Mad Cow Feed Recall, USA, Albertville, AL, 16 Jun 2006; Feed Recalled
Over Mad Cow Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Livestock feed ingredients shipped to 9 states may have been
contaminated with cattle remains in violation of a 1997 ban to
protect against mad cow disease, a manufacturer said Tuesday [20 Jun 2006].
H.J. Baker & Bro. Inc. said it was recalling 3 livestock feed
ingredients, including 2 used to supplement feed given to dairy cows.
A sample tested by the Food and Drug Administration was positive for
cattle meat and bone meal, said Mark Hohnbaum, president of the
Westport, Connecticut-based company's feed products group.
"This is very concerning to us. This isn't something that happens to
us. We are very serious about food safety," Hohnbaum said. Mad cow
disease is only known to spread when cows eat feed containing brain
and other nerve tissue from infected cattle. Protein from cattle was
commonly added to cattle feed to speed growth until the ban largely
outlawed the practice.
Cattle tissue may have contaminated 2 feed ingredients given to dairy
cows -- Pro-Lak and Pro-Amino II -- made by H.J. Baker between August
2005 and June 2006. The 3rd of the recalled ingredients, Pro-Pak with
Porcine Meat and Bone, was mislabeled. It is used in poultry feed.
The company announced the recall in the wake of ongoing FDA
inspections of its Albertville, Alabama plant, Hohnbaum said. The
inspections have found manufacturing and clerical issues, he added.
The company shipped the ingredients to feed manufacturers and dairy
farms in the following states: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Tennessee. The company
is notifying its customers of the voluntary recall. It does not know
how much of the feed ingredients it sold, Hohnbaum said.
On the Net:
Food and Drug Administration animal feed information:
--
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
[The company is already notifying its customers. Furthermore, the
company does not know how much feed was contaminated, so they are
likely being very cautious and notifying customers, although they may
not have had animals exposed.
It is likely the company does not know how much contamination each
batch of feed received.
Customers should be forewarned that even if an animal consumes some
of this feed, it does not mean it is sure to come down with Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). It takes a certain amount of
infective material being consumed as well as certain conditions
within the animal for BSE to develop.
What is intriguing about this event is that, though the FDA will fine
the feed manufacturer, on-farm mixing of feed that may contain
prohibited material does not find its way onto the FDA radar screen.
There have been multiple cases of farm-site feed mixing with
confirmation of prohibited material being in the feed, and the feed
being fed to cattle. When this apparent oversight was brought to the
attention of the FDA, the reply was that they [the FDA] did not
believe they had jurisdiction over the farm, only the manufacturers.
Since the FDA could not demonstrate a prion to a court of law, they
did not see how they could prosecute a case of farm-site feed mixing.
Clearly, had the international team that surveyed the situation in
the US during 2004 known of this approach, their recommendations may
well have been different.
Without adherence to the feeding rules, cases of BSE in the United
States will likely continue to occur on a sporadic basis. - Mod.TG]
[see also:
2004
----
BSE, bovine - USA (WA) (16): new regulations 20040318.0747
BSE, bovine - USA: APHIS report 20040205.0426
2003
----
BSE, bovine - USA (WA) (09): new regulations 20031230.3172]
..................tg/msp/mpp
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Research article
Scrapie infectivity is quickly cleared in tissues of orally-infected farmed fish
Loredana Ingrosso , Beatriz Novoa , Andrea Z Dalla Valle , Franco Cardone , Raquel Aranguren , Marco Sbriccoli , Simona Bevivino , Marcello Iriti , Quanguo Liu , Vito Vetrugno , Mei Lu , Franco Faoro , Salvatore Ciappellano , Antonio Figueras and Maurizio Pocchiari
BMC Veterinary Research 2006, 2:21 doi:10.1186/1746-6148-2-21
Published 15 June 2006
Abstract (provisional)
Background
Scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) belongs to the group of animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE). BSE epidemic in the UK and elsewhere in Europe has been linked to the use of bovine meat and bone meals (MBM) in the feeding of cattle. There is concern that pigs, poultry and fish bred for human consumption and fed with infected MBM would eventually develop BSE or carry residual infectivity without disease. Although there has been no evidence of infection in these species, experimental data on the susceptibility to the BSE agent of farm animals other than sheep and cow are limited only to pigs and domestic chicken. In the framework of a EU-granted project we have challenged two species of fish largely used in human food consumption, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and turbot (Scophthalmus maximus), with a mouse-adapted TSE strain (scrapie 139A), to assess the risk related to oral consumption of TSE contaminated food. In trout, we also checked the "in vitro" ability of the pathological isoform of the mouse prion protein (PrPSc) to cross the intestinal epithelium when added to the mucosal side of everted intestine.
Results
Fish challenged with a large amount of scrapie mouse brain homogenate by either oral or parenteral routes, showed the ability to clear the majority of infectivity load. None of the fish tissues taken at different time points after oral or parenteral inoculation was able to provoke scrapie disease after intracerebral inoculation in recipient mice. However, a few recipient mice were positive for PrPSc and spongiform lesions in the brain. We also showed a specific binding of PrPSc to the mucosal side of fish intestine in the absence of an active uptake of the prion protein through the intestinal wall.
Conclusions
These results indicate that scrapie 139A, and possibly BSE, is quickly removed from fish tissues despite evidence of a prion like protein in fish and of a specific binding of PrPSc to the mucosal side of fish intestine.
snip...
Conclusions
These data show that about 4 million LD50 of 139A given by forced feeding were readily removed from
fish intestine (both trout and turbot) in the first 24 hours after infection and that infection never reached
the brain, the spleen or the muscles. This suggests that scrapie is quickly removed from fish tissues
despite the presence of a cellular prion-like protein [15, 18] and a prion protein-like gene in fish [11,
12, 13]. With all the cautions due to the difference between the 139A and the BSE strains, and that in
this experiment fishes were observed for no more than 90 days after infection, it is tentatively possible
to assume that the consumption of fish fed with BSE-infected MBM should not pose any substantial
threat to public health.
snip...end...tss
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/2/21
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1746-6148-2-21.pdf
re-Scrapie infectivity is quickly cleared in tissues of orally-infected farmed fish
Terry Singeltary (20 June 2006) http://disc.server.com/Indices/167318.html
>>>However, a few recipient mice were positive for PrPSc and spongiform lesions in the brain. We also showed a specific binding of PrPSc to the mucosal side of fish intestine in the absence of an active uptake of the prion protein through the intestinal wall. <<<
WOULD this not be further evidence to show that the rendering of such product after ingesting TSE tainted product, would further expose species that consume such product, i.e. even if the fish do not contract a TSE, could not the intestines and the feed that may still be there further expose species eating those by-products ???
Competing interests
none
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/2/21/comments#236546
TSS
#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################
ATYPICAL MAD COW USA SPONTANEOUS ???
http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/
