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

Rule 2

Longcut

Well-known member
USDA HARMONIZES CATTLE TRADE WITH CANADA IN LINE WITH INTERNATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH STANDARDS


WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2007—The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) today announced that it will expand the list of allowable imports from countries recognized as presenting a minimal risk of introducing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) into the United States. Currently, Canada is the only minimal-risk country designated by the United States.

"This rule is firmly based in science and ensures that we continue to protect the U.S. against BSE," said Bruce Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs. "It also is consistent with our commitment to promote fair trade practices and further normalizes trade with countries that institute the appropriate safeguards to prevent the spread of BSE."

This rule makes final a proposed rule published in the Jan. 9, 2007 Federal Register.

It also builds upon and expands the rule published by APHIS in January 2005 that allowed the importation of certain live ruminants and ruminant products, including cattle under 30 months of age for slaughter from countries recognized as minimal risk. The final rule announced today allows for the importation from Canada of:

Live cattle and other bovines (i.e., bison) for any use (including breeding) born on or after, March 1, 1999, which APHIS has determined to be the date of effective enforcement of Canada's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban;

Blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under certain conditions; and

Casings and part of the small intestine derived from bovines.

The January 2005 final rule, the first MRR rule, allowed the importation of Canadian bovine meat and meat products of any age. Subsequent to the publication of the final rule in January 2005, USDA delayed the applicability of those provisions of that final rule that dealt with meat and meat products from animals 30 months of age or older. With this final rule published today, that temporary delay in applicability is lifted and importation of these meat and meat products now can occur.

As part of its BSE rulemaking process, APHIS conducted a thorough risk assessment following guidelines put forth by the World Organization for Animal Health, or OIE, that evaluated the entire risk pathway, including mitigations in place both in Canada and the United States. The assessment also included evaluating the likelihood of BSE introduction via imports, the likelihood of animal exposure in the U.S. if this were to occur and the subsequent consequences. The assessment found that the risk of BSE establishment in the United States as a result of the imports announced today and those announced in January 2005 is negligible. APHIS considered new information related to the risk assessment, including Canada's identification of animals born after the date of the feed ban to evaluate the potential impact and determined that the original assessment was sufficiently robust that new data did not change the conclusions of the assessment. The risk assessment underwent a thorough, independent peer review in which all of the reviewers concurred with APHIS' risk assessment. The reviewers agreed that APHIS followed OIE guidelines and standards and acknowledged the scientific rigor of the assessment.

Additionally, APHIS encouraged the public to participate in the decision-making process by providing feedback through the submission of public comments. The public comment period on the proposed rule opened Jan. 9, 2007 and closed on March 12, 2007.

There are a series of interlocking safeguards in place to protect animal health from BSE transmission. These longstanding safeguards include the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, import controls, aggressive disease surveillance and U.S. slaughter practices.

Moreover, human health in the United States also is protected by another system of interlocking safeguards that ensure the safety of U.S. beef. The most important of these safeguards is the ban on specified risk materials from the food supply. Canada has similar safeguards in place.

The final rule is scheduled for publication in the Sept. 18, 2007 Federal Register and becomes effective Nov. 19, 2007. Additional information is available at www.aphis.usda.gov.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The final rule is scheduled for publication in the Sept. 18, 2007 Federal Register and becomes effective Nov. 19, 2007.

I had a chance to go to town and talk to some of the locals--- most agree that they estimate that after Nov 19th (maybe starting before that)- the US price of cull cows and bulls will drop around $25cwt....With most in this area not gathering and shipping/weaning until the first week of November- then pregging and culling- everyone is trying to figure out how they can get everything done before the market takes the big hit.... :( :mad:

As one the locals that posts on another site said--Could be a CRUEL December.... :(
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What a crock of sheet. The decision to reopen the border was made the day after they closed it.

Anybody wonder why Canada is the only "minimal risk" country when there is a whole continent of countries who's prevention measures are more stringent than Canada's?

How can McKnight say Canada has instituted " the appropriate safeguards to prevent the spread of BSE." When BSE spread after after the measures were taken?

How can March 1, 1999 be the effective date of Canada's enforcement when half of their cases were born after that date?

"The risk assessment underwent a thorough, independent peer review in which all of the reviewers concurred with APHIS' risk assessment" Who were they?

"Additionally, APHIS encouraged the public to participate in the decision-making process by providing feedback through the submission of public comments." And what was the verdict of the public?

"Moreover, human health in the United States also is protected by another system of interlocking safeguards that ensure the safety of U.S. beef." Even the Canadians here don't believe that!

What a steaming crock of sheet. :mad:
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Congratulations to the USDA for not caving into the fear mongering of protectionist groups as govenments in some other countries have. Beef is a healthy protein source despite what a amall uninformed minority claim. Reminds me of what Wilford Brimley used to say in the Quaker Oats ads "Because its the right thing to do"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol2: :clap: :nod:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Longcut said:
Congratulations to the USDA for not caving into the fear mongering of protectionist groups as govenments in some other countries have. Beef is a healthy protein source despite what a amall uninformed minority claim. Reminds me of what Wilford Brimley used to say in the Quaker Oats ads "Because its the right thing to do"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol2: :clap: :nod:

Congratulations to the USDA doing W's bidding of ignoring common sense, pursueing a "trade at all costs" policy to promote his North American one continent - one country dream, and covering it up with a thick coat of bull crap that a grade school kid could debunk.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You think the USDA deserves congratulations on their decison, Longcut. Maybe you can explain to us how your feed ban can be effective when half your cases have been born after it was implemented.
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The final rule is scheduled for publication in the Sept. 18, 2007 Federal Register and becomes effective Nov. 19, 2007.

