ...
Meager 8/18/01 Terry S. Singeltary Sr ...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/pubs/PL107-9_Appen.pdf
Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION
TO DOCKET 2003N-0312]
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
# Docket No: 02-088-1 RE-Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of
2002; [TSS SUBMISSION ON POTENTIAL FOR BSE/TSE & FMD 'SUITCASE BOMBS'] -
TSS 1/27/03 (0)
Docket Management
Docket: 02N-0276 - Bioterrorism Preparedness; Registration of Food
Facilities, Section 305
Comment Number: EC-254 [TSS SUBMISSION]
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0276/02N-0276-EC-254.htm
Dockets Entered On October 2, 2003 Table of Contents, Docket #,
Title, 1978N-0301,
OTC External Analgesic Drug Products, ... EMC 7, Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #: 1, ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm
Daily Dockets Entered on 02/05/03
DOCKETS ENTERED on 2/5/03. ... EMC 4 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 2.
... Vol#: 1.
03N-0009 Federal Preemption of State & Local Medical Device Requireme. ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Feb03/020503/020503.htm
Docket Management
Docket: 02N-0370 - Neurological Devices; Classification of Human Dura Mater
Comment Number: EC -1
Accepted - Volume 1
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be11.html
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004bdfe.html
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004bdfc.html
Daily Dockets - 04/10/03
... 00D-1662 Use of Xenotransplantation Products in Humans.
EMC 98 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3. 01F ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Apr03/041003/041003.htm -
05-20-2003
- Cached
2003D-0186
Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
EMC 1
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #:
1
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jun03/060903/060903.htm
2003D-0186
Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
EMC 7
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #:
1
2003D-0186
Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
EMC 7
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #:
1
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm
01N-0423 Substances Prohibited from use in animal food/Feed Ruminant
APE 5 National Renderers Association, Inc. Vol#: 2
APE 6 Animal Protein Producers Industry Vol#: 2
APE 7 Darling International Inc. Vol#: 2
EMC 1 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Oct01/101501/101501.htm
still disgusted in cold cold Bacliff, Texas, dreaming of the warm Caribbean
Isands. take us away...
TSS
#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################
TSS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:04 PM
Subject: Gov't confirms dead cow in Hokkaido as 21st case of BSE
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
From: TSS ()
Subject: Gov't confirms dead cow in Hokkaido as 21st case of BSE
Date: December 10, 2005 at 6:45 pm PST
Gov't confirms dead cow in Hokkaido as 21st case of BSE
Sunday, December 11, 2005 at 06:40 JST
SAPPORO — Japan's agriculture ministry said Saturday a cow that died on a
farm in Chitose, Hokkaido Prefecture, earlier this week had bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, the 21st mad cow disease case reported in Japan.
The body of the cow was incinerated and meat from the carcass will not enter
the market, the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry said. The
Holstein cow, 5 years and 9 months old, was born before the government
banned the use of meat-and-bone-meal feed.
© 2005 Kyodo News. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication
without written permission.
http://japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=358092
TSS
#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################
#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################