Voluntary BSE testing for animals over 20 months

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Tam, now let me explain something to you:

I was belittling government agencies and producer organizations as is MY RIGHT AS A CITIZEN to do. You chose to take offense and take it personally, then started insulting my intelligence. At no time did I criticize you PERSONALLY until you made comments about my intelligence and started treating with sarcasm. You take a look back. You made it personal, and I'll happily roll around in the mud as long as you continue to make it personal.

I will continue to criticize ANY stance that ANY agency or group takes that I feel runs contrary to the interests of cattle producers in Canada. I'm also just as likely to say "good job" when any of those agencies or groups does something that is good for the Canadian cattle industry. Hell, I worked with CCIA on spreading the word about M-ID. They did good. Now I think they're resting on their laurels and they need to keep moving forward. I am well within my right to say so. If you want to take offense for the CCIA, so be it, but don't accuse me of personally attacking you when I was attacking the CCIA.

Notice the threads I get into with others besides you, Tim and SH? I've disagreed with Sandhusker, OT, Econ, Agman, Mike and others on points in the past. I've even lambasted RCalf a few times. They didn't take it personal and start insulting me, and we were able to have a perfectly civil debate.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Have any of you ever considered Japan likes high quality tender beef, and that beef would be most likely from 20 month and under cattle that grade AAA?

This BSE thing is just a way for them to get our premium beef and not pay the premium cost they would have had to if they specified the younger cattle previously.

With the US, they (the Japanese) want some trade consessions and are using any infraction they can. However, if all in the US would realize how important their role is to all others in the industry, mistakes that give Japan the upper hand wouldn't happen.

 

[Tam]

Tam, now let me explain something to you:

I was belittling government agencies and producer organizations as is MY RIGHT AS A CITIZEN to do. You chose to take offense and take it personally, then started insulting my intelligence. At no time did I criticize you PERSONALLY until you made comments about my intelligence and started treating with sarcasm. You take a look back. You made it personal, and I'll happily roll around in the mud as long as you continue to make it personal.

I will continue to criticize ANY stance that ANY agency or group takes that I feel runs contrary to the interests of cattle producers in Canada. I'm also just as likely to say "good job" when any of those agencies or groups does something that is good for the Canadian cattle industry. Hell, I worked with CCIA on spreading the word about M-ID. They did good. Now I think they're resting on their laurels and they need to keep moving forward. I am well within my right to say so. If you want to take offense for the CCIA, so be it, but don't accuse me of personally attacking you when I was attacking the CCIA.

Notice the threads I get into with others besides you, Tim and SH? I've disagreed with Sandhusker, OT, Econ, Agman, Mike and others on points in the past. I've even lambasted RCalf a few times. They didn't take it personal and start insulting me, and we were able to have a perfectly civil debate.

Rod

Rod do you belong to a beef organization and by that I mean do you pay a membership to a beef organization? Or do you just take advantage of all the good work they do on your behalf free of charge? Did you know if you actually paid a membership you would have the right to go to annual and semi annual meetings and voice your opinions where they might do a bit of good? You would then have the right to VOTE on what is happening, mind you like I said before we can't alway expect to win but if you can't vote then how do you expect to make changes.

 

[Tam]

[

quote="rkaiser"]Tam -

How do you know testing is going to open those markets Rod?

How do you know that it will not Tam? Have you spoken with Ted Haney yet?

Funny you should ask about Ted Haney and that very afternoon we recieve a report from him via the SSGA office updating us on the export markets. It is 5 pages long covering Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Macau, Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Mexico. I noticed while reading it that none of these countries had any mention of testing connected to resuming trade. They do seem to be concerned about our SRM's and feed ban but not one mention of testing.

