I have no problem with not having the US market but it would have to be both ways NO US beef coming into canada. And the US could not export anywhere in the world. And would have to allow imports from any country free of BSE to fulfill the beef deficite. But we both know this will not happen. So let 's get to the next step. Personally i would like to see a change that processors in canada would have to be owned 51% by canadians. I still think the market canadians should be persuing is the UK. It is that high pound note. They can pay more for the canadian product than the US thus making it profitable to do , all we have to do is get the gov. to help cut the red tape and get beef going to the UK. After all the problems they have had i think the forcasts of the amount of money that can be made in their market with canadian beef is astounding. All we have to do is adherem to our feedban- done. And drop feeding of antibiotic and growth promotants and stop implanting. Then if we add testing everyanimal for BSE even if they are UTM . I would like a piece of the UK beef pie. As for the US you can go a complain about someone else for a while.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S.D. ranchers join lawsuit over mad cow disease
- Thread starter flounder
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
QUESTION said:I have no problem with not having the US market but it would have to be both ways NO US beef coming into canada. And the US could not export anywhere in the world. And would have to allow imports from any country free of BSE to fulfill the beef deficite. But we both know this will not happen. So let 's get to the next step. Personally i would like to see a change that processors in canada would have to be owned 51% by canadians. I still think the market canadians should be persuing is the UK. It is that high pound note. They can pay more for the canadian product than the US thus making it profitable to do , all we have to do is get the gov. to help cut the red tape and get beef going to the UK. After all the problems they have had i think the forcasts of the amount of money that can be made in their market with canadian beef is astounding. All we have to do is adherem to our feedban- done. And drop feeding of antibiotic and growth promotants and stop implanting. Then if we add testing everyanimal for BSE even if they are UTM . I would like a piece of the UK beef pie. As for the US you can go a complain about someone else for a while.
Question, you hit on a few really, really good points here---and ones some of your "opponents" have been saying for a long time.
You will not stop the U.S. trying to sell their goods overseas as the U.S. can not stop you (except in their country only). Unfortunately, your ability to supply beef to the world has been hampered by a mistaken bse policy (as you seem to now realize). The decision to go for this particular bse policy was not made by Canadian producers of beef, but largely influenced by the big packers operating in Canada. Same thing in the U.S..
Producers have to support policies that benefit them, not the big guys who want government policies that largely benefit them. Perhaps you can change things in your country for producers as we are trying to change things here in the U.S. I will remind you that this bse problem came not from producers, but from the processors. They wanted to sell their extra cattle offal as protein in cattle feed (sounds like the Chinese who tried to sell melamine as protein) and expanded the bse problem.
Many who look at these issues have pointed out that the processors have used Canada a cheap source of beef (when the dollar was strong) and used that supply to suppress the U.S. markets. The price suppression that was "unfair" was that supply that was used by U.S. companies as captive supply, not necessarily the additional supply to the market. You need to understand the difference between the two.
Now, with a falling dollar, U.S. suppliers of beef to the world have more of a price advantage to the world market of beef.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Q, " And the US could not export anywhere in the world.
I say answer all the buyer's questions and let them decide what they want.
Q, "Personally i would like to see a change that processors in canada would have to be owned 51% by canadians."
I hate to inform you, but that would be a PROTECTIONIST law.
Q, "I still think the market canadians should be persuing is the UK. It is that high pound note. They can pay more for the canadian product than the US thus making it profitable to do , all we have to do is get the gov. to help cut the red tape and get beef going to the UK. After all the problems they have had i think the forcasts of the amount of money that can be made in their market with canadian beef is astounding. All we have to do is adherem to our feedban- done. And drop feeding of antibiotic and growth promotants and stop implanting. Then if we add testing everyanimal for BSE even if they are UTM . I would like a piece of the UK beef pie."
We finally agree on something. I'd allow testing and go for Japan, Korea, Russia, etc... too. If you go all out for the EU, you're just repeating the mistakes you made becoming dependant on the US. You need all the markets you can get.
I say answer all the buyer's questions and let them decide what they want.
Q, "Personally i would like to see a change that processors in canada would have to be owned 51% by canadians."
I hate to inform you, but that would be a PROTECTIONIST law.
Q, "I still think the market canadians should be persuing is the UK. It is that high pound note. They can pay more for the canadian product than the US thus making it profitable to do , all we have to do is get the gov. to help cut the red tape and get beef going to the UK. After all the problems they have had i think the forcasts of the amount of money that can be made in their market with canadian beef is astounding. All we have to do is adherem to our feedban- done. And drop feeding of antibiotic and growth promotants and stop implanting. Then if we add testing everyanimal for BSE even if they are UTM . I would like a piece of the UK beef pie."
We finally agree on something. I'd allow testing and go for Japan, Korea, Russia, etc... too. If you go all out for the EU, you're just repeating the mistakes you made becoming dependant on the US. You need all the markets you can get.
SandH do you understand NO. Atypical BSE has been found and reported in the US herd less than a year ago so no. you should not be able to export the disease over the world , that was the kind of thinking that brought BSE over here from the UK and EU. The USDA can not even explain how it got to the US in the first place.
How would domestic ownership of packer be protectionist it allows multinationals to be involved just not to control the industry. Just what r-calf is fighting for in the US. It does not halt market acess to any country or company. So please explain how you think it is a protectionist issue of trade? :roll:
As far as marketing goes you guys just have to get the idea out of your head that you are entitled to sell produce where ever you want. Your herd is infected with atypBSE. Unless you can test and track every animal and verify negative status for BSE and BASE the US should not be able to export beef anywhere. Basically get you stuff in order!
I will try to explain this to you as simply as possible. The UK and US can NOT produce enough beef to supply their domestic markets. So unless unfair trade restrictions are placed, and canadians fulfill the same requirements that domestic producers in those countries canadian producers should have acess.
Telling canada how to market a product - do not put your eggs in all basket. Maybe we want to target a market, the difference between the US market is we would be doing all the processing in canada and control the production and quality. Also we would not have to deal with guys who want a cheap product but a country that wants quality instead. Afterall Canada has a certin good reputation in the UK.
I am sure you are going to respond with a tangent and demands that can not be met unless canada gives control over to US investors. Sorry but we have different views on what is important. I feel it is important to elinimate BSE and BASE so that customers ( people) can eat beef and not die from it. You seem to feel US beef should be exported anywhere in the world and have to take what is given them and like it, as once diseased beef is out of your country it isn't your p[roblem. How can you think like that where is your conscience?
How would domestic ownership of packer be protectionist it allows multinationals to be involved just not to control the industry. Just what r-calf is fighting for in the US. It does not halt market acess to any country or company. So please explain how you think it is a protectionist issue of trade? :roll:
As far as marketing goes you guys just have to get the idea out of your head that you are entitled to sell produce where ever you want. Your herd is infected with atypBSE. Unless you can test and track every animal and verify negative status for BSE and BASE the US should not be able to export beef anywhere. Basically get you stuff in order!
I will try to explain this to you as simply as possible. The UK and US can NOT produce enough beef to supply their domestic markets. So unless unfair trade restrictions are placed, and canadians fulfill the same requirements that domestic producers in those countries canadian producers should have acess.
Telling canada how to market a product - do not put your eggs in all basket. Maybe we want to target a market, the difference between the US market is we would be doing all the processing in canada and control the production and quality. Also we would not have to deal with guys who want a cheap product but a country that wants quality instead. Afterall Canada has a certin good reputation in the UK.
I am sure you are going to respond with a tangent and demands that can not be met unless canada gives control over to US investors. Sorry but we have different views on what is important. I feel it is important to elinimate BSE and BASE so that customers ( people) can eat beef and not die from it. You seem to feel US beef should be exported anywhere in the world and have to take what is given them and like it, as once diseased beef is out of your country it isn't your p[roblem. How can you think like that where is your conscience?
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Q, "Unless you can test and track every animal and verify negative status for BSE and BASE the US should not be able to export beef anywhere. Basically get you stuff in order!"
That comment makes your support of the USDA's final rule hypocritical.
We have to guarantee our product BSE free, but have to accept Canadian as safe unless we can prove otherwise. :shock:
Ain't you a dandy. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That comment makes your support of the USDA's final rule hypocritical.
We have to guarantee our product BSE free, but have to accept Canadian as safe unless we can prove otherwise. :shock:
Ain't you a dandy. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
im gonna get long winded again. please forgive me, BUT;
I have been trying to get a look and the mentality of r-calf and other cattle groups before the 2003 Washington BSE cow, what was said about existing BSE countries and there imports, BEFORE USA home grown mad cow. ODDLY enough, r-calf archives only go back to 2003, that i could find. NOW remember,
r-calf was founded in 1998, and at that time, they were again trying to corner the marked due to what they claim was Anti-dumping margins against Canada. So there is a long long list of r-calf trying to have there cake, and ice cream too.
What is R-Calf Claiming.
BEEF, December, 1998
On Oct. 1, 1998 R-CALF filed three petitions for import relief on behalf of
the U.S. cattle industry. The petitions ask for the following trade
remedies: * Anti-dumping margins against Canada and a separate petition
against Mexico. (Dumping is considered under international law if prices for
export are below the full cost of production in the exporting country.) The
anti-dumping petition asserts actions by Canadian producers may be
undercutting cost of production by $50-150 a head.
The petition against Mexico asserts that country's beef cattle are coming
into the ...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4970/is_199812/ai_n18166868
Do Protectionist Trade Policies Protect? The Unintended Consequences of an
Antidumping Tariff
Gary W. Brester, Vincent H. Smith, and John M. Marsh
3rd Quarter 2003 - 18(3)
Gary Brester, Vince Smith, and John Marsh are professors in the Department
of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University.
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/scripts/printVersion.php?ID=2003-3-09
-CALF USA Wants Negotiations Within WTO Pursued
Aberdeen American News
September 10, 2004
Billings, Mont. ETH R-CALF USA responded to news this week that World Trade
Organization (WTO) arbitrators had authorized eight members to retaliate
against the United States for alleged harm caused by the Continued Dumping
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA).
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.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=37083
TRADE DISPUTES USA AND CANADA
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12155569_ITM
SO, now in 2007, there going to save everybody from mad cow disease to again, by fabricating stories that Canada BSE problem is worse than the USA, when the USDA et al (and this includes a lot of producers), have been claiming for years that the USA was BSE free. ONLY until 2003 to 2004 (and that inconclussive) finally confirmed 7 months later on a sample that should have had a 48 hour turn around, and only after an act of Congress, this Texas cow was confirmed. This after another stumbling and staggering mad cow was cover-up in Texas, rendered without any test at all. and we all know that all the while the mad cow samples sat on the shelf for months and months, GW et al was doing there BSE MRR policy change, and that is why the confirmation of the BSE cases were put on the shelf. from there the USA mad cow cover-up continued to this day. but i just find it odd that no archive exists at r-calf from 1998 to 2003 ? maybe i am mistaken and it is there. but fact is, before USA BSE, and then USA BASE mad cows, the USDA bandwagon (and everyone was aboard at that time) was NO IMPORTS FROM KNOWN DOCUMENTED BSE COUNTRIES. of course we all know the worm turned in Dec. 2003. ...
http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/bse_fmd.htm
newsletters only go back to jan 2004 ;
http://www.r-calfusa.com/Newsletter/newsletter.htm
news release archives go back only to 10/04/06 ;
http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/news_archives.htm
do a search on BSE at r-calf, and it only goes back to 2003 of 126 items ;
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?pageid=r&id=89704338&mode=ALL&query=bse&ics=1&fr=0
one thing i cannot still figure out, is r-calf's double standard. it wants to export its potential and likely BSE and or BASE products around the globe, (while USA still feeding cows to cows i.e. banned SRM 2007 and never will know unless 100% testing is done), but yet does not want BSE countries importing into the USA $$$
IS this a double standard ?
R-CALF USA's message and its efforts to prevent the USDA from relaxing import standards for countries with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/n032107-jolley.htm
Call for an explanation
Aug 1, 2005 12:00 PM
I feel you missed the point in the article, "Keeping Case No. 2 In
Perspective," in the June 24 special issue of BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly. You say:
"Now is not the time to use this issue to… try to strengthen or weaken the
position of any group within the beef industry." Having sat through an
R-CALF fundraiser highlighted by their so-called "expert" veterinarian, I
can tell you unequivocally that now is the time to ask R-CALF, "What now?"
and demand some accountability for the fear-mongering they've fostered.
I listened to this person talk of the horrors of death from BSE, the
disgusting, debilitating wasting of the brain, the ease of transmission from
meat to humans, the infectiousness of the disease — possibly being spread
through urine, the substantial risk of death from eating beef from countries
with BSE. All this was done in an attempt to further R-CALF's position of a
closed Canadian border.
The public needs an explanation from R-CALF on how it plans to undo the
damage it's done now that we have a domestic case of BSE.
I sent Leo McDonnell (R-CALF founder and president) an e-mail asking for
some accountability. He sent me back an e-mail saying I was the hypocrite
along with an article about how the futures markets actually went up on the
Monday after the BSE announcement — like R-CALF had something to do with it!
The markets are strong despite R-CALF's past rhetoric, not because of it.
Nathan Sanko
Pittsburg, KS
http://beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_call_explanation/
· Wall Street Journal takes R-CALF to task. In an editorial titled "Beef
Boomerang" WSJ said that protectionism, not sound science, is at the root of
continuing bans on Canadian beef. The editorial, published on June 1,
criticizes R-CALF and others who are attempting to block Canadian imports to
the United States. It says R-CALF thwarted USDA's "attempt to restore some
economic and scientific sanity to U.S. beef policy." The WSJ noted that
while international trading partners, including the United States,
understand the science behind BSE prevention, "there is still no known cure
for...irrational outbreaks of protectionism." —Wall Street Journal
http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/newsDesk/news_update_June.04_tscra_Texas_cattle.asp#Wall%20Street%20Journal%20takes%20R-CALF%20to%20task
FEED LOT MAGAZINE missing archives 2001
Sept/Oct 2005
August 2005
May/June 2005
March/April 2005
February 2005
Nov/Dec 2004
Sept/Oct 2004
August 2004
May/June 2004
March/April 2004
November/December 2003
September/October 2003
August 2003
March/April 2003
February 2003
MISSING
November/December 2002
September/October 2002
July/August 2002
May/June 2002
March/April 2002
January/February 2002
November/December 2000
September/October 2000
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/index.shtml
HOWEVER, a closer look, and playing with urls, you can find them ;
Mad Cow Disease Not a Problem in the U.S.
Consumers worldwide benefit from more than 10 years of aggressive, coordinated government and industry efforts that have kept the U.S. cattle herd free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), better known as mad cow disease, according to the NCBA.
"While the European Union suffers through crippling consumer concerns and behind-the-curve government efforts to deal with the current European mad cow disease scare, no cases of BSE have been found in the United States," said NCBA CEO Charles Schroeder. "And we believe our continued prevention efforts resulted in the October scientific report by the U.S. based Council for Agricultural Science and Technology that found a very low risk for U.S. occurrence of BSE.
"In today's global marketplace, producers and consumers worldwide have an interest in a safe global beef supply and confidence among world consumers," said Schroeder. "We stand willing to offer any assistance to help Europe eradicate this disease and restore consumer confidence. The United States has had great success in preventing and eradicating animal diseases and our scientific-based systems could prove useful to EU government officials and beef producers."
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200101/new_v9n1pg47article.html
Europe's BSE Woes May Help U.S. Exports
"The crisis has definitely precipitated a lot more interest in the U.S., because they trust the safety of our product," says Phil Seng, president and CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation. But market access is difficult because of the EU ban on growth promotants. Seng said if the EU would relax its hormone ban, U.S. suppliers could more easily meet the demand. In addition, other markets traditionally supplied by Europe may become more open to U.S. beef. "There are a lot of markets that were traditional markets of the Irish and markets of the Germans...especially the Middle East," Seng says. "We are talking a couple hundred thousand metric tons of opportunities out there that need to be addressed."
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200103/new_p23article.html
Exports Should Increase Due to Bovine Disease in Europe
Concerns over BSE-contaminated beef in Europe could lead to increases in U.S. beef exports within the next two years. Parr Rosson, an economist with the Texas Agricultural Extension Service and the director of the Center for North American Studies, says beef consumption within the European Union has been reduced by approximately 50 percent in the last three months, followed by a 35 percent reduction in retail prices for beef as a result of BSE, also known as "Mad Cow"disease.
"In the near term, we might pick up some extra markets where European beef was previously shipped and now is banned because of the presence of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy)," Rosson said.
"(This is) most likely (to occur) in North Africa, the Middle East and possibly in some of the Asian markets. Longer term, the second impact could be that we'll see herd rebuilding occur in many parts of the European Union."
World wide, approximately 182,000 head of cattle have been slaughtered because of BSE, with the United Kingdom the center of the BSE outbreak and having the most cattle slaughtered.
Rosson noted there could be an attempt to store frozen slaughtered beef that has been tested and declared BSE free, which possibly could negate the potential alternative export markets for U.S. beef.
Current regulations state that if an animal is found to carry BSE, then all of the animals in that same herd must be slaughtered.
"And in Germany, they're looking at the immediate slaughter of 400,000 head with longer term prospects with slaughter of up to 2 million head," Rosson said. "So that could have quite a significant impact on the ability of the European Union to supply its own needs."
Rosson says this is coming at a time when Eastern European nations are beginning to emerge as significant beef consumers.
"Before this they relied on the European Union for their supplies. Now it appears the U.S. might be in a position to move in and meet some of that demand in Central and Eastern Europe," Rosson said.
This is expected to occur within the next 18 months to two years, according to Rosson, because of large supplies and current contracts. He said beef supplies are adequate for eight to 12 months and that it will take a year to slaughter those supplies.
"Once the disease is isolated and once they feel it is under control, then I believe that it will be possible for the European ranchers to go back in and rebuild," Rosson said.
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200105/p08.html
Disease Outbreaks Make Origin Labeling Important
With foreign livestock diseases making headlines, country of origin beef labeling is needed now more than ever, according to Livestock Marketing Association President John Willis. And, Willis said, the USA label should only appear on beef from cattle which are born, fed and processed entirely in the U.S.
Willis said he is confident livestock diseases such as foot and mouth and "mad cow" can be kept out of the U.S. "The industry at all levels is working with federal and state authorities to ensure the safety of our beef supply."
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200107/p40b.html
New Institute Offers BSE Protection Through Certification
The newly-created Facility Certification Institute (FCI), headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, is offering an additional layer of protection for the U.S. beef supply against the introduction of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in this country. More commonly known as "mad cow disease," BSE has never occurred in the United States; however, its appearance in several European countries has led to widespread media exposure and worldwide consumer concern.
U.S. government and industry have been working vigorously together to reinforce the nation's safeguards to prevent the disease. The creation of FCI represents one of the latest BSE firewalls.
FCI was founded in response to the increasing demand from producers, meat packers and food companies for certification that the cattle and beef they receive have not been fed restricted-use protein products in compliance with the FDA's prohibition. In Europe, such products have been identified as a suspected source for BSE.
Intended for feed mills, pet food manufacturers, feed dealers, ingredient suppliers, livestock producers, grind and mix operations and on-farm mixers, the FCI program offers third-party certification for any operation desiring qualified documentation of compliance with federal mammalian protein regulations. It also provides verification for firms not using restricted-use protein products.
FCI Chairman Richard Severson considers the FCI objective highly crucial not only for agriculture but also for consumers throughout the U.S.
"The FCI mission is to help prevent the occurrence of BSE within our borders. We don't have BSE in this country. But, this is a way to make the safest food supply in the world even safer," Severson said.
The new institute contracts with expert, independent agents to inspect facilities that utilize restricted use protein products as well as those, which do not. The agents review procedures, examine records and issue certifications to those facilities successfully meeting the program requirements.
Two levels of certification are offered: Level 1 for facilities not using restricted protein products and Level 2 for facilities using restricted products but conforming to federal limitations for those products.Thus far, 200 facilities through the U.S. and Canada have been inspected. This represents nearly 15 million tons of manufactured feed.
Further information can be obtained from www.certifiedfeed.org, or call 888-FCI-6885. ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200111/p23.html
The Canadian Import Situation: What Will USDA's Action Do?
By Eric Davis, President, National Cattlemen's Beef Association
As most in our industry know, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is now accepting import permit applications for a number of products previously banned as a result of the discovery of one cow with BSE in Canada on May 20. This was done after an exhaustive scientific analysis of the risks involved.
The action - and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) response to it - have caused concern among some U.S. producers. Much of this concern, I've found, has been based on erroneous information. A closer look at the situation is needed.
First of all, NCBA has from the beginning of the ban cautioned against opening the border without assurances that the risks, based on science, were as low as possible. On June 18, NCBA submitted a letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman outlining the principles under which the ban might be lifted. Those principles include that:
All decisions on trade requirements be science-based;
All standards agreed upon between the U.S. and other trading partners be equivalent for both international and domestic consumers of beef; and
During negotiations USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service seize the opportunity to create a harmonization of animal health standards to allow the equitable flow of cattle in both directions.
NCBA will continue to insist that any and all decisions do not increase the risk of BSE introduction into the U.S.
The U.S. has led the world in establishing science-based firewalls designed to protect the U.S. from this disease, and NCBA wants to continue that record. The firewall precautions against introduction of BSE include restricting the importation of animals and animal products from countries known to have BSE, ruminant feed restrictions and aggressive, targeted surveillance.
Does the USDA action adhere to these requirements? It does. We are not importing any products capable of carrying the BSE agent. The decision is based on science, and does not increase the risk of BSE introduction into the U.S.
Some people, because of political motives or the belief that the reduction in beef supplies is bolstering the U.S. market, would prefer that the border be closed indefinitely. That's worse than the action of a bad neighbor: it's unrealistic and could come back to haunt us in the future.
NCBA members - cattlemen like us - have long realized the importance of doing business in a global marketplace and the benefit it pays to them as beef producers. Beef and beef byproducts that have relatively little value in the U.S. pay substantial dividends to U.S. producers when sold in overseas markets. In fact, the U.S. beef industry netted $743 million in trade for 2002.
Additionally, this decision will likely be the standard that would be applied to U.S. beef producers in the unfortunate circumstance that BSE were to be discovered here. We cannot forget the golden rule - do unto your trading partners as you would have your trading partners do unto you.
NCBA has worked diligently to ensure that we gain market access to countries around the world, and that non-tariff trade barriers are reduced. This means that once access is negotiated, those countries and the U.S. will not create artificial barriers to trade.
NCBA is proud of its cattlemen-established policy to base decisions on scientific facts. We are proud of our commitment to protecting public health, protecting the health of the U.S. cattle herd and to mitigating economic harm to producers.
I've heard it said that "this is all political." Well, that's a plus to me. I have long said that the facts are our friends and we should thank our "political people" for making these decisions based on the facts and the science and not on the emotion of the moment. We will not be lured into injuring our producers and the export markets we have developed for the sake of short-term political gain. ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200309/article12.html
Inconclusive BSE Tests Could Become Commonplace
"Get used to seeing these," said University of Missouri Extension veterinarian Robert Larson. "There will be lots of them."
Larson was referring to statements issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on June 25 and 29 announcing inconclusive results from rapid tests for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in suspect cattle.
As of press time, two inconclusive results had been reported. Both test results were confirmed negative following more precise testing, John Clifford, deputy administrator for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said during two press conference.
"We realize the process is affecting the cattle markets...however, failure to announce inconclusive test results could create rumors, speculation and increased market volatility."
Jan Lyons
NCBA President
"The rapid screening test, called ELISA, used in the enhanced BSE surveillance program is very sensitive," said Larson, a veterinary beef extension specialist with the MU Commercial Agriculture program. "It's not likely to say a positive sample is negative."
Using ELISA speeds surveillance and allows carcasses that test negative to be returned to processing quicker, he said. "If an inconclusive result is returned, then a more time-consuming and accurate immunohistochemistry test is performed at the USDA national lab in Ames, Iowa."
Larson likened the difference between the two tests for BSE to the difference between a home pregnancy test and the test administered by a physician.
"Just like a home pregnancy test provides a result quicker than a test at the doctor's office, ELISA provides results quicker than immunohistochemistry," he explained. "However, ELISA will sometimes say a negative sample is positive, just like a home pregnancy test will sometimes say a woman is pregnant when in fact she's not."
Larson added that when testing for diseases with a low prevalence such as BSE, "most of the test results are false positives rather than true positives. This is a result of mathematics, not biology. The general public may not have dealt with diagnostic test interpretation that isn't immediately black and white before, but cattle producers who've dealt with disease eradication programs for brucellosis and tuberculosis are familiar with it."
NCBA President Jan Lyons believes the follow up testing shows the system is working. "This result is not unexpected. As part of USDA's expanded BSE surveillance program, a rapid screening test is used as the first step in a two-part testing process. USDA expected some inconclusive results from this initial step. Because the rapid tests are sensitive, they are subject to occasional inconclusive results that later prove to be negative. It is a little like going through the airport metal detector. We all have had the detector beep on us at least once, but it didn't mean we were carrying a prohibited item. It simply meant more testing was needed."
The USDA was criticized following the release of information on the first two inconclusive test results. The information will continue to be released, but according to the Texas Cattle Feeders Association, the USDA will no longer hold technical briefings when releasing the information. Instead, inconclusive results will be posted on the Web.
Lyons supports open reporting of inconclusive BSE test results to assure consumer confidence.
"We realize the process is affecting the cattle markets...however, failure to announce inconclusive test results could create rumors, speculation and increased market volatility," Lyons said.
The USDA expanded its BSE surveillance following the discovery of an infected dairy cow in Washington state last December. At current screening levels, the program should find the disease if it occurs in as few as 1 in 10 million adult cattle, according to USDA statements.
BSE is one of several brain-wasting diseases, including scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in humans, believed to be caused by abnormal proteins called prions. The build-up of prions in an animal's central nervous tissue eventually kills nerve cells, leaving behind lesions and sponge-like holes in the brain.
Though primarily a cattle disease, BSE has been documented to pass from cattle to humans. When contracted by humans, it is referred to as variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease.
As of June 28, the USDA reported 8,585 negative tests under the enhanced BSE surveillance program, which was implemented June 1. For more information about the program, visit http://www.aphis.usda.gov/. ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200408/article04.html
APHIS Alters BSE Inconclusive Tests Announcement Strategy
Improvements in BSE testing protocols by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will continue the agency's science-based approach to identifying and announcing potential BSE cases, according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA).
APHIS has announced that it will now wait until the second and third concurrent rapid tests are conducted before declaring a test sample inconclusive. Only if one of these tests is reactive will APHIS announce the result as an inconclusive, at which point a confirmatory test will be conducted at National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa.
This protocol is consistent with manufacturer's instructions, which state that a sample is inconclusive for BSE if either of a set of duplicate tests conducted after the first rapid test is reactive. At that point an immunohistochemistry (IHC) test – the gold standard test for BSE – is performed.
"We suggested this change to USDA, and support their action," according to NCBA President Jan Lyons, a beef producer from Manhattan, Kan. "It conforms to the manufacturer's recommendations and is consistent with practices by other countries, which have identified the best scientific practices to identify the disease. Their move should help protect our industry by maintaining consumer confidence and reducing market volatility."
This announcement comes after the future's markets experienced a lot of volatility after rapid tests on two different calves came back inconclusive. Further testing confirmed the samples were negative, however cattlemen expressed concern about market volatility in the wake of such announcements.
According to APHIS Chief Veterinarian John Clifford, APHIS has completed proficiency testing of all BSE labs, including reviewing data from the first 60 days of testing. Its protocol change is based on this review. Rapid tests on more than 28,000 samples have been conducted since June 1. ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200409/article06.html
Top 10 BSE Facts Every Cattleman Should Know
Although it has been over a year since the single case of BSE was discovered in a Canadian cow, the thought of another discovery – or word of an inconclusive test – grabs cattlemen's attention very quickly. However, the facts show there is little to be worried about.
Nonetheless, if another case was discovered in the United States, it would likely make the evening news, and it is possible local reporters could come calling on you, a local beef producer, requesting an interview on the situation. You need to be prepared. You need to know the facts.
Feed-Lot magazine visited with NCBA's Vice President of Research and Knowledge, Dr. Bo Reagan, about the Top 10 Facts every cattleman should know about BSE. We encourage you keep this page of your magazine for future reference, just in case you are faced with such questions.
Here are the facts, with an explanation of each by Dr. Reagan.
1) Scientists, medical professionals, and government officials agree that BSE is not a public health risk in the United States. We have never had a case of new variant CJD – the human form of BSE – in the United States. Research in the United Kingdom supports an association of new variant CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease) and BSE. Variant CJD likely developed as a result of people consuming products contaminated with central nervous system tissue of BSE-infected cattle
2) Because of the progressive steps taken by the U.S. government during the past 15 years, U.S. beef is safe from BSE. The U.S. has been on top of FSE since the first case was diagnosed in the U.K. in 1986. The U.S. sent a team to study the U.K. situation, and firewalls were put into place. The U.S. was the first country in the world to start a surveillance program in 1990, testing cattle for the disease. And in 1997, the USDA implemented the feed ban on ruminate-derived proteins. Scientists world-wide agree that is how to stop BSE.
3) BSE infectivity has not been found in beef such as steaks, roasts, and ground beef. The BSE agent has never been found in muscle tissue. Tests on the muscle of naturally and experimentally infected cattle have been negative for BSE, even in advanced stages of the disease. Documented studies report that in naturally infected cattle, the BSE agent has only been found in central nervous system tissue, such as brain and spinal cord and in retina tissue.
4) USDA regulations prohibit anything that might carry BSE from entering the food supply, such as the brain and spinal cord. These "specified risk materials" or SRMs are removed from every animal, even healthy ones.
5) Even if another case of BSE is found in the U.S., consumers can remain confident in the safety of U.S. beef and that the risk of BSE to humans is near zero. Scientists have a very good understanding that BSE is not found in muscle meats. The NCBA has done a lot to educate consumers to this fact, and it's working. Surveys conducted every six weeks show U.S. customer confidence has not wavered. There is an 89-91% customer confidence in the U.S. beef supply.
6) The feed ban breaks the cycle of BSE and, with full compliance, assures the disease will be eliminated. FDA reports feed ban compliance exceeds 99 percent. In 1996, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association launched a voluntary feed ban, which established an industry standard against feeding ruminant-derived protein to cattle. In 1997, with NCBA's support, the FDA made the ban mandatory. The U.S. beef industry utilizes plant-derived protein products, such as soybean and cottonseed meal, even before the feed ban was enacted.
7) USDA banned from the human food supply any cattle unable to walk or show signs or possible neurological disease. In January, 2005, the USDA enacted this rule. Since BSE is not found in muscle tissue, from a scientific and realistic standpoint, they USDA is going beyond the point of what is expected to ensure BSE-infected tissue does not enter the food chain.
8) The U.S. began an active surveillance for BSE in May 1990. In June 2004, USDA increased the scope of BSE surveillance and the goal of the program is to test as many targeted cattle as possible over a 12-18 month period. To date the enhanced surveillance program as tested more than 242,019 cattle since June, 2004. USDA says this sample size will allow for detection of the disease if it exists in the U.S., even if it exists at a rate as low as one positive per 10 million adult cattle. The Harvard Risk Assessment says that even if we found four or five positive cases, there is a very low risk of BSE in this country.
9) BSE is not a contagious disease and does not spread from animal to animal. Instead BSE spreads through feed containing meat and bone meal derived from BSE-infected cattle. The U.S. banned the use of ruminant-derived protein in 1997. Scientists looked at the five cases in Canada and cases in Europe. They used trace back systems and harvested those animals that came in contact with infected cattle. They never found another case of BSE spread from animal to animal.
10) Since 2001, the U.K. has tested nearly 1.4 million cattle and no cattle under 30 months of age tested positive. The majority of cattle consumed are less than 30 months of age. Worldwide, a few have tested positive at less than 30 months of age, but they were born and raised during a time of high infection in those countries. Once these countries put a feed ban in place, they no longer have found cattle with the disease at less than 30 months of age.
For more information on BSE, log onto www.BSEinfo.org.
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200503/article09.html
Canada, BSE and Cattle Inventory — Market Impact Minimal
During the Cattle Industry Summer Conference held July 26-30, the status of live cattle trade with Canada continued to be a major topic of discussion. The opening of the Canadian border creates some anxiety in the psychology of the U.S. cattle market, however, the real impact of reopening the border to live cattle should be very limited, according to Randy Blach, Cattle-Fax general manager.
"The important factor to remember is that the United States has been importing record-large amounts of Canadian boxed beef since March, so the border opening to live cattle is not as significant as some reports would have you believe," Blach said.
Imports of Canadian boxed beef were already expected to be nearly 30 percent larger in 2005 than in 2004, so the net impact of lifting the live cattle ban should be minimal.
On a related issue, USDA announced on July 27 a nondefinitive BSE test result. But final test results indicated the cow did not have BSE.
"The market didn't really show much impact from USDA's original announcement," Blach said.
Another topic of discussion was the rising U.S. cattle inventory. Total U.S. cattle inventory has increased by about one percent, or 900,000 head, compared to a year ago. This marks the first year-over-year increase since the cattle cycle peak of 1996.
Mike Miller of Cattle-Fax says it is very important to look at the specific components of the inventory increase. Beef replacement heifers grew by four percent compared to last year, with dairy replacement heifers also increasing slightly. So the fact that total inventory has increased will not necessarily translate into a corresponding increase in cattle for slaughter.
"The current trends in the female populations suggest that beef herd expansion is in full swing," Miller said. "These trends are supported by smaller heifer feedlot placements, and by cow and heifer slaughter that remain well below last year's levels." ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/currentissue/article18.html
Fundamentals are challenged also from McDonalds wanting to test market foreign beef. McDonalds is pretty good at waving the American flag but this feels like a "sell out" of the American beef producer to us. Wasn't it McDonalds that told producers at the height of the BSE scare that they wanted affidavits signed stating that they never fed their cattle mammalian tissues (meat and bone meal)? Is McDonalds going to require the same from overseas producers? The reality is McDonalds is simply trying to shave a few cents off the cost of their burgers and it is becoming obvious that with 30,000 stores worldwide, they don't care who gets hurt along the way.
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200205/p37.html
But NCBA explains "If we are to apply the use of science and risk assessment in the U.S. on BSE, Canada should do the same on these other issues. We cannot have a double standard. It is paramount that we achieve trade parity as we resume trade with Canada."
NCBA has maintained the following principles should be used in addressing the BSE situation in Canada:
All decisions on trade requirements must be science-based and consistent with the Harvard risk assessment study.
All standards agreed upon between the U.S. and other trading partners must be equivalent for both international and domestic consumers of beef. We are committed to providing the safest beef for our consumers around the world.
USDA must, promptly and proactively, communicate with the public and the beef industry on the progress of the investigation in Canada and the status of reestablishing trade, including the process and timeline for reopening the border.
As negotiations on reopening the border occur, USDA-APHIS should seize the opportunity to create a harmonization of animal health standards to allow an equitable flow of cattle in both directions
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200311/article05.html
Texas Cattle Groups Request WTO Action
The leaders of Texas' two largest cattle organizations, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) and Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA) have called upon the Bush Administration to pursue World Trade Organization action against those countries that continue to show an unwillingness to open their market for U.S. beef
Many countries closed their borders to imports of U.S. beef following the Dec. 23, 2003, announcement that Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) was detected in a cow from the state of Washington. Although 70 of those countries have again allowed U.S. beef imports, negotiations to reopen 28 other crucial markets have apparently stalled in spite of continued efforts by top Administration officials in the ensuing months. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that shortly after the BSE discovery, $4.8 billion in U.S. beef and beef product exports were banned by several countries.
TSCRA President Dick Sherron and TCFA Chairman Charlie Sellers contend that U.S. trade with international customers should resume based on the Office of International Epizootics (OIE) recommendations. The OIE publishes health standards for international trade in animals and animal products. There are 167 member countries of the organization.
In May 2005, the OIE simplified risk categories. Based on these changes, the United States falls in the "Controlled BSE Risk" category. The OIE code recommends imports from controlled BSE risk countries resume under certain conditions. The low BSE-risk products (which may be traded without BSE-related regulations) list was also expanded to now include boneless beef from cattle of all ages.
Sellers, Sherron and the members they represent believe the time has come to ask the World Trade Organization to impose economic sanctions on those countries that have yet to lift the U.S. beef ban. "The United States continues to significantly exceed OIE standards for a BSE controlled risk country," the two leaders said. "It is high time that all available international remedies are brought to bear so that beef trade resumes as soon as possible." ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/currentissue/article07.html
Market Notes
by Luke Schwieterman, President of Schwieterman Inc.
The cattle market is holding up well considering the underlying threat of the Canadian border being opened. The USDA seems certain that the pending appeal will find in their favor and that cattle may begin to move by mid to late July. On the flip side, the Japanese continue to find reasons to deflect pressure from the US to resume imports of US beef. The more the US pushes the more Japan pulls back. Somehow it has been decided to use strong-arm tactics and push folks around but it is becoming apparent that idea isn't going to work. We must give the customer what they want – that's lesson number one in any salesmanship handbook.
You would think that import of cattle and beef into the US is at a standstill. Not necessarily so. The Canadian border was closed in June of 2003. In 2002 before BSE, the US imported 2,502,886 head of cattle from both Canada and Mexico. In 2003, total cattle imports were 1,751,896, down 30 percent from 2002. In 2004, the US total cattle imports were down 45.1 percent from 2002 at 1,373,768 head.
Total beef imports (from all sources) in 2002 were 3.218 billion pounds. In 2003 total imports were 3.006 billion pounds, down only 6.6 percent. In 2004, total imports were 3.679 billion pounds up 14.3 percent from 2002 or before BSE! So, as compared to pre-BSE, the US imported 45.1 percent fewer cattle but 14.3 percent more beef.
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200505/article16.html
Perplexed by the USDA
I am perplexed by the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). At Cattlemen's Day, in Billings, Montana, on November 13, 2004, Dr. Jose Diez, Director Western Region, Veterinary Services, made a presentation to the Montana Cattlemen's Association concerning the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE-Mad Cow Disease) situation in the United States and Canada. Dr. Diez told the large group of cattlemen, cattlewomen, press, including press from Japan, and four practicing veterinarians, that the USDA was pursuing a "Risk Based Trade" with Canada.
This Risk Based Trade is actually an attempt to negotiate down guidelines set in place by the Office of International Epizootics (OIE). The OIE is an international group of scientists and veterinarians that set guidelines and regulations that attempt to control and limit the spread of diseases that could potentially spread from animals to humans. The OIE has very specific guidelines concerning countries that have had BSE identified within their borders. Countries that have identified natural cases of BSE, but have not completed at least 7 years of Risk Assessment, are classified as BSE Moderate Risk Countries. Since BSE is a disease with an extremely long incubation period, the 7-year waiting period is utilized to protect a BSE free country from receiving animals from a known infected country that could be harboring the disease. Potentially infected cattle could be exhibiting no symptoms of BSE, but could be incubating the disease while shedding the infective agent.
The OIE issued these complex guidelines in response to a severe outbreak of BSE in Europe, which resulted in the death or destruction of several million head of cattle. The object of the OIE guidelines is to contain the prions that cause BSE in a known geographical location and prevent their contamination to areas known to be free of BSE, while establishing guidelines for future trade in live cattle and beef. Canada is a country with five known cases of BSE: One case in the early 1990's, one case in May 2003, and one case in December 2003. Two more cases have been identified in 2004 and early 2005. Although the number of known cases is small, Canada is classified as a BSE infected country, either with Moderate or High Risk. Prions that cause BSE have potentially contaminated areas of the country of Canada. These prions probably made their way to Canada in cattle imported from Europe in the 1980's and early 1990's. Several head of cattle were imported into Canada during the hottest period of the European BSE epidemic. Fortunately, the United States did not import many cattle from Europe. The United States was capable of identifying the few head that were imported from Europe and destroyed those cattle quickly or studied them until their natural death. Canada has a much closer trading relationship with Europe, and as a result, has reaped the harvest.
Knowing all this, the USDA has taken a leading role in discussions with other countries to lower the standards of classification for medium and low risk BSE infected countries. In other words, instead of following closely the guidelines and regulations that have kept BSE out of the United States in the past, the USDA has proposed a new set of guidelines that would shorten the BSE code allowing three new classifications, based on what they term as acceptable risk. The process is designed to allow Canadian beef and live cattle into the United States without satisfying the 7-year waiting period. The USDA has determined that the risk of spreading BSE to the United States is minimal. In addition, the USDA has determined that the risk of spreading BSE into the United States is acceptable. This means they recognize the possibility of spreading BSE into the United States exists, but they believe the USDA proposed rules for dealing with Specified Risk Materials, such as bovine meat and bone meal, will contain it.
If this disease were Brucellosis, Tuberculosis, or Foot and Mouth Disease, the USDA would require several years of negative tests before allowing cattle into the US from Canada. Even within the United States itself, a state cannot be considered Brucellosis free until it has satisfied a rigorous series of tests, and several years of no reported cases. If Brucellosis was known to exist in a state, cattle would have to be tested negative before interstate movement would be allowed. In most cases, another test would be required on live animals 60 to 90 days later, and then again at 1 year. In the case of BSE and Canada, the USDA wants to reclassify Canada as a country with Proposed Negligible BSE Risk or Proposed Controlled BSE Risk. This decision is based on Canada's proposed control program. Remember that Canada discovered a case of BSE in a cow in May of 2003. After convincing the USDA that control measures were adequate, the USDA reopened trade in beef with Canada. Then another case was identified in a Canadian cow in December of 2003, which had been exported into the State of Washington. When this second case in 2003 was discovered, the USDA was supposed to shut off all beef trade with Canada until new trading rules had been established. They failed to do so.
Surveillance is an important measure for determining if a particular disease contaminates a given population of cattle. The United States has tested nearly 130,000 cattle since January 1, 2004 for BSE, and has plans to test over 200,000 higher risk animals. No positive cases have been identified. During the same time period, Canada has tested less than 10,000 head of high-risk cattle. Several countries have pressured Canada to step up surveillance. Only recently has Canada issued press releases stating the country intends to step up surveillance in 2005. In those press releases, the Canadian Agricultural officials state they expect to find more cases of BSE in Canada. If that is the case, why would the USDA be attempting to get the border open and risk contamination of US soil with BSE prions? Even if a natural case of BSE was identified within the borders of the Untied States, why would the USDA be willing to allow additional cases to enter the US from Canada? Let's put out one fire at a time, thank you.
The prions that cause BSE are basically indestructible. Research has determined that Scrapie prions buried for three years are still capable of causing disease when injected into laboratory animals. Cattle with BSE could potentially shed prions in their feces, nasal discharges, saliva, and reproductive discharges. Mirror image diseases, like Scrapie in sheep and goats and Chronic Wasting Disease in deer and elk, have been identified to spread prions to negative sheep, goats, deer, and elk by these bodily discharges. These prions could contaminate soil in paddocks, lots, feeding pens, and pastures. In Europe, it has been demonstrated that less than one intake of 10 milligrams of neural tissue can spread Mad Cow Disease from one animal to another. That is why keeping meat and bone meal out of cattle diets is so very important. Prions are ingested and replicate in lymphatic tissues in the intestinal tract before making their way to the central nervous system. There they cause the destruction of brain tissue, which results in the typical symptoms of Mad Cow Disease. The truly scary thing about all this is new variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (nvCJD). The prions that cause BSE are the same prions that cause nvCJD. Although the most common mode of infection is oral ingestion of contaminated beef or beef byproducts, prions in the environment are considered biological hazards by many governments and research facilities. Patients that ingest BSE prions and develop nvCJD die a horrible death. There is no treatment for BSE or nvCJD. Dr. Stanley Prusiner, the medical researcher who discovered and identified the structure of BSE prions, has told the USDA that any exposure to BSE prions is potentially dangerous. Although consumers cannot consume enough prions to cause BSE, the prions they do consume may trigger an irreversible conversion process that converts normal cellular prions into the prions that cause nvCJD. Dr. Prusiner does not know how many exposures it takes to cause this conversion process, but some individuals with a particular genetic code are known to be extremely susceptible to developing nvCJD.
It is the mandate of USDA APHIS to protect the health of cattle and livestock within the borders of the United States. It is not their mandate to lower the standards so Canada may export cattle into the US. If this was any other disease that had three cases identified within the last 10 years, one case less than 12 months ago, the USDA would not consider allowing possibly infected cattle to cross the border into the United States. As a veterinarian I have been trained to assist the USDA in maintaining the health of the US cattle population. I have been accredited by APHIS to assist in disease control, cattle testing, and containment of disease outbreaks. I would have never guessed that USDA APHIS would be considering "Risk Based Trade". The risk is there, and it is not acceptable. The answer to the Canadian BSE problem cannot be found by potentially spreading the disease into the United States. Let's solve this disease problem in one country at a time.
Researchers are feverishly working to develop a live animal test to identify cattle carrying BSE prions. Why not wait a few months, or even a few years, until this test is available? Once Canada has performed the proper surveillance and satisfied OIE guidelines, then test each animal being imported. If the animal is negative, permanently identify the animal when it enters the US, and continue surveillance until the animal dies or is slaughtered. This method would reduce the risk of introduction of BSE prions into the United States to a minimum. At the least, proper identification would allow for trace back, slaughter of exposed animals, and control of a potentially dangerous disease.
In Europe and Japan, BSE is being identified in younger and younger animals. Mad Cow Disease prions apparently become more virulent when they are passed down to successive generations. Countries all over Europe are currently identifying new cases of BSE, even though those countries have not fed any meat and bone meal since the early 1990's. Early cases were identified in older animals. Presently, 2 or 3 generations removed, cases are being identified in animals less than 2 years of age. At least one case has even been identified in an animal less than one year of age. This phenomenon is consistent with what researchers have discovered about BSE in laboratory animals. As the disease is transferred down several generations, the incubation period becomes shorter.
No one has given an acceptable explanation as to how cattle are being exposed to BSE prions in countries where the feeding of meat and bone meal has been outlawed for over 15 years!!! The unfortunate victims of BSE are coming into contact with the prions somewhere. Knowing the fact that prions are indestructible, knowing the fact that prions may seed down the environment, knowing there is no method of satisfactory disinfection for BSE prions, and knowing there is no treatment for animals that contract BSE, why would the USDA consider allowing such a horrendous disease to enter the United States of America? The real answer will surprise you:
1) The USDA subscribes to the idea that BSE can arise in a particular population of cattle spontaneously. In other words, the USDA believes BSE may, in fact, already infect cattle in the United States through the process of spontaneous generation of the abnormal prions that cause BSE. I have heard with my own ears this theory espoused by a USDA veterinarian at the January 2003 annual Kansas Cattlemen's Association convention at Dodge City, Kansas. This USDA veterinarian even expressed his view that the US may have exported BSE to Canada in the early 1990's with the exportation of US meat and bone meal to the Canadian feed industry.
2) The USDA has determined that the US beef cattle industry is part of a North American system. Beef cattle in Canada, the United States, and Mexico are all part of one big integrated system. Chandler Keys, a National Cattlemen's Association spokesman has stated this concept in this manner, and I quote, "It's a good lesson for all of us," said Keys. "We've got to strive to work together. We're a North American system." The last time I looked, no Canadian has offered to pay my income taxes, property taxes, or veterinary inspection fees. When I called the Canadian Embassy and asked about exporting cattle from Missouri to Alberta, I was told Canada would not accept cattle from Missouri because of the possibility of Missouri cattle being infected with Blue Tongue and Anaplasmosis. So much for a North American cattle industry.
3) The USDA is convinced that by boning out meat and removing certain Specified Risk Materials (brain, spinal chord, lymph nodes, ileum, etc), the risk of spreading BSE prions is minimal. This may well be an acceptable method to reduce spread of BSE prions associated with raw meat, but what about live cattle? Live cattle harboring BSE prions, like live deer and elk that harbor Chronic Wasting Disease prions, shed BSE prions into their environment and may take months or years to actually die of this dread disease. Italy, England, Ireland, and Spain all have discovered many new cases of BSE in live cattle during this past year. They have had control measures in place since the late 1980's and early 1990's. Japan continues to discover new cases of BSE in younger and younger animals. We cannot afford to have consumer confidence in beef potentially undermined by continually finding new, and unexplained, cases of BSE in the United States.
As a practicing veterinarian who has taken an oath to protect the health of humans and the animals that feed, clothe, and provide emotional comfort for humans, I am disturbed that the agency charged with protecting the United States cattle industry seems to have their judgment swayed by free trade issues. In the past, both Canada and the United States have maintained the hard line of no trade in beef with any country that has identified a case of Mad Cow Disease, even to the point of prohibiting importation of embryo's or semen from a country with a known natural case of BSE. This hard line of defense has kept BSE out of the United States. I cannot understand why this line of defense, which has served the United States so well, should be relaxed before a live animal test has been developed to identify BSE positive cattle. Relaxing such standards may result in the same circumstances that Europe and Japan find themselves in currently. I have just attended a day-long seminar on Epizootic Diseases conducted by the USDA and the Missouri Department of Agriculture and the Missouri Department of Health. Mad Cow Disease has been identified as a political disease. Where countries with Foot and Mouth Disease virus cases are prevented to trade with the United States, countries with Mad Cow Disease (BSE) will be allowed to trade with the United States. Canada is not the only BSE positive country that wants to trade with the United States. When this Pandora's Box is opened, the United States will be required to receive beef and live animals from any BSE positive country that has satisfied the new OIE qualifications. Basically, any country that can prove it has developed a satisfactory BSE control program will be allowed to export beef into the United States.
I know that I am not the only perplexed practicing veterinarian in the United States. Our education and training have not prepared us to understand a political disease. Canada has been forbidden to trade beef with most of her former trading partners except Mexico. There is no doubt that Canada has suffered immensely because of BSE. Because the USDA APHIS failed to announce that the positive cow in December 2003 was a Canadian cow, all of the US trading partners have forbidden beef trade. By not announcing that fact immediately, our trading partners consolidated their resistance to trade with the United States. That trade has not resumed, and opening the border to a know BSE infected country will not improve those severed trade relationships. Thus, the desire by the USDA to reclassify OIE guidelines, and reclassify Canada as a Moderate to Minimal Risk BSE country. Go figure!!!
RM Thornsberry
Dr. Thornsberry points are well taken, except a few factors he forgets i.e. USA BSE and BASE, and the fact in some cases USA renders mad cows without test,
the cover-up begins ;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
#### ooops
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
THIS is not about r-calf saving everybody from madcow disease. From r-calf's point of view, it's nothing more than cornering the market, on the backs of the dead from CJD right here in the USA. until the USDA, and all producers approve and validate 100% testing for TSE in the USA bovine, and do it with the proper protocols and follow them, the world will never know what the true extent of mad cow disease is in the USA. This to date, has not been done. the 2004 enhanced BSE surveillance program was flawwed from day one, it was set up to be that way, in other words, it was meaningless. don't believe me, ask one of the top prion gods at CDC;
CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006
The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier
this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to
them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest
case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at
least a decade.
The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.
These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is
thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they
consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,
incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated
with the mad cow pathogen.
"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer
that."
Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
that initially tested positive.
USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.
"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r
CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ...
Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central
Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room
4A-05, ...
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm
PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM
"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow issue for some years,
and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed critiques and recommendations to both the
USDA and the Canadian Food Agency."
OR, what the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG found ;
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
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
USA MAD COW STRAIN MORE VIRULENT TO HUMANS THAN UK STRAIN
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
I have been trying to get a look and the mentality of r-calf and other cattle groups before the 2003 Washington BSE cow, what was said about existing BSE countries and there imports, BEFORE USA home grown mad cow. ODDLY enough, r-calf archives only go back to 2003, that i could find. NOW remember,
r-calf was founded in 1998, and at that time, they were again trying to corner the marked due to what they claim was Anti-dumping margins against Canada. So there is a long long list of r-calf trying to have there cake, and ice cream too.
What is R-Calf Claiming.
BEEF, December, 1998
On Oct. 1, 1998 R-CALF filed three petitions for import relief on behalf of
the U.S. cattle industry. The petitions ask for the following trade
remedies: * Anti-dumping margins against Canada and a separate petition
against Mexico. (Dumping is considered under international law if prices for
export are below the full cost of production in the exporting country.) The
anti-dumping petition asserts actions by Canadian producers may be
undercutting cost of production by $50-150 a head.
The petition against Mexico asserts that country's beef cattle are coming
into the ...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4970/is_199812/ai_n18166868
Do Protectionist Trade Policies Protect? The Unintended Consequences of an
Antidumping Tariff
Gary W. Brester, Vincent H. Smith, and John M. Marsh
3rd Quarter 2003 - 18(3)
Gary Brester, Vince Smith, and John Marsh are professors in the Department
of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University.
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/scripts/printVersion.php?ID=2003-3-09
-CALF USA Wants Negotiations Within WTO Pursued
Aberdeen American News
September 10, 2004
Billings, Mont. ETH R-CALF USA responded to news this week that World Trade
Organization (WTO) arbitrators had authorized eight members to retaliate
against the United States for alleged harm caused by the Continued Dumping
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA).
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.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=37083
TRADE DISPUTES USA AND CANADA
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12155569_ITM
SO, now in 2007, there going to save everybody from mad cow disease to again, by fabricating stories that Canada BSE problem is worse than the USA, when the USDA et al (and this includes a lot of producers), have been claiming for years that the USA was BSE free. ONLY until 2003 to 2004 (and that inconclussive) finally confirmed 7 months later on a sample that should have had a 48 hour turn around, and only after an act of Congress, this Texas cow was confirmed. This after another stumbling and staggering mad cow was cover-up in Texas, rendered without any test at all. and we all know that all the while the mad cow samples sat on the shelf for months and months, GW et al was doing there BSE MRR policy change, and that is why the confirmation of the BSE cases were put on the shelf. from there the USA mad cow cover-up continued to this day. but i just find it odd that no archive exists at r-calf from 1998 to 2003 ? maybe i am mistaken and it is there. but fact is, before USA BSE, and then USA BASE mad cows, the USDA bandwagon (and everyone was aboard at that time) was NO IMPORTS FROM KNOWN DOCUMENTED BSE COUNTRIES. of course we all know the worm turned in Dec. 2003. ...
http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/bse_fmd.htm
newsletters only go back to jan 2004 ;
http://www.r-calfusa.com/Newsletter/newsletter.htm
news release archives go back only to 10/04/06 ;
http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/news_archives.htm
do a search on BSE at r-calf, and it only goes back to 2003 of 126 items ;
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?pageid=r&id=89704338&mode=ALL&query=bse&ics=1&fr=0
one thing i cannot still figure out, is r-calf's double standard. it wants to export its potential and likely BSE and or BASE products around the globe, (while USA still feeding cows to cows i.e. banned SRM 2007 and never will know unless 100% testing is done), but yet does not want BSE countries importing into the USA $$$
IS this a double standard ?
R-CALF USA's message and its efforts to prevent the USDA from relaxing import standards for countries with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/n032107-jolley.htm
Call for an explanation
Aug 1, 2005 12:00 PM
I feel you missed the point in the article, "Keeping Case No. 2 In
Perspective," in the June 24 special issue of BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly. You say:
"Now is not the time to use this issue to… try to strengthen or weaken the
position of any group within the beef industry." Having sat through an
R-CALF fundraiser highlighted by their so-called "expert" veterinarian, I
can tell you unequivocally that now is the time to ask R-CALF, "What now?"
and demand some accountability for the fear-mongering they've fostered.
I listened to this person talk of the horrors of death from BSE, the
disgusting, debilitating wasting of the brain, the ease of transmission from
meat to humans, the infectiousness of the disease — possibly being spread
through urine, the substantial risk of death from eating beef from countries
with BSE. All this was done in an attempt to further R-CALF's position of a
closed Canadian border.
The public needs an explanation from R-CALF on how it plans to undo the
damage it's done now that we have a domestic case of BSE.
I sent Leo McDonnell (R-CALF founder and president) an e-mail asking for
some accountability. He sent me back an e-mail saying I was the hypocrite
along with an article about how the futures markets actually went up on the
Monday after the BSE announcement — like R-CALF had something to do with it!
The markets are strong despite R-CALF's past rhetoric, not because of it.
Nathan Sanko
Pittsburg, KS
http://beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_call_explanation/
· Wall Street Journal takes R-CALF to task. In an editorial titled "Beef
Boomerang" WSJ said that protectionism, not sound science, is at the root of
continuing bans on Canadian beef. The editorial, published on June 1,
criticizes R-CALF and others who are attempting to block Canadian imports to
the United States. It says R-CALF thwarted USDA's "attempt to restore some
economic and scientific sanity to U.S. beef policy." The WSJ noted that
while international trading partners, including the United States,
understand the science behind BSE prevention, "there is still no known cure
for...irrational outbreaks of protectionism." —Wall Street Journal
http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/newsDesk/news_update_June.04_tscra_Texas_cattle.asp#Wall%20Street%20Journal%20takes%20R-CALF%20to%20task
FEED LOT MAGAZINE missing archives 2001
Sept/Oct 2005
August 2005
May/June 2005
March/April 2005
February 2005
Nov/Dec 2004
Sept/Oct 2004
August 2004
May/June 2004
March/April 2004
November/December 2003
September/October 2003
August 2003
March/April 2003
February 2003
MISSING
November/December 2002
September/October 2002
July/August 2002
May/June 2002
March/April 2002
January/February 2002
November/December 2000
September/October 2000
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/index.shtml
HOWEVER, a closer look, and playing with urls, you can find them ;
Mad Cow Disease Not a Problem in the U.S.
Consumers worldwide benefit from more than 10 years of aggressive, coordinated government and industry efforts that have kept the U.S. cattle herd free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), better known as mad cow disease, according to the NCBA.
"While the European Union suffers through crippling consumer concerns and behind-the-curve government efforts to deal with the current European mad cow disease scare, no cases of BSE have been found in the United States," said NCBA CEO Charles Schroeder. "And we believe our continued prevention efforts resulted in the October scientific report by the U.S. based Council for Agricultural Science and Technology that found a very low risk for U.S. occurrence of BSE.
"In today's global marketplace, producers and consumers worldwide have an interest in a safe global beef supply and confidence among world consumers," said Schroeder. "We stand willing to offer any assistance to help Europe eradicate this disease and restore consumer confidence. The United States has had great success in preventing and eradicating animal diseases and our scientific-based systems could prove useful to EU government officials and beef producers."
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200101/new_v9n1pg47article.html
Europe's BSE Woes May Help U.S. Exports
"The crisis has definitely precipitated a lot more interest in the U.S., because they trust the safety of our product," says Phil Seng, president and CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation. But market access is difficult because of the EU ban on growth promotants. Seng said if the EU would relax its hormone ban, U.S. suppliers could more easily meet the demand. In addition, other markets traditionally supplied by Europe may become more open to U.S. beef. "There are a lot of markets that were traditional markets of the Irish and markets of the Germans...especially the Middle East," Seng says. "We are talking a couple hundred thousand metric tons of opportunities out there that need to be addressed."
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200103/new_p23article.html
Exports Should Increase Due to Bovine Disease in Europe
Concerns over BSE-contaminated beef in Europe could lead to increases in U.S. beef exports within the next two years. Parr Rosson, an economist with the Texas Agricultural Extension Service and the director of the Center for North American Studies, says beef consumption within the European Union has been reduced by approximately 50 percent in the last three months, followed by a 35 percent reduction in retail prices for beef as a result of BSE, also known as "Mad Cow"disease.
"In the near term, we might pick up some extra markets where European beef was previously shipped and now is banned because of the presence of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy)," Rosson said.
"(This is) most likely (to occur) in North Africa, the Middle East and possibly in some of the Asian markets. Longer term, the second impact could be that we'll see herd rebuilding occur in many parts of the European Union."
World wide, approximately 182,000 head of cattle have been slaughtered because of BSE, with the United Kingdom the center of the BSE outbreak and having the most cattle slaughtered.
Rosson noted there could be an attempt to store frozen slaughtered beef that has been tested and declared BSE free, which possibly could negate the potential alternative export markets for U.S. beef.
Current regulations state that if an animal is found to carry BSE, then all of the animals in that same herd must be slaughtered.
"And in Germany, they're looking at the immediate slaughter of 400,000 head with longer term prospects with slaughter of up to 2 million head," Rosson said. "So that could have quite a significant impact on the ability of the European Union to supply its own needs."
Rosson says this is coming at a time when Eastern European nations are beginning to emerge as significant beef consumers.
"Before this they relied on the European Union for their supplies. Now it appears the U.S. might be in a position to move in and meet some of that demand in Central and Eastern Europe," Rosson said.
This is expected to occur within the next 18 months to two years, according to Rosson, because of large supplies and current contracts. He said beef supplies are adequate for eight to 12 months and that it will take a year to slaughter those supplies.
"Once the disease is isolated and once they feel it is under control, then I believe that it will be possible for the European ranchers to go back in and rebuild," Rosson said.
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200105/p08.html
Disease Outbreaks Make Origin Labeling Important
With foreign livestock diseases making headlines, country of origin beef labeling is needed now more than ever, according to Livestock Marketing Association President John Willis. And, Willis said, the USA label should only appear on beef from cattle which are born, fed and processed entirely in the U.S.
Willis said he is confident livestock diseases such as foot and mouth and "mad cow" can be kept out of the U.S. "The industry at all levels is working with federal and state authorities to ensure the safety of our beef supply."
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200107/p40b.html
New Institute Offers BSE Protection Through Certification
The newly-created Facility Certification Institute (FCI), headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, is offering an additional layer of protection for the U.S. beef supply against the introduction of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in this country. More commonly known as "mad cow disease," BSE has never occurred in the United States; however, its appearance in several European countries has led to widespread media exposure and worldwide consumer concern.
U.S. government and industry have been working vigorously together to reinforce the nation's safeguards to prevent the disease. The creation of FCI represents one of the latest BSE firewalls.
FCI was founded in response to the increasing demand from producers, meat packers and food companies for certification that the cattle and beef they receive have not been fed restricted-use protein products in compliance with the FDA's prohibition. In Europe, such products have been identified as a suspected source for BSE.
Intended for feed mills, pet food manufacturers, feed dealers, ingredient suppliers, livestock producers, grind and mix operations and on-farm mixers, the FCI program offers third-party certification for any operation desiring qualified documentation of compliance with federal mammalian protein regulations. It also provides verification for firms not using restricted-use protein products.
FCI Chairman Richard Severson considers the FCI objective highly crucial not only for agriculture but also for consumers throughout the U.S.
"The FCI mission is to help prevent the occurrence of BSE within our borders. We don't have BSE in this country. But, this is a way to make the safest food supply in the world even safer," Severson said.
The new institute contracts with expert, independent agents to inspect facilities that utilize restricted use protein products as well as those, which do not. The agents review procedures, examine records and issue certifications to those facilities successfully meeting the program requirements.
Two levels of certification are offered: Level 1 for facilities not using restricted protein products and Level 2 for facilities using restricted products but conforming to federal limitations for those products.Thus far, 200 facilities through the U.S. and Canada have been inspected. This represents nearly 15 million tons of manufactured feed.
Further information can be obtained from www.certifiedfeed.org, or call 888-FCI-6885. ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200111/p23.html
The Canadian Import Situation: What Will USDA's Action Do?
By Eric Davis, President, National Cattlemen's Beef Association
As most in our industry know, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is now accepting import permit applications for a number of products previously banned as a result of the discovery of one cow with BSE in Canada on May 20. This was done after an exhaustive scientific analysis of the risks involved.
The action - and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) response to it - have caused concern among some U.S. producers. Much of this concern, I've found, has been based on erroneous information. A closer look at the situation is needed.
First of all, NCBA has from the beginning of the ban cautioned against opening the border without assurances that the risks, based on science, were as low as possible. On June 18, NCBA submitted a letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman outlining the principles under which the ban might be lifted. Those principles include that:
All decisions on trade requirements be science-based;
All standards agreed upon between the U.S. and other trading partners be equivalent for both international and domestic consumers of beef; and
During negotiations USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service seize the opportunity to create a harmonization of animal health standards to allow the equitable flow of cattle in both directions.
NCBA will continue to insist that any and all decisions do not increase the risk of BSE introduction into the U.S.
The U.S. has led the world in establishing science-based firewalls designed to protect the U.S. from this disease, and NCBA wants to continue that record. The firewall precautions against introduction of BSE include restricting the importation of animals and animal products from countries known to have BSE, ruminant feed restrictions and aggressive, targeted surveillance.
Does the USDA action adhere to these requirements? It does. We are not importing any products capable of carrying the BSE agent. The decision is based on science, and does not increase the risk of BSE introduction into the U.S.
Some people, because of political motives or the belief that the reduction in beef supplies is bolstering the U.S. market, would prefer that the border be closed indefinitely. That's worse than the action of a bad neighbor: it's unrealistic and could come back to haunt us in the future.
NCBA members - cattlemen like us - have long realized the importance of doing business in a global marketplace and the benefit it pays to them as beef producers. Beef and beef byproducts that have relatively little value in the U.S. pay substantial dividends to U.S. producers when sold in overseas markets. In fact, the U.S. beef industry netted $743 million in trade for 2002.
Additionally, this decision will likely be the standard that would be applied to U.S. beef producers in the unfortunate circumstance that BSE were to be discovered here. We cannot forget the golden rule - do unto your trading partners as you would have your trading partners do unto you.
NCBA has worked diligently to ensure that we gain market access to countries around the world, and that non-tariff trade barriers are reduced. This means that once access is negotiated, those countries and the U.S. will not create artificial barriers to trade.
NCBA is proud of its cattlemen-established policy to base decisions on scientific facts. We are proud of our commitment to protecting public health, protecting the health of the U.S. cattle herd and to mitigating economic harm to producers.
I've heard it said that "this is all political." Well, that's a plus to me. I have long said that the facts are our friends and we should thank our "political people" for making these decisions based on the facts and the science and not on the emotion of the moment. We will not be lured into injuring our producers and the export markets we have developed for the sake of short-term political gain. ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200309/article12.html
Inconclusive BSE Tests Could Become Commonplace
"Get used to seeing these," said University of Missouri Extension veterinarian Robert Larson. "There will be lots of them."
Larson was referring to statements issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on June 25 and 29 announcing inconclusive results from rapid tests for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in suspect cattle.
As of press time, two inconclusive results had been reported. Both test results were confirmed negative following more precise testing, John Clifford, deputy administrator for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said during two press conference.
"We realize the process is affecting the cattle markets...however, failure to announce inconclusive test results could create rumors, speculation and increased market volatility."
Jan Lyons
NCBA President
"The rapid screening test, called ELISA, used in the enhanced BSE surveillance program is very sensitive," said Larson, a veterinary beef extension specialist with the MU Commercial Agriculture program. "It's not likely to say a positive sample is negative."
Using ELISA speeds surveillance and allows carcasses that test negative to be returned to processing quicker, he said. "If an inconclusive result is returned, then a more time-consuming and accurate immunohistochemistry test is performed at the USDA national lab in Ames, Iowa."
Larson likened the difference between the two tests for BSE to the difference between a home pregnancy test and the test administered by a physician.
"Just like a home pregnancy test provides a result quicker than a test at the doctor's office, ELISA provides results quicker than immunohistochemistry," he explained. "However, ELISA will sometimes say a negative sample is positive, just like a home pregnancy test will sometimes say a woman is pregnant when in fact she's not."
Larson added that when testing for diseases with a low prevalence such as BSE, "most of the test results are false positives rather than true positives. This is a result of mathematics, not biology. The general public may not have dealt with diagnostic test interpretation that isn't immediately black and white before, but cattle producers who've dealt with disease eradication programs for brucellosis and tuberculosis are familiar with it."
NCBA President Jan Lyons believes the follow up testing shows the system is working. "This result is not unexpected. As part of USDA's expanded BSE surveillance program, a rapid screening test is used as the first step in a two-part testing process. USDA expected some inconclusive results from this initial step. Because the rapid tests are sensitive, they are subject to occasional inconclusive results that later prove to be negative. It is a little like going through the airport metal detector. We all have had the detector beep on us at least once, but it didn't mean we were carrying a prohibited item. It simply meant more testing was needed."
The USDA was criticized following the release of information on the first two inconclusive test results. The information will continue to be released, but according to the Texas Cattle Feeders Association, the USDA will no longer hold technical briefings when releasing the information. Instead, inconclusive results will be posted on the Web.
Lyons supports open reporting of inconclusive BSE test results to assure consumer confidence.
"We realize the process is affecting the cattle markets...however, failure to announce inconclusive test results could create rumors, speculation and increased market volatility," Lyons said.
The USDA expanded its BSE surveillance following the discovery of an infected dairy cow in Washington state last December. At current screening levels, the program should find the disease if it occurs in as few as 1 in 10 million adult cattle, according to USDA statements.
BSE is one of several brain-wasting diseases, including scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in humans, believed to be caused by abnormal proteins called prions. The build-up of prions in an animal's central nervous tissue eventually kills nerve cells, leaving behind lesions and sponge-like holes in the brain.
Though primarily a cattle disease, BSE has been documented to pass from cattle to humans. When contracted by humans, it is referred to as variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease.
As of June 28, the USDA reported 8,585 negative tests under the enhanced BSE surveillance program, which was implemented June 1. For more information about the program, visit http://www.aphis.usda.gov/. ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200408/article04.html
APHIS Alters BSE Inconclusive Tests Announcement Strategy
Improvements in BSE testing protocols by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will continue the agency's science-based approach to identifying and announcing potential BSE cases, according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA).
APHIS has announced that it will now wait until the second and third concurrent rapid tests are conducted before declaring a test sample inconclusive. Only if one of these tests is reactive will APHIS announce the result as an inconclusive, at which point a confirmatory test will be conducted at National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa.
This protocol is consistent with manufacturer's instructions, which state that a sample is inconclusive for BSE if either of a set of duplicate tests conducted after the first rapid test is reactive. At that point an immunohistochemistry (IHC) test – the gold standard test for BSE – is performed.
"We suggested this change to USDA, and support their action," according to NCBA President Jan Lyons, a beef producer from Manhattan, Kan. "It conforms to the manufacturer's recommendations and is consistent with practices by other countries, which have identified the best scientific practices to identify the disease. Their move should help protect our industry by maintaining consumer confidence and reducing market volatility."
This announcement comes after the future's markets experienced a lot of volatility after rapid tests on two different calves came back inconclusive. Further testing confirmed the samples were negative, however cattlemen expressed concern about market volatility in the wake of such announcements.
According to APHIS Chief Veterinarian John Clifford, APHIS has completed proficiency testing of all BSE labs, including reviewing data from the first 60 days of testing. Its protocol change is based on this review. Rapid tests on more than 28,000 samples have been conducted since June 1. ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200409/article06.html
Top 10 BSE Facts Every Cattleman Should Know
Although it has been over a year since the single case of BSE was discovered in a Canadian cow, the thought of another discovery – or word of an inconclusive test – grabs cattlemen's attention very quickly. However, the facts show there is little to be worried about.
Nonetheless, if another case was discovered in the United States, it would likely make the evening news, and it is possible local reporters could come calling on you, a local beef producer, requesting an interview on the situation. You need to be prepared. You need to know the facts.
Feed-Lot magazine visited with NCBA's Vice President of Research and Knowledge, Dr. Bo Reagan, about the Top 10 Facts every cattleman should know about BSE. We encourage you keep this page of your magazine for future reference, just in case you are faced with such questions.
Here are the facts, with an explanation of each by Dr. Reagan.
1) Scientists, medical professionals, and government officials agree that BSE is not a public health risk in the United States. We have never had a case of new variant CJD – the human form of BSE – in the United States. Research in the United Kingdom supports an association of new variant CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease) and BSE. Variant CJD likely developed as a result of people consuming products contaminated with central nervous system tissue of BSE-infected cattle
2) Because of the progressive steps taken by the U.S. government during the past 15 years, U.S. beef is safe from BSE. The U.S. has been on top of FSE since the first case was diagnosed in the U.K. in 1986. The U.S. sent a team to study the U.K. situation, and firewalls were put into place. The U.S. was the first country in the world to start a surveillance program in 1990, testing cattle for the disease. And in 1997, the USDA implemented the feed ban on ruminate-derived proteins. Scientists world-wide agree that is how to stop BSE.
3) BSE infectivity has not been found in beef such as steaks, roasts, and ground beef. The BSE agent has never been found in muscle tissue. Tests on the muscle of naturally and experimentally infected cattle have been negative for BSE, even in advanced stages of the disease. Documented studies report that in naturally infected cattle, the BSE agent has only been found in central nervous system tissue, such as brain and spinal cord and in retina tissue.
4) USDA regulations prohibit anything that might carry BSE from entering the food supply, such as the brain and spinal cord. These "specified risk materials" or SRMs are removed from every animal, even healthy ones.
5) Even if another case of BSE is found in the U.S., consumers can remain confident in the safety of U.S. beef and that the risk of BSE to humans is near zero. Scientists have a very good understanding that BSE is not found in muscle meats. The NCBA has done a lot to educate consumers to this fact, and it's working. Surveys conducted every six weeks show U.S. customer confidence has not wavered. There is an 89-91% customer confidence in the U.S. beef supply.
6) The feed ban breaks the cycle of BSE and, with full compliance, assures the disease will be eliminated. FDA reports feed ban compliance exceeds 99 percent. In 1996, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association launched a voluntary feed ban, which established an industry standard against feeding ruminant-derived protein to cattle. In 1997, with NCBA's support, the FDA made the ban mandatory. The U.S. beef industry utilizes plant-derived protein products, such as soybean and cottonseed meal, even before the feed ban was enacted.
7) USDA banned from the human food supply any cattle unable to walk or show signs or possible neurological disease. In January, 2005, the USDA enacted this rule. Since BSE is not found in muscle tissue, from a scientific and realistic standpoint, they USDA is going beyond the point of what is expected to ensure BSE-infected tissue does not enter the food chain.
8) The U.S. began an active surveillance for BSE in May 1990. In June 2004, USDA increased the scope of BSE surveillance and the goal of the program is to test as many targeted cattle as possible over a 12-18 month period. To date the enhanced surveillance program as tested more than 242,019 cattle since June, 2004. USDA says this sample size will allow for detection of the disease if it exists in the U.S., even if it exists at a rate as low as one positive per 10 million adult cattle. The Harvard Risk Assessment says that even if we found four or five positive cases, there is a very low risk of BSE in this country.
9) BSE is not a contagious disease and does not spread from animal to animal. Instead BSE spreads through feed containing meat and bone meal derived from BSE-infected cattle. The U.S. banned the use of ruminant-derived protein in 1997. Scientists looked at the five cases in Canada and cases in Europe. They used trace back systems and harvested those animals that came in contact with infected cattle. They never found another case of BSE spread from animal to animal.
10) Since 2001, the U.K. has tested nearly 1.4 million cattle and no cattle under 30 months of age tested positive. The majority of cattle consumed are less than 30 months of age. Worldwide, a few have tested positive at less than 30 months of age, but they were born and raised during a time of high infection in those countries. Once these countries put a feed ban in place, they no longer have found cattle with the disease at less than 30 months of age.
For more information on BSE, log onto www.BSEinfo.org.
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200503/article09.html
Canada, BSE and Cattle Inventory — Market Impact Minimal
During the Cattle Industry Summer Conference held July 26-30, the status of live cattle trade with Canada continued to be a major topic of discussion. The opening of the Canadian border creates some anxiety in the psychology of the U.S. cattle market, however, the real impact of reopening the border to live cattle should be very limited, according to Randy Blach, Cattle-Fax general manager.
"The important factor to remember is that the United States has been importing record-large amounts of Canadian boxed beef since March, so the border opening to live cattle is not as significant as some reports would have you believe," Blach said.
Imports of Canadian boxed beef were already expected to be nearly 30 percent larger in 2005 than in 2004, so the net impact of lifting the live cattle ban should be minimal.
On a related issue, USDA announced on July 27 a nondefinitive BSE test result. But final test results indicated the cow did not have BSE.
"The market didn't really show much impact from USDA's original announcement," Blach said.
Another topic of discussion was the rising U.S. cattle inventory. Total U.S. cattle inventory has increased by about one percent, or 900,000 head, compared to a year ago. This marks the first year-over-year increase since the cattle cycle peak of 1996.
Mike Miller of Cattle-Fax says it is very important to look at the specific components of the inventory increase. Beef replacement heifers grew by four percent compared to last year, with dairy replacement heifers also increasing slightly. So the fact that total inventory has increased will not necessarily translate into a corresponding increase in cattle for slaughter.
"The current trends in the female populations suggest that beef herd expansion is in full swing," Miller said. "These trends are supported by smaller heifer feedlot placements, and by cow and heifer slaughter that remain well below last year's levels." ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/currentissue/article18.html
Fundamentals are challenged also from McDonalds wanting to test market foreign beef. McDonalds is pretty good at waving the American flag but this feels like a "sell out" of the American beef producer to us. Wasn't it McDonalds that told producers at the height of the BSE scare that they wanted affidavits signed stating that they never fed their cattle mammalian tissues (meat and bone meal)? Is McDonalds going to require the same from overseas producers? The reality is McDonalds is simply trying to shave a few cents off the cost of their burgers and it is becoming obvious that with 30,000 stores worldwide, they don't care who gets hurt along the way.
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200205/p37.html
But NCBA explains "If we are to apply the use of science and risk assessment in the U.S. on BSE, Canada should do the same on these other issues. We cannot have a double standard. It is paramount that we achieve trade parity as we resume trade with Canada."
NCBA has maintained the following principles should be used in addressing the BSE situation in Canada:
All decisions on trade requirements must be science-based and consistent with the Harvard risk assessment study.
All standards agreed upon between the U.S. and other trading partners must be equivalent for both international and domestic consumers of beef. We are committed to providing the safest beef for our consumers around the world.
USDA must, promptly and proactively, communicate with the public and the beef industry on the progress of the investigation in Canada and the status of reestablishing trade, including the process and timeline for reopening the border.
As negotiations on reopening the border occur, USDA-APHIS should seize the opportunity to create a harmonization of animal health standards to allow an equitable flow of cattle in both directions
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200311/article05.html
Texas Cattle Groups Request WTO Action
The leaders of Texas' two largest cattle organizations, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) and Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA) have called upon the Bush Administration to pursue World Trade Organization action against those countries that continue to show an unwillingness to open their market for U.S. beef
Many countries closed their borders to imports of U.S. beef following the Dec. 23, 2003, announcement that Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) was detected in a cow from the state of Washington. Although 70 of those countries have again allowed U.S. beef imports, negotiations to reopen 28 other crucial markets have apparently stalled in spite of continued efforts by top Administration officials in the ensuing months. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that shortly after the BSE discovery, $4.8 billion in U.S. beef and beef product exports were banned by several countries.
TSCRA President Dick Sherron and TCFA Chairman Charlie Sellers contend that U.S. trade with international customers should resume based on the Office of International Epizootics (OIE) recommendations. The OIE publishes health standards for international trade in animals and animal products. There are 167 member countries of the organization.
In May 2005, the OIE simplified risk categories. Based on these changes, the United States falls in the "Controlled BSE Risk" category. The OIE code recommends imports from controlled BSE risk countries resume under certain conditions. The low BSE-risk products (which may be traded without BSE-related regulations) list was also expanded to now include boneless beef from cattle of all ages.
Sellers, Sherron and the members they represent believe the time has come to ask the World Trade Organization to impose economic sanctions on those countries that have yet to lift the U.S. beef ban. "The United States continues to significantly exceed OIE standards for a BSE controlled risk country," the two leaders said. "It is high time that all available international remedies are brought to bear so that beef trade resumes as soon as possible." ©
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/currentissue/article07.html
Market Notes
by Luke Schwieterman, President of Schwieterman Inc.
The cattle market is holding up well considering the underlying threat of the Canadian border being opened. The USDA seems certain that the pending appeal will find in their favor and that cattle may begin to move by mid to late July. On the flip side, the Japanese continue to find reasons to deflect pressure from the US to resume imports of US beef. The more the US pushes the more Japan pulls back. Somehow it has been decided to use strong-arm tactics and push folks around but it is becoming apparent that idea isn't going to work. We must give the customer what they want – that's lesson number one in any salesmanship handbook.
You would think that import of cattle and beef into the US is at a standstill. Not necessarily so. The Canadian border was closed in June of 2003. In 2002 before BSE, the US imported 2,502,886 head of cattle from both Canada and Mexico. In 2003, total cattle imports were 1,751,896, down 30 percent from 2002. In 2004, the US total cattle imports were down 45.1 percent from 2002 at 1,373,768 head.
Total beef imports (from all sources) in 2002 were 3.218 billion pounds. In 2003 total imports were 3.006 billion pounds, down only 6.6 percent. In 2004, total imports were 3.679 billion pounds up 14.3 percent from 2002 or before BSE! So, as compared to pre-BSE, the US imported 45.1 percent fewer cattle but 14.3 percent more beef.
http://www.feedlotmagazine.com/members/issues/200505/article16.html
Perplexed by the USDA
I am perplexed by the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). At Cattlemen's Day, in Billings, Montana, on November 13, 2004, Dr. Jose Diez, Director Western Region, Veterinary Services, made a presentation to the Montana Cattlemen's Association concerning the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE-Mad Cow Disease) situation in the United States and Canada. Dr. Diez told the large group of cattlemen, cattlewomen, press, including press from Japan, and four practicing veterinarians, that the USDA was pursuing a "Risk Based Trade" with Canada.
This Risk Based Trade is actually an attempt to negotiate down guidelines set in place by the Office of International Epizootics (OIE). The OIE is an international group of scientists and veterinarians that set guidelines and regulations that attempt to control and limit the spread of diseases that could potentially spread from animals to humans. The OIE has very specific guidelines concerning countries that have had BSE identified within their borders. Countries that have identified natural cases of BSE, but have not completed at least 7 years of Risk Assessment, are classified as BSE Moderate Risk Countries. Since BSE is a disease with an extremely long incubation period, the 7-year waiting period is utilized to protect a BSE free country from receiving animals from a known infected country that could be harboring the disease. Potentially infected cattle could be exhibiting no symptoms of BSE, but could be incubating the disease while shedding the infective agent.
The OIE issued these complex guidelines in response to a severe outbreak of BSE in Europe, which resulted in the death or destruction of several million head of cattle. The object of the OIE guidelines is to contain the prions that cause BSE in a known geographical location and prevent their contamination to areas known to be free of BSE, while establishing guidelines for future trade in live cattle and beef. Canada is a country with five known cases of BSE: One case in the early 1990's, one case in May 2003, and one case in December 2003. Two more cases have been identified in 2004 and early 2005. Although the number of known cases is small, Canada is classified as a BSE infected country, either with Moderate or High Risk. Prions that cause BSE have potentially contaminated areas of the country of Canada. These prions probably made their way to Canada in cattle imported from Europe in the 1980's and early 1990's. Several head of cattle were imported into Canada during the hottest period of the European BSE epidemic. Fortunately, the United States did not import many cattle from Europe. The United States was capable of identifying the few head that were imported from Europe and destroyed those cattle quickly or studied them until their natural death. Canada has a much closer trading relationship with Europe, and as a result, has reaped the harvest.
Knowing all this, the USDA has taken a leading role in discussions with other countries to lower the standards of classification for medium and low risk BSE infected countries. In other words, instead of following closely the guidelines and regulations that have kept BSE out of the United States in the past, the USDA has proposed a new set of guidelines that would shorten the BSE code allowing three new classifications, based on what they term as acceptable risk. The process is designed to allow Canadian beef and live cattle into the United States without satisfying the 7-year waiting period. The USDA has determined that the risk of spreading BSE to the United States is minimal. In addition, the USDA has determined that the risk of spreading BSE into the United States is acceptable. This means they recognize the possibility of spreading BSE into the United States exists, but they believe the USDA proposed rules for dealing with Specified Risk Materials, such as bovine meat and bone meal, will contain it.
If this disease were Brucellosis, Tuberculosis, or Foot and Mouth Disease, the USDA would require several years of negative tests before allowing cattle into the US from Canada. Even within the United States itself, a state cannot be considered Brucellosis free until it has satisfied a rigorous series of tests, and several years of no reported cases. If Brucellosis was known to exist in a state, cattle would have to be tested negative before interstate movement would be allowed. In most cases, another test would be required on live animals 60 to 90 days later, and then again at 1 year. In the case of BSE and Canada, the USDA wants to reclassify Canada as a country with Proposed Negligible BSE Risk or Proposed Controlled BSE Risk. This decision is based on Canada's proposed control program. Remember that Canada discovered a case of BSE in a cow in May of 2003. After convincing the USDA that control measures were adequate, the USDA reopened trade in beef with Canada. Then another case was identified in a Canadian cow in December of 2003, which had been exported into the State of Washington. When this second case in 2003 was discovered, the USDA was supposed to shut off all beef trade with Canada until new trading rules had been established. They failed to do so.
Surveillance is an important measure for determining if a particular disease contaminates a given population of cattle. The United States has tested nearly 130,000 cattle since January 1, 2004 for BSE, and has plans to test over 200,000 higher risk animals. No positive cases have been identified. During the same time period, Canada has tested less than 10,000 head of high-risk cattle. Several countries have pressured Canada to step up surveillance. Only recently has Canada issued press releases stating the country intends to step up surveillance in 2005. In those press releases, the Canadian Agricultural officials state they expect to find more cases of BSE in Canada. If that is the case, why would the USDA be attempting to get the border open and risk contamination of US soil with BSE prions? Even if a natural case of BSE was identified within the borders of the Untied States, why would the USDA be willing to allow additional cases to enter the US from Canada? Let's put out one fire at a time, thank you.
The prions that cause BSE are basically indestructible. Research has determined that Scrapie prions buried for three years are still capable of causing disease when injected into laboratory animals. Cattle with BSE could potentially shed prions in their feces, nasal discharges, saliva, and reproductive discharges. Mirror image diseases, like Scrapie in sheep and goats and Chronic Wasting Disease in deer and elk, have been identified to spread prions to negative sheep, goats, deer, and elk by these bodily discharges. These prions could contaminate soil in paddocks, lots, feeding pens, and pastures. In Europe, it has been demonstrated that less than one intake of 10 milligrams of neural tissue can spread Mad Cow Disease from one animal to another. That is why keeping meat and bone meal out of cattle diets is so very important. Prions are ingested and replicate in lymphatic tissues in the intestinal tract before making their way to the central nervous system. There they cause the destruction of brain tissue, which results in the typical symptoms of Mad Cow Disease. The truly scary thing about all this is new variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (nvCJD). The prions that cause BSE are the same prions that cause nvCJD. Although the most common mode of infection is oral ingestion of contaminated beef or beef byproducts, prions in the environment are considered biological hazards by many governments and research facilities. Patients that ingest BSE prions and develop nvCJD die a horrible death. There is no treatment for BSE or nvCJD. Dr. Stanley Prusiner, the medical researcher who discovered and identified the structure of BSE prions, has told the USDA that any exposure to BSE prions is potentially dangerous. Although consumers cannot consume enough prions to cause BSE, the prions they do consume may trigger an irreversible conversion process that converts normal cellular prions into the prions that cause nvCJD. Dr. Prusiner does not know how many exposures it takes to cause this conversion process, but some individuals with a particular genetic code are known to be extremely susceptible to developing nvCJD.
It is the mandate of USDA APHIS to protect the health of cattle and livestock within the borders of the United States. It is not their mandate to lower the standards so Canada may export cattle into the US. If this was any other disease that had three cases identified within the last 10 years, one case less than 12 months ago, the USDA would not consider allowing possibly infected cattle to cross the border into the United States. As a veterinarian I have been trained to assist the USDA in maintaining the health of the US cattle population. I have been accredited by APHIS to assist in disease control, cattle testing, and containment of disease outbreaks. I would have never guessed that USDA APHIS would be considering "Risk Based Trade". The risk is there, and it is not acceptable. The answer to the Canadian BSE problem cannot be found by potentially spreading the disease into the United States. Let's solve this disease problem in one country at a time.
Researchers are feverishly working to develop a live animal test to identify cattle carrying BSE prions. Why not wait a few months, or even a few years, until this test is available? Once Canada has performed the proper surveillance and satisfied OIE guidelines, then test each animal being imported. If the animal is negative, permanently identify the animal when it enters the US, and continue surveillance until the animal dies or is slaughtered. This method would reduce the risk of introduction of BSE prions into the United States to a minimum. At the least, proper identification would allow for trace back, slaughter of exposed animals, and control of a potentially dangerous disease.
In Europe and Japan, BSE is being identified in younger and younger animals. Mad Cow Disease prions apparently become more virulent when they are passed down to successive generations. Countries all over Europe are currently identifying new cases of BSE, even though those countries have not fed any meat and bone meal since the early 1990's. Early cases were identified in older animals. Presently, 2 or 3 generations removed, cases are being identified in animals less than 2 years of age. At least one case has even been identified in an animal less than one year of age. This phenomenon is consistent with what researchers have discovered about BSE in laboratory animals. As the disease is transferred down several generations, the incubation period becomes shorter.
No one has given an acceptable explanation as to how cattle are being exposed to BSE prions in countries where the feeding of meat and bone meal has been outlawed for over 15 years!!! The unfortunate victims of BSE are coming into contact with the prions somewhere. Knowing the fact that prions are indestructible, knowing the fact that prions may seed down the environment, knowing there is no method of satisfactory disinfection for BSE prions, and knowing there is no treatment for animals that contract BSE, why would the USDA consider allowing such a horrendous disease to enter the United States of America? The real answer will surprise you:
1) The USDA subscribes to the idea that BSE can arise in a particular population of cattle spontaneously. In other words, the USDA believes BSE may, in fact, already infect cattle in the United States through the process of spontaneous generation of the abnormal prions that cause BSE. I have heard with my own ears this theory espoused by a USDA veterinarian at the January 2003 annual Kansas Cattlemen's Association convention at Dodge City, Kansas. This USDA veterinarian even expressed his view that the US may have exported BSE to Canada in the early 1990's with the exportation of US meat and bone meal to the Canadian feed industry.
2) The USDA has determined that the US beef cattle industry is part of a North American system. Beef cattle in Canada, the United States, and Mexico are all part of one big integrated system. Chandler Keys, a National Cattlemen's Association spokesman has stated this concept in this manner, and I quote, "It's a good lesson for all of us," said Keys. "We've got to strive to work together. We're a North American system." The last time I looked, no Canadian has offered to pay my income taxes, property taxes, or veterinary inspection fees. When I called the Canadian Embassy and asked about exporting cattle from Missouri to Alberta, I was told Canada would not accept cattle from Missouri because of the possibility of Missouri cattle being infected with Blue Tongue and Anaplasmosis. So much for a North American cattle industry.
3) The USDA is convinced that by boning out meat and removing certain Specified Risk Materials (brain, spinal chord, lymph nodes, ileum, etc), the risk of spreading BSE prions is minimal. This may well be an acceptable method to reduce spread of BSE prions associated with raw meat, but what about live cattle? Live cattle harboring BSE prions, like live deer and elk that harbor Chronic Wasting Disease prions, shed BSE prions into their environment and may take months or years to actually die of this dread disease. Italy, England, Ireland, and Spain all have discovered many new cases of BSE in live cattle during this past year. They have had control measures in place since the late 1980's and early 1990's. Japan continues to discover new cases of BSE in younger and younger animals. We cannot afford to have consumer confidence in beef potentially undermined by continually finding new, and unexplained, cases of BSE in the United States.
As a practicing veterinarian who has taken an oath to protect the health of humans and the animals that feed, clothe, and provide emotional comfort for humans, I am disturbed that the agency charged with protecting the United States cattle industry seems to have their judgment swayed by free trade issues. In the past, both Canada and the United States have maintained the hard line of no trade in beef with any country that has identified a case of Mad Cow Disease, even to the point of prohibiting importation of embryo's or semen from a country with a known natural case of BSE. This hard line of defense has kept BSE out of the United States. I cannot understand why this line of defense, which has served the United States so well, should be relaxed before a live animal test has been developed to identify BSE positive cattle. Relaxing such standards may result in the same circumstances that Europe and Japan find themselves in currently. I have just attended a day-long seminar on Epizootic Diseases conducted by the USDA and the Missouri Department of Agriculture and the Missouri Department of Health. Mad Cow Disease has been identified as a political disease. Where countries with Foot and Mouth Disease virus cases are prevented to trade with the United States, countries with Mad Cow Disease (BSE) will be allowed to trade with the United States. Canada is not the only BSE positive country that wants to trade with the United States. When this Pandora's Box is opened, the United States will be required to receive beef and live animals from any BSE positive country that has satisfied the new OIE qualifications. Basically, any country that can prove it has developed a satisfactory BSE control program will be allowed to export beef into the United States.
I know that I am not the only perplexed practicing veterinarian in the United States. Our education and training have not prepared us to understand a political disease. Canada has been forbidden to trade beef with most of her former trading partners except Mexico. There is no doubt that Canada has suffered immensely because of BSE. Because the USDA APHIS failed to announce that the positive cow in December 2003 was a Canadian cow, all of the US trading partners have forbidden beef trade. By not announcing that fact immediately, our trading partners consolidated their resistance to trade with the United States. That trade has not resumed, and opening the border to a know BSE infected country will not improve those severed trade relationships. Thus, the desire by the USDA to reclassify OIE guidelines, and reclassify Canada as a Moderate to Minimal Risk BSE country. Go figure!!!
RM Thornsberry
Dr. Thornsberry points are well taken, except a few factors he forgets i.e. USA BSE and BASE, and the fact in some cases USA renders mad cows without test,
the cover-up begins ;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
#### ooops
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
THIS is not about r-calf saving everybody from madcow disease. From r-calf's point of view, it's nothing more than cornering the market, on the backs of the dead from CJD right here in the USA. until the USDA, and all producers approve and validate 100% testing for TSE in the USA bovine, and do it with the proper protocols and follow them, the world will never know what the true extent of mad cow disease is in the USA. This to date, has not been done. the 2004 enhanced BSE surveillance program was flawwed from day one, it was set up to be that way, in other words, it was meaningless. don't believe me, ask one of the top prion gods at CDC;
CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006
The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier
this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to
them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest
case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at
least a decade.
The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.
These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is
thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they
consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,
incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated
with the mad cow pathogen.
"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer
that."
Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
that initially tested positive.
USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.
"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r
CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ...
Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central
Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room
4A-05, ...
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm
PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM
"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow issue for some years,
and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed critiques and recommendations to both the
USDA and the Canadian Food Agency."
OR, what the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG found ;
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
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
USA MAD COW STRAIN MORE VIRULENT TO HUMANS THAN UK STRAIN
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
continued ;
USA MAD COW STRAIN MORE VIRULENT TO HUMANS THAN UK STRAIN
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
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
QUESTION, IS U.S.A. FOOD PRODUCTION SYSTEM POISONING US ?
What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA
snip...
Table 1. Animal feed ingredients that are legally used in U.S. animal feeds
Animal
Rendered animal protein from Meat meal, meat meal tankage, meat and bone
meal, poultry meal, animal the slaughter of food by-product meal, dried
animal blood, blood meal, feather meal, egg-shell production animals and
other meal, hydrolyzed whole poultry, hydrolyzed hair, bone marrow, and
animal animals digest from dead, dying, diseased, or disabled animals
including deer and elk Animal waste Dried ruminant waste, dried swine waste,
dried poultry litter, and undried processed animal waste products
snip...
Conclusions
Food-animal production in the United States has changed markedly in the past
century, and these changes have paralleled major changes in animal feed
formulations. While this industrialized system of food-animal production may
result in increased production efficiencies, some of the changes in animal
feeding practices may result in unintended adverse health consequences for
consumers of animal-based food products. Currently, the use of animal feed
ingredients,
including rendered animal products, animal waste, antibiotics, metals, and
fats, could result in higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant
bacteria, prions, arsenic, and dioxinlike compounds in animals and resulting
animal-based food products intended for human consumption. Subsequent human
health effects among consumers could include increases in bacterial
infections (antibioticresistant and nonresistant) and increases in the risk
of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases
such as vCJD. Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of potential human
health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there are
little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts
of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed.
In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on
complete U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed on retail meat
products; and human health effects data are not appropriately linked to this
information. These surveillance inadequacies make it difficult to conduct
rigorous epidemiologic studies and risk assessments
that could identify the extent to which specific human health risks are
ultimately associated with animal feeding practices. For example, as noted
above, there are insufficient data to determine whether other human
foodborne bacterial illnesses besides those caused by S. enterica serotype
Agona are associated with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there are
insufficient data to determine the percentage of antibiotic-resistant human
bacterial infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic use of
antibiotics in animal feed. Moreover, little research has been conducted to
determine whether the use of organoarsenicals in animal feed, which can lead
to elevated levels of arsenic in meat products (Lasky et al. 2004),
contributes to increases in cancer risk. In order to address these research
gaps, the following principal actions are necessary within the United
States: a) implementation of a nationwide reporting system of the specific
amounts and types of feed ingredients of concern to public health that are
incorporated into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals, rendered
animal products, fats, and animal waste; b) funding and development of
robust surveillance systems that monitor biological, chemical, and other
etiologic agents throughout the animal-based food-production chain "from
farm to fork" to human health outcomes; and c) increased communication and
collaboration among feed professionals, food-animal producers, and
veterinary and public health officials.
REFERENCES...snip...end
Sapkota et al.
668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf
BANNED MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19155
PLEASE NOTE IN USA CJD UPDATE AS AT JUNE 2007, please note steady increase
in ''TYPE UNKNOWN''. ...TSS
1 Acquired in the United Kingdom; 2 Acquired in Saudi Arabia; 3 Includes 17
inconclusive and 9 pending (1 from 2006, 8
from 2007); 4 Includes 17 non-vCJD type unknown (2 from 1996, 2 from 1997, 1
from 2001, 1 from 2003, 4 from 2004, 3
from 2005, 4 from 2006) and 36 type pending (2 from 2005, 8 from 2006,
*** 26 from 2007)
http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/pdf/case-table.pdf
Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in
the United States
http://cjdusa.blogspot.com/
i am reminded of a few things deep throat (high ranking official at usda)
told me years ago;
==========================================
The most frightening thing I have read all day is the
report of Gambetti's finding of a new strain of
sporadic cjd in young people.........Dear God,
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7842737484277562285&postID=5759550357128128100
MADCOW USDA the untold story continued
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6472149427883113751&postID=4829467681293855400
ABSTRACTS SPORADIC CJD AND H BASE MAD COW ALABAMA AND TEXAS SEPTEMBER 2007
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:31:55 -0500
I suggest that you all read the data out about h-BASE and sporadic CJD, GSS,
blood, and some of the other abstracts from the PRION2007. ...
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0709&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=19744
*** PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS !!! THE PRICE OF
POKER INDEED GOES UP. ...TSS
USA BASE CASE, (ATYPICAL BSE), AND OR TSE (whatever they are calling it
today), please note that both the ALABAMA COW, AND THE TEXAS COW, both were
''H-TYPE'', personal communication Detwiler et al Wednesday, August 22, 2007
11:52 PM. ...TSS
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=19779
Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Singeltary, Sr et al. JAMA.2001; 285: 733-734.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/6/733?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dignosing+
and+reporting+creutzfeldt+jakob+disease&searchid=1048865596978_1528&stored_s
earch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
SOMETHING TO CHEW ON
BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7220/1312/b#EL2
BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7226/8/b#EL1
CJD WATCH
http://disc.server.com/Indices/236650.html
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
Subject: Re: Docket No. 2005N-0373 RIN number 0910-AF54 TSS SUBMISSION
Date: March 30, 2007 at 10:57 am PST
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=19128
O.I.E. SELLS THERE SOUL TO THE DEVIL AND WILL REPEAT WHAT THE
U.K. DID, POISON THE WORLD LEGALLY WITH MAD COW DISEASEs
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=498
I stand by what i said. for r-calf, this is not, i repeat NOT about consumer
safety. it's about cornering the market.
i said it with the USA, i said it about Japan, and i said it about Canada, i
have not waivered. all should be banned from exporting there tainted
products around the globe, the bse mrr policy is the same thing that the UK
did when they tainted the globe with TSE, except the bse mrr made it legal.
the bse mrr should be repealed, and the bse gbr risk assessments should be
strictly enforced, and even made stronger to include all TSE, especially the
BASE, more virulent than the UK BSE, and relates more to some sub-types of
sporadic CJD right here in the USA, and not the uk nvCJD. i have not
waivered from this. but the r-calf et al wants to be exempt from this
through there flawwed junk science. you cannot compare canada's bse problem
to the USA, when the USA has been covering up mad cow disease. it's wrong,
it's not scientific. it has nothing to do with whether or not i was or was
not called to testify, and that reason was simply because i refused to keep
silent about the truth of the mad cow situation in the USA. i simply was not
going to sit up there and tell half the story. ...
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
9/13/2005
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed
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 ;
snip...
THE USA is in a most unique situation, one of unknown circumstances with
human and animal TSE. THE USA has the most documented TSE in different
species to date, with substrains growing in those species (BSE/BASE in
cattle and CWD in deer and elk, there is evidence here with different
strains), and we know that sheep scrapie has over 20 strains of the typical
scrapie with atypical scrapie documented and also BSE is very likely to have
passed to sheep. all of which have been
rendered and fed back to animals for human and animal consumption, a
frightening scenario. WE do not know the outcome, and to play with human
life around the globe with the very likely TSE tainted products from the
USA, in my opinion is like playing Russian roulette, of long duration, with
potential long and enduring consequences, of which once done, cannot be
undone. These are the facts as I have come to know through daily and
extensive research of TSE over 9 years, since 12/14/97.
I do not pretend to have all the answers, but i do know to continue to
believe in the ukbsenvcjd only theory of transmission to humans of only this
one strain from only this one TSE from only this one part of the globe, will
only lead to further failures, and needless exposure to humans from all
strains of TSE, and possibly many
more needless deaths from TSE via a multitude of proven routes and sources
via many studies with primates and rodents and other species.
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
THE only difference between the UK poisoning the globe, and the USA, it is
now legal with GWs and OIEs BSE MRR policy ;
IT's O.K. to poison 3rd world countries ;
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1994/05/20002001.pdf
On 20 February 1990, Dr Pickles wrote to Ms Verity
(APS/CMO). Dr Picklesí minute included the following:
1. Mr Meldrum is arguing that MAFF have already taken all the
necessary and responsible steps to warn importing countries
of the BSE dangers in UK meat and bone meal. Yet the action taken
so far overseas suggest the message has not got
through, or where it has this has been late. The first nation
that woke up to the danger did so a year after our own feed
ban. It seems even now several EC countries neither ban our
imports or the general feeding of ruminant protein. It also
seems the OIE and CVO have yet to inform the rest of the world.
2. I do not see how this can be claimed to be responsibleí. We
do not need an expert group of the Scientific Veterinary
Committee to tell us British meat and bone meal is unsafe for
ruminants. I fail to understand why this cannot be tackled
from the British end which seems to be the only sure way of doing
it, preferably by banning exports. As CMO says in his
letter of 3 January surely it is short sighted for us to risk
being seen in future as having been responsible for the
introduction of BSE to the food chain in other countries.íí[79]
http://www.bse.org.uk/dfa/dfa25.htm
http://www.mad-cow.org/00/jul00_dont_eat_sheep.html#hhh
BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA, A REVIEW OF SORTS
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/
MADCOW USDA the untold story
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/
TSS
USA MAD COW STRAIN MORE VIRULENT TO HUMANS THAN UK STRAIN
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
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
QUESTION, IS U.S.A. FOOD PRODUCTION SYSTEM POISONING US ?
What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA
snip...
Table 1. Animal feed ingredients that are legally used in U.S. animal feeds
Animal
Rendered animal protein from Meat meal, meat meal tankage, meat and bone
meal, poultry meal, animal the slaughter of food by-product meal, dried
animal blood, blood meal, feather meal, egg-shell production animals and
other meal, hydrolyzed whole poultry, hydrolyzed hair, bone marrow, and
animal animals digest from dead, dying, diseased, or disabled animals
including deer and elk Animal waste Dried ruminant waste, dried swine waste,
dried poultry litter, and undried processed animal waste products
snip...
Conclusions
Food-animal production in the United States has changed markedly in the past
century, and these changes have paralleled major changes in animal feed
formulations. While this industrialized system of food-animal production may
result in increased production efficiencies, some of the changes in animal
feeding practices may result in unintended adverse health consequences for
consumers of animal-based food products. Currently, the use of animal feed
ingredients,
including rendered animal products, animal waste, antibiotics, metals, and
fats, could result in higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant
bacteria, prions, arsenic, and dioxinlike compounds in animals and resulting
animal-based food products intended for human consumption. Subsequent human
health effects among consumers could include increases in bacterial
infections (antibioticresistant and nonresistant) and increases in the risk
of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases
such as vCJD. Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of potential human
health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there are
little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts
of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed.
In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on
complete U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed on retail meat
products; and human health effects data are not appropriately linked to this
information. These surveillance inadequacies make it difficult to conduct
rigorous epidemiologic studies and risk assessments
that could identify the extent to which specific human health risks are
ultimately associated with animal feeding practices. For example, as noted
above, there are insufficient data to determine whether other human
foodborne bacterial illnesses besides those caused by S. enterica serotype
Agona are associated with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there are
insufficient data to determine the percentage of antibiotic-resistant human
bacterial infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic use of
antibiotics in animal feed. Moreover, little research has been conducted to
determine whether the use of organoarsenicals in animal feed, which can lead
to elevated levels of arsenic in meat products (Lasky et al. 2004),
contributes to increases in cancer risk. In order to address these research
gaps, the following principal actions are necessary within the United
States: a) implementation of a nationwide reporting system of the specific
amounts and types of feed ingredients of concern to public health that are
incorporated into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals, rendered
animal products, fats, and animal waste; b) funding and development of
robust surveillance systems that monitor biological, chemical, and other
etiologic agents throughout the animal-based food-production chain "from
farm to fork" to human health outcomes; and c) increased communication and
collaboration among feed professionals, food-animal producers, and
veterinary and public health officials.
REFERENCES...snip...end
Sapkota et al.
668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf
BANNED MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19155
PLEASE NOTE IN USA CJD UPDATE AS AT JUNE 2007, please note steady increase
in ''TYPE UNKNOWN''. ...TSS
1 Acquired in the United Kingdom; 2 Acquired in Saudi Arabia; 3 Includes 17
inconclusive and 9 pending (1 from 2006, 8
from 2007); 4 Includes 17 non-vCJD type unknown (2 from 1996, 2 from 1997, 1
from 2001, 1 from 2003, 4 from 2004, 3
from 2005, 4 from 2006) and 36 type pending (2 from 2005, 8 from 2006,
*** 26 from 2007)
http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/pdf/case-table.pdf
Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in
the United States
http://cjdusa.blogspot.com/
i am reminded of a few things deep throat (high ranking official at usda)
told me years ago;
==========================================
The most frightening thing I have read all day is the
report of Gambetti's finding of a new strain of
sporadic cjd in young people.........Dear God,
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7842737484277562285&postID=5759550357128128100
MADCOW USDA the untold story continued
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6472149427883113751&postID=4829467681293855400
ABSTRACTS SPORADIC CJD AND H BASE MAD COW ALABAMA AND TEXAS SEPTEMBER 2007
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:31:55 -0500
I suggest that you all read the data out about h-BASE and sporadic CJD, GSS,
blood, and some of the other abstracts from the PRION2007. ...
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0709&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=19744
*** PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS !!! THE PRICE OF
POKER INDEED GOES UP. ...TSS
USA BASE CASE, (ATYPICAL BSE), AND OR TSE (whatever they are calling it
today), please note that both the ALABAMA COW, AND THE TEXAS COW, both were
''H-TYPE'', personal communication Detwiler et al Wednesday, August 22, 2007
11:52 PM. ...TSS
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=19779
Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Singeltary, Sr et al. JAMA.2001; 285: 733-734.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/6/733?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dignosing+
and+reporting+creutzfeldt+jakob+disease&searchid=1048865596978_1528&stored_s
earch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
SOMETHING TO CHEW ON
BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7220/1312/b#EL2
BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7226/8/b#EL1
CJD WATCH
http://disc.server.com/Indices/236650.html
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
Subject: Re: Docket No. 2005N-0373 RIN number 0910-AF54 TSS SUBMISSION
Date: March 30, 2007 at 10:57 am PST
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=19128
O.I.E. SELLS THERE SOUL TO THE DEVIL AND WILL REPEAT WHAT THE
U.K. DID, POISON THE WORLD LEGALLY WITH MAD COW DISEASEs
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=498
I stand by what i said. for r-calf, this is not, i repeat NOT about consumer
safety. it's about cornering the market.
i said it with the USA, i said it about Japan, and i said it about Canada, i
have not waivered. all should be banned from exporting there tainted
products around the globe, the bse mrr policy is the same thing that the UK
did when they tainted the globe with TSE, except the bse mrr made it legal.
the bse mrr should be repealed, and the bse gbr risk assessments should be
strictly enforced, and even made stronger to include all TSE, especially the
BASE, more virulent than the UK BSE, and relates more to some sub-types of
sporadic CJD right here in the USA, and not the uk nvCJD. i have not
waivered from this. but the r-calf et al wants to be exempt from this
through there flawwed junk science. you cannot compare canada's bse problem
to the USA, when the USA has been covering up mad cow disease. it's wrong,
it's not scientific. it has nothing to do with whether or not i was or was
not called to testify, and that reason was simply because i refused to keep
silent about the truth of the mad cow situation in the USA. i simply was not
going to sit up there and tell half the story. ...
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
9/13/2005
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed
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 ;
snip...
THE USA is in a most unique situation, one of unknown circumstances with
human and animal TSE. THE USA has the most documented TSE in different
species to date, with substrains growing in those species (BSE/BASE in
cattle and CWD in deer and elk, there is evidence here with different
strains), and we know that sheep scrapie has over 20 strains of the typical
scrapie with atypical scrapie documented and also BSE is very likely to have
passed to sheep. all of which have been
rendered and fed back to animals for human and animal consumption, a
frightening scenario. WE do not know the outcome, and to play with human
life around the globe with the very likely TSE tainted products from the
USA, in my opinion is like playing Russian roulette, of long duration, with
potential long and enduring consequences, of which once done, cannot be
undone. These are the facts as I have come to know through daily and
extensive research of TSE over 9 years, since 12/14/97.
I do not pretend to have all the answers, but i do know to continue to
believe in the ukbsenvcjd only theory of transmission to humans of only this
one strain from only this one TSE from only this one part of the globe, will
only lead to further failures, and needless exposure to humans from all
strains of TSE, and possibly many
more needless deaths from TSE via a multitude of proven routes and sources
via many studies with primates and rodents and other species.
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
THE only difference between the UK poisoning the globe, and the USA, it is
now legal with GWs and OIEs BSE MRR policy ;
IT's O.K. to poison 3rd world countries ;
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1994/05/20002001.pdf
On 20 February 1990, Dr Pickles wrote to Ms Verity
(APS/CMO). Dr Picklesí minute included the following:
1. Mr Meldrum is arguing that MAFF have already taken all the
necessary and responsible steps to warn importing countries
of the BSE dangers in UK meat and bone meal. Yet the action taken
so far overseas suggest the message has not got
through, or where it has this has been late. The first nation
that woke up to the danger did so a year after our own feed
ban. It seems even now several EC countries neither ban our
imports or the general feeding of ruminant protein. It also
seems the OIE and CVO have yet to inform the rest of the world.
2. I do not see how this can be claimed to be responsibleí. We
do not need an expert group of the Scientific Veterinary
Committee to tell us British meat and bone meal is unsafe for
ruminants. I fail to understand why this cannot be tackled
from the British end which seems to be the only sure way of doing
it, preferably by banning exports. As CMO says in his
letter of 3 January surely it is short sighted for us to risk
being seen in future as having been responsible for the
introduction of BSE to the food chain in other countries.íí[79]
http://www.bse.org.uk/dfa/dfa25.htm
http://www.mad-cow.org/00/jul00_dont_eat_sheep.html#hhh
BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA, A REVIEW OF SORTS
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/
MADCOW USDA the untold story
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/
TSS
And q the tangent. maybe get your head out of you butt. And realize there is a difference between what is happening and what should be happening. Maybe post a quote completely and in the context it was intended instead of twisting things. Too bad the big bad foreigners push around and take advantage of americans. :roll:
As things are right now only time will tell when OTM's will be going into the US from Canada. When the dust settles Canadian OTM cattle will be in the US or do you know something the rest of us ought to. All your fear mongering and scare tactics will only work for so long. Afterall this disagreement is completely moot the USDA and US government will decide when rule is up held. I haven't seen anywhere that r-calf has been effective long term, So again moot points.
As things are right now only time will tell when OTM's will be going into the US from Canada. When the dust settles Canadian OTM cattle will be in the US or do you know something the rest of us ought to. All your fear mongering and scare tactics will only work for so long. Afterall this disagreement is completely moot the USDA and US government will decide when rule is up held. I haven't seen anywhere that r-calf has been effective long term, So again moot points.
don
Well-known member
sandhusker argues like a teenage girl. lol.
PRION DISEASE UPDATE 2007 (07)
******************************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>
[Note: With continuing decline of the number of cases of variant
Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (abbreviated previously as vCJD or CJD (new
var.) in ProMED-mail) in the human population, it has been decided to
broaden the scope of the occasional ProMED-mail reports to include
other prion-related diseases. These updates supersede the previous
update thread.
The definitions of the designations deaths, definite cases, probable
vCJD cases, can be found by accessing the Department of Health website
(<http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/index.htm>)
or by reference to a previous ProMED-mail post in the vCJD thread.
Data on vCJD cases from any part of the world are now included in
these updates where appropriate, and other forms of CJD (sporadic,
iatrogenic, familial, and GSS Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease)
are included also when they have some relevance to the incidence and
etiology of vCJD.
In addition, prion-related diseases of domesticated and free-living
animals may also be included if relevant. - Mod.CP]
In this update:
[1] UK: National CJD Surveillance Unit - Monthly statistics
[2] USA: National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center
******
[1] UK National CJD Surveillance Unit - Monthly statistics
Date: Mon 5 Nov 2007
Source: UK National CJD Surveillance Unit, Monthly Statistics, 2007 [edited]
<http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm>
Monthly Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease statistics - as of 2 Nov 2007
[N.B. The Department of Health ceased issuing monthly CJD press
notices at the end of September 2007 because the same data are also
published by the National CJD Surveillance Unit in Edinburgh at
<http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm>.]
These following figures show the number of suspect cases of CJD
referred to the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh and the number of
deaths of definite and probable variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
[abbreviated in ProMED-mail as CJD (new var.) or vCJD], the form of
the disease thought to be linked to BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy).
Definite and probable vCJD cases in the UK as of 2 Nov 2007
----------------------
Summary of vCJD cases -- deaths
----------------------
Deaths from definite vCJD (confirmed): 114
Deaths from probable vCJD (without neuropathological confirmation): 47
Deaths from probable vCJD (neuropathological confirmation pending): 1
Number of deaths from definite or probable vCJD (as above): 162
Summary of vCJD cases -- alive
----------------------
Number of probable vCJD cases still alive: 4
Total
-----
Number of definite or probable vCJD (dead and alive): 166
These data indicate that there have been no new cases diagnosed
during the past month, but one patient has died, raising the vCJD
death toll to 162.
These data are still consistent with the view that the vCJD outbreak
in the UK is in decline. The peak number of deaths was 28 in the year
2000, followed by 20 in 2001, 17 in 2002, 18 in 2003, 9 in 2004, 5 in
2005, 5 in 2006, and so far 4 in 2007.
Totals for all types of CJD cases in the year 2007 so far
-----------------------------
As of 2 Nov 2007 in the UK in the year 2007, so far there have been
93 referrals, 38 deaths from sporadic CJD, 2 deaths from iatrogenic
CJD, 2 deaths from familial CJD, one from GSS, and 4 deaths from vCJD.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
******
[2] USA: National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center
Date: June 2007
Source: National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center (USA) [edited]
<http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/pdf/case-table.pdf>
CJD Cases examined
----------------------
Year / Referrals / Prion disease / Sporadic / Familial / Iatrogenic / vCJD
1996 / 42 / 32 / 26 / 4 / 0 / 0
1997 / 115 / 68 / 57 / 9 / 0 / 0
1998 / 93 / 53 / 45 / 7 / 1 / 0
1999 / 114 / 69 / 61 / 8 / 0 / 0
2000 / 151 / 103 / 89 / 14 / 0 / 0
2001 / 208 / 116 / 106 / 9 / 0 / 0
2002 / 255 / 143 / 118 / 23 / 2 / 0
2003 / 272 / 174 / 132 / 41 / 0 / 0
2004 / 334 / 183 / 157 / 21 / 0 / 1*
2005 / 352 / 195 / 152 / 37 / 1 / 0
2006 / 372 / 186 / 143 / 30 / 0 / 1**
2007 / 120 / 68 / 35 / 7 / 0 / 0
TOTAL / 2428*** / 1390**** / 1121 / 210 / 4 / 2
*Acquired in UK
** Acquired in Saudi Arabia
*** Includes 17 inconclusive and 9 pending (1 from 2006, 8 from 2007.
**** Includes 17 non-vCJD type unknown (2 from 1996, 2 from 1997, 1
from 2001, 1 from 2003, 4 from 2004, 3 from 2005, 4 from 2006) and 36
type pending (2 from 2005, 8 from 2006, 26 from 2007).
Notes:
-- Cases are listed based on the year of death when available. If the
year of death is not available, the year of sample receipt is used.
-- Referrals: Cases with possible or probable prion disease from
which brain tissue or blood in the case of familial disease were submitted.
-- Inconclusive: Cases in which the samples were not sufficient to
make a diagnosis.
-- Non-vCJD type unknown are cases in which the tissue submitted was
adequate to establish the presence but not the type; in all cases,
vCJD could be excluded.
--
Communicated by:
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
[In submitting these data, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. draws attention to
the steady increase in the "type unknown" category, which, according
to their definition, comprises cases in which vCJD could be excluded.
The total of 26 cases for the current year (2007) is disturbing,
possibly symptomatic of the circulation of novel agents.
Characterization of these agents should be given a high priority. - Mod.CP]
[see also:
Prion disease update 2007 (06) 20071003.3269
Prion disease update 2007 (05) 20070901.2879
Prion disease update 2007 (04) 20070806.2560
Prion disease update 2007 (03) 20070702.2112
Prion disease update 2007 (02) 20070604.1812
Prion disease update 2007 20070514.1542
CJD (new var.) update 2007 (05) 20070403.1130
CJD (new var.) update 2007 (04) 20070305.0780
CJD (new var.) update 2007 (03) 20070205.0455
CJD (new var.) update 2007 (02): South Korea, susp 20070115.0199
2006
----
CJD (new var.), blood transfusion risk 20061208.3468
CJD, transmission risk - Canada (ON) 20061207.3457
CJD (new var.) update 2006 (12) 20061205.3431
CJD (new var.) update 2006 (11) 20061106.3190
CJD (new var.) update 2006 (10) 20061002.2820
CJD (new var.) - Netherlands: 2nd case 20060623.1741
CJD (new var.) - UK: 3rd transfusion-related case 20060209.0432
CJD (new var.) update 2006 (02) 20060206.0386
CJD (new var.) update 2006 20060111.0101
2005
----
CJD (new var.) update 2005 (12) 20051209.3547
CJD (new var.) update 2005 (11) 20051108.3270
CJD (new var.) update 2005 (10) 20051006.2916
CJD (new var.) update 2005 (02) 20050211.0467
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2005 (01) 20050111.0095
2004
----
CJD, genetic susceptibility 20041112.3064
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2004 (14) 20041206.3242
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2004 (10) 20040909.2518
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2004 (02) 20040202.0400
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2004 (01) 20040106.0064
CJD (new var.) - France: 8th case 20041022.2864
CJD (new var.) - France: 9th case 20041123.3138
CJD (new var.), blood supply - UK 20040318.0758
CJD (new var.), carrier frequency study - UK 20040521.1365
2003
----
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2003 (13) 20031216.3072
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2003 (01) 20030108.0057
2002
----
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Dec 2002 20021207.5997
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Jan 2002 20020111.3223
2001
----
CJD (new var.), incidence & trends - UK (02) 20011124.2875
CJD (new var.), incidence & trends - UK 20011115.2816
CJD (new var.) - UK: reassessment 20011029.2671
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Oct 2001 20011005.2419
CJD (new var.) - UK: regional variation (02) 20010907.2145
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Sep 2001 20010906.2134
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Aug 2001 20010808.1872
CJD (new var.) - UK: 9th Annual Report 20010628.1231
CJD (new var.) - UK: update June 2001 20010622.1188
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 3 Jan 2001 20010104.0025]
....................................................cp/msp/dk
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
<http://www.isid.org/ProMEDMail_Premium.shtml>
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at <http://www.promedmail.org>.
Send all items for posting to: [email protected]
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: [email protected]. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: [email protected].
############################################################
############################################################
Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in
the United States
http://cjdusa.blogspot.com/
i am reminded of a few things deep throat (high ranking official at usda)
told me years ago;
==========================================
The most frightening thing I have read all day is the
report of Gambetti's finding of a new strain of
sporadic cjd in young people.........Dear God,
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7842737484277562285&postID=5759550357128128100
BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA, A REVIEW OF SORTS
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/
MADCOW USDA the untold story
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/
MADCOW USDA the untold story continued
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6472149427883113751&postID=4829467681293855400
USA NOR-98 SCRAPIE UPDATE AUGUST 31, 2007 RISES TO 5 DOCUMENTED CASES
http://nor-98.blogspot.com/
Government Accountability Project
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3995372399492420922&postID=295754279213239559
TSS
******************************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>
[Note: With continuing decline of the number of cases of variant
Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (abbreviated previously as vCJD or CJD (new
var.) in ProMED-mail) in the human population, it has been decided to
broaden the scope of the occasional ProMED-mail reports to include
other prion-related diseases. These updates supersede the previous
update thread.
The definitions of the designations deaths, definite cases, probable
vCJD cases, can be found by accessing the Department of Health website
(<http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/index.htm>)
or by reference to a previous ProMED-mail post in the vCJD thread.
Data on vCJD cases from any part of the world are now included in
these updates where appropriate, and other forms of CJD (sporadic,
iatrogenic, familial, and GSS Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease)
are included also when they have some relevance to the incidence and
etiology of vCJD.
In addition, prion-related diseases of domesticated and free-living
animals may also be included if relevant. - Mod.CP]
In this update:
[1] UK: National CJD Surveillance Unit - Monthly statistics
[2] USA: National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center
******
[1] UK National CJD Surveillance Unit - Monthly statistics
Date: Mon 5 Nov 2007
Source: UK National CJD Surveillance Unit, Monthly Statistics, 2007 [edited]
<http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm>
Monthly Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease statistics - as of 2 Nov 2007
[N.B. The Department of Health ceased issuing monthly CJD press
notices at the end of September 2007 because the same data are also
published by the National CJD Surveillance Unit in Edinburgh at
<http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm>.]
These following figures show the number of suspect cases of CJD
referred to the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh and the number of
deaths of definite and probable variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
[abbreviated in ProMED-mail as CJD (new var.) or vCJD], the form of
the disease thought to be linked to BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy).
Definite and probable vCJD cases in the UK as of 2 Nov 2007
----------------------
Summary of vCJD cases -- deaths
----------------------
Deaths from definite vCJD (confirmed): 114
Deaths from probable vCJD (without neuropathological confirmation): 47
Deaths from probable vCJD (neuropathological confirmation pending): 1
Number of deaths from definite or probable vCJD (as above): 162
Summary of vCJD cases -- alive
----------------------
Number of probable vCJD cases still alive: 4
Total
-----
Number of definite or probable vCJD (dead and alive): 166
These data indicate that there have been no new cases diagnosed
during the past month, but one patient has died, raising the vCJD
death toll to 162.
These data are still consistent with the view that the vCJD outbreak
in the UK is in decline. The peak number of deaths was 28 in the year
2000, followed by 20 in 2001, 17 in 2002, 18 in 2003, 9 in 2004, 5 in
2005, 5 in 2006, and so far 4 in 2007.
Totals for all types of CJD cases in the year 2007 so far
-----------------------------
As of 2 Nov 2007 in the UK in the year 2007, so far there have been
93 referrals, 38 deaths from sporadic CJD, 2 deaths from iatrogenic
CJD, 2 deaths from familial CJD, one from GSS, and 4 deaths from vCJD.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
******
[2] USA: National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center
Date: June 2007
Source: National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center (USA) [edited]
<http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/pdf/case-table.pdf>
CJD Cases examined
----------------------
Year / Referrals / Prion disease / Sporadic / Familial / Iatrogenic / vCJD
1996 / 42 / 32 / 26 / 4 / 0 / 0
1997 / 115 / 68 / 57 / 9 / 0 / 0
1998 / 93 / 53 / 45 / 7 / 1 / 0
1999 / 114 / 69 / 61 / 8 / 0 / 0
2000 / 151 / 103 / 89 / 14 / 0 / 0
2001 / 208 / 116 / 106 / 9 / 0 / 0
2002 / 255 / 143 / 118 / 23 / 2 / 0
2003 / 272 / 174 / 132 / 41 / 0 / 0
2004 / 334 / 183 / 157 / 21 / 0 / 1*
2005 / 352 / 195 / 152 / 37 / 1 / 0
2006 / 372 / 186 / 143 / 30 / 0 / 1**
2007 / 120 / 68 / 35 / 7 / 0 / 0
TOTAL / 2428*** / 1390**** / 1121 / 210 / 4 / 2
*Acquired in UK
** Acquired in Saudi Arabia
*** Includes 17 inconclusive and 9 pending (1 from 2006, 8 from 2007.
**** Includes 17 non-vCJD type unknown (2 from 1996, 2 from 1997, 1
from 2001, 1 from 2003, 4 from 2004, 3 from 2005, 4 from 2006) and 36
type pending (2 from 2005, 8 from 2006, 26 from 2007).
Notes:
-- Cases are listed based on the year of death when available. If the
year of death is not available, the year of sample receipt is used.
-- Referrals: Cases with possible or probable prion disease from
which brain tissue or blood in the case of familial disease were submitted.
-- Inconclusive: Cases in which the samples were not sufficient to
make a diagnosis.
-- Non-vCJD type unknown are cases in which the tissue submitted was
adequate to establish the presence but not the type; in all cases,
vCJD could be excluded.
--
Communicated by:
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
[In submitting these data, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. draws attention to
the steady increase in the "type unknown" category, which, according
to their definition, comprises cases in which vCJD could be excluded.
The total of 26 cases for the current year (2007) is disturbing,
possibly symptomatic of the circulation of novel agents.
Characterization of these agents should be given a high priority. - Mod.CP]
[see also:
Prion disease update 2007 (06) 20071003.3269
Prion disease update 2007 (05) 20070901.2879
Prion disease update 2007 (04) 20070806.2560
Prion disease update 2007 (03) 20070702.2112
Prion disease update 2007 (02) 20070604.1812
Prion disease update 2007 20070514.1542
CJD (new var.) update 2007 (05) 20070403.1130
CJD (new var.) update 2007 (04) 20070305.0780
CJD (new var.) update 2007 (03) 20070205.0455
CJD (new var.) update 2007 (02): South Korea, susp 20070115.0199
2006
----
CJD (new var.), blood transfusion risk 20061208.3468
CJD, transmission risk - Canada (ON) 20061207.3457
CJD (new var.) update 2006 (12) 20061205.3431
CJD (new var.) update 2006 (11) 20061106.3190
CJD (new var.) update 2006 (10) 20061002.2820
CJD (new var.) - Netherlands: 2nd case 20060623.1741
CJD (new var.) - UK: 3rd transfusion-related case 20060209.0432
CJD (new var.) update 2006 (02) 20060206.0386
CJD (new var.) update 2006 20060111.0101
2005
----
CJD (new var.) update 2005 (12) 20051209.3547
CJD (new var.) update 2005 (11) 20051108.3270
CJD (new var.) update 2005 (10) 20051006.2916
CJD (new var.) update 2005 (02) 20050211.0467
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2005 (01) 20050111.0095
2004
----
CJD, genetic susceptibility 20041112.3064
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2004 (14) 20041206.3242
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2004 (10) 20040909.2518
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2004 (02) 20040202.0400
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2004 (01) 20040106.0064
CJD (new var.) - France: 8th case 20041022.2864
CJD (new var.) - France: 9th case 20041123.3138
CJD (new var.), blood supply - UK 20040318.0758
CJD (new var.), carrier frequency study - UK 20040521.1365
2003
----
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2003 (13) 20031216.3072
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 2003 (01) 20030108.0057
2002
----
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Dec 2002 20021207.5997
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Jan 2002 20020111.3223
2001
----
CJD (new var.), incidence & trends - UK (02) 20011124.2875
CJD (new var.), incidence & trends - UK 20011115.2816
CJD (new var.) - UK: reassessment 20011029.2671
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Oct 2001 20011005.2419
CJD (new var.) - UK: regional variation (02) 20010907.2145
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Sep 2001 20010906.2134
CJD (new var.) - UK: update Aug 2001 20010808.1872
CJD (new var.) - UK: 9th Annual Report 20010628.1231
CJD (new var.) - UK: update June 2001 20010622.1188
CJD (new var.) - UK: update 3 Jan 2001 20010104.0025]
....................................................cp/msp/dk
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
<http://www.isid.org/ProMEDMail_Premium.shtml>
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at <http://www.promedmail.org>.
Send all items for posting to: [email protected]
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: [email protected]. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: [email protected].
############################################################
############################################################
Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in
the United States
http://cjdusa.blogspot.com/
i am reminded of a few things deep throat (high ranking official at usda)
told me years ago;
==========================================
The most frightening thing I have read all day is the
report of Gambetti's finding of a new strain of
sporadic cjd in young people.........Dear God,
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7842737484277562285&postID=5759550357128128100
BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA, A REVIEW OF SORTS
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/
MADCOW USDA the untold story
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/
MADCOW USDA the untold story continued
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6472149427883113751&postID=4829467681293855400
USA NOR-98 SCRAPIE UPDATE AUGUST 31, 2007 RISES TO 5 DOCUMENTED CASES
http://nor-98.blogspot.com/
Government Accountability Project
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3995372399492420922&postID=295754279213239559
TSS