horsein said:
Mr. JOHANNS. I rise today to discuss the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Identification System. Over the past several years, USDA has administered a system called the National Animal Identification System, NAIS.
The ultimate goal of the system was to keep track of animal movements so that we could trace back animals in the event of a disease outbreak. The first step under animal ID was to register farms where animals are housed, also known as premises, and that registration was to occur in a database.
After registering a premise, a producer could identify individual animals or groups of animals that moved to or from a premise, each given an individual ID number. This system worked for those who wanted to use it. But no one was forced to participate. In other words, it was a voluntary system.
If producers wanted to participate in the program so they could keep track of an animal's movements or because a trading partner might be more inclined to buy their product, or for any reason that worked well with their operation, then it was there for them. It was at their disposal.
But as long as NAIS was in existence, it was a voluntary program. Now, recently, on February 5, 2010, USDA announced it was doing away with that and developing a new framework for animal disease traceability in the United States.
It caught my attention as a former Secretary of Agriculture. The Obama administration completed a series of listening sessions held by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--we refer to them as APHIS--and those were done just last year.
Having held farm bill forums across the country as the Secretary of Agriculture, I applaud any effort to hear directly from farmers and ranchers. I applaud USDA for seeking input on NAIS. I was very appreciative that, at my request, one of those animal ID listening sessions was, in fact, held in my own home State of Nebraska.
But I must admit, after the listening sessions I was very surprised at the new framework that the USDA has developed. USDA says the new program is not a mandatory program except for animals that travel to a different State from where they were born.
Think about that. With that little caveat, that basically means the program is a mandatory program for a whole lot of livestock in the United States. You see, anybody who has any farm background or agricultural experience will tell you that the vast majority of animals in this country move to a different State in their lifetime.
It is just simply a fact. Additionally, the program is mandatory not only for premise registration but for the actual tracking of the animal. Here is the real kicker. State governments will be tasked with keeping track of the livestock under the new system.
It is almost like this administration realized how much opposition there was to a mandatory system--and, believe me, there is--and decided to hand the hot potato to the States. But in doing that, they said, thou shalt do it but keep the headache off our desks.
States are genuinely and rightfully concerned about this new program potentially being dumped on them. I am already hearing from officials and producers in my home State, and they are enormously concerned by this proposal. Some groups are even urging the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, which would be tasked with administering the program, to refuse to participate. And, believe me, this is not the last State that will weigh in on this very controversial proposal.
Later this week, there is a meeting of State departments of agriculture, State veterinarians, and other interested parties to further examine this issue. That is why I am on the Senate floor. I am going to be very anxious to hear their input and to hear the outcome of that meeting because there is great concern in farm country for this proposal. My hope is that conference participants can get some answers to some basic questions.
Consider this: Let's say a Nebraska farmer buys a Nebraska calf with no tracking number and puts it out in a Nebraska pasture. So that is in state. That is pretty clear. No need to comply.
Sometime later, after that calf has gained some weight, it is then taken to the auction barn, the sale barn. At this point, in the sale barn, there are multiple buyers from all over the country typically. There could be buyers from Nebraska and Kansas, Iowa, and other States. They are all in the arena to bid on their calves.
But apparently only buyers from Nebraska could make bids even though other buyers from other States might offer more money. Let's say by chance a Nebraska feedlot is the highest bidder and buys the calf, still in state, can feed that calf out--still no need to comply with the animal ID program. But now, some months later, the steer is ready to go to the packing plant, but the plant is on the other side of the river in another State, and they will pay more than a plant instate for that animal.
Wait a second. Can the feedlot owner sell to the Iowa meat processor? Apparently not because the two owners prior to him chose to not participate in the program.
The bottom line: Many livestock auctions attract bidders from in state and States all over the country. So one can assume all animals sold through an auction barn will be required to have animal ID. For those who have been to these sales, can you imagine literally the auctioneer stopping the sale and saying: These animals are not registered; only Nebraska purchasers can buy the animals.
If they were not ID'd, auctioneers would literally have to stop the bidding and announce where the potential seller resides for each animal without a tracking number. Then many of the buyers must sit on the sidelines, visit the bathroom, go to the vending machine, anything but bid on their calf.
Can you imagine. It just doesn't make any sense. What will be the viability of the cattle operations in this country for that sale barn? What about the rancher who sells some of his cattle in state and some of it goes to facilities in other States? Will that person be required to tag some of the animals in the feedlot but not others?
He or she is going to spend more time trying to figure out how to comply with the USDA program than he or she will spend ranching. Producers are basically going to be forced to fully participate in the program. I think the USDA knows it. If a potential buyer is from another State, there can be no deal unless the animal has the tracking number.
This looks like a backdoor mandate that is being packaged as something else. Worse yet, the package is being delivered and dropped on the doorstep of our States. Let's face facts. This so-called new animal ID plan is a mandatory system, when it was promoted as a voluntary one. In my judgment, to be blunt, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing, but America's farmers and ranchers are not going to be fooled.
They know better than anyone that the vast majority of agricultural commerce occurs across State lines and even country to country. They deserve better.
Let me be clear. I did not come here to be critical of the fact that USDA is considering new approaches. In fact, I acknowledge that when I was the Secretary, I called a timeout to fully understand the complexities of the animal ID and to hear from producers. I openly said: I am considering making this a mandatory program. I thought a mandatory approach might be necessary, and we listened and studied it very closely.
Then we went to the countryside. We listened to farmers and ranchers. What we heard overwhelmingly is: Mike, do not make this a mandatory program. We realized that producers already comply with a laundry list of Federal regulations. In this administration, it grows by the day. They take numerous steps to ensure the safety of their animals. That is their livelihood. Mandating an animal identification system would have been one more costly burden dictated on the rancher by the Federal Government.
I appeal to my friend Secretary Vilsack. We were Governors together. I know where you are coming from. I went down that road too. I can tell you, Mr. Secretary, it is a dead end. On one hand, USDA has acknowledged the broad and deep opposition in the countryside when the administration seemed to say: We are going to go forward anyway. Our producers themselves have spent years trying to understand what NAIS is about.
There is no repackaging that will convince them another Federal mandate is a good idea. Does this administration think States will embrace this hot potato with all the costs and the unanswered questions that go with it? I don't see it. The old NAIS system was not perfect. We always acknowledged that. This is hugely complicated. But calling it voluntary and then leaving producers no real choice is far from perfect, and, most importantly, it is not a solution.
I urge the USDA to reconsider.
http://johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=Transcripts&ContentRecord_id=f2772146-51c2-46f4-ae41-769001d2bbe8&ContentType_id=b6318fce-8687-41ec-8756-d043d52ef7d2
Dated Mar 17 2010
I believe Australia was using a similar argument on USA beef coming to their country and traceability there from i.e. it could not be traced ;
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Hansard Import restrictions on beef FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2010 AUSTRALIA
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Proof Committee Hansard
snip...see full text 110 pages ;
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12742.pdf
for those interested, please see much more here ;
http://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/2010/03/commonwealth-of-australia-hansard.html
FROM past history, you cannot blame Australia ;
Some Concerned with USDA's Decision to Scrap NAIS
02/08/2010 from NAFB News Service
Veterinarians and a Bush-era USDA official are expressing reservations about USDA's decision to dump the National Animal Identification System.
CEO Ron DeHaven says the American Veterinary Medical Association cannot endorse Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack's new approach to animal disease traceability because there are simply too many unanswered questions. "As I understand it they will let each state and tribal nation more or less develop their own program. So I'm concerned about interoperability between fifty or more different systems. Will one state be able to talk to another state as an animal moves through interstate commerce?"
According to DeHaven, who was USDA's Chief Veterinarian when the first U.S. BSE case was discovered in 2003, politics trumped animal disease control. "In my estimation we've allowed those political issues to get in the way of what is a much more important issue, and that is our ability to rapidly trace animals to contain and eliminate a disease outbreak. It's not a partisan issue, but I think both administrations have been caving to this public resistance, which in my estimation, while it may be important, it pales in comparison to the economic impact of a major disease outbreak."
Bruce Knight, USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Under Secretary in the final years of the Bush Administration, fears that abandoning the NAIS model will undercut U.S. efforts to obtain a negligible BSE risk rating from the World Organization for Animal Health.
USDA estimates the new animal disease traceability framework will take 18 months to two years to create and implement. But Jay Truitt of Policy Solutions, a Washington-based lobbying firm, says it'll take a lot longer than that, maybe 4 or 5 years, making it more difficult to lift remaining BSE-related restrictions on U.S. beef exports.
Truitt, formerly Vice President of Government Affairs at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, wasn't surprised by Vilsack's decision to scrap NAIS. He described beef cattle producer participation in the program as "pitiful."
http://www.hoosieragtoday.com/wire/news/00222_naisscrap_223049.php
see more of Ron here ;
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/02/report-on-testing-ruminants-for-tses-in.html
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/01/bse-oie-usda.html
Remarks
Bruce I. Knight, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs FFA Cooperative Agreement Signing Washington, DC
June 4, 2007
SNIP...
We all understand that the goal for NAIS first and foremost is to protect animal health. It's designed to help producers safeguard their flocks and herds, to protect their neighbors and to preserve their profits.
NAIS also builds confidence in the health and wholesomeness of U.S. livestock. Further, the animal ID program enables us to meet the international obligations we face in the world market. Having the system in place will smooth the way for livestock exports.
OIE Designation
As you know, there's been significant concern about BSE around the world. But we're making progress in reassuring our trading partners that we have the safeguards in place to ensure that the products we sell are safe and healthful to eat.
Just two weeks ago, the OIE-the World Organization for Animal Health-awarded the U.S. a formal classification of "controlled risk" for BSE. As Secretary Johanns put it, "That classification confirms what we have always contended-that U.S. regulatory controls are effective and that U.S. fresh beef and beef products from cattle of all ages can be safely traded due to our interlocking safeguards."
The controlled risk classification is essentially an international clean bill of health for our national cattle herd. It's a determination based on a scientific assessment of risk using internationally agreed upon standards.
Any nation that recognizes the OIE standards now has no scientific reason to block imports of U.S. beef-of any age. Eventually, it should put an end to the need for export verification programs.
The key is for our trading partners to adopt the OIE standards as their own standards for safe trade. And we must do the same.
Conclusion
We are moving forward to expand markets and to ensure the health of U.S. herds and flocks with the voluntary NAIS. Today, we welcome FFA as they join with us as partners to encourage farmers and ranchers to take the first step and register their premises.
SEE FULL TEXT ;
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/speeches/content/2007/06/document/FFA-NAIS-SigningFinal%206-4-07.doc
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/NAIS-UserGuide.pdf
National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
NAIS: AT A GLANCE
Simply put, NAIS is a modern, streamlined information system that helps producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal disease events in the United States. The NAIS program—a voluntary State-Federal-Industry partnership—is beneficial because it helps us protect U.S. livestock and poultry from disease spread, maintain consumer confidence in our food supply, and retain access to domestic and foreign markets.
USDA is not requiring participation in the program. NAIS can help producers protect the health and marketability of their animals—but the choice to participate is theirs.
Animal health officials across the country agree that premises registration, the foundation of NAIS, is a necessary first step to achieving these goals. Premises information ensures that producers will be notified quickly when a disease event might impact their area or the species of animals they have. In an animal health emergency, we cannot help producers protect their animals if we do not know they are there. By voluntarily registering their premises and providing contact information, producers will ensure that they receive the information they need—when they need it most—to protect their animals and their investment. In an emergency, animal health officials will be able to quickly locate at-risk animals and take precise actions to address the situation, minimize hardships, and speed disease eradication efforts as much as possible.
The voluntary NAIS also encompasses animal identification and animal movement tracing systems. These components are currently being refined by NAIS' industry and private sector partners. While the focus today is on premises registration, animal owners should know that the other components of NAIS will be additional options for them when they're ready to make decisions about what level of participation best suits their needs.
USDA is required by law to protect individuals' private information. Regardless of the level of participation animal owners choose, the voluntary NAIS is limited in terms of the type and quantity of information maintained by the Federal Government. At the Federal level, the system will hold and maintain only minimal premises information. Beyond the premises registration system, USDA will not "own" any additional data on participants in the system. If USDA needs animal movement and location information to respond to an animal health emergency, data will be requested from the private and State databases where it is held. Federal law protects individuals' private information and confidential business information from public disclosure.
FULL TEXT 74 PAGES ;
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/NAIS-UserGuide.pdf
Subject: USDA VS CREEKSTONE BSE/BASE/TSE TESTING Civil Action No. 06-0544 Date: September 4, 2007 at 9:47 am PST USDA
AUGUST 21, 2007
Mr. Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Post Office Box 42 Bacliff, Texas 77518-0042
Dear Mr. Singeltary:
This is in response to your e-mails to Secretary Johanns concerning private testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia involving Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, LLC. We regret the delay in responding.
As you may know, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) filed an appeal of the U.S. District Court's order on June 15,2007. While we recognize your views, we cannot comment on any matters at issue in the pending litigation. However, we can assure you that USDA remains committed to ensuring effective, scientifically sound testing for significant animal diseases and to protecting U.S. animal and public health from BSE.
We understand that the effects of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) are devastating, and we are sorry to learn of the loss of your mother. Some of us at USDA have also lost family members to CJD and other degenerative neurological diseases. Although it is rare, the classical form of CJD does occur sporadically in the United States and worldwide. However, no cases of vCJD-the form of BSE that can be transmitted from animals to humans-are known to have originated in the United States. Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is responsible for addressing concerns about CJD and other human health issues, you may wish to contact that agency directly. The address is CDC, HHS, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20201.
We also wish to clarify that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 1997 ban on ruminant-to-ruminant feeding is the primary measure in place to protect animal health with regard to BSE. Protection of public health from BSE is achieved by the removal from the human food supply of the animal tissues-often referred to as specified risk
Mr. Terry S. Singeltary, Sr. Page 2
materials-in which the BSE infective agent would be found if present, and by other controls imposed at the slaughter level. These additional controls include the Food Safety and Inspection Services' ban on nonambulatory cattle from the human food chain; a prohibition on air-injection stunning of slaughter cattle; the requirement of additional process controls in advanced meat recovery systems; and, a prohibition on the use of mechanically separated beef in human food. Additionally, protection from BSE and other diseases is achieved by conducting antemortem inspections of slaughter cattle and excluding any animals that display clinical signs of neurological disease or other abnormalities.
We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns. To learn more about USDA's BSE surveillance and safeguarding activities, please visit our Web site at www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/index.shtml.
Sincerely,
Jere L. Dick Associate Deputy Administrator National Animal Health Policy and Programs Veterinary Services
============================END=========================
Greetings,
LIKE going back in time 25 to 30 years with the science in this reply to me from USDA on BSE. I would kindly like to comment;
Jere L. Dick states ;
Some of us at USDA have also lost family members to CJD
Although it is rare, the classical form of CJD does occur sporadically in the United States and worldwide
THIS is very disturbing to me that even USDA officials family members are dying of sporadic CJD, but yet they refuse to acknowledge the science to date, instead to go by prehistoric science dating back some 3 decades. IN short, there is much more to this sad story than that of the UKBSEnvCJD ONLY hypothesis/myth. Evidently, USDA did not even read the most up to date science i submitted to them, or just chose to ignore it. we now know that the sporadic CJD may not be as sporadic or spontaneous as these officials would have us to believe. THE USA has had two cases of atypical BSE i.e. BASE, which is more similar to some sporadic CJD, than that of the nvCJD, plus, there are some questions pertaining to the potential of some of these sCJD case being tied to either CWD in deer and or elk, and to the scrapie in sheep and goats, and there's other science showing that friendly fire from these sources i.e. iCJD is a very real threat. ...tss
Jere L. Dick states ;
Protection of public health from BSE is achieved by the removal from the human food supply of the animal
tissues-often referred to as specified risk materials-in which the BSE infective agent would be found if present,
and by other controls imposed at the slaughter level.
EXACTLY, and this policy has failed terribly, see recalls of 1,000's of TONS of these banned products that is suppose to protect us from all strains of mad cow disease, that are being fed out in commerce as we speak ;
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. BLOOD LACED MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross- contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL Prot- Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal, TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI - 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J - PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY, A- BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
NEW URL
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/2007/ucm120446.htm
Thursday, March 19, 2009
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA WITH ONGOING 12 YEARS OF DENIAL
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded Rangen Inc 2/11/10 USA
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2010/03/animal-proteins-prohibited-in-ruminant.html
Monday, March 1, 2010
ANIMAL PROTEIN I.E. MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE A REVIEW 2010
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2010/03/animal-protien-ie-mad-cow-feed-in.html
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
NAIS, COOL, FROM FARM TO FORK, MAD COW DISEASE
http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2009/12/nais-cool-from-farm-to-fork-mad-cow.html
HARVARD BSE TSS COMMENTS AND HARVARD USDA ET AL REBUTAL
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/BSE_Risk_Assess_Response_Public_Comments.pdf
Monday, October 26, 2009
MAD COW DISEASE, AND U.S. BEEF TRADE
MAD COW DISEASE, CJD, TSE, SOUND SCIENCE, COMMERCE, AND SELLING YOUR SOUL TO THE DEVIL
http://usdameatexport.blogspot.com/2009/10/mad-cow-disease-and-us-beef-trade.html
Friday, March 13, 2009
NAIS comments NCBA and R-Calf Wednesday, March 11, 2009 – 10:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry — Public Hearing
http://usdameatexport.blogspot.com/2009/03/nais-comments-ncba-and-r-calf-wednesday.html
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Qualitative Analysis of BSE Risk Factors in the United States February 13, 2000 at 3:37 pm PST (BSE red book)
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2008/08/qualitative-analysis-of-bse-risk.html
48 hour traceback for BSE mad cow disease in the USA ???
NOT in your lifetime !
8 YEARS IN REVIEW OF THE MAD COW DEBACLE IN THE USA ;
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/12/mad-cow-disease-usa-december-28-2008-8.html
The most recent assessments (and reassessments) were published in June 2005 (Table I; 18), and included the categorisation of Canada, the USA, and Mexico as GBR III. Although only Canada and the USA have reported cases, the historically open system of trade in North America suggests that it is likely that BSE is present also in Mexico.
http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/06heim937950.pdf
GOC RELEASES CONSULTATION DOCUMENT ON NEW BSE IMPORT POLICY IN LINE WITH OIE: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is inviting public comment on a proposed new Canadian Import Policy to prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in bovine animals and their products. The proposed policy would bring Canada's approach in line with new World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) standards as well as the proposed North American import standard announced on March 29, 2005. It is based on the recognition that international knowledge of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and me asures to mitigate its transmission have advanced significantly since Canada's existing import policy for controlling BSE was established in 1997. The new policy would be less restrictive than the current one. Canada's current policy permits the importation of live ruminants including, cattle, sheep and goats, and products derived from them, only after the exporting country has been officially recognized as BSE-free. Current science recognizes that the " BSE-free" requirement is unnecessarily restrictive. The draft policy is based on a proposed new OIE three-tier system for classifying bovine-trading countries based on their BSE risk management regimes. In all cases, exporting countries would also have to continue to meet other non-BSE food safety and animal health
GAIN Report - CA5038 Page 3 of 4
UNCLASSIFIED USDA Foreign Agricultural Service requirements before becoming eligible to ship to Canada under any of the new BSE risk categories. A consultation period ending on July 22, 2005 is being provided to allow interested parties the opportunity to provide comments on the draft policy. Notice of this consultation is being published in the Canada Gazette.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200505/146129759.pdf
SNIP...
Dr. DeHaven has often represented the United States in delicate and often difficult trade negotiations. As the former U.S. Chief Veterinary Officer and U.S. delegate to the OIE, he routinely used his diplomatic skills as he facilitated agreements that are science-based. He was instrumental in building consensus that led to the current OIE BSE chapter
SNIP...
http://www.usaha.org/meetings/2007/2007_USAHA_Proceedings.pdf
"The U.S. has lower sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards (SPS) for imports than many other countries, especially those concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). These low standards have made the U.S. a dumping ground for beef from the countries that have experienced BSE problems. Food Safety and SPS issues continue to be problematic for our industry, as some countries comply with OIE standards, while others ignore them either for cultural reasons, or too often use them as trade barriers. The USITC October 7, 2008 release reported, 'U.S. beef processors and beef cattle ranchers lose billions of dollars in export opportunities each year because of animal health and food safety measures in other countries that are inconsistent with international standards and vary by country.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/USCA-Testifies--Before-USITC/2010-03-03/Article_Latest_News.aspx?oid=996238&fid=CN-LATEST_NEWS_
LIKE i said before, the OIE not only sold their soul to the devil over the BSE MRR, they sold yours too ;
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
NAIS MAD COW TRACEABILITY DUMPED BY USDA APHIS 2010
http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2010/02/nais-mad-cow-traceability-dumped-by.html
The most recent assessments (and reassessments) were published in June 2005 (Table I; 18), and included the categorisation of Canada, the USA, and Mexico as GBR III. Although only Canada and the USA have reported cases, the historically open system of trade in North America suggests that it is likely that BSE is present also in Mexico.
http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/06heim937950.pdf
Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of the USA Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)
Report (0.2Mb)
Summary
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.
The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.
A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902594180.htm
Monday, November 23, 2009
BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS UPDATE NOVEMBER 23, 2009 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND O.I.E.
http://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/2009/11/bse-gbr-risk-assessments-update.html
Docket APHIS-2006-0026 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Animal Identification and Importation of Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0026-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions, Identification of Ruminants and Processing and Importation of Commodities Public Submission APHIS-2006-0026-0012 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801e47e1
Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0028 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary
Comment 2006-2007 USA AND OIE POISONING GLOBE WITH BSE MRR POLICY
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. ...
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f8151
Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0028.1 Public Submission Title Attachment to Singletary comment
January 28, 2007
Greetings APHIS,
I would kindly like to submit the following to ;
BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801f8152&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw8
Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services. In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2007.
snip...
4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
USDA: In 9,200 cases only one type of test could be used
WASHINGTON (AP)--The U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged Aug. 17 that its testing options for bovine spongiform encephalopathy were limited in 9,200 cases despite its effort to expand surveillance throughout the U.S. herd.
In those cases, only one type of test was used--one that failed to detect the disease in an infected Texas cow.
The department posted the information on its website because of an inquiry from The Associated Press.
Conducted over the past 14 months, the tests have not been included in the department's running tally of BSE tests since last summer. That total reached 439,126 on Aug. 17.
"There's no secret program," the department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, said in an interview. "There has been no hiding, I can assure you of that."
Officials intended to report the tests later in an annual report, Clifford said.
These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC.
In the Texas case, officials had declared the cow free of disease in November after an IHC test came back negative. The department's inspector general ordered an additional kind of test, which confirmed the animal was infected.
Veterinarians in remote locations have used the preservative on tissue to keep it from degrading on its way to the department's laboratory in Ames, Iowa. Officials this year asked veterinarians to stop using preservative and send fresh or chilled samples within 48 hours.
The department recently investigated a possible case of BSE that turned up in a preserved sample. Further testing ruled out the disease two weeks ago.
Scientists used two additional tests--rapid screening and Western blot--to help detect BSE in the country's second confirmed case, in a Texas cow in June. They used IHC and Western blot to confirm the first case, in a Washington state cow in December 2003.
"The IHC test is still an excellent test," Clifford said. "These are not simple tests, either."
Clifford pointed out that scientists reran the IHC several times and got conflicting results. That happened, too, with the Western blot test. Both tests are accepted by international animal health officials.
Date: 8/25/05
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug29/BSEtestoptionswerelimited.cfm
""These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC."
THIS WAS DONE FOR A REASON!
THE IHC test has been proven to be the LEAST LIKELY to detect BSE/TSE in the bovine, and these were probably from the most high risk cattle pool, the ones the USDA et al, SHOULD have been testing. ...TSS
USDA 2003
We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA, we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got away from it. They've recently gone back. Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS.
Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine ourselves to one area.
snip.............
Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it. Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important. If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test. There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA, we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS .
Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine ourselves to one area.
snip...
FULL TEXT;
Completely Edited Version PRION ROUNDTABLE
Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado
2005
=============================
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
Report on Food & Drug Administration Dallas District Investigation of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Event in Texas 2005 Executive Summary: On June 24, 2005, USDA informed FDA that a cow in Texas tested positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Information provided by APHIS was that the BSE positive cow was born and raised in a herd in Texas and was approximately 12 years old. The animal was sampled for BSE at a pet food plant in Texas on November 15, 2004, as part of USDA's enhanced surveillance program.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/texasfeedrpt.htm
Texas even had a 'secret' test that showed that mad cow positive; experimental IHC test results, because the test was not a validated procedure, and because the two approved IHC tests came back negative, the results were not considered to be of regulatory significance and therefore were not reported beyond the laboratory. . A Western blot test conducted the week of June 5, 2005, returned positive for BSE.
http://www.usda.gov/documents/vs_bse_ihctestvar.pdf
THIS confirms that the June 2004 Enhanced BSE cover-up, was just that. Like i said before, due to this terribly flawed system, those 388,000 testing to date for BSE in the USA were meaningless and should be retested. ...
Subject: USDA JOHANN'S MAD ABOUT FONG, PLANS HIS OWN LAB AND HIS OWN MAD COW ANTIBODIES ;-) Date: July 29, 2005 at 2:35 pm PST
Friday, July 29, 2005
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2007-12-18T12%3A13%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7
USDA did not test possible mad cows
By Steve Mitchell United Press International Published 6/8/2004 9:30 PM
WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims ittested 500 cows with signs of a brain disorder for mad cow disease last year, but agency documents obtained by United Press International show the agency tested only half that number.
USDA officials said the difference is made up in animals tested at state veterinary diagnostic laboratories, but these animals were not tested using the "gold standard" test employed by the agency for confirming acase of the deadly disease. Instead, the state labs used a less sensitive test that experts say could miss mad cow cases.
In addition, the state lab figures were not included in a March 2004 USDA document estimating the number of animals most likely to be infected among U.S. herds, and apparently were not given to a congressional committee that had requested agency data on the number of cows with brain disorder signs that had been tested for the disease.
"This is just adding to the demise of USDA's credibility," said Felicia Nestor, senior policy adviser to the Government Accountability Project, a group in Washington, D.C., that works with federal whistleblowers.
"If the USDA is going to exclude from testing the animals most likely to have the disease, that would seem to have a very negative impact on there liability of their conclusion," Nestor told UPI.
Nestor, who has monitored the USDA's mad cow surveillance program closely for several years, asked, "Are they deliberately avoiding testing animals that look like they have the disease?"
Concerns about the number of cows in U.S. herds with brain disorder symptoms have been heightened due to the recent case in Texas, in which USDA officials failed to test an animal with such symptoms, also known as central nervous system or CNS signs. This was a violation of USDA policy, which stipulates all CNS cows should be tested because they are considered the most likely to be mad cow infected. To date, the Washington cow that tested positive last December is the only confirmed case of mad cow disease -- also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy -- among U.S. herds.
The Texas incident has alarmed the public and members of Congress because humans can contract a fatal brain disorder called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from consuming meat infected with the mad cow pathogen. If the USDA's surveillance program is allowing the riskiest cows to go untested, it raises concerns about the ability of the monitoring system to detect the disease reliably in U.S. herds, Rep.Henry Waxman, D-Calif., charged in a May 13 letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman.
Dr. Peter Lurie, of the consumer group Public Citizen, said CNS cows should be the one category that absolutely has to be tested to have a sound surveillance system.
"CNS animals are far and away the most important animals to test," said Lurie, who has done several analyses of the USDA's mad cow surveillance program.
"If there's any category that needs 100 percent testing, that's it, because they would be the most likely place to find mad cow in America," he told UPI. "Any CNS cow that slips into the food supply represents a major case of malpractice by USDA, and similarly, the failure to test the brain of that animal to see if it was indeed infected is really a failure to protect the public."
USDA officials said the agency has no estimate on how many CNS cows occur in U.S. herds. But spokesman Ed Loyd has told UPI, and at least one other media outlet, that 500 CNS cows were tested in fiscal year 2003. Yet agency testing records for the first 10 months of FY 2003, obtained by UPI under the Freedom of Information Act, show only 254 animals that fall under the CNS category -- or about half the number Loyd cited.
After failing to respond to repeated requests from UPI for clarification of the apparent discrepancy, Loyd finally offered the explanation that an additional 45 CNS cows were tested by the USDA during the final two months of FY 2003. The remainder, he said, was made up by CNS cases tested at various state veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
"We also include data reported to us from state veterinary diagnostic laboratories, and all of these are CNS cases that have been tested for BSE using a histological examination," Loyd said.
