Question About BSE
- Thread starter cedardell
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
cedardell said:
My understanding is that the rules don't allow ruminant byproducts to be fed to ruminants. Since hogs aren't ruminants, they can eat it.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Silver said:
You haven't been paying attention. Some of us are. Of course, NCBA accepts the USDA's "science". :roll:
Despite the song and dance you get from a few on this site. Canada has a far more stringent feed ban than the US and as has been pointed out before is one of the main reasons it costs far more to harvest an animal here than in the US.cedardell said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Bill said:
Well DUH-- Is it just sinking in....That is one of the reasons US cattlemen don't want beef/cattle imported from a higher risk BSE country....We have been unable to get the heavily lobbied FDA to enact strict enough feedbans to handle this higher risk material (ex.-Canada's similar feedban didn't work), so since they won't enact the stricter feedban- cattlemen don't believe they should endanger the US herd health and the long term viability of the US cattle industry by allowing in higher risk material...
None of you have even read the lawsuits against USDA about the border have you :???:
Oldtimer said:
Save your bull for one of your fellow believers. Here"s a thought!!!!!!!!
So why don't you and the rest of the R-Klowns sue the USDA OVER YOUR FEED BAN? You haven't been able to win the border side of it so that HAS to be your next step. Huh?
Or could it just be more convenient to attract donations and funding to R-Klan if you target Canada instead of something that will raise your cost of processing to the same level as Canada's.
A
Anonymous
Guest
USDA doesn't have control of the feedban-- FDA does- and they are as heavily or heavier big bucks lobbyed by the renders , dog food, hog food (Tyson), chicken (Tyson),cosmetic folks, etc. etc. than the USDA is....
We probably would not need a stronger feedban-if we did not import from a higher risk country- as since the US found no POST feedban born positive cattle, the current one has apparently worked down here....
And would continue working if the USDA had not arbitrarily changed their BSE import rule without any new evidence to justify the change- and allowed in higher risk materials....This is where the fault lies.....
We probably would not need a stronger feedban-if we did not import from a higher risk country- as since the US found no POST feedban born positive cattle, the current one has apparently worked down here....
And would continue working if the USDA had not arbitrarily changed their BSE import rule without any new evidence to justify the change- and allowed in higher risk materials....This is where the fault lies.....
Common OT :roll: I enjoy your word play - probably not, apparently not. Come out and say it if you are confident- there is no BSE/BASE in the US indeginous cattle herd thus zero risk. You KNOW you can't. Please explain how the rules work in one country and not the next. When the 2 countries export and import rendered feed under the same rules back and forth. It makes no sense.
A
Anonymous
Guest
QUESTION said:
Thats the problem with the knowledge about and the science concerning BSE- there are no absolutes....Its all theory- maybes, probablys, could be's , should be's...Nothing in stone....And no new science that USDA used to change its long standing BSE Rule and safeguards that their TSE committee said was needed to prevent introduction and/or spread of the disease in the country....
How things worked or didn't work are also unknowns...We have to let the facts speak for themselves- Canada has had 13 positive origin cattle with over half of those being POST feedban- apparently the Canadian feedban didn't work.....
The US on the other hand has had 2 origin cases (none of the same type as Canada or the UK) and these were both born PRE feedban- and has had NO POST feedban poitives found out of the hundreds of thousands tested-- apparently the US feedban worked....
But will it continue to work if we allow countries with higher risk for Type 1 BSE haphazordly import cattle/beef into the country and put more strain on it....We don't know--But most US cattlemen think its not worth the risk to the US cattle herd or the longterm viability of the US cattle industry.....
Oldtimer said:
Oldtimer said:
ot, you must be having one of those senior moments again :wink:
but there is a reason USDA et al have NOT found anymore mad cows :disagree:
the program was not set up to find it, at least by the ones running the program
sorry for the length of the post, but i had to remind ot again :shock:
this is not all, i had more, but i think this will jar his old feeble mind :wink:
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
Audit Report
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase II
and
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat Recovery Products - Phase III
Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006
Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle Still Remain
Our prior report identified a number of inherent problems in identifying and testing high-risk cattle. We reported that the challenges in identifying the universe of high-risk cattle, as well as the need to design procedures to obtain an appropriate representation of samples, was critical to the success of the BSE surveillance program. The surveillance program was designed to target nonambulatory cattle, cattle showing signs of CNS disease (including cattle testing negative for rabies), cattle showing signs not inconsistent with BSE, and dead cattle. Although APHIS designed procedures to ensure FSIS condemned cattle were sampled and made a concerted effort for outreach to obtain targeted samples, industry practices not considered in the design of the surveillance program reduced assurance that targeted animals were tested for BSE.
