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

R-CALF on BSE Rule

A

Anonymous

Guest
So much for USDA's "scientific" rulemaking :roll: :(

USDA Continues to Expose U.S. to Unnecessary Risk

May 16th, 2009

17th BSE-Infected Cow is Canada’s 10th Born After March 1, 1999



Billings, Mont. – On Friday, May 15, 2009, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) announced yet another case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) – this time in an 80-month-old Alberta dairy cow. This cow would have been born in 2002, making her the 10th BSE-positive cow young enough to be exported to the United States. In November 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) implemented a rule to allow the importation of higher-risk Canadian cattle – cattle over 30 months (OTM) of age – into the United States, as long as they were born after March 1, 1999.



USDA’s risk modeling for its November 2007 rule (OTM Rule), which allows the importation of OTM Canadian cattle into the United States, predicted that the U.S. would import as many as five BSE-infected cattle per year based on the expected importation of only 75,000 OTM Canadian cattle during the first year of the rule’s implementation. However, the U.S. actually imported well over twice this number – nearly 200,000 OTM cattle – from Canada in 2008, the first year of the OTM Rule. Currently, the U.S. is importing OTM Canadian cattle at an even higher rate i n 2009, with approximately 72,000 imports of OTM cattle imported through May 2.



“There are no restrictions on these higher-risk OTM cattle when they enter the United States,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee. “These higher-risk cattle are allowed to commingle with the U.S. herd, enter the U.S. food supply and enter the non-ruminant U.S. animal feed system. USDA has an absolute duty to protect the U.S. cattle herd as well a s U.S. consumers from the introduction of BSE that is known to be occurring under the OTM Rule, and R-CALF is again calling on USDA to immediately rescind the OTM Rule.”



When USDA implemented its OTM Rule, the agency stated that Canada’s BSE prevalence was continuously decreasing and that Canadian cattle born after the export eligibility date of March 1, 1999, would “have an extremely low likelihood of exposure to BSE.” Since that time, Canada has detected six additional BSE-positive cattle under very limited testing, and five of these cases were born – and therefore exposed to BSE – years after March 1, 1999.



Since 2003, there have been 17 cases of BSE detected in Canadian-born cattle. In addition to its Canadian-born cases, Canada also detected a case of BSE in 1993 in a cow imported from Great Britain.



“Since implementation of the 2007 OTM Rule, Canada has detected one positive BSE case for about every 10,000 head of cattle tested, which represents a rate of detection greater than several European countries considered to be of high risk for BSE,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.



“This statistic is even more alarming when one considers that Canada tested fewer than 49,000 cattle in 2008, which is a decrease of nearly 10,000 head when compared to testing conducted in 2007,” he emphasized. “Canada’s 2009 testing rate is even lower, with Canada testing more than 5,000 fewer animals in the first two months of 2009 than it did in 2008.”



Bullard said that Canada is the only country in the world that does not have a mandatory BSE testing program that continues to detect BSE in cattle born after the implementation of a feed ban.



“Canada’s BSE testing is voluntary, and based on the significant numbers of BSE-positive cattle detected under very limited testing, Canada’s BSE prevalence rate is likely well above USDA’s estimate,” he pointed out. “The result is that the United States is assuming a much higher risk for the introduction of BSE than the negligible risk that USDA claims.”



R-CALF USA, the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, five national consumer groups and several individual ranchers have a pending lawsuit against USDA’s OTM Rule. As a result of this litigation, the court ordered USDA to reopen the OTM Rule and “to revise any provisions of the OTM Rule it deems necessary.”



“We are counting on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to take appropriate action to protect our cattle herd and our consumers by immediately overturning the OTM Rule that is allowing the continuous introduction of BSE into the United States,” Thornsberry said.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Urgent Alert on FDA Ruminant Feed Ban R-CALF April 8, 2009 By Bill Bullard

Email this page To: R-CALF USA Members and Affiliates From: Bill Bullard, R-CALF USA CEO Date: April 7, 2009

Subject: Urgent Alert on FDA Ruminant Feed Ban

This is a long, but very important Alert. Beginning April 9, 2009, we will have a new, but very short, opportunity to demonstrate the danger the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has brought upon the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers by allowing the importation into the U.S. of older Canadian cattle with a heightened risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). We hope you will review this information carefully and submit comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent it from failing to protect our nation from Canada’s known BSE problem.

Summary: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a delay in the implementation of the new feed ban that is supposed to take effect on April 27, 2009. This new feed ban is necessary to address the increased risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) caused by the USDA’s 2008 rule that allows older Canadian cows and bulls into the United States (OTM Rule). These older Canadian cattle are known to be of higher risk for BSE. The FDA is opening a special, 7-day comment period to accept public comments on whether the implementation of the feed ban should be delayed. We need thousands of comments from cattle producers and consumers stating that:

Any delay of the new feed ban would expose the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers to an unacceptable, unnecessary and entirely avoidable risk of BSE. Unless USDA immediately rescinds the OTM Rule, the U.S. has absolutely no choice but to immediately implement the new feed ban in order to mitigate our increased exposure to BSE caused by imported OTM Canadian cattle. The FDA is being pressured by the very people who fought to increase our exposure to Canada’s BSE problem, and now these people do not want to take the necessary steps to manage this increased BSE risk. We have a 7-day window to demonstrate to FDA that it can’t have it both ways: We must either close the border to eliminate the known risk of introducing BSE from Canada, or we must immediately implement the new feed ban to attempt to minimize this known risk as much as possible.

Background: The FDA has jurisdiction over animal feed. In 1997 the FDA implemented a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban (BSE Feed Ban) to prevent the potential spread of BSE should BSE ever penetrate our U.S. borders. Canada also implemented a nearly identical BSE Feed Ban in 1997. Europe implemented the same type of BSE Feed Ban in 1988, but found that it did not work to stop the spread of BSE once the disease had entered the animal feed system. Europe then upgraded its BSE Feed Ban five times between 1988 and 2001 to finally ban all ruminant products (including blood meal) in all animal feed (not just for cattle and other ruminants), including pet feed. This upgraded BSE Feed Ban proved effective at reducing cross-contamination and inadvertent feeding.

Despite repeated urgings by both domestic and international scientists, Canada and the U.S. resisted making any upgrades to their respective BSE Feed Bans, even after it was known that Canada was incubating BSE in its herd and an imported Canadian cow with BSE was found in the U.S. in December 2003. The FDA proposed to upgrade our U.S. BSE Feed Ban in 2004, but the U.S. rendering and packing industries held it back. When Canada began detecting multiple BSE cases in cattle born years after its 1997 BSE Feed Ban, Canada finally admitted that its 1997 Feed Ban was not working to halt the spread of BSE and it upgraded its BSE Feed Ban in July 2007, banning the feeding of ruminant products to all animals, including pets.

In early 2007, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) refused to designate the U.S. with the more favorable “Negligible BSE Risk” risk rating even though the U.S. met all the criteria for a “Negligible BSE Risk” country. Instead, the OIE designated the U.S. as having the same risk as Canada – a “Controlled BSE Risk.” The OIE, knowing the U.S. was importing Canadian cattle, cited the failure of the U.S. to upgrade its feed ban when it explained why the U.S. only received a “Controlled BSE Risk” designation. Exporting countries continue to cite this unfavorable “Controlled BSE Risk” designation as the reason for maintaining severe restrictions on U.S. beef exports.

In November 2007, even though it had not upgraded its BSE Feed Ban to accommodate the higher BSE risk associated with Canadian cattle, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) began allowing Canadian cattle older than 30 months (OTM) of age to enter the U.S. without restriction, meaning they can be transported anywhere in the U.S. and comingled with U.S. cattle. These OTM cattle are among Canada’s highest-risk cattle. Canada has now detected 16 native cases of BSE in OTM cattle, with most of these cases (10) born after Canada’s 1997 Feed Ban, and over half of these cases (9) were eligible to be exported to the U.S. under the 2008 OTM rule (OTM Rule).

USDA’s base-case risk assessment for the OTM Rule predicts that as a result of importing higher-risk OTM Canadian cattle into the U.S., the U.S. will import 19 BSE infected cattle over the next 20 years, resulting in the consequential infection of 2 U.S. animals. Using USDA’s 95th percentile confidence modeling, the risk assessment predicts the OTM Rule would result in the importation of 105 BSE-infected cattle, resulting in the consequential infection of 75 U.S. cattle.

As a result of USDA’s OTM Rule, the U.S. is now importing hundreds of thousands of Canada’s highest-risk cattle, but it does not even have an upgraded feed ban comparable to the one Canada has put in place to address Canada’s heightened risk. These OTM Canadian cattle are entering U.S. rendering plants and entering our U.S. food system. This is ridiculous!

Status: One year ago, on April 25, 2008, the FDA finally published a final rule to upgrade the U.S. Feed Ban to mitigate the heightened risk associated with OTM Canadian cattle. However, the final rule (Final Feed Ban Rule) was not scheduled to take effect until April 27, 2009.

In March 2009, R-CALF USA learned that FDA was planning to delay implementation of the Final Feed Ban Rule for 60 days and to open a 30-day comment period to determine if the Final Feed Ban Rule should be delayed for an even longer period than 60 days. R-CALF USA also learned that Congressmen David Scott (D-GA) and Adrian Smith (R-NE) were circulating a letter in Congress seeking congressional support for delaying implementation of the Final Feed Ban Rule.

On March 25, 2009, R-CALF USA sent a letter to each congressional member serving on the House Agriculture Committee and to the Acting FDA Commissioner urging them not to delay implementation of the Final Feed Ban Rule so long as the USDA continues to expose the U.S. to a heightened BSE risk through the OTM Rule.

Though FDA did not outright scrap its plan to delay the Final Feed Ban Rule as R-CALF USA requested, it did substantially modify its plans by announcing today that it will publish a “Special Filing” in the Federal Register on Thursday, April 9, 2009. This Special Filing will provide the public with a 7-day period – from April 9 through April 16, to comment solely on whether the FDA should delay the April 27, 2009 implementation of the Final Feed Ban Rule for 60 days – until June 26, 2009.

Action: This is our opportunity to highlight the danger of USDA’s totally irresponsible OTM Rule by telling FDA in no uncertain terms that unless USDA immediately rescinds the OTM Rule, the U.S. has absolutely no choice but to immediately implement the Final Feed Ban Rule in order to mitigate our increased exposure to BSE caused by imported OTM Canadian cattle. We need as many written comments from as many cattle producers and consumers as possible within the 7-day window that starts April 9 and ends April 16. The clear message to FDA should be that:

Any delay of the Final Feed Ban Rule would expose the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers to an unacceptable, unnecessary and entirely avoidable risk of BSE. Unless USDA immediately rescinds the OTM Rule, the U.S. has absolutely no choice but to immediately implement the Final Feed Ban Rule in order to mitigate our increased exposure to BSE caused by imported OTM Canadian cattle.

We urge you to file comments beginning April 9 and no later than April 16 by following the procedure outlined below:

1. Wait until April 9, 2009 2. Go to: www.regulations.gov 3. Type in: FDA-2002-N-0031 4. Click the box that states “Select to find documents accepting comments or submissions” 5. Click “Go >>”

On April 9, 2009, R-CALF USA will provide more detailed instructions on how to actually submit your comments (the system is not yet open to accept comments so we are not sure what the next steps will be to simplify your submission).

6. Include the following address and information on your comments:

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061

Rockville, MD 20852

Docket Number: FDA-2002-N-0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N-0273)

Dear FDA,................

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.


http://www.agobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?RefID=105700



CJD FOUNDATION AND R-CALF LETTER

Sample Comment Letter for Your Use (You are free to use all or part of this letter):

April 9, 2009 Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket Number: FDA-2002-N-0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N-0273)

Dear Administrator,

As the family member of a loved one who has died of a Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), one form of which can be acquired by ingesting BSE contaminated beef, I want to express my outrage at the recent announcement of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) delay of its April 17, 2009 scheduled implementation of the final rule titled "Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed," commonly referred to as the 2008 BSE final rule. They have made this announcement with full knowledge that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) continues to subject U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd to a heighted risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from imports of live Canadian cattle, particularly imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months (OTM) of age.

In Canada the disease occurrence is between three cases per million to eight cases per million cattle. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states the level of BSE prevalence in the Canadian cattle herd is 18-fold to 48-fold higher than the prevalence estimated in the U.S. cattle herd. Just in 2008, nearly 1.6 million Canadian cattle were imported into the United States. By delaying the implementation of the Feed Ban the FDA risks yet another break in an already severely compromised food safety firewall.

When USDA reopened the U.S. border in 2007 to Canada's highest-risk cattle population - OTM cattle - its risk modeling based on a Canadian BSE prevalence of fewer than 4 cases per million predicted that the U.S. would import over 100 head of BSE-infected cattle from Canada over the next 20 years. In addition, the risk modeling showed that human exposure to BSE would increase. However, as the CDC explained, the BSE prevalence in Canada could well be 8 cases per million, meaning that USDA likely has grossly underestimated the risk of introducing BSE-infected cattle into the U.S. as a result of allowing OTM Canadian cattle imports. Canada already has detected 16 native cases of BSE in its OTM cattle herd, 10 of which were born after the 1997 feed ban. The most recent of these cases was detected just last November. Nine of Canada's BSE-infected cattle met USDA's age requirements to be exported to the United States, as they were born after March 1, 1999, the date after which USDA erroneously claims BSE-infectivity was no longer circulating in Canada.

The current U.S. feed ban implemented in 1997 is comparable to the initial Canadian feed ban also implemented in 1997. Canada's feed ban proved ineffective at preventing the spread of BSE in Canada. Despite the repeated urging of international scientists, Canada resisted any upgrades to its feed ban until after it detected multiple BSE cases in cattle born years after its 1997 feed ban. Canada's July 2007 upgraded feed ban now protects Canadian consumers against the spread of BSE from Canadian cattle by closing known transmission routes, including cross-contamination and inadvertent feeding of contaminated cattle parts. It is unthinkable that the FDA would not afford U.S. consumers the same level of protection against these same Canadian cattle that are imported into the United States.

The FDA cannot legitimately argue that its current feed ban implemented in 1997, which is nearly identical to Canada's original feed ban also implemented in 1997, is any more effective at mitigating Canada's heightened BSE risk within U.S. borders than it was in mitigating Canada's heightened BSE risk in Canada. Nor can FDA ignore the scientific evidence that overwhelmingly shows that the current U.S. feed ban is insufficient to mitigate the heightened BSE risk associated with OTM cattle imported from Canada. These higher-risk OTM Canadian cattle are entering the U.S. at the rate of several thousand per week, are being commingled in the U.S. cattle herd where some would be expected to die, and are entering both the U.S. food system as well as the U.S. animal feed system. The U.S. already is accepting Canada's higher BSE risk without the protections necessary to mitigate that higher risk.

The FDA cannot bury its head in the sand and pretend the upgraded feed ban contained in the 2008 BSE final rule is not urgently needed to mitigate the increased BSE risk associated with the importation of millions of Canadian cattle. In fact, the FDA already has failed to timely implement an upgraded feed ban, which should have been implemented before USDA began to expose U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd to Canada's heightened BSE risk.

The FDA has an absolute responsibility to protect the health and safety of U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd against this foreign animal disease which is always 100% fatal, and has been known to cross the species barrier infecting humans with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), the human form of BSE. We need only look to the United Kingdom's recent tragic experience when it was discovered that BSE had crossed the species barrier to humans. Thus far this preventable disease has caused the deaths of 168 young adults. The long incubation period (which can be up to 40 years), means that tragically, there could be many more cases in the future. The FDA must break away from the manipulative actions by corporate-controlled, self-serving trade associations that have caused both FDA and USDA to endanger the health and safety of U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd by exposing them to an unnecessary and avoidable risk of BSE.

