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.
US injected scrapie into cows in 1979?
- Thread starter Murgen
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
> When was the feed ban initiated?
8/4/97
:lol: :lol2: :lol2: :cry2: :liar:
FEED BAN, what feed ban ???
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals,
Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg),
Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL
FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE
a) Bulk
b) None
c) Bulk
d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and by press release on June 16, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION
***Nationwide***
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00960.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
New Orleans District
297 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: 615-781-5380
Fax: 615-781-5391
May 17, 2006
WARNING LETTER NO. 2006-NOL-06
FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner
Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products
2621 State Street
Dallas, Texas 75204
Dear Mr. Shirley:
On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to follow the requirements of this regulation; products being manufactured and distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:
You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after processing mammalian tissues.
You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.
As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Act.
This letter is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.
You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating corrections have been made.
Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie, Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.
Sincerely,
/S
Carol S. Sanchez
Acting District Director
New Orleans District
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5883d.htm
CVM Reports BSE Inspection Figures as of April 29, 2006
As of April 29, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had received more than 44,000 reports of inspections done under the ruminant feed rule designed to prevent the establishment and spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States.
Approximately 68 percent of the inspections were conducted by State officials under contract to FDA, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by State and FDA investigators are classified to reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection, based upon whether objectionable conditions were documented. Based on the conditions found, inspection results are recorded in one of three classifications:
• OAI (Official Action Indicated) when inspectors find significant objectionable conditions or practices and believe that regulatory sanctions are warranted to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspectors will promptly re-inspect facilities classified OAI after regulatory sanctions have been applied to determine whether the corrective actions are adequate to address the objectionable conditions.
• VAI (Voluntary Action Indicated) when inspectors find objectionable conditions or practices that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but warrant an advisory to inform the establishment that inspectors found conditions or practices that should be voluntarily corrected. VAI violations are typically technical violations of the 1997 BSE Feed Rule. These violations include minor recordkeeping lapses or conditions involving non-ruminant feeds.
• NAI (No Action Indicated) when inspectors find no objectionable conditions or practices or, if they find objectionable conditions, those conditions are of a minor nature and do not justify further actions.
Renderers
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal proteins. After they process the material, they send it to feed mills and/or protein blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 266
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 175 (66 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 175 firms:
v 2 (1.1 percent) was classified as OAI
v 4 (2.3 percent) were classified as VAI
Licensed feed mills
In the inspection report database, FDA lists medicated feed licensed feed mills separately from non-licensed feed mills. But the licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under the feed ban regulation. FDA requires feed mills to have medicated feed licenses to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time, to produce certain medicated feed products.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 1,092
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 430 (39 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 430 firms:
v 0 were classified as OAI
v 5 (1.2 percent) were classified as VAI
Feed mills not licensed by FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 5,128
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 2,176 (42 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 2,176 firms:
v 0 were classified as OAI
v 36 (1.7 percent) were classified as VAI
Protein blenders
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing feed ingredients used by feed mills.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 340
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 162 (48 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 162 firms:
v 0 were classified as OAI
v 3 (1.9 percent) were classified as VAI
Renderers, feed mills, protein blenders
This category includes any firm that is represented by any of the above four categories, but includes only those firms that manufacture, process or blend animal feed or feed ingredients using prohibited materials.
• Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,558
• Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials – 491 (7.5 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 491 firms:
v 2 (0.4 percent) were classified as OAI
v 19 (3.9 percent) were classified as VAI
Other firms inspected
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers and animal feed transporters.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 14,627
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 4,314 (29 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 4,314 firms:
v 3 (0.1 percent) were classified as OAI
v 117 (2.7 percent) were classified as VAI
Total firms
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 17,454
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 5,103 (29 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 5,103 firms:
v 5 (0.1 percent) were classified as OAI
v 126 (2.5 percent) were classified as VAI
(NOTE: A single firm that has more than one function can be listed in different industry segments, which also means that the total may be less than a combination of all the segments.)
3.57 The experiment which might have determined whether BSE and scrapie were
caused by the same agent (ie, the feeding of natural scrapie to cattle) was
never undertaken in the UK. It was, however, performed in the USA in 1979,
when it was shown that cattle inoculated with the scrapie agent endemic in
the flock of Suffolk sheep at the United States Department of Agriculture in
Mission, Texas, developed a TSE quite unlike BSE. 32 The findings of the
initial transmission, though not of the clinical or neurohistological
examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr Watson, Director of the
CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the project leaders in the
Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States Department of
Agriculture. 33 The results were not published at this point, since the
attempted transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been
inconclusive. The results of the clinical and histological differences
between scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar
studies in which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula
derived from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
34 The results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent,
though pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of
brain lesions characteristic of BSE.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820543
The findings of the initial transmission, though not of the clinical or
neurohistological examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr
Watson, Director of the CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the
project leaders in the Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States
Department of Agriculture. 33
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/10/00001001.pdf
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820546
The results were not published at this point, since the attempted
transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been inconclusive.
The results of the clinical and histological differences between
scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar studies in
which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula derived
from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
34 The
results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent, though
pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of brain
lesions characteristic of BSE.
3.58 There are several possible reasons why the experiment was not performed
in the UK. It had been recommended by Sir Richard Southwood (Chairman of the
Working Party on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in his letter to the
Permanent Secretary of MAFF, Mr (now Sir) Derek Andrews, on 21 June 1988, 35
though it was not specifically recommended in the Working Party Report or
indeed in the Tyrrell Committee Report (details of the Southwood Working
Party and the Tyrell Committee can be found in vol. 4: The Southwood Working
Party, 1988-89 and vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood respectively). The
direct inoculation of scrapie into calves was given low priority, because of
its high cost and because it was known that it had already taken place in
the USA. 36 It was also felt that the results of such an experiment would be
hard to interpret. While a negative result would be informative, a positive
result would need to demonstrate that when scrapie was transmitted to
cattle, the disease which developed in cattle was the same as BSE. 37 Given
the large number of strains of scrapie and the possibility that BSE was one
of them, it would be necessary to transmit every scrapie strain to cattle
separately, to test the hypothesis properly. Such an experiment would be
expensive. Secondly, as measures to control the epidemic took hold, the need
for the experiment from the policy viewpoint was not considered so urgent.
It was felt that the results would be mainly of academic interest. 38
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820550
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCRAPIE
Chair: Dr. Jim Logan, Cheyenne, WY
Vice Chair: Dr. Joe D. Ross, Sonora, TX
Dr. Deborah L. Brennan, MS; Dr. Beth Carlson, ND; Dr. John R. Clifford, DC; Dr. Thomas F. Conner, OH; Dr. Walter E. Cook, WY; Dr. Wayne E. Cunningham, CO; Dr. Jerry W. Diemer, TX; Dr. Anita J. Edmondson, CA; Dr. Dee Ellis, TX; Dr. Lisa A. Ferguson, MD; Dr. Keith R. Forbes, NY; Dr. R. David Glauer, OH; Dr. James R. Grady, CO; Dr. William L. Hartmann, MN; Dr. Carolyn Inch, CAN; Dr. Susan J. Keller, ND; Dr. Allen M. Knowles, TN; Dr. Thomas F. Linfield, MT; Dr. Michael R. Marshall, UT; Dr. Cheryl A. Miller, In; Dr. Brian V. Noland, CO; Dr. Charles Palmer, CA; Dr. Kristine R. Petrini, MN; Mr. Stan Potratz, IA; Mr. Paul E. Rodgers, CO; Dr. Joan D. Rowe, CA; Dr. Pamela L. Smith, IA; Dr. Diane L. Sutton, MD; Dr. Lynn Anne Tesar, SD; Dr. Delwin D. Wilmot, NE; Dr. Nora E. Wineland, CO; Dr. Cindy B. Wolf, MN.
The Committee met on November 9, 2005, from 8:00am until 11:55am, Hershey Lodge and Convention Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order by Dr. Jim Logan, chair, with vice chairman Dr. Joe D. Ross attending. There were 74 people in attendance.
The Scrapie Program Update was provided by Dr. Diane Sutton, National Scrapie Program Coordinator, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS). The complete text of the Status Report is included in these Proceedings.
Dr. Patricia Meinhardt, USDA-APHIS-VS-National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) gave the Update on Genotyping Labs and Discrepancies in Results. NVSL conducts investigations into discrepancies on genotype testing results associated with the Scrapie Eradication Program. It is the policy of the Program to conduct a second genotype test at a second laboratory on certain individual animals. Occasionally, there are discrepancies in those results. The NVSL conducts follow-up on these situations through additional testing on additional samples from the field and archive samples from the testing laboratories.
For the period of time from January 1, 2005, until October 15, 2005, there were 23 instances of discrepancies in results from 35 flocks. Of those 23 instances, 14 were caused by laboratory error (paperwork or sample mix-up), 3 results from field error, 5 were not completely resolved, and 1 originated from the use of a non-approved laboratory for the first test. As a result of inconsistencies, one laboratory's certification was revoked by APHIS-VS.
snip...
Infected and Source Flocks
As of September 30, 2005, there were 105 scrapie infected and source flocks. There were a total of 165** new infected and source flocks reported for FY 2005. The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 was 128. The ratio of infected and source flocks cleaned up or placed on clean up plans vs. new infected and source flocks discovered in FY 2005 was 1.03 : 1*. In addition 622 scrapie cases were confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in FY 2005, of which 130 were RSSS cases. Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990. The last goat case was reported in May 2005. Approximately 5,626 animals were indemnified comprised of 49% non-registered sheep, 45% registered sheep, 1.4% non-registered goats and 4.6% registered goats.
Regulatory Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance (RSSS)
RSSS was designed to utilize the findings of the Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) Scrapie: Ovine Slaughter Surveillance (SOSS) study. The results of SOSS can be found at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Sheep/sheep.htm . RSSS started April 1,
2003. It is a targeted slaughter surveillance program which is designed to identify infected flocks for clean-up. During FY 2005 collections increased by 32% overall and by 90% for black and mottled faced sheep improving overall program effectiveness and efficiency as demonstrated by the 26% decrease in percent positive black faced sheep compared to FY 2004. Samples have been collected from 62,864 sheep since April 1, 2003, of which results have been reported for 59,105 of which 209 were confirmed positive. During FY 2005, 33,137 samples were collected from 81 plants. There have been 130 NVSL confirmed positive cases (30 collected in FY 2004 and confirmed in FY 2005 and 100 collected and confirmed in FY 2005) in FY 2005. Face colors of these positives were 114 black, 14 mottled, 1 white and 1 unknown. The percent positive by face color is shown in the chart below.
Scrapie Testing
In FY 2005, 35,845 animals have been tested for scrapie: 30,192 RSSS; 4,742 regulatory field cases; 772 regulatory third eyelid biopsies; 10 third eyelid validations; and 129 necropsy validations (chart 9).
Animal ID
As of October 04, 2005, 103,580 sheep and goat premises have been assigned identification numbers in the Scrapie National Generic Database. Official eartags have been issued to 73,807 of these premises.
*This number based on an adjusted 12 month interval to accommodate the 60 day period for setting up flock plans.
http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2005/report-scr-2005.pdf
Subject: SCRAPIE and CWD USA UPDATE July 19, 2006
Date: July 19, 2006 at 12:06 pm PST
SCRAPIE USA UPDATE MAY 31, 2006
Infected and Source Flocks
As of May 31, 2006, there were 93 scrapie infected and source flocks (Figure 3). There were 12 new infected and source flocks reported in May (Figure 4) with a total of 67 flocks reported for FY 2006 (Figure 5). The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2006 are 53 (Figure 6), with 7 flocks released in May. The ratio of infected and source flocks released to newly infected and source flocks for FY 2006 = 0.79 : 1. In addition, as of May 31, 2006, 216 scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which 33 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 33 newly confirmed cases in May 2006 (Figure 8). Eighteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat case was reported in March 2006. New infected flocks, source flocks, and flocks released for FY 2006 are depicted in Chart 3. New infected and source statuses from 1997 to 2006 are depicted in Chart 4.
snip...
