• 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 inspectors: Staff shortages imperil meat supply

flounder

Well-known member
Feb. 21, 2008, 10:57PM

USDA inspectors: Staff shortages imperil meat supply

Government, industry defend meatpacking safety


By GILLIAN FLACCUS
Associated Press



LOS ANGELES — Sometimes, government inspectors responsible for examining
slaughterhouse cattle for mad cow disease and other ills are so
short-staffed that they find themselves peering down from catwalks at
hundreds of animals at once, looking for such telltale signs as droopy ears,
stumbling gait and facial paralysis.

The ranks of inspectors are so thin that slaughterhouse workers often figure
out when "surprise" visits are about to take place, and make sure they are
on their best behavior.

These allegations were raised by former and current U.S. Department of
Agriculture inspectors in the wake of the biggest beef recall in history —
143 million pounds from a California meatpacker accused of sending lame
"downer" cows to slaughter.

The inspectors told The Associated Press that they fear chronic staff
shortages in their ranks are allowing sick cows to get into the nation's
food supply, endangering the public. According to USDA's own figures, the
inspector ranks nationwide had vacancy rates of 10 percent or more in
2006-07.

"They're not covering all their bases. There's a possibility that something
could go through because you don't have the manpower to check everything,"
said Lester Friedlander, a former USDA veterinary inspector at a plant in
Wyalusing, Pa.

Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, acknowledged that the department has been struggling to fill
vacancies but denied the food supply is at risk.

"Every single animal must past antemortem inspection before it's presented
for slaughter, so only healthy animals are going to pass," she said.

Similarly, Janet Riley, a spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute,
defended the meatpacking industry's safety record. "It is interesting to
keep in mind how heavily regulated we are," she said. "Nobody has this level
of inspection."

The current and former inspectors and other industry critics charged that
the staff shortages are also resulting in the mistreatment of animals on the
way to slaughter, and may have contributed to the recall announced earlier
this week.

U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., said Thursday that his Senate Agriculture,
Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee will hold
a Feb. 28 hearing on the recall.

The USDA recalled the beef after the Humane Society of the United States
released undercover video that showed slaughterhouse workers at the
Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. kicking and shoving sick and crippled
cows and forcing them to stand with electric prods, forklifts and water
hoses.

Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society's president and chief executive, said the
video was filmed over a six-week period last fall and all the abuse happened
when USDA inspectors were not present.

Generally, downer cows — those too sickly to stand, even with coaxing — are
banned from the food supply under federal regulations. Downer cows carry a
higher risk of mad cow disease.



Thursday, February 21, 2008

TRANSCRIPT: Technical Briefing - Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company -
(02/21/08)

Release No. 0054.08


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2008/02/transcript-technical-briefing.html


Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE
sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST

Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty
to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program


An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled
guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government
funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his
company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when
they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and
then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services.
In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle
that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors
for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be
submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy
USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently
received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled
for May 2007.


snip...


Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1
include:

soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),


implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System
enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and
improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),


snip...


The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in
future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and
investigations are completed.


4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf


suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf




APHIS notes that for the current surveillance program, it had established
regional goals and APHIS was not trying to meet particular sampling levels
in particular States. However, we believe that it would be advantageous for
APHIS to monitor collection data and increase outreach when large
geographical areas such as the above States do not provide samples in
proportion to the numbers and types of cattle in the population.

We also disagree with APHIS/FSIS’ contention that because they have tested
over 375,000 of their 446,000 estimate of high risk cattle, few in the
high-risk population are being missed, including those that might be
pre-screened before entering a slaughter facility’s property. In our prior
audit, we reported that APHIS underestimated the high-risk population; we
found that this estimate should have been closer to 1 million animals (see
Finding 1). We recognize that BSE samples are provided on a voluntary basis;
however, APHIS should consider industry practice in any further maintenance
surveillance effort. Animals unsuitable for slaughter exhibiting symptoms
not inconsistent with BSE should be sampled and their clinical signs
recorded. However, this cited industry practice results in rejected animals
not being made available to either APHIS or FSIS veterinarians for their
observation and identification of clinical signs exhibited ante mortem.
Although these animals may be sampled later at other collection sites, the
animals are provided post mortem without information as to relevant clinical
signs exhibited ante mortem. For these reasons, we believe APHIS needs to

USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 27

observe these animals ante mortem when possible to assure the animals from
the target population are ultimately sampled and the clinical signs
evaluated.



snip...



http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf



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


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



10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007



Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling’s 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI

___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html


and that is but one of many since the infamous 8/4/97 partial
and voluntary mad cow feed ban.

2006 was a banner year for MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE ;


PLEASE SEE LAUNDRY LIST OF MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE HERE ;


SRM SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS

RUMINANT TO RUMINANT ANIMAL PROTEIN IN COMMERCE 2006-2007


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



Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) assessments covering 2000-2006

Date : 01.08.2006

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/GBR_assessments_table_Overview_assessed_countries_2002-2006.pdf


QUESTION, IS U.S.A. FOOD PRODUCTION SYSTEM POISONING US ?



What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health


Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA


snip...



Table 1. Animal feed ingredients that are legally used in U.S. animal feeds



Animal


Rendered animal protein from Meat meal, meat meal tankage, meat and bone
meal, poultry meal, animal the slaughter of food by-product meal, dried
animal blood, blood meal, feather meal, egg-shell production animals and
other meal, hydrolyzed whole poultry, hydrolyzed hair, bone marrow, and
animal animals digest from dead, dying, diseased, or disabled animals
including deer and elk Animal waste Dried ruminant waste, dried swine waste,
dried poultry litter, and undried processed animal waste products


snip...


Conclusions


Food-animal production in the United States has changed markedly in the past
century, and these changes have paralleled major changes in animal feed
formulations. While this industrialized system of food-animal production may
result in increased production efficiencies, some of the changes in animal
feeding practices may result in unintended adverse health consequences for
consumers of animal-based food products. Currently, the use of animal feed
ingredients,
including rendered animal products, animal waste, antibiotics, metals, and
fats, could result in higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant
bacteria, prions, arsenic, and dioxinlike compounds in animals and resulting
animal-based food products intended for human consumption. Subsequent human
health effects among consumers could include increases in bacterial
infections (antibioticresistant and nonresistant) and increases in the risk
of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases
such as vCJD. Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of potential human
health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there are
little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts
of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed.
In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on
complete U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed on retail meat
products; and human health effects data are not appropriately linked to this
information. These surveillance inadequacies make it difficult to conduct
rigorous epidemiologic studies and risk assessments
that could identify the extent to which specific human health risks are
ultimately associated with animal feeding practices. For example, as noted
above, there are insufficient data to determine whether other human
foodborne bacterial illnesses besides those caused by S. enterica serotype
Agona are associated with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there are
insufficient data to determine the percentage of antibiotic-resistant human
bacterial infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic use of
antibiotics in animal feed. Moreover, little research has been conducted to
determine whether the use of organoarsenicals in animal feed, which can lead
to elevated levels of arsenic in meat products (Lasky et al. 2004),
contributes to increases in cancer risk. In order to address these research
gaps, the following principal actions are necessary within the United
States: a) implementation of a nationwide reporting system of the specific
amounts and types of feed ingredients of concern to public health that are
incorporated into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals, rendered
animal products, fats, and animal waste; b) funding and development of
robust surveillance systems that monitor biological, chemical, and other
etiologic agents throughout the animal-based food-production chain “from
farm to fork” to human health outcomes; and c) increased communication and
collaboration among feed professionals, food-animal producers, and
veterinary and public health officials.


REFERENCES...snip...end


Sapkota et al.
668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf


P04.27

Experimental BSE Infection of Non-human Primates: Efficacy of the Oral Route


Holznagel, E1; Yutzy, B1; Deslys, J-P2; Lasmézas, C2; Pocchiari, M3;
Ingrosso, L3;
Bierke, P4; Schulz-Schaeffer, W5; Motzkus, D6; Hunsmann, G6; Löwer, J1
1Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany; 2Commissariat à l´Energie Atomique, France;
3Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy; 4Swedish Institute for Infectious
Disease
control, Sweden; 5Georg August University, Germany; 6German Primate Center,
Germany


Background:

In 2001, a study was initiated in primates to assess the risk for humans
to contract BSE through contaminated food. For this purpose, BSE brain was
titrated in cynomolgus monkeys.


Aims:

The primary objective is the determination of the minimal infectious dose
(MID50)
for oral exposure to BSE in a simian model, and, by in doing this, to assess
the risk for
humans. Secondly, we aimed at examining the course of the disease to
identify
possible biomarkers.


Methods:


Groups with six monkeys each were orally dosed with lowering amounts of
BSE brain: 16g, 5g, 0.5g, 0.05g, and 0.005g. In a second titration study,
animals were intracerebrally (i.c.) dosed (50, 5, 0.5, 0.05, and 0.005 mg).


Results:


In an ongoing study, a considerable number of high-dosed macaques already
developed simian vCJD upon oral or intracerebral exposure or are at the
onset of the clinical phase. However, there are differences in the clinical
course
between orally and intracerebrally infected animals that may influence the
detection of
biomarkers.


Conclusions:


Simian vCJD can be easily triggered in cynomolgus monkeys on the oral
route using less than 5 g BSE brain homogenate. The difference in the
incubation period between 5 g oral and 5 mg i.c. is only 1 year (5 years
versus 4
years). However, there are rapid progressors among orally dosed monkeys that
develop simian vCJD as fast as intracerebrally inoculated animals.


The work referenced was performed in partial fulfilment of the study “BSE in
primates“ supported by the EU (QLK1-2002-01096).


http://www.prion2007.com/pdf/Prion%20Book%20of%20Abstracts.pdf


look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused
7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;


Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in
primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog,
Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie
Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe
Deslys Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
(vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral
infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to
transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to
non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate
from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological
disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease
at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we
made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which
provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can
prevent transmission of BSE to man.


snip...


BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%)
1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum
used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a
similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals
positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of
disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic
ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected
orally with similar BSE brain inocula


Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa



It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf


The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that time
ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the
designing scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the
results
because all the dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf


USDA CERTIFIED H-BASE MAD COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM


http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school.html


TSS
2/22/2008 8:55 AM CST


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5560836.html
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Feds need to provide more food inspectors
Article Created: 02/22/2008 02:32:46 AM PST


THE LARGEST beef recall in our nation's history, 143 million pounds worth, follows a disturbing pattern that has seen, among other things, tainted products from China reach our store shelves and harmful lettuce from Salinas Valley landing on our tables.
Bottom line: We need more qualified safety inspectors in the field to cover everything from imported toys and medicines to domestic food. That has been an ongoing complaint from federal agencies and it needs to be heard.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro,

D-Conn., has called for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be stripped of its responsibility for food safety, claiming the agency was too busy promoting the nation's agriculture. There is merit in her position since examples of tainted food keep happening and the agency's multiple functions create situations prone to conflicts of interest.

DeLauro apparently wants a different agency to handle inspections. Fine. Maybe the USDA, the Federal Drug Administration and state agencies should all get together, or create a mega-agency. Whatever it takes to get more people in the field to monitor products that are potentially harmful.

Illegal meat was successfully shipped from a plant in Chino because there were few, if any, inspections. It wasn't a matter of incompetence. Perhaps DeLauro should also call for more funding to properly safeguard our citizens, especially since we're now importing more food.

Thankfully, no one is known to have gotten sick. We were lucky
the beef incident wasn't a major disaster. About 55 million pounds of the recalled meat went to school lunch and public nutrition programs.
A thumbs-up goes to local school districts; once they discovered recalled meat may have been purchased from Westland Meat Co. or its vendors, they acted quickly.

The Oakland, Mount Diablo and Pittsburg unified school districts, for instance, stopped serving beef. Pleasanton zeroed in on 2,500 pounds of food. Acalanes school district stopped serving beef even knowing it doesn't have recalled products. When it comes to our children, you can't be too cautious.

State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, is pushing legislation to allow California districts to be reimbursed for beef bought from Westland, and we support it as long as it meets legal guidelines.

Yet the real hero here is the spy at Hallmark Meat Packing Co. in Chino, a Humane Society investigator who spent six weeks under horrible conditions gaining evidence of animals too weak or sick to walk to slaughter. Animals under those conditions can be diseased and should not be used for meat under federal regulations.

It took this unidentified person's efforts to expose the crime. The question is how many more examples of tainted products will it take for our lawmakers to give agencies the tools to recruit, train and disperse more inspectors to protect our food supply?

We fear Chino will not provide the last example.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Porker, what, or who, is the source of that story?

There are too many mis-statements for it to be very useful for anyone wanting real information to use in improving anything.

First, the 'Chino' meat recall was a Class II, which is NOT health related.

The recall wasn't because the meat was "illegal", but because it was from abused animals which had been approved by an inspector prior to the mistreatment.

Stopping serving beef "even knowing it doesn't have recalled products" by the school districts was a political 'feel good' maneuver, with no real benefit to anyone

Why is the writer so sure the 'spy' is a hero? He or she could equally likely have engineered the whole thing and loses credibility for waiting months before revealing the fact that animals were being abused. If it were a factual, continuing practice, why would they allow more animals to suffer without going public immediately???

The result likely will be that a relatively small packer, not one of the big one some on this site love to hate, will close. They will likely be going out of business entirely, or be bought by one of those giants, making the business even more concentrated.......just what some claim they DON'T want to happen!

mrj

mrj
 

flounder

Well-known member
mrj said:
snip...

Porker, what, or who, is the source of that story?

There are too many mis-statements for it to be very useful for anyone wanting real information to use in improving anything.

First, the 'Chino' meat recall was a Class II, which is NOT health related.


mrj


wrong. it is a health issue. here's why ;


Release No. 0057.08
Contact:
Office of Communications (202)720-4623



Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer Delivered at the National Meat Association Board Meeting

Monterey, CA - February 22, 2008




>>>You know, it isn't just the downer cow that's out there in the pen. The interlocking safeguards prevent BSE from entering the food supply and mitigating the risks that animals may impose. The required removal of the specified risk materials and our feed ban that took place in 1997 are really two of the most important safeguards, and they're still here. And we believe the age of these animals was 5 to 7 years, and we don't see any evidence at this point that they would have been exposed to the feed ban feed materials or had any reason to believe they were sick animals. <<<



http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/02/0057.xml



FACTS


10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007



Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________

PRODUCT

Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling’s 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007

CODE

Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.

Firm initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

42,090 lbs.

DISTRIBUTION

WI

___________________________________

PRODUCT

Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007

CODE

The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.

REASON

Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

9,997,976 lbs.

DISTRIBUTION

ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html


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
______________________________

SNIP...END



SEE FULL LIST OF enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
and Specified Risk Material taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.


SRM SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS

RUMINANT TO RUMINANT ANIMAL PROTEIN IN COMMERCE 2006-2007


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


INK ON PAPER, the 8/4/97 mad cow feed ban was nothing but ink on paper. ...tss



FDA Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA



Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.

FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html



Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE
sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST

Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty
to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program


An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled
guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government
funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his
company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when
they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and
then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services.
In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle
that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors
for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be
submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy
USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently
received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled
for May 2007.


snip...


Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1
include:

soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),


implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System
enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and
improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),


snip...


The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in
future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and
investigations are completed.


4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf


FSIS STATES ;


Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy - "Mad Cow Disease"


In addition, on December 30, 2003, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman
announced new policies that would further strengthen an existing solid food
safety system against BSE. On that date, an immediate ban was enacted to
prevent all non-ambulatory disabled cattle from being used in the human food
supply. This group contains the HIGHEST risk population of cattle that
could possibly have BSE. However, even before this ban, FSIS inspectors at
slaughterhouses were condemning all cattle they suspected of showing central
nervous system disorders.


snip...

Are meats used in the National School Lunch Program safe?

Yes. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), by specification, does not
allow beef that is mechanically separated from bone with automatic deboning
systems, advanced lean (meat) recovery (AMR) systems, or powered knives for
any commodity programs. USDA procurement specifications for beef
specifically prohibit the use of meat from downer animals - animals too sick
or injured to walk.



http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Bovine_Spongiform_Encephalopathy_Mad_Cow_Disease/index.asp


Audit Report

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program - Phase II

and

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat
Recovery Products - Phase III

Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006

Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle
Still Remain

Our prior report identified a number of inherent problems in identifying and
testing high-risk cattle. We reported that the challenges in identifying the
universe of high-risk cattle, as well as the need to design procedures to
obtain an appropriate representation of samples, was critical to the success
of the BSE surveillance program. The surveillance program was designed to
target nonambulatory cattle, cattle showing signs of CNS disease (including
cattle testing negative for rabies), cattle showing signs not inconsistent
with BSE, and dead cattle. Although APHIS designed procedures to ensure FSIS
condemned cattle were sampled and made a concerted effort for outreach to
obtain targeted samples, industry practices not considered in the design of
the surveillance program reduced assurance that targeted animals were tested
for BSE.




USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 27

observe these animals ante mortem when possible to assure the animals from
the target population are ultimately sampled and the clinical signs
evaluated.



snip...



http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf



SEE VIDEO AGAIN OF HIGHLY SUSPECT MAD COW BEEF FOR THAT SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
IN 35+ STATES,

http://tinyurl.com/yul2lw


kinda reminds you of these mad cows ;


http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/031231/nn_baz_madcow_031231.300w.jpg


http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/mad_cow_usda_file.jpg


http://blog.erdener.org/archives/images/20031223-madcow.jpg




USDA CERTIFIED H-BASE MAD COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM


http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school.html



Sunday, February 17, 2008

Release No. 0046.08 Statement by Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer
Regarding Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company Two Year Product Recall

Release No. 0046.08

Contact:

USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623


http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/release-no-004608-statement-by.html




Thursday, February 21, 2008

TRANSCRIPT: Technical Briefing - Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company -
(02/21/08)

Release No. 0054.08


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2008/02/transcript-technical-briefing.html



TSS
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Blogger Friend,

moocow wrote:

NICE TRY!
What happened at Westland Hallmark is a outrage to farmers!
Plan and simple downer cows are ILLEGAL!
Westland Hallmark was not in compliance and by their own admission USDA FAILED.
I must ask, how many Tennesseans have actually read The National Animal Identification System Business Plan, User Guide and Cooperate Agreements put out by the USDA?
The USDA contends that animal identification is a first line of defense against the uncontrolled spread of diseases. WRONG! Farmers/Producers/Consumers contend the solutions are for USDA to do its JOB.
1.) The first line of defense is to prevent the disease from entering the country. (USDA FAILED)
2.) Insure safe animal feed. (USDA FAILED)
3.) Increase slaughterhouse inspections. (USDA FAILED)
4.) Implement Country-of-Origin-Labeling (COOL) (USDA FAILED)
5.) Insure that consumers are not misled by the labeling (USDA FAILED) 6.) The United State has an affordable, working, disease traceability program. (USDA FAILED) USDA is not doing it�s JOB!
We do not need another USDA FAILED PROGRAM.
1.) Lack of funding? Place the NAIS funding into slaughterhouse INSPECTION.
2.) Install surveillance video cameras at these slaughterhouses.

Corporate Meat Packers has a program to meet the needs of foreign markets.
It is called the �Age Verification Program� How many programs will the government implement with taxpayer�s dollars for these corporations? Corporations should pay their own way!
It is their bottom line.
Let the market govern!
I don�t think the consumers would be happy to know that our government is allowing the export of our meat for corporate profit and importing the cheaper meat, (less than one percent inspected) imported from God only knows , what country that it is comes from.
Also, please STOP USDA from misleading the consumers with �farm to fork�.
This is totally impossible! WHY would anybody sign an incomplete �business plan� with USDA.
That is like signing a blank check and letting them fill out the amount.
If you have signed, contact your state officials.
You should have the right to �OPT OUT� of this program.
Contact your state and federal legislators.
2/25/2008 6:17:07 AM
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
The result likely will be that a relatively small packer, not one of the big one some on this site love to hate, will close. They will likely be going out of business entirely, or be bought by one of those giants, making the business even more concentrated.......just what some claim they DON'T want to happen!

You're being hypocritical showing that you are concerned with packer concentration of the free cattle industry AFTER the top four packers have moved from a 40% concentration to 80%...under the vigilant eye of NCBA(and with NCBA's blessing). NCBA carries the political water for your packer partners every day. The demise of the free cattle market will be NCBA's legacy...disagree?????

Well, answer this question...

Do you believe that the large packers aren't going to use the same methods they have used in the pork and poultry industries in the cattle industry?
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, what would those methods be, specifically?

No, I'm not hypocritical. I'm pointing out that some are quite gleeful over even this not-large packer in this case, as well as USDA being 'caught'.

And, I'm not particularly concerned about "packer concentration". The rhetoric about it is overly hysterical, IMO. There ARE four to five of the biggest. There are many of various sizes that fit into various niches. The REAL need, and which NCBA does work to achieve, is interstate of state inspected beef. Another serious need may well be tougher, more frequent and/or better inspection of those mid-size federal inspected plants.

Very little mention has been made of the individual or (most likely) small dairy operation(s) that sent cattle in that condition to market.

I STRONGLY disagree that any so called demise of the "free" cattle market will be any fault of NCBA.

You obviously got PO'd at NCBA for some issue, or for your version of a 'fault' and left the organization, if you actually were a member. YOU sure do appear to be suffering from sour grapes where that group is concerned.

You make accusations against NCBA and offer NO verification. Such as when you accuse of "carrying water for packers".

You ignore that some issues may serve both cattle producers and packers well, so NCBA naturally would not fight, and may reasonably be expected to work with packers to achieve success in those issues. As they have done on introducing some very consumer friendly new cuts of beef with such success.

So far as your "question" of the moment, of course it would never occur to you that some cattle producers believe it better to learn how to not only survive, but also to prosper in a changing world with changing market patterns.

By working to enhance the US world reputation as the best source for a top quality grain fed beef product, among many other efforts, NCBA is working for the success of US ranchers.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
In the NCBA world, Tyson, Cargill, etal will be able to bring all the South American beef they can sell into our market. They will be able to undercut US beef, and will be able to sell it as US as it will have a USDA label on it and no COOL to say otherwise. Small packers will not be able to service niche markets unless their business plan is OKed by the government. The big packers will be able to enter contracts with producers that are priced on factors that can be manipulated by the packers and national market information will be sole knowledge of those packers. The US will take product that third-world nations reject. Now, how are US producers going to prosper - or even survive - in that world?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker, Your negativity is damaging your brain!

You and a few fearmongering cohorts saying those things will come to pass does not make it fact.

Where is your documentation or any evidence to back your claims????

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What's NCBA's position on Free Trade?
What's NCBA's position on COOL?
What's NCBA's position on the USDA label?
What's NCBA's position on private BSE testing?
What's NCBA's position on open-ended contracts?
What's NCBA's position on price reporting?
What's NCBA's position on the Final Rule?

Answer those questions and then look at what I wrote. Fill in the pieces and then come back and tell me why I'm wrong.
 

Latest posts

Top