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

POTENTIAL MAD COW DOWNERS GOING BACK TO MARKET ???

flounder

Well-known member
US Ban On Downer Cattle Protects Humans From BSE-Study



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. ban on slaughtering downer cattle – cattle
that are too sick or injured to walk - has some effect on keeping consumers
safe, but does very little to combat the spread of mad-cow disease in herds,
according to an updated Harvard University study.



"The measure does reduce predicted potential human exposure" to mad-cow
disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, by about 3%, the study said,
but noted that the downer ban has "little effect" on the average number of
animals that could become infected.



The U.S. Department of Agriculture banned downer cattle meat from the human
food supply in response to the first infected cow found in the U.S. in
December 2003. That rule, though, was only an "interim" measure and has not
been replaced yet with a final rule.



The USDA has taken the results of the Harvard Center For Risk Analysis
study - updated in October 2005, but not released publicly until now - as it
writes final rules to replace temporary BSE safety measures it put in place
about three years ago. Draft copies of the USDA final rules have been
circulating around USDA for months, but none have been made public.



The USDA has announced finding two more cases of BSE since the first one was
discovered in December 2003.



USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, when asked recently whether the department
would continue its ban on downer cattle on a permanent basis, said no
decision had been reached yet.



Johanns said July 20 that there have been "a number of meetings on that over
the past few months."



The existing, yet temporary, downer prohibition can be unfair to ranchers,
Johanns has said in the past. In a March 2005 interview, he noted that many
downer cattle suffer some sort of injury such as a broken leg and present no
disease risk.



U.S. cattle and beef industry groups generally opposed the restriction on
downer cattle because they are worth far more when slaughtered for human
food.



Ranchers sold about 150,000 head of downer cattle a year to slaughterhouses
before the prohibition was enacted, according to data compiled by the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association.



Source: Bill Tomson; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-646-0088;
[email protected]


http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=54885


Johanns states ;

USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, when asked recently whether the department
would continue its ban on downer cattle on a permanent basis, said no
decision had been reached yet.

Johanns said July 20 that there have been "a number of meetings on that
over the past few months."

The existing, yet temporary, downer prohibition can be unfair to ranchers,
Johanns has said in the past. In a March 2005 interview, he noted that many
downer cattle suffer some sort of injury such as a broken leg and present no
disease risk. ......end


Greetings,

I can see the writing on the wall, those mad cow downers are going back to
the market regardless, it's just a matter of a little more time, and a lot
more spin, hey, but those triple BSE firewalls been in place since 8/4/97,
and no problem in the USA, just Canada ;-) and nobody knows about Mexico,
but all Three are classified as BSE GBR III, but then GW et al change rules
to BSE MRR, which we all know what this means, the legal trading of all
strains of TSE globally, and that's just what is happeing. ...TSS



BSE Regulation Has Not
Been Fully Implemented by
the Feed Industry
To determine how firms were implementing the June 1997 BSE regulation,
FDA, with the assistance of state officials, inspected over 9,100 firms from
January 1998 through January 2000. Table 1 shows the types and number of
firms inspected.
Table 1: Types of Firms Inspected
a Includes haulers and distributors of feed, and firms or persons who
receive prohibited
materials directly from manufacturers.
Source: FDA.
The BSE inspection results revealed that 1,688 of the 9,184 firms were not
aware of the new BSE feed regulation. Furthermore, inspection results of
the 2,481 firms that were identified as handling “prohibited” material—
Type of firm Number of firms inspected
Licensed feed mill 1,029
Nonlicensed feed mill 4,901
Ruminant feeder 1,400
Dairy farm 495
Renderer 211
Protein blender 121
Othera 1,027
Total 9,184
B-285212
Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-255 Safety of Animal Feed
material that is not allowed to be fed to ruminants—revealed some serious
deficiencies. For example:
• Required cautionary statement not on product label. Of the firms
inspected, 699, or 28 percent, did not label their products with the
required cautionary statement that the feed should not be fed to cattle
or other ruminants.
• Required records not properly maintained. One-hundred and thirtyseven
firms, or about 6 percent, did not properly maintain the name and
address of the consignee of their products, which would make it difficult
to trace sales of contaminated feed.
In addition, of the 1,771 firms that manufacture both prohibited and
nonprohibited material, 361, or 20 percent, did not have a system in place
to prevent commingling and cross-contamination, as required by the
regulation.
Because renderers and FDA-licensed feed mills are at the greatest risk of
introducing BSE to a wide segment of the animal feed market, the
inspection results for these firms were particularly disturbing. For
example,
• Twenty-three of the 211 renderers inspected, about 11 percent, were not
aware of the BSE regulation.
• Twenty-seven of the 163 renderers that handle prohibited material,
about 17 percent, did not label their products with the required
cautionary statement.
• Ten of the 63 renderers that manufacture both prohibited and
nonprohibited material, about 16 percent, did not have a system in place
to prevent commingling.
The results for the FDA-licensed feed mills were similar. For example,
• Sixty-three of the 1,023 mills, about 6 percent, were not aware of the
regulation.
• Eighty-five of the 409 mills that handle prohibited material, about 21
percent, did not label their products with the required cautionary
statement.
• Thirty-seven of the 300 mills that manufacture both prohibited and
nonprohibited material, about 12 percent, did not have a system in place
to prevent commingling.
B-285212
Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-255 Safety of Animal Feed
FDA told us that as a result of the BSE inspections, two warning letters
have been issued and five firms have voluntarily recalled products. As of
July 2000, however, FDA had not completed its analysis of the inspection
results and had not updated its enforcement strategy for achieving industry
compliance with the BSE regulation. FDA also told us that the next rounds
of BSE inspections will include only those firms that handle prohibited
material. In addition, FDA told us it will direct its efforts towards those
firms or segments of the industry that are not in compliance with the
regulation. ........


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00255.pdf


NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED, EVEN IN 2006. ...TSS


----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 9:26 AM
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE - USDA/FDA
TRIPLE BSE FIREWALL CONTINUES TO FAIL


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################

CJD WATCH MESSAGE BOARD
TSS
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE
Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22
71.248.128.67


RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals,
Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg),
Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL
FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE
a) Bulk
b) None
c) Bulk
d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and
by press release on June 16, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006

###





http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00960.html



JOHANNS ET AL STATE ON JULY 13, 2006 REGARDING CANADA'S SEVENTH CASE OF BSE,
FROM ULAN BATOR, MONGOLIA ;



''I am dispatching a USDA expert to participate in the investigation of this
case, particularly as it relates to how this animal may have been exposed to
BSE infected material.''



http://www.usda.gov/



MY GOD, that's like the blind leading the blind, what a hoot. WHAT Johanns
et al need to do first is figure out why the USDA's supposedly BSE triple
firewalls have failed so terribly here in the USA, why not only the feed ban
has failed, but also the infamous rigged June 2004 Enhanced BSE surveillance
program where everything from the BSE testing protocols, the BSE
surveillance, and the BSE feed bans have all failed time and time again
since the August 4, 1997 _partial_ and _voluntary_ mad cow feed ban was put
in place. IT'S a failed policy PERIOD, and the testing results meaningless
considering all of the above, and this is not only my opinion, this is fact,
and I will be glad to reference any and all for those that just don't get
it. IT's all been referenced here time and time again over the years. ...



still disgusted in Sunny, Hot, Bacliff, Texas



TSS

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

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

PORKER

Well-known member
Meat packer closer to trial
25.jul.06
The London Free Press
Jonathan Sher
An Aylmer, Ontario, abattoir accused of butchering dead cows while inspectors were away moved a step closer yesterday to a trial expected to begin next year.
David Foulds, who is prosecuting the case in London, was cited as saying Aylmer Meat Packers, its principal Richard (Butch) Clare and his sons, Jeffrey and Jay, withdrew requests for a preliminary hearing, meaning a trial will likely begin some time in 2007.
All are accused of selling meat unfit for human consumption and labelling it in a way that was false, misleading or deceptive, violating the federal Food and Drugs Act.
They're also charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud by selling meat intended to be used for human consumption knowing it wasn't dealt with as required by the Meat Inspection Act of Ontario.
None of the charges has been tested in court.
A lawyer for Aylmer Meats wouldn't comment on yesterday's proceedings, but previously said the slaughterhouse never placed meat from dead animals -- so-called dead stock -- in the human food chain.
Aylmer Meat Packers was shut down Aug. 21, 2003, after a probe by Ontario's Natural Resources Ministry.
Current and former meat inspectors said then there were rampant abuses in meat inspection in Ontario and pressure by regulators to look the other way.
A review by Justice Roland Haines concluded the province should focus more on policing, not promoting, the meat industry.
 

flounder

Well-known member
USDA APHIS 4TH QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT 2005
Submitted by flounder on Thu, 03/23/2006 - 14:00.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT July 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

DESERET MEAT 04852 M SPANISH FORK, UT
07/27/05
08/01/05
X
X
On 7/27/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

MONTEBELLO MEAT PROCESSING, INC 19075 M19075 P MANATI, PR
08/01/05
08/18/05
X
X
X
09/26/05
On 8/1/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Table 7. Administrative Actions: Very Small HACCP Plants (7/01/05 to 9/30/05)

snip...

A.J. CEKAK'S MEAT MARKET 09/01/05 09/20/05 On 9/1/05, an enforcement action

21562 M

concerning failure to meet regulatory ORD, NE requirements for Escherichia coli X X X Biotype 1 (E. coli) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy/Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

BROWN'S PROCESSING 13100 M13100 P ELSBERRY, MO
08/08/05
08/16/05
X
X
X
On 8/8/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

FIVE STAR PACK INC. 08725 M08725 P GOLDEN CITY, MO 09/01/05 09/09/05 X X On 9/1/05, an enforcement action concerning failure to meet regulatory requirements for Escherichia coli Biotype 1 (E. coli) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy/Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

H AND P MEATS 21352 M SOUTH PITTSBURG, TN 07/28/05 08/08/05 08/17/05 08/19/05 X X On 8/17/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

HOPKINS PACKING COMPANY 11069 M BLACKFOOT, ID
07/28/05
08/01/05
X
X
On 7/28/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

NORTHWEST PREMIUM MEATS LLC 11032 M11032 P NAMPA, ID 07/26/05 07/29/05 X X On 7/26/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

PARADISE LOCKER MEATS 31865 M31865 P TRIMBLE, MO
09/21/05
X
X
On 9/21/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

PARAGON SPRAY DRYING, LLC 31792 M31792 P WAUKON, IA
09/06/05
09/12/05
X
X
X
On 9/6/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

RANDALL MEAT COMPANY 10669 M HOT SPRINGS, AR
07/01/05
07/28/05
X
X
X
On 7/1/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

08/04/05

08/19/05

On 8/4/05,

an enforcement action 01046 M01046 P concerning Bovine SpongiformKANSAS CITY, MO X X Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

THE MEAT SHOP 08/18/05 09/06/05

09/09/05

On 9/6/05, a suspension action 31561 M concerning Bovine SpongiformBENSON, VT Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3. XX X X X

THEURER'S QUALITY MEATS, 07/27/05 07/29/05

On 7/27/05, a suspension action INC concerning Bovine Spongiform31647 M31647 P Encephalopathy and Specified Risk X X

LEWISTON, UT Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

TOOELE VALLEY MEATS 07/25/05 08/01/05

On 7/25/05, a suspension action 20594 M20594 Pconcerning Bovine Spongiform

GRANTSVILLE, UT X X Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

52 pages

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q4_FY2005.pdf

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or

“Mad Cow Disease”): Current and Proposed

Safeguards

Updated October 13, 2005

Geoffrey S. Becker

Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Resources, Science and Industry Division

Sarah A. Lister

Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology

Domestic Social Policy Division

SNIP...

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05oct/RL32199.pdf


TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
WORK FOR GOAL 1

BSE Surveillance Program and Specified

Risk Material Controls Could Be Improved

Approximately 6 months after the December 2003

discovery of a cow infected with BSE, the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) implemented

its expanded BSE surveillance program. As of May 2005,

more than 350,000 animals had been sampled and tested

for BSE. Since the expansion of the surveillance program,

two additional animals have tested positive for BSE.

At the time of our audit, we could not fully assess any

of APHIS’ approaches to determining the prevalence of

BSE because it had not finalized its analysis, although we

did offer some observations. APHIS obtained significantly

more samples for testing than originally thought needed,

but, because the program is voluntary and USDApublished

data on the U.S. herd is not comprehensive, we

could not determine the extent to which APHIS obtained

a representative sample of either high-risk or apparently

healthy adult cattle. Specifically, we could not determine

how similar the distribution of tested cattle is to that of the

U.S. herd, especially regarding age, geographic location, and

surveillance stream (clinical suspects, fallen stock, casualty

slaughter, and routine slaughter). We recommended that

USDA re-evaluate and adjust its testing protocols based on its

evaluation of emerging science and strengthen its proficiency

testing and quality assurance reviews at participating

laboratories, especially for inconclusive test results. At the

Secretary’s direction, APHIS revised its testing protocols

to require additional confirmatory procedures when

inconclusive test results occur. APHIS also agreed to publish

information to fully advise stakeholders of assumptions and

procedures, limitations of data, and conclusions reached

as a result of the BSE surveillance program. In addition,

APHIS agreed to perform additional outreach to emphasize

the importance of accurately determining and recording

the age of the target animals, and to ensure that laboratory

personnel understand procedures.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) condemns

cattle if they exhibit signs associated with BSE, and bans

specified risk materials (SRM) such as brain, skull, eyes,

and spinal cord from the food supply. We did not identify

SRMs entering the food supply; however, due to the lack

of adequate records, we could not determine whether

procedures to remove, segregate, and dispose of SRMs were

followed and/or adequate in 9 of the 12 establishments

reviewed. FSIS does not have an information system to

track noncompliance violations relating to SRMs. FSIS

agreed to verify the adequacy of SRM control programs

at all beef slaughter and processing establishments and

confirm compliance with SRM control procedures through

its Performance Based Inspection System, which should

be modified to allow for timely analysis of violation trends

and tracking corrective action. Management has agreed to

implement all of OIG’s recommendations. (Audit Report

No. 50601-10-KC, BSE Surveillance Program – Phase II

and Controls Over BSE Sampling, SRMs, and Advanced

Meat Recovery Products – Phase III)

USDA Needs To Strengthen Controls for Beef

Exported to Japan

On January 20, 2006, Japan halted the importation of U.S.

beef products because veal product exported from a U.S.

plant contained vertebral column material, a violation of

an agreement between the United States and Japan. The

Secretary immediately announced 12 actions that USDA

would undertake to facilitate resuming trade and requested

that OIG review the adequacy of USDA’s coordination and

control processes for the Beef Export Verification (BEV)

program for Japan. We concluded that the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) and FSIS could strengthen

controls over the BEV program by better communicating

BEV program requirements, clearly defining roles and

responsibilities, and implementing additional oversight of

FSIS inspection personnel.

In response to our audit, AMS agreed to maintain a list

of specific export-eligible products for each facility with an

approved BEV program, systematically notify FSIS when

any establishment is approved/delisted from a BEV program,

and work with establishments to ensure their processes and

controls adhere to BEV program requirements. FSIS agreed

to clarify the roles and responsibilities of FSIS personnel

involved at each stage of the export verification process,

expedite the development of export certification training,

and increase supervisory oversight of the export certification

process. These actions, along with the 12 announced by the

Secretary, should further strengthen the program. (Audit

Report No. 50601-11-HQ, Assessment of USDA’s Controls

for the Beef Export Verification Program for Japan)

Significant Steps Still Need To Be

Implemented Regarding the Canadian

Inspection System

FSIS regulations require foreign inspection systems for

meat and poultry products to provide standards equivalent

to those of the United States to allow imports from those

countries into the United States. In July 2003—and again

in June 2005—FSIS found that Canada was not enforcing

certain pathogen reduction and Hazard Analysis and

Critical Control Point (HACCP) system regulations. All

plants must develop, adopt, and implement a HACCP plan

for each of their processes. Under HACCP, plants identify

critical control points during their processes where hazards

such as microbial contamination can occur, establish

controls to reduce those hazards, and maintain records

documenting that controls are working as intended. FSIS

did not have protocols for evaluating deficiencies that could

jeopardize a country’s overall equivalence determination.

In addition, FSIS did not institute compensating controls

(e.g., increased port-of-entry testing) to ensure that public

health was not compromised by deficiencies. More than

4.4 billion pounds of Canadian processed products entered

the United States from January 2003 through May 2005,

even though FSIS officials questioned the equivalence of

the Canadian inspection system.

Our July 2005 management alert reported that FSIS

had not taken timely action to resolve the 2003 finding

that Canada does not require daily inspection coverage at

processing establishments to approximate U.S. standards.

