|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: TSS ()
Greetings and happy turkey day to all you gobblers, http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/sc/Seac10/tab06.pdf >>>So , Have they Stopped?<<< your kidding right? we are still feeding cows to cows in 2005 for Pete's sake, and have been since the beginning of the infamous partial and voluntary r-t-r ban was issued 8-4-97. ... WARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL Refer to MIN 05-15 Michael J. Langenhorst Dear Mr. Langenhorst: Our inspection of your rendering plant located at 505 Hardman Avenue South, South St. Paul, Minnesota, from January 12-20, 2005, revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations , Part 589 .2000 (21 CFR 589.2000), Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Because you failed to follow the requirements of this regulation, products being manufactured and distributed by your facility are adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)], and misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1)]. Our investigation found that you failed to provide for measures to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] in that: 1. You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds that may be used for ruminants. 2. You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds that may be used for ruminants. Our investigation also found that you failed to label products that may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues with the statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." For example, your Feather Meal and Stabilized Poultry By-Product Meal lack this statement, even though the absence of sufficient measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination may result in these products containing protein derived from mammalian tissues. Because your products do not bear this caution statement, they are misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1)). The above is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for ensuring that your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should acknowledge this letter within 15 working days of receiving and include any additional corrective actions concerning your facility. We have received your letter dated January 31, 2005, which replies to the Form FDA-483 issued on January 20, 2005, and your letter dated February 25, 2005, that states all corrections have been implemented. The corrections you have reported appear to be adequate but will be evaluated further during our follow-up inspection. Your response should be directed to Compliance Officer Jane E. Nelson at the address on the letterhead. If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may phone Ms. Nelson at (612) 758-7119. Sincerely, /S/ W. Charles Becoat http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5373d.htm Public Health Service VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Our Reference: 3004508183 April 6, 2005 Priscilla D. Shaw WARNING LETTER Dear Ms. Shaw: On January 10 and 11, 2005, we inspected your animal feed distribution operation located at 92-353 Laaloa St., Kapolei, HI 96707, and found significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 589.2000 (21 C.F.R. 589.2000)-Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues and that are intended for use in animal feed (prohibited material) must be labeled with the cautionary statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants" [21 C.F.R. 589.2000(d)(1) and (cx1)(i)]. Our inspection found that you are not labeling the products you are distributing to swine farms, which contain food waste from restaurants and hospital cafeterias, with this caution statement. As a result, these products are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1)). Our inspection also found that you use the same containers to hold both prohibited materials [redacted] waste to be used for feed for non-ruminants and non-prohibited materials [redacted] waste to be used for feed for ruminants). However, you failed to provide written procedures specifying clean-out procedures or other measures to avoid cross-contamination of the feed products to be used for ruminants [21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(iv)]. You also failed to make copies of distribution records available for FDA inspection and copying (21 C.F.R. 589.2000(c)(1)(ii)]. At the conclusion of the inspection, these and other observations were listed on Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations, which was issued to and discussed with you at the close of the inspection . A copy of this form is enclosed for your ready reference. The above is not meant to be an a11-inclusive list of deficiencies at your facility. It is your responsibility to ensure that all of your products are in compliance with the law. You should take prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system whereby such violations do not recur: Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action without further notice, such as seizure and/or injunction. You should notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of this letter of the steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of each step being taken to correct the violations, and prevent their recurrence. If corrective actions cannot be completed in fifteen (15) days, state the mason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made. Your reply should be directed to Paul A. Peterson, Compliance Officer, Food and Drug Administration, 1431 Harbor Bay Parkway, Alameda, CA 94502. If you have any questions regarding any issue in this letter, you may contact Mr. Peterson at (510) 337-6856. Sincerely, /S/ Barbara J. Cas Public Health Service Ref: 2005-DAL-WL-12 WARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Dwayne Woody, Owner Dear Mr. Woody: An inspection of your feed manufacturing operation located at 6391 Old Agnes Road, Poolville, Texas, was conducted on August 27 and September 2, 2004 by an Investigator from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The inspection found significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed (21 CFR 589.2000). This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Because you failed to follow the requirements of this regulation, the corn dogs containing cooked meat and other ingredients used for manufacturing ruminant feed are adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) and misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The use of protein derived from mammalian tissues, as defined in 21 CFR 589.2000(a)(1), as an animal feed ingredient or in animal feeds must comply with the requirements of 21 CFR 589.2000. That regulation provides that the use of protein derived from mammalian tissues in ruminant feed is prohibited. The definition of “protein derived from mammalian tissues” excludes inspected meat products which have been cooked and offered for human food, such as the corn dogs you receive, that have been further heat processed for use in animal feed. This requirement was previously communicated to you in an April 3, 2001 letter from the Texas State Feed and Fertilizer Control Service. In the absence of the required further heat processing, such products for use in ruminant feeds are adulterated under Section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. Our inspection revealed that whole corn dogs which contain protein derived from mammalian tissues and are sold by your firm to the [redacted] for use in ruminant feed are not subjected to further adulterated feed under Section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In addition, because the whole corn dogs are not subjected to further heat processing and are thus not exempt from the regulation, they must bear the caution statement, “Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants.” Our inspection revealed that they do not bear this caution statement, which causes them to be misbranded animal feed under Section 403(a)(1) of the Act. Copies of the BSE Guidance documents 69, 70 and 76 were provided to Mr. Billy J. Brooks, General Manager, and further discussed by personnel from the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service. Also, you received a copy of the 21 CFR 589.2000, the BSE regulation which was again explained in more specific detail. These serious violations of the law may result in FDA taking regulatory action without further notice to you. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure and/or a court injunction against further sale of protein derived from mammalian tissues for use in ruminant feed or ruminant feed containing such materials. It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. Please notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days from the date you received this letter. Your response should specifically identify the actions you are taking to correct the violations that would involve the continued use of corn dogs to manufacture ruminant feed and provide specific timeframes for achieving compliance. Your reply should be sent to Edwin Ramos, Compliance Officer, at the above stated address. If you have any questions concerning the stated matters, you may contact Mr. Ramos at 214-253-5218. Sincerely, Michael A. Chappell http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5184d.htm January 12, 2005 Ref: 2005-DAL-WL-11 WARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. William L. Brown, Owner Dear Mr. Brown: An inspection of your ruminant feeding operation located at 1 Feed Lot Road, Petrolia, Texas, was conducted on August 24 and September 8, 2004 by an Investigator from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The inspection found significant deviations from Our inspection revealed that you feed prohibited material, as defined by 21 CFR 598.2000(a), to ruminants. This prohibited material consists of human food processing waste, which is derived from corn dog manufacturing and contains hot dogs and corn dogs. Inspected meat products that have been cooked and offered for human food and further heat processed for animal feed are not prohibited material. This is more fully described in Guidance for Industry 76, which was previously provided to your firm. The human food processing waste you are using has not been further heat processed. The failure to further heat process this material causes the feed to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. During our previous inspection on January 17, 2002, copies of the BSE Guidance documents 69, 70 and 76 and 21 CFR 589.2000, the BSE regulation, were provided to and discussed with you. Failure to correct these violations may result in FDA taking regulatory action without further notice including, but not limited to, seizure and/or injunction. It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. Please notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days from the date you received this letter. Your response should specifically identify the actions you are taking to correct the violations and provide specific timeframes for achieving compliance. Also, as part of your written response, you should provide information regarding the current feeding practices followed at your facility and information pertaining to the planned marketing of your animals. Your reply should be sent to Edwin Ramos, Compliance Officer, at the above stated address. If you have any questions concerning the stated matters, you may contact Mr. Ramos at 214-253-5218. Sincerely, /s/ Michael A. Chappell Dallas District Director http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5175d.htm Anamax Corporation 6/09/05 No 5/19/04 No 5/22/03 No 6/15/04 No 5/28/03 No 4/01/02 No 1/12/05 No 6/10/04 No 6/23/04 No 11/07/02 No 4/17/02 No 2/07/05 No 4/08/04 No 9/26/03 No 11/18/04 No 4/06/05 No 6/10/04 No 7/29/02 No 4/08/04 No 5/06/03 No 5/07/02 No 7/12/04 No 8/25/03 No 4/15/04 No 12/09/04 No http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL= Central Ohio Farmers Cooperative, Inc. 5/24/01 No 5/04/01 No 3/21/01 No 3/22/01 No 5/03/01 No 4/27/01 No 7/12/01 No 3/23/01 No 5/23/01 No 5/14/01 No 4/16/01 No 4/23/01 No 3/21/01 No 3/30/01 No 4/04/01 No 8/08/01 No 6/12/01 No 4/16/01 No 4/25/01 No 5/04/01 No 3/23/01 No 4/16/01 No 3/05/01 No 5/22/01 No 5/30/01 No 5/22/01 No 3/22/01 No 4/09/01 No 3/07/01 No 3/21/01 No 6/06/01 No 5/30/01 No 5/10/01 No 5/22/01 No 5/17/01 No 5/17/01 No 9/14/01 No 4/09/01 No 3/27/01 No 8/16/01 No 8/17/01 No 10/24/01 No 7/20/01 No 11/08/01 No 8/21/01 No 9/20/01 No 12/11/01 No 4/10/01 No 3/05/01 No 8/27/01 No 2/12/02 No http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-157R TSS From: TSS () END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 ### RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II ______________________________ END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 ### i am still concerned that the FDA et al seems to have stopped posting BSE -- CVM Updates June 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of March 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread November 2004 Update on Ruminant Feed (BSE) Enforcement Activities FDA Evaluates Test Kits to Detect Animal Proteins in Animal Feed July 2004 Update on Ruminant Feed (BSE) Enforcement Activities (July FDA and USDA Request Comments and Scientific Information on Possible April 2004 Update on Ruminant Feed (BSE) Enforcement Activities (April Update on Ruminant Feed (BSE) Enforcement Activities (February 6, Guidance for Investigators on Ruminant Feed (BSE) Inspections Information about Ruminant Feed (BSE) Inspections Available (October Update On Ruminant Feed (BSE) Enforcement Activities (September 30, NEW VERSION OF BSE INSPECTION CHECKLIST RELEASED (April 22, 2002) RUMINANT FEED (BSE) ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (April 15, 2002) RUMINANT FEED (BSE) ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (October 30, 2001) FDA HOLDING PUBLIC HEARING ON RUMINANT FEED (BSE) RULES (October 10, BSE INSPECTION CHECKLIST AVAILABLE ON THE CVM INTERNET HOME PAGE RUMINANT FEED (BSE) ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (July 7, 2001 ) CVM PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT RUMINANT FEED (BSE) INSPECTIONS (April RUMINANT FEED (BSE) ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (March 23, 2001 ) UPDATE ON RUMINANT FEED (BSE) ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (January 10, BSE FEED REGULATION TEAM TO RECEIVE VICE PRESIDENTIAL AWARD (May 13, FDA GUIDANCE ON BSE FEED REGULATION AVAILABLE (July 14, 1998 ) SATELLITE TELECONFERENCE ON FEED RULES ANNOUNCED (May 15, 1998 ) FDA GUIDANCE ON RUMINANT FEED RULES AVAILABLE (March 26, 1998) INFORMATION FOR DAIRY AND BEEF PRODUCERS -- PROTEIN FEED RULES DEADLINE FOR RUMINANT FEED RULE (October 9, 1997) REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON RUMINANT FEED DRAFT RULE -- MAMMALIAN PROTEINS FDA PROPOSES PRECAUTIONARY BAN AGAINST RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEEDING BSE "Fact Sheet" Web Page Updated by mdt - June 21, 2005, 9:20 AM ET http://www.fda.gov/cvm/bse_updates.htm ______________________________ From: TSS () GAO October 11, 2005 The Honorable Saxby Chambliss Chairman The Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking Democratic Member Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry United States Senate The Honorable Thad Cochran United States Senate The Honorable Richard J. Durbin United States Senate Subject: Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA Implemented in 2003 With Recommendations for Making the Program a Better Oversight Tool In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of most proteins derived from mammals (referred to as prohibited material) in feed intended for cattle and other ruminants.1 The feed-ban rule is one of the primary actions taken by the federal government to protect U.S. cattle from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE),2 commonly known as mad cow disease, which is believed to be spread through feed that contains malformed protein found in certain tissue—particularly brain and central nervous system tissue—of BSE-infected animals.3 Earlier this year, mad cow disease was found for the first time in a 12-year old animal born and raised in the United States. In January 2002, we reported on the effectiveness of federal actions to prevent the introduction and spread of BSE in the United States and identified a number of areas where improvements were needed to strengthen FDA’s oversight of firms in the feed 1Ruminants are animals with four-chambered stomachs, including, but not limited to, cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, deer, elk, and antelope. For the purpose of this report, "cattle" refers to cattle and all other ruminant animals and "cattle feed" refers to feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. 2 21 C.F.R. §589.2000. 3 Adding protein (derived from animals or plants) to feed is a common nutritional practice used to speed animal growth. United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 2 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program industry.4 In February 2005, we issued a follow-up report that examined the effectiveness of FDA’s actions since the 2002 report to ensure industry compliance with the feed-ban rule and protect U.S. cattle from BSE.5 Our report concluded that while FDA has taken a number of positive steps, its processes still have room for improvement. Our February 2005 report also noted that FDA had begun a small, discrete feed testing program in August 2003. We reported that we would provide information on this new feed testing program, which FDA described as a unique effort, once FDA provided us with data on the feed tests. FDA later gave us the information we required to examine those feed testing activities. Accordingly, this report assesses FDA’s small feed testing program and examines the extent to which this feed testing program helps FDA better assure industry compliance with the feed-ban rule. This report is the final component of our follow-up work on FDA’s BSE prevention efforts. FDA established the feed testing program in an assignment memorandum issued in August 2003, entitled Assignment Memorandum—Sample Assignment for Domestic Products, which contained instructions for implementing the program. The purpose of the feed testing program was to collect and analyze cattle and other types of animal feed and feed ingredients to determine whether feed that could be fed to cattle might contain material prohibited by FDA’s feed-ban rule. Under the program, FDA collected 641 feed samples through the end of fiscal year 2004 and planned to collect 900 feed samples during fiscal year 2005. The 2003 guidance gave FDA’s district offices responsibility for collecting samples and submitting them to an FDA laboratory where analysts test the samples using a procedure called feed microscopy—a visual (microscopic) examination for potentially prohibited material, such as particles of bone, hair, or muscle fiber from certain animals. If an analyst detects what appears to be prohibited material, the findings are confirmed by a second analyst. According to FDA officials, some samples were tested using a more specialized method called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a test that FDA has been piloting, which can differentiate ruminant DNA from other animal DNA.6 The guidance noted that because FDA had designated a number of cattle-derived exemptions to the feed-ban rule, including blood, milk protein, and plate waste, the laboratory tests could not definitively determine violations but, rather, could identify potential violations. The guidance directs the districts to conduct follow-up reviews on each potential violation to determine whether the facility represented by the sample actually violates the feed ban. On the basis of the follow-up reviews, the districts assign final compliance determinations—that the facility where the sample was collected has complied with or has violated the feed-ban rule. In June 2005, FDA issued a directive that all feed sample analysis and follow-up actions 4GAO, Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts, GAO-02-183 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2002). 5 GAO, Mad Cow Disease: FDA’s Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness, GAO-05-101, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2005). 6The PCR test works by aiding in the differentiation of mitochondrial DNA between animal species. 3 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program be recorded in FDA’s central data system—the Field Accomplishments and Compliance Tracking System (FACTS)—and that districts complete follow-up reviews of potential violations within 30 working days. In July 2005, FDA issued a revised assignment memorandum that, among other things, enhances the testing protocol by adopting the PCR test for sample retesting and directs districts to provide sufficient narrative explanation in FACTS to explain their final determination on samples that laboratories identify as potential violations. For the purpose of this report, we use the term "feed testing program" to distinguish the samples FDA collected for the feed-testing assignments from samples FDA and states collected in conjunction with routine BSE inspections. We included only the samples that FDA collected for the assignments. To examine the extent to which FDA’s feed testing program provides better assurance of industry compliance with the feed-ban rule, we reviewed FDA’s data on 1,206 samples collected through June 2005. We identified 989 feed samples collected by FDA’s district offices and analyzed by FDA laboratories between August 2003 and June 2005, under the feed testing assignment/program implemented under the August 2003 guidance document. We compared sample collection, analysis, and follow-up with the program instructions in the August 2003 assignment memorandum. In order to assess FDA’s timeliness in analyzing feed samples and to determine results of these analyses, we analyzed data on feed sample collection and laboratory analysis maintained in FACTS on the 989 feed samples. In order to assess the types of follow-up activities carried out by the districts and the basis for their final determinations on potential violations, we obtained and analyzed additional electronic files from FDA districts and discussed those activities and determinations with officials in the 19 FDA district offices. We also obtained detailed district-specific data and information on sample collection, follow-up, and enforcement activities in interviews with the officials in the 19 FDA district offices and discussed this information with FDA headquarters officials. To assess the reliability of the FACTS data, we analyzed the feed sample records in this database as of June 7, 2005. We analyzed the data to identify problems with completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of data entry, and reviewed system documentation on controls. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. The testing program data assessed for this report, including documentation in FACTS, spreadsheets maintained by individual district offices, documents describing district follow-up actions for individual samples, and all written guidance documents, were provided in response to our specific requests for all such documentation and data related to the feed testing program. Finally, we examined the feed testing program guidance that FDA provided in the June 2005 field management directive and the July 2005 assignment memorandum and compared it with the instructions and guidance FDA provided in the August 2003 memorandum. We performed our work from February through August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Our work included an assessment of FDA’s feed testing program data reliability and internal controls. Results in Brief The feed testing program is a small part of FDA’s BSE oversight effort and is one of several methods FDA uses to monitor for compliance with the feed-ban rule. However, 4 GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program several weaknesses in the design and implementation of the feed testing program need to be addressed to improve its effectiveness. Specifically, under the program guidance, • FDA did not require districts to document their follow-up reviews or the basis for their final determinations on samples that the laboratories identified as potentially containing banned protein products. Although the districts may have conducted rigorous follow-up and exercised sound judgment, the basis for their decisions cannot be reviewed and confirmed. • For nearly half the 989 samples, FDA took longer than 30 days from the date the sample was collected until the date the laboratory completed its analysis— including 21 samples that took longer than 100 days. This extended period does not include the time FDA’s districts would have spent following up on samples that indicated potential violations. FDA and industry agree that cattle feed is consumed very quickly. By the time FDA conducted its follow up to determine whether a violation had occurred, the feed may have been consumed. • FDA managers in headquarters did not adequately oversee the feed testing program. Specifically, FDA managers did not receive periodic reports or have other oversight controls in place to assure that the program was implemented correctly. Moreover, FDA did not identify intended program goals and, as a result, does not know whether or to what extent the feed testing program is contributing to the agency’s BSE oversight efforts. FDA’s June 2005 directive and July 2005 revised instructions—issued nearly 2 years into the program—includes (1) a requirement that follow-up actions and compliance determinations be fully documented in FDA’s centralized FACTS compliance tracking system with sufficient explanation to allow the reader to understand the basis for the decision and (2) a time limit for districts to complete follow-up reviews. To ensure that the feed testing program contributes to FDA’s BSE oversight efforts, we are recommending that FDA (1) fully implement the June 2005 field management directive and July 2005 assignment memorandum, (2) assure that districts and laboratories adhere to time limits on collecting samples, completing sample analysis, and carrying out follow-up activities to minimize cattle’s exposure to potentially contaminated feed, and (3) require sufficient oversight by headquarters managers to assure the program is achieving its intended goals. In commenting on a draft of this report, FDA expressed concern that GAO was issuing a report that focused on one small aspect of FDA’s BSE oversight efforts. We agree that it is a small component of FDA’s overall efforts, but it vies for FDA’s limited BSE oversight resources. Furthermore, as we pointed out in our more comprehensive February 2005 report, we looked at this small program separately because FDA did not provide program data in time for its inclusion in the broader report. FDA also disagreed with two of our recommendations in a draft of this report: that it set a time period for laboratories to complete sample analyses and that headquarters managers exercise sufficient oversight to assure the program operates as intended. FDA indicated that it had some target timeframes for laboratories. Because we could not pinpoint where delays were occurring, we revised our recommendation to address the need to minimize overall time—from sample collection through analysis and follow-up activities—in order to minimize cattle’s exposure to potentially dangerous feed. With regard to our recommendation for better management oversight, FDA disagreed with our assertion that the program was not sufficiently monitored and noted the activities its managers have undertaken. We modified that recommendation to clarify what we believe is needed in terms of management oversight. Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA Implemented in 2003 With Recommendations for Making the Program a Better Oversight Tool. GAO-06-157R, October 11 Docket No, 04-047-l Regulatory Identification No. (RIN) 091O-AF46 NEW BSE SAFEGUARDS (comment submission) https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08d?OpenDocument Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed Comment Number: EC -10 Accepted - Volume 2 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder@wt.net] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ... genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD; 9/13/2005 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06157r.pdf #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html #################### TSS
|