I had a chance to go to town and talk to some of the locals--- most agree that they estimate that after Nov 19th (maybe starting before that)- the US price of cull cows and bulls will drop around $25cwt....With most in this area not gathering and shipping/weaning until the first week of November- then pregging and culling- everyone is trying to figure out how they can get everything done before the market takes the big hit.... :( :mad:

As one the locals that posts on another site said--Could be a CRUEL December.... :(

Let's deal in facts and not in what Oldtimer may have heard or may be making up.

Specifically, the ruling allows Canada to export live cattle born after March 1, 1999, the date Canada ostensibly rid itself of ruminant feed associated with BSE. It also allows Canada to export small intestines without the distal ileum, casings, blood and blood products.

Canadian authorities will be responsible for certifying the age of cattle up for export, and those animals will have to bear a permanent brand or tattoo indicating their country of origin, as well as ear tags identifying them as Canadian.

However, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service doesn't expect the flood of cattle it once did, having slashed its original projection of some 650,000 down to 75,000 for 2008.

"The number of theses older animals that can have their ages verified, meaning confirmation that they are born on or after March 1, 1999, is limited," Clifford said.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Subject: TRANSCRIPT OF REMARKS REGARDING HARMONIZATION OF CATTLE TRADE WITH
CANADA Washington D.C. - September 14, 2007
Date: September 14, 2007 at 7:19 pm PST

Release No. 0248.07
Contact:
Press Office (202) 720-4623

Printable version
Email this page

TRANSCRIPT OF REMARKS REGARDING HARMONIZATION OF CATTLE TRADE WITH CANADA
WITH CINDY SMITH, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION
SERVICE AND USDA'S CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER DR. JOHN CLIFFORD

Washington D.C. - September 14, 2007

Good morning and thank you all for joining us. I'm Cindy Smith, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

As you all know, we are here to announce USDA's final rule to normalize
trade with countries recognized as presenting a minimal risk of introducing
bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE.

We are confident in taking this important step to normalize cattle trade
with Canada, while continuing to protect the health of the U.S. cattle
population. It is an integral part of our efforts to promote fair trade
practices, consistent with international guidelines. And we will continue to
encourage other countries to also align their trade requirements with these
science-based international standards.

I have with me USDA's Chief Veterinary Officer Dr. John Clifford. Dr.
Clifford will be giving some brief remarks and then we will open the floor
up for questions from the media.

John . . .

Thank you, Cindy.

This morning USDA published a final rule that will harmonize cattle trade
with countries presenting a minimal risk of introducing BSE into the United
States.

The rule expands upon a rule published by USDA in January 2005 that
established conditions for the importation of live cattle under 30 months of
age and certain other commodities from regions with effective BSE prevention
and detection measures.

That rule also designated Canada as the first minimal-risk country
recognized by USDA. The expansion of that rule is a major step in
facilitating fair, science-based trade while continuing to protect animal
health in this country, consistent with international standards as defined
by the World Organization for Animal Health, also known as the OIE.

Specifically, this rule allows for the importation of: cattle and bison for
any use born on or after March 1, 1999 -- the date determined by USDA to be
the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in
Canada; blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under
certain conditions; and casings and part of the small intestines derived
from bovines.

Today's final rule also lifts a delay imposed in March 2005 on meat and meat
products from bovines older than 30 months of age.

Meat and meat products from bovines older than 30 months of age will be
allowed, provided specified risk materials are removed prior to importation.

Before finalizing this rule, APHIS sought public comment and encouraged the
public to participate in the decision-making process. We issued a proposed
rule at the first of the year and the public comment period opened January
9, 2007 and closed on March 12, 2007.

In addition to making the proposed rule and all supporting documents
available for review and comment by the public, APHIS also requested an
external, formal, independent peer review of the risk assessment. The
objective of the peer review was to determine whether the risk assessment
was scientifically sound, transparent and consistent with international
standards.

The review was conducted by recognized experts in the field and was
consistent with guidelines established by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget. An independent contractor coordinated the peer review.

All of the peer reviewers agreed with the risk assessment conclusion that
the likelihood of BSE becoming established in the U.S. cattle population by
allowing additional commodities from Canada is negligible.

All reviewers noted that many of the assumptions in the risk assessment
actually represent worst case scenarios, so the overall findings were
reasonable. The peer reviewers also agreed that the risk assessment followed
OIE guidelines and standards and furthermore, the reviewers acknowledged the
scientific rigor of the assessment in terms of using existing literature and
models appropriately and making sound assumptions.

APHIS incorporated several clarifications and updates suggested by the
reviewers. The changes improved the transparency and accuracy of the
document but did not alter APHIS' original conclusion, which the reviewers
concurred with, that the risk of BSE establishment in the United States
resulting from the changes outlined in the rule is negligible.

In our risk assessment, we carefully considered all of the steps in both
Canada and the United States that would have to occur for BSE to spread to
an animal here in the United States. The risk assessment acknowledged that
BSE is present in Canada and that there likely would be additional cases
identified in the future, and we still concluded that these imports would
present a negligible risk of establishment of BSE in the United States.

If an infected animal from Canada were to be imported into the United
States, a series of multiple safeguards would prevent the disease from being
transmitted to another animal.

I would like to go through a couple of points that we considered as we
developed the final rule and supporting documents. I know that many of you
are aware that Canada has identified two cases of BSE since the proposed
rule was published. We did consider this as we developed the final rule.

In addition, we received comments that indicated that our initial import
projections, especially for the numbers of older cull cattle, were too high.
We also considered this point as we developed the final rule. Let me explain
a bit more about each of these, especially as they tie in to either our risk
assessment and/or the economic analysis.

We analyzed the issue of BSE detections to make sure that our risk
assessment was broad enough to have already considered such occurrences. As
I'll explain in a minute, the conclusions of our original risk assessment
were not changed by these additional considerations.

At the time the proposed rule was published, Canada had documented nine
native BSE cases. All of these cases, along with the negative surveillance
data from the same time period, were considered in the prevalence estimate
used in the original risk assessment. Let me remind you that this prevalence
estimate was derived using the same methods that we recently used to
estimate the prevalence of BSE in the United States.

These methods used a comprehensive model that incorporates information about
the cattle population and the science of BSE to provide a robust estimate of
the true prevalence of disease in the current adult cattle population. This
estimate accounts for both undetected and undetectable cases of BSE.

We added the data from the two additional cases to the model, without
including negative surveillance data from the same time frame. With the two
additional cases, the prevalence estimate was still within the confidence
intervals, which means it fit within the range of our initial prevalence
estimate - thus demonstrating that our initial estimate was very solid.

The second issue I mentioned were our projections of the numbers of older
cattle that might be imported for slaughter. We received information during
the comment period that indicated our estimates of the number of cull cattle
for immediate slaughter were too high, due to the issue of age verification.

The number of these older animals that can have their ages verified, meaning
confirmation that they are born on or after March 1, 1999, is limited.
Therefore, we updated our import projections to reflect this fact, in both
the economic analysis and the risk assessment. While the number of older
cattle for slaughter dropped in these revised projections, the overall
number of imports over the 20 year time frame of the risk assessment
remained essentially the same.

We explain both of these points in more detail in the updates section of the
risk assessment. We also note that, because these points do not significantl
y impact either our initial prevalence estimate or the import projections,
we have not redone the quantitative model used in our exposure assessment,
and our original conclusion remains the same - that the risk of BSE
establishment in the United States resulting from these regulatory
amendments is negligible.

We are committed to ensuring that our regulatory approach keeps pace with
the body of scientific knowledge about BSE and this is an important move in
our efforts to promote fair, science-based trade practices. USDA is
confident in taking this next step while at the same time protecting
American agriculture and maintaining confidence in the U.S. beef supply not
only here in the United States but with our trading partners.

Thank you again for calling in. We will now move to the question and answer
portion of the call.

Thank you again for calling in, and we will now move to the question and
answer portion of the call, and then before that I'll turn it back to Ed.

MODERATOR: Hello everyone, this is Ed Curlett with APHIS Public Affairs.
Before we begin the question and answer portion, I would like to remind
everyone that this call is for media. Stakeholder questions will be
addressed during meetings later today. Reporters, please limit yourself to
one question so we can get as many as possible in. And please identify your
affiliation when asking a question. In addition to Dr. John Clifford, we
have a few other people in the room to assist with questions. Dr. Lisa
Ferguson with APHIS's National Center for Animal Health Programs is here.
Additionally we have from USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service Dr.
Daniel Engeljohn, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Policy
Program and Employee Development.

With that, Operator, we are ready for questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time if you would like to ask a question,
please press *1. You'll be prompted to record your first and last name to
introduce your question. To withdraw a question, press *2. Our first
question comes from Steve Kaye with the Cattle Buyers Weekly. Your line is
open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Good morning. Firstly, what's the economic impact, if any? I'm
sure it's in your analysis. And secondly, what restrictions still apply from
late 2003?

DR. CLIFFORD: The restrictions that would still apply for late 2003 is, this
rule did not address the issue of sheep and goats. Then in addition, with
regard to the economic analysis we would recommend that you look at the
economic analysis on the website that was posted. There was a positive
result from that, from reopening trade with regards to the economic
analysis. There's one other thing that was not allowed in addition from the
2003, and that has to do with rendered protein.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Bill Tomson. Your line is open. You
may ask your question.

REPORTER: Yes. Thank you. It's Bill Tomson with Dow Jones. There was an
earlier assessment that once the border was open, and now it is, that there
would be 610,000 head of these older cattle, these over 30-month-of-age
cattle coming across the border, a year. Is that still the estimate? And how
long do you think from today it will take before those animals start coming
across the border?

DR. CLIFFORD: Bill, actually, as I indicated in my opening remarks, and
based upon the issue of dentition and the evaluation of age of older
animals, we actually in the original you were talking about the 650,000-some
head of cattle. We believe that number in the economic analysis would be
around 75,000 head. The actual effective date of this rule would be November
the 19th. It actually will go into the Federal Register on September the
18th, so if the effective date is November the 19th it would open up after
that date.

OPERATOR: Our next question from Beth Gorham. Your line is open, you may ask
your question.

REPORTER: Hi, there. It's Beth Gorham from the Canadian Press. Just
following on that, so it wouldn't actually open on the 19th. It would have
to open on the 20th?

DR. CLIFFORD: I think the effective date was November the 19th. So it should
be the 19th.

OPERATOR: The next question is from Ron Frizon (sp). Your line is open. You
may ask your question.

REPORTER: Hi. This is Ron Frizon from the Manitoba Cooperator. Do you expect
RCALF to apply for an (unclear) rule, and what are your feelings about their
success given the previous record of this organization?

DR. CLIFFORD: I can only respond to that, and I'm not sure what any
organization may or may not do with regard to this.

MODERATOR: Next question?

OPERATOR: Christopher Gehring, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Thank you for taking my question. I want to see if you guys could
tell me more about Congress. I understand that there's a potential that
Congress could somehow step in and take some legal steps to affect the
outcome. Is there any concern about that happening?

DR. CLIFFORD: Operator, can you have Chris repeat that question? Chris, we
didn't hear you that well.

REPORTER: Sure. I just wanted to see if there's any concern that Congress
could step in, given the concern from some groups, and potentially put a
block to this lifting of this ban entirely moving forward?

DR. CLIFFORD: With this type of rulemaking process, obviously Congress has
60 days to review that. I wouldn't want to discuss what reaction Congress
may or may not have to this rule. However, we feel this rule is very much
scientifically based and the risk is very negligible with regards to
introduction of BSE into the U.S.

OPERATOR: Sally Schuff, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Yes. Hi. This is Sally Schuff with Feedstuffs. Can you define, my
question is for Dr. Clifford, can you define the SRMs that are required to
be removed from the meat coming in?

DR. CLIFFORD: From under - basically Canada is exactly the same as the U.S.,
from under 30 months you're talking about tonsil and distil ileum. Over 30
months, you know it's the brain, spinal cord, there's a number of additional
items.

OPERATOR: Next question from Gina Teal (sp). Your line is open. You may ask
your question.

REPORTER: It's Gina Teal from the Calgary Herald. Other than the birthdate
involved, what are the other import restrictions and protocols associated
with Rule 2?

DR. CLIFFORD: One, the birthdate these animals would be allowed in for any
purpose or use. There is a requirement that they would be identified with an
ear tag. They would also have to have permanent identification such as a
tattoo or a brand unless they are going to direct slaughter. Those moving to
direct slaughter would not require a permanent identification because those
animals are monitored in sealed trucks for that direct slaughter movement.

OPERATOR: Chris Clayton, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Dr. Clifford, do you also have any idea about, given the change
with overall beef how much increased tonnage that would move into the
country from Canada. And the economic assessment that I see on your website
seems like it has not been updated since 2006, so that would seem - I don't
see a difference in terms of numbers of head of cattle coming south across
the border how the numbers would change on the economic analysis.

DR. CLIFFORD: Chris, I couldn't understand the last part of your question.
Can you repeat that?

REPORTER: You mentioned the different number. You lowered that number from
610,000 to potentially 75,000 of head. Just from looking, what I see on your
website it seems like that the economic analysis is older, that maybe it had
not been updated to include those maybe changes in numbers.

DR. CLIFFORD: Chris, those should have been posted at 11:00 today. And I
think we'd make sure you have the most updated information with regards to
that because we definitely did change that based upon the information, the
data we received during the comment period.

OPERATOR: David Irvin, your line is open.

REPORTER: David Irvin from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette calling. The
question I have, you indicated in your opening remarks that this is an
important move to promote fair science-based trade with our partners. To
what degree did considerations with South Korea and Japan play into this
entire process of reviewing the BSE requirements?

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually, with regards to this, as I indicated this is
science-based, it's based upon international standards, and the USDA has not
changed its position. We expect our trading partners to follow the same
science that we follow with regards to this.

OPERATOR: Alan Bjerga, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Yes. Alan Bjerga from Bloomberg News. Following on that, has
conversations about the lifting of this already been a part of some of the
talks you've been having with South Korea, Japan and other countries?

DR. CLIFFORD: I know that our trading partners were aware of this particular
rule. In fact, you know, a number of countries had the opportunity to make
comments on the proposed rule itself. So they are certainly aware, and they
are also aware of our position that as many of those countries are also
members of the OIE, the World Organization for Animal Health, we have the
expectation that all countries will establish and follow the OIE with
regards to trade and safe trade for BSE.

OPERATOR: Chuck Abbott, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Thank you. I'm wondering what's happening on what might be viewed
as the companion measures to this, the revisions to the U.S. Feed Ban. That
has been sitting at FDA for almost uncountable months now, and has been
raised as a point of concern for trading partners.

DR. CLIFFORD: FDA, as you know, is responsible for the promulgation of the
feed ban rules. We worked very closely with FDA as well as Food Safety
Inspection Service, which is part of USDA, on the entire BSE issue. But with
regards to further action on that rule, I would request that you direct your
question to FDA.

OPERATOR: Next question from Lee Melkey. Lee, your line is open; you may ask
your question.

REPORTER: Yes. Lee Melkey with Dairy Line Communications. I assume this
November 19th opening would include dairy heifers. And secondly, I know that
National Milk has voiced concern over the economic implications and has
charged that USDA has not done due diligence in assessing the economic
implications to the U.S. dairy industry of this action.

DR. CLIFFORD: I mean, it sounded like more like a comment. We're certainly
aware of that concern and issue raised by that. But basically, you know, I
would recommend that you look at the economic analysis with regards to the
impact with regards to reopening the border would have. And I think most
importantly, I think it's important to note that regardless of whether we're
talking about breeding or animals for feed and slaughter that it's safe to
come in. The risk is extremely low.

OPERATOR: Our next question from Jim Webster. Your line is open.

REPORTER: A follow-up on that, Dr. Clifford. National Milk suggested that
the impact was cursory because it really didn't look at the total effect on
dairy farm income. They estimated for instance the number of heifers,
47,000; increased milk production and reduced farm milk prices by 18
percent, dairy farm income by $5 billion. Do you agree with that estimate?
Or did you make any change in the impact statement from January?

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually, we did respond to concerns raised by the dairy
sector, and we did not expect imports of dairy animals from Canada to add
significantly to the U.S. national herd.

OPERATOR: Our next question from Jim Dickrell. Jim, your line is open. You
may ask your question.

REPORTER: Jim Dickrell with Dairy Today, and the previous two questioners
asked the questions I had. Thank you.

DR. CLIFFORD: Can you repeat that, sir?

REPORTER: The answer, the questions have been answered that I had. I'm sorry
I didn't get out of the queue in time.

OPERATOR: Our next question is from Blair Andrews. Your line is open.

REPORTER: Yes. Blair Andrews from the Ontario Ag Radio Network. I'm looking
for some clarification on the age issue. Again, how are the age of the
animals going to be determined, and what would be required from a Canadian
exporter?

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually, with regards to the age issue, we depend upon the
government of Canada to make sure, verification of the age. That can be done
in more than one way. Actually you can use dentition for certain aged
animals. As you get into older animals though, you would be looking for
documentation to support that age.

MODERATOR: Operator, we have time for two more questions.

OPERATOR: Ryan Barrett, your line is open.

REPORTER: Hi. This is Ryan Barrett, Canadian Jersey Breeder Magazine. I just
wanted to know if you had any estimates in terms of the number of dairy
heifers that you would expect to be coming down from Canada. Originally it's
been somewhere around 60,000. Do you expect it to be significantly lower
than that?

DR. CLIFFORD: We would actually consider it to be about somewhat similar to
what it previously was, is what really basically was our conclusion.

OPERATOR: Our last question from Carol Sugarman. Your line is open.

REPORTER: Oh, hi. This is Carol Sugarman from Food Chemical News. I was just
wondering how many comments you received on this proposed rule, and if you
could provide a general idea of what percentage were for and against it.

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually the comment numbers were about 400, but I just would
briefly say and summarize you know there were individuals that were for it
and groups that supported it, still providing some recommendations for
change. There were groups that were against it and also provided. So you
know there was a whole range, so it's not appropriate I think to try to
break each one out. So.

MODERATOR: Operator, thank you very much. This is Ed Curlett. I'd like to
encourage everyone to go to WWW.APHIS.USDA.GOV to see the documents
associated with this announcement today. Additionally, if you have further
questions, feel free to contact Karen Eggert at 301-734-7280, or Andrea
McNally at 202-690-4178. Again, go to the website for more information. And
we'd like to thank everyone very much for listening in on the call today.
Thank you.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/09/0248.xml


Greetings,

WELL, it seems they have won. they have there market they wanted, and with
the BSE MRR policy in full force now, it's anyone's guess. THE TSEs that
will now be exported globally due to this policy will rank right up there
with 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'. Time will tell, and i only pray that all my
moaning and groaning has been for naught, that it was all just a pipe dream,
and everything was simply spontaneous and will die itself out. really, if it
was just Canada and the USA, it would not matter much. they both have BSE,
they both have atypical BSE, they both have scrapie and CWD, the tainted
rendered feed product and live cattle have both been traded between the two
by the caravans of truck loads for years and years, legally and illegally.
BOTH were classified as BSE GBR III. but once again this administration did
the old end around science, and chose there own, then rewrote history. THE
BSE MRR policy of GW et al will be another sad part of his long long list of
his sad legacy. ...TSS



EXPORTATION AND IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS:
BSE; MRR AND IMPORTATION OF COMMODITIES, 65758-65759 [E6-19042]


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3854



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0611&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3381



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=498



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=10277



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=9972



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=4492



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2583



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2470


BIO-RAD BSE TEST POLITICAL REPLY TO TSS

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


Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA


snip...


> In recent correspondence, the
> Director General of the OIE acknowledged that there has been an "increase
> in unjustified restrictions in international trade, particularly as it
> relates to cattle and cattle products." The letter was in response to a
> request from Secretary Veneman, Agricultural Minister Lyle Vanclief,
> Canada, and Agriculture Secretary Javier Usabiaga, Mexico, to the OIE to
> provide more practical guidance regarding the resumption of trade with
> countries that have reported cases of BSE.


IF THE OIE CHANGES BSE/TSE GUIDELINES NOW (as weak as they are),
just because the USA, Canada and Mexico does not like them. then all the
work all
other countries have done to erradicate this horrible disease from the
planet over the last
3 decades will go for naught, and the agent will continue to spread...

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518



https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed


Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1]
RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION


----- Original Message -----
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No.
05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION


Greetings Dr. Colgrove and Miss Johnson,

Thank you for taking this submission via email. i have had trouble
submitting via the comment page due to the length of my submission. I was
not sure that my file attachment that i submitted via the ;

EDOCKET: Go to http://www.epa.gov/feddocket


I submitted yesterday, just did not know if the file reached anyone. so to
make sure, I am sending to you to submit for me.

many thanks,

Terry


From: TSS ()
Subject: Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No.
05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION
Date: August 24, 2005 at 2:47 pm PST

August 24, 2005

Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1]
RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION


Greetings APHIS ET AL,

My name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr.


I would kindly like to comment on [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 ;


PROPOSED RULES
Exportation and importation of animals and animal products:
Whole cuts of boneless beef from-
Japan,
48494-48500 [05-16422]



[Federal Register: August 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48494-48500]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18au05-7]

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

snip...


WE MUST ADHERE TO THE BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS, WE MUST WORK TO ENHANCE
THOSE BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS TO INCLUDE ALL ANIMAL TSEs, USDA/APHIS/GW ET
ALs BSE MRR (Minimal Risk Region) should be REPEALED/DISBANDED/TRASHED/NADA
and done away with for good. The BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal
tool to trade all strains of TSEs globally...


Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

P.O. Box 42

Bacliff, Texas USA 77518


Your Comment with Title "[Docket


http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffItemDetailView?objectId=090007d480993808



http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffAttachDownloadPDF?objectId=090007d480993808



http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffCollectionDetailView?objectId=0b0007d48096b40d



Subject: 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


[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]


[[Page 1101]]

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

snip...


EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR)
of the United States of America (USA)


Summary of the Scientific Report

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/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573.html


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/tse_assessments/gb

r_assessments/573.Par.0004.File.dat/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.p

df



EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR)
of Canada


Summary of the Scientific Report

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 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.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564.html


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/tse_assessments/gb

r_assessments/564.Par.0001.File.dat/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_v2_e

n1.pdf



R-CALF USA v. USDA, et al., On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana, D.C. No. CV-05-00006-RFC - Brief of Appellant
December 26, 2006 (Adobe Acrobat Reader PDF File 94K)


see full text 60 pages ;


http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/MSJ%20App%20Merits%20Opening%20Brief.pdf


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 ;


***
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


snip...


MY personal belief, since you ask, is that not only the Canadian border, but
the USA border, and the Mexican border should be sealed up tighter than a
drum for exporting there TSE tainted products, until a validated, 100%
sensitive test is available, and all animals for human and animal
consumption are tested. all we are doing is the exact same thing the UK did
with there mad cow poisoning when they exported it all over the globe, all
the while knowing what they were doing. this BSE MRR policy is nothing more
than a legal tool to do just exactly what the UK did, thanks to the OIE and
GW, it's legal now. and they executed Saddam for poisoning ???

go figure....


Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518



Comment Submitted
Comment Receipt

Thank you. Your comment on Document ID: APHIS-2006-0041-0001 has been sent.
Comment Tracking Number: APHIS-2006-0041-DRAFT-0028

Attachments:
C:\My Music\My Documents\APHIS-2006-0041_January 28.doc


If you wish to retain a copy of the receipt, use the following link to print
a copy for your files. Print



http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=3854



18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7
December 2006 are now available.


snip...


64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was
presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more
virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE.

Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform
encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the
prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A
MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.


snip...



http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf




3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse

Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western
Reserve
University

Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain
discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases
were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of
these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with
Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have
inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain
homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half
of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time
of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to
be infected after more than 2 years.

***These results indicate that BASE is transmissible to humans and suggest
that BASE is more virulent than
classical BSE in humans.***


6:30 Close of Day One


http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp



SEE STEADY INCREASE IN SPORADIC CJD IN THE USA FROM
1997 TO 2006. SPORADIC CJD CASES TRIPLED, with phenotype
of 'UNKNOWN' strain growing. ...


http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html


There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last
week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance
collection.

He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively
SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf



From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: CWD UPDATE 88 AUGUST 31, 2007


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0709&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=450


Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:13:08 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: CWD NEW MEXICO RECORDS IT'S 19 CASE (near Texas border again)


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=26079


Monitoring the Potential Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease to Humans
Using a Hunter Registry Database in Wyoming (405 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:23:42 -0500


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=27654


Subject: Cross-sequence transmission of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
creates a new prion strain

Date: August 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm PST


Subject: Cross-sequence transmission of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
creates a new prion strain
Date: August 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm PST

J Biol Chem. 2007 Aug 20; : 17709374

Cross-sequence transmission of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease creates a
new prion strain.

[My paper] Atsushi Kobayashi , Masahiro Asano , Shirou Mohri , Tetsuyuki
Kitamoto

The genotype (methionine or valine) at polymorphic codon 129 of the human
prion protein (PrP) gene and the type (type 1 or type 2) of abnormal isoform
of PrP (PrP(Sc)) are major determinants of the clinicopathological
phenotypes of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD). Here we found that
transmission of sCJD prions from a patient with valine homozygosity (129V/V)
and type 2 PrP(Sc) (sCJD-VV2 prions) to mice expressing human PrP with
methionine homozygosity (129M/M) generated unusual PrP(Sc) intermediate in
size between type 1 and type 2. The intermediate type PrP(Sc) was seen in
all examined dura mater graft-associated CJD cases with 129M/M and
plaque-type PrP deposits (p-dCJD). p-dCJD prions and sCJD-VV2 prions
exhibited similar transmissibility and neuropathology, and the identical
type of PrP(Sc) when inoculated into PrP-humanized mice with 129M/M or
129V/V. These findings suggest that p-dCJD could be caused by cross-sequence
transmission of sCJD-VV2 prions.


snip...


In this study, the strain-dependent traits of sCJDMM1
prions were inherited through cross-sequence
transmission without any modification. The
humanized mice with 129V/V produced type 1 PrPres
after inoculation with sCJD-MM1 prions. Because
sCJD-VV1 cases are extremely rare (at most 1-2%
of the total number of sCJD cases) and characterized
by early onset (mean age at onset: 39.3 years) (5),

####################################

our results raise the possibility that CJD cases
classified as VV1 may include cases caused by
iatrogenic transmission of sCJD-MM1 prions or
food-borne infection by type 1 prions from animals,
e.g., chronic wasting disease prions in cervid. In fact,
two CJD-VV1 patients who hunted deer or
consumed venison have been reported (40, 41). The
results of the present study emphasize the need for
traceback studies and careful re-examination of the
biochemical properties of sCJD-VV1 prions.

###################################

In conclusion, cross-sequence transmission of
sCJD-VV2 prions generates a new prion strain with
altered conformational properties and disease
phenotypes as p-dCJD prions. Furthermore, the
newly generated prions have unique transmissibility
including the traceback phenomenon. In the future, if
atypical prion strains emerge through cross-sequence
transmission, especially from animals, traceback
studies will enable us to identify the origin of the
prions.

REFERENCES...snip...end

FULL TEXT ;


http://www.jbc.org/


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=21267


Re: Colorado Surveillance Program for Chronic Wasting Disease
Transmission to Humans (TWO SUSPECT CASES)


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0704&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=1165



Subject: MAD COW BASE H-TYPE AND L-TYPE

Date: August 23, 2007 at 11:30 am PST


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=19779



From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: TWO MORE Nor98 atypical Scrapie cases detected in USA bringing
total to 3 cases to date


Infected and Source Flocks

As of June 30, 2007, there were .....

snip...

One field case and one validation case were consistent with Nor-98 scrapie.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/scrapie/downloads/monthly_scrapie_rpt.pps


IN the February 2007 Scrapie report it only mentions ;

''One case was consistent with Nor98 scrapie.''

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/scrapie/


(please note flocks of origin were in WY, CO, AND CA. PERSONAL COMMUNCATIONS
USDA, APHIS, VS ET AL. ...TSS)


NOR98 SHOWS MOLECULAR FEATURES REMINISCENT OF GSS


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=14553


An evaluation of scrapie surveillance in the United States


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3427


FOIA REQUEST FOR ATYPICAL TSE INFORMATION ON VERMONT SHEEP


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=10451


SEAC New forms of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 1 August 2007
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:09:38 -0500


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3573


POTENTIAL MAD CAT ESCAPES LAB IN USA

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=7062


USDA VS CREEKSTONE Civil Action No. 06-0544

Tue Sep 4, 2007 14:48


http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=236650;article=519;title=CJD%20DISCUSSION%20BOARD



Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:52:02 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FINAL REGULATIONS FOR NON-AMBULATORY DISABLED CATTLE AND
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS (SRMs)


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=27862



IN A NUT SHELL ;

(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006)

11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate
declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries.
The OIE is not responsible for inaccurate publication of country disease
status based on inaccurate information or changes in epidemiological status
or other significant events that were not promptly reported to then Central
Bureau............

http://www.oie.int/eng/Session2007/RF2006.pdf


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

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf


Report to Congressional Requesters:
February 2005:
Mad Cow Disease:

FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses
Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-101]:

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05101.html

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05101high.pdf


January 2002 MAD COW DISEASE Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and
Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts GAO-02-183

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02183.pdf



TSS



PLEASE EXPLAIN $$$

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=498
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You forget one thing longcut--this order also opens the border to boxed beef from ANYTHING-- OTM Beef...Thats whats killed us in the past when the one way Trans -X trucks make up half the highway traffic......

That is what will bring our prices down...They can get more supply- at cheaper prices- and without any more demand opening inside or exports outside of the US- that means our prices plummet.......
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
You forget one thing longcut--this order also opens the border to boxed beef from ANYTHING-- OTM Beef...Thats whats killed us in the past when the one way Trans -X trucks make up half the highway traffic......

That is what will bring our prices down...They can get more supply- at cheaper prices- and without any more demand opening inside or exports outside of the US- that means our prices plummet.......

You sang exactly the same song when calves and young slaughter cattle were going to come south and it didn't happen. No one believes your propoganda any more except your buddies at the bar of course. It must be a real rush to hold them in the palm of your hand while filling them full of stories of playing computer cowboy.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
You think the USDA deserves congratulations on their decison, Longcut. Maybe you can explain to us how your feed ban can be effective when half your cases have been born after it was implemented.

Come on, Longcut. You get to an issue that actually requires reasoning and the ability to use abstract thought and you've got nothing to say. You should change your handle to "Longwind" or "Fartcut".
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Prices will not plummet Oldtimer and Sandhusker, just like they did not plummet when the border opened to boxed beef or UTM cattle. Those were dreams that you two old boys were having.

Yes we may see a little bit of the theft of cull cows from Canadian producers disappear, and our retailers will damn well have to put the price of hamburger up ---- FINALLY (watch this strange but true situation occur Jason, MRJ and gang - retail prices following packer needs rather than that supply/demand :roll: thing that you say is reality), and cull bulls will finally be worth more than a friggin Old Boar Hog, and some of the American who have been waiting on our fine purebred genetics will be finally satisfied, and all the while Oldtimer will not lose a cent, and there will still not be one sick American from eating a Canadian sourced hamburgalar.

All the best boys - Am looking forward to the NILE in Billings to renew some old acquaintances.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
will you be challenging the constitutionality of rule 2????

Why? What they're doing is not against the constitution. It's against common sense, logic, and any sense of morality, but still constitutional.

Some of you seem to thing a great justice was done here. I'll argue that it is quite the opposite. The two cornerstones of the USDA's "decision" was Canada's feed ban being effective in 1999 and the US's "interlocking firewalls" down here.

I've thrown it out to anbody on this board before to explain how your feed ban can be declared "effective" when half the cases were born after that "effective date". Understandable, I didn't get a single post. The fact that Canada has tightened their ban recently is in itself an admission of failure.

I also pointed out that Canada would surely be sending BSE carrying animals down here under the plan. I didn't get any posts from up North argueing against that either.

It's been pointed out many, many times by Canadians that we have holes in our feed ban. The summary is that even Canadians can't argue against the fact that your feed ban wasn't effective when the USDA claims it was, you will be sending BSE carriers down here, and our feed ban isn't up to blocking prions from re-entering cattle feed. Add those three undisputable facts together and it equals BSE from Canada entering our herd. Yet, I see nothing but support from Canadians.

What the USDA is doing is simply strong-arming US producers and putting their industry at risk for the holy grail of "trade". Some Canadians seem to take perverse pleasure in that fact. But, it profits them, temporarily, so all is well - it's even to be cheered. What is ironic is that the same USDA that is hosing US producers hoses Canadian via their lapdog, the CFIA. Giving these bandits more power only emboldens them to screw producers on both sides of the border.
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
don said:
will you be challenging the constitutionality of rule 2????

Why? What they're doing is not against the constitution. It's against common sense, logic, and any sense of morality, but still constitutional.

Some of you seem to thing a great justice was done here. I'll argue that it is quite the opposite. The two cornerstones of the USDA's "decision" was Canada's feed ban being effective in 1999 and the US's "interlocking firewalls" down here.

I've thrown it out to anbody on this board before to explain how your feed ban can be declared "effective" when half the cases were born after that "effective date". Understandable, I didn't get a single post. The fact that Canada has tightened their ban recently is in itself an admission of failure.

I also pointed out that Canada would surely be sending BSE carrying animals down here under the plan. I didn't get any posts from up North argueing against that either.

It's been pointed out many, many times by Canadians that we have holes in our feed ban. The summary is that even Canadians can't argue against the fact that your feed ban wasn't effective when the USDA claims it was, you will be sending BSE carriers down here, and our feed ban isn't up to blocking prions from re-entering cattle feed. Add those three undisputable facts together and it equals BSE from Canada entering our herd. Yet, I see nothing but support from Canadians.

What the USDA is doing is simply strong-arming US producers and putting their industry at risk for the holy grail of "trade". Some Canadians seem to take perverse pleasure in that fact. But, it profits them, temporarily, so all is well - it's even to be cheered. What is ironic is that the same USDA that is hosing US producers hoses Canadian via their lapdog, the CFIA. Giving these bandits more power only emboldens them to screw producers on both sides of the border.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense and reasoning (which you obviously don't have) can see that Canada's feed ban was effective.Compare the handful of BSE cases in Canada to the hundreds of thousands in the UK. Was it perfect? Of course not and if you expect anything in this world to meet perfection you ought to change your rose colored glasses to night goggles as you are living in the dark.

The rest of your post doesn't even merit comment.
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Sandhusker said:
You think the USDA deserves congratulations on their decison, Longcut. Maybe you can explain to us how your feed ban can be effective when half your cases have been born after it was implemented.

Come on, Longcut. You get to an issue that actually requires reasoning and the ability to use abstract thought and you've got nothing to say. You should change your handle to "Longwind" or "Fartcut".

Yes I do think the USDA should be congratulated on their decision. I don't agree with everything they have done but unlike you, I don't live in a world of absolutes and they got it right this time.

Having a bad day Sandhusker? Throwing a little tantrum because you didn't get your way so you want to chase everyone out of your sandbox once again and start calling people names? So childish but exactly what we have come to expect from you.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Prices will not plummet Oldtimer and Sandhusker, just like they did not plummet when the border opened to boxed beef or UTM cattle. Those were dreams that you two old boys were having.

Yes we may see a little bit of the theft of cull cows from Canadian producers disappear, and our retailers will damn well have to put the price of hamburger up ---- FINALLY (watch this strange but true situation occur Jason, MRJ and gang - retail prices following packer needs rather than that supply/demand :roll: thing that you say is reality), and cull bulls will finally be worth more than a friggin Old Boar Hog, and some of the American who have been waiting on our fine purebred genetics will be finally satisfied, and all the while Oldtimer will not lose a cent, and there will still not be one sick American from eating a Canadian sourced hamburgalar.

All the best boys - Am looking forward to the NILE in Billings to renew some old acquaintances.


Well said Randy, time will prove you right.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Longcut, "Anyone with an ounce of common sense and reasoning (which you obviously don't have) can see that Canada's feed ban was effective."

If Canada's ban was effective, why was it enhanced? If everything was hunky-dory, there would be no reason to add on to it, would there? The truth is your ban was not implemented to slow down BSE, it was made to stop BSE from that day forward. It failed.

Now, do you want to try your wits again and explain how Canadian BSE won't be recycled into our herd?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
You're getting pretty cranked up about the cherry picking science again Sandhusker. Let me try one more time.

Cattle die of BSE all over the world. usually small numbers unless the conditions are just right; as in the UK situation. When you test for it you find it - it is as simple as that and you know it.

Canada has identified a few more cases than America for a number of reasons including honesty and different surveillance program; both due to the fact that Canada has to export beef or drop cattle numbers.

The border issue quickly became an issue of opportunity as we saw begin with the boxed beef opening, and has been a opportunity ever since. Heck even the new border opening will not bring many live cows across the line since fuel prices, the dollar, and all of the new phony rules came in to place. One final opportunity for Cargill and Tyson to ship boxes of cow beef from their plants on Canadian soil and finish this cow genocide which may not stop until we too are an importing nation.

Don't' worry for your producers Sandhusker - they will not be hurt by this opening. Cargill and Tyson will use the Canadian boxed cow beef and cut back on a bit of Australian or Brazilian product until they have Canada down where they would like to see us for numbers.

You seem to be working your way up to another BSE attack ad that would hurt your producers a hell of a lot more than a few boxes of old cows and the opportunity for your American neighbors to buy some of my damn good bulls.
 
Top