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

Moratorium on NAIS

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
PORKER said:
Question ,can a US purchaser of Canadian BEEF get a traceback with your RFID tag???

Porker I didn't see where your question was answered.

The trace back is is case of a reportable disease. Not for ownership. A reportable disease would also involve USDA. The packers buying Canadian cattle do have access to the age verification.

Porker knew the answer..... :roll:
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
There we go more personal insults. You can not explain points or add too reasons why you are against NAIS so make more personal insults. It exposes your limited intelect. What next, are you going to call me a poopy head. :p Are you that paranoid to think that there is a group of candian cattle producers gathering a group of OTM cows that are emaciated and showing other clinical sighns of BSE just waiting to ship them to the US for slaughter to contaminate your herd. Maybe there are Al Queda sleeper cells gathering those type of cows just waiting for the border to open so they can sabbotage the US beef export business.
I may have worded it too simply, it is required that the US fall in line with the rest of the world. it seems your country has figured out that it can bully some countries when will it be figured out the every so often someone walks up behind a bully with a 2X4 wacks him from behind and KO's him.
It would have been a great idea if you could have the same thing as CCIA but your group wants to complain more than be proactive so you will get what someone else thinks will work. too bad your group is so headstrong and doesn't realize that a US equivelent agency to the CCIA would have forced tha hands of other animal producers way to go r-guys you blew another chance.
Maybe r-group can cellebrate it's victory on amending the ag bill so that packers can't own cattle for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. One question when will r-calf cellebrate becoming a fascist state. Just what people want to see the government regulation of who can own what animals. Fascism at it best, what next the government telling people what crops they grow and what vehicals they can drive. How long to the independant country of soviet montanastan or huskberia :roll: :wink: :oops: :p :gag:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, “The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises.” That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word “premises” under the “international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word “premises” includes a place and a “conveyance.” Why check with the International Criminal Court Act? Because on June 8, 2007 under Secy. of Ag. Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, is quoted as saying, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.”

Throughout the entire Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises and not property. A “Premises” has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. Property rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

The word “Premise” is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person “leasing” it to another. Webster’s New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition defines “Premises” as the part of a deed or “lease” that states its reason, the parties involved and the property in “conveyance.” Webster then defines “conveyance” as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person to another. It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term “premises” and never mention “PROPERTY.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield59.htm

THAT is a good enough reason for me. I'd like some clarification, before I'd ever sign up for this.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MoGal said:
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, “The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises.” That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word “premises” under the “international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word “premises” includes a place and a “conveyance.” Why check with the International Criminal Court Act? Because on June 8, 2007 under Secy. of Ag. Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, is quoted as saying, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.”

Throughout the entire Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises and not property. A “Premises” has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. Property rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

The word “Premise” is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person “leasing” it to another. Webster’s New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition defines “Premises” as the part of a deed or “lease” that states its reason, the parties involved and the property in “conveyance.” Webster then defines “conveyance” as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person to another. It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term “premises” and never mention “PROPERTY.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield59.htm

THAT is a good enough reason for me. I'd like some clarification, before I'd ever sign up for this.

There you go nit-picking, MoGal. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
You don't think the United Nations is paving the way for a one world order. They want American disarmament of guns by 2015 so it will keep coming up and this is there plan to rob you of your property......... and no I've not been jumping off the outhouse with my umbrella...... while many Americans are busy working 2 jobs trying to make ends meet, there are other forces out there at work and the mainstream media news is not going to be giving people the real news, thats one of the reasons I find all my news on the internet.

http://www.stwr.net/content/view/1302/ (the United Nations entire plan for global harmony)

Common ground must be established and humanity’s common needs acknowledged; cooperative global interests must replace competitive self-interests. On an individual basis, within families and communities, people have established this sense of unity through the simple act of sharing what they own. Sadly, the process of sharing has been neglected at the international level where it can ensure that the basic needs of all are secured. Sharing, as a simple economic process, cuts to the heart of international relations and has the potential not only to unite, but to transform the driving values which underpin the global economy and thereby guarantee the permanency of political and economic reform.

Ensuring that those resources which are essential to life are no longer owned by corporations or controlled by nationalistic governments is a crucial step in creating a sustainable world economy which does not segregate or disenfranchise, but guarantees to secure the basic needs of all stakeholders. The global cooperative ownership of resources such as basic food, clean water, energy and medicine will involve the transformation of a variety of institutions and the creation of an international trust which can manage these resources on behalf of the global community.

Most importantly, sharing the world’s resources will necessarily internationalize and reinforce economic and political cooperation, thus encouraging peaceful relations between nations. This can pave the way for renewed international agreements on disarmament and non-proliferation, and help end regional, national and sectarian conflicts over resources such as land, water and minerals. With the basic human needs of all people secured, the reasons for disenfranchisement are directly addressed and the threat of terrorist activity greatly reduced.
 

mrj

Well-known member
MoGal, I was looking for something and found your direct q. to me.

Attempting to answer, I have to tell you I can't give OCM any credibility. They are a tool of the Livestock Marketing Assoc, IMO, and it is no surprise that they would spin packer ownership and so called captive supplies as a means by packers to cheat cattle producers with the end goal of all cattle going through livestock auctions multiple times in their short lives. The name of that game is "Keep Livestock Auctions Profitable".

BTW, MoGal, NCBA is not only "for" the American beef producers, it' is run by American beef producers, the membership!

My 1966 Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary by Readers' Digest defines "premise" as 2. A difinite portion of real estate; land with its appurtenances; also, a building or part of a building. Premise as used under NAIS, for all practical purposes is the home (building) of the owner of the cattle and the 'home' pasture of those cattle (real estate or land owned or used by the owner of the cattle). Just common sense if one isn't up on the latest conpsiracy theories.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "BTW, MoGal, NCBA is not only "for" the American beef producers, it' is run by American beef producers, the membership!'

HORSESHIT.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You can randomly pick just about any issue that affects the profitability and future of US producers and NCBA is standing in the way, joined at the hip with the AMI. Senator Grassley has it right; Packer Lackeys.
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
MoGal, I was looking for something and found your direct q. to me.

Attempting to answer, I have to tell you I can't give OCM any credibility. They are a tool of the Livestock Marketing Assoc, IMO, and it is no surprise that they would spin packer ownership and so called captive supplies as a means by packers to cheat cattle producers with the end goal of all cattle going through livestock auctions multiple times in their short lives. The name of that game is "Keep Livestock Auctions Profitable".

BTW, MoGal, NCBA is not only "for" the American beef producers, it' is run by American beef producers, the membership!

My 1966 Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary by Readers' Digest defines "premise" as 2. A difinite portion of real estate; land with its appurtenances; also, a building or part of a building. Premise as used under NAIS, for all practical purposes is the home (building) of the owner of the cattle and the 'home' pasture of those cattle (real estate or land owned or used by the owner of the cattle). Just common sense if one isn't up on the latest conpsiracy theories.

mrj

mrj, your attempting to tie the market reforms to auction barns is ridiculous on its face.

It shows just how informed your "conspiracy" mindset happens to be.

It doesn't surprise me that your family has received awards from the NCBA. They need people like you.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Senate Asked to Place Moratorium on Further Premise Registration Efforts, Defund NAIS

Billings, Mont. – In a letter to the Senate Agriculture Committee, R-CALF USA has requested a moratorium on any further premise registration efforts, and also has requested that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), or any other similar systems under any other name, be defunded at once.

“There are just so many questions and issues that must be addressed before reasonable consideration could be given as to whether funding of NAIS should continue at all,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee.

“Does USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) truly have the authority to mandate NAIS under the Animal Health Protection Act,” Thornsberry asked. “We want a thorough study on the legitimate authority and legal ramifications of the program, as well as a complete financial audit of NAIS thus far.”

R-CALF USA believes that USDA has used improper and questionable tactics to garner NAIS premise registration numbers. It is our opinion that the methodology used is less than ethical, and that the potential ramifications of a program of this scope and complexity must be assessed and completely understood by all Members of Congress to adequately represent their constituents.

USDA published, in the July 17, 2007, Federal Register, its final rule on Animal Identification Numbers (AINs), which repeatedly refers to rolling in all disease-control programs to reach “full implementation” of NAIS. Livestock producers are being rolled into NAIS with, or without, their knowledge or consent. This “full implementation” also is referenced in several NAIS documents and means “mandatory with enforcement.”

“To increase participation in premise registration, USDA has used Cooperative Agreements to contract with various state departments of agriculture, and other parties, such as FFA, 4-H, state fairs, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Angus Association,” said Thornsberry. “Many of these tactics, we believe, have been underhanded, deceptive and unethical.”

For example:

1) Roll-ins to NAIS through existing state disease-control programs, such as scrapies, calfhood vaccinations and brand registrations, which are mandatory in many Western states. Idaho achieved a 96 percent participation level by rolling into NAIS more than 13,000 registered brands. New York achieved a 58 percent level by rolling into NAIS those who vaccinate their calves. Interestingly, in Wisconsin, which requires mandatory premise registration, USDA reported a 114 percent participation level. How so?

2) Some fairs in some states, especially Colorado, require premise registration numbers, especially from FFA and 4-H kids, before these students are allowed to participate in the fairs. These minors do not own property, but, nonetheless, are required to have a Premise Identification Number (PIN) to participate.

3) Most states give away some sort of premium or financial incentive to encourage people to register their premises. Items vary from coffee cups, to vise grips, and even cash. Producers in Tennessee were required to register their premises if they wanted to participate in the hay-share relief program there.

4) In many states, cattle producers, in particular, were told they would have to participate in NAIS to continue to engage in commerce. In Missouri during the summer of 2005, NAIS Committee Member Dr. Taylor Woods visited livestock auctions across the state and told producers they would be required to electronically identify their cattle by January 2006, or they would be unable to sell cattle in their state. Approximately 8,000 premises were registered as a result.

5) USDA also has awarded grants to many non-profit breed and farm organizations, as mentioned earlier, as well as the U.S. Animal Identification Organization (USAIO) for the tracking database. Many pork producers have been required to register their property with PINs or lose their ability to market their hogs, all while USDA continues to state that NAIS “is voluntary with a capital V”.

There are approximately 100 million head of cattle in the U.S., and the NAIS-compliant RFID (radio frequency identification) tags for these animals would cost approximately $300 million. The approved device for horses is an implantable microchip with an average cost of $25 each. In 2006, the USAIO predicted a charge of 30-cents per entry into its database. There is an awful lot of money to be made on the backs of livestock producers that obviously will have an impact on Rural America.

“Historically, the United States has had the most efficient and effective disease control programs in the world,” Thornsberry asserted. “Our programs have worked because they were disease-specific and species-specific, and also had good science behind them without being overly burdensome on farmers and ranchers.

“The U.S. has existing emergency animal disease protocols in place in each and every state, and NAIS will not change the protocols for disease control and eradication,” he emphasized. “NAIS implementation is both redundant and a waste of taxpayer money. Was it truly the intent of the Congress and Senate to require citizens engaging in the commonplace activity of owning animals to be under such onerous regulations and penalties?”



RIGHT, this is the thing to do, continue to force feed consumers mad cow disease, then refuse to tell them where it comes from. what a hoot! you folks must want to go belly up. ......


TRY EXPLAINING THIS to all those consumers that potentially ate mad cow meat, but law prohibited them from knowing about it $$$


USDA VOLUNTARY MAD COW TAINTED FOOD RECALL ''DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'' POLICY


AS ONE LEGISLATOR THAT MOU SHOULD BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY

IT IS A FRONT TO THE PUBLIC

THAT YOU WOULD ON YOUR OWN ACCORD, IN THAT KIND OF SECRECY, AND CALL THAT
GOVERNMENT

THAT'S NOT WHAT WERE HERE FOR, WERE HERE FOR TRANSPARENCY, WERE NOT HERE TO
DO SECRET DEALS,

''WERE NOT THE CIA'' !!!

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET TO THE GOAL OF REACHING THE CONSUMER WITHOUT
DEALING WITH USDA THAT FINDS IT UNACCEPTABLE TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH THE
PUBLIC



http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/02snip.rpm



STANLEY PRUSINER NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER ON THE PRION SLAMS USDA ON BSE

US AG SEC AND LAYCRAFT

"nothing ELSE matters, except beef from canada under 30 months bones beef
product, that's ALL THAT MATTERS!"


STAN THE MAN

question for stan ;

is this a demonstrated threat to public health safety ?

stan states ;

yes i think they (prions) are bad to eat, and you can die from them.


http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/08snip.ram



THE LINKs YOU JUST WATCHED WAS OF THE FOLLOWING HEARING ON THE WASHINGTON
MAD COW and what little ramifications there after, and to this day, nothing
has changed much, except more secrecy. ...TSS



022404 Senate Info-Hearing Agriculture / Water Resources / Health and Human
Services / Government Oversight: Mad Cow Disease


Entire 5 hour hearing - The California Channel

(scroll down to "022404 Senate Info-Hearing")

http://www.calchannel.com/february2004.htm



http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Frame/FrameRedirect.asp?main=http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2006-0009.htm



Greetings,


I would kindly like to comment on the Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees During Meat or Poultry Product Recalls (71 FR 11326). I am in full support of this, and more, i.e. COOL. It all should have been mandatory long ago. you have consumers that are suspicious, and rightly so. just look what happened in California and Washington, with that mad cow and it's cohorts (AND THEN TO TEXAS AND ALABAMA COHORTS). i am talking total open honesty from farm to fork, mandatory traceability from the time that calf hits the ground to the time it hits the fork and all feed/drug records to go with it, recorded properly, and should be mandatory. WE have humans dying from human TSE, and we have ample animal TSE in the food production line to account for some of those human TSE. The USA has the most documented animal TSE in the world. WE must not flounder any longer. THE BSE MRR policy the Bush Administration, along with Mexico and Canada, with the grace from the OIE to go ahead, set back the eradication of BSE, set it back to the stone ages, pre-90. The BSE GBR risk assessments must be adhered to, and strengthened to include all animal TSE. WHEN the OIE chose to ignore the BSE GBR risk assessments, to go with the more industry friendly BSE MRR policy, they sold there soul to the devil as far as i am concerned, (never did much good anyway, all one has to do is look at all the documented BSE countries now that went by the OIE very weak BSE surveillance guidelines to begin with),


* GAO-05-51 October 2004 FOOD SAFETY (over 500 customers receiving
potentially BSE contaminated beef) - TSS 10/20/04


October 2004 FOOD SAFETY
USDA and FDA Need
to Better Ensure
Prompt and Complete
Recalls of Potentially
Unsafe Food

snip...

Page 38 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
To examine the voluntary recall of beef products associated with the
December 2003 discovery of an animal infected with BSE, we analyzed the
distribution lists USDA collected from companies and the verification
checks it conducted to develop a diagram illustrating the location and
volume of recalled beef that reached different levels of the distribution
chain. We compared the distribution lists and verification checks to
identify how many customers listed on the distribution lists did not
receive
the recalled beef and the number of customers not listed on distribution
lists that received the recalled beef. We interviewed USDA and FDA staff
involved with the recall to understand the timing of recall actions and the
challenges encountered during the recall.
To develop information on the 2002 recall of ground beef by a ConAgra
plant in Greeley, Colorado, we reviewed USDA s recall file and other
documents on the recall. We also met with the department s Office of
Inspector General and reviewed the Inspector General s September 2003
report.1
We conducted our review from May 2003 through August 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Great
Plains Region Audit
Report: Food Safety and Inspection Service: Oversight of Production
Process and Recall at
ConAgra Plant (Establishment 969), Report No. 24601-2-KC (September 2003).
Page 39 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE Appendix II
On December 23, 2003, USDA announced that a cow in the state of
Washington had tested positive for BSE commonly referred to as mad
cow disease. This appendix describes the actions USDA took to recall the
meat and the actions FDA took with respect to FDA-regulated products,
such as animal feed and cosmetics, made from rendered parts of the
animal.
Beef Recall Was
Triggered by a BSEPositive
Sample from
One Cow
On December 9, 2003, the recalling company slaughtered 23 cows. USDA,
in accordance with its BSE surveillance policy at the time, took a
sample of
1 cow that was unable to walk, although the condition of the tested cow is
now disputed. USDA did not process the sample in its Ames, Iowa National
Veterinary Services Laboratory in an expedited manner because the cow
did not show symptoms of neurological disorder. USDA test results
indicated a presumptive positive for BSE on December 23, 2003.
Recall Begun in
December 2003 Was
Completed in March
2004
On December 23, 2003, after learning about the positive BSE test, USDA
headquarters notified the Boulder District Office, which is the field
office
with jurisdiction over the recalling firm. The Boulder District began
gathering information about the recalling company s product distribution.
Field staff telephoned the recalling company and were on-site at 7:00 p.m.
The Boulder District initially thought 3 days of the recalling company s
production would have to be recalled, but further examination of facility
cleanup and shipping records revealed that it was only necessary to
recall 1
day of production. USDA recall staff convened at 9:15 p.m. and discussed
the science related to BSE and whether the recalling company s cleanup
practices were sufficient to limit the recall to 1 day of production.
Following USDA s determination to conduct a Class II recall that is, the
beef posed a remote possibility of adverse health consequences USDA
contacted the recalling company to discuss recall details and the press
release. The press release and Recall Notification Report were released
that evening.
On December 24, 2003, USDA s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
sent inspectors to the recalling company s primary customers to obtain
secondary customer distribution lists and product shipping records. USDA
conducted 100 percent verification checks for this recall it contacted
every customer that received the recalled meat. This level of verification
checks is well above the percentage of checks conducted by USDA district
offices for the Class I recalls we reviewed.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 40 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
On December 26, 2003, USDA began checking the primary and secondary
customers of the recalling company that it was aware of, although the
entire product distribution chain was unknown. During the checks, USDA
tried to determine if the product was further distributed, and it used
verification checks to acquire distribution lists for secondary and
tertiary
customers of the recalling company.
Verification checks continued until February 25, 2004. Three USDA
districts conducted these verification checks. The Boulder District
coordinated the checks and assigned checks to the Minneapolis District
Office for customers in Montana and to the Alameda District Office for
customers in California. USDA required that 100 percent of the primary
checks, 50 percent of the secondary checks, and 20 percent of the tertiary
checks be conducted on-site. According to USDA, more than 50 percent of
the secondary checks were actually conducted on-site. FDA officials
helped conduct verification checks. According to USDA, the recall took a
long time to complete because USDA contacted each customer at least
twice. USDA first contacted each customer to conduct the check and again
to verify product disposition.
On February 25, 2004, the Boulder District concluded that the recall was
conducted in an effective manner. On March 1, 2004, USDA s Recall
Management Division recommended that the agency terminate the recall,
and USDA sent a letter to the recalling company to document that USDA
considered the recall to be complete.
Recall Was
Complicated by
Inaccurate Distribution
Lists and Mixing of
Potentially
Contaminated and
Noncontaminated Beef
USDA used distribution lists and shipping records to piece together where
the recalled product was distributed. According to USDA, one of the
recalling company s three primary customers was slow in providing its
customer list. USDA could not begin verification activities for that
primary
customer without this list. Furthermore, some customers of the recalling
company provided USDA with imprecise lists that did not specify which
customers received the recalled product. As a consequence, USDA could
not quickly determine the scope of product distribution and had to take
time conducting extra research using shipping invoices to determine which
specific customers received the product.
Even when USDA determined the amount and location of beef, the agency
still had trouble tracking the beef in certain types of establishments,
such
as grocery store distributors. USDA could not easily track the individual
stores where those distributors sent the beef because of product mixing
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 41 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
and the distributors record-keeping practices. Generally, distributors
purchase beef from multiple sources, mix it in their inventory, and lose
track of the source of the beef they send to the stores that they
supply. To
deal with this problem, USDA first identified the dates when recalled beef
was shipped to the distributors and then asked for a list of the stores
that
were shipped any beef after those dates. Consequently, some stores were
included in the recall that may never have received recalled beef.
The recall was also complicated by repeated mixing of recalled beef with
nonrecalled beef, thereby increasing the amount of meat involved in the
recall. The recalling company slaughtered 23 cows on December 9, 2003,
and shipped those and 20 other carcasses to a primary customer on
December 10, 2003. The recalling company s carcasses were tagged to
identify the slaughter date and the individual cow. The primary customer
removed the identification tags and mixed the 23 recalled carcasses with
the 20 nonrecalled carcasses. Because the carcasses could not be
distinguished, the recall included all 43 carcasses at the primary
customer.
After one round of processing at the primary customer, the meat from the
carcasses was shipped to two other processing facilities. Both
establishments further mixed the recalled meat from the 43 carcasses with
meat from other sources. In all, the mixing of beef from 1 BSE-positive cow
resulted in over 500 customers receiving potentially contaminated beef.
Imprecise distribution lists and the mixing of recalled beef combined to
complicate USDA s identification of where the product went. Specifically,
on December 23, 2003, USDA s initial press release stated that the
recalling
company was located in Washington State. Three days later, on December
26, 2003, USDA announced that the recalled beef was distributed within
Washington and Oregon. On December 27, 2003, USDA determined that one
of the primary customers of the recalling firm distributed beef to
facilities
in California and Nevada, in addition to Washington and Oregon, for a total
of four states. On December 28, 2003, USDA announced that some of the
secondary customers of the recalling company may also have distributed
the product to Alaska, Montana, Hawaii, Idaho, and Guam, for a total of
eight states and one territory.
On January 6, 2004, over 2 weeks from recall initiation, USDA determined
that the beef went to only six states Washington, Oregon, California,
Nevada, Idaho, and Montana and that no beef went to Alaska, Hawaii, or
Guam. To reach that conclusion, USDA used the distribution lists, shipping
records, and sales invoices that it received from companies to piece
together exactly where the recalled beef may have been sent. The lists
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 42 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
showed that 713 customers may have received the recalled beef; 6 of those
may have received beef from more than one source. USDA determined that
176 customers on the lists did not actually receive recalled beef,
including
the customers in Guam and Hawaii. USDA s review also indicated that
recalled beef was probably not shipped to Alaska or Utah, and USDA
checked 2 retailers in Alaska and 3 retailers in Utah to confirm that
was the
case. In total, USDA conducted verification checks on 537 of the 713
customers on the lists. USDA s initial checks identified an additional 45
customers that may have received the recalled beef that were not included
on the distribution lists, for a total of 582 verification checks. Figure 4
summarizes USDA s verification efforts during the recall.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 43 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Figure 4: USDA s Recall Verification Checks by Location and Customer
Type for Meat Associated with the Animal Infected with
BSE
Note: USDA checked 15 primary, 40 secondary, and 526 tertiary customers
plus the recalling
company, for a total of 582 verification checks.
USDA s press release stated that the recall involved 10,410 pounds of beef
products, and the USDA recall coordinator for this recall told us that
downstream processors mixed the recalled beef with nonrecalled beef, for
a total of more than 38,000 pounds of beef that was distributed at the
secondary customer level. According to USDA officials involved with the

snip...see chart

( ) Acronyms in parentheses are postal abbreviations for each state.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA verification check documents.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 44 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs

recall, the precise amount of meat that was sold at the retail level is
unknown because retailers at the tertiary level further mixed nonrecalled
meat with potentially contaminated meat. USDA told us that more than
64,000 pounds of beef was ultimately returned or destroyed by customers,
and that, because of the mixing, it was not able to determine how much of
the original 10,410 pounds of recalled beef was contained in the 64,000
pounds that were recovered.
FDA s Role in USDA s
Recall
Parts of the BSE-infected animal slaughtered on December 9, 2003, were
not used for food, but they were sent to renderers to be separated into raw
materials, such as proteins and blood. Rendered materials are used for
many purposes, including cosmetics and vaccines. FDA has jurisdiction
over renderers.
When USDA learned of the BSE-infected cow on December 23, 2003, the
agency immediately notified FDA. On December 24, 2003, FDA sent an
inspection team to a renderer that handled materials from the BSE cow.
Inspectors confirmed that the parts of the slaughtered BSE positive cow
were on the premises. FDA later identified a second company that
potentially rendered material from the slaughtered BSE cow. Both
renderers agreed to voluntarily hold all product processed from the
diseased cow and dispose of the product as directed by FDA and local
authorities.
On January 7, 2004, 15 containers of potentially contaminated, rendered
material (meat and bone meal) were inadvertently loaded on a ship, and on
January 8, 2004, the ship left Seattle, Washington, for Asia. The renderer
initiated steps to recover the shipped material, so it could be disposed
of as
directed by FDA and local authorities. The ship carrying the material
returned to the United States on February 24, 2004, and the material was
disposed of in a landfill on March 2, 2004.
On January 12, 2004, FDA asked both renderers to expand their voluntary
holds to rendered materials processed from December 23, 2003, through
January 9, 2004, because they may have rendered some recalled meat or
trim that was recovered from retail establishments. Both renderers agreed
to the expanded product hold. In total, FDA requested that renderers
voluntarily hold approximately 2,000 tons of rendered material. FDA
confirmed that none of the potentially contaminated, rendered material
entered commerce, because FDA accounted for all rendered material. FDA
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 45 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
reported that no recall was necessary because no product was distributed
commercially by the rendering companies.
USDA and FDA
Worked Together on
the Recall
USDA and FDA worked together in two ways. First, both agencies notified
each other if their investigations yielded any information about products
within the jurisdiction of the other agency. For instance, when conducting
the second round of verification checks, USDA tracked the disposition of
the product to renderers and landfills and notified FDA when the product
went to renderers. Second, FDA officials helped conduct verification
checks. FDA conducted 32 of the 582 verification checks (approximately 5
percent) for the USDA recall. Officials from both agencies indicated they
regularly interacted and shared information. Table 3 outlines the agencies
actions.
Table 3: Detailed Timeline of USDA, FDA, and Company Actions Related to
the Discovery of an Animal Infected with BSE
Date USDA recall actions FDA actions Company actions
12/9/03 " USDA samples cow for BSE. " BSE cow is slaughtered.
12/11/03 " Sample is sent to Ames, Iowa, for BSE
testing.
" Recalling company sends
carcasses to primary customer for
processing.
12/12/03 " Primary customer sends meat
products to two other primary
customers for further processing.
12/12 -
12/23/03
" Other primary customers distribute
recalled product to secondary
customers.
" Secondary customers distribute
recalled product to tertiary
customers.
12/23/03 " BSE test results are presumptively
positive.
" Recall meeting.
" Initiation of voluntary recall.
" Press release.
" FDA notified of BSE test results.
" FDA dispatches investigation teams.
12/24/03 " FDA inspects Renderer 1.
" FDA determines some rendered
material from Renderer 1 is intended
for Indonesia.
" FDA discovers some material may
have been sent to Renderer 2.
" Renderer 1 agrees to hold remaining
rendered material.
" Recalling company contacts
primary customers.
" Primary customers contact their
customers.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 46 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
12/25/03 " USDA receives confirmation from
reference lab in England that cow in
question is BSE positive.
12/26/03 " Verification checks begin
" USDA announces recalled product in
Washington State and Oregon.
" FDA begins process of comparing
records to ensure all products from
Renderers 1 and 2 are accounted for.
" Renderer 2 agrees to hold all material
that may have been derived from
BSE cow. None of the rendered
material has been distributed.
12/27/03 " USDA announces recalled product was
distributed in Washington State,
Oregon, California, and Nevada.
" FDA issues statement confirming that
the rendering plants that processed
all of the nonedible material from the
BSE cow have placed a voluntary
hold on all of the potentially infectious
product, none of which had left the
control of the companies and entered
commercial distribution.
12/28/03 " USDA announces recalled product was
distributed in Washington State,
Oregon, California, Nevada, Montana,
Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam.
12/29/03 " Food Safety and Inspection Service
determines that the recalled meat
products were distributed to 42
locations, with 80 percent of the
products distributed to stores in
Oregon and Washington State.
12/31/03 " FDA offers assistance to USDA to
complete recall verification checks.
1/6/04 " USDA determines recalled product
was only distributed in Washington
State, Oregon, California, Nevada,
Montana, and Idaho.
1/8/04 " FDA is notified by the renderer that
some of the rendered material on
hold from Renderer 1 was
inadvertently shipped to Asia.
Renderer 1 commits to isolate and
return the rendered material.
" Rendering company notifies FDA of
shipment of product on hold.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date USDA recall actions FDA actions Company actions
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 47 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Source: GAO analysis of USDA and FDA information.
1/12/04 " FDA advises Renderers 1 and 2 that
they may have rendered meat or trim
subject to recall from retail stores.
" FDA requests Renderers 1 and 2 to
place all rendered material from
December 23 to January 9 on hold.
" FDA determines neither renderer had
shipped rendered material
manufactured after December 23,
2003.
2/9/04 " All rendered material was disposed of
in landfill, except material shipped to
Asia.
2/24/04 " Ship carrying rendered material
returns to U.S. port.
2/25/04 " Verification checks complete.
" USDA Boulder District Office
concludes recall is effective.
3/1/04 " Recall is closed.
3/2/04 " FDA observes disposal in landfill of
remaining rendered material...

snip...

REPORTS

1. Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and Complete
Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food. GAO-05-51, October 7.tss
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-51
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0551high.pdf


Appendix C. Agents that require specific government approval for scientific investigations within the USA.a


Select agents, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services onlyb
High consequence pathogens and agents, U.S. Department of Agriculture onlyc
HIgh consequence livestock pathogens and toxins, overlap agents and toxinsd


(NO HUMAN TSE LISTED ???...tss) BSE agent


http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/disease_emergence/AppendixC.pdf


QFC sued over mad cow case

Grocer negligently exposed them to beef, family claims

Friday, March 5, 2004

By LEWIS KAMB
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

An Eastside family who says they ate beef linked to the nation's only
known case of mad cow disease yesterday filed a class-action lawsuit
against QFC, claiming the grocery store chain negligently exposed them
and others to "highly hazardous" meat and did not properly notify them
that they had bought it.

Attorneys for Jill Crowson, a 52-year-old interior designer from Clyde
Hill, filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court on behalf of her
family and possibly hundreds of other customers who unwittingly bought
and consumed beef potentially exposed to mad cow disease.

"I was pretty upset about it," Crowson said. "I've spent all of my kids'
lives trying to be a responsible parent for them to keep them safe. I
felt badly that the food I served could be harmful to their health."

The lawsuit is believed to be the first stemming from this country's
only confirmed case of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, which was detected in a slaughtered Holstein from a
Yakima Valley ranch on Dec. 23.

Neither officials at Quality Food Centers' Bellevue headquarters, or
Kroger -- the company's Ohio-based corporate parent -- could be reached
for comment about the lawsuit yesterday.

The suit contends the family bought and later ate ground beef from their
local QFC that was part of a batch processed at Vern's Moses Lake Meats
on Dec. 9 and included meat from the diseased Holstein.

The beef was later shipped to wholesalers and retailers in Washington,
Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.

On Dec. 23 -- after government scientists confirmed the Holstein was
infected with BSE -- businesses began pulling potentially affected beef
from store shelves under a voluntary recall.

But the family's suit claims that, although QFC was aware of the recall
on Dec. 23, the store did not begin pulling the recalled beef from about
40 of its stores that carried it until Dec. 24.

The company also did not try to warn customers about the recalled beef
until Dec. 27 -- and only then with small, inconspicuous signs inside
the stores, the suit claims.

Steve Berman, the family's attorney, said the company had "a duty to
warn" consumers who bought the beef under terms of the Washington
Product Liability Act.

QFC could've easily notified customers by taking out TV, radio or
newspaper ads, or by tracking and notifying those who bought the beef
through customers' QFC Advantage Cards, Berman said.

At Berman's downtown Seattle firm yesterday, Crowson described how on
Dec. 22 and Dec. 23 -- the day of the recall -- she bought single
packages of "9 percent leanest ground beef" from her local QFC store at
Bellevue Village.

Crowson took the beef home, cooked it and made tacos one night and
spaghetti the next -- serving the dinners to herself; her daughter,
Laura, 22; son, Nicholas, 19; and her niece, Claire De Winter, 23.
Members of the family also ate leftovers from those meals for the next
several days, Crowson said.

"When the news about mad cow came out, I instantly became concerned,"
Crowson said. "But the initial stories didn't mention anything about
QFC, so I thought we were OK."

While shopping at the grocery store a few days later, Crowson said she
asked a store butcher whether QFC stores had sold any of the recalled
beef. The butcher assured her they had not, she said.

The family only learned QFC had sold any of the beef in question after
reading a news story Jan. 10 about a Mercer Island man who discovered
his family had eaten affected beef that he bought at a local QFC store,
Crowson said.

Crowson later called QFC and faxed the company a signed letter asking
that it track purchases made on her QFC Advantage Card -- a store
discount card issued to customers. On Jan. 12, the company notified
Crowson that the beef she bought and served to her family was, in fact,
part of the recalled batch, she said.

Scientists believe people who eat beef from infected cows can contract a
fatal form of the disease.

The family is "now burdened with the possibility that they presently
carry (the disease) that may have an incubation period of up to 30
years," the lawsuit says.

Lawyers for the family say they believe hundreds, if not thousands, of
QFC customers, and those of other stores, likely ate beef from the
recalled batch -- the reason why Berman filed their legal claim as a
class-action lawsuit. A USDA official this week said that up to 17,000
pounds of meat affected by the recall likely was eaten or thrown out by
customers.

Berman added that an investigator from his firm learned that QFC buys
beef for its "9 percent leanest ground beef" products in large tubs that
can weigh several hundred pounds, and then regrinds and packages the
meat for sale.

Because QFC stores regrind the beef before selling it, Berman contends
that makes the store a manufacturer responsible under the Washington
Product Liability Act for not selling any unsafe product.

Scientists believe people who eat beef from cows infected with BSE can
contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob, a fatal brain-wasting disease that
has been detected in about 150 people worldwide.

However, officials with the U.S. Agriculture Department have repeatedly
said the risk from eating muscle cuts from an infected cow -- the likely
cut of meat processed and sold for hamburger in the recalled batch -- is
extremely low.

Although Crowson said she tries not to "obsess over it," she is fearful
that her family could one day become sick.

"It's pretty scary," she said.

Because no medical test is available to determine whether a living
person is infected with the disease, the couple's "stress and fear
cannot be allayed," the lawsuit said.

The family seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress and medical
monitoring costs.

Crowson said her reason for bringing the lawsuit isn't about money. "The
more I've thought about this, the angrier I've gotten," she said.


snip...

http://home.hetnet.nl/~mad.cow/archief/2004/mar04/sued.htm

QFC s Delayed Mad Cow Response Draws Lawsuit
Family claims QFC should have used customer database to warn those at
risk sooner

March 05, 2004

SEATTLE A Bellevue, Wash. family today filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Quality Food Centers (QFC), a subsidiary of Kroger
(NYSE: KR), claiming the grocery store chain should have used
information gathered through its customer loyalty program to warn those
who purchased beef potentially tainted with mad cow disease.

The suit, filed in King County Superior Court, seeks to represent all
Washington residents who purchased the potentially tainted meat, and
asks the court to establish a medical monitoring fund.

Jill Crowson purchased the potentially tainted beef from a Bellevue QFC
on Dec. 22 and 23, and used her Advantage Card, QFC s customer loyalty
program. She served the meat to her husband over Dec. 25 and 26, and
later heard of the recall in the newspaper.

Steve Berman, the attorney representing the Crowsons, asserts that since
the company tracks purchases, it should have warned the Crowsons and
many other customers who purchased the beef at approximately 40 stores
across Washington.

If you lose your keys with an Advantage Card attached, QFC will return
them to you free of charge, said Berman. If they can contact you over
a lost set of car keys, why couldn t they contact you and tell you that
the beef you purchased could kill you?

QFC is among the large number of grocers that track customer purchases
through loyalty cards like the Advantage Card. Once a customer shares
contact information including name, address and phone number they
are given discounts on certain items.

Regardless of any discounts offered, the loyalty card tracks customers
every purchase and stores them in a central database, the complaint states.

We contend that QFC knew which Advantage Card customers purchased the
suspect meat, and could have easily called to warn them, said Berman.
Instead, QFC used a series of spurious excuses to hide their failure to
act.

On Dec. 23, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered the recall of
approximately 10,410 pounds of raw beef that may have been infected with
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which if consumed by humans can
lead to the always-fatal Cruetzfeldt-Jakobs Disease (vCJD).

According to the complaint, QFC at first mistakenly believed it did not
have any of the affected beef and took no action to remove the product
from its shelves. The store later removed the beef on Dec. 24, but then
did little to warn those who earlier purchased the meat, the suit claims.

It wasn t until Dec. 27 that the grocery chain posted small signs with
information about the recall, the complaint alleges.

The Crowsons contacted QFC when they suspected they had purchased the
potentially tainted meat, but QFC would not confirm their suspicions for
two more weeks, the suit states. According to Berman, the family had to
file a written request before QFC would confirm their fears.

According to health experts, Cruetzfeldt-Jakobs Disease can have an
incubation period of as long as 30 years. There is no test to determine
if infection took place after possible exposure, nor is there any
treatment once one is infected. The condition is always fatal.

If the court grants the suit class-action status, QFC would likely be
compelled to turn over the names of those who purchased the potentially
tainted beef.

The proposed class-action claims QFC violated provisions of the
Washington Product Liability Act by failing to give adequate warning to
consumers about the potentially dangerous meat.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for the plaintiffs, as well as the
establishment of a medical monitoring fund.

http://www.hagens-berman.com/frontend?command=PressRelease&task=viewPressReleaseDetail&iPressReleaseId=654

QFC's Delayed Mad Cow Response Draws Lawsuit

... subsidiary of Kroger , claiming the grocery store chain should ...
beef potentially tainted with "mad cow disease ... beef at approximately
40 stores across Washington. ...
www.forrelease.com/D20040305/ sff005.P2.03042004214558.03634.html - 9k -

040307 Woman Sues QFC Over Mad-Cow Recall
... Jakob disease, the
human form of mad-cow, from eating ... QFC is subject to the Washington
Product Liability ... been found in a slaughtered Yakima County dairy
cow. ...
www.spcnetwork.com/mii/2004/040307.htm - 6k

Subject: GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER PREFERS CALIFORNIANS TO EAT MAD COW
BEEF IN SECRECY, VETOED BILL SB 1585
Date: October 1, 2004 at 2:22 pm PST

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER PREFERS CALIFORNIANS TO EAT MAD COW BEEF IN
SECRECY, VETOED BILL SB 1585

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Meat Recall Disclosure Bill

Legislation Would Have Identified Stores that Received Contaminated Meat
and Poultry

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) vetoed a bill yesterday that would
have let Californians know whether they ve purchased contaminated meat
or poultry. The bill, SB 1585, would have ended a secrecy agreement
between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and California that
prevents the state from disclosing the names and locations of stores
that receive shipments of recalled meat.

Consumers have a right to know if they purchased recalled meat or
poultry, said Ken Kelly, Staff Attorney at the Center for Science in
the Public Interest (CSPI). Why force families to roll the dice when
they put food on the table? Governor Schwarzenegger prefers a
get-sick-first, ask-questions-later policy.

Earlier this year, California was one of several states that received
meat from the Washington State cow that tested positive for mad cow
disease. But because California is one of 12 states that have signed a
secrecy agreement with USDA, state health officials were prohibited from
identifying stores or restaurants that may have received beef from the
infected cow. Even recalled meat tainted with deadly E. coli 0157:H7
bacteria would be subject to the secrecy agreement, leaving consumers
uncertain as to whether the ground beef in their refrigerator were safe
to eat.

In his veto message, Governor Schwarzenegger indicated he would instruct
the state s health department to renegotiate an agreement that would
allow USDA to share recall information with local public health
officials. But according to CSPI, even if USDA agreed to share recall
information with local officials, the local officials would be similarly
prohibited from disclosing names of retail outlets with consumers. In
August, CSPI urged USDA not to force states to sign any such secrecy
agreements.
Federal and state government should be more concerned with protecting
consumers from unnecessary hospitalizations and deaths associated with
food-borne illness, and less concerned with protecting grocers and meat
producers from bad publicity, Kelly said.

http://cspinet.org/new/200410011.html


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

JILL CROWSON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS

VS

QUALITY FOOD CENTERS, INC., an Ohio corporation Defendent

NO. 04-2-05608-0 SEA

snip...

The Court hereby GRANTS the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims based on a manufacturer's strict liability (Counts I and II) and
DENIES the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of negligence
by a product seller (Count III).

DATED this 14th day of June, 2004

snip...


http://www.hagens-berman.com/files/Mad%20Cow%20Order%20Denying%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss1088546283878.pdf



TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
NOW, lets talk cows, i.e. mad cows and there birth, feed, prodigy, cohorts
and the tracking of them. e.g. progeny and feed cohorts.


CANADA MAD COW BIRTH COHORTS TO USA...............slaughered and on
someone's in the USA dinner table near you ;


USDA Remiss in Identification of Canadian Cattle Imports

BILLINGS, MONT. (April 16, 2007) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
has confirmed that a birth-herd cohort of the BSE-positive Canadian bull
identified on Feb. 7, 2007, was indeed exported to the United States in
2002. The heifer was sent to a feedlot in Nebraska and slaughtered a few
months later at a Nebraska facility, according to USDA.

“After Canada discovered bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) on May 20,
2003, R-CALF USA began to call for USDA to identify all of the Canadian
cattle that had been imported into the United States,” said R-CALF USA CEO
Bill Bullard. “Then, we went so far as to complete a study in July 2004,
which indicated if USDA had indeed taken that approach, it would have
created an expected annual benefit to the U.S. cattle industry of $80
million. If one of these Canadian animals is found in the future to have
BSE, then this approach will benefit the industry by more than $500 million
annually.

“The study demonstrated to USDA that the agency needed to identify all of
the previously imported Canadian cattle, and the agency refused,” Bullard
continued. “If USDA had taken our advice, we wouldn’t find ourselves in the
kind of situation that has just developed. USDA should have immediately
identified all of the Canadian cattle already here. We are again calling on
the agency to do just that so those animals can be differentiated from the
U.S. cattle herd in the event one is discovered to have BSE. The task would
not be difficult or expensive.

“The estimated cost to identify Canadian cattle here is less than $35 per
head, and this relatively modest cost is more than offset by the benefits,”
Bullard pointed out. “Failing to track these animals will cost the U.S.
cattle industry about $90 million per year, while it would only cost about
$10 million to go ahead and track them now. Tracking them might even help
open some of our lost export markets.

North Dakota recently conducted a traceback of the Canadian herd cohorts, as
defined by USDA, of the first Canadian cow discovered with BSE in May 2003,”
he explained. “Every head of cattle that enters the U.S. has a specifically
numbered international health certificate. By reviewing those certificates
maintained in the office of the North Dakota State Veterinarian, North
Dakota was able to determine the premises that received these imported
cattle within a matter of weeks.

“Additionally, the numbers on these international health certificates may be
readily associated with subsequent U.S. brucellosis ear tags affixed by U.S.
veterinarians upon interstate shipment of these imported animals,” Bullard
continued. “And last but not least, an industry survey coordinated effort by
APHIS (USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), state veterinary
offices and U.S. cattle producers could be used to identify a large
percentage of these Canadian imports.

R-CALF USA believes the U.S. beef supply is safe, but we also realize the
United States is exposing itself to an unnecessary risk by not identifying
these animals imported from a BSE-affected country like Canada.

“USDA, basically, has ignored its responsibilities, because prior to Canada’
s detection of BSE in 2003, USDA’s policy was to identify all of the
previously imported animals from countries affected by BSE,” Bullard
explained. “In fact, in 1993, when Canada discovered BSE in an animal
imported from the United Kingdom, USDA immediately began to identify all
UK-origin cattle that had been imported into the United States. The USDA
also did the same for all Japanese cattle imported prior to the detection of
BSE in Japan.

“It’s also unfortunate that USDA maintains the stance that it is rare to
find another BSE-infected animal in the same herd as a BSE-positive animal,”
Bullard noted. “That’s just not always the case.”

It is important to realize that approximately 35 percent of the UK cattle
herds had one case of BSE, while another 16 percent of the herds had two
cases, and that the remainder of the UK cattle herds had three or more cases
of BSE. One herd had 124 cases of BSE in its midst (see
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/statistics/bse/con-cases.htm).

In low-dose scenarios in North America, and in UK cattle born after the
complete feed ban was implemented, one still cannot rule out multiple BSE
cases in a single herd. The likelihood is definitely lower, but cannot be
eliminated. This is demonstrated by the multiple cohort cases born after the
complete feed ban in the U.K. The incubation periods will be longer and the
ranges wider, which means that culling and testing immediately after the
death of the index case is less likely to find positives – partly because
the animals need to be closer to clinical onset before they are detectable
by testing, but also because there is still a likelihood that other infected
animals will have been slaughtered long before the index case is found,
especially if it was relatively old when found.

The mature Canadian bull was 79 months old when it was discovered to have
BSE, according to documents from the Canadian government.

The target cattle population for BSE testing in the current USDA program –
which has been whittled down by about 90 percent – is adult cattle over 30
months (OTM) of age that either show clinical signs consistent with BSE, or
those that are dead or non-ambulatory.

R-CALF USA believes USDA is missing perhaps the most important indicator of
risk for BSE, and that is the country of origin of the animal because the
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) classifies a country’s disease
status based on the risk of whether a particular nation has BSE in its
native cattle herd.

“The place of birth of the animal is scientifically recognized as the key
factor for determining where the disease originated and whether the disease
poses a risk to other animals, and the OIE’s health code only recommends a
change in disease status for countries with BSE in their native herds,”
Bullard pointed out. “Specifically, OIE suggests that countries consider
testing cattle that are identifiable as imported from countries affected by
BSE.

R-CALF USA membership policy states: “R-CALF USA requests USDA to
immediately enlist the support of State Veterinary Officials, Tribal
Officials, and brand inspectors, where applicable, to begin identifying all
imported cattle that have entered the United States during the past 10 years
and to permanently mark all such imported cattle with a recognizable and
visible mark of origin. R-CALF USA shall work with Congress or the U.S.
Department of Treasury through rule process or legislation to immediately
remove livestock from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s J-List, thereby
requiring all imported cattle to be marked with a mark of origin as a
condition of entry into the United States.

Note: To view the study cited above, titled “Optimal Tracking and Testing of
U.S. and Canadian Cattle Herds for BSE: A Value-of-Information Approach,”
please visit the “BSE-Litigation” link at www.r-calfusa. Items are listed in
chronological order.

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of
America) is a national, non-profit organization and is dedicated to ensuring
the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry.
R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on both domestic
and international trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47
states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or
feedlot owners. R-CALF USA has more than 60 affiliate organizations and
various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information,
visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.


http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/041607-usda.htm

http://www.r-calfusa.com/Animal%20ID/081704%20House%20Ag%20Committee%20Kenny%20Fox.pdf


R-CALF almost subpoenaed me, but when i told them i was coming south of the
Candian border if put on the witness stand, i then turned into a threat.
...tss


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1418
Location: GWN
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:

Texan wrote:


Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something
if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder wrote:

This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they
actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify,
but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come
south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did
supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.


I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if
R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they
found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the
truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the
selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After
reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.


I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.


_________________
Canadian Beef....A cut above the rest!



my answer to big muddy from canada ;



***
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12




http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=36



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48




Re: Birth cohort CANADIAN BSE-positive animal was exported ...

Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:30
68.238.98.6


Subject: Re: Birth cohort of CANADIAN BSE-positive animal was exported to
the United States
Date: April 10, 2007 at 10:33 am PST

"It most likely" entered the food supply "given that it was slaughtered,"
said Karen Eggert, a spokeswoman with USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.


"But it wouldn't have gone to slaughter if it was showing any clinical signs
for BSE. We're not looking at this as a possibility that a BSE infected cow
got into the United States," she said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1040765520070410


Attachment 1: Estimation of BSE Prevalence in Canada

snip...

Table 5 summarizes the results of the estimation of BSE prevalence in the
standing Canadian adult cattle population as of August 15, 2006. Based on
the expected prevalence value under the BBC model and the estimated adult
herd size (Table 1), the expected number of BSE-infected animals in the
standing Canadian adult cattle population is 4.1. By comparison, the
expected value obtained under BSurvE Prevalence B is 3.9 per million, which
corresponds to an estimated 23.2 BSE-infected animals in the standing
Canadian adult cattle population.

snip...


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSE_Prevalence.pdf



full text ;


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&P=15653



TEXAS MAD COW


THEY DID FINALLY TEST AFTER SITTING 7+ MONTHS ON A SHELF WHILE GW BORE THE
BSE MRR POLICY, i.e. legal trading of all strains of TSE. now understand, i
confirmed this case 7 months earlier to the TAHC, and then, only after i
contacted the Honorable Phyllis Fong and after an act of Congress, this
animal was finally confirmed ;



During the course of the investigation, USDA removed and tested a total of
67 animals of interest from the farm where the index animal's herd
originated. All of these animals tested negative for BSE. 200 adult animals
of interest were determined to have left the index farm. Of these 200, APHIS
officials determined that 143 had gone to slaughter, two were found alive
(one was determined not to be of interest because of its age and the other
tested negative), 34 are presumed dead, one is known dead and 20 have been
classified as untraceable. In addition to the adult animals, APHIS was
looking for two calves born to the index animal. Due to record keeping and
identification issues, APHIS had to trace 213 calves. Of these 213 calves,
208 entered feeding and slaughter channels, four are presumed to have
entered feeding and slaughter channels and one calf was untraceable.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/08/0336.xml



Executive Summary
In June 2005, an inconclusive bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) sample
from
November 2004, that had originally been classified as negative on the
immunohistochemistry test, was confirmed positive on SAF immunoblot (Western
blot).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified the herd of origin for
the index cow
in Texas; that identification was confirmed by DNA analysis. USDA, in close
cooperation
with the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), established an incident
command post
(ICP) and began response activities according to USDA’s BSE Response Plan of
September 2004. Response personnel removed at-risk cattle and cattle of
interest (COI)
from the index herd, euthanized them, and tested them for BSE; all were
negative. USDA
and the State extensively traced all at-risk cattle and COI that left the
index herd. The
majority of these animals entered rendering and/or slaughter channels well
before the
investigation began. USDA’s response to the Texas finding was thorough and
effective.

snip...


Trace Herd 3
The owner of Trace Herd 3 was identified as possibly having received an
animal of
interest. The herd was placed under hold order on 7/27/05. The herd
inventory was
conducted on 7/28/05. The animal of interest was not present within the
herd, and the hold
order was released on 7/28/05. The person who thought he sold the animal to
the owner of
Trace Herd 3 had no records and could not remember who else he might have
sold the cow
to. Additionally, a search of GDB for all cattle sold through the markets by
that individual
did not result in a match to the animal of interest. The animal of interest
traced to this herd
was classified as untraceable because all leads were exhausted.


Trace Herd 4
The owner of Trace Herd 4 was identified as having received one of the COI
through an
order buyer. Trace Herd 4 was placed under hold order on 7/29/05. A complete
herd
inventory was conducted on 8/22/05 and 8/23/05. There were 233 head of
cattle that were
examined individually by both State and Federal personnel for all man-made
identification
and brands. The animal of interest was not present within the herd. Several
animals were
reported to have died in the herd sometime after they arrived on the
premises in April 2005.
A final search of GDB records yielded no further results on the eartag of
interest at either
subsequent market sale or slaughter. With all leads having been exhausted,
this animal of
interest has been classified as untraceable. The hold order on Trace Herd 4
was released on
8/23/05.


Trace Herd 5
The owner of Trace Herd 5 was identified as having received two COI and was
placed
under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 5 is made up of 67 head of cattle in
multiple
pastures. During the course of the herd inventory, the owner located records
that indicated
that one of the COI, a known birth cohort, had been sold to Trace Herd 8
where she was
subsequently found alive. Upon completion of the herd inventory, the other
animal of
interest was not found within the herd. A GDB search of all recorded herd
tests conducted
on Trace Herd 5 and all market sales by the owner failed to locate the
identification tag of
the animal of interest and she was subsequently classified as untraceable
due to all leads
having been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd 5 was released on
8/8/05.

Trace Herd 6
The owner of Trace Herd 6 was identified as possibly having received an
animal of interest
and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. This herd is made up of 58 head
of cattle on
two pastures. A herd inventory was conducted and the animal of interest was
not present
within the herd. The owner of Trace Herd 6 had very limited records and was
unable to
provide further information on where the cow might have gone after he
purchased her from
the livestock market. A search of GDB for all cattle sold through the
markets by that
individual did not result in a match to the animal of interest.
Additionally, many of the
animals presented for sale by the owner of the herd had been re-tagged at
the market
effectually losing the traceability of the history of that animal prior to
re-tagging. The
animal of interest traced to this herd was classified as untraceable due to
all leads having
been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd 6 was released on 8/3/05.


Trace Herd 7
The owner of Trace Herd 7 was identified as having received an animal of
interest and was
placed under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 7 contains 487 head of cattle
on multiple
pastures in multiple parts of the State, including a unit kept on an island.
The island
location is a particularly rough place to keep cattle and the owner claimed
to have lost 22
head on the island in 2004 due to liver flukes. Upon completion of the herd
inventory, the
animal of interest was not found present within Trace Herd 7. A GDB search
of all
recorded herd tests conducted on Trace Herd 7 and all market sales by the
owner failed to
locate the identification tag of the animal of interest. The cow was
subsequently classified
as untraceable. It is quite possible though that she may have died within
the herd,
especially if she belonged to the island unit. The hold order on Trace Herd
7 was released
on 8/8/05.


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf


TERRY CONFIRMS TEXAS MAD COW 7 MONTHS EARLIER


-------- Original Message --------
Director,
Public Information Carla Everett [email protected]

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


Greetings Carla,still hear a rumor;

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

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

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


-------- Original Message --------

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


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

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


-------- Original Message --------

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


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

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


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

with kindest regards,

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

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
===============
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&P=16195


THE OTHER TEXAS MAD COW THEY DID SUCCEED IN COVERING UP ;


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


ALABAMA MAD COW

Summary:
Despite a thorough investigation of two farms that were known to contain the
index cow,
and 35 other farms that might have supplied the index cow to the farms where
the index
case was known to have resided, the investigators were unable to locate the
herd of
origin. The index case did not have unique or permanent identification,
plus, the size and
color of the cow being traced is very common in the Southern United States.
Due to the
unremarkable appearance of solid red cows, it is not easy for owners to
remember
individual animals. In the Southern United States, it is common business
practice to buy
breeding age cows and keep them for several years while they produce calves.
Most
calves produced are sold the year they are born, whereas breeding cows are
sold when
there is a lapse in breeding, which can occur multiple times in cows’ lives.
For all of
these reasons, USDA was unable to locate the herd of origin.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/content/printable_version/EPI_Final.pdf


WASHINGTON MAD COW


Fifty-seven (57) animals were born into the birth herd from April 1996 to
April 1998. Twenty-seven (27) of these animals were traced and confirmed
dead, 25 animals (including the index case) were exported to the US, two
animals were untraceable, ..........


The 48 animals were determined to be among 86 head sold to numerous buyers.
Eighty (80) of these were traced and confirmed slaughtered, 2 were
untraceable .......

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/americ/amerinveste.shtml


WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU BUY MAD COW TAINTED PRODUCTS, is there a need to know


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, March 31, 2004

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Elisa Odabashian – 415-431-6747




BILL WOULD PREVENT CALIFORNIA FROM KEEPING INFORMATION ABOUT HAZARDOUS FOOD
RECALLS SECRET

Legislation Targets State’s Secrecy Agreement With USDA That Kept Consumers
In the Dark About Mad Cow Disease Infected Beef

(SACRAMENTO, CA) – Earlier this year, news accounts indicated that
California was one of seven states that received a shipment of beef products
subject to a USDA recall because it included meat and bones from a cow that
tested positive for mad cow disease. But California consumers had no way of
knowing whether their local grocery store or restaurant received any of
these tainted products because the state had agreed to keep that information
secret. To prevent this from happening in the future, two state lawmakers
have introduced legislation that would ensure consumers are notified of any
retail outlets in their community that have received recalled beef or
poultry.

“Consumers have a right to know whether the food they are buying could be
hazardous to their health,” said Elisa Odabashian, Senior Policy Analyst
with Consumers Union’s West Coast Regional Office. “The state’s secrecy
agreement with the USDA protects the beef and poultry industry while putting
California consumers at risk.”

In 2002, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the USDA agreeing to keep secret the names
of the retail outlets selling food subject to beef and poultry recalls. The
USDA shares information about retailers that have received tainted beef and
poultry only with states that sign such agreements. The agency maintains
that secrecy is necessary in order to protect the proprietary interests of
the beef and poultry industries. But this policy leaves consumers in the
dark about which retail outlets may be selling these hazardous products.
The Memorandum of Understanding requiring secrecy covers all recalls of
unsafe beef and poultry – not just the recent recall of beef that tested
positive for mad cow disease. Recalls of beef and poultry products tainted
with other hazards, such as E.coli, Listeria, and Salmonella, also would be
covered by the secrecy agreement.

SB 1585, introduced by Senators Jackie Speier and Mike Machado, would
require all beef and poultry product suppliers, distributors and processors
who sell meat in California subject to a USDA recall to immediately identify
to the state the names and locations of retailers that received these
contaminated products. The bill requires the California Department of Health
Services to provide this information within 24 hours to local health
officials so that they can alert the public. The bill also requires the
agency to submit copies of all Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to
food and food-related products to the Legislature for review by January 1,
2005.

“The USDA should not be coercing states to abide by secrecy agreements about
tainted beef and poultry and California officials should not be withholding
information about these hazards from consumers,” said Odabashian. “This bill
will ensure that the state receives the information it needs to respond to
such food recalls and that consumers are properly alerted so they can take
steps to protect their health.”

Last week, Senators Machado and Speier introduced another bill that would
make California the first state in the nation to require all cattle
slaughtered or sold to be certified as testing negative for mad cow disease.
SB 1425 requires licensed slaughterers in California to test all cattle
carcasses for the deadly brain wasting disease. Under the bill, these
carcasses must be embargoed for sale until the slaughterhouse receives test
results certifying that the cow was negative for Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE). The slaughterhouse would be required to report every
positive test result to the State Veterinarian and the USDA. In addition,
the bill requires all importers of beef into the state for re-sale to be
able to certify that the beef is BSE-negative.

Consumers Union has urged the federal government to vastly expand its
testing program, fully ban the feeding of any animal remains to cows, and
immediately disclose to states and the public, all retail outlets and
restaurants from which meat was recalled because it came from an infected
cow.


http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/000954.html


NOW, only if you were a dog or cat would you get this much attention, and
only if you get sick and or drop dead immediately, where they can trace the
route and source, like this dog food, cat food recall, that has now turned
to human food i.e. pigs and chickens, all the big news now, screw the fact
you have been exposed to the mad cow agent as well, for years. but it takes
so long to go clinical, they cannot trace the route an source, so they
ignore it and say the exact same thing they are saying about this recent
melamine poisoning, everything is o.k., there are no risk to human health.
what did borat say ......pause..............NOT !!!
this is what happens when you let big industry make the laws and regulate
our food, just food for thought.................tss



a quick note there steve, COOL, it was the right thing, but big industry and
again GW, failed us, they know what they will find and they do NOT want to
be able to track or trace ;


C.O.O.L.

On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, more commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill. One of
its many initiatives requires country of origin labeling for beef, lamb,
pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts. On January 27,
2004, President Bush signed Public Law 108-199 which delays the
implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and
farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006. On November 10,
2005, President Bush signed Public Law 109-97, which delays the
implementation for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised and
shellfish until September 30, 2008. As described in the legislation, program
implementation is the responsibility of USDA's Agricultural Marketing
Service.


http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/

and steve, if your still with me, it will be very interesting to see what
becomes of the birth, feed, prodigy, cohorts and the tracking of them of
which came into the USA, and the feed that fed them over the years of the
latest mad cow just announced in Canada feed goes and comes across that
border like people. ...tss



Subject: BSE CASE CONFIRMED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Date: May 2, 2007 at 2:25 pm PST

BSE CASE CONFIRMED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
OTTAWA, May 2, 2007 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has
confirmed the diagnosis of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a
mature dairy cow from British Columbia. The animal's carcass is under CFIA
control, and no part of it entered the human food or animal feed systems.

Preliminary information indicates that the age of the animal (66 months)
falls well within the age range of previous cases detected in Canada and is
consistent with the recognized average incubation period of the disease.
This signifies that the animal was exposed to a very small amount of
infective material, most likely during its first year of life.

An epidemiological investigation directed by international guidelines is
underway to identify the animal’s herdmates at the time of birth and the
pathways by which it might have become infected. All findings will be
publicly released once the investigation concludes.

Canada has a suite of robust BSE control measures which exceeds the
recommended international standards. Assessment of Canada’s programs by the
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has resulted in a recommendation
for recognition as a controlled risk country. The OIE categorization process
is based on an evaluation of the comprehensive set of risk mitigation
measures implemented by a given country.

Canada has taken all necessary measures to achieve the eventual elimination
of BSE from the national cattle herd. The enhanced feed ban, which comes
into effect on July 12, 2007, will prevent more than 99 percent of potential
BSE infectivity from entering the Canadian feed system. The CFIA expects to
detect a small number of cases over the next 10 years as Canada progresses
towards its goal of eliminating the disease from the national cattle heard.

The British Columbia animal was identified at the farm level by the national
surveillance program, which has detected all cases found in Canada. The
program targets cattle most at risk and has tested about 160,000 animals
since 2003. The surveillance results reflect an extremely low incidence of
BSE in Canada.

It is not unexpected to find BSE-infected animals born after the feed ban.
This has proven to be the case in most other countries with targeted
surveillance programs, similar to that in Canada.

-30-

For information:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Media relations: 613-228-6682

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2007/20070502e.shtml


Amazing what you will find when you look. a far cry from the USA;

[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)


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

[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

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

THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***


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


TSS
 

Tex

Well-known member
Terry,

The solution to bse is by having a test that can detect it and then eradicating it.

Focus on this.

NAIS should not be caught up in the discussion as bse is animal specific (that we know of).

This bse thing is another packer lead policy that has hurt producers and possibly endangered our food supply.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Tex said:
mrj said:
MoGal, I was looking for something and found your direct q. to me.

Attempting to answer, I have to tell you I can't give OCM any credibility. They are a tool of the Livestock Marketing Assoc, IMO, and it is no surprise that they would spin packer ownership and so called captive supplies as a means by packers to cheat cattle producers with the end goal of all cattle going through livestock auctions multiple times in their short lives. The name of that game is "Keep Livestock Auctions Profitable".

BTW, MoGal, NCBA is not only "for" the American beef producers, it' is run by American beef producers, the membership!

My 1966 Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary by Readers' Digest defines "premise" as 2. A difinite portion of real estate; land with its appurtenances; also, a building or part of a building. Premise as used under NAIS, for all practical purposes is the home (building) of the owner of the cattle and the 'home' pasture of those cattle (real estate or land owned or used by the owner of the cattle). Just common sense if one isn't up on the latest conpsiracy theories.

mrj

mrj, your attempting to tie the market reforms to auction barns is ridiculous on its face.

It shows just how informed your "conspiracy" mindset happens to be.

It doesn't surprise me that your family has received awards from the NCBA. They need people like you.

mrj, what evidence do you have to support your "theory" (other than NCBA propaganda) that OCM is an arm of the LMA and supports market reforms to get more cattle into auctions that eh LMA profits from? No, correct that. If you are getting information from NCBA, please let us know who and post a copy on this forum.

Can you even tell me what part of the market reforms would even come close to doing this?

Please provide ANY information you have regarding these two questions.

I would seriously like to know.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Premise as used under NAIS, for all practical purposes is the home (building) of the owner of the cattle and the 'home' pasture of those cattle (real estate or land owned or used by the owner of the cattle). Just common sense if one isn't up on the latest conpsiracy theories.

Your dictionary also says that, or is that your addon?

Yes, I understand that would have been everyone's understanding of it.... who would sign up for something that transfers ownership of your property? No one would. Do you think that "property" would have been the correct word usage so that it is covered under the constitution?

Its just like the Law of the Sea treaty coming up before the full senate.... the news isn't telling you that if its passed the USA taxpayer will have to fund it 25% of their costs and it gives 3rd world countries aid (of the 131 countries why do we have to pay 25%) plus the sovereignty of the US, plus the international law has dominion over federal law??? What mainstream news media is telling you that?? I haven't seen any of them.

There's too much giving away going on in Congress to just blindly trust them or it is for me.

defines "premise" as 2. A difinite portion of real estate; land with its appurtenances; also, a building or part of a building.

No one is denying that premise is not a portion of real estate or land/buildings ............... but this doesn't specify who owns it now does it??
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I went and looked these up (and you can use many different ones, this happened to be the first dictionary listed).

What I noticed that property specifies ownership, premise does not, and conveyance says transfer of property from one to another.

I think there definitely needs to be some legal looking into of this........ common sense and justice is not one of Congress's attributes anymore. For instance, the USA Patriot Act, congress has now come back and said they didn't realize what they were giving away.... and this may be another instance as well.

property: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property
premise http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premise
conveyance definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conveyance
 

Latest posts

Top