In our prior report, we recommended that APHIS work with public health and State diagnostic laboratories to develop and test rabies-negative samples for BSE. This target group is important for determining the prevalence of BSE in the United States because rabies cases exhibit clinical signs not inconsistent with BSE; a negative rabies test means the cause of the clinical signs has not been diagnosed.
APHIS agreed with our recommendation and initiated an outreach program with the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, as well as State laboratories. APHIS also agreed to do ongoing monitoring to ensure samples were obtained from this target population.
Although APHIS increased the samples tested from this target group as compared to prior years, we found that conflicting APHIS instructions on the ages of cattle to test resulted in inconsistencies in what samples were submitted for BSE testing. Therefore, some laboratories did not refer their rabies negative samples to APHIS in order to maximize the number tested for this critical target population. In addition, APHIS did not monitor the number of submissions of rabies negative samples for BSE testing from specific laboratories.
According to the Procedure Manual for BSE Surveillance, dated October 2004, the target population includes:
Central nervous system (CNS) signs and/or rabies negative - sample animals of any age (emphasis added):
a. Diagnostic laboratories –samples submitted due to evidence of CNS clinical signs.
Rabies Negative Samples
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 19 USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 20
b. Public health laboratories – rabies negative cases.
c. Slaughter facilities – CNS ante mortem condemned at slaughter, sampled by FSIS.
d. On-the-farm – CNS cattle that do not meet the criteria for a foreign animal disease investigation.
snip...
APHIS notes that for the current surveillance program, it had established regional goals and APHIS was not trying to meet particular sampling levels in particular States. However, we believe that it would be advantageous for APHIS to monitor collection data and increase outreach when large geographical areas such as the above States do not provide samples in proportion to the numbers and types of cattle in the population.
We also disagree with APHIS/FSIS' contention that because they have tested over 375,000 of their 446,000 estimate of high risk cattle, few in the high-risk population are being missed, including those that might be pre-screened before entering a slaughter facility's property. In our prior audit, we reported that APHIS underestimated the high-risk population; we found that this estimate should have been closer to 1 million animals (see Finding 1). We recognize that BSE samples are provided on a voluntary basis; however, APHIS should consider industry practice in any further maintenance surveillance effort. Animals unsuitable for slaughter exhibiting symptoms not inconsistent with BSE should be sampled and their clinical signs recorded. However, this cited industry practice results in rejected animals not being made available to either APHIS or FSIS veterinarians for their observation and identification of clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. Although these animals may be sampled later at other collection sites, the animals are provided post mortem without information as to relevant clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. For these reasons, we believe APHIS needs to
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 27
observe these animals ante mortem when possible to assure the animals from the target population are ultimately sampled and the clinical signs evaluated.
snip...
please see full text ;
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
Subject: FSIS NOTICE SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM CATTLE UNDER THE BOVINE
SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE)
ONGOING SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:32:58 -0600
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702&L=sanet-mg&P=720
Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE
sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST
Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty
to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled
guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government
funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his
company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when
they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and
then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services.
In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle
that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors
for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be
submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy
USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently
received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled
for May 2007.
snip...
Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1
include:
soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),
implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System
enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and
improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),
snip...
The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in
future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and
investigations are completed.
4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
-MORE
Office of the United States Attorney
District of Arizona
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Information Contact Public Affairs
February 16, 2007 WYN HORNBUCKLE
Telephone: (602) 514-7625
Cell: (602) 525-2681
CORPORATION AND ITS PRESIDENT PLEAD GUILTY
TO DEFRAUDING GOVERNMENT'S MAD COW DISEASE
SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
PHOENIX -- Farm Fresh Meats, Inc. and Roland Emerson Farabee, 55, of
Maricopa, Arizona, pleaded guilty to stealing $390,000 in government funds,
mail fraud and wire
fraud, in federal district court in Phoenix. U.S. Attorney Daniel Knauss
stated, "The integrity of the system that tests
for mad cow disease relies upon the honest cooperation of enterprises like
Farm Fresh Meats. Without that honest
cooperation, consumers both in the U.S. and internationally are at risk. We
want to thank the USDA's Office of Inspector General for their continuing
efforts to safeguard the
public health and enforce the law." Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee were
charged by Information with theft of
government funds, mail fraud and wire fraud. According to the Information,
on June 7, 2004,
Farabee, on behalf of Farm Fresh Meats, signed a contract with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (the
"USDA Agreement") to collect obex samples from cattle at high risk of mad
cow disease (the
"Targeted Cattle Population"). The Targeted Cattle Population consisted of
the following cattle: cattle
over thirty months of age; nonambulatory cattle; cattle exhibiting signs of
central nervous system disorders; cattle
exhibiting signs of mad cow disease; and dead cattle. Pursuant to the USDA
Agreement, the USDA
agreed to pay Farm Fresh Meats $150 per obex sample for collecting obex
samples from cattle
within the Targeted Cattle Population, and submitting the obex samples to a
USDA laboratory for mad cow
disease testing. Farm Fresh Meats further agreed to maintain in cold storage
the sampled cattle
carcasses and heads until the test results were received by Farm Fresh
Meats.
Evidence uncovered during the government's investigation established that
Farm Fresh Meats
and Farabee submitted samples from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle
Population. Specifically, Farm
Fresh Meats and Farabee submitted, or caused to be submitted, obex samples
from healthy, USDA
inspected cattle, in order to steal government moneys.
Evidence collected also demonstrated that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee
failed to maintain cattle carcasses and heads
pending test results and falsified corporate books and records to conceal
their malfeasance. Such actions, to
the extent an obex sample tested positive (fortunately, none did), could
have jeopardized the USDA's
ability to identify the diseased animal and pinpoint its place of origin.
On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee pleaded guilty
to stealing government funds and using the mails and wires to effect the
scheme.
According to their guilty pleas:
(a) Farm Fresh Meats collected, and Farabee directed others to collect, obex
samples from cattle outside
the Targeted Cattle Population, which were not subject to payment by the
USDA;
(b) Farm Fresh Meats 2 and Farabee caused to be submitted payment requests
to the USDA knowing that
the requests were based on obex samples that were not subject to payment
under the USDA
Agreement;
(c) Farm Fresh Meats completed and submitted, and Farabee directed others to
complete and
submit, BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms to the USDA's testing
laboratory that were false and
misleading;
(d) Farm Fresh Meats completed and submitted, and Farabee directed others to
complete and
submit, BSE Surveillance Submission Forms filed with the USDA that were
false and misleading;
(e) Farm Fresh Meats falsified, and Farabee directed others to falsify,
internal Farm Fresh Meats documents
to conceal the fact that Farm Fresh Meats was seeking and obtaining payment
from the USDA for obex
samples obtained from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population; and
(f) Farm Fresh Meats failed to comply with, and Farabee directed others to
fail to comply with, the USDA Agreement by
discarding cattle carcasses and heads prior to receiving BSE test results. A
conviction for theft of government funds carries
a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Mail fraud and wire fraud
convictions carry a maximum penalty
of 20 years imprisonment. Convictions for the above referenced violations
also carry a maximum fine of $250,000
for individuals and $500,000 for organizations. In determining an actual
sentence, Judge Earl H. Carroll
will consult the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide appropriate
sentencing ranges. The judge,
however, is not bound by those guidelines in determining a sentence.
Sentencing is set before Judge Earl H. Carroll on May 14, 2007. The
investigation in this case was conducted by Assistant
Special Agent in Charge Alejandro Quintero, United States Department of
Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. The prosecution
is being handled by Robert Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of
Arizona, Phoenix.
CASE NUMBER: CR-07-00160-PHX-EHC RELEASE NUMBER: 2007-051(Farabee)
# # #
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2007/2007-051(Farabee).pdf
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL,
TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST
PRODUCT
a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6;
b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6;
c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6;
d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6.
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone
on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006. Firm initiated recall is
complete.
REASON
Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Dairy feed, custom, Recall # V-134-6;
b) Custom Dairy Feed with Monensin, Recall # V-135-6.
CODE
None. Bulk product
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Burkmann Feed, Greeneville, TN, by Telephone beginning on
June 28, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL. Firm initiated
recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,484 tons
DISTRIBUTION
TN and WV
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA,
MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-115-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Hiseville Feed & Seed Co., Hiseville, KY, by telephone and letter on or
about July 14, 2006. FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approximately 2,223 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-116-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rips Farm Center, Tollesboro, KY, by telephone and letter on July 14, 2006.
FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,220 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-117-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Kentwood Co-op, Kentwood, LA, by telephone on June 27, 2006. FDA initiated
recall is completed.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
40 tons
DISTRIBUTION
LA and MS
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk Dairy Feed, Recall V-118-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Cal Maine Foods, Inc., Edwards, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. FDA
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,150 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-119-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Walthall County Co-op, Tylertown, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
87 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-120-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Ware Milling Inc., Houston, MS, by telephone on June 23, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
350 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and MS
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Tucker Milling, LLC Tm 32% Sinking Fish Grower, #2680-Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-121-6;
b) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-122-6;
c) Tucker Milling, LLC #31232 Game Bird Grower,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-123-6;
d) Tucker Milling, LLC 31227-Crumble, Game Bird Starter, BMD
Medicated, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-124-6;
e) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-125-6;
f) Tucker Milling, LLC #30230, 30 % Turkey Starter, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-126-6;
g) Tucker Milling, LLC #30116, TM Broiler Finisher,
50 lb bags, Recall # V-127-6
CODE
All products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/20/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Tucker Milling LLC, Guntersville, AL, by telephone and visit
on June 20, 2006, and by letter on June 23, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker and Brothers Inc., Stamford, CT. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Poultry and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein were not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,541-50 lb bags
DISTRIBUTION
AL, GA, MS, and TN
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2006/ENF00964.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL MI MAMMALIAN PROTEIN VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN
COMMERCE 27,694,240 lbs
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:14 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy feds manufactured from concentrates, Recall # V-113-6
CODE
All dairy feeds produced between 2/1/05 and 6/16/06 and containing H. J.
Baker recalled feed products.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Vita Plus Corp., Gagetown, MI, by visit beginning on June 21, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The feed was manufactured from materials that may have been contaminated
with mammalian protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
27,694,240 lbs
DISTRIBUTION
MI
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL AL AND FL VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125
TONS Products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm PST
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated,
net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6;
d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated,
Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend,
Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted,
Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020,
Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete
Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated,
Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying
Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED,
net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and
visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
125 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and FL
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL KY VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:19 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
?????
DISTRIBUTION
KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
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
Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
New Orleans District
297 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: 615-781-5380
Fax: 615-781-5391
May 17, 2006
WARNING LETTER NO. 2006-NOL-06
FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner
Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products
2621 State Street
Dallas, Texas 75204
Dear Mr. Shirley:
On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson
Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant
deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in
Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to
follow the requirements of this regulation; products being manufactured and
distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section
403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the Act).
Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient
written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to
maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:
You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent
carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or
feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the
same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use
only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each
species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after
processing mammalian tissues.
You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out
procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from
mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.
As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived
from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR
589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived
from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other
ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein
derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the
poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the
Act.
This letter is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your
facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you
are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you
manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take
prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system
whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these
violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or
injunction, without further notice.
You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving
this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm
into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of
each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If
corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the
reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be
completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating
corrections have been made.
Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie,
Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter,
please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.
Sincerely,
/S
Carol S. Sanchez
Acting District Director
New Orleans District
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5883d.htm
Subject: 15,323 TONS OF POTENTIAL TAINTED TSE RUMINANT PROTEIN WITHOUT MAD COW FEED WARNING IN CIRCULATION 4 STATES
Date: November 10, 2005 at 2:05 pm PST
PRODUCT
a) Bulk nonmedicated custom swine and poultry feeds,
Recall # V-006-6;
b) Bulk medicated swine and poultry feeds, Recall # V-007-6
CODE
N/A
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Gold Eagle Cooperative, Goldfield, IA, by telephone or visit beginning August 30, 2005. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Swine and poultry feeds which may contain prohibited material are not labeled with the warning statement not to feed to cattle or other ruminants.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approx. 15,323.68 tons of nonmedicated and medicated feed
DISTRIBUTION
IA, GA, MD, and MN
______________________________
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2005/ENF00925.html
January 24, 2008
January 2008 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of
BSE
To help prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform
Encephalophathy (BSE) through feed in the United States, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most
mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part
589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant Feed
Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
The following is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the
ruminant feed ban. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has assembled
data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose final
inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of
January 12, 2008. As of January 12, 2008, FDA had received over 59,000
inspection reports. The majority of these inspections (approximately 70%)
were conducted by State feed safety officials, with the remainder conducted
by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to
reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the
objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are
reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated
(VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable
conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in
order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation.
