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

USDA Chief Veterinarian Proposes Expansion Of BSE MRR rule

flounder

Well-known member
Karen Eggert (301) 734-7280
Jim Rogers (202) 690-4755

MEDIA ADVISORY: USDA Chief Veterinarian Proposes Expansion Of BSE Minimal-Risk Rule
WASHINGTON, Jan. 4, 2007--The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief veterinarian, John Clifford, will hold an audio conference today from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. on a proposed rule that would allow older-aged cattle among other imports to enter the United States from minimal-risk countries. Reporters will be provided an opportunity to ask questions.

Conference call number: 866–4–USDACOM (866–487–3226).

If there are problems accessing the audio briefing please call: 877–855–4797.



http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/01/med-adv_bse_mrr.shtml



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





see full text 60 pages ;



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





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


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



OPINION



http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/biohaz/biohaz_opinions/1540/biohaz_op_ej359_qra_vertebral_column_en1.pdf




>>>New methodology, under the auspices of the OIE, is

under construction within the EU and EFSA and the Panel recommended that once these

classifications had been finalised they should harmonised with those used in the EFSA

BSE QRA guidance document. The Panel anticipated that this harmonisation may have a

knock-on impact on the QRA calculations, conclusions and recommendations and that,

again, future Panel members should review this, and other, inputs of the QRA and address

this impact using their “self-tasking mandate” option.<<<




GOD HELP US!


sample survey via oie for bse is about 400 test via 100 million cattle, if i am not mistaken. MOST countries that went

by these OIE guidelines all eventually went down with BSE. ...TSS


http://www.oie.int/downld/SC/2005/bse_2005.pdf




THE OIE has now shown they are nothing more than a National Trading Brokerage for all strains of animal TSE.

AS i said before, OIE should hang up there jock strap now, since it appears they will buckle every time a country

makes some political hay about trade protocol, commodities and futures. IF they are not going to be science based, they

should do everyone a favor and dissolve there organization. ...

Page 95 of 98

8/3/2006

WHAT ABOUT RISK FACTORS TO HUMANS FROM ALL OTHER TSEs, WITH RELATIONS TO SRMs ???

a.. BSE OIE

see full text ;

http://p079.ezboard.com/fwolftracksproductionsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=470.topic




IT'S as obvious as day and night, either Larry, Curley, and Mo have been at the helm of the

USDA/APHIS/FSIS/FDA/CDC/NIH et al for many many years, or the incompetence of these agencies are so inept,

either through ignorance and or just too overweight with industry reps., they then should be all done away with and a

single agency brought forth, and if not, how will you correct this ongoing problem ?


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0612&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=20678


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0611&L=sanet-mg&T=0&I=-3&P=3381



Subject: [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)



http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf




THE OIE and GWs BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to trade all strains of TSE globally, and that is exactly what is taking place, but there seems to be clustering going on in Canada of TSE, so why not go ahead and ship it down here ;



Three more cases of chronic wasting disease found in wild deer

Hunters and landowners help surveillance program

Edmonton... Alberta is now about half-way through testing for its 2006-07 chronic wasting disease (CWD) surveillance program. Three more cases of CWD in wild deer have been confirmed out of the 1,609 deer tested. This brings the total to 16 cases in wild deer in Alberta since the first case in September 2005.

The three new cases involve deer taken during the recent hunting season in areas being monitored for the disease by Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife staff. A male mule deer from along the Red Deer River (wildlife management unit [WMU] 151) tested positive for the disease. Two female mule deer were taken west of Edgerton and south of Chauvin (in WMU 234).

One of these animals came from near previously known Alberta cases. The other two came from a high-risk area near Saskatchewan where positive wild and farmed deer have been found. Two of these latest cases were confirmed December 8, and the third (near Chauvin) on December 20.

Hunters and landowners have played a critical role in the success of the CWD control program. Many Alberta hunters have participated in the quota hunts, and landowners have allowed additional hunting on their property. Most seasons are closed now in the target areas, with the final licence season ending on January 15, 2007.

Hunters are reminded that submitting deer heads is a requirement in five wildlife management units along the Alberta/Saskatchewan border. These include WMUs 150, 151, 234, 256, and 500. Any heads taken in these areas and kept frozen since the animal was shot can still be dropped off at a Fish and Wildlife office or at one of the 24-hour freezers. Maps and information are posted at www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/diseases/.

Chronic wasting disease affects the nervous system; infected animals cannot maintain weight and slowly waste away. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD can infect humans. As a precaution, the World Health Organization advises against allowing products from animals known to be infected with CWD into the human food system. The three hunters have been contacted and were offered various alternatives including a replacement tag or replacement meat.

- 30 -

Correction: replaces December 11 news release distributed in error this afternoon

Map attached.


http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200612/20922.pdf




http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200612/20922A6C2D375-F4E5-78CC-BC33B4BA29B031C5.html




Alberta’s CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS in 2006

and upcoming surveillance

M.J.Pybus, PhD, Provincial Wildlife Disease Specialist, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development, Edmonton, on behalf of Alberta’s CWD team

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a chronic degenerative and ultimately fatal disease of cervids

(primarily deer and elk). It has the potential to eliminate local cervid populations and is considered a

significant threat to deer populations in Alberta. Through CWD surveillance and management activities

previous to 2006, two geographical areas were identified as potentially high risk for CWD incursion into

Alberta: the Dillberry Lake Provincial Park area south of Chauvin (in wildlife management unit [WMU]

234), and the region around the confluence of the Red Deer and South Saskatchewan rivers (in WMUs

150 and 151). At the end of 2005, four CWD-positive mule deer were identified in Alberta, all from the

latter region (see map). ...........


snip.......full text ;


http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/diseases/CWD/pdf/2006%20CWD%20report%20and%20upcoming%20surveillance.pdf



CWD MAP ALBERTA

http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/diseases/CWD/pdf/CWD_positive_Dec2006.pdf

BSE ALBERTA

2006-08-23 - BSE Confirmed in Alberta

2006-07-10 - Potential BSE Case in Alberta

2006-01-23 - BSE Detected in Alberta

2005-01-11 - New Case of BSE Detected

2005-01-02 - BSE Confirmed in Suspect Animal, Investigations Underway


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/newcome.shtml



Johanns must go, along with GWs and the OIE BSE MRR policy. IF the Democrats do not do away with this legal tool to trade all strains of TSE globally, it will raise serious questions in my mind as to if they really intend on changing things, in regards to mad cow disease and all TSE in the USA and all of North America. NOTHING about the BSE MRR policy is science-based, it's all about money. ...



TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
Release No. 0002.07
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720-4623

TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO CONFERENCE WITH DR. JOHN CLIFFORD, USDA CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER (ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE), ON USDA'S PROPOSAL TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL IMPORTS FROM BSE MINIMAL-RISK COUNTRIES, WASHINGTON, D.C. -- JANUARY 4, 2007
MR. JIM ROGERS: Hello, everyone. This is Jim Rogers with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Legislative and Public Affairs Office. First off, I want to thank you for your patience and apologize for the delay. If you've ever called a phone company, I think you'll all understand.

We have with us today Chief Veterinarian Dr. John Clifford, and he is going to talk about the proposed rule that will expand the minimal risk regulations for importation.

DR. JOHN CLIFFORD: Thank you, Jim. Good afternoon and thank you for joining today's call about USDA's proposal to expand the list of allowable imports from countries recognized as presenting a minimal risk of introducing bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE.

This proposed rule was put on public display today and we expect it to be published in the Federal Register on January 9. In January 2005, USDA published a final rule that established conditions for the importation of live cattle under 30 months of age and certain other commodities from regions with effective BSE prevention and detection measures.

That rule also designated Canada as the first minimal-risk country recognized by USDA. This current proposal would expand the scope of the 2005 rule to facilitate fair, science-based trade, consistent with international standards as defined by the World Organization for Animal Health, also known as the OIE.

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

The public comment period on these proposed actions opens January 9, 2007, and will close on March 12, 2007. We encourage the public to be a part of our decision-making process by providing feedback through submission of public comments.

International standards as defined by the OIE served as our reference in developing the proposed actions.

The OIE provides standards, guidelines, and recommendations to be used by national veterinary authorities to prevent the introduction of animal diseases such as BSE while avoiding unjustified trade barriers. In keeping with these standards, we conducted a thorough risk assessment and found that the risk presented by allowing these additional commodities from Canada is minimal. Our risk assessment included careful consideration of the entire risk pathway, all of the steps in both Canada and the United States that must occur for BSE to spread to an animal here in the United States.

If an infected cow from Canada were to be imported into the United States, in order for that bovine to transmit infection to a U.S. cow a series of additional safeguards would have to fail or be breached. Even if by small chance BSE-infected material were to make it past the first mitigation, it is highly unlikely that the material would eventually infect a U.S. animal.

It is important to remember that these individual safeguards or steps in the risk pathway should not be considered in isolation. The impact of any specific step depends on its relationship to the others in the sequence. In other words, none of the steps should be considered by itself to represent the entire risk.

As part of the risk assessment, we estimated the prevalence of BSE and the standing adult cattle population of Canada with the same methods that we recently used to estimate the prevalence of BSE in the United States. This estimate incorporating information about the expected effects of the feed ban is 6.8 infected animals per 10 million adult cattle.

We then used this current estimate of prevalence to help assess the likelihood that BSE would be introduced or released over an extended period of time. We chose to evaluate what could happen over the next 20 years, assuming the proposed rule would apply into the foreseeable future. First, we looked at the most likely scenario, given that Canada has had a feed ban in place since 1997, and evidence indicates that the implementation of the feed ban results in decreasing BSE prevalence. The most likely scenario is that BSE prevalence in Canada will continue to decrease over the next 20 years.

This decrease, combined with the mitigative effects of our import requirements and the young age of animals at the time of import, would continuously decrease the possibility that infected animals would be imported over the 20-year period.

Under this scenario, the likelihood of BSE exposure and establishment in the U.S. cattle population, as a consequence of importing infected Canadian cattle, is negligible.

We then considered other less-likely scenarios that may overestimate the overall risk. In these less-likely scenarios we assumed that BSE prevalence in Canada would remain constant during the next 20 years. This would mean the continued detection of infected animals born after the implementation of the feed ban and during the entire 20-year timeframe.

Even with these less-likely scenarios, our assessment indicates that BSE will not be spread or become established in the United States as a result of the proposal. Although our risk assessment was conducted to evaluate animal health risk, we did use one model in our assessment to also consider possible impacts on public health.

The results of this model indicated that these potential impacts are extremely low. As you know, public health in the United States is protected through slaughter practices, including the removal of specified risk materials, and the feed ban.

In conclusion, for all commodities considered under the current proposal, the risk of BSE-infectivity is negligible and the disease will not become established in the United States. This is true even if Canada identifies additional cases of BSE and even if an infected animal were to be imported to the United States.

Now let me take this opportunity to address any questions you may have about the BSE cases that have already been identified in Canada. From the time of detection of the first native case of BSE in Canada in 2003, nine cases of Canadian-born BSE-infected cattle have been identified. All these cases are considered in our prevalence estimate, but it is important to understand that the model used for that estimate is much broader than simply evaluating the number of cases detected.

Since the model incorporates a wide range of epidemiological information and assumptions, the identification of additional cases does not significantly impact the prevalence estimate. We recognize that three of these cases were born after the date proposed in our regulation as when the feed ban was effectively enforced. Let me say that these cases are not unexpected, nor does USDA consider such diagnoses in any way to undercut our conclusion that March 1, 1999, can be considered the date of effective enforcement of the feed ban in Canada.

Experience worldwide has demonstrated that even in countries with an effective feed ban in place, BSE has occurred in cattle born after the feed ban was implemented. However, such isolated incidents do not contribute to further significant spread of BSE, especially when considered in light of the series of risk mitigations in place.

I want to emphasize that our risk assessment considered the entire risk pathway, all the series of risk mitigations in place. The proposed requirement -- only allowing imports of live bovine born on or after March 1, 1999 -- is one step in the process that decreases the risk. It should not be interpreted as the only or the failsafe step in this process.

USDA is committed to ensuring that our regulatory approach keeps pace with the body of scientific knowledge about BSE. These proposed actions are an important move in our efforts to promote fair, science-based trade practices. I am confident in saying that we can take this next step while at the same time protecting American agriculture and maintaining confidence in the U.S. beef supply.

Thank you again for calling in, and I'll be happy to take your questions now.

MR. ROGERS: Operator, we're ready for the question and answer period.

OPERATOR: Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1. You will be announced prior to asking your question. Please announce your affiliation as well. Our first question comes from Pete Hisey. Your line is open, sir.

REPORTER: Hi. This is Pete Hisey at Meatingplace. My immediate question is, evidently Canada is about to introduce a stronger feed ban in July, and I'm curious why we didn't wait until after that ban takes effect to propose this rule.

DR. CLIFFORD: When we looked and did our risk assessment, we took the current measures that Canada had in place and be able to show that the risk is negligible. So that's why we didn't wait.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Chuck Abbott.

(Pause, no audible response)

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Sally Schuff.

REPORTER: Yes. Thank you for taking my question. Dr. Clifford, I need clarification here on, you're saying that all cattle, breeding, slaughter, and beef and beef products from after March 1, 1999, will be eligible for import?

DR. CLIFFORD: Sally, that's correct. Now, one point of clarification: If this rule were to go into effect, any live animal coming into the U.S. would need to be born after March 1, 1999. Now this would allow the implementation of any aged beef allowed to be imported as long as it meets the conditions of the Food Safety and Inspection Service and SRM removal.

REPORTER: And any aged beef? The beef is not subject to the March 1?

DR. CLIFFORD: That's correct.

REPORTER: I see. Okay.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Peter Shinn.

REPORTER: Yes. What's (unclear).

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

REPORTER: Gentlemen, I'm sorry. Can you hear me?

MR. ROGERS: Yes. Go ahead.

REPORTER: I'm just wondering what the timeline is for implementation. I know you've got public comments, and then what's the timeline after that for actually putting this in place?

DR. CLIFFORD: Well, as you know this is a proposed rule out for comment. We would -- after we receive those comments we will take careful consideration in putting together our response to those and see if we need to make any changes based upon those comments. So I can't give you a specific timeline at this point in time.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Chris Clayton.

REPORTER: Dr. Clifford, real quick, first I wanted to clarify something you just said to Sally, because the news release I got seemed a little different. You said the beef product was not subject to the March 1, '99, age restriction, because the release I have states that it is.

DR. CLIFFORD: 'MRR2.' Basically this rule would -- for animals imported to the U.S., live animals, for breeding or for slaughter -- would be restricted to the March 1, 1999, date. Animals slaughtered in Canada and the importation of beef could be prior to that March 1 date.

REPORTER: And has USDA been given, I guess, any kind of assurance from our trading partners that, okay, you're going to import these animals, and if there is a case, that is not going to be something that would cause us to further restrict trade?

DR. CLIFFORD: Basically Chris, we've been in discussions with our trading partners. We notified them of this proposed rule. It is a 'proposed rule.' We're looking forward to the comments on this rule, and we would have further discussions on those issues with our trading partners. But I'd just like to say we would encourage all of our trading partners to follow international guidelines and standards and follow the science of this disease.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Barbara Duckworth.

REPORTER: Yes. Hello. You have mentioned this March 1, 1999, date. What kind of age verification and identification will you require on the live animals?

DR. CLIFFORD: Basically with regards to the age we would require certification by Canadian officials based upon that date. Also as far as identification, each individual animal would be required to have an ID plus a permanent tattoo or other type of permanent marking that would be required.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Daniel Goldstein.

REPORTER: Yes, hi, Doctor. Is the USDA saying that Canadian animals that are born before March 1, 1999, are not safe to import to the U.S.?

DR. CLIFFORD: Basically, what we're saying is, is based upon our assessment and analysis of when an effective feed ban went into place, the date of March 1, 1999, was determined. That was based upon Canada putting a feed ban in place at the same time the U.S. did. In August of '97 we looked at having six months of a practical implementation date, and then we added an additional year to that date for the normal marketing period where you would expect feed to be cycled through in the cattle in that system.

So basically there's where we came up with the year-and-a-half date. So it's not saying that cattle born prior to that are unsafe. It's just saying that we're looking at that as an effective feed ban date and we're just accepting live cattle after that date.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Steve Kay.

REPORTER: Dr. Clifford, firstly, earlier you said that Canada had nine BSE cases from the first native case. Did you mean 8? I only have 8 listed.

DR. CLIFFORD: Canada actually has found 8 cases within Canada and the U.S. has found one case that --

REPORTER: Washington State case, okay.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

REPORTER: Can I have a quick follow-up?

MR. ROGERS: Go ahead.

REPORTER: As you know, case number 4 and 5 were born after that March 1, 1999, date. They were both born in the year 2000. So some people would say that you've just kind of, on the back of an envelope, put six months plus one year, to use your words, and come up with a March 1 date. You know, what other justification can you explain to me as to why you chose that date?

DR. CLIFFORD: Well, the justifications that we made were based upon what I gave you. We have previously, under the minimal risk rule one that we came out with, we evaluated Canada's effective feed ban and determined that they had an effective feed ban during publication of that rule, and that was based upon our personal investigation and knowledge of that system and information that was provided to us.

