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

JOHANNS FLIP FLOPPING TO JAPAN ON BSE

flounder

Well-known member
Johanns clarifies appeal to Japanese to remove limits from beef trade

by Pete Hisey on 8/3/2006 for Meatingplace.com

Fresh from a lightning tour of Iraq, where he met with Prime Minister Al-Alaki and agricultural officials, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns clarified his oft-repeated request that Japan fully open its market to U.S. beef, even before the first shipments under the new agreement land in Tokyo.

His request has been mistranslated as a demand that beef from cattle up to 30 months of age be allowed, he said during a press briefing yesterday. "It's not even based on 30 months anymore," he pointed out. "It's based on risk assessment, and it's all specified in the OIE (International Organization for Animal Health) standards."

That would mean that beef from cattle of any age should be allowed into any given market if any beef at all is allowed. If a country qualifies as minimal risk or better, the main qualification would be whether the cattle were born before or after a comprehensive feed ban had been put into place and deemed effective.

"Otherwise, what stops me from saying I don't want any beef from Japan unless it's beef from animals 10 months or younger?" said Johanns. "That wouldn't be very fair to Japan; it wouldn't be fair to the Japanese producer."

Johanns is facing a similar dilemma, from the other side, in introducing a rule allowing the import of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age. That proposed rule was withdrawn before it was actually published for public comment after the discovery of a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in an animal born well after Canada's feed ban went into effect, a discovery that could affect Canada's status as a minimal risk market. USDA has sent a scientist to Canada to investigate that finding, and withdrew the proposed rule temporarily until it could establish whether or not the latest case of BSE would affect Canada's status as an exporting country.


http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=16325


Greetings,

Johanns states ;

>>> "It's not even based on 30 months anymore," he pointed out. "It's based on risk assessment, and it's all specified in the OIE (International Organization for Animal Health) standards." <<<


gee, is that suppose to make us feel better ?



>>>Johanns is facing a similar dilemma, from the other side, in introducing a rule allowing the import of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age. That proposed rule was withdrawn before it was actually published for public comment after the discovery of a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in an animal born well after Canada's feed ban went into effect, a discovery that could affect Canada's status as a minimal risk market. <<<


USDA GIVITH, AND USDA i.e. industry, TAKETH AWAY, there is nothing 'science based' on GWs/OIE BSE MRR policy, it was nothing more than a legal tool to trade all strains of TSE globally, and it might come back to haunt Canada now, since there BSE surveillance system was based on finding animals with BSE, unlike the USA June 2004 Enhanced BSE cover-up... oops, i mean surveillance program. Seems Canada got Bushwhacked. Seems Johanns et al are flip flopping again. nothing like USDA junk science on TSE and there precious commodities and futures and MRR policy. ...


CJD-related disease can incubate for 50 years

snip...


Since the North American cattle industry has been so highly integrated, not only by cattle movements, but also feed, and the fact both countries blatantly ignored feed bans, what makes the USA cattle industry so much safer than the Canadian ?


Based on our scientific knowledge of the disease, we have taken several key steps - some of which have been in place for years -- to safeguard the health of U.S. livestock and our food supply from BSE. And we are fortunate that Canada shares our commitment and overall approach to dealing with this disease by taking comparable and effective measures consistent with ours. This is especially important given that historically the North American cattle industry has been highly integrated.


http://www.usda.gov/



JUST because Canada is looking harder to document BSE cases than the USDA, does not make it have more BSE cases, just makes it look like USDA is not looking hard enough. I find it rather comical that Dehaven/Johanns et al preach the OIE gospel on testing figures when they repeatedly repeat, the infamous OIE safeguards and math numbers of testing for a disease of some 400 cattle out of some 100 million. WHEN defending there BSE cover-up program ....... i mean surveillance program, USDA et al boast about these figures and that they are testing 10 x those 400 head of cattle, then on the flop, defending the higher and more frequent numbers of BSE in Canada, they boast the same, but from the opposite end of spectrum, defending higher numbers of BSE. talk about the pot calling the kettle black ...



FLIP ;


SEC. JOHANNS: Larry, thank you very much, and to everyone out there good morning. Thank you also for joining us today as we talk about BSE surveillance in the United States.

USDA will soon be transitioning to an ongoing BSE surveillance program after having successfully achieved our goals with the enhanced surveillance program. The ongoing surveillance program will involve sampling approximately 40,000 animals each year. As with the enhanced surveillance, the focus will be on cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found and samples will be taken from a variety of locations.

This approach will maintain our ability to detect BSE even at the very, very low levels that the analysis shows it might exist in the United States. It will also enable us to identify any change in BSE prevalence if a change were to occur. This ongoing BSE surveillance program will exceed surveillance guidelines set forth by the World Animal Health Organization, also known as OIE.

In fact, the program will provide at testing at a level ten times that which is recommended by the OIE.



FLOP ;


REPORTER: Well, thank you, Larry. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking the questions. This is actually a question first for Dr. DeHaven, and then I'll follow up with you, Mr. Secretary, if I can.

Dr. DeHaven, are you convinced that the Canadian testing system meets OIE standards given the large number of positives they have had with a relatively much lower testing sample? And then Mr. Secretary, if I could follow up, is it true? I've been hearing reports that the big stumbling block with Korea is a commingling of American and Canadian beef on our slaughter lines. And can we resolve that without some other internal controls about Canadian beef coming in?

DR. DEHAVEN: Peter, thank you for your question. This is Ron DeHaven. And let me take the questions in a little bit reverse order in terms of the adequacy of their program; and you indicated a lower level of testing in Canada. If you look at the number of animals that they are testing in Canada in comparison to their adult cattle population as a percentage, and then compare what we are testing, they in fact are testing a proportionate sample consistent or actually exceeding the number that we are. So I would argue that in fact they do have a testing program in Canada that not only meets OIE requirements but far exceeds it.

And arguably the fact that they have now found six or seven cases in Canada is evidence that their surveillance system is working. They are finding the cases that are there. I think there's a lot of epidemiological evidence that is relevant-- for example, the clustering effect that they are finding and where they're finding those samples. But here again I think the fact that they have now found six or seven positive animals is evidence that they are testing at an appropriate level consistent with the testing that we're doing and in excess of OIE requirements.


http://www.usda.gov/



SO, if you dont have BSE or a low level, then you preach the OIE BSE gospel.

AND if you do have an increased number of BSE and even if it is clustering, then you still preach the OIE BSE gospel.

REGARDLESS, IF YOU GO BY OIE BSE GUIDELINES, you are going to have BSE, and if you look at all the other countries that went by these same OIE guidelines, they too went down with BSE.

SO what does this tell the 'lay' person, if you go by OIE guidelines only and even exceed it by USA standards, or even more by Canadian standards, you still get BSE.

confusious is confused again ;-) then why are we still going by OIE guidelines $$$


also, Johanns states ;

SEC. JOHANNS: I might just add a thought to Dr. DeHaven's comments, and then I'll address your question on South Korea. Keep in mind that from a food safety standpoint, the real key here is the removal of the specified risk materials. Those who are trying to convince their consumers that universal testing or 100 percent testing somehow solves the problem, really are misleading. You solve the problem by dealing with the problem; you solve the problem by removing specified risk materials. And that's how you protect human health. ..........


http://www.usda.gov/
COULD someone please explain to me that by testing for BSE, and by removing these documented BSE animals when they are found, how is this NOT protecting human health, especially when all SRMs are NOT being removed, and the fact as we speak, there is a Nationwide mad cow feed recall of some 10,878.06 tons of mad cow feed product srms, going to cattle for human and animal consumption, so please explain to me, by removing these mad cows, that were found by testing, how is this not protecting human/animal health in some way ??? IS this some kind of reverse BSE psychology there using now ???


TSS



snip...



full text ;

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/06/cjdrelated_disease_can_incubat.html



ALSO ;


SO, the already terribly flawwed OIE BSE surveillance system is too burdensome for trade.
Aint that just too bad. SO, they decide to make it even weaker. The damn thing never worked
anyway. ALL one has to do is look at the documented BSE Countries that went by it. Did them
a lot of good.

TO think that a sample survey of 400 or so cattle in a population of 100 million, to think this will find anything, especially after seeing how many TSE tests it took Italy and other Countries to find 1 case of BSE (1 million rapid TSE test in less than 2 years, to find 102 BSE cases), should be proof enough to make drastic changes of this system. the OIE criteria for BSE Country classification and it's interpretation is very problematic. a text that is suppose to give guidelines, but is not understandable, cannot be considered satisfactory...

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-54550.html


THE OIE has now shown they are nothing more than a National Trading Brokerage for all strains of animal TSE.
AS i said before, OIE should hang up there jock strap now, since it appears they will buckle every time a country makes some political hay about trade protocol, commodities and futures. IF they are not going to be science based, they should do everyone a favor and dissolve there organization. With Science like this, Japan would be fully justified in declining to be a member. ...


Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. BOX 42 Bacliff, TEXAS USA


a.. BSE OIE


#################### /lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################


http://p079.ezboard.com/fwolftracksproductionsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=470.topic
 

Murgen

Well-known member
USDA GIVITH, AND USDA i.e. industry, TAKETH AWAY, there is nothing 'science based' on GWs/OIE BSE MRR policy, it was nothing more than a legal tool to trade all strains of TSE globally, and it might come back to haunt Canada now, since there BSE surveillance system was based on finding animals with BSE, unlike the USA June 2004 Enhanced BSE cover-up... oops, i mean surveillance program. Seems Canada got Bushwhacked. Seems Johanns et al are flip flopping again. nothing like USDA junk science on TSE and there precious commodities and futures and MRR policy. ...