An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of
manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not
contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI
violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions
to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or
practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory
significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of
findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with
VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban.
These include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions
involving non-ruminant feeds.
An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or
practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the
documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in
total". NOTE – A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a
result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually
exclusive.
RENDERERS
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal
proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein
blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
267
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 165 (62 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 165 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
5 firms (3.0 %) were classified as VAI
LICENSED FEED MILLS
FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The
license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent
drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time.
This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under
the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required
to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
1,077
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 473 (44 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 473 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
8 firms (1.7 %) were classified as VAI
FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
5,207
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 2,544 (49 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 2,544 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
43 firms (1.7 %) were classified as VAI
PROTEIN BLENDERS
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing
quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
398
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 191 (48 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 191 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firm (0%) was classified as OAI
3 firms (1.6 %) were classified as VAI
RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS MANUFACTURING WITH PROHIBITED
MATERIAL
This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited
material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
Total number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose
initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,628
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with
prohibited materials – 505 (7.6 %)
Of the 505 active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing
with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
22 firms (4.4 %) were classified as VAI
OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food
manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal
feed transporters.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
19,481
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 6,275 (32 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 6,275 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
155 firms (2.5 %) were classified as VAI
TOTAL FIRMS
Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category;
therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be
more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
21,630
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 6,927 (32 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 6,927 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
162 firms (2.3 %) were classified as VAI
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/BSE0108.htm
Greetings,
VAI violations can consist of many breaches, that in the end, could cause
tainted product to be distributed.
im just goint to pick out one from last year, and i just ponder how they
would have classified this ;
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
WE can only hope that this is a single incident. BUT i have my doubts. I
remember when the infamous TOKEN Purina Feed Mill in Texas was feeding up to
5.5 grams of potentially and probably tainted BANNED RUMINANT feed to
cattle, and the FDA was bragging at the time that the amount of potentially
BANNED product was so little and the cattle were so big ;
"It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin
(therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no
evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once.
The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even
if the feed were contaminated."
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html
look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused 7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;
Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates
Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can prevent transmission of BSE to man.
snip...
BSE bovine brain inoculum
100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg
Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)
Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%) 1/15 (7%)
RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)
PrPres biochemical detection
The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a similar PrPres concentration that was
inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of
bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.
Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected orally with similar BSE brain inocula
Published online January 27, 2005
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa
It is clear that the designing scientists must also have shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf
6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley's answer (that it would take less than say 100
grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one
considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise that it
could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route within the
same species. This information did not become available until the "attack rate"
experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment
designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to ensure
that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the study
and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to trigger
infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that time
ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the designing
scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the
dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf
2) Infectious dose:
To cattle: 1 gram of infected brain material (by oral ingestion)
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/bio/bseesbe.shtml
Subject: Experimental BSE Infection of Non-human Primates: Efficacy of the Oral Route Date: September 29, 2007 at 12:50 pm PST
P04.27
Experimental BSE Infection of Non-human Primates: Efficacy of the Oral Route
Holznagel, E1; Yutzy, B1; Deslys, J-P2; Lasmézas, C2; Pocchiari, M3; Ingrosso, L3; Bierke, P4; Schulz-Schaeffer, W5; Motzkus, D6; Hunsmann, G6; Löwer, J1 1Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany; 2Commissariat à l´Energie Atomique, France; 3Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy; 4Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease control, Sweden; 5Georg August University, Germany; 6German Primate Center, Germany
Background:
In 2001, a study was initiated in primates to assess the risk for humans to contract BSE through contaminated food. For this purpose, BSE brain was titrated in cynomolgus monkeys.
Aims:
The primary objective is the determination of the minimal infectious dose (MID50) for oral exposure to BSE in a simian model, and, by in doing this, to assess the risk for humans. Secondly, we aimed at examining the course of the disease to identify possible biomarkers.
Methods:
Groups with six monkeys each were orally dosed with lowering amounts of BSE brain: 16g, 5g, 0.5g, 0.05g, and 0.005g. In a second titration study, animals were intracerebrally (i.c.) dosed (50, 5, 0.5, 0.05, and 0.005 mg).
Results:
In an ongoing study, a considerable number of high-dosed macaques already developed simian vCJD upon oral or intracerebral exposure or are at the onset of the clinical phase. However, there are differences in the clinical course between orally and intracerebrally infected animals that may influence the detection of biomarkers.
Conclusions:
Simian vCJD can be easily triggered in cynomolgus monkeys on the oral route using less than 5 g BSE brain homogenate. The difference in the incubation period between 5 g oral and 5 mg i.c. is only 1 year (5 years versus 4 years). However, there are rapid progressors among orally dosed monkeys that develop simian v CJD as fast as intracerebrally inoculated animals.
The work referenced was performed in partial fulfilment of the study "BSE in primates" supported by the EU (QLK1-2002-01096).
http://www.prion2007.com/pdf/Prion%20Book%20of%20Abstracts.pdf
THE FDA MAD COW FEED BAN I.E. RUMINANT TO RUMINANT AUGUST 4, 1997 PARTIAL, AND VOLUNTARY AT THAT, WAS NOTHING MORE THAN INK ON PAPER. ...tss
WE now know all that was a lie. WE know that literally Thousands of TONS of
BANNED and most likely tainted product is still going out to commerce. WE
know now and we knew then that .005 to a gram was lethal. WE know that CWD
infected deer and elk, scrapie infected sheep, BSE and BASE infected cattle
have all been rendered and fed back to livestock (including cattle) for
human and animal consumption.
Paul Brown, known and respected TSE scientist, former TSE
expert for the CDC said he had ''absolutely no confidence in USDA tests
before one year ago'', and this was on March 15, 2006 ;
"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer
that."
Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
that initially tested positive.
USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.
"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r
CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ... Dr. Paul
Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous
System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05,
...
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm
PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM
"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow
issue for some years, and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy
detailed critiques and recommendations to both the USDA and the Canadian
Food Agency."
APHIS-2006-0041-0006 TSE advisory committee for the meeting December 15,
2006
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801f3413&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw8
PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary
Sr. [[email protected]] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf
Attachment to Singletary comment
January 28, 2007
Greetings APHIS,
I would kindly like to submit the following to ;
BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01
[Federal Register: January 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 5)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1101-1129]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ja07-21]
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f8152
BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS
DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01
Date: January 9, 2007 at 9:08 am PST
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f3412
[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
03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary
Page 1 of 17
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
Thursday, January 3, 2008
ANIMAL HEALTH REPORT 2006 (BSE h-BASE EVENT IN ALABAMA, Scrapie, and CWD)
http://animalhealthreport2006.blogspot.com/2008/01/animal-health-report-2006-bse-h-base.html
:tiphat: :wave: TSS
A
Anonymous
Guest
Flounder- Do you also believe GW Bush flew the first plane into the WTO :???:
I've worked in government agencies long enough to know that you could never get 1, 000's of Doctors, Veterinarians, Lab Techs, Field Techs, bureaucrats, etc. etc. that work for the USDA in all parts of these United States to all conspire to mistest or coverup hundreds of thousands of test results over a long period of years with ever changing personell.... Just isn't possible....
I'll buy the grassy knoll-- or LBJ shot Kennedy conspiracy long before I'll buy that this type of coverup you suggest could ever occur....
I've worked in government agencies long enough to know that you could never get 1, 000's of Doctors, Veterinarians, Lab Techs, Field Techs, bureaucrats, etc. etc. that work for the USDA in all parts of these United States to all conspire to mistest or coverup hundreds of thousands of test results over a long period of years with ever changing personell.... Just isn't possible....
I'll buy the grassy knoll-- or LBJ shot Kennedy conspiracy long before I'll buy that this type of coverup you suggest could ever occur....
andybob
Well-known member
Whereas the British banned all rendered animal material for use as feed, most other countries have not. Smithfields' commercial farms have all pig mortality's and afterbirths etc collected from their farms, and rendered,I believe by a contractor (you don't want to get behind their collection trucks!) The carcase meal is used in their turkey rations (Butterball Turkeys), and the rendered fat goes back into pig rations.
Oldtimer said:
Funny how you and Sandhusker can twist things around to suit your protectionist attitudes. All we know from those stats you just so kindly posted is that Canada was CAPABLE of finding more bse than the Yanks. Until we are allowed to test everything we will never know, so in the the meantime both countries will be considered minimum risk.
If you believe your feedban worked better than ours......... well...... could I interest you in a bridge??????