Scrapie Testing
In FY 2006, 26,185 animals have been tested for scrapie : 22,634 RSSS*; 2063 regulatory field cases; 61 necropsy validations, 5 rectal biopsy and 1427 regulatory third eyelid biopsies (Chart 9). ...
snip...END
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html
CWD MAP
NOTICE CWD creeping its way to TEXAS, literally to it's border. ...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/images/counties_lg.jpg
THEN NOTICE CWD sample along that border in TEXAS, Three Year Summary of Hunter-Kill CWD sampling as of 31 August 2005 of only 191 samples, then compare to the other sample locations ;
http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/animal_health/diseases/cwd/CWD_Sampling_Aug2005.pdf
THREE NEW CASES OF CWD were announced in this same location this month ;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, JULY 7, 2006:
3 SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO DEER TEST POSITIVE FOR CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
SANTA FE - Three deer in southern New Mexico have tested positive for chronic wasting disease, bringing the total number of confirmed CWD-infected deer in the state to 15 since the first infected deer was discovered in 2002.
The Department received test results Wednesday from the state Veterinary Diagnostic Services laboratory in Albuquerque that two wild deer captured near the White Sands Missile Range headquarters east of Las Cruces had tested positive for chronic wasting disease. A third wild deer captured in the small community of Timberon in the southern Sacramento Mountains also tested positive for the disease.
The discoveries of the infected deer were part of the Department's ongoing efforts to monitor the disease, which to date has been confined to the southern Sacramento Mountains southeast of Cloudcroft and areas surrounding the Organ Mountains near Las Cruces. Two wild elk from the southern Sacramento Mountains tested positive for the disease in December 2005.
Chronic wasting disease is a fatal neurological illness that afflicts deer, elk and moose. There is no evidence of CWD being transmitted to humans or livestock. The disease causes animals to become emaciated, display abnormal behavior and lose control of bodily functions. To date, it has been found in captive and wild deer, elk and moose in eight states and two Canadian provinces.
For more information about CWD in New Mexico and how hunters can assist in research and prevention, please visit the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Web site, www.wildlife.state.nm.us . More information about CWD also can be found on the Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance site at www.cwd-info.org/ .
###
http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications/press_releases/documents/2006/0707CWD.htm
SEE MAP NM
http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/documents/cwdcontrolmap.pdf
STATE CWD INFORMATION
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/cwd-stateinfo.html
TSS
8/4/97
:lol: :lol2: :lol2: :cry2: :liar:
FEED BAN, what feed ban ???
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals,
Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg),
Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL
FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE
a) Bulk
b) None
c) Bulk
d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and by press release on June 16, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION
***Nationwide***
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00960.html
Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
New Orleans District
297 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: 615-781-5380
Fax: 615-781-5391
May 17, 2006
WARNING LETTER NO. 2006-NOL-06
FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner
Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products
2621 State Street
Dallas, Texas 75204
Dear Mr. Shirley:
On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to follow the requirements of this regulation; products being manufactured and distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:
You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after processing mammalian tissues.
You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.
As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Act.
This letter is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.
You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating corrections have been made.
Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie, Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.
Sincerely,
/S
Carol S. Sanchez
Acting District Director
New Orleans District
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5883d.htm
CVM Reports BSE Inspection Figures as of April 29, 2006
As of April 29, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had received more than 44,000 reports of inspections done under the ruminant feed rule designed to prevent the establishment and spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States.
Approximately 68 percent of the inspections were conducted by State officials under contract to FDA, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by State and FDA investigators are classified to reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection, based upon whether objectionable conditions were documented. Based on the conditions found, inspection results are recorded in one of three classifications:
• OAI (Official Action Indicated) when inspectors find significant objectionable conditions or practices and believe that regulatory sanctions are warranted to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspectors will promptly re-inspect facilities classified OAI after regulatory sanctions have been applied to determine whether the corrective actions are adequate to address the objectionable conditions.
• VAI (Voluntary Action Indicated) when inspectors find objectionable conditions or practices that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but warrant an advisory to inform the establishment that inspectors found conditions or practices that should be voluntarily corrected. VAI violations are typically technical violations of the 1997 BSE Feed Rule. These violations include minor recordkeeping lapses or conditions involving non-ruminant feeds.
• NAI (No Action Indicated) when inspectors find no objectionable conditions or practices or, if they find objectionable conditions, those conditions are of a minor nature and do not justify further actions.