They have the authority, they have the infrastructure, plus they've established our performance standards within that system to be able to effectively monitor that system, make sure there's appropriate training. As you know, with any type of system there's no such thing as 100 percent compliance.

And if we'll look throughout internationally we know that countries that have had other effective feed bans put in place will find case after that effective feed ban.

REPORTER: But does the rule address the fact that there were three cases, the latest being April 22, 2002, when there was a BSE case?

DR. CLIFFORD: There is, the rule takes into account that three cases occurred after that feed ban date, and again the risk -- when you look at these things you can't look at one particular issue. You have to look at it in total through all the mitigations, whether you're talking about SRM removal, to feed ban, to feed manufacturing, to rendering inactivation, to biological limitations. So you have to look at the whole system as a whole when you're looking at the level of risk. And we have found, based upon that risk assessment, when you look at this as a whole that the risk is extremely low.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Chuck Abbott.

(Pause, no audible response)

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Christopher Doering.

REPORTER: Yes. I apologize if I jumped on late because I was having technical difficulty problems. Do you know when -- I know the comment period ends on the 12th of March, but when do you guys anticipate this may be actually be cleared, once you analyze comments?

DR. CLIFFORD: Again, I can't give you an exact date with that.

REPORTER: Is there a generalization as to --

DR. CLIFFORD: I wouldn't even want to generalize. There's a lot of factors here. It depends upon the number of comments, how extensive those comments are, and so forth. So we would not want to speculate about timeframe.

MR. ROGERS: Next question please.

REPORTER: Just to be clear, after the 1999 or March 1, 1999, number, there's been how many cases have been reported in Canada, three?

DR. CLIFFORD: There were three cases that have been found that were born after the feed ban.

REPORTER: And one of them was the Washington State cow that came --

DR. CLIFFORD: No, no. All three of those cases were found in Canada.

REPORTER: Okay, thank you.

DR. CLIFFORD: You're welcome.

MR. ROGERS: Operator?

OPERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. ROGERS: I'm sorry, I should have noted this at the beginning. Let's just do one question with no follow-up. I believe we'll be doing questions for about five more minutes. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. We do have a question again from Daniel Goldstein. Would you like to take that?

DR. CLIFFORD: Yes.

REPORTER: Thank you very much, Dr. Clifford, for taking my call again. You've also come up with the date of March 1999 for the effectiveness of the Canadian feed ban. Obviously the U.S. and Canada put their feed ban in effect about the same time. Is that also, in effect, also saying that the U.S. feed ban also became effective in 1999, not in 1997?

DR. CLIFFORD: Basically, what that date does is allow for -- in Canada we allowed for the six months of implementation for full implementation, and then for the feed in the system cycle out based upon the likelihood of that being cycled out within that year timeframe, with most cattle operations. That's where we came up with 1.5 year timeframe on the feed ban. Now, what countries applied to us is up to those countries. Again we implemented our feed ban, FDA did, at the same time Canada did, and I believe actually Canada has a date very close to ours for an effective feed ban date for the U.S.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Sally Schuff.

REPORTER: Yes, thanks again. My question is, from the news release it says just meat products. Are you talking about boneless or bone-in or both?

DR. CLIFFORD: Both.

REPORTER: Okay, thank you. And all ages again?

DR. CLIFFORD: For live animals they would have to be born after March 1, 1999. For meat products it would be all ages.

REPORTER: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Pete Hisey.

REPORTER: Hi. It's Pete Hisey from Meatingplace again. Will anything be done to ensure no commingling in the case of exports to countries that accept our beef but do not accept Canadian beef?

DR. CLIFFORD: These animals would be identified with an ear tag, and then they would have permanent identification with regards to either a tattoo or other type of method such as branding.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, once again please press *1.

MR. ROGERS: Operator, we'll take two more questions if anybody has any.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Once again, Chuck Abbott your line is open.

REPORTER: Hi. I'm going to try again with a different phone. You know, Dr. Clifford, we're going to make you walk that path one more time, which is: wouldn't, under the normal circumstances, wouldn't this sort of rule become final sometime in late summer? And secondly, are there any other countries out there other than Canada that might be in line to become minimal risk regions?

DR. CLIFFORD: As far as the first question, again I can't give you any timeframe. There's a lot of variables with regards to when this rule could become effective, and it's very important that we carefully consider all public comments on this rule and respond to those comments appropriately.

With regards to your question about other countries, we have had countries informally inquire about being looked at as a minimal risk country, but we've not had any formal request from any country at this time other than Canada.

MR. ROGERS: Operator, this is the last question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our last question comes from Barbara Duckworth.

REPORTER: Yes. This deals with bovines. Is there another rule coming for sheep and goats and deer?

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually deer would be excluded, I believe, from this rule. But with regards to sheep, yes, that would require future rulemaking.

MR. ROGERS: All right. I want to thank everyone for their patience once again, and of course we always appreciate your questions. For further information please check out our website at WWW.APHIS.USDA.GOV. Once again, thank you very much and have a nice day.

Operator, this concludes the call.



http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/01/0002.xml



interpretation = they have already made there mind up. GW and the OIE will shove this Canadian and or anything else down your throat regardless, just the way the BSe flies, nothing science based about it. ...TSS



http://www.usda.gov/2007/01/0001.xml


CORRECTION: This version contains corrected information related to meat and meat products.



Release No. 0001.07
Contact:
Karen Eggert (301) 734-7280
Keith Williams (202) 720-4623

USDA PROPOSES TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL IMPORTS FROM BSE MINIMAL-RISK COUNTRIES

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4, 2007-The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service today announced a proposal to expand the list of allowable imports from countries recognized as presenting a minimal risk of introducing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) into the United States. Currently, Canada is the only minimal-risk country designated by the United States.


"This proposal would continue to protect against BSE in the United States while taking the next step forward in our efforts to implement science-based trade relations with countries that have appropriate safeguards in place to prevent BSE," said Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns. "We previously recognized Canada's comprehensive set of safeguards and we have now completed a risk assessment confirming that additional animals and products can be safely traded. Our approach is consistent with science-based international guidelines."

The proposal expands upon a rule published by APHIS in January 2005 that allowed the importation of certain live ruminants and ruminant products, including cattle under 30 months of age for delivery to a slaughterhouse or feedlot, from countries recognized as minimal-risk. In the rule announced today, APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of:

-Live cattle and other bovines for any use born on or after, March 1, 1999, the date determined by APHIS to be the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada;

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

-Casings and part of the small intestine derived from bovines.

Meat and meat products from animals of any age, with specified risk materials removed, were addressed in the January 2005 final rule. In March 2005, APHIS published a notice of a delay of applicability of certain provisions of that rule. This delay affected only meat and meat products from animals 30 months of age or older. If the proposed rule announced today is made final, it would be consistent to lift the delay and also allow the importation of these products.

As part of the proposal, APHIS conducted a thorough risk assessment following guidelines put forth by the World Organization for Animal Health, or OIE, and found that the risk associated with these commodities is minimal. This assessment evaluated the entire risk pathway, including mitigations in place both in Canada and the United States. The assessment included evaluating the likelihood of introduction of BSE via imports, the likelihood of animal exposure if this were to occur and the subsequent consequences. All of these were combined to give the overall minimal risk estimation.

It is important to note that BSE transmission is prevented in bovines by a series of safeguards, including; slaughter controls and dead animal disposal, rendering inactivation, feed manufacturing and use controls, and biologic limitations to susceptibility. These layers of protection work together to prevent spread of the disease.

In the United States, human health is protected by a system of interlocking safeguards that ensure the safety of U.S. beef. The most important of these safeguards is the ban on specified risk materials from the food supply and the Food and Drug Administration's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. Canada has similar safeguards in place.

The risk assessment concluded that for all the commodities considered under the current proposal, the risk of BSE infectivity is minimal and the disease will not become established in the United States. The proposed rule will be published in the Jan. 9, 2007 Federal Register and is available on our Web site at www.aphis.usda.gov .

APHIS invites comments on this proposed rule. Consideration will be given to comments received on or before March 12, 2007. Send an original and three copies of postal mail or commercial delivery comments to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, Md. 20737-1238. If you wish to submit a comment using the Internet, go to the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov , select "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service" from the agency drop-down menu; then click on "Submit." In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0041 to submit or view public comments and to view the proposal and the supporting and related materials available electronically.

Comments are posted on the Regulations.gov Web site and may also be viewed at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th St. and Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C., between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. To facilitate entry into the comment reading room, please call (202) 690-2817.


#
USDA News
[email protected]
202 720-4623
tss
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I would like to know the USDA's definition of "effective".

Can you imagine a doctor using the same standard; "Well Mr. Smith, I realize your wife is expecting your second child in three years, but I assure you the effective date of your vasectomy was four years ago."

"DR. CLIFFORD: Basically, what we're saying is, is based upon our assessment and analysis of when an effective feed ban went into place, the date of March 1, 1999, was determined. That was based upon Canada putting a feed ban in place at the same time the U.S. did. In August of '97 we looked at having six months of a practical implementation date, and then we added an additional year to that date for the normal marketing period where you would expect feed to be cycled through in the cattle in that system. "

They're completely ignoring the post ban cases. :mad:
 

flounder

Well-known member
QUOTE ;

DR. CLIFFORD: Basically, what we're saying is, is based upon our assessment and analysis of when an effective feed ban went into place, the date of March 1, 1999, was determined. That was based upon Canada putting a feed ban in place at the same time the U.S. did. In August of '97 we looked at having six months of a practical implementation date, and then we added an additional year to that date for the normal marketing period where you would expect feed to be cycled through in the cattle in that system. ..................END

PLEASE tell me this guy is kidding? hell, there not just still recycling the old mad cow feed in 2006 and distributing it, there manufacturing and distributing it, tons and tons of illegal, potential mad cow protein in 2006 for heavens sake. is this guy oblivious or what? how stupid do they really think we all are? :???:


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL,
TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST

PRODUCT
a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6;
b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6;
c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6;
d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6.
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone
on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006. Firm initiated recall is
complete.
REASON
Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Dairy feed, custom, Recall # V-134-6;
b) Custom Dairy Feed with Monensin, Recall # V-135-6.
CODE
None. Bulk product
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Burkmann Feed, Greeneville, TN, by Telephone beginning on
June 28, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL. Firm initiated
recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,484 tons
DISTRIBUTION
TN and WV


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html



Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA,
MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-115-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Hiseville Feed & Seed Co., Hiseville, KY, by telephone and letter on or
about July 14, 2006. FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approximately 2,223 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-116-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rips Farm Center, Tollesboro, KY, by telephone and letter on July 14, 2006.
FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,220 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-117-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Kentwood Co-op, Kentwood, LA, by telephone on June 27, 2006. FDA initiated
recall is completed.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
40 tons
DISTRIBUTION
LA and MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk Dairy Feed, Recall V-118-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Cal Maine Foods, Inc., Edwards, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. FDA
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,150 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-119-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Walthall County Co-op, Tylertown, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
87 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-120-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Ware Milling Inc., Houston, MS, by telephone on June 23, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
350 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Tucker Milling, LLC Tm 32% Sinking Fish Grower, #2680-Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-121-6;
b) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-122-6;
c) Tucker Milling, LLC #31232 Game Bird Grower,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-123-6;
d) Tucker Milling, LLC 31227-Crumble, Game Bird Starter, BMD
Medicated, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-124-6;
e) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-125-6;
f) Tucker Milling, LLC #30230, 30 % Turkey Starter, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-126-6;
g) Tucker Milling, LLC #30116, TM Broiler Finisher,
50 lb bags, Recall # V-127-6
CODE
All products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/20/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Tucker Milling LLC, Guntersville, AL, by telephone and visit
on June 20, 2006, and by letter on June 23, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker and Brothers Inc., Stamford, CT. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Poultry and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein were not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,541-50 lb bags
DISTRIBUTION
AL, GA, MS, and TN

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2006/ENF00964.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL MI MAMMALIAN PROTEIN VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN
COMMERCE 27,694,240 lbs
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:14 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy feds manufactured from concentrates, Recall # V-113-6
CODE
All dairy feeds produced between 2/1/05 and 6/16/06 and containing H. J.
Baker recalled feed products.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Vita Plus Corp., Gagetown, MI, by visit beginning on June 21, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The feed was manufactured from materials that may have been contaminated
with mammalian protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
27,694,240 lbs
DISTRIBUTION
MI


END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL AL AND FL VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125
TONS Products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm PST
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated,
net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6;
d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated,
Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend,
Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted,
Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020,
Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete
Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated,
Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying
Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED,
net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and
visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
125 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and FL


END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL KY VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:19 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
?????
DISTRIBUTION
KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


CJD WATCH MESSAGE BOARD
TSS
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE
Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22
71.248.128.67


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
 
Top