• 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...........

Mike

Well-known member
USDA Tried to Derail BSE Tests of Infected Cow
February 7, 2006

Any illusion that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is putting public safety first – as opposed to preserving its own bureaucratic systems and procedures – was shattered last week by a Washington Post article saying that the USDA "overruled field scientists' recommendation to retest an animal that was suspected of harboring mad cow disease last year because they feared a positive finding would undermine confidence in the agency's testing procedures," the department's inspector general said yesterday.

"After protests from the inspector general, the specimen was sent to England for retesting and produced the nation's second confirmed case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease."

The Post report was based on an internal USDA audit designed to evaluate the agency's performance in dealing with mad cow disease.

According to the story, "scientists at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories concluded that a sample from a Texas animal should be tested with other techniques following initial inconclusive findings," but that "top officials at the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) told them not to do the additional tests.

"When officials from the inspector general's office met with the head of APHIS, they were told that the protocol followed by the agency was the international 'gold standard' and nothing more was needed, the report adds. Nonetheless, the sample was later sent to England for a different set of tests and was found to have the mad cow infection."

It gets worse. "The report also found that although there was no evidence that infected meat had made it into the human food chain, the USDA surveillance system did not collect the information needed to say whether slaughterhouses were following all mad cow-related regulations," the Post writes.

USDA food safety administrator Barbara J. Masters released a statement saying that officials have taken steps to better enforce the rules and have reached agreement with the inspector general on most issues. 'FSIS is confident it is successfully carrying out its mission to protect public health by strictly enforcing safeguards,' she said.

This is the same Barbara Masters who said in an interview late last year:

"[T]he Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, ... have done a very outstanding job in the surveillance program for BSE in the United States. And they have tested well over 400,000 samples here in the United States over the last 18 months or so looking for BSE in the United States and they have done an incredible job of finding those animals most at risk for BSE in the United States. And through that testing process I think you're well aware that here in the United States we have found two animals with BSE. And so I think the criticism has decreased here in the United States because of the enhanced surveillance program and the robust system that our sister agency put in place to ensure that we're testing all regions of the country and all parts of the country with this very enhanced surveillance program put in place by our sister agency."

Barbara Masters may be confident that the agency "is successfully carrying out its mission to protect public health by strictly enforcing safeguards." But she's alone, or only accompanied by fellow bureaucrats more concerned with agency protocols than with preserving the safety of the consumers and taxpayers who pay their salaries and who trust them. There is absolutely no reason they should have any credibility on any other issue. They make lousy decision, they lie, they cover up. Just what you want from your government.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike, "Barbara Masters may be confident that the agency "is successfully carrying out its mission to protect public health by strictly enforcing safeguards." But she's alone, or only accompanied by fellow bureaucrats more concerned with agency protocols than with preserving the safety of the consumers and taxpayers who pay their salaries and who trust them. There is absolutely no reason they should have any credibility on any other issue. They make lousy decision, they lie, they cover up. Just what you want from your government"

And the Ninth Circuit told R-CALF and Judge Cebull that this agency should be given "defference". :shock: This is exactly one of the reasons I joined R-CALF.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
When you got the good old boys in place, you have to listen to the good old boys. After all, what is good for one ole boy is good for the other old boys.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Subject: Expanded 'Mad Cow' Safeguards Announced to Strengthen Existing Firewalls Against BSE Transmission
Date: January 26, 2004 at 3:23 pm PST

HHS: Expanded 'Mad Cow' Safeguards Announced to Strengthen Existing Firewalls Against BSE Transmission

1/26/04 4:52:00 PM

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

To: National Desk, Health Reporter

Contact: FDA Press Office, 301-827-6242

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced several new public health measures, to be implemented by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to strengthen significantly the multiple existing firewalls that protect Americans from exposure to the agent thought to cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, also known as mad cow disease) and that help prevent the spread of BSE in U.S. cattle.

The existing multiple firewalls, developed by both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and HHS, have been extremely effective in protecting the American consumer from exposure to BSE. The first firewall is based on import controls started in 1989. A second firewall is surveillance of the U.S. cattle population for the presence of BSE, a USDA firewall that led to the finding of the BSE cow in December. The third firewall is FDA's 1997 animal feed ban, which is the critical safeguard to help prevent the spread of BSE through cattle herds by prohibiting the feeding of most mammalian protein to ruminant animals, including cattle. The fourth firewall, recently announced by USDA, makes sure that no bovine tissues known to be at high risk for carrying the agent of BSE enter the human food supply regulated by USDA. The fifth firewall is effective response planning to contain the potential for any damage from a BSE positive animal, if one is discovered. This contingency response plan, which had been developed over the past several years, was initiated immediately upon the discovery of a BSE positive cow in Washington State Dec. 23.

The new safeguards being announced today are science-based and further bolster these already effective safeguards.

Specifically, HHS intends to ban from human food (including dietary supplements), and cosmetics a wide range of bovine- derived material so that the same safeguards that protect Americans from exposure to the agent of BSE through meat products regulated by USDA also apply to food products that FDA regulates.

FDA will also prohibit certain currently allowed feeding and manufacturing practices involving feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. These additional measures will further strengthen FDA's 1997 "animal feed" rule.

"Today's actions will make strong public health protections against BSE even stronger," Secretary Thompson said. "Although the current animal feed rule provides a strong barrier against the further spread of BSE, we must never be satisfied with the status quo where the health and safety of our animals and our population is at stake. The science and our own experience and knowledge in this area are constantly evolving. Small as the risk may already be, this is the time to make sure the public is protected to the greatest extent possible."

"Today we are bolstering our BSE firewalls to protect the public," said FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D. "We are further strengthening our animal feed rule, and we are taking additional steps to further protect the public from being exposed to any potentially risky materials from cattle. FDA's vigorous inspection and enforcement program has helped us achieve a compliance rate of more than 99 percent with the feed ban rule, and we intend to increase our enforcement efforts to assure compliance with our enhanced regulations. Finally, we are continuing to assist in the development of new technologies that will help us in the future improve even further these BSE protections. With today's actions, FDA will be doing more than ever before to protect the public against BSE by eliminating additional potential sources of BSE exposure."

To implement these new protections, FDA will publish two interim final rules that will take effect immediately upon publication, although there will be an opportunity for public comment after publication.

The first interim final rule will ban the following materials from FDA-regulated human food, (including dietary supplements) and cosmetics:

-- Any material from "downer" cattle. ("Downer" cattle are animals that cannot walk.)

-- Any material from "dead" cattle. ("Dead" cattle are cattle that die on the farm (i.e. before reaching the slaughter plant);

-- Specified Risk Materials (SRMs) that are known to harbor the highest concentrations of the infectious agent for BSE, such as the brain, skull, eyes, and spinal cord of cattle 30 months or older, and a portion of the small intestine and tonsils from all cattle, regardless of their age or health; and

-- The product known as mechanically separated beef, a product which may contain SRMs. Meat obtained by Advanced Meat Recovery (an automated system for cutting meat from bones), may be used since USDA regulations do not allow the presence of SRMs in this product.

The second interim final rule is designed to lower even further the risk that cattle will be purposefully or inadvertently fed prohibited protein. It was the feeding of such protein to cattle that was the route of disease transmission that led to the BSE epidemic in United Kingdom cattle in the 1980's and 1990's.

This interim final rule will implement four specific changes in FDA's present animal feed rule. First, the rule will eliminate the present exemption in the feed rule that allows mammalian blood and blood products to be fed to other ruminants as a protein source. Recent scientific evidence suggests that blood can carry some infectivity for BSE.

Second, the rule will also ban the use of "poultry litter" as a feed ingredient for ruminant animals. Poultry litter consists of bedding, spilled feed, feathers, and fecal matter that are collected from living quarters where poultry is raised. This material is then used in cattle feed in some areas of the country where cattle and large poultry raising operations are located near each other. Poultry feed may legally contain protein that is prohibited in ruminant feed, such as bovine meat and bone meal. The concern is that spillage of poultry feed in the chicken house occurs and that poultry feed (which may contain protein prohibited in ruminant feed) is then collected as part of the "poultry litter" and added to ruminant feed.

Third, the rule will ban the use of "plate waste" as a feed ingredient for ruminants. Plate waste consists of uneaten meat and other meat scraps that are currently collected from some large restaurant operations and rendered into meat and bone meal for animal feed. The use of "plate waste" confounds FDA's ability to analyze ruminant feeds for the presence of prohibited proteins, compromising the Agency's ability to fully enforce the animal feed rule.

Fourth, the rule will further minimize the possibility of cross-contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant animal feed by requiring equipment, facilities or production lines to be dedicated to non-ruminant animal feeds if they use protein that is prohibited in ruminant feed. Currently, some equipment, facilities and production lines process or handle prohibited and non-prohibited materials and make both ruminant and non-ruminant feed -- a practice which could lead to cross-contamination.

To accompany these new measures designed to provide a further layer of protection against BSE, FDA will in 2004 step up its inspections of feed mills and renderers. FDA will itself conduct 2,800 inspections and will make its resources go even further by continuing to work with state agencies to fund 3,100 contract inspections of feed mill and renderers and other firms that handle animal feed and feed ingredients. Through partnerships with states, FDA will also receive data on 700 additional inspections, for a total of 3,800 state contract and partnership inspections in 2004 alone, including annual inspections of 100 percent of all known renderers and feed mills that process products containing materials prohibited in ruminant feed.

"We have worked hard with the rendering and animal feed production industries to try and achieve full compliance with the animal feed rule," said Dr. McClellan, "and through strong education and a vigorous enforcement campaign, backed by additional inspections and resources, we intend to maintain a high level of compliance."

Dr. McClellan also noted that, in response to finding a BSE positive cow in Washington state Dec. 23, FDA inspected and traced products at 22 facilities related to that positive cow or products from the cow, including feed mills, farms, dairy farms, calf feeder lots, slaughter houses, meat processors, transfer stations, and shipping terminals. Moreover, FDA has conducted inspections at the rendering facilities that handled materials from the positive cow, and they were found to be fully in compliance with FDA's feed rule.

To further strengthen protections for Americans, FDA/HHS intends to work with Congress to consider proposals to assure that these important protective measures will be implemented as effectively as possible.

FDA is also continuing its efforts to assist in the development of better BSE science, to achieve the same or greater confidence in BSE protection at a lower cost. For example, to enhance the ability of our public health system to detect prohibited materials in animal feed, FDA will continue to support the development and evaluation of diagnostic tests to identify prohibited materials. These tests would offer a quick and reliable method of testing animal feeds for prohibited materials and for testing other products for contamination with the agent thought to cause BSE.

FDA has publicly discussed many of the measures being announced today with stakeholders in workshops, videoconferences, and public meetings. In addition, FDA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in November 2002 (available online at http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/110602c.htm concerning possible changes to the animal feed rule.

Comprehensive information about FDA's work on BSE and links to other related websites are available at http://www.fda.gov .

------

Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press materials are available at http://www.hhs.gov/news .

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=138-01262004


:liar: :liar: :liar:


:help:


TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Jan. 26, 2004

FDA Press Office
301-827-6242
Expanded "Mad Cow" Safeguards Announced
to Strengthen Existing Firewalls Against BSE Transmission

HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced several new public health measures, to be implemented by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to strengthen significantly the multiple existing firewalls that protect Americans from exposure to the agent thought to cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, also known as mad cow disease) and that help prevent the spread of BSE in U.S. cattle.

The existing multiple firewalls, developed by both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and HHS, have been extremely effective in protecting the American consumer from exposure to BSE. The first firewall is based on import controls started in 1989. A second firewall is surveillance of the U.S. cattle population for the presence of BSE, a USDA firewall that led to the finding of the BSE cow in December. The third firewall is FDA's 1997 animal feed ban, which is the critical safeguard to help prevent the spread of BSE through cattle herds by prohibiting the feeding of most mammalian protein to ruminant animals, including cattle. The fourth firewall, recently announced by USDA, makes sure that no bovine tissues known to be at high risk for carrying the agent of BSE enter the human food supply regulated by USDA. The fifth firewall is effective response planning to contain the potential for any damage from a BSE positive animal, if one is discovered. This contingency response plan, which had been developed over the past several years, was initiated immediately upon the discovery of a BSE positive cow in Washington State December 23.

The new safeguards being announced today are science-based and further bolster these already effective safeguards.

Specifically, HHS intends to ban from human food (including dietary supplements), and cosmetics a wide range of bovine-derived material so that the same safeguards that protect Americans from exposure to the agent of BSE through meat products regulated by USDA also apply to food products that FDA regulates.

FDA will also prohibit certain currently allowed feeding and manufacturing practices involving feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. These additional measures will further strengthen FDA's 1997 "animal feed" rule.

"Today's actions will make strong public health protections against BSE even stronger," Secretary Thompson said. "Although the current animal feed rule provides a strong barrier against the further spread of BSE, we must never be satisfied with the status quo where the health and safety of our animals and our population is at stake. The science and our own experience and knowledge in this area are constantly evolving. Small as the risk may already be, this is the time to make sure the public is protected to the greatest extent possible."

"Today we are bolstering our BSE firewalls to protect the public," said FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D. "We are further strengthening our animal feed rule, and we are taking additional steps to further protect the public from being exposed to any potentially risky materials from cattle. FDA's vigorous inspection and enforcement program has helped us achieve a compliance rate of more than 99 percent with the feed ban rule, and we intend to increase our enforcement efforts to assure compliance with our enhanced regulations. Finally, we are continuing to assist in the development of new technologies that will help us in the future improve even further these BSE protections. With today's actions, FDA will be doing more than ever before to protect the public against BSE by eliminating additional potential sources of BSE exposure."

To implement these new protections, FDA will publish two interim final rules that will take effect immediately upon publication, although there will be an opportunity for public comment after publication.

The first interim final rule will ban the following materials from FDA-regulated human food, (including dietary supplements) and cosmetics:

* Any material from "downer" cattle. ("Downer" cattle are animals that cannot walk.)
* Any material from "dead" cattle. ("Dead" cattle are cattle that die on the farm (i.e. before reaching the slaughter plant);
* Specified Risk Materials (SRMs) that are known to harbor the highest concentrations of the infectious agent for BSE, such as the brain, skull, eyes, and spinal cord of cattle 30 months or older, and a portion of the small intestine and tonsils from all cattle, regardless of their age or health; and
* The product known as mechanically separated beef, a product which may contain SRMs. Meat obtained by Advanced Meat Recovery (an automated system for cutting meat from bones), may be used since USDA regulations do not allow the presence of SRMs in this product.

The second interim final rule is designed to lower even further the risk that cattle will be purposefully or inadvertently fed prohibited protein. It was the feeding of such protein to cattle that was the route of disease transmission that led to the BSE epidemic in United Kingdom cattle in the 1980's and 1990's.

This interim final rule will implement four specific changes in FDA's present animal feed rule. First, the rule will eliminate the present exemption in the feed rule that allows mammalian blood and blood products to be fed to other ruminants as a protein source. Recent scientific evidence suggests that blood can carry some infectivity for BSE.

Second, the rule will also ban the use of "poultry litter" as a feed ingredient for ruminant animals. Poultry litter consists of bedding, spilled feed, feathers, and fecal matter that are collected from living quarters where poultry is raised. This material is then used in cattle feed in some areas of the country where cattle and large poultry raising operations are located near each other. Poultry feed may legally contain protein that is prohibited in ruminant feed, such as bovine meat and bone meal. The concern is that spillage of poultry feed in the chicken house occurs and that poultry feed (which may contain protein prohibited in ruminant feed) is then collected as part of the "poultry litter" and added to ruminant feed.

Third, the rule will ban the use of "plate waste" as a feed ingredient for ruminants. Plate waste consists of uneaten meat and other meat scraps that are currently collected from some large restaurant operations and rendered into meat and bone meal for animal feed. The use of "plate waste" confounds FDA's ability to analyze ruminant feeds for the presence of prohibited proteins, compromising the Agency's ability to fully enforce the animal feed rule.

Fourth, the rule will further minimize the possibility of cross-contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant animal feed by requiring equipment, facilities or production lines to be dedicated to non-ruminant animal feeds if they use protein that is prohibited in ruminant feed. Currently, some equipment, facilities and production lines process or handle prohibited and non-prohibited materials and make both ruminant and non-ruminant feed -- a practice which could lead to cross-contamination.

To accompany these new measures designed to provide a further layer of protection against BSE, FDA will in 2004 step up its inspections of feed mills and renderers. FDA will itself conduct 2,800 inspections and will make its resources go even further by continuing to work with state agencies to fund 3,100 contract inspections of feed mill and renderers and other firms that handle animal feed and feed ingredients. Through partnerships with states, FDA will also receive data on 700 additional inspections, for a total of 3,800 state contract and partnership inspections in 2004 alone, including annual inspections of 100 percent of all known renderers and feed mills that process products containing materials prohibited in ruminant feed.

"We have worked hard with the rendering and animal feed production industries to try and achieve full compliance with the animal feed rule," said Dr. McClellan, "and through strong education and a vigorous enforcement campaign, backed by additional inspections and resources, we intend to maintain a high level of compliance."

Dr. McClellan also noted that, in response to finding a BSE positive cow in Washington state December 23, FDA inspected and traced products at 22 facilities related to that positive cow or products from the cow, including feed mills, farms, dairy farms, calf feeder lots, slaughter houses, meat processors, transfer stations, and shipping terminals. Moreover, FDA has conducted inspections at the rendering facilities that handled materials from the positive cow, and they were found to be fully in compliance with FDA's feed rule.

To further strengthen protections for Americans, FDA/HHS intends to work with Congress to consider proposals to assure that these important protective measures will be implemented as effectively as possible.

FDA is also continuing its efforts to assist in the development of better BSE science, to achieve the same or greater confidence in BSE protection at a lower cost. For example, to enhance the ability of our public health system to detect prohibited materials in animal feed, FDA will continue to support the development and evaluation of diagnostic tests to identify prohibited materials. These tests would offer a quick and reliable method of testing animal feeds for prohibited materials and for testing other products for contamination with the agent thought to cause BSE.

FDA has publicly discussed many of the measures being announced today with stakeholders in workshops, videoconferences, and public meetings. In addition, FDA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in November 2002 (available online at http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/110602c.htm concerning possible changes to the animal feed rule.

Comprehensive information about FDA's work on BSE and links to other related websites are available at http://www.fda.gov.

###

rule


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/hhs_012604.html

:liar: :liar: :help:


TSS
 

the chief

Well-known member
Now there's SOUND SCIENCE.

How can you not TRUST that group. There's as honest as people say they are. They are so honest and so knowledgeable, that I'll bet they were all born out west some where. Maybe even in the northwest.

I doubt if they could all be from south Dakota, because that would almost be inconceivable that everyone as intelligent and honest as those who work for the USDA could be from the state with the most honest, intelligent people in the whole United States.

That would truly be a miracle! 8)
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I don't know that poultry litter has been a feed additive to cattle rations on a really large scale but it is still accessable to cattle on poultry farms. This rule does not address the issue of spreading tse s via that route because cattle guts and MBM can still be fed to poultry.

I don't see that this loophole is totally closed given the current practices in the poultry industry.
 

flounder

Well-known member
ECON wrote;

I don't see that this loophole is totally closed given the current practices in the poultry industry. .........


econ, i was being sarcastic when i posted that BSe from the HHS/FDA on the new protocols for mad cow safety that were SUPPOSE to be implented.


Subject: Expanded 'Mad Cow' Safeguards Announced to Strengthen Existing Firewalls Against BSE Transmission
Date: January 26, 2004 at 3:23 pm PST

HHS: Expanded 'Mad Cow' Safeguards Announced to Strengthen Existing Firewalls Against BSE Transmission

1/26/04 4:52:00 PM



THEY NEVER IMPLENTED THEM! THEY LIED! went back on there word on most all of it, same old, same old BSeee.

AS usual, they will put forth something that sounds good, then let the industry water it down, then water it down some more.


> FDA has publicly discussed many of the measures being announced
> today with stakeholders in workshops

and that's about all they do. discuss it, and they are still discussing it, but no action has yet to be taken on most of it.



Dockets Entered On March 8, 2006
Table of Contents Docket # Title 1998P-0151 Introduction Of Downed Cattle Into The Food Supply


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/06/mar06/030806/030806.htm


Dockets Entered On February 23, 2006
Table of Contents

2002N-0273 Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed 2003N-0312 Discussion of Animal Feed Safety System (AFSS): A Comprehensive Risk-Based Safety Program for the Manufacture and Distribution of Animal Feeds


when they don't get the comments they want, they hold another comment period of the same old docket, until there comments they want are gathered. and with crap like this, we will still be discussing these regulations when GW is in retirement;


AMERICAN FEED INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

February 17, 2006


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03n-0312-c000012-01-vol6.pdf



hmmm, kind reminds me of 11 years or so ago, something someone else said;


STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995

snip...

To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed
compounders.

To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity.

To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
changes which may be required.

snip...

THE FUTURE

4..........

MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
handling potentially explosive issues.

5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.

6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...

SEE full text ;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf


Dockets Entered On February 22, 2006
Table of Contents


1998P-0151 Introduction Of Downed Cattle Into The Food Supply


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/06/feb06/022206/022206.htm



http://google2.fda.gov/search?access=p&sa=Go&output=xml_no_dtd&site=dockets&ie=UTF-8&lr=&oe=&client=FDA&proxystylesheet=FDA&q=2002N-0273+++&ip=68.238.102.64&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1


http://google2.fda.gov/search?access=p&sa=Go&output=xml_no_dtd&site=dockets&ie=UTF-8&lr=&oe=&client=FDA&proxystylesheet=FDA&q=+1998P-0151&ip=68.238.102.64&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1



they can continue to talk about it until the mad cows come home, but until they act, (not act in a industry friendly way, but in a 'sound science' human/animal health friendly way), until this happens, the TSE agent continues to spread. ...TSS
 

Econ101

Well-known member
flounder said:
ECON wrote;

I don't see that this loophole is totally closed given the current practices in the poultry industry. .........


econ, i was being sarcastic when i posted that BSe from the HHS/FDA on the new protocols for mad cow safety that were SUPPOSE to be implented.


Subject: Expanded 'Mad Cow' Safeguards Announced to Strengthen Existing Firewalls Against BSE Transmission
Date: January 26, 2004 at 3:23 pm PST

HHS: Expanded 'Mad Cow' Safeguards Announced to Strengthen Existing Firewalls Against BSE Transmission

1/26/04 4:52:00 PM



THEY NEVER IMPLENTED THEM! THEY LIED! went back on there word on most all of it, same old, same old BSeee.

AS usual, they will put forth something that sounds good, then let the industry water it down, then water it down some more.


> FDA has publicly discussed many of the measures being announced
> today with stakeholders in workshops

and that's about all they do. discuss it, and they are still discussing it, but no action has yet to be taken on most of it.



Dockets Entered On March 8, 2006
Table of Contents Docket # Title 1998P-0151 Introduction Of Downed Cattle Into The Food Supply


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/06/mar06/030806/030806.htm


Dockets Entered On February 23, 2006
Table of Contents

2002N-0273 Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed 2003N-0312 Discussion of Animal Feed Safety System (AFSS): A Comprehensive Risk-Based Safety Program for the Manufacture and Distribution of Animal Feeds


when they don't get the comments they want, they hold another comment period of the same old docket, until there comments they want are gathered. and with crap like this, we will still be discussing these regulations when GW is in retirement;


AMERICAN FEED INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

February 17, 2006


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03n-0312-c000012-01-vol6.pdf



hmmm, kind reminds me of 11 years or so ago, something someone else said;


STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995

snip...

To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed
compounders.

To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity.

To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
changes which may be required.

snip...

THE FUTURE

4..........

MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
handling potentially explosive issues.

5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.

6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...

SEE full text ;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf


Dockets Entered On February 22, 2006
Table of Contents


1998P-0151 Introduction Of Downed Cattle Into The Food Supply


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/06/feb06/022206/022206.htm



http://google2.fda.gov/search?access=p&sa=Go&output=xml_no_dtd&site=dockets&ie=UTF-8&lr=&oe=&client=FDA&proxystylesheet=FDA&q=2002N-0273+++&ip=68.238.102.64&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1


http://google2.fda.gov/search?access=p&sa=Go&output=xml_no_dtd&site=dockets&ie=UTF-8&lr=&oe=&client=FDA&proxystylesheet=FDA&q=+1998P-0151&ip=68.238.102.64&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1



they can continue to talk about it until the mad cows come home, but until they act, (not act in a industry friendly way, but in a 'sound science' human/animal health friendly way), until this happens, the TSE agent continues to spread. ...TSS

This is the result of what is called a "captive agency". It is an agency that has been infiltrated by the forces it is supposed to regulate. Politicians that allow it to happen are mostly to blame. Most of the decisions that allow it to happen are at the political level with no protection of those with integrity inside the system that are trying to do their real jobs.
 

flounder

Well-known member
April 25, 2006, 10:41PM
Many on FDA's scientific panels tied to industry
More than 25% linked financially, but study finds their votes didn't determine policy

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - More than a quarter of the scientific committee members who advise the Food and Drug Administration on critical decisions affecting such products as cancer drugs and breast implants have financial ties to industry, a study published Tuesday found.

But the analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association also found that even if the scientists and physicians with financial ties to industry had recused themselves from voting, none of the final results in 221 reviewed meetings would have changed.

Conducted by leading FDA critics, the study was hailed by supporters of the agency as proof that conflict-of-interest policies, strengthened in 2002 to require broader disclosure of industry interests, are working.

Still, Dr. Peter Lurie, the study's lead author and the deputy director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, a consumer advocacy group, said the findings show that the FDA should further tighten its rules. For example, although 28 percent of committee members disclosed financial conflicts, only 1 percent recused themselves from voting on related issues, a trend Lurie called unacceptable.

"I don't think it's acceptable to say we're willing to take any amount of conflict up to the point at which the overall outcome changes," he said. "Certainly we would never accept anything like that in a jury."

An advisory committee vote can seal the fate of billions of dollars in potential revenues for drug companies, since the FDA generally follows a panel's recommendations.

Committee members are often physicians from top universities and teaching hospitals.

Most of the financial ties noted in the study were not particularly large, the study found: Eighty percent of the committee members' consulting agreements were for $10,000 or less; 77 percent of research grants were for $100,000 or less; 70 percent of investments were $25,000 or less; and 56 percent of speaker fees totaled $10,000 or less.

The FDA issued a statement reaffirming that its conflict-of-interest policy is working.......................END


> The FDA issued a statement reaffirming that its conflict-of-interest
> policy is working

:lol2: :lol2: :liar:


YEP, about like there BSE/TSE surveillance and feed ban programs. ...

TSS
 
Top