Japan's reaction to our 5th case was one of unconcern and by the report it appears Japan has a higher degree of confidence in Canada than they do the US.
South Korea's hang up is the enhanced feed ban that has not been implemented yet.
Dito for Taiwan
And for all of you that think we are not shipping OTM beef we are as Macau has been taking it since Jan. 2004. untested I might add. and Cuba is also taking OTM. Grant you it's not a lot but it prove OTM beef can be exported without testing.
Mainland China appears reluctant to negotiate access until Canada strengthens they feed bans by removing all SRM's from Canada feed system.
Hong Kong is taking under thirty months but no further access improvements are anticipated until Canada's feed ban has been strengthened.

Over 50 countries are taking untested beef from Canada
This information is from Ted, so no I wasn't there at the negotiations but by this report from somebody who was the hang ups don't appear to be testing.

Maybe all the time you spent trying to get testing done would be better spent on strengthen our feed bans. :wink:

Do you really think if we tested our OTM cattle and we shipped ban SRM's to a foreign country that the same thing that happen to the US wouldn't happen to us? TESTING IS NOT AN ASSURANCE THE BEEF IS SAFE SRM REMOVAL IS

.

Has anyone argued that we should stop SRM removal and replace it with testing?

Well look at the post from Don, I think you might find it interesting, the one where he says

why not just test and that eliminates all the uncertainties that you want to fiddle with? if an animal is tested how risky are the 'srm's'?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod do you belong to a beef organization and by that I mean do you pay a membership to a beef organization? Or do you just take advantage of all the good work they do on your behalf free of charge? Did you know if you actually paid a membership you would have the right to go to annual and semi annual meetings and voice your opinions where they might do a bit of good? You would then have the right to VOTE on what is happening, mind you like I said before we can't alway expect to win but if you can't vote then how do you expect to make changes.

I'm not sure what paying has to do with anything, but yes, I am a member of three different pay to play breed associations, all of whom petition the CCA, CFIA and CCIA on a variety of topics.

As far as the SSGA goes, you've mentioned all their hard work that I get for nothing before. I don't know what to say, other than if the SSGA is taking offense to those of us who don't join, perhaps they should find a way to bring value to just their members. Having it thrown in my face a couple times a month that I'm a "freeloader" isn't doing much to convince me that I should be a member. Besides that, I have yet to see the SSGA take a favorable stance on Ivomec, BSE testing, or age verification. Why would I throw a hundred bucks of my money away on an organization that supports none of the issues that are important to me? At least the members of the breed organizations I belong to share many of my views and I don't feel my money is being wasted. Having talked with a few ex-SSGA members and a few other current members, I'm not comfortable with the organization, and as such, have no plans to join. I will continue to attempt to effect change through my elected representatives and my breed organizations.

Rod

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Rod do you belong to a beef organization and by that I mean do you pay a membership to a beef organization? Or do you just take advantage of all the good work they do on your behalf free of charge? Did you know if you actually paid a membership you would have the right to go to annual and semi annual meetings and voice your opinions where they might do a bit of good? You would then have the right to VOTE on what is happening, mind you like I said before we can't alway expect to win but if you can't vote then how do you expect to make changes.

I'm not sure what paying has to do with anything, but yes, I am a member of three different pay to play breed associations, all of whom petition the CCA, CFIA and CCIA on a variety of topics.

As far as the SSGA goes, you've mentioned all their hard work that I get for nothing before. I don't know what to say, other than if the SSGA is taking offense to those of us who don't join, perhaps they should find a way to bring value to just their members. Having it thrown in my face a couple times a month that I'm a "freeloader" isn't doing much to convince me that I should be a member. Besides that, I have yet to see the SSGA take a favorable stance on Ivomec, BSE testing, or age verification. Why would I throw a hundred bucks of my money away on an organization that supports none of the issues that are important to me? At least the members of the breed organizations I belong to share many of my views and I don't feel my money is being wasted. Having talked with a few ex-SSGA members and a few other current members, I'm not comfortable with the organization, and as such, have no plans to join. I will continue to attempt to effect change through my elected representatives and my breed organizations.

Rod

Well Rod if you were a member you would get the Stockgrower magazine and know our position on Generic Ivomec that cost us lots of sponsorship from Merial. We took a stand. We have also lobbied on behalf of maintaining producer rights in the Vet act which the vets were trying hard to get changed. Last I heard we were successful.
The SSGA is a strong supporter of Vouluntary Age verification. That is what our members want and thats what we work towards.

Send your name to SSGA and we will get you on the mailing list for our Super issue that comes out in the fall. It used to go to all producers that had sold cattle in the province but the privacy act has stopped us from getting the mailing list.

 

[Sandhusker]

What did SSGA think of the report that exonerated the Tyson and Cargill?

 

[adventureman]

The only way I would vote no is for one of two reasons: False Positives and False Negatives. No test is perfect.
________
Ford XY Falcon history

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Well Rod if you were a member you would get the Stockgrower magazine and know our position on Generic Ivomec that cost us lots of sponsorship from Merial.

Thanks BMR. I have some disinformation to clear up with one of the breed associations. The generic ivomec question came up, and we were told differently.

Rod

 

[Tam]

I had been at more than a few meetings where we have been told that our lack of testing is not the issue that is holding up some of these export markets but other issues are.

Have you met with the Japanese yet? You were in meetings with the Japanese and they told you that BSE testing isn't the only hold up? Obviously SRM removal isn't enough for them. What else is holding up over 20 month cattle from being shipped into Japan? If there are other reasons, please enlighten us.

Rod do you have to be at every meeting the government holds with foreign governments to verify first hand that the reports that the government officials from our government are giving to the industry are true. I said I have been at meetings, those meetings had CFIA and CBEF officials updating the industry on the progess they have achieved. and I guess if you read the post about what Ted Haney reported you will see that part of the hold up is our feed bans no testing.

And again if you don't think the CFIA knows what the test cost why not debate it with them I just posted what they told me. I do how ever believe they just might just know more than those that don't actually do any testing.

So why is it that the Japanese can test for $40/animal and its going to cost us $100? I ask for evidence. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in blindly following government agencies, especially when I see other countries and companies doing things for less money. Another example, Creekstone - $20/animal WITH THE SAME TEST AS THE CFIA USES. Why can Creekstone test for $20 while the CFIA is $100?

Do the other guys included all the cost of actually doing the test like the patholoist salary, lab upkeep and updates of technology? If not maybe that is why the CFIA fee is more. But if you don't believe me then debate it with the CFIA you can contact them via their website.

Isn't it true that all you bring is your opinion? I seem to remember you saying your were not going to prove anything you post with facts as all you do is post statements and opinion to get things going.

You'd best have your memory checked Tam. Do you read any of the other threads on here? Did you read the 24 page study that Mike posted that showed that Japanese consumers wanted BSE Tested beef? Perhaps my opinions are just that, but they are based with sound facts and more than just the ramblings of someone from the CFIA.

Gee Rod when I quoted RANDY i didn't know I was talking about MIKE or YOU :roll: but I guess I will just post a quote from RANDY to cover this so you don't think I'm talking about you.

Posted by Randy: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:31 pm Post subject:

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

Listen Agman, I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.

Do you honestly believe everything that government agencies tell you? Haven't the number of government screw ups taught you to examine everything with a critical eye?

I tend to believe them over you because you have been proven wrong too.

I tend to take everything they say with a grain of salt and look for independent confirmation. In testing over 20 month animals, I've got more outside confirmation than I can shake a stick at, PLUS I've got 85% of the producers who say YEAH, lets do it. Its our industry. If the CFIA is going to get in the way, then they're in for a hell of a fight.

You got 23 producers to vote in your little poll of that you got 20 to agree and how many of them were actually Canadian? But there are 1185 members on Ranchers so what precentage is 20 out of a possible 1185 isn't that about 1.7 percent of eligible voters. Did you also run a Canadian industry wide poll I would like to see the numbers that actually voted if you have them Rod.
I remember Randy telling us Big C had 95% support for a checkoff funded plant too but do you see one being built?

The thing about my opinion is it much be share by a few as if it wasn't we would be testing. And why is it just because someone doesn't agree with you they automatically are taking the side of the multinationals?

Where did I say you were taking the side of the multinationals? All I said is that the multinationals have ways to get beef into Japan from other countries, so they don't need to worry about Canadian beef. And keeping our over 30 month animals within Canada is also helping them.

Again I quoted Randy not you ROD :roll:

Why can't I and the others just be concerned about the precedent you want to set that could be used against us in the future?

What precendent? Allowing companies to test whatever the heck they want to test? . --------
Rod

The Precedent of having any country we trade with demand Scienifically unjust testing for anything they want to use as a trade barrier. If we agree to do the scienifically unjust BSE testing what is NEXT ROD. :roll:

 

[Tam]

Rod do you belong to a beef organization and by that I mean do you pay a membership to a beef organization? Or do you just take advantage of all the good work they do on your behalf free of charge? Did you know if you actually paid a membership you would have the right to go to annual and semi annual meetings and voice your opinions where they might do a bit of good? You would then have the right to VOTE on what is happening, mind you like I said before we can't alway expect to win but if you can't vote then how do you expect to make changes.

I'm not sure what paying has to do with anything, but yes, I am a member of three different pay to play breed associations, all of whom petition the CCA, CFIA and CCIA on a variety of topics.

As far as the SSGA goes, you've mentioned all their hard work that I get for nothing before. I don't know what to say, other than if the SSGA is taking offense to those of us who don't join, perhaps they should find a way to bring value to just their members. Having it thrown in my face a couple times a month that I'm a "freeloader" isn't doing much to convince me that I should be a member. Besides that, I have yet to see the SSGA take a favorable stance on Ivomec, BSE testing, or age verification. Why would I throw a hundred bucks of my money away on an organization that supports none of the issues that are important to me? At least the members of the breed organizations I belong to share many of my views and I don't feel my money is being wasted. Having talked with a few ex-SSGA members and a few other current members, I'm not comfortable with the organization, and as such, have no plans to join. I will continue to attempt to effect change through my elected representatives and my breed organizations.

Rod

:? The SSGA, like BMR said lost sponsership from Merial because of their stand on generic drugs including Ivomec and here is why. They passed a resolution at their last Annual meeting that read.

Whereas the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and others have proposed rescinding the own use provision of Health of Canada regulations that allow SSGA members and others to import generic drugs, pesticides and herbicided. Be it resolved the SSGA and CCA strongly lobby the federal government to maintain the current rules regarding own use importation.

They also passed a resolution last year that reads

Be it Resolved that SSGA ask CBEF to trial test export markets with OTM BSE tested product and this be done as soon as possible and that SSGA, CBEF and CCA expedite this market trial.

Two of the three issues you have, have been dealt with at SSGA level in a way I take it you would have supported if you had been there to vote. :wink: The third being age vertification, the vote went against manditory because the MAJORITY felt that the integrity of the system was just to important to chance forcing producers to do something they don't want to do. Most felt, given a bit of time, market premiums would intice most producers into doing it without risking the systems integrity. If these resolutions were not reported on by your breed reps then you should ask them why.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Do the other guys included all the cost of actually doing the test like the patholoist salary, lab upkeep and updates of technology?

The Japanese quote was complete cost, from beginning to end. As far as Creekstone, I don't think they can do it for $20, but we'll see.

I tend to believe them over you because you have been proven wrong too.

I'm not asking you to blindly believe me either. But I am asking people to take off their rose-colored glasses, and talk to independents and get confirmation of what our government agencies are telling us. Our industry is far too important to be left to politicians and government workers. As far as Teddy boy goes, you have a link to his document. I want to know if he directly asked if the countries he talked to would accept BSE tested beef. Or if he skirted the question.

The Precedent of having any country we trade with demand Scienifically unjust testing for anything they want to use as a trade barrier. If we agree to do the scienifically unjust BSE testing what is NEXT ROD. :roll:

Give the eye rolling a rest Tam. The Japanese feel that 100% is part of a SCIENTIFIC PROCESS TO ENSURE FOOD SAFETY. They are not asking for something at the drop of a hat, nor are they asking for something that has no scientific basis.

Let me ask you this: With PROPERLY ADMINSITERED BSE TESTING utilizing the CFIA tests, what are the chances of a false negative? If the chances are 0 or damned near 0, then not using BSE testing as a FOOD SAFETY TOOL is completely rediculous.

Rod

 

[rkaiser]

Tam -

Quote:
Posted by Randy: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:31 pm Post subject:

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

Listen Agman, I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.

I see you are still proving things eh Tam. :lol: :lol:

My statement is admitting what everyone on this site should be admitting. You are such a joke Tam. Your so called truth, and truth with proof is a joke. You have an opinion Tam, just like everyone else. You form that opinion from perception like everyone else.

I love the way that you have explained CBEF's position on testing for market access by pulling a few words from some of the competitive intelligence reports.

Have you spoken with Ted Haney yet to get his professional opinion on the topic, or are you simply going to show us more of your opinion by picking and choosing words to post the "prove" :lol: :lol: you to be right. :lol: :lol: :lol:

A piece of work you are Tam, a piece of work.

 

[Mike]

Prionics AG (Zurich) has developed the Prionics Check Assay, will distribute through Roche Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)

* 100% accurate (no false positive or negatives)
* uses brain tissue (thus this is a postmortem test)
* Western blot - i.e. samples are digested with proteinase K whereby normal PrPC is degraded but most of the PrPSc is only partially degraded - remaining proteins are separated by size using electrophoresis (recommend Novex Nu-PAGE gels), transferred to a membrane and then detected with prion-specific antisera linked to an enzyme for a chemiluminescent reaction
* each gel tests ~ a dozen samples
* 24 hr turnaround
* used since 1999
* detects BSE in preclinical animals
* use approved by the EC

working on blood tests for both BSE and CJD

CEA (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique; the French Atomic Energy Commission) is distributing its test named Platelia™ through Bio-Rad

* 100% accurate (no false positive or negatives)
* uses brain tissue (thus this is a postmortem test)
* Sandwich DAS-ELISA Immunometric assay (EIA) - i.e. prions in bovine samples are digested with proteinase K whereby normal PrPC is degraded but most of the PrPSc is only partially degraded -specific antibodies coat multiwell plates before the sample is applied and the amount of PrPSc bound by the antibodies is quantified with a second antibody linked to an enzyme to form a detectible product
o ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
* each plate can test numerous samples (high throughput; several hundred per plate possible in this assay format)
* 4 hr turnaround
* potential for detecting BSE in preclinical animals
* use approved by the EC

Protherics has licensed its assay to Enfer Scientific (Tipperary, U.K.)

* 100% accurate (no false positive or negatives)
* uses spinal cord tissue (thus this is a postmortem test)
* ELISA - specific antibodies coat multiwell plates before the sample is applied and the amount of PrPSc bound by the antibodies is quantified with a second antibody linked to an enzyme to form a detectible product
o ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
* each plate can test numerous samples (high throughput; 1000 tests/day per system possible)
* 4 hr turnaround
* potential for detecting BSE in preclinical animals
* use approved by the EC

Tam says the tests aren't scientifically justified. :lol: :lol:

This is from the European Commission on BSE. :roll: They HAPPEN to be scientists that have researched such matters as tests. :wink:

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Thanks for the info Mike. 100% accurate with no false positives or negatives strikes me as a great way to ensure FOOD SAFETY, not just use the tool as a stats gathering device.

Do you happen to know if those EU tests can be used on all types of BSE, or just the "European variety"?

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Mike- Don't confuse Tam with FACTS- especially from an area like Europe that has 20+ years history with BSE :wink: :lol: If some old fogie sitting in a CCA or SSGA office didn't say it- then it can't be true.... :roll: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Mike- Don't confuse Tam with FACTS- especially from an area like Europe that has 20+ years history with BSE :wink: :lol: If some old fogie sitting in a CCA or SSGA office didn't say it- then it can't be true.... :roll: :lol: :lol:

I figure that should bring on about 10-15 R-CALF slams- several &^%$#@(* toward Leo and Bill- a half dozen page long rants with one or two tantrums thrown in..... :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

Mike- Don't confuse Tam with FACTS- especially from an area like Europe that has 20+ years history with BSE :wink: :lol: If some old fogie sitting in a CCA or SSGA office didn't say it- then it can't be true.... :roll: :lol: :lol:

I figure that should bring on about 10-15 R-CALF slams- several &^%$#@(* toward Leo and Bill- a half dozen page long rants with one or two tantrums thrown in..... :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe not. Hopefully, I convinced her to stock up on Midol.

 

[Mike]

Thanks for the info Mike. 100% accurate with no false positives or negatives strikes me as a great way to ensure FOOD SAFETY, not just use the tool as a stats gathering device.

Do you happen to know if those EU tests can be used on all types of BSE, or just the "European variety"?

Rod

Rod, here is the Bio-Rad test info as reported by Alberta:

BSE Rapid Testing



Many bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) testing laboratories throughout the world have adopted the use of "rapid tests" to quickly screen cattle for BSE. Rapid testing allows for reduced turn-around-time of reporting test results, which in turn allows for reduced holding time of carcasses at slaughtering plants or rendering facilities. By using automated equipment, a large number of samples (hundreds to thousands) can be tested rapidly.
In anticipation of increased BSE testing requirements in Alberta and Canada, following the positive BSE diagnosis in May 2003, the Food Safety Division (FSD) of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AAFRD) recently renovated its O.S. Longman Laboratory in Edmonton. Enhancements were made to the biocontainment level 2 transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) laboratory and the Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA rapid test was selected as the diagnostic test for rapid BSE screening. Bio-Rad TeSeE is an enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) test. It has been validated by the European Union (EU), Canada and the United States (US) and has demonstrated both high sensitivity and specificity for detecting BSE prions in cattle.

Many European countries, the United Kingdom (UK), Japan and the US also currently use the Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA for BSE screening. Due to the test's widespread usage, the international community should readily accept results generated by Alberta's FSD laboratory.

Sensitivity is a measure of a test's ability to detect truly infected subjects. A test with a high sensitivity will have a high probability of detecting truly infected subjects. For example, if a screening test is used to detect BSE in 100 samples known to have BSE and identifies a positive result in 99 of them, its sensitivity would be 99/100 x 100 = 99%. A test with 99% sensitivity would have a 99% chance of detecting one infected sample, even if there was only one positive case in one million negative cases.

Specificity is a measure of as a test's ability to correctly classify subjects as being uninfected in the absence of disease. A test with a high specificity generates few false positive results. For example, if a screening test is used to detect BSE in 100 samples known to be uninfected with BSE and produced a negative result in 99 of them, its specificity would be 99/100 x 100 = 99%. A test with 99% specificity would be expected to produce false positive results 1% of the time.

Research shows that the probability of Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA failing to detect a single case of BSE in a large group of samples is in the range of 1.1 – 3.6 per 1000 tests (p< 0.05) (sensitivity). Reports from Japan, where every single animal is tested, show that the false positive rate for the Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA test is 1 in 30,000 (specificity). When either of these situations happens, the test is known to be "inconclusive" and will require further testing to truly identify whether the sample is positive or negative.

Reasons, besides test sensitivity and specificity, for why "inconclusive" or "positive reactor" tests results might occur include:

* Technical error—The Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA has the capability of detecting cattle with both clinical signs of BSE (clinical BSE infections) as well as apparently healthy cattle that are in the late stages of the incubation period of BSE (pre-clinical infections). However, for the test to be able to detect pre-clinically infected cattle, a specific area of the brainstem, called the obex, must be sampled and tested. Research has shown that BSE prion proteins accumulate primarily in the brainstem of cattle and the obex is the site where they begin to accumulate first. The obex is only 2-3 millimetres wide, thus laboratory technicians who prepare and process samples for BSE testing must be very skilled and precise. Inaccurate sampling and missing the obex is one factor that can affect the result of the test.

* Condition of sample—The more intact and well preserved the obex is, the more accurate testing results will be. Sometimes, due to decomposition or physical trauma (e.g. during stunning or humane killing of the animal; or during removal of the head or brainstem), the obex may not arrive at the laboratory intact. If this happens, it is more difficult for a technician to accurately identify and sample the obex. The sample may also be contaminated with other material, which may interfere with test accuracy. Severe decomposition of a sample may result in an inaccurate test result.

In the AAFRD FSD rapid testing lab, if the initial Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA screening test generates either an "inconclusive" or "positive reaction", duplicate samples of the obex are prepared and both are tested again. If both repeat tests are negative, the brain sample is considered negative for BSE. If however, both of the repeat tests yield an "inconclusive" or "positive reactor" test result, further testing, using immunohistochemistry staining (the international "gold standard" test for detecting prions) and a western blot technique, is conducted to determine if the sample is truly positive or negative. This testing is performed at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) National BSE Reference Laboratory in Winnipeg. If the CFIA test on the sample is positive, confirmatory testing is performed at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency in Weybridge, UK (World Reference Laboratory for BSE Testing). This is all completed before the CFIA announces the test results to the international community.

For more information about the content of this document, contact Lisa Morin.
This information published to the web on July 19, 2004.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/cpv8832

 

[Tam]

Mike You can post all you want about these tests but if it is true then why did the OIE say the test are not to be used for food safety as they can be wrong under certain conditions and are to be used as a monatorying tool only? Have these claims of 100% effectiveness been validated?
taken from the CFIA website

Available tests have not been validated for use in animals under the age of 24 months.

Gee I guess not.


And ROD

The Japanese feel that 100% is part of a SCIENTIFIC PROCESS TO ENSURE FOOD SAFETY.

What percentage feel this Rod. If the majority of the Japanese GOVERNMENT felt that way then why would they agree to drop their own under twenty month testing. See this is the problem I have with what you say Rod the Japanese Governments actions don't seem to match what you say.

They are not asking for something at the drop of a hat, nor are they asking for something that has no scientific basis.

The Japanese Government is not asking for 100% testing anymore :wink: they are asking for untested under twenty month old boneless beef of which Canada is providing it to them UNTESTED.

Let me ask you this: With PROPERLY ADMINSITERED BSE TESTING utilizing the CFIA tests, what are the chances of a false negative? If the chances are 0 or damned near 0, then not using BSE testing as a FOOD SAFETY TOOL is completely rediculous.

How many times do you have to be told that the test has it's limitations?
Taken from the CFIA website

Q. Why isn't Canada testing all cows for BSE like some other countries say they do?
A. The purpose of our surveillance program is to establish an estimate of the prevalence of BSE in Canada and to gauge the effectiveness of our risk management measures.
Testing all animals slaughtered for human consumption is [b]not supported by science as an effective food safety measure.[/b] The removal of specified risk materials from animals at slaughter is the most effective food safety measure that can be taken.

Testing all animals is not recommended by the OIE, the world organization for animal health and international standards setting body, nor is it recommended by the majority of countries affected by BSE or the international teams of experts that reviewed the Canadian and American BSE responses.

Available tests have not been validated for use in animals under the age of 24 months. Canada is looking for BSE in the animal population most likely to be affected -- animals older than 30 months that are down, diseased, dead or dying. Testing healthy or young animals would not provide an accurate estimate of the prevalence of BSE in Canada nor would it add any level of protection to consumers.

We should all know by now the limitation of the test if used on older cows but if not I will tell you AGAIN.
According to most all experts the limitations are The test will show a negative in a animal that is not within months of showing clinical symptoms but that does not mean she is NOT INFECTED, that is why we remove the SRM's for FOOD SAFETY, just to cover those that the tests is WRONG ON. Now if you want to debate the issue about why we are not 100% testing take it up with the CFIA the OIE, the majority of other BSE affected countries and the international team of EXPERTS as they are the ones that say it is not supported by the science.