SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Secretary Mike Johanns and United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Rob Portman - Washington, D.C. Dec 9, 2005 more BSeee
Date: December 10, 2005 at 9:21 am PST


Transcript of News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Rob Portman - Washington, D.C. - December 9, 2005

AUDIO: Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns And US Trade Representative Rob Portman Hold Press Availability On Trade

AMBASSADOR PORTMAN: My voice is a little scratchy today but I don't think we need four bottles of water up here.

SEC. JOHANNS: Maybe they were anticipating really tough questions.

AMB. PORTMAN: Yes. So we may need all four by the end of this.

Thank you all very much for coming on a holiday Friday here locally, and I imagine I'll get to see some of you all over the next 10 days in Hong Kong.

Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture, and I are leaving tomorrow morning along with the U.S. delegation made up of several agencies. We'll be flying directly from Washington to Hong Kong. We'll then be spending about 10 days in Hong Kong working through these WTO issues hoping that we can make progress toward a successful completion of the Doha Development Agenda by the end of 2006.

I am hopeful that in Hong Kong we can make incremental progress in a number of areas. One would certainly be a package for being sure that the least developed countries are assured that in this round they will receive very specific benefits to help them integrate fully into the global trading system and to be able to take advantage of the market opening opportunities that will arise from a successful Doha Round.

We've got a lot of work to do. Hong Kong will not be a time for us to make some major breakthroughs that the United States had hoped for, but we do hope that we can make incremental progress and establish building blocks that would go toward even more progress early in the new year.

In Hong Kong we will be stressing that improving market access is again the key to achieving the goals of the Doha round. We've said this many times, but it bears repeating-- the best way to promote development, expand economic opportunities and alleviate poverty in all countries is through expanded trade. And the only way to expand trade is for countries to open their markets in meaningful ways.

This is particularly true in agriculture, which from the start has been at the core of the Doha Round. It's a tough issue. It's always a tough political issue back home. It's one reason that agriculture has not been part of previous rounds with the exception of the Uruguay Round. The previous seven didn't include agriculture. But it's in agriculture where you find the highest tariffs and you find the highest trade-distorting subsidies.

It's also an area where many developing countries see that they have a comparative advantage. They have the ability to sell their products overseas and they're looking for a more level playing field.

That's why it I support Doha. The broad development goals of the Doha Round depend on progress in agriculture, and increasing market access in agriculture will benefit farmers everywhere. The World Bank has studied this and indicated that 93 percent of the gain in agriculture will come from gains in market access.

This is particularly true though among farmers in the developing world who confront an average world tariff of 62 percent in agriculture.

We must also reduce trade-distorting domestic supports. And the United States has taken the lead in putting a proposal on the table. It reduces trade-distorting supports here, in Europe, in Japan, and other countries that provide support -- and eventually under the U.S. proposal, eliminating trade-distorting support.


snip...

In Hong Kong though I think we need to make progress to get there in two fronts. One is, again to give the least developed countries more assurance as to what they will get from the round, and that is basically the trade capacity help to be able to take advantage of the trade openings.

And second, we need to make incremental progress in all three of these areas: agriculture, manufacturing and services.

QUESTION: (unclear)

SEC. JOHANNS: U.S. inspection programs are really beyond a doubt safe. And I'll offer a couple thoughts on that. The analysis or report you referenced there, if you'd asked me a question where you said, Mike, your inspectors found zero problems, I'd say, wait a minute, that sounds rather remarkable; I wonder what's going on out there.

But the report actually indicates they're doing their job. They're identifying the issues that we need to deal with and then demanding that those issues be fixed.

The other thing I would tell you about Japan, and this is really unique to Japan -- as you know we've agreed in this first phase with Japan to start at meat from animals 20 months and under. And you're just not going to find BSE there. It's just not there. So from a number of standpoints, I can safely assure the Japanese consumer that beef is safe.

But probably the best assurance I can give them is as you know the Japanese process over the last two years has been enormously meticulously carried out, painstakingly so. At times we couldn't even detect progress. I mean that's how thorough and comprehensive this process was. And at every stage of the process the conclusion was reached that U.S. beef is safe as Japanese beef.

Then you do a comparison of the countries. We have a herd size of about 90 million. We process about 30 million animals a year, thereabouts, probably a little bit more than that. We've been able to identify since the enhanced surveillance started one case that was actually so difficult to find we had to test and test and test to find it even.