The USDA must immediately eliminate the source of this heightened BSE risk by prohibiting the importation of OTM Canadian cattle, and the FDA must immediately implement the 2008 BSE final rule to mitigate this heightened risk. There are no responsible alternatives.


http://cjdadvocacy.blogspot.com/2009/04/fda-food-ban.html



http://www.cjdfoundation.org/



Docket: FDA-2002-N-0031 Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

Comment On: FDA-2002-N-0031-0132 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Final Rule: Proposed Delay of Effective Date

Document: FDA-2002-N-0031-0184 Florence Joyce Kranitz - Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitter Information Organization: The CJD Foundation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comment

April 10, 2009

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061 Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket Number: FDA-2002-N-0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N-0273)

Dear Administrator:

As the family member of a loved one who has died of a Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), one form of which can be acquired by ingesting BSE contaminated beef, and as President of the CJD Foundation, I want to express my outrage at the recent announcement of the U.S Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) delay of its April 17, 2009 scheduled implementation of the final rule titled “Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed,” commonly referred to as the 2008 BSE final rule. They have made this announcement with full knowledge that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) continues to subject U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd to a heighted risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from imports of live Canadian cattle, particularly imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months (OTM) of age.

In Canada the disease occurrence is between three cases per million to eight cases per million cattle. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states the level of BSE prevalence in the Canadian cattle herd is 18-fold to 48-fold higher than the prevalence estimated in the U.S. cattle herd. Just in 2008, nearly 1.6 million Canadian cattle were imported into the United States. By delaying the implementation of the Feed Ban the FDA risks yet another break in an already severely compromised food safety firewall.

When USDA reopened the U.S. border in 2007 to Canada’s highest-risk cattle population – OTM cattle – its risk modeling based on a Canadian BSE prevalence of fewer than 4 cases per million predicted that the U.S. would import over 100 head of BSE-infected cattle from Canada over the next 20 years. In addition, the risk modeling showed that human exposure to BSE would increase. However, as the CDC explained, the BSE prevalence in Canada could well be 8 cases per million, meaning that USDA likely has grossly underestimated the risk of introducing BSE-infected cattle into the U.S. as a result of allowing OTM Canadian cattle imports.

Canada already has detected 16 native cases of BSE in its OTM cattle herd, 10 of which were born after the 1997 feed ban. The most recent of these cases was detected just last November. Nine of Canada’s BSE-infected cattle met USDA’s age requirements to be exported to the United States, as they were born after March 1, 1999, the date after which USDA erroneously claims BSE-infectivity was no longer circulating in Canada.

The current U.S. feed ban implemented in 1997 is comparable to the initial Canadian feed ban also implemented in 1997. Canada’s feed ban proved ineffective at preventing the spread of BSE in Canada. Despite the repeated urging of international scientists, Canada resisted any upgrades to its feed ban until after it detected multiple BSE cases in cattle born years after its 1997 feed ban. Canada’s July 2007 upgraded feed ban now protects Canadian consumers against the spread of BSE from Canadian cattle by closing known transmission routes, including cross-contamination and inadvertent feeding of contaminated cattle parts. It is unthinkable that the FDA would not afford U.S. consumers the same level of protection against these same Canadian cattle that are imported into the United States.

The FDA cannot legitimately argue that its current feed ban implemented in 1997, which is nearly identical to Canada’s original feed ban also implemented in 1997, is any more effective at mitigating Canada’s heightened BSE risk within U.S. borders than it was in mitigating Canada’s heightened BSE risk in Canada. Nor can FDA ignore the scientific evidence that overwhelmingly shows that the current U.S. feed ban is insufficient to mitigate the heightened BSE risk associated with OTM cattle imported from Canada. These higher-risk OTM Canadian cattle are entering the U.S. at the rate of several thousand per week, are being commingled in the U.S. cattle herd where some would be expected to die, and are entering both the U.S. food system as well as the U.S. animal feed system. The U.S. already is accepting Canada’s higher BSE risk without the protections necessary to mitigate that higher risk.

The FDA cannot bury its head in the sand and pretend the upgraded feed ban contained in the 2008 BSE final rule is not urgently needed to mitigate the increased BSE risk associated with the importation of millions of Canadian cattle. In fact, the FDA already has failed to timely implement an upgraded feed ban, which should have been implemented before USDA began to expose U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd to Canada’s heightened BSE risk.

The FDA has an absolute responsibility to protect the health and safety of U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd against this foreign animal disease which is always 100% fatal, and has been known to cross the species barrier infecting humans with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), the human form of BSE. We need only look to the United Kingdom’s recent tragic experience when it was discovered that BSE had crossed the species barrier to humans. Thus far this preventable disease has caused the deaths of 168 young adults. The long incubation period (which can be up to 40 years), means that tragically, there could be many more cases in the future.

The FDA must break away from the manipulative actions by corporate-controlled, self-serving trade associations that have caused both FDA and USDA to endanger the health and safety of U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd by exposing them to an unnecessary and avoidable risk of BSE.

The USDA must immediately eliminate the source of this heightened BSE risk by prohibiting the importation of OTM Canadian cattle, and the FDA must immediately implement the 2008 BSE final rule to mitigate this heightened risk. There are no responsible alternatives.

Sincerely, Florence Kranitz, President



http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FDA-2002-N-0031




Saturday, April 11, 2009

CJD FOUNDATION SIDES WITH R-CALFERS NO BSE OR HUMAN TSE THERE OF IN USA 'don't be fooled'



Greetings CJD Voice,

PLEASE be aware, R-CALFERS don't believe the USA has mad cow disease. R-CALFERS believe that the only problem in North America is in Canada, and that it's all Canada's fault. R-CALFERS ALSO believe that no human TSE in the USA is caused by eating beef. R-CALFERS only believe in the UKBSEnvCJD only theory. so in my humble opinion, they kinda mirror the CJD Foundations beliefs. dont' be fooled. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. oh, it looks pretty, but please, i urge everyone here, do not be fooled. 569 members of CJDVOICE and only a few in a click communicates amongst themselves with the cjd foundation (the new one, not cele's old cjd foundation). why was this not posted on the cjd foundation web site (i may have missed it, but could not find it on homepage)? are they not proud that they have now sided with a cattle group that refuses to acknowledge the problem with mad cow disease in the USA, or a human TSE there of ? or maybe this is why it took over a decade or more to get a cjd questionnaire that would ask real questions pertaining to route and source of agent, as opposed to just how and by whom it was diagnosed?


i do not now, and will not ever support a partnership with R-CALF about any TSE, until they stand up and look at themselves in a mirror and admit that the USA is in the same boat as Canada, and that the USA also has a mad cow problem. the sham that took place in 2004, the so called extensive USA BSE surveillance program, was just that, a sham, and proved to be just that. the feed ban was just as much a sham, and proven to be so.


do not be fooled cjdvoice, please do not be fooled.


Bullard and r-calf et al, should stop worrying about Canada, and worry about their own back yard. stop covering up mad cow disease and using the SSS policy. if they would have taken care of business back in 1997, we would not be discussing this. Until a BSE Inquiry is addressed here in the USA against the USDA/FDA et al, and a true enhanced BSE Surveillance and testing program be put forth, we still will never no how many mad cows the USA really have $$$ the last enhanced BSE surveillance program was put forth, even the top prion Scientist said it was terribly flawed, and still is.


i said it a long time ago, ALL CATTLE FOR HUMAN AND ANIMAL CONSUMPTION SHOULD BE TESTED FOR 5 YEARS IN A ROW, before we know to a true extent, just what kind of problem we have. and all the rules and regulations on the mad cow feed ban will not work, unless they are strongly enforced, with severe ramifications when the rules are broke. stupidity is not acceptable anymore. ...



see full text ;



http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html


Sunday, April 12, 2009

r-calf and the USA mad cow problem, don't look, don't find, and then blame Canada


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/r-calf-and-usa-mad-cow-problem-dont.html


Docket No. FDA2002N0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N0273) RIN 0910AF46 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Final Rule: Proposed


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/04/docket-no-fda2002n0031-formerly-docket.html


CJDVOICE AND CJDFOUNDATION MEMBERS,

FOR all these reasons, is why i oppose the CJD Foundation decission to side with a cattle company that over the years, was as responsible for exposing the USA consumer to mad cow disease as was Canada, and then submit a letter that was written and in support of blaming only Canada. This letter the CJD Foundation supports and ask you to write, is only in support of R-CALF and a closed market to Canada beef, ALL THE WHILE IGNORING AND NOT SAYING A WORD OF PAST AND PRESENT FAILLURES OF THE SAME THING HERE IN THE USA. don't be fooled CJDVOICE. if you support this letter the way it was written, you are only fooling yourselves. you are being played like a pawn. write your own letter/comment, tell them the rest of the story. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CANADA ! the only reason we don't find mad cow disease in the USA, is because they did everything they could do in NOT finding BSE in those some 800,000 cattle that were tested. even Paul Brown called it flawed. dont be fooled cjdvoice and cjd foundation members, don't be fooled. ...

CANADA DID NOT KILL MY MOTHER, AND HER DEATH WAS NO SPONTANEOUS EVENT, OR HAPPENSTANCE OF BAD LUCK. ...

r-calf talks the talk NOW, but they need to practice what they preach at home. clean up their own backyards, stop worrying about Canada. the USA and Canadian cattle market, feed market, import and export between the two, were so intertwined, it was one market. Canada is just being honest, they are testing to find, and finding. the USDA et al did just the opposite, and or years and years that was o.k. with R-CALF. Canada's feed ban is stronger that the USA's feed ban. the only reason the USA is not finding mad cow cases of any phenotype is because of the SSS policy of shoot, shovel, and shut the hell up. ...

BSE MRR TSS, R-CALF ON CANADA VS USA

Bill Rancher

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

Texan wrote:

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

flounder wrote:

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

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

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

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

I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.

_________________

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

my answer to big muddy from canada ;

hello there Texan,

yep, you read it right. don't know what ya'll gonna do without me. you know i plan on retiring from this mess soon. the pay is simply too excessive ;-( i fed them all i had at the time, and they shot the teacher. then hired old stanley i heard, go figure, must have been all those PhDs i had ;-)

as with the fuji-tv, when they came here and interviewed me for a BSE show, that i don't know what happened too, or the madcowboy documentary i was asked to proofread, and did, assured i would get some credit for, to never hear from again, to the speech in south Korea i was to make Nov. 23, but was shipwrecked somehow there too, and that might have been a good thing considering all the riots, and they did get the information anyway, to the TSS documentary, that too fell apart for good reasons i suppose, to helping creekstone, and finally to the NIH attempted destruction of an historical bank of donated tissue from CJD victims, and that one i think i did manage to stop, and that thanks to a Republican John Cornyn, i simply think it's time to let you fellars and gals clear this mess up. i have wasted enough time. it will be a decade next Christmas. i just would hate to keep kicking the same old mad cow. i know what happened for the most part, and the ones that don't get it now, never will.

now there Texan, as far as your question, and confusion ;-) i bet you thought i was not going to answer it, or, maybe hoping i would ;

flounder wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

hello again there Texan,

i don't guess it matters anymore, i don't think ill be testifying for anyone, unless it is my own execution.

i was willing to participate in good faith, and sound science, that is why i think i was never sent to testify,

because in my opinion, R-Calf only wanted to cherry-pick the science, to use to there advantage, to try and

claim that Canada had a worse BSE problem than the USA, and i could not conceed to that. the science did

not confirm this. all one has to do is read the BSE GBR risk assessments, and that is why GW/OIE et al revised

there own risk assessments ;-) the BSE MRR policy.

i don't know, maybe i misinterpreted it all, maybe not, you can be the judge ;

oh what tangled webs we weave, when all we do is practice to deceive. ...TSS

SNIP...END... SEE FULL TEXT ;

***


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


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


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


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



Sunday, May 10, 2009

Identification and characterization of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases diagnosed and not diagnosed in the United States


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/05/identification-and-characterization-of.html



Thursday, March 19, 2009


MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html


Sunday, May 10, 2009


Meeting of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Committee On June 12, 2009 (Singeltary submission)


http://tseac.blogspot.com/2009/05/meeting-of-transmissible-spongiform.html



Monday, May 4, 2009


Back to the Past With New TSE Testing Agricultural Research/May-June 2009


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/05/back-to-past-with-new-tse-testing.html



Sunday, April 12, 2009 TRANSMISSION OF ATYPICAL BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN HUMANIZED MOUSE MODELS


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/04/transmission-of-atypical-bovine.html



The Canadian system is much better than the USA. at least they know. the USA just SHOOTS, SHOVELS, AND SHUTS UP I.E. THE SSS POLICY.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Identification and characterization of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases diagnosed and not diagnosed in the United States


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/05/identification-and-characterization-of.html



Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA) Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083 Adopted date: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)

Document (0.2Mb)

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620779461.htm



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_annex_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_summary_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true



Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of CANADA Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083 Adopted July 2004 Summary The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC), to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Canada, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Canada. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Canada as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003. The BSE agent was probably imported into the country middle of the eighties and could have reached domestic cattle in the early nineties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Canada reached domestic cattle and led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries. EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of Canada is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the system remains unstable, it is expected that the GBR continues to grow, even if no additional external challenges occur.


http://www.mvo.nl/wetgeving-dierlijk-vet/onderzoek/download/EFSA%20on%20BSE%20risk%20Canada%20jul%202004.pdf



Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of MEXICO Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083 Adopted July 2004 Summary The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Mexico, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Mexico. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Mexico as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003. The BSE agent was probably imported into Mexico and could have reached domestic cattle. These cattle imported could have been rendered and therefore led to an internal challenge in the mid to late 1990's. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Mexico reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge around 1993. It is likely that BSE infectivity entered processing at the time of imported 'at - risk' MBM (1993) and at the time of slaughter of imported live 'at - risk' cattle (mid to late 1990s). The high level of external challenge is maintained throughout the reference period, and the system has not been made stable. Thus it is likely that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated from approximately 1993. The risk has since grown consistently due to a maintained internal and external challenge and lack of a stable system. EFSA concludes that the current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSEagent. The GBR is likely to increase due to continued internal and external challenge, coupled with a very unstable system.


http://www.mvo.nl/wetgeving-dierlijk-vet/onderzoek/download/EFSA%20on%20BSE%20risk%20Mexico%20jul%202004.pdf



Saturday, April 11, 2009

CJD FOUNDATION SIDES WITH R-CALFERS NO BSE OR HUMAN TSE THERE OF IN USA 'don't be fooled'


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html



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



Thu Dec 6, 2007 11:38

FDA IN CRISIS MODE, AMERICAN LIVES AT RISK


http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/dec0407fda.html



FDA SCIENCE AND MISSION AT RISK


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_01_FDA%20Report%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf



10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. BLOOD LACED 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



Thursday, March 19, 2009


MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA WITH ONGOING 12 YEARS OF DENIAL NOW, WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE $$$


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html



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 vCJD 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



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



Friday, November 21, 2008

Plasma & Serum Proteins Receive Continued FDA Approval


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/11/plasma-serum-proteins-receive-continued.html



http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/



Thursday, November 27, 2008 Prion diseases are efficiently transmitted by blood transfusion in sheep


http://vcjdblood.blogspot.com/2008/11/prion-diseases-are-efficiently.html



Scientists warn of first ever case of human mad cow disease from blood plasma


http://vcjdtransfusion.blogspot.com/2009/02/scientists-warn-of-first-ever-case-of.html



Saturday, February 21, 2009 Renderers say industry not prepared for FDA feed ban rule ??? WHAT, IT'S 2009 FOR PETE'S SAKE $$$ Two recent articles caught my eye ;

Renderers say industry not prepared for FDA feed ban rule

Food Chemical News

February 2, 2009

and

BSE, rendering relate to human safety

Emma Struve 02/17/2009


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/02/renderers-say-industry-not-prepared-for.html



Wednesday, February 04, 2009


Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease presenting as severe depression: a case report


http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/02/creutzfeldt-jacob-disease-presenting-as.html



CJD QUESTIONNAIRE USA CWRU AND CJD FOUNDATION


http://cjdquestionnaire.blogspot.com/



WHO WILL FOLLOW THE CHILDREN FOR CJD SYMPTOMS ???


Saturday, May 2, 2009

U.S. GOVERNMENT SUES WESTLAND/HALLMARK MEAT OVER USDA CERTIFIED DEADSTOCK DOWNER COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-government-sues-westlandhallmark.html




Sunday, May 17, 2009


WHO WILL WATCH THE CHILDREN ? SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FROM DOWNER CATTLE UPDATE


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2009/05/who-will-watch-children.html



TSS
 
Top