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

SRM MAD COW RECALL 406,000 POUNDS COW HEADS WITH TONSILS

flounder

Well-known member
Kansas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials


Recall Release CLASS II RECALL
FSIS-RC-012-2008 HEALTH RISK: LOW

Congressional and Public Affairs
(202) 720-9113
Amanda Eamich

WASHINGTON, April 4, 2008 - Elkhorn Valley Packing LLC, a Harper, Kan., establishment, is voluntarily recalling approximately 406,000 pounds of frozen cattle heads with tonsils not completely removed, which is not compliant with regulations that require the removal of tonsils from cattle of all ages, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

Tonsils are considered a specified risk material (SRM) and must be removed from cattle of all ages in accordance with FSIS regulations. SRMs are tissues that are known to contain the infective agent in cattle infected with BSE, as well as materials that are closely associated with these potentially infective tissues. Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the BSE agent.

The products subject to recall include: [View Label | Larger Image (PDF)]
Various weight bulk boxes of "BEEF WHOLE HEADS, KEEP REFRIGERATED." Each shipping package bears the establishment numbers "EST. 19549A" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well as a package code of "91700" or "93700."

The company is recalling all products packed before March 28, 2008, with the package code "91700" or "93700." These products were sent to distributors and wholesalers nationwide.

The problem was discovered at a State-inspected processing establishment that received some of the recalled products and verified that there had been incomplete removal of the tonsils. FSIS has received no reports of illness at this time.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact company President Mike Grant at (620) 896-2300.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to
4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.
#

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_012_2008_Release/index.asp


The Veterinary Record 156:401-407 (2005)
© 2005 British Veterinary Association

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

Papers and Articles

Pathogenesis of experimental bovine spongiform encephalopathy: preclinical infectivity in tonsil and observations on the distribution of lingual tonsil in slaughtered cattle
G. A. H. Wells, BVetMed, FRCPath, DipECVP, DipACVP, MRCVS1, J. Spiropoulos, DVM, PhD, MRCVS1, S. A. C. Hawkins, MIBiol1 and S. J. Ryder, MA, VetMB, CertVR, PhD, MRCVS1
1 Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB

The infectivity in tissues from cattle exposed orally to the agent of BSE was assayed by the intracerebral inoculation of cattle. In addition to the infectivity in the central nervous system and distal ileum at stages of pathogenesis previously indicated by mouse bioassay, traces of infectivity were found in the palatine tonsil of cattle killed 10 months after exposure. Because the infectivity may therefore be present throughout the tonsils in cattle infected with BSE, observations were made of the anatomical and histological distribution of lingual tonsil in the root of the tongue of cattle. Examinations of tongues derived from abattoirs in Britain and intended for human consumption showed that macroscopically identifiable tonsillar tissue was present in more than 75 per cent of them, and even in the tongues in which no visible tonsillar tissue remained, histological examination revealed lymphoid tissue in more than 90 per cent. Variations in the distribution of the lingual tonsil suggested that even after the most rigorous trimming of the root of the tongue, traces of tonsillar tissue may remain.

http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/156/13/401?ck=nck



Annex A.2 Distribution of infectivity in animal tissue and body fluids

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/acdp/tseguidance/tseguidance_annexa2-feb07.pdf



SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS

http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html



Sunday, March 16, 2008

MAD COW DISEASE terminology UK c-BSE (typical), atypical BSE H or L, and or
Italian L-BASE


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/03/mad-cow-disease-terminology-uk-c-bse.html



SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FROM DOWNER CATTLE UPDATE

http://downercattle.blogspot.com/


SRM MAD COW RECALL 406 THOUSAND POUNDS CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS KANSAS

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/srm-mad-cow-recall-406-thousand-pounds.html


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

QUESTION

Well-known member
Just another feedban voilation :roll: Oh well as long as you guys are not importing BSE it is ok to spread the US version around more within the US. :p :oops:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Just another feedban voilation :roll: Oh well as long as you guys are not importing BSE it is ok to spread the US version around more within the US. :p :oops:

The USDA says that the most we've got is 7 cases running around. Are you going to say that they're wrong?
 

flounder

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
QUESTION said:
Just another feedban voilation :roll: Oh well as long as you guys are not importing BSE it is ok to spread the US version around more within the US. :p :oops:

The USDA says that the most we've got is 7 cases running around. Are you going to say that they're wrong?


yep!


see USDA's mad cow and a prayer surveillance chart, pretty much
self explainatory ;

http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/matson_mad_cow.gif


tss
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Sand this second you believe the USDA, the next second they are liars make up your mind :roll: do you trust and belive what the USDA says and are doing or not . Oh well keep changing your opinion on the USDA to suit your adgenda? Just some food for thought the USDA said there were at least 10 running around when the alabama cow was infected it is amazing that with the lax US feedban the number of expected positives has decreases even when the renderings fron one cow can cause infection in tens of thousands. Sand you go on believing there are only 7 indeginous BSE positive cows in the US, and keep on believing the toothfairy, the easterbunny and santa are keeping track of them. :oops:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Sand this second you believe the USDA, the next second they are liars make up your mind :roll: do you trust and belive what the USDA says and are doing or not . Oh well keep changing your opinion on the USDA to suit your adgenda? Just some food for thought the USDA said there were at least 10 running around when the alabama cow was infected it is amazing that with the lax US feedban the number of expected positives has decreases even when the renderings fron one cow can cause infection in tens of thousands. Sand you go on believing there are only 7 indeginous BSE positive cows in the US, and keep on believing the toothfairy, the easterbunny and santa are keeping track of them. :oops:

I take everything the USDA says with a grain of salt. I just can't help but point out that the Ninth Court's ruling that the USDA had to be given deference drew a big round of applause up there, but none of you seem like you want to give them deference on our BSE situation. I'd say you are the ones who have the "mind changing" problem.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Sand there is a differnce in the BSe situation in Canada and the US . Canada is in the process of eliminating the disease, testing and finding it stengthing the feedban while the US is spreading it. We only found 2 in the US and don't mind the hole i'm diggin, that wobbly old cow is a mean drunk no problem here :oops:with BSE or any variant :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Sand there is a differnce in the BSe situation in Canada and the US . Canada is in the process of eliminating the disease, testing and finding it stengthing the feedban while the US is spreading it. We only found 2 in the US and don't mind the hole i'm diggin, that wobbly old cow is a mean drunk no problem here :oops:with BSE or any variant :roll:

Canada is doing a better job addressing BSE than the US, no arguement from me at all (except about the part about "we're catching them all"). However, the court ruling that was cheered up there was that USDA was to be given deference - which means their judgement is to be trusted. The court made no distinctions whether the topic was US or Canadian BSE. Your decision whether or not you agree with that ruling seems to depend who is wearing the shoe.....
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Well sand you are admitting you have BSE or a variant running loose all over the US and are doing effectively nothing to eliminate it. :roll: that is a start. Now maybe try to get a real estimate the OIE said the US should be finding at least 2 indeginouse cases a year since 2003 that is 5 years, so 10 head and only found 2 that is 20 %, even if half the cases not found went into the beef feed chain that is 4 head that could have infected thousands of animal incubating away sorry but you won't be able to hide so many in the near future. Time to admit there is a huge problem in the US.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Well sand you are admitting you have BSE or a variant running loose all over the US and are doing effectively nothing to eliminate it. :roll: that is a start. Now maybe try to get a real estimate the OIE said the US should be finding at least 2 indeginouse cases a year since 2003 that is 5 years, so 10 head and only found 2 that is 20 %, even if half the cases not found went into the beef feed chain that is 4 head that could have infected thousands of animal incubating away sorry but you won't be able to hide so many in the near future. Time to admit there is a huge problem in the US.

I take it you don't want to talk about deferring to the USDA anymore...

The CDC (an actual disease group who has no trade agenda) says your prevalence is 26 times higher than ours which means you should of found 52 cases. Where are the other 39? Since your feedban was proven ineffective up to July of last year, how many of that 39 went into the food chain or back into ruminant feed? Oooops, I forgot, you're "catching them all."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
QUESTION said:
Well sand you are admitting you have BSE or a variant running loose all over the US and are doing effectively nothing to eliminate it. :roll: that is a start. Now maybe try to get a real estimate the OIE said the US should be finding at least 2 indeginouse cases a year since 2003 that is 5 years, so 10 head and only found 2 that is 20 %, even if half the cases not found went into the beef feed chain that is 4 head that could have infected thousands of animal incubating away sorry but you won't be able to hide so many in the near future. Time to admit there is a huge problem in the US.

I take it you don't want to talk about deferring to the USDA anymore...

The CDC (an actual disease group who has no trade agenda) says your prevalence is 26 times higher than ours which means you should of found 52 cases. Where are the other 39? Since your feedban was proven ineffective up to July of last year, how many of that 39 went into the food chain or back into ruminant feed? Oooops, I forgot, you're "catching them all."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
i guess your lack of a feedban has been 100% effective because you aren't finding any. lol.

I suggest you do a quick search to see what I've said about our feedban and our testing. You've got the wrong guy, don. Try again.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
OK sand h i will explain the CDC numbers they are based on the numbers already found, not what is really out there. Since you guys are not looking or finding the numbers found tend to be lower. :roll: Is that concept too hard for you to get. Get real and use a true comparison not some flawed comparison. how many times do guys on here have to rap your knuckles.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
OK sand h i will explain the CDC numbers they are based on the numbers already found, not what is really out there. Since you guys are not looking or finding the numbers found tend to be lower. :roll: Is that concept too hard for you to get. Get real and use a true comparison not some flawed comparison. how many times do guys on here have to rap your knuckles.

Of course the CDC used the number of positives found in their calculations! They also look at the population being tested, demographics of the herd, management practices, etc..... They didn't just look at how many were found here and there and do a back-of-the-napkin calculation. There were a number of considerations that they used to reach their estimate.

These people are the experts on diseases. That's their business, that's all they do. The place is full of doctorates but 'ol Dr. Pepper in Canada knows more than they do about calculating disease prevalence..... :roll:
 

Shaft

Well-known member
SH if it actually was the CDC that did the work I might have more confidence in the result.

The work was NOT done by the CDC, it was done by a couple of researchers at Harvard who have basically been learning as they go. Their (Harvard's) BSE prevalence estimates were heavily criticized by people from the CDC. The latest rounds (2006 and 2007) seem to have garnered more acceptance.

However, the work was not done by the CDC! While I share your high regard for the CDC, we need to be clear on that score.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Shaft said:
SH if it actually was the CDC that did the work I might have more confidence in the result.

The work was NOT done by the CDC, it was done by a couple of researchers at Harvard who have basically been learning as they go. Their (Harvard's) BSE prevalence estimates were heavily criticized by people from the CDC. The latest rounds (2006 and 2007) seem to have garnered more acceptance.

However, the work was not done by the CDC! While I share your high regard for the CDC, we need to be clear on that score.

If the CDC is critical on the estimates, why are they using them?
 
Top