Japan is familiar with BSE. They've now identified their 20th case of BSE. So in working with the Japanese government and with food safety people it was not like we were working with people who had never had any exposure to BSE issues. So when you factor it all in, all the things we've done, I can assure the Japanese consumer beyond a shadow of a doubt that beef is safe. And we're very anxious to return it to their marketplace.

And we'll work with the consumers. We know that it's been a very long process and we have work to do with the consumers. We're going to do everything we can to accomplish confidence in U.S. beef. And I'm very, very confident that we will achieve that.

AMB. PORTMAN: All the way in the back corner?

QUESTION: (off-mike)

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/3/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F12%2F0543.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=TRANSCRIPT#7_2_5JM

>>>The other thing I would tell you about Japan, and this is really unique to Japan -- as you know we've agreed in this first phase with Japan to start at meat from animals 20 months and under. And you're just not going to find BSE there. It's just not there. So from a number of standpoints, I can safely assure the Japanese consumer that beef is safe. <<<

r i g h t! kinda like the WMD issue and gitmo, no lies here either.

the myth that cattle under 30 months of age are free from BSE/TSE is just that, a myth, and it's a false myth !

the youngest age of BSE case to date is 20 months old; As at: 31 May
2003 Year of onset Age youngest case (mnths) Age 2nd youngest case
(mnths) Age 2nd oldest case (yrs.mnths) Age oldest case (yrs.mnths) 1986
30 33 5.03 5.07 1987 30 31 9.09 10.00 1988 24 27 10.02 11.01(2) 1989 21
24(4) 12.00(2) 15.04 1990 24(2) 26 13.03 14.00 1991 24 26(3) 14.02 17.05
1992 20 26 15.02 16.02 1993 29 30(3) 14.10 18.10 1994 30(2) 31(2) 14.05
16.07 1995 24 32 14.09 15.05 1996 29 30 15.07 17.02 1997 37(7) 38(3)
14.09 15.01 1998 34 36 14.07 15.05 1999 39(2) 41 13.07 13.10 2000 40 42
17.08 19.09 2001 48(2) 56 14.10 14.11 2002 51 52 15.08 15.09(2) 2003 50
62 11.11 14.11

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-statistics/bse/yng-old.html

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/index.html

The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the most
BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten in
Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of that
age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet accumulated
enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to develop BSE on
record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are fast incubators.
Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months per year are infected
with BSE and enter the food chain currently in Britain. Of these 3-5
could be fast incubators and carrying detectable quantities of prion.

http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail/html-home/28-html/0359.html

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

SO, with GWs BSE MRR policy, like i said, it is nothing more than a legal tool to trade ALL STRAINS of this mad cow agent around the globe. WE know of atypical TSE in USA via Marsh et al, and we know when USA scrapie is transmitted to USA cow, it does not look like UK BSE. BUT what about Japans beef brought into USA? seems they have atypical TSE in Japan cattle that is in very young cattle and evidently, there TSE agent has even been detected in the peripheral nerves (sciatic nerve, tibial nerve, vagus nerve), so why would USA want to import that into USA$ With our much superior BSE/TSE surveillance system in USA cattle and the fact we have had this fabulous ruminant to ruminant mad cow feed ban in effect since 8/4/97, where no cattle have been fed ruminant protein since then;-), why should we risk this new phenotype of TSE to the USA, since we have all the other TSEs here in the USA under control:-(not)$

Muscle tissue has recently been detected with PrPSc
in the peripheral nerves (sciatic nerve, tibial nerve, vagus nerve) of the 11th BSE
cow in Japan (Yoshifumi Iwamaru et al). also recently, Aguzzi et al Letter to the Editor
Vet Pathol 42:107-108 (2005), Prusiner et al CDI test is another example of detection
of the TSE agent in muscle in sCJD, Herbert Budka et al CJD and inclusion body myositis:
Abundant Disease-Associated Prion Protein in Muscle, and older studies from Watson
Meldrum et al Scrapie agent in muscle - Pattison I A (1990), references as follow ;


PrPSc distribution of a natural case of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy

Yoshifumi Iwamaru, Yuka Okubo, Tamako Ikeda, Hiroko Hayashi, Mori-
kazu Imamura, Takashi Yokoyama and Morikazu Shinagawa

Priori Disease Research Center, National Institute of Animal Health, 3-1-5
Kannondai, Tsukuba 305-0856 Japan gan@affrc.go.jp

Abstract

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a disease of cattle that causes
progressive neurodegeneration of the central nervous system. Infectivity
of BSE agent is accompanied with an abnormal isoform of prion protein
(PrPSc).

The specified risk materials (SRM) are tissues potentially carrying BSE
infectivity. The following tissues are designated as SRM in Japan: the
skull including the brain and eyes but excluding the glossa and the masse-
ter muscle, the vertebral column excluding the vertebrae of the tail, spinal
cord, distal illeum. For a risk management step, the use of SRM in both
animal feed or human food has been prohibited. However, detailed
PrPSc distribution remains obscure in BSE cattle and it has caused con-
troversies about definitions of SRM. Therefore we have examined PrPSc
distribution in a BSE cattle by Western blotting to reassess definitions of
SRM.

The 11th BSE case in Japan was detected in fallen stock surveillance.
The carcass was stocked in the refrigerator. For the detection of PrPSc,
200 mg of tissue samples were homogenized. Following collagenase
treatment, samples were digested with proteinase K. After digestion,
PrPSc was precipitated by sodium phosphotungstate (PTA). The pellets
were subjected to Western blotting using the standard procedure.
Anti-prion protein monoclonal antibody (mAb) T2 conjugated horseradish
peroxidase was used for the detection of PrPSc.

PrPSc was detected in brain, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia, trigeminal
ganglia, sublingual ganglion, retina. In addition, PrPSc was also detected
in the peripheral nerves (sciatic nerve, tibial nerve, vagus nerve).

Our results suggest that the currently accepted definitions of SRM in
BSE cattle may need to be reexamined. ...

179

T. Kitamoto (Ed.)
PRIONS
Food and Drug Safety
================


ALSO from the International Symposium of Prion Diseases held in Sendai, October 31, to
November 2, 2004;


Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Japan


snip...


"Furthermore, current studies into transmission of cases of BSE that are
atypical or that develop in young cattle are expected to amplify the BSE
prion"


NO. Date conf. Farm Birth place and Date Age at diagnosis


8. 2003.10.6. Fukushima Tochigi 2001.10.13. 23


9. 2003.11.4. Hiroshima Hyogo 2002.1.13. 21


Test results


# 8b, 9c cows Elisa Positive, WB Positive, IHC negative, histopathology
negative


b = atypical BSE case


c = case of BSE in a young animal


b,c, No PrPSc on IHC, and no spongiform change on histology


International Symposium of Prion Diseases held in Sendai, October 31, to
November 2, 2004.

The hardback book title is 'PRIONS' Food and Drug Safety
T. Kitamoto (Ed.)


Tetsuyuki Kitamoto
Professor and Chairman
Department of Prion Research
Tohoku University School of Medicine
2-1 SeiryoAoba-ku, Sendai 980-8575, JAPAN
TEL +81-22-717-8147 FAX +81-22-717-8148
e-mail; kitamoto@mail.tains.tohoku.ac.jp
Symposium Secretariat
Kyomi Sasaki
TEL +81-22-717-8233 FAX +81-22-717-7656
e-mail: kvomi-sasaki@mail.tains.tohoku.ac.ip

snip...end

THIS brings up about another 9,200 points of concern. IF you look above at these two atypical TSE cows from Japan, (of which we could very well export more just like it), please notice the testing protocol;

>>># 8b, 9c cows Elisa Positive, WB Positive, IHC negative, histopathology
negative <<<

9,200 points of mad cow concern is the fact the USDA et al DID NOT use rapid TSE test OR WB test to test for BSE/TSE on 9,200 cattle, they used the least likely to find the agent only, the IHC, of which, DID NOT show up on two of those very young atypical positive Japanese cows, PLUS, like the one TEXAS cow they did finally confirm after 7+ months of trying to cover up. besides this, we have some 500,000 bse/tse test, the infamous June 2004 enhanced BSE/TSE surveillance (cover-up) program, where here the testing protocol was terribly flawwed on all these cows, where only IHC and rapid testing was used, no WB. Dr. Detwiler warned of this problem way back;

USDA 2003

We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip.............


Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important.
If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We
have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.

Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip...


FULL TEXT;


Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE


Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado

National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Testing Summary

The BSE enhanced surveillance program involves the use of a rapid screening test, followed by confirmatory testing for any samples that come back "inconclusive." The weekly summary below captures all rapid tests conducted as part of the enhanced surveillance effort. It should be noted that since the enhanced surveillance program began, USDA has also conducted approximately 9,200 routine IHC tests on samples that did not first undergo rapid testing. This was done to ensure that samples inappropriate for the rapid screen test were still tested, and also to monitor and improve upon IHC testing protocols. Of those 9,200 routine tests, one test returned a non-definitive result on July 27, 2005. That sample underwent additional testing at NVSL, as well as at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, England, and results were negative. ...

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse_testing/test_results.html

APHIS et al forