mwj said:
I see that one of the sources was a piece from the cattle today archives! Also noticed that Flounder was one of the people that responded :shock: What do you think this story would have looked like if they had read thru the Bull sesion. Some of the people that love to stir the pot against the packers and usda would have provided enough amo to make everyone swear off of beef :roll:
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
BANNED MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19155
Friday, January 25, 2008
January 2008 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
January 24, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
January 2008 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
January 24, 2008
January 2008 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
To help prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalophathy (BSE) through feed in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant Feed Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
The following is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant feed ban. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has assembled data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose final inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of January 12, 2008. As of January 12, 2008, FDA had received over 59,000 inspection reports. The majority of these inspections (approximately 70%) were conducted by State feed safety officials, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions involving non-ruminant feeds.
An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in total". NOTE – A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually exclusive.
RENDERERS
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 267
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 165 (62 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 165 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
5 firms (3.0 %) were classified as VAI
LICENSED FEED MILLS
FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time. This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 1,077
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 473 (44 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 473 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
8 firms (1.7 %) were classified as VAI
FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 5,207
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 2,544 (49 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 2,544 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
43 firms (1.7 %) were classified as VAI
PROTEIN BLENDERS
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 398
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 191 (48 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 191 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firm (0%) was classified as OAI
3 firms (1.6 %) were classified as VAI
RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS MANUFACTURING WITH PROHIBITED MATERIAL
This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
Total number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,628
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials – 505 (7.6 %)
Of the 505 active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
22 firms (4.4 %) were classified as VAI
OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal feed transporters.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 19,481
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 6,275 (32 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 6,275 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
155 firms (2.5 %) were classified as VAI
TOTAL FIRMS
Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category; therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 21,630
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 6,927 (32 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 6,927 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
162 firms (2.3 %) were classified as VAI
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/BSE0108.htm
SEE FULL TEXT ;
http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/
TSS