"We were not using any other labs during this period, other than (the USDA lab), to run the IHC tests for BSE, which is the gold standard," he said. "This (state laboratory) information contributes important data to our surveillance effort."
However, the state labs did not use the immunohistochemistry test, which the USDA has called the "gold standard" for diagnosing mad cow disease. Instead, the labs used a different test called histopathology, which theUSDA itself does not use to confirm a case, opting instead for the more sensitive IHC test.
The histopathology test, unlike the IHC test, does not detect prions --misfolded proteins that serve as a marker for infection and can be spotted early on in the course of the illness. Rather, it screens forthe microscopic holes in the brain that are characteristic of advanced mad cow disease.
According to the USDA's Web site, histopathology proves reliable only if the brain sample is removed soon after the death of the animal. If there is too much of a delay, the Web site states, it can be "very difficult to confirm a diagnosis by histopathology" because the brain structures may have begun to disintegrate.
That is one reason the agency began using the IHC test -- it can confirm a diagnosis if the brain has begun disintegrating or been frozen for shipping.
The state labs used histopathology to screen 266 CNS cases in FY 2003, as well as 257 cases in FY 2002, according to Loyd. He did not explain why this information was not included in the testing records the agency provided to UPI and has not responded to requests for the identity of the state labs.
Linda Detwiler, a former USDA veterinarian who oversaw the agency's madcow testing program, told UPI the histopathology test probably is adequate for screening CNS cows. If they have mad cow disease, she said, it would likely be an advanced stage that should be obvious.
Other mad cow disease experts, however, said having a back-up test suchas IHC would be advisable, because histopathology tests sometimes can miss evidence of infection.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations offers similar recommendations in its protocol for conducing a histopathology test. The protocol states that even if histopathology is negative,"further sampling should be undertaken" in cases "where clinical signs have strongly suggested BSE" -- a criteria that includes all of the cows tested at the state labs.
The USDA seems to agree on the need for a back-up test. Its expanded surveillance program, which began June 1, calls for using IHC -- or another test called Western blot -- to confirm any positives found on rapid tests. The March 15 document that describes the new program does not mention using histopathology to confirm cases of mad cow disease.
"Subtle changes can be missed on histopathology that would probably not be as easy to miss using IHC," said Elizabeth Mumford, a veterinarian and BSE expert at Safe Food Solutions in Bern, Switzerland, a company that provides advice on reducing mad cow risk to industry and governments.
"Therefore I believe it is valuable to run (histopathology)," Mumford told UPI.
She noted that in Europe, two tests -- neither one the histopathology test -- are used to ensure no cases are missed. A rapid test is used initially for screening, followed by IHC as a confirmatory test.
Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and chief executive officer of the Swiss firm Prionics, which manufactures tests for detecting mad cow disease, agrees about the possibility of a case being missed by histopathology.
"There were cases which were (histopathology) negative but still clearly positive with the other (testing) methods," Moser said. "BSE testing based on histology on sub-optimal tissue was probably one of the reasons why Germany was allegedly BSE-free until our test discovered that they were not" in 2000, Moser told UPI.
He agreed with Detwiler that histopathology should be suitable for most cases of CNS cows, but added it still can fail to detect the disease in some CNS cases -- particularly if the sample is not optimum.
"It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the subtle changes in a diseased brain from artifacts like ruptures in the tissue due to tissue damage during the sampling, transport or preparation," he said.
Loyd asserted the additional CNS cases from the state labs actually yielded a total of 565 such cows the USDA had tested -- 65 more than his original figure of 500. Whether the USDA considers its total to be 500 or 565, however, either figure would exceed the agency's own estimates for the total number of such cows that it identifies annually.
According to data the USDA provided to the House Committee on Government Reform, and numbers the agency included in the March document about its expanded surveillance plan, only 201 to 249 CNS cows are identified at slaughterhouses. Approximately 129 additional cases occur on farms annually. At most, that yields a combined total of 378 CNS cows, or nearly 200 less than the 565 Loyd claims the agency tested.
The USDA surveillance plan document makes no mention of the number of CNS animals tested at state veterinary diagnostic labs. The figure also does not appear to be included in the agency's estimates of the number of high-risk animals that occur in the United States each year. The latter number was used to help the USDA calculate the number of animals it will screen for mad cow disease in its expanded surveillance plan.
USDA officials also did not include the state lab figures in response to a question from the House Committee on Government Reform, a source close to the issue told UPI. The committee, on which Waxman is the ranking Democrat, had requested in a March 8 letter to Veneman that she provide "the number of BSE tests that were conducted on cattle exhibiting central nervous system symptoms" for each of the last five years.
Loyd did not respond to a request from UPI asking why agency officials did not provide that information to the committee or include it in USDA's explanation of its expanded surveillance plan.
The committee has taken note of the CNS issue and plans to delve into it further in a hearing slated for sometime in the next few months.
"The committee will explore this and other issues surrounding USDA and BSE testing at a hearing later this summer," Drew Crockett, spokesman for the committee, told UPI.
--
Steve Mitchell is UPI's Medical Correspondent. E-mail
[email protected]
Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040608-014607-3865r
''USDA gets a D or D minus," said Caroline Smith Dewaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group based in Washington. ''The best thing that came out of this is the work of the inspector general."
It was the department's in-house watchdog, Inspector General Phyllis Fong, who skirted the USDA hierarchy by ordering retesting with a different method more than six months after a routine second-round test, known as the immunohistochemistry, or IHC, test proved negative for the disease.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who assumed office in January, has said he neither knew about nor authorized the retesting by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa.
BESIDES the Texas mad cow that sat on the shelf for 7+ months before the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG finally did the end around Johanns et al and finally had Weybridge bring that negative cow back from the dead to finally being a confirmed mad cow (hint, hint, getting MRR implemented first), was this simply another bumbling of BSE protocol, or just same old same old;
Jim Rogers (202) 690-4755
USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623
Statement by Chief Veterinary Medical Officer John Clifford Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Regarding Non-Definitive BSE Test ResultsJuly 27, 2005
snip...
Our laboratory ran the IHC test on the sample and received non-definitive results that suggest the need for further testing. As we have previously experienced, it is possible for an IHC test to yield differing results depending on the "slice" of tissue that is tested. Therefore, scientists at our laboratory and at Weybridge will run the IHC test on additional "slices" of tissue from this animal to determine whether or not it was infected with BSE. We will announce results as soon as they are compiled, which we expect to occur by next week.
I would note that the sample was taken in April, at which time the protocols allowed for a preservative to be used (protocols changed in June 2005). The sample was not submitted to us until last week, because the veterinarian set aside the sample after preserving it and simply forgot to send it in. On that point, I would like to emphasize that while that time lag is not optimal, it has no implications in terms of the risk to human health. The carcass of this animal was destroyed, therefore there is absolutely no risk to human or animal health from this animal.
snip...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/news/2005/07/bsestatement_vs.html
In Reply to: Re: Statement by Dr. John Clifford Regarding Non-Definitive BSE Test Results posted by TSS on July 27, 2005 at 12:53 pm:
o.k., let me get this right. i am pondering here;-)
all the time this TEXAS positive, positive, (secret) positive, inconclusive, negative, then Weybridge confirmed 2nd BSE documented case (thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong),all this time this BSe going on in TEXAS, was plastered all over the news, this guy forgot about that sample, and it just sat up on some shelf wasting away for months, as to be in such bad shape, they now cannot even test it properly. r i g h t ... like ooops, sorry. ...end
============================================
The animal died in April, but the veterinarian forgot to send the sample to USDA until this month, Mr. Clifford said. "While that time lag is not optimal, it has no implications in terms of the risk to human health," he said.
IHC tests returned conflicting results on the Texas cow. Use of the preservative means that the other tests commonly done when mad cow is suspected, initial rapid screening and Western blot, can't be performed on this sample, the official said. Mr. Clifford said it's possible to get different results, "depending on the slice of tissue that is tested."
The fatal brain-wasting disease is known medically as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. In people, eating tainted meat products has been linked to about 150 deaths from a fatal disorder called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Most of the deaths were in the United Kingdom, where there was an outbreak in the 1980s and 1990s.
The U.S. banned Canadian cattle in May 2003 following Canada's first case of mad-cow disease. The U.S. was about to lift the ban in March when U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull in Billings, Mont., granted an injunction to a ranchers' group called R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America. The ranchers had sued to keep the border closed to Canadian cattle, saying the disease presented a risk to the U.S. beef industry as well as to American consumers.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the injunction earlier this month, allowing cattle shipments from Canada to resume. The lifting of the ban reopens the U.S. to cattle younger than 30 months and expands the list of beef products Canada is allowed to ship to the U.S. Older animals are still banned, because infection levels are believed to increase with age.
Copyright © 2005 Associated Press
http://online.wsj.com/
Greetings,
this is what you call the 'FONG' syndrome. make sure she can't make them do a WB on this sample.
I BEG THE OIG and the Honorable Phyllis Fong to investigate this blunder too. there is no way that sample sat on a shelf while the world waited on that Texas mad cow blunder dust to settle, and someone just forgets about it. i just don't believe this either...
============================================
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2007-12-18T12%3A13%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7
MAD COW DISEASE USA DECEMBER 28, 2008 an 8 year review of a failed and flawed policy
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/12/mad-cow-disease-usa-december-28-2008-8.html
Monday, May 4, 2009
Back to the Past With New TSE Testing Agricultural Research/May-June 2009
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/05/back-to-past-with-new-tse-testing.html
48 hr BSE confirmation turnaround took 7+ months to confirm this case, so the BSE MRR policy could be put into place. ...
2008 - 2010
The statistical incidence of CJD cases in the United States has been revised to reflect that there is one case per 9000 in adults age 55 and older. Eighty-five percen