Great post, shows the true hypocricy of the whole situation. Hate to tell you RCALF'ers, we told you so, but we did!

I wonder why Japan (and others) are using your own tools against the US?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Murgen said:
USDA GIVITH, AND USDA i.e. industry, TAKETH AWAY, there is nothing 'science based' on GWs/OIE BSE MRR policy, it was nothing more than a legal tool to trade all strains of TSE globally, and it might come back to haunt Canada now, since there BSE surveillance system was based on finding animals with BSE, unlike the USA June 2004 Enhanced BSE cover-up... oops, i mean surveillance program. Seems Canada got Bushwhacked. Seems Johanns et al are flip flopping again. nothing like USDA junk science on TSE and there precious commodities and futures and MRR policy. ...

Great post, shows the true hypocricy of the whole situation. Hate to tell you RCALF'ers, we told you so, but we did!

I wonder why Japan (and others) are using your own tools against the US?

Are you saying you don't trust the USDA's judgement?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I'm starting to distrust all business in the US! You guys are doing a great sell job on being a US citizen!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Murgen said:
I'm starting to distrust all business in the US! You guys are doing a great sell job on being a US citizen!

We're the ones who wants things done right. You guys cuss us R-CALFers to death, but we see eye to eye on 90% of the issues - the USDA playing games being a major one.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Sandhusker, it's RCALF's reasons that we see through and have a problem with. Restriction of Trade is the number one goal, food safety is the tool you're using to try and get the job done.

Much like Animal rights groups that use food safety as an smokescreen for their number one goal.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Sandhusker, it's RCALF's reasons that we see through and have a problem with. Restriction of Trade is the number one goal, food safety is the tool you're using to try and get the job done.

Much like Animal rights groups that use food safety as an smokescreen for their number one goal.

When you put your pocketbook before your principles, you usually lose both.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Sandhusker, it's RCALF's reasons that we see through and have a problem with. Restriction of Trade is the number one goal, food safety is the tool you're using to try and get the job done.

Much like Animal rights groups that use food safety as an smokescreen for their number one goal.

Restriction of trade is NOT our number one goal, nor our number 487 goal either, for that matter. You're arriving at this conclusion solely because we have a major problem with how we trade with your country. The facts are that we are very active in trade issues, and not active in the sense of restricting. We're trying to open new markets and mend fences with our former customers. We've recently given our blessing to several FTAs.

Our number one goal is the continued profitability of the US producer. If you remove yourself from being a Canadian producer and put yourself in our boots for a minute, I don't see how you can fault us. Prior to you getting BSE in 2003, the USDA told us that, based upon what they knew, we had to do this and this and this to prodect against BSE - and they did it 21 times in a row. All of a sudden, you get BSE and everything we were told is out the window. We're saying, "Hey, you're not only changing horses in midstream, you can't give a good reason why" - for this we're labeled protectionists and trade disrupters. That's crap. Either the USDA made a huge mistake when they first set our BSE polilcy, or they made one when they suddenly changed it for you. My money is on the latter. I don't see how we're out of line and trying to disrupt trade because we're hollering "foul" on an obvious question mark where we're the ones left holding the bag. Any organization that claims to represent US producers would be severly remiss to not raise a little hell.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Murgen said:
Sandhusker, it's RCALF's reasons that we see through and have a problem with. Restriction of Trade is the number one goal, food safety is the tool you're using to try and get the job done.

Much like Animal rights groups that use food safety as an smokescreen for their number one goal.

Restriction of trade is NOT our number one goal, nor our number 487 goal either, for that matter. You're arriving at this conclusion solely because we have a major problem with how we trade with your country. The facts are that we are very active in trade issues, and not active in the sense of restricting. We're trying to open new markets and mend fences with our former customers. We've recently given our blessing to several FTAs.

Our number one goal is the continued profitability of the US producer. If you remove yourself from being a Canadian producer and put yourself in our boots for a minute, I don't see how you can fault us. Prior to you getting BSE in 2003, the USDA told us that, based upon what they knew, we had to do this and this and this to prodect against BSE - and they did it 21 times in a row. All of a sudden, you get BSE and everything we were told is out the window. We're saying, "Hey, you're not only changing horses in midstream, you can't give a good reason why" - for this we're labeled protectionists and trade disrupters. That's crap. Either the USDA made a huge mistake when they first set our BSE polilcy, or they made one when they suddenly changed it for you. My money is on the latter. I don't see how we're out of line and trying to disrupt trade because we're hollering "foul" on an obvious question mark where we're the ones left holding the bag. Any organization that claims to represent US producers would be severly remiss to not raise a little hell.

Sandhusker when was R-CALF Ranchers Cattlemen ACTION LEGAL FUND formed and WHY?

Why has R-CALF leadership continually lied about our beef industry?
Why has R-CALF leadership demanded answers from the Canadian beef industry but fail to demand those same things from the US beef industry?
Why does R-CALF leadership boost about things you DON'T HAVE so consumer will continue to eat your beef?
Why does R-CALF spout out of one side of their month they don't trust the USDA as they don't care about food safety while out the other side you sprew the US has the WORLD SAFEST BEEF raised to the WORLD HIGHEST STANDARDS?

These are just a few of the reasons that most Canadians can't stand R-CALF. They use what ever story fits their agenda for that days press release and they don't care if the next statement contradicts the first. :mad:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam, I've found out the long and hard way that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on R-CALF. I'm not even going to mess with you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Tam, I've found out the long and hard way that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on R-CALF. I'm not even going to mess with you.

Its those R-CALF boogymen she is fixated on... Probably running around the house now checking under beds and behind doors- BILL OR LEO ARE HIDING SOMEWHERE :lol: :lol: :lol: Don't tell her I was 10 miles south of their house today :wink: :shock: :lol: :lol:

The Prozac folks will make a fortune off a few paranoid Canucks- good thing they have socialized medicine to cover the paranoia :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
"When they start attacking you personally rather than attacking the facts, you know you have them by the short hairs as its a sign of desperation. :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
"When they start attacking you personally rather than attacking the facts, you know you have them by the short hairs as its a sign of desperation. :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You should know that quite well- because all you ever do is attack R-CALF or R-CALF members without any facts- just because the name is associated...... :wink: :lol:

But it is comical to watch how Canucks wet down their leg at the mention of the name- while at the same time saying they are an ineffectual group :wink: :lol:

Tam- you nitpick out little statements ( half the time out of context) made by one member of R-CALF or one officer or past officer and immediately in your mind its the R-CALF position--

Since you are a member of SSGA- does everything you say on here or to someone immediately become SSGA policy-- Since your husband is an officer of SSGA does everything he says here or to someone become SSGA policy? Is that how it operates in a socialist country :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
"When they start attacking you personally rather than attacking the facts, you know you have them by the short hairs as its a sign of desperation. :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You should know that quite well- because all you ever do is attack R-CALF or R-CALF members without any facts- just because the name is associated...... :wink: :lol:

But it is comical to watch how Canucks wet down their leg at the mention of the name- while at the same time saying they are an ineffectual group :wink: :lol:

Tam- you nitpick out little statements ( half the time out of context) made by one member of R-CALF or one officer or past officer and immediately in your mind its the R-CALF position--

Since you are a member of SSGA- does everything you say on here or to someone immediately become SSGA policy-- Since your husband is an officer of SSGA does everything he says here or to someone become SSGA policy? Is that how it operates in a socialist country :???:


Oldtimer when those officers and past officers are speaking to a group or the media on BEHALF OF R-CALF they are speaking FOR R-CALF. Anything they say is going to be accredited to that organization and their policies. If they don't want their comments accredited to their organization they should not say them when they are representing said organization. AND They should also make sure those comments are not posted in the official WEB SITE. :roll:
As far as what I say on Ranchers, when have I ever said I'm speaking on behalf of the SSGA. I have worked for the SSGA on occasion but I leave official press releases to the officials and past officials If you want to know the official comments from the SSGA visit the SSGA web site like I do when I want to know what R-CALFs official stand in on something.

R-CALF has bought ads in high profile newspapers spouting the World Safest Beef and the World Highest Standards, They have been on RFD-TV and radio broadcasts doing the same and have it right on their web site. BUT then they turn around and use the courts and the MEDIA to declare their mistrust of the agency that is in charge of that Beef and those Standards you can also find all their official comments about these issues on their web site. Great way to build credibility in your organization. :roll:

As far as R-CALF being ineffectual group, they have only been effective at one thing and that is being a pain in the side of a once productive united North American beef industry. If they don't lay off the lieing and the stupid court actions we may never see the same unity in this industry, truth be known it is to late already. R-CALF may not see that as a problem but the rest of the industry is seeing a problem with their stand and the effect it has had on the US industry. :roll:

How can you take this statement out of context OLDTIMER. "Canada processes downer and the US does not" We can't even haul our downers without penalty of law so how do we get them to the slaughter plants? and Just where was the Texas cow headed when she was found DEAD on the truck? I guess she was prefectly health when loaded and like magic she died of BSE in route to that slaughter plant. :roll:

and how many times does the OIE have to clarify that R-CALF is mis- reading their GUIDELINES, before you will see R-CALF is misleading you? And how many court cases are you going to pay for before you realize you are backing the LOSERS.


What is comical is how you R-CALFers divert any question you don't want to answer because it will show R-CALF for what they really are.

So go ahead Oldtimer you and Sandhusker and Econ call me all the names you want but it is like Marc Racicot (former Montana Attorney General) used to say- "When they start attacking you personally rather than attacking the facts, you know you have them by the short hairs as its a sign of desperation. :wink: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam- You cuss the ads- you cuss the statement makers- then you question their credibility... How can you compare a country that has had 2 old cows with prefeedban BSE, out of all tested- and a country that has 9 cases, 4 of which have been POST feedban and in a herd 1/10th the size?...

But you or, CCA, or many Canada producers won't even admit you have a problem- talk about credibility gaps :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam, "What is comical is how you R-CALFers divert any question you don't want to answer because it will show R-CALF for what they really are.
So go ahead Oldtimer you and Sandhusker and Econ call me all the names you want but it is like Marc Racicot (former Montana Attorney General) used to say- "When they start attacking you personally rather than attacking the facts, you know you have them by the short hairs as its a sign of desperation

What is comical, Tam, is how you twist statements and manufacture new meanings. That is a fact and not a personal attack. It is impossible to converse with someone who does that. You may think you're really a thorn in the side of us R-CALF members, but I've had several (yes several, as in plural) of your own countrymen tell me that they wish you would lay off on R-CALF - you're embarrasing them.
 

flounder

Well-known member
oldtimer wrote;

>>> Tam- You cuss the ads- you cuss the statement makers- then you question their credibility... How can you compare a country that has had 2 old cows with prefeedban BSE, out of all tested- and a country that has 9 cases, <<<


your only kidding yourself there oldtimer, you simply compare it to the fact that Canada is looking to find BSE, and the USA is not. this has been proven time and time again by the OIG. this administration and it's goons are and have been more corrupt than any other administration. nothing, i mean nothing is beneath them. to hide a few old mad cows is just another drop in the bucket to them. i don't think even you believe that Canada has more BSE than the USA. your smarter than that. even one of the top prion gods from NIH says that anything of the infamous 2004 USDA enhances surveillance program, anything before 2005 was meaningless. i mean that before they were caught red handed, there soul purpose was to cover up mad cows by rendering ;


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.

####


The USDA June 2004 Enhanced BSE surveillance program was a sham, and everyone knows it now.

I find it sad and embarrassing that the USDA and my country, would continue this masquerade. I find it even more sad that the public accepts it. THE complete program, and the USDA should be dismantled and redone. Those test were meaningless under there flawed BSE protocols. ...TSS

CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


CDC - Afterthoughts about Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and ...
Afterthoughts about Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Paul Brown Senior Investigator, National Institutes of Health, ...


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/brown.htm


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf


like i said, no in-between, either usda et al triple fire walls, feed ban of 8/4/97, no mad cow rhetoric was just that i.e. cover-up, or they all fell out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down a long time ago. ...


THE USDA BSE TESTING PROTOCOL WAS TERRIBLY FLAWWED FROM THE BEGINNING, AND THAT is the way it was suppose to be;


Dr. Detwiler, former top vet at the USDA and TSE aka mad cow expert tried to tell the bush administration this in more ways than one at a BSE ROUNTABLE event on Wednesday, December 11, 2003, in Denver, Colorado. shortly after this Dr. Detwiler was put out to pasture along with Dr. Miller and a few others that knew what was going on and spoke out about it;


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...


Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE


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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kate Cyrul
Friday, February 3, 2006 (202) 225-3661


DeLauro Questions APHIS Officials over Retesting of Infected Cow

– IG Report finds agency officials overruled advice of field scientists –

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) today questioned the reasoning of officials at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that overruled the advice of field scientists on the retesting of a domestic cow found to have the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) disease. After the USDA announced that the first case of BSE was identified in a native-born cow last June, officials at APHIS said no further testing of the animal was needed. The USDA’s inspector general, however, determined the testing used proved inconclusive results and said that a sample from the cow should be sent for further testing.

DeLauro is ranking member of the House Appropriations Agriculture subcommittee, which has jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities of USDA and FDA.

“I am concerned that the APHIS officials that reviewed these results seemed to make decisions based not on science, but on the economic ramifications a positive BSE finding in a domestic born animal could have on the U.S. economy,” said DeLauro. “When consumer safety is in question, APHIS should not be forced into additional testing of an inconclusive sample by its inspector general.

“While we are glad that this cow did not enter the human food supply, APHIS officials had a responsibility to further examine this sample that even our “gold standard” test proved inconclusive. By refusing to send samples for further testing, APHIS could have jeopardized consumer health and safety and put the industry at a disadvantage, drawing into question the safety of our beef.

“Today I am requesting that APHIS disclose which officials made this decision and further explain their reasoning for not voluntarily testing this inconclusive sample further.”