Renderers
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal proteins. After they process the material, they send it to feed mills and/or protein blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 266
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 175 (66 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 175 firms:
v 2 (1.1 percent) was classified as OAI
v 4 (2.3 percent) were classified as VAI
Licensed feed mills
In the inspection report database, FDA lists medicated feed licensed feed mills separately from non-licensed feed mills. But the licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under the feed ban regulation. FDA requires feed mills to have medicated feed licenses to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time, to produce certain medicated feed products.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 1,092
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 430 (39 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 430 firms:
v 0 were classified as OAI
v 5 (1.2 percent) were classified as VAI
Feed mills not licensed by FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 5,128
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 2,176 (42 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 2,176 firms:
v 0 were classified as OAI
v 36 (1.7 percent) were classified as VAI
Protein blenders
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing feed ingredients used by feed mills.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 340
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 162 (48 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 162 firms:
v 0 were classified as OAI
v 3 (1.9 percent) were classified as VAI
Renderers, feed mills, protein blenders
This category includes any firm that is represented by any of the above four categories, but includes only those firms that manufacture, process or blend animal feed or feed ingredients using prohibited materials.
• Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,558
• Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials – 491 (7.5 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 491 firms:
v 2 (0.4 percent) were classified as OAI
v 19 (3.9 percent) were classified as VAI
Other firms inspected
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers and animal feed transporters.
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 14,627
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 4,314 (29 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 4,314 firms:
v 3 (0.1 percent) were classified as OAI
v 117 (2.7 percent) were classified as VAI
Total firms
• Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 17,454
• Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 5,103 (29 percent of those active firms inspected)
Of those 5,103 firms:
v 5 (0.1 percent) were classified as OAI
v 126 (2.5 percent) were classified as VAI
(NOTE: A single firm that has more than one function can be listed in different industry segments, which also means that the total may be less than a combination of all the segments.)
3.57 The experiment which might have determined whether BSE and scrapie were
caused by the same agent (ie, the feeding of natural scrapie to cattle) was
never undertaken in the UK. It was, however, performed in the USA in 1979,
when it was shown that cattle inoculated with the scrapie agent endemic in
the flock of Suffolk sheep at the United States Department of Agriculture in
Mission, Texas, developed a TSE quite unlike BSE. 32 The findings of the
initial transmission, though not of the clinical or neurohistological
examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr Watson, Director of the
CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the project leaders in the
Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States Department of
Agriculture. 33 The results were not published at this point, since the
attempted transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been
inconclusive. The results of the clinical and histological differences
between scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar
studies in which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula
derived from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
34 The results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent,
though pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of
brain lesions characteristic of BSE.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820543
The findings of the initial transmission, though not of the clinical or
neurohistological examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr
Watson, Director of the CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the
project leaders in the Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States
Department of Agriculture. 33
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/10/00001001.pdf
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820546
The results were not published at this point, since the attempted
transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been inconclusive.
The results of the clinical and histological differences between
scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar studies in
which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula derived
from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
34 The
results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent, though
pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of brain
lesions characteristic of BSE.
3.58 There are several possible reasons why the experiment was not performed
in the UK. It had been recommended by Sir Richard Southwood (Chairman of the
Working Party on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in his letter to the
Permanent Secretary of MAFF, Mr (now Sir) Derek Andrews, on 21 June 1988, 35
though it was not specifically recommended in the Working Party Report or
indeed in the Tyrrell Committee Report (details of the Southwood Working
Party and the Tyrell Committee can be found in vol. 4: The Southwood Working
Party, 1988-89 and vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood respectively). The
direct inoculation of scrapie into calves was given low priority, because of
its high cost and because it was known that it had already taken place in
the USA. 36 It was also felt that the results of such an experiment would be
hard to interpret. While a negative result would be informative, a positive
result would need to demonstrate that when scrapie was transmitted to
cattle, the disease which developed in cattle was the same as BSE. 37 Given
the large number of strains of scrapie and the possibility that BSE was one
of them, it would be necessary to transmit every scrapie strain to cattle
separately, to test the hypothesis properly. Such an experiment would be
expensive. Secondly, as measures to control the epidemic took hold, the need
for the experiment from the policy viewpoint was not considered so urgent.
