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

OIG on SRM Removal-Are we safe?

Mike

Well-known member
US-Beef
February 2, 2006
Associated Press/ Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The USDA inspector general was cited as saying in a report Thursday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture auditors were unable to determine whether slaughterhouses and meat packers complied with rules to safeguard consumers from mad cow disease, stating, "We did not identify SRMs entering the food supply. However, due to the lack of adequate records, we could not determine whether SRM procedures were followed and/or were adequate in nine of 12 establishments visited during the audit. Several of the establishments did not comply with SRM plans/or maintain records to support that they follow their plans."
Pointing out possible problems in the inspection process, the report said the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service did not always identify the deficiencies that most of the reviewed beef slaughterhouses and packers had no adequate SRM plans.
The report said auditors were unsure about the USDA's process of checking the age of cattle subject to removing SRMs.
The report also noted that Agriculture Department officials overruled field scientists' recommendation to retest an animal that was suspected of harboring mad cow disease last year because they feared a positive finding would undermine confidence in the agency's testing procedures.
After protests from the inspector general, the specimen was sent to England for retesting and produced the nation's second confirmed case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease.
When officials from the inspector general's office met with the head of APHIS, they were told that the protocol followed by the agency was the international "gold standard" and nothing more was needed, the report adds. Nonetheless, the sample was later sent to England for a different set of tests and was found to have the mad cow infection.
The report also found that although there was no evidence that infected meat had made it into the human food chain, the USDA surveillance system did not collect the information needed to say whether slaughterhouses were following all mad cow-related regulations. In nine of 12 facilities visited, the report said, inadequate recordkeeping made it impossible to know whether proper procedures were being followed.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
The report also noted that Agriculture Department officials overruled field scientists' recommendation to retest an animal that was suspected of harboring mad cow disease last year because they feared a positive finding would undermine confidence in the agency's testing procedures.

What is scary about this report Mike is the fat that the USDA cannot accurately account for 3/4 of the plants and whether or not the SRM material was either in the human food chain or not. On top of this, the USDA actually admits to the quote above. Can anyone have any true faith in how that agency handles the affairs and the mandate that they have which is to oversee the safety of the human consumers throughout the United States??? I am darn sure certain that I have now hit zero confidence in the USDA.

The report said auditors were unsure about the USDA's process of checking the age of cattle subject to removing SRMs.

How on earth did these people get to be auditors in the first place???

When officials from the inspector general's office met with the head of APHIS, they were told that the protocol followed by the agency was the international "gold standard" and nothing more was needed, the report adds. Nonetheless, the sample was later sent to England for a different set of tests and was found to have the mad cow infection.

How many times has this actually happened and nothing was done with respect to having the sample re-tested by the Brits for a confirmation assay???

And to think Mike, that some folks on this board think that the sun rises and sets with the USDA - this foolishness has to stop because no matter what we think about the rarity of this disease or how few animals contract it, the risk is not only everpresent, but to compound the problem, the very agency (USDA) tasked witrh the Federal Mandate to oversee the safety of the American Food supply is failing miserably and simply not performing at any satisfactory level that would give anyone any degree of comfort. Enough is enough and for those people who applaud the USDA for doing such a great job, give your head(s) a shake and wake up to the fact that the USDA is incapable of doing their job properly and for that simple reason, the national food supply is at risk of a disease that is far more serious than a simple flu bug!!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
One case of home raised vCJD is all it will take Ron.

One case will kill the beef market. I fear the day it comes.

The USDA mistakes will be put on the table for everyone to see.

I only care for transparency and honesty out of the officials who are looking after my livlihood. Is that too much to ask?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
One case of home raised vCJD is all it will take Ron.

One case will kill the beef market. I fear the day it comes.

The USDA mistakes will be put on the table for everyone to see.

I only care for transparency and honesty out of the officials who are looking after my livlihood. Is that too much to ask?

All of North America will not have a cattle or beef industry if the bureaucratic decisions of CFIA and USDA are wrong and a case of home raised vCJD surfaces!!
 

Bill

Well-known member
So why is there still a beef industry in the UK after almost 150 cases of vCJD and with nearly 200,000 positive animals.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
So why is there still a beef industry in the UK after almost 150 cases of vCJD and with nearly 200,000 positive animals.

How much is the UK's beef and Ag industry subsidized Bill- still after years of testing all and mass destructions of old cows :???:

A little more than even Canada's :wink:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Bill said:
So why is there still a beef industry in the UK after almost 150 cases of vCJD and with nearly 200,000 positive animals.

How much is the UK's beef and Ag industry subsidized Bill- after years of testing all and mass destructions of old cows :???:

A little more than even Canada's :wink:
Tell us about it Oldtimer. I have visited with several UK producers face to face on what happened to them during the BSE crisis but I am interested to hear what you have heard at the coffee shop and your opinion on it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
So why is there still a beef industry in the UK after almost 150 cases of vCJD and with nearly 200,000 positive animals.

Geeeeze, Bill, some of you boys (and girls) were squealing like a hog stuck in a gate when you couldn't move your beef here - do you want to take the chances on going where the UK producers went? I can't believe you said that.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
So why is there still a beef industry in the UK after almost 150 cases of vCJD and with nearly 200,000 positive animals.

Geeeeze, Bill, some of you boys (and girls) were squealing like a hog stuck in a gate when you couldn't move your beef here - do you want to take the chances on going where the UK producers went? I can't believe you said that.
Once again you missed my point entirely Sandhusker. I get a little tired of the chicken little/the sky is falling attitude of some posting here. If you believe what Oldtimer and Mike predict you better quit lending on cattle and get out now.

I don't.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Mike, I am in the UK for 10 days mid-May and will be visiting with some friends at the VLA Labs in Weybridge. I will dig into their data a little and hopefully get some info. I am told that the 150vCJD cases was only the number put out by the Government to appease the press. It may well have been higher. I cannot verify that but I do intend to dig a little more. Also, looking at the acquisition of some BSE urine along with some Scrapie Urine. Talk to you guys soon.

I suspect that of all of the CJD cases diagnosed within the last 5 years, it may actually be possible that one or more have been misdiagnosis of vCJD. It is scary to say the least, but most Doctors find it almost impossible to tell the difference. Who can say for sure but I suspect you are right Mike to say that when it happens for sure and is confirmed, all hell will break loose.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
So why is there still a beef industry in the UK after almost 150 cases of vCJD and with nearly 200,000 positive animals.

Geeeeze, Bill, some of you boys (and girls) were squealing like a hog stuck in a gate when you couldn't move your beef here - do you want to take the chances on going where the UK producers went? I can't believe you said that.
Once again you missed my point entirely Sandhusker. I get a little tired of the chicken little/the sky is falling attitude of some posting here. If you believe what Oldtimer and Mike predict you better quit lending on cattle and get out now.

I don't.

So Bill, are you saying that the bse fiasco in Canada had no affect on producers?

Sometimes you work yourself into a hard sell there, Bill.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Geeeeze, Bill, some of you boys (and girls) were squealing like a hog stuck in a gate when you couldn't move your beef here - do you want to take the chances on going where the UK producers went? I can't believe you said that.
Once again you missed my point entirely Sandhusker. I get a little tired of the chicken little/the sky is falling attitude of some posting here. If you believe what Oldtimer and Mike predict you better quit lending on cattle and get out now.

I don't.

So Bill, are you saying that the bse fiasco in Canada had no affect on producers?

Sometimes you work yourself into a hard sell there, Bill.
That's quite a leap even for you Econ. Like I have said before, unlike you I am an actual producer that has been directly affected by BSE. Am I ready to join the choir and sing the song of doom and gloom?

No!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Once again you missed my point entirely Sandhusker. I get a little tired of the chicken little/the sky is falling attitude of some posting here. If you believe what Oldtimer and Mike predict you better quit lending on cattle and get out now.

I don't.

So Bill, are you saying that the bse fiasco in Canada had no affect on producers?

Sometimes you work yourself into a hard sell there, Bill.
That's quite a leap even for you Econ. Like I have said before, unlike you I am an actual producer that has been directly affected by BSE. Am I ready to join the choir and sing the song of doom and gloom?

No!

I haven't sung that song, except to the consolidation in the industry and what it will do to producers. It has already happened in other industries and even other segments of the meat industry.

Right now, all U.S. producers are losing their major buyer for beef, Japan, due to mishandling of bse policy. I would say that considering the opportunity costs, we are already seeing the gloom and doom in our prices now. Do you often leave money on the table? Did you like it when it happened to you in Canada? Why would you wish it on anyone else and why get in the way of changing those poor policies?

Right now the packers/USDA are trying to pass an all inclusive animal ID program in the USA that is under central control of the government based on the Canada bse model. How scary is that for national food policy? It sounds more totalitarian than anything I have seen in years.

You are sitting there telling us not to worry about the hot water even though you have experienced the frog in the pot firsthand. Seems a little incredible to me.
 

flounder

Well-known member
bse-tester, have you read this ???



Coexistence of multiple PrPSc types in individuals with

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease


Magdalini Polymenidou, Katharina Stoeck, Markus
Glatzel, Martin Vey, Anne Bellon, and Adriano Aguzzi


Summary


Background The molecular typing of sporadic
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is based on the size
and glycoform

ratio of protease-resistant prion protein (PrPSc), and
on PRNP haplotype. On digestion with proteinase K, type
1 and

type 2 PrPSc display unglycosylated core fragments of
21 kDa and 19 kDa, resulting from cleavage around amino

acids 82 and 97, respectively.

Methods We generated anti-PrP monoclonal antibodies to
epitopes immediately preceding the differential proteinase

K cleavage sites. These antibodies, which were
designated POM2 and POM12, recognise type 1, but not
type 2, PrPSc.

Findings We studied 114 brain samples from 70 patients
with sporadic CJD and three patients with variant CJD.

Every patient classified as CJD type 2, and all variant
CJD patients, showed POM2/POM12 reactivity in the

cerebellum and other PrPSc-rich brain areas, with a
typical PrPSc type 1 migration pattern.

Interpretation The regular coexistence of multiple
PrPSc types in patients with CJD casts doubts on the
validity of

electrophoretic PrPSc mobilities as surrogates for
prion strains, and questions the rational basis of
current CJD

classifications.


snip...


The above results set the existing CJD classifications

into debate and introduce interesting questions about

human CJD types. For example, do human prion types

exist in a dynamic equilibrium in the brains of affected

individuals? Do they coexist in most or even all CJD

cases? Is the biochemically identified PrPSc type simply

the dominant type, and not the only PrPSc species?


Published online October 31, 2005



http://neurology.thelancet.com


tss
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
I have actually been in contact with Aguzzi. PrP - normal prion- floats around the system along with PrPc and also PrPsc. Aguzzi and his team have indeed identified that there are possibly two or more structured types of PrPsc and that they are not all susceptable or resistant to PK digestion.

In our testing, in the lab, using a simple ion-capture method, we extracted proteins from urine onto small quantities of resin. The PrP that was concentrated from the urine was detected using the anti-C antibody, an antibody that is immunoreactive to the C-terminus of human PrP (KDa 21,22). No detectable urinary PrP was recognized by 3F4 mAb, which is contrary to an earlier report by Shakel et alwhose findings were challenged in more recent studies.

Deglycosylation by PNGase F is often used to reduce the heterogeneity of PrP molecules. Treatment with PNGase F revealed that PrPc in urine was glycosylated but the protein was truncated.Such truncation is unlikely an artifact generated in our experimental procedures because the same results were obtained from fresh urine samples containing the added protease inhibitors following concentration at a lower temperature. (10 Deg C) or when proteins were precipitated in cold methanol at -20 Deg C. Therefore, and I am getting to my point, the runcated PrPc in human urine is likely the result of proteolytic processing that actually occurred 'in vivo' before the excretion, identical to a normal metabolic event previously shown in human neuroblastoma cells and the brain - possibly by a calpain-dependent proteolytic process.

PrPsc coexistence has been known for some time, but the actual events that lead to it are still under scrutiny. It is entirely possible that each individual and their own metabolic system may have an extremely individual effect on how the PrP (normal) , PrPc and PrPsc tend to interact or to demonstrate an ability to travel together throughout the human body. The therories that circulate around metal infussion and how certain metals affect a causitive influence on normal PrP and change it to PrPsc are still being studied. Because PrPc is a glycoprotein that containstwoconcensus sites for asparagine-linked glycosylation, PNGase F digestion was performed to remove glycans and reveal the backbone of the urinary PrPc. Our detection of urinary PrPc is highly specific and as expected, PrPc in the same urine of normal individuals was sensitive to digestion by both trpsin and PK, as exogenous protease digestion almost completely degraded PrP into small peptides of less than 7kDa.

The prion protein PrPc is expressed by a host gene that is predominantly expressed in brain tissue. It is unclear what the normal physiological function of dominantly x-helical PrPc may be. It is however, a membrane-bound, sialo-glycolipoprotein with a glyophosphatidylinositol moiety, many of which are known to be associated with transmembrane-signaling functions. The protein sequences of PrPc and PrPsc are identical. However, the two isoforms differ in physiochemical properties. elevated levels of the 14-3-3 protein in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with CJD are currently used as preliminary screen assays for TSE's. but their specificity is not assured. The development of a specific, non-invasive test is criticl in assessing the prevalence of TSE's along with the source of infection and potential treatment options. This is why Flounder, we are striving to get a test - our test - validated as a preclinical diagnostic test for all tSE's and especially for CJD, vCJD, Alzheimer's Disease and of course, BSE, Scrapie and CWD.

Aguzzi does good work and his team in Switzerland (not Italy as some may think) are top notch. The idea of two "Sub-speicies" of CJD prions is only the beginning and I suspect that we shall find even more mutations of this little fellow we call the prion. Ron.
 
Top