Further, in testing for Listeria monocytogenes, Canada

requires risk-based environmental sampling, versus the

finished product sampling required by FSIS. In addition,

FSIS’ actions regarding Canadian establishments were not

consistent with its treatment of establishments in other

countries.

We recommended that FSIS develop and implement

protocols for determining which equivalence deficiencies

would call into question a country’s overall equivalence to

U.S. standards. FSIS also needs to make an equivalence

determination on the Canadian inspection system control

for Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat products. In

response to our audit, FSIS agreed to make an equivalence

determination regarding daily inspection coverage by 2007.

In the interim, FSIS agreed to ensure that there is no increased

risk to public health in the United States by doubling the

sampling of Canadian shipments, and Canadian inspection

officials agreed to increase the presence of inspectors in

processing establishments exporting to the United States.

(Audit Report No. 24601-05-Hy, FSIS Assessment of the

Equivalence of the Canadian Inspection System)

Stronger Controls Would Improve the In-Plant

Performance System (IPPS)

FSIS’ management control system needs strengthening

to ensure accountability of consumer safety inspector

performance. FSIS did not require supervisors to complete

the entire IPPS review form when evaluating inspectors,

so supervisors had not completed all sub-elements on

84 percent (100 of 119) of the review forms examined. Many

of the sub-elements related to critical aspects of inspector

duties, such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

(HACCP) procedures. HACCP sets certain pathogen

reduction performance standards and process control

performance criteria, establishes testing programs to ensure

those standards are met, and assigns tasks to inspectors to

enable them to ensure regulatory performance standards are

met. In addition, FSIS had no system to schedule and track

the completion of IPPS reviews, and supervisors were not

required to use the extensive guidance available to them in

preparing for IPPS reviews. As a result, supervisors had not

used significant segments of the guidance to enhance their

on-site review of consumer safety inspectors.

FSIS agreed to closely monitor field managers and

supervisors involved in the IPPS process, analyze IPPS

review data, and periodically evaluate the IPPS review

process. FSIS also agreed to revise its guidance to require

supervisors to examine specific data sources and system

reports before performing an IPPS review, complete all

sub-elements on review forms during an inspector’s rating

period, and provide narratives for all review elements.

(Audit Report No. 24601-6-Ch, Review of FSIS’ IPPS)

Cattle Smuggler Sentenced

As reported last period, in September 2004, OIG and

APHIS began to investigate Canadian cattle being smuggled

into the United States through an Indian reservation. The

smuggling of cattle into the United States poses a significant

safety and health risk because the animals have not been

inspected to ensure they are free from diseases such as

BSE. In March 2005, two individuals were indicted. One,

a Canadian citizen, pled guilty in U.S. Federal Court in

Utica, New York, and, in November 2005, was fined $3,100

and released to the Indian reservation in Canada. Charges

against the other, a U.S. citizen, are pending.



snip...



PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

A significant number of our audit recommendations

carry no monetary value per se, but their impact can be

immeasurable in terms of safety, security, and public

health. They can also contribute considerably toward

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in USDA’s programs

and operations. During this reporting period, we issued

274 program improvement recommendations, and

management agreed to implement a total of 198 program

improvement recommendations that were issued this

period or earlier. Examples of the program improvement

recommendations issued this period include the following.

(See the main text of this report for a summary of the

audits that prompted these program improvement

recommendations.)

■ APHIS revised its testing protocols to require additional

confirmatory procedures when inconclusive BSE test

results occur; agreed to publish information to fully

advise stakeholders of assumptions and procedures,

limitations of data, and conclusions reached as a result

of the BSE surveillance program; and agreed to perform

additional outreach to emphasize the importance of

accurately determining and recording the age of the target

animals and to ensure laboratory personnel understand

procedures.

■ FSIS agreed to verify the adequacy of specified risk

material control programs at all beef slaughter and

processing establishments and confirm compliance with

SRM control procedures through its Performance Based

Inspection System.

■ AMS agreed to: (1) maintain a list of specific, exporteligible

products for each facility with an approved Beef

Export Verification program; (2) systematically notify FSIS

when any establishment is approved/delisted from a BEV

program; and (3) work with establishments to ensure

their processes and controls adhere to BEV program

requirements.



snip...



http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarcfirsthalf06.pdf



FY 2005 - Second Half



EXAMPLES OF AUDIT AND

INVESTIGATIVE WORK FOR GOAL 1

OIG Continuing To Review Effectiveness of

BSE Surveillance Program

We are continuing our work with bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE), widely known as “mad cow

disease.” With the discovery of a BSE-infected

animal in December 2003, the nimal and Plant

Health Inspection Service ( PHIS) decided to expand

its Surveillance Program to test a larger number of

high-risk animals—those that exhibited a disorder of

the central nervous system (CNS), such as difficulty

standing, walking, etc., and cattle that died on the

farm from unclear causes. Our overall objective is

to evaluate whether the expanded BSE Surveillance

Program is accomplishing its intended objectives—to

ensure detection with 99-percent confidence that the

BSE prevalence rate was 1 in 10 million and a swift

response to its introduction into the United States—and

has been effectively implemented and administered.

nother objective is to evaluate whether the Food

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has effectively

enforced the ban on Specified Risk Material (certain

beef tissues and products, i.e., brain, skull, eyes, spinal

cord) in meat products, and effectively implemented its

testing program and controls to prevent CNS tissue in

dvanced Meat Recovery systems (special equipment

to remove meat from bones similar to hand trimming in

that bones remain basically intact).

1

2

Route for Cattle Smuggler Leads to Conviction,

Proceedings Pending for Another

In September 2004, OIG and PHIS began an

investigation into the smuggling of cattle into the United

States from Canada. In March 2005, 2 individuals were

indicted in U.S. Federal Court for smuggling 169 head

of cattle across the U.S. border through an Indian

Reservation, and then trucking them to U.S. auction

houses. OIG, PHIS, and FSIS traced the path of the

smuggled cattle to ensure that they were properly

slaughtered or returned to Canada. In July 2005, one

of the men pled guilty to smuggling and conspiracy

charges with sentencing scheduled for November

2005. dditional judicial proceedings against the other

defendant in this case are continuing.



snip...



FSIS Needs To Track the Shipment of Recalled

Product More Closely

On July 28, 2004, Quaker Maid Meats, Inc., recalled

approximately 170,000 pounds of mislabeled ground

beef patties made, in part, from 41,000 pounds of finely

textured beef trim (meat scavenged from beef taken off

the bone at high pressure) from Canada. This product

was not eligible for importation after the detection of

a Canadian cow with mad cow disease in May 2003.

The beef patties had been shipped to 474 distribution

centers and stores in 10 States; the recall recovered

more than 93 percent of the ineligible product.

In reviewing the recall, we concluded that FSIS had

strengthened its procedures regarding the oversight

of meat and poultry recalls and complied with the

recent revision made to recall policy. However, FSIS

compliance officers did not determine the amount of

product purchased by consignees for 26 of the recall’s

58 effectiveness checks. FSIS’ recall policy did not

provide specific direction on identifying and evaluating

the amount of product purchased by consignees, thus

reducing assurance that mislabeled product had been

retrieved. FSIS agreed to revise its form, “Report of

Recall Effectiveness,” to require compliance officers

to explain why any amounts of product purchased

by consignees are not identified. FSIS also agreed

to revise its procedures to provide specific direction

on identifying and evaluating the amount of product

purchased by the consignees and guidance on when

it is acceptable not to identify this amount. (FSIS

Oversight of the 2004 Recall by Quaker Maid Meats,

Inc., udit Report No. 24601-4-Hy)



http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarcfinal060223.pdf



First Half 2005

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/SarcFirstHalf05.pdf


just a bit of the uk's bse export around the globe ;


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab08.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab09.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab10.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab01.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab03.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab02.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab04.pdf


UK Exports Statistics: Meat of Bovine Animals,

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab05.pdf


TABLE of Exports of meal of meat and meat offal; greaves


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m12/tab12.pdf


TABLE of Imports of meal, Meat and Meat Offal: Greaves


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m12/tab13.pdf



SEE MEXICO IMPORT AND EXPORT ;

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_v2_en1.pdf


SEE CANADA IMPORT AND EXPORT ;

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_v2_en1.pdf


TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FSIS FOOD INSPECTOR CONVICTED FELONY BRIBERY FOR PASSING
DOWNERS/TSE FOR CONSUMPTION
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:42:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: [email protected]


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

Issued June 2000


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection


1998 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States Congress


snip...

*

In March 1998, an FSIS food inspector and a Federal plant in New
York were each sentenced on one felony count of bribery. The
inspector was assessed a criminal fine of $17,000, assessed a $100
special assessment fee, and placed on probation for 5 years. The
inspector was also required to serve 6 months in home detention
and complete 200 hours of community service. The Federal plant was
assessed a criminal fine of $10,000, paid a $100 special
assessment fee, and was placed on probation for 5 years. The
investigation revealed that the inspector accepted money in
exchange for inspecting and passing downer (dying, diseased or
disabled) livestock that were supposed to be inspected by an FSIS
veterinarian and for allowing company employees to slaughter
animals and to use inspection brands when the inspector was not
present.

snip...


Civil Enforcement Actions

The following Civil Enforcement Actions are a representative sample of
actions taken during FY 1998:

* In June 1998, an Illinois Federal plant entered into a settlement
agreement with the USDA and the United States Attorney for
violating the FMIA, PPIA, and False Claims Act (FCA). The firm
agreed to pay the Court-ordered civil penalty of $20,000. The
investigation revealed that the firm prepared various meat and/or
poultry egg rolls without the benefit of Federal inspection, sold
and transported the non-federally inspected products in interstate
commerce, and used the official mark of meat and poultry
inspection without authorization...

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc98.htm

FSIS REPORT TO CONGRESS 1996

HELL, why not sell those 'DOWNERS' for our GIs to eat,
maybe that is why some got CJD;

In June 1996, a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in
Oakland, California, sentenced the former vice president of a closed meat
processing establishment and the establishment for violations of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act. The official paid $250,000 as part of a
restitution/fine
payment, received 5 years' probation, and was required to perform 1,000
hours
of community service. The firm was ordered to pay $500,000 in restitution to
the Defense Logistics Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense. In addition,
three co-defendants were sentenced for selling adulterated meat to the now
defunct establishment. The co-defendants were convicted of illegally
slaughtering cattle and transporting and selling the adulterated meat to
the now
defunct firm, knowing the meat would be processed for resale and human
consumption. The former vice president admitted buying dead, dying,
diseased, or disabled cattle from the co-defendants and using the
adulterated
meat to prepare meat products for commercial sales and for Government
military contracts. The investigation was conducted in 1993 by the USDA
Office of Inspector General, officials from the Defense Criminal
Investigation
Service, and FSIS compliance officers. Restitution to the military was
initiated under the Affirmative Civil Enforcement program...

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc96.pdf

February 2003


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection
2000 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress

snip...

MORE BRIBERY FOR PASSING DOWNERS FOR HUMAN/ANIMAL
CONSUMPTION...TSS

* June 2000. A USDA Judicial Officer (JO) issued a Decision
upholding indefinite withdrawal of inspection services from a meat
and poultry company located in Greenville, New York. The JO’s
Decision upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Decision. The
decisions were the result of an administrative hearing before the
ALJ wherein USDA presented evidence to show that the company was
“unfit” for inspection service. The proceeding to withdraw
inspection was based on the company’s felony conviction of bribing
a public official. An investigation revealed that the company
provided money to an inspector in exchange for inspecting and
passing dying, diseased, or disabled livestock requiring
additional inspection by a Veterinary Medical Officer. The
inspector and company were convicted in separate trials. The
company has appealed to a U.S. District Court...

snip...


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc2000/rtc2000chap3.htm#4

March 2001


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection
1999 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress


Preface

snip...

January 1999. The owner of an export inspection station was sentenced on
two felony counts for using simulated export certificates with intent to
defraud. The defendant was sentenced to 3 years' probation and fined
$10,000. The investigation revealed that the defendant fraudulently
exported approximately 3 million pounds of meat and poultry products to
Mexico.

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc99/rtc99chap3.htm


* 2000
(Issued February 2003) [PDF
, 93 pp. 768 KB]
* 1999 (Issued
March 2001)
* 1998 (Issued June
2000; HTML text with PDF attachments)
* 1997 (Issued November
1999; PDF, 950 KB)
* 1996 (Issued
September 1997; PDF, 257 KB)


TSS

################# [email protected] #################
 

Latest posts

Top