It was felt that the results would be mainly of academic interest. 38
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820550
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCRAPIE
Chair: Dr. Jim Logan, Cheyenne, WY
Vice Chair: Dr. Joe D. Ross, Sonora, TX
Dr. Deborah L. Brennan, MS; Dr. Beth Carlson, ND; Dr. John R. Clifford, DC; Dr. Thomas F. Conner, OH; Dr. Walter E. Cook, WY; Dr. Wayne E. Cunningham, CO; Dr. Jerry W. Diemer, TX; Dr. Anita J. Edmondson, CA; Dr. Dee Ellis, TX; Dr. Lisa A. Ferguson, MD; Dr. Keith R. Forbes, NY; Dr. R. David Glauer, OH; Dr. James R. Grady, CO; Dr. William L. Hartmann, MN; Dr. Carolyn Inch, CAN; Dr. Susan J. Keller, ND; Dr. Allen M. Knowles, TN; Dr. Thomas F. Linfield, MT; Dr. Michael R. Marshall, UT; Dr. Cheryl A. Miller, In; Dr. Brian V. Noland, CO; Dr. Charles Palmer, CA; Dr. Kristine R. Petrini, MN; Mr. Stan Potratz, IA; Mr. Paul E. Rodgers, CO; Dr. Joan D. Rowe, CA; Dr. Pamela L. Smith, IA; Dr. Diane L. Sutton, MD; Dr. Lynn Anne Tesar, SD; Dr. Delwin D. Wilmot, NE; Dr. Nora E. Wineland, CO; Dr. Cindy B. Wolf, MN.
The Committee met on November 9, 2005, from 8:00am until 11:55am, Hershey Lodge and Convention Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order by Dr. Jim Logan, chair, with vice chairman Dr. Joe D. Ross attending. There were 74 people in attendance.
The Scrapie Program Update was provided by Dr. Diane Sutton, National Scrapie Program Coordinator, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS). The complete text of the Status Report is included in these Proceedings.
Dr. Patricia Meinhardt, USDA-APHIS-VS-National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) gave the Update on Genotyping Labs and Discrepancies in Results. NVSL conducts investigations into discrepancies on genotype testing results associated with the Scrapie Eradication Program. It is the policy of the Program to conduct a second genotype test at a second laboratory on certain individual animals. Occasionally, there are discrepancies in those results. The NVSL conducts follow-up on these situations through additional testing on additional samples from the field and archive samples from the testing laboratories.
For the period of time from January 1, 2005, until October 15, 2005, there were 23 instances of discrepancies in results from 35 flocks. Of those 23 instances, 14 were caused by laboratory error (paperwork or sample mix-up), 3 results from field error, 5 were not completely resolved, and 1 originated from the use of a non-approved laboratory for the first test. As a result of inconsistencies, one laboratory's certification was revoked by APHIS-VS.
snip...
Infected and Source Flocks
As of September 30, 2005, there were 105 scrapie infected and source flocks. There were a total of 165** new infected and source flocks reported for FY 2005. The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 was 128. The ratio of infected and source flocks cleaned up or placed on clean up plans vs. new infected and source flocks discovered in FY 2005 was 1.03 : 1*. In addition 622 scrapie cases were confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in FY 2005, of which 130 were RSSS cases. Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990. The last goat case was reported in May 2005. Approximately 5,626 animals were indemnified comprised of 49% non-registered sheep, 45% registered sheep, 1.4% non-registered goats and 4.6% registered goats.
Regulatory Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance (RSSS)
RSSS was designed to utilize the findings of the Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) Scrapie: Ovine Slaughter Surveillance (SOSS) study. The results of SOSS can be found at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Sheep/sheep.htm . RSSS started April 1,
2003. It is a targeted slaughter surveillance program which is designed to identify infected flocks for clean-up. During FY 2005 collections increased by 32% overall and by 90% for black and mottled faced sheep improving overall program effectiveness and efficiency as demonstrated by the 26% decrease in percent positive black faced sheep compared to FY 2004. Samples have been collected from 62,864 sheep since April 1, 2003, of which results have been reported for 59,105 of which 209 were confirmed positive. During FY 2005, 33,137 samples were collected from 81 plants. There have been 130 NVSL confirmed positive cases (30 collected in FY 2004 and confirmed in FY 2005 and 100 collected and confirmed in FY 2005) in FY 2005. Face colors of these positives were 114 black, 14 mottled, 1 white and 1 unknown. The percent positive by face color is shown in the chart below.
Scrapie Testing
In FY 2005, 35,845 animals have been tested for scrapie: 30,192 RSSS; 4,742 regulatory field cases; 772 regulatory third eyelid biopsies; 10 third eyelid validations; and 129 necropsy validations (chart 9).
Animal ID
As of October 04, 2005, 103,580 sheep and goat premises have been assigned identification numbers in the Scrapie National Generic Database. Official eartags have been issued to 73,807 of these premises.
*This number based on an adjusted 12 month interval to accommodate the 60 day period for setting up flock plans.
http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2005/report-scr-2005.pdf
Subject: SCRAPIE and CWD USA UPDATE July 19, 2006
Date: July 19, 2006 at 12:06 pm PST
SCRAPIE USA UPDATE MAY 31, 2006
Infected and Source Flocks
As of May 31, 2006, there were 93 scrapie infected and source flocks (Figure 3). There were 12 new infected and source flocks reported in May (Figure 4) with a total of 67 flocks reported for FY 2006 (Figure 5). The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2006 are 53 (Figure 6), with 7 flocks released in May. The ratio of infected and source flocks released to newly infected and source flocks for FY 2006 = 0.79 : 1. In addition, as of May 31, 2006, 216 scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which 33 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 33 newly confirmed cases in May 2006 (Figure 8). Eighteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat case was reported in March 2006. New infected flocks, source flocks, and flocks released for FY 2006 are depicted in Chart 3. New infected and source statuses from 1997 to 2006 are depicted in Chart 4.
snip...
Scrapie Testing
In FY 2006, 26,185 animals have been tested for scrapie : 22,634 RSSS*; 2063 regulatory field cases; 61 necropsy validations, 5 rectal biopsy and 1427 regulatory third eyelid biopsies (Chart 9). ...
snip...END
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html
CWD MAP
NOTICE CWD creeping its way to TEXAS, literally to it's border. ...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/images/counties_lg.jpg
THEN NOTICE CWD sample along that border in TEXAS, Three Year Summary of Hunter-Kill CWD sampling as of 31 August 2005 of only 191 samples, then compare to the other sample locations ;
http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/animal_health/diseases/cwd/CWD_Sampling_Aug2005.pdf
THREE NEW CASES OF CWD were announced in this same location this month ;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, JULY 7, 2006:
3 SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO DEER TEST POSITIVE FOR CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
SANTA FE - Three deer in southern New Mexico have tested positive for chronic wasting disease, bringing the total number of confirmed CWD-infected deer in the state to 15 since the first infected deer was discovered in 2002.
The Department received test results Wednesday from the state Veterinary Diagnostic Services laboratory in Albuquerque that two wild deer captured near the White Sands Missile Range headquarters east of Las Cruces had tested positive for chronic wasting disease. A third wild deer captured in the small community of Timberon in the southern Sacramento Mountains also tested positive for the disease.
The discoveries of the infected deer were part of the Department's ongoing efforts to monitor the disease, which to date has been confined to the southern Sacramento Mountains southeast of Cloudcroft and areas surrounding the Organ Mountains near Las Cruces. Two wild elk from the southern Sacramento Mountains tested positive for the disease in December 2005.
Chronic wasting disease is a fatal neurological illness that afflicts deer, elk and moose. There is no evidence of CWD being transmitted to humans or livestock. The disease causes animals to become emaciated, display abnormal behavior and lose control of bodily functions. To date, it has been found in captive and wild deer, elk and moose in eight states and two Canadian provinces.
For more information about CWD in New Mexico and how hunters can assist in research and prevention, please visit the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Web site, www.wildlife.state.nm.us . More information about CWD also can be found on the Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance site at www.cwd-info.org/ .
###
http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications/press_releases/documents/2006/0707CWD.htm
SEE MAP NM
http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/documents/cwdcontrolmap.pdf
STATE CWD INFORMATION
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/cwd-stateinfo.html
TSS
