|
||||||||||||||||||
From: TSS ()
Changes proposed to animal by-products law By Ahmed ElAmin ABPs are animal carcasses, parts of carcasses and other products of animal origin, such as milk, which are not intended for human consumption. The wide ranging proposals include allowing the use of additional disposal methods and techniques, giving food processors more flexibility in the use of third party contractors. They also seek to clarify and simplify the rules in a bid to ensure their application is consistent throughout the EU. The EU's ABP regulation, applicable since 1 May 2003, was adopted in response to various food-borne crises, include BSE and foot-and-mouth diseases. The regulation not only prohibited the feeding of animal parts to livestock but also laid down the health rules for the handling, processing, use and disposal of ABPs. ABP's are a regular product of the livestock and food industries and include animals which die on farm, surplus or waste material from slaughterhouses, and a range of surplus or rejected foodstuffs and leftovers, whether cooked or uncooked. Some of these animal by- products are sold or used by food processors to make animal proteins, such as meat and bone meal, fats, gelatine, collagen, pet-food. They are also used to make products such as glue, leathers, soaps, fertilisers, cosmetics. medicinal products, medical devices such as laboratory reagents, soil improvers, oleo-chemical products and photographic paper coating. The 2003 regulation prohibits the disposal of animal by-products to landfill. Instead they must be treated at an approved rendering, incinerator, biogas or composting plant. In its report the Commission finds that member states' compliance with the EU rules has been generally "satisfactory". However changes are needed to some aspects of the regulation in order to clarify its scope, make measures more proportionate to the risks, and remove unnecessary obstacles to the competitiveness of industry, the Commission stated yesterday. "Some requirements may be disproportionate when it comes to very low risk products, for example processed ingredients used in cosmetics, while there is a need to insert new products under the different risk categories," the Commission stated. "In addition, there are areas where there is uncertainty about the scope, the requirements of the regulation or possible duplication with other legislation, and clarification is needed." The Commission is seeking comments on the report and plans to submit a number of proposals for amendments to the regulation by the start of 2007. The EU's food sector produces about 16 million tonnes of materials of animal origin not intended for human consumption, the bulk of which derive from healthy animals. Some of these materials are then transformed in a variety of products used in animal feed, cosmetics, medicinal products, medical devices such as laboratory reagents, fertilisers, soil improver, oleo-chemical products, photographic paper coating. More and more materials are being imported from third countries for similar uses into the EU, the Commission reported. The original regulation was brought in because ABPs in animal feed can spread BSE and other animal diseases or spread chemical contaminants such as dioxins. ABPs can also pose a threat to animal and human health via the environment, if not properly disposed of. Under the regulation, only materials derived from animal declared fit for human consumption following veterinary inspection may be used for the production of feeds. It also bans intra-species recycling, so-called "cannibalism". It sets out clear rules on what must and may be done with the excluded animal materials, imposing strict identification and traceability system requiring certain products such as meat and bone meal and fats destined for destruction to be permanently marked to avoid possible fraud and risk of diversion of unauthorised products into food and feed. It lays down the requirements for the importation and transit from non-Member countries of certain animal by-products and derived products. The Commission proposes to amend the definitions for ABPs not yet covered, stating that there is a need to clarify the definition of certain ABPs so as to ensure a common application of the regulation in member countries. One example is the scope of the definition for “former foodstuffs” products of animal origin or containing them, which are no longer intended for human consumption for different reasons. The Commission also wants to clarify EU veterinary and waste legislation applicable to ABPs. Member states and operators have lobbied the EU on this issue saying they want to avoid duplication and any resulting unnecessary burden due to the concurrent application to ABPs of community veterinary and waste legislation. EU veterinary procedures fall under the responsibility of health and consumer directorate, while waste legislation falls under the environmental directorate. "Guidance has been issued which seeks to clarify the relationship between the two sets of controls," the Commission stated. "However, more legal clarity is needed." The Commission proposes five alternatives methods for the processing, use and disposal of ABPs. The Commission also wants to clarify the relationship between different regulations relating to waste shipments. Due to complaints about the strictness of the regulation relating to composting and biogas plants and heat treatment process for manure, the Commission proposes to allow for alternative transformation parameters, such as time, temperature and microbiological validation agents. An amendment to a regulation this year allowing the direct feeding to farmed animals of dairy products produced to food standards also needs to be amended to meet food safety requirements, the Commission stated. The ABPs regulation does not currently apply to finished products, such as cosmetic products, medicinal products, medical devices or in-vitro diagnostics. However, the ABPs regulation has an important regulatory impact on these sectors. The Commission wants to simplify the application of the regulation to those sectors. http://www.meatprocess.com/news/ng.asp?n=63481-animal-by-products-waste-bse Döda djur kan tillåtas i kosmetika Organ från självdöda djur kan åter bli tillåtet som råvara i kosmetika i EU. För några år sedan blev kadaver efter självdöda djur förbjudna som råvara med hänvisning till risken för spridning av en mänsklig variant av galna kosjukan, en hjärnsjukdom som påminner om Creutzfeldt Jakobs sjuka. Förbudet gäller såväl livsmedel som djurfoder sedan slutet av 1990-talet och i kosmetika efter en rapport år 2000. EU-kommissionen föreslår undantag från förbudet för kosmetika, skriver Svenska Dagbladet. Förbudet kom sedan det blivit känt att organ som bräss, hjärnsubstans, mjälte och moderkaka var råvaror i kostsamma anti-rynkkrämer. Skälet till förbuden är oro för att prioner, en sorts protein som anses vålla galna kosjukan, kan spridas via kadaver. - Jag vet att kommissionen är utsatt för ett mycket hårt tryck från industrin. Samtidigt får det brittiska ordförandeskapet skarpa påtryckningar från USA, säger förra EU-parlamentarikern Marit Paulsen till SvD. Paulsen var med om att driva genom förbudet mot kadaverdelar i bland annat kosmetika och djurfoder. EU-kommissionen överväger att blåsa faran över för galna kosjukan. De miljardbelopp provtagning kostar vill den använda till annat. http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_10949978.asp USA Commonly Asked Questions About BSE in Products Regulated by FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) What causes BSE? Was a second case of BSE identified in the U.S. in June 2005? Did meat and meat products from the June 2005 cow enter the food supply? Was a case of BSE identified in the U.S. in December 2003? Did meat and meat products from the 2003 BSE cow enter the food supply? Will there be additional cases? FDA and other Federal agencies have been vigilant in strengthening protective measures to reduce the U.S. consumer's risk of exposure to BSE-contaminated food and cosmetic products. Since 1989, USDA has banned imports of live ruminants, such as cattle, sheep and goats, and most products from these animals from countries known to have BSE. Subsequently, USDA expanded this ban to include both countries with BSE and countries at risk for BSE. In 1997, FDA prohibited, with some exceptions, the use of protein derived from mammalian tissues in animal feed intended for cows and other ruminants. See the FDA/CVM website at www.fda.gov/cvm for information on the "ruminant feed ban." On Jan. 8, 2004, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service issued new rules to enhance safeguards against BSE. Details on these rules may be found at USDA's website, www.usda.gov. Also in 2004, FDA issued a rule that prohibits the use of certain cattle material, because of the risk of BSE, in human food and cosmetics. Does BSE affect people? What measures are being taken to ensure food safety in the U.S. from BSE? Similarly, FDA has prohibited the use of the cattle materials that carry the highest risk of BSE in human food, including dietary supplements, and in cosmetics. FDA's rule (and September 2005 amendments) prohibit use of the following cattle material in human food and cosmetics: cattle material from non-ambulatory, disabled cattle, In September 2005, FDA amended the interim final rule to allow use of the small intestine in human food and cosmetics, provided the distal ileum has been removed. FDA also clarified that milk and milk products, hide and hide-derived products and tallow derivatives are not considered prohibited cattle materials. Finally, in response to comments the agency has reconsidered the method cited in the interim final rule for determining insoluble impurities in tallow and is citing a method that is less costly and requires less specialized equipment. Are the protective measures in place sufficient to ensure the safety of the human food supply in light of the June 2005 BSE positive cow? Is the food in the U.S. likely to be a BSE risk to consumers? Is cow's milk a source of BSE? Can milk be infected with BSE from a BSE-positive cow? Does the use of bovine-derived ingredients in dietary supplements mean that they are not safe? Since the BSE-positive cows were discovered in the U.S., does that mean that dietary supplements made with domestic ingredients might be unsafe? Even though BSE-positive cows have been identified in the U.S., one of which was imported, the risk to human health from dietary supplements and other foods containing cattle-derived ingredients is extremely low. What steps is FDA currently taking to ensure the safety of dietary supplements that contain bovine ingredients? Given the BSE case in Washington State and the case in Texas, should consumers be concerned about cosmetics made using tallow from the rendering process? What about the use of gelatin, another bovine-related material, in cosmetics and dietary supplements and other foods? When and how did BSE in cattle occur? Is BSE in cattle the same disease as CWD in deer and elk in the U.S.? To date, there is no scientific evidence that BSE in cattle is related to CWD in deer and elk. FDA is working closely with other government agencies and the public health community to address CWD in wild and domesticated deer and elk herds. Wildlife and public health officials advise people not to harvest, handle, or consume any wild deer or elk that appear to be sick, regardless of the cause, especially in those states where CWD has been detected. What countries have reported cases of BSE or are considered to have a substantial risk associated with BSE? This document was issued in January 2004 and updated in July 2004 and June 2005. The rule prohibits the use of cattle-derived materials that can carry the infectious agent for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, in human foods, dietary supplements, and in cosmetics. Based on the scientific information provided during the interim final rule's comment period, which demonstrates that a part of the cow's digestive tract called the distal ileum can be consistently and effectively removed from the other sections of the small intestine, it is no longer necessary to designate the entire small intestine as a prohibited cattle material. As a result, FDA is amending the rule to allow use of the small intestine in human food and cosmetics, provided that the distal ileum has been removed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is publishing today a similar amendment to its interim final rule on BSE. The amendments also clarify that milk and milk products, hides and hide-derived products, and tallow derivatives are not prohibited for use in human food and cosmetics. Finally, FDA has reconsidered the recommended method for determining insoluble impurities in a type of solid fat known as tallow, in response to information submitted to the agency, to cite a method that is less costly to use and requires less specialized equipment. FDA issued the interim final rule to minimize human exposure to materials that studies have demonstrated are highly likely to contain the BSE agent in cattle with the disease. The amended interim final rule provides the same level of protection against the agent that causes BSE as the original provisions. The amendments to the interim final rule are effective on October 7, 2005 and comments are being are accepted on the amendments through November 7, 2005. #### http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01229.html Docket Management Docket: 96N-0417 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/031403/96N-0417-EC-2.htm The FDA had announced plans in January to ban high-risk cattle tissues, or "specified risk materials" (SRMs), from food, food supplements, and cosmetics. But the agency never officially imposed the ban. Officials said today it would take effect Jul 14, when it will be published in the Federal Register. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which regulates meat, poultry, and eggs, banned SRMs from those foods in January, following the discovery of a BSE case in Washington state in December. The FDA regulates all other foods, as well as supplements and cosmetics. The FDA said today it has reached a "preliminary" decision to ban SRMs from all animal feed, but it wants to gather public comments before going ahead. In a telephone briefing, officials said the agency would take comments for 60 to 120 days. "FDA has reached a preliminary conclusion that it should propose to remove SRM's from all animal feed and is currently working on a proposal to accomplish this goal," the agency said in a news release. The agency is issuing an "advance notice of proposed rulemaking" on the topic. Cattle contract BSE, or mad cow disease, by eating feed containing protein from other infected cattle. To prevent the spread of BSE, the FDA in 1997 banned the practice of putting cattle-derived protein in feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. However, cattle tissues are still used in feed for pigs, chickens, and pets. The aim of the new proposed rule is to prevent cross-contamination, whereby SRMs in cattle parts used in feed for pigs, chickens, or pets could end up in cattle feed if both kinds of feed are made with the same equipment or in the same plant. Cross-contamination also can occur if cattle are given feed intended for other animals. The FDA's notice of proposed rulemaking also calls for public comments on other possible actions to block pathways by which material from BSE-infected cattle could get into cattle feed. These actions include: Requiring that equipment for handling and storing feed be dedicated to just one kind of feed (for either ruminants or nonruminants) Today the FDA said that banning SRMs from all animal feed could render unnecessary some of the other possible steps for reducing feed-related risks. Such a ban was a key recommendation from an international team of experts that reviewed the USDA's actions on BSE early this year, FDA officials said. The international review team (IRT) released its report about a week after the FDA's January announcement. The team said the single most important measure for reducing feed-related BSE risks was to eliminate SRMs from all animal feed, Steve Sundlof of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine said today. "The IRT approach is to prevent potentially infective tissues from ever entering animal feed channels," the FDA's notice of proposed rulemaking says. "Although FDA believes the measures previously announced would serve to reduce the already small risk of BSE spread through animal feed, the broader measures recommended by the IRT, if implemented, could make some of the previously announced measures unnecessary." However, "either approach would require a significant change in current feed manufacturing practices," the notice states. "Therefore, the FDA believes that additional information is needed to determine the best course of action." Sundlof said there is concern that banning poultry litter from cattle feed would cause disposal problems. The litter would have to be disposed of on land, which might mean it would end up on cattle pastures, he said. In response to questions, Sundlof said he couldn't specify the amount of SRMs that are currently used in animal feed, but he said that dealing with them would be "a complicated issue" if they were banned. "It would most likely require that the rendering industry at least partially restructure to include a sector that is for disposal only," he said. SRMs, as defined by USDA and FDA, include the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column, and dorsal root ganglia of cattle aged 30 months or older, plus the tonsils and small intestine of all cattle. In BSE-infected cattle, these are the tissues most likely to contain infectious prion protein. In addition to SRMs, certain other cattle materials will be banned from foods, supplements, and cosmetics, the FDA said. These include material from downer cattle and cattle not inspected and approved for human consumption, plus mechanically separated beef. FDA officials today said the percentage of food supplements and cosmetics that contain SRMs is very small, but they couldn't give a specific number. See also: Jul 9 news release from FDA and USDA FDA fact sheet on final rule concerning foods and cosmetics FDA-USDA advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 pages) Jan 26, 2004, news release on BSE-related rules planned by FDA at that time http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/other/bse/news/july0909bse.html FDA sets rules to keep BSE out of food, supplements The rules include a ban on feeding mammalian blood to calves and a ban on the use of downer cattle and high-risk cattle tissues such as the brain and spinal cord in FDA-regulated products. In addition, the FDA is prohibiting the feeding of poultry litter and restaurant scraps to cattle and the use of "mechanically separated" beef in food. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which regulates meat, poultry, and egg products, on Dec 30 banned the processing of downer cattle—those too sick or injured to stand at the time of slaughter—for food. The FDA regulates all other foods, including processed foods that contain meat, such as soups and pizza, along with food supplements and cosmetics. In announcing the rules yesterday, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tommy Thompson said they will add to a set of five existing "firewalls" protecting the public from BSE contamination. "Small as the risk may already be, this is the time to make sure the public is protected to the greatest extent possible," he said in a news release. Cattle contract BSE by eating feed containing material from other infected cattle. Eating meat products from infected cattle is believed to be the cause of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), a human neurologic disease similar to BSE. The new FDA rules will take effect when they are published in the Federal Register, but public comments will be invited after publication, the agency said. The FDA rules ban the following items from the foods, supplements, and cosmetic products it regulates: Any material from downer cattle or dead cattle (cattle that die before reaching a slaughter plant) "Recent scientific evidence suggests that blood can carry some infectivity for BSE," the announcement said. That might have been a reference to a recent report from Britain of a person who contracted vCJD several years after receiving blood from someone else who was found to have the same disease. The FDA is banning the use of poultry litter in cattle feed because it may contain spilled poultry feed that includes cattle parts, officials said. Poultry litter consists of bedding, spilled feed, feathers, and waste collected from poultry sheds. It is used in cattle feed in some areas where cattle and large poultry operations are close together, the FDA said. Cattle parts can legally be used in feed for poultry and hogs. The new rule banning restaurant "plate waste" in cattle feed is intended to protect the FDA's ability to enforce the ban on using cattle parts in cattle feed, the FDA said. Plate waste includes meat scraps, which are collected from some restaurants for use in feed. Its presence "confounds" the FDA's ability to detect prohibited proteins in cattle feed, officials said. The FDA also said it will require feed plants to use separate production equipment to make feed for nonruminant animals (such as poultry and hogs) if the feed contains proteins banned from cattle feed. Currently, some equipment is used to process both banned and permitted materials, which can lead to cross-contamination of cattle feed with banned materials. The FDA also promised to step up its inspections of feed mills and rendering plants this year. The agency said it will inspect 2,800 plants and will fund another 3,100 inspections by state agencies. Officials said their goal is to inspect all known renderers and feed mills that process products containing materials banned from cattle feed. See also: FDA news release http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/other/bse/news/jan2704fda.html Journal of Virology, February 2005, p. 1888-1897, Vol. 79, No. 3 Neuropathogenesis Unit, Institute for Animal Health, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom Received 18 June 2004/ Accepted 7 September 2004 Many natural transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) infections are likely to be acquired peripherally, and studies in mice show that skin scarification is an effective means of scrapie transmission. After peripheral exposure, TSE agents usually accumulate in lymphoid tissues before spreading to the brain. The mechanisms of TSE transport to lymphoid tissues are not known. Langerhans cells (LCs) reside in the epidermis and migrate to the draining lymph node after encountering antigen. To investigate the potential role of LCs in scrapie transportation from the skin, we utilized mouse models in which their migration was blocked either due to CD40 ligand deficiency (CD40L–/– mice) or after caspase-1 inhibition. We show that the early accumulation of scrapie infectivity in the draining lymph node and subsequent neuroinvasion was not impaired in mice with blocked LC migration. Thus, LCs are not involved in TSE transport from the skin. After intracerebral inoculation with scrapie, wild-type mice and CD40L–/– mice develop clinical disease with similar incubation periods. However, after inoculation via skin scarification CD40L–/– mice develop disease significantly earlier than do wild-type mice. The shorter incubation period in CD40L–/– mice is unexpected and suggests that a CD40L-dependent mechanism is involved in impeding scrapie pathogenesis. In vitro studies demonstrated that LCs have the potential to acquire and degrade protease-resistant prion protein, which is thought to be a component of the infectious agent. Taken together, these data suggest that LCs are not involved in scrapie transport to draining lymphoid tissues but might have the potential to degrade scrapie in the skin. * Corresponding author. Mailing address: Institute for Animal Health, Neuropathogenesis Unit, Ogston Bldg., West Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JF, United Kingdom. Phone: 44(0)131-667-5204. Fax: 44(0)131-668-3872. E-mail: neil.mabbott@bbsrc.ac.uk. Journal of Virology, February 2005, p. 1888-1897, Vol. 79, No. 3 http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/3/1888?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=prion&searchid=1105649944632_5001&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=79&issue=3&journalcode=jvi 2003 - 2004 Product Catalog Standard Process Inc. NATURAL PEANUT BUTTER STANDARDBAR bovine adrenal, bovine liver, bovine spleen, ovine spleen, bovine kidney... USF (MAD COW) OINTMENT (RUB A DUB DUB, KURU ETC) ; bovine orhic glandular extract UTROPHIN PMG bovine uterus PMG VASCULIN bovine heart PMG extract, veal bone PMG extract, bovine liever, porcine IPLEX (neighbors mom died from CJD while taking these pills for years) bovine eye PMG extract, veal bone PMG, bovine liver, porcine stomach, MYO-PLUS bovine heart PMG, bovine liver, porcine stomach, bovine orchic extract, NEUROPLEX bovine orchic Cytosol extract, bovine spleen, BOVINE BRAIN PMG EXTRACT, NEUROTROPHIN PMG BOVINE BRAIN PMG NIACINAMIDE B6 VM bovine liver, porcine stomach, bovine spleen ovine spleen, OCULOTROPHIN PMG ORCHEX bovine liver, bovine orchic Cytosol extract, porcine stomch, OSTARPLEX veal bone PMG extract, veal bone PMG extract, bovine liver, PARAPLEX bovine pancreas PMG extract, porcine duodenum, bovine adrenal PMG, PITUITROPHIN PMG RUMAPLEX BOVINE BRAIN, veal bone PMG extract, bovine adrenal, bovine prostate SENAPLEX bovine liver PMG extract, bovine adrenal, BOVNE BRAIN, veal bone meal, THESE are just a few of MANY of just this ONE COMPANY...TSS Docket Management Docket: 96N-0417 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/031403/96N-0417-EC-2.htm as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused 7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE ; January 27, 2005 http://image.thelancet.com/ F Mouthon DipBiol, F Auvré, Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)—is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the ef.ciency of oral infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease at 76 months. On the basis of these .ndings and data from other studies, we made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can prevent transmission of BSE to man. BSE bovine brain inoculum 100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%) Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%) 1/15 (7%) RIII mice (icip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%) PrPres biochemical detection The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a similar PrPres concentration that was inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of disease in the .rst positive animal (%). The accuracy of bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. icip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal. Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected orally with similar BSE brain inocula Published online January 27, 2005 http://image.thelancet.com/extras/05let1056web.pdf TSS
|