###


http://www.house.gov/delauro

http://www.house.gov/delauro/press/2006/February/APHIS_retesting_2_3_06.html

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


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Washington, D.C. 20250 January 25, 2006 REPLY TO ATTN OF: 50601-10-KC TO: W.
Ron DeHaven Administrator Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Barbara
Masters Administrator Food Safety and Inspection Service ATTN: William J.
Hudnall Deputy Administrator Marketing Regulatory Program Business Services
William C. Smith Assistant Administrator Office of Program Evaluation,
Enforcement, and Review FROM: Robert W. Young /s/ Assistant Inspector
General for Audit SUBJECT: 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 This report
presents the results of our audit of the enhanced BSE surveillance program
and controls over specified risk materials and advanced meat recovery
products. Your written response to the official draft report, dated January
20, 2006, is included as exhibit G with excerpts of the response and the
Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) position incorporated into the Findings
and Recommendations section of the report, where applicable. We accept the
management decisions for all recommendations. Please follow your agency’s
internal procedures in forwarding documentation for final action to the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). We are providing a separate
memorandum to the agencies and OCFO that provides specific information on
the actions to be completed to achieve final action. We appreciate your
timely response and the cooperation and assistance provided to our staff
during the audit USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC/ Page i

Executive Summary

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

Results in Brief This report evaluates elements of the interlocking
safeguards in place to protect United States (U.S.) beef from Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy, widely known as BSE or "mad cow disease." Since
1990, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), has led a multi-agency effort to monitor and
prevent BSE from entering the food supply. After discovering a BSE-positive
cow in December 2003, APHIS expanded its BSE surveillance program. To
further protect the food supply, USDA banned materials identified as being
at risk of carrying BSE (specified risk materials (SRM)), such as central
nervous system tissue. As part of this effort, USDA’s Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) required beef slaughter and processing facilities
to incorporate controls for handling such materials into their operational
plans. Onsite FSIS inspectors also inspect cattle for clinical signs in
order to prevent diseased animals from being slaughtered for human
consumption. To evaluate the effectiveness of the safeguards, we assessed
APHIS’ implementation of the expanded surveillance program, as well as FSIS’
controls to prevent banned SRMs from entering the food supply.

In June 2004, APHIS implemented its expanded surveillance program;
participation by industry in this surveillance program is voluntary. As of
May 2005, over 350,000 animals were sampled and tested for BSE. To date, two
animals tested positive for BSE; one tested positive after implementation of
the expanded surveillance program.

USDA made significant efforts to implement the expanded BSE surveillance
program. Much needed to be done in a short period of time to establish the
necessary processes, controls, infrastructure, and networks to assist in
this effort. In addition, extensive outreach and coordination was undertaken
with other Federal, State, and local entities, private industry, and
laboratory and veterinary networks. This report provides an assessment as to
the progress USDA made in expanding its surveillance effort and the
effectiveness of its controls and processes. This report also discusses the
limitations of its program and data in assessing the prevalence of BSE in
the U.S. herd.


snip...


40 ELISA test procedures require two additional (duplicate) tests if the
initial test is reactive, before final interpretation. If either of the
duplicate tests is reactive, the test is deemed inconclusive.

41 Protocol for BSE Contract Laboratories to Receive and Test Bovine Brain
Samples and Report Results for BSE Surveillance Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP), dated October 26, 2004.

42 The NVSL conducted an ELISA test on the original material tested at the
contract laboratory and on two new cuts from the sample tissue.

43 A visual examination of brain tissue by a microscope.

44 A localized pathological change in a bodily organ or tissue.

SNIP...


PLEASE SEE FLAMING EVIDENCE THAT THE USDA ET AL COVERED UP MAD COW DISEASE
IN TEXAS ;


PAGE 43;


Section 2. Testing Protocols and Quality Assurance Controls


snip...


FULL TEXT 130 PAGES


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

[GAO-05-101 ] Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness
Size: 104986 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=d05101.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao


[2]

[GAO-05-101 ] Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness
Size: 104986 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=d05101.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao


[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


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

Subject: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed Rule, Docket No. 2002N-0273 C-534 VOL 45 (PhRMA) and Entered On February 17, 2006
Date: March 10, 2006 at 5:23 pm PST

Marie A. Vodicka, PhD

Assistant Vice President

Biologics & Blotechnology

Scientlflc & Regulatory Affairs

SCIENCE & REG AFFAIRS

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane, rrn . 1061

Rackville, MD 20862


Re: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed Rule, Docket

No. 2002N-0273

February 14, 2006

Dear Sir or Madam :

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is providing

comment to the proposed rules issued. ......


snip...


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000534-01-vol45.pdf

Subject: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed PAUL BROWN
Date: January 20, 2006 at 9:31 am PST

December 20,2005

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane

Room 1061

Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)

Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed

Dear Sir or Madame:

As scientists and Irecognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs for

decades, we are deeply concerned by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE infected

cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very.........


snip...


Given that BSE can be transmitted to cattle via an

oral route with just .OO1 gram of infected tissue, it may not take much infectivity to

contaminate feed and keep the disease recycling. ........


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf

December 19, 2005

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane

Room 1061

Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)

Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed

Dear Sir or Madame:

The McDonald’s Corporation buys more beef than any other restaurant in the United States. It is

essential for our customers and our company that the beef has the highest level of safety.

Concerning BSE, ...........


snip.......


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273_emc-000134-02.pdf

THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
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


Executive Summary

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

Results in Brief This report evaluates elements of the interlocking safeguards in place to protect United States (U.S.) beef from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, widely known as BSE or "mad cow disease." Since 1990, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), has led a multi-agency effort to monitor and prevent BSE from entering the food supply. After discovering a BSE-positive cow in December 2003, APHIS expanded its BSE surveillance program. To further protect the food supply, USDA banned materials identified as being at risk of carrying BSE (specified risk materials (SRM)), such as central nervous system tissue. As part of this effort, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) required beef slaughter and processing facilities to incorporate controls for handling such materials into their operational plans. Onsite FSIS inspectors also inspect cattle for clinical signs in order to prevent diseased animals from being slaughtered for human consumption. To evaluate the effectiveness of the safeguards, we assessed APHIS’ implementation of the expanded surveillance program, as well as FSIS’ controls to prevent banned SRMs from entering the food supply.

In June 2004, APHIS implemented its expanded surveillance program; participation by industry in this surveillance program is voluntary. As of May 2005, over 350,000 animals were sampled and tested for BSE. To date, two animals tested positive for BSE; one tested positive after implementation of the expanded surveillance program.

USDA made significant efforts to implement the expanded BSE surveillance program. Much needed to be done in a short period of time to establish the necessary processes, controls, infrastructure, and networks to assist in this effort. In addition, extensive outreach and coordination was undertaken with other Federal, State, and local entities, private industry, and laboratory and veterinary networks. This report provides an assessment as to the progress USDA made in expanding its surveillance effort and the effectiveness of its controls and processes. This report also discusses the limitations of its program and data in assessing the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd.

Surveillance Goals and Objectives

In March 2004, USDA published its plan to expand the BSE surveillance program. The plan’s goal was to collect samples from as many adult1 cattle from the high-risk population as possible in 12-18 months while ensuring that there was statistically appropriate geographical representation of the adult cattle population in the United States. Overall, USDA designed the program to define whether BSE was actually present in the U.S. cattle population and if so, to what level.

When USDA published its plan, Office of Inspector General (OIG) was examining the pre-expansion program. In anticipation of the coming changes, we reviewed the plan in order to determine if its design would allow the Department to reach statistically valid conclusions about the presence and level of BSE. Since the implementation plan had not been finalized, we provided recommendations for USDA to consider as they moved forward with implementing an expanded surveillance program. In August 2004, we released our report, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Food Safety and Inspection Service, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase I (Report No. 50601-9-KC), which discussed our observations of the challenges USDA faced in meeting its stated goals and made 19 recommendations for USDA to consider as it moved forward with implementation. Our prior report primarily focused on (1) the potential for unwarranted statistical conclusions to be drawn from the data USDA planned to collect, and (2) the challenges in identifying and testing high-risk cattle. In response to our report, APHIS agreed to disclose the limitations of the data and the assumptions made and its impact on any statistical representations regarding the prevalence of BSE in order to obviate misinterpretation.

We reviewed the specific corrective actions APHIS and FSIS agreed to take in response to prior audit recommendations during this audit. In this report, we discuss the specific areas where corrective actions were not fully effective in addressing our concerns in the following areas: obtaining representative samples, identifying and obtaining samples from the high-risk surveillance streams, and completeness and accuracy of program data.

APHIS has provided OIG unpublished drafts of its preliminary analysis, which included various statistical approaches to determining the prevalence of BSE. In general, each approach mitigates some, but not all of the limitations associated with its data and underlying assumptions in the design and implementation of its surveillance program. Some of the approaches also

1 FSIS considers bulls and cows to be mature cattle with cows ordinarily having given birth to one or more calves. FSIS defines SRMs to be present in cattle 30 months of age or older, while APHIS defines its target population for BSE sampling to be over 30 months of age. Dentition is used to estimate the age ranges of cattle. Dentition is the development of teeth and their arrangement in the mouth.

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

introduce new challenges because any conclusions are extremely sensitive to the accuracy of the underlying data. The accuracy of the underlying data is also critical to the development of a future maintenance surveillance program. We cannot fully assess any of the approaches being considered by APHIS since it has not finalized its analysis. In Finding 1, however, we do offer several observations for APHIS to consider as it develops its conclusions about the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. cattle population.

Inherent Limitations in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle

APHIS obtained significantly more samples for testing than they originally anticipated would be needed to achieve its stated level of confidence in estimating the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd. Because of the voluntary nature of its program, however, we could not determine how successful APHIS was in obtaining a representative proportion of high-risk cattle for testing. Our prior report recognized the significant challenges for APHIS to obtain samples from the high-risk population because of the inherent problems with obtaining voluntary compliance and transporting carcasses for testing. APHIS took steps to obtain facilitated pathways, by entering into over 100 agreements, to collect and test brain samples for BSE. However, using USDA published data that estimates the distribution of the cattle population, as well as those that died or became nonambulatory, we could not determine whether APHIS achieved either geographical representation or representation of the desired surveillance stream (clinical suspects, fallen stock, casualty slaughter fallen stock, and routine slaughter). Findings 1 and 2 present the conditions noted that impact this evaluation.

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.

Controls (Firewalls) to Prevent BSE in the Food Supply

USDA instituted proactive procedures to prevent tissues and products that could possibly contain the infective agent for BSE from entering the food supply. FSIS performs inspections on cattle before slaughter (ante mortem) to observe clinical signs that may indicate a central nervous system disorder or other signs that may be associated with BSE. Such animals are condemned and prohibited from slaughter for human consumption. FSIS also identified high-risk beef tissue and products as SRMs, and banned them from the food supply. FSIS inspects slaughter processes to verify that slaughterhouses have incorporated controls for handling SRMs into their operational plans; adequate procedures must be in place for removing, segregating, and disposing of SRMs.

OIG reviewed the SRM plans of several establishments, observed FSIS inspection procedures, and evaluated the effectiveness of controls during the slaughter process. We did not identify SRMs entering the food supply. However, due to the lack of adequate records, we could not determine whether SRM procedures were followed and/or were adequate in 9 of

2 For purposes of this report, the term renderers also includes pet food manufacturers and plants that handle dead, dying, disabled, or diseased livestock.

3 9 CFR 320.5, states that every person that engages in business in or for commerce, as a meat broker, renderer, or animal food manufacturer … shall register with the Administrator [of FSIS].

12 establishments visited during the audit. There is no requirement in the United States for the age of animals to be recorded, therefore, APHIS and FSIS rely on meat establishments to determine the age of cattle slaughtered using documentation or dentition. SRM restrictions apply predominantly to cattle 30 months of age or older. FSIS periodically checks the accuracy of age determinations through dentition; however, we could not determine how often these checks are made. We found that improvements can be made in the following areas.


• FSIS approved an alternate ante mortem inspection procedure that limited the number of cattle subject to inspection. FSIS discontinued this procedure during the audit.


• FSIS does not have an information system capable of readily identifying the scope of, and trends in, noncompliance violations relating to SRMs.


• Most of the establishments reviewed did not have adequate SRM plans, and FSIS did not always identify these deficiencies.

• Several of the establishments did not comply with their SRM plans and/or maintain records to support that they follow their plans.

FSIS has addressed the specific cases of noncompliance identified during the audit. Findings 5 through 9 discuss our assessment of the effectiveness of USDA’s firewalls.

Other Program Administration Issues

FSIS and APHIS did not maintain current and comprehensive listings of renderers2 and related businesses. These entities are required to register with FSIS as a condition of engaging in business.3 As a result, should serious animal diseases be detected in the United States, USDA’s ability to quickly determine and trace the source of infections to prevent the spread of the disease could be impaired. Also, APHIS could not use the registrations to identify potential sources to mitigate geographical gaps in BSE testing. We discuss the details of this issue in Finding 11.

We also determined that an APHIS area office paid costs for sampling and carcass transportation, storage, and disposal that exceeded national cost recovery guidelines and/or that were ineligible for reimbursement. The area office entered into 10 reimbursable agreements before national office cost recovery guidelines had been issued but did not adjust the agreements afterwards although instructed to do so by the national office. Instead, the area office included the questionable costs in amounts proposed (by

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

third parties) in other allowable cost categories. The area office official stated he changed supporting records because he believed he should honor the prior negotiated costs. As a result, at least $1.2 million of about $11.2 million paid were unsupported program costs. Finding 12 more fully examines the unsupported costs and why they went undiscovered.

The expanded stage of USDA’s BSE surveillance program is nearing its end. Accordingly, it is vital that the conditions summarized above be considered as USDA uses the data gathered to design an effective BSE surveillance maintenance program and to report its assessment of the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd. In particular, APHIS must develop testing protocols which are grounded in science and flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances. For its part, FSIS must ensure that it effectively monitors SRM handling practices to ensure they comply with Federal regulations. Implemented, these management controls will help USDA continue to effectively safeguard the U.S. beef supply for consumers.


snip....


full text 130 pages ;


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


TSS
 
Top