SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  




From: TSS ()
Subject: CVM/TSS Update November 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
Date: December 6, 2005 at 8:01 am PST

CVM Update
<December 5, 2005

November 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE

To help prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed in the United States, 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.

This is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant feed regulation. FDA's 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 November 26, 2005. As of November 26, 2005, FDA had received over 41,000 inspection reports. The majority of these inspections (around 68%) were conducted by State officials under contract to FDA, 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 – 274

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 185 (68% of those active firms inspected)

Of the 185 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:

1 firm (0.5%) was classified as OAI

11 firms (5.9%) 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 – 1,079

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 426 (39% of those active firms inspected)

Of the 426 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:

0 firm (0%) was classified as OAI

8 firms (1.9%) 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 – 5,165

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 2,036 (39% of those active firms inspected)

Of the 2,036 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:

2 firms (0.1%) were classified as OAI

24 firms (1.2%) 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 -- 340

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 147 (43% of those active firms inspected)

Of the 147 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:

0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI

7 firms (4.8%) were classified as VAI

RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS

This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.

Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,576

Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials – 539 (8.2% of those active firms inspected)

Of the 539 of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:

3 firms (0.6%) were classified as OAI

23 firms (4.3%) 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 – 13,477

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 3,748 (28% of those active firms inspected)

Of the 3,748 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:

8 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI

95 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 – 16,476

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed – 4,553 (27% of those active firms inspected)

Of the 4,553 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:

9 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI

107 firms (2.4%) were classified as VAI


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

Issued by:
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Communications Staff, HFV-12
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm

Mad Cow Cover Up Continues:
End of the Year Update
with guest

Terry S. Singeltary. Sr.


Baycliff, TX
Terry's mother, Barbara Poulter, died of CJD in 1997
independent researcher on mad cow disease


produced by

Shirley Wilkes Johnson
independent researcher on mad cow disease


Go Vegan Texas!
Monday @ 10am (CDT) on KPFT
90.1 FM-Houston and 89.5 FM-Galveston

"Like Paul Revere with e-mail, Terry Singeltary Sr. is on a mission to sound an alarm: Beware of mad cow disease. As is true of many crusaders, however, his pleas often fall on deaf ears. But since his mother's death in December 1997, the Galveston County man has been obsessed with possible connections between her deadly brain disorder, sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and mad cow disease."

--- Carol Christian, reporter, Houston Chronicle
"Mad cow disease: Could it be here?
Man's stubborn crusade attracts experts' notice"
August 5, 2001

"I strongly suspect he (Terry Singeltary) is right in thinking the USA has had BSE cases. The American government is making the same mistake as the British in putting the short-term commercial interests of its farmers before health considerations. "It should start formal and widespread testing of cattle plus compulsory autopsies for all human CJD victims at the state's expense. If there is BSE, then leaving it to spread will kill people -- and that would eventually destroy the industry, too."
--- Jonathan Leake, science and environment writer
Sunday Times, London
quoted in Houston Chronicle (above)

"Terry has been helpful in providing contact information regarding suspect CJD cases so that the Health Department can initiate case investigations and learn more about CJD in Texas. I think we learn more from him than he does from us." (noting in the article that the department cannot release records on individual patients).
--- Julie Rawlings, epidemiologist
Texas Department of Health
quoted in Houston Chronicle (above)

"I wouldn't be so zealous in getting the word out if I wasn't convinced that someone is covering up the truth. They used to say BSE would never transmit to humans, and it has. They lied about the feed ban being in place. I've lost faith in the whole process. I've discovered too many things on my own."
--- Terry Singeltary, Sr.
whose mother died of CJD at age 63

"I've been told by a lay researcher whose mother died of CJD that the unofficial word is that, short of a CJD case showing up in the US that looks *exactly* like the British strain, there will be no acknowledgement of a problem in this country, at least not with the current administration."
--- Nicole Aaron
whose father died of CJD at age 63

“Food safety advocates argue that the U.S. record of testing 10 percent of all cows -- only those that show visible signs of disease -- looks shabby compared with Japan's requirement that all slaughtered beef cows 21 months or older be tested. Some local governments still test all cows. Japan can afford to claim ‘the customer is king.’ Japan's caloric consumption of meat, which stood at 15.4 percent of the diet in 2004, was a scant 3.7 percent back in 1960. ‘We didn't eat meat before, and we can always go back, said an agriculture ministry official involved in free-trade agreement negotiations.’ ”
--- Mayumi Negishi, reporter, The Japan Times
“Easing beef ban seen as missing chance to let consumers rule”
November 15, 2005


Eight years ago, Terry Singeltary, Baycliff, TX, watched his mother, Barbara Poulter, age age 63, who lived in Crystal Beach, TX, die horribly from a degenerative brain disease. Doctors told him it was Alzheimer's, but Singeltary was suspicious. The diagnosis didn't fit her violent symptoms, and he demanded an autopsy. It showed his mother had died of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

Strangely, one year before to the day, Terry's next door neighbor's mother, also, died of CJD. So, Terry has been studying this disease for nearly a decade and has become a respected "walking encyclopedia" for researchers, reporters and families with loved ones suffering with or dying from CJD.

Most doctors believe that sCJD is caused by a prion protein deforming by chance into a killer. But Singeltary thinks otherwise. He is one of a number of campaigners in the world who say that some sCJD, like the variant CJD related to BSE, is caused by eating meat from infected animals.

Terry said he became convinced that BSE is here as he watched his mother die. The rare, fatal brain disease is sometimes accompanied by severe jerking.

"She would jerk so bad at times, it would take three of us to hold her down," he said. "They can call it whatever they want, but I know what I saw, and what she went through. `Sporadic' simply means they don't know."

His mother started seeing brown spots in September 1997 and was virtually blind within two weeks. By the eighth week of the illness she was bedridden, and in the 10th week she died. Before that she had been in good health, he said.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease CJD is a horrendous infectious rapidly progressive fatal brain-deteriorating disease for which there is no treatment or cure. One strain, nvCJD, is linked to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (i.e. Mad Cow Disease) in Great Britain.

CJD often escapes detection. A common misdiagnosis is dementia or Alzheimer's Disease.

The personal story you will hear today and others on a website called Many Faces of CJD put a human face on this always fatal disease. Most of the stories tell of people who have died of CJD or currently have CJD. These stories describe the symptoms and progression of the disease as well as the problems in getting it correctly diagnosed

Shirley Wilkes Johnson produced this week's Go Vegan Texas! Shirley has been studying and educating the public on mad cow disease after the outbreak in the UK in the mid-1980s when she heard Howard Lyman, author of Mad Cowboy, talk about the disease at Rice University. She believes her own aunt died of symptoms of CJD, several years ago, even though the family, like most families did not request an autopsy.


Thank you for listening with an open mind and heart this morning to Go Vegan Texas! on Pacifica Radio/ KPFT.

Janice Blue
Host, Go Vegan Texas!
Every Monday at 10am (CDT)
On Pacifica Radio
KPFT, 90.1 FM - Houston and 89.5 FM - Galveston

Listen Live on www.GoVeganTexas.org < http://www.GoVeganTexas.org >
(Just Wiggle the Cow's Ears)
Or later on http://www.kpftx.org/archives/kpftsignal

Every animal you eat
Was running for her life
------------------------------
Show Compassion, Go Vegan!

Contact for Today's Guest & Producer:

Terry S. Singeltary. Sr.,guest
flounder9@VERIZON.net

Shirley Wilkes Johnson,producer
veggiesue@gmail.com

Related Websites on Today's Topic:

The Many Faces of CJD:
http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/798/cjd.htm


"Everyone's experience is different so the stories are all different. If you have been personally affected by CJD please consider contributing your story to this website. In the future we also hope to include stories by people who have received medical treatments, such as cadaver-derived growth hormones for short stature, that put them at risk for CJD."


CJD Watch:
http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/349/part1cjd.htm


This site will be tracking Creutzfeldt - Jakob Disease (CJD) victims in the geographical areas in which they lived and died. We, both the general public and medical professionals/researchers, need to know how widespread CJD is and where there are clusters. Therefore, we hope to include all CJD cases worldwide. To do this we are asking the general public and the families of the victims to help us in this project. Our ultimate goals are for strict mandatory reporting of CJD victims in all areas and a cure for the disease Please help by sharing information about your family member, friend, or acquaintance who had or has this hideous disease. Thank you so very much.

CJD Voices: http://www.Voices.org


Brain Autopsy is vital for diagnosis and documentation of CJD. We can help.
We are a grass roots organization of individuals formed in May 1997 to support families during and after a CJD crisis. We also discuss various issues surrounding CJD and other related illnesses. As of October 1999, we have over 400 members.

Prion Surveillance Center
http://www.cjdsurveillance.com


The National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center (NPDPSC) was established in 1997 at the Division of Neuropathology of Case Western Reserve University. Several European countries also have established surveillance centers to monitor the occurrence of prion diseases, or spongiform encephalopathies, in response to the epidemic of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as “mad cow disease,” which occurred in the United Kingdom during the 1980s.


USA MAD COW CJD UPDATE 12/5/05 TSS RADIO 90.1 FM KPFT


1HR SHOW, TSS INTERVIEW BEGINS 1/4 OF WAY THROUGH...


PLAY


http://www.kpftx.org/archives/kpftsignal/pls.php?mp3fil=3529793


DOWNLOAD


http://www.kpftx.org/archives/kpftsignal/mp3/051205_100002gvt.MP3

MOM DOD 12/14/97 HEIDENHAIN VARIANT CREUTZFELDT JAKOB DISEASE

From: TSS ()
Subject: Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA Implemented in 2003 GAO-06-157R, October 11
Date: November 9, 2005 at 12:22 pm PST

GAO


GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program

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.


SNIP...FULL TEXT 29 PAGES ;


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06157r.pdf

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

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-157R

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
IMPORTS FROM CANADA


https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed


Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]

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


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html


PART 2


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html


PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION

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 ...


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf


Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine

genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable

from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm


[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary


Page 1 of 17

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder9@verizon.net]

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM

To: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov

Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements

for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

Greetings FSIS,

I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and

Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;

snip...FULL TEXT ;


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf


Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION


http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffItemDetailView?objectId=090007d480993808

http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffAttachDownloadPDF?objectId=090007d480993808

http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffCollectionDetailView?objectId=0b0007d48096b40d


MOM DOD 12/14/97 HEIDENHAIN VARIANT CREUTZFELDT JAKOB DISEASE


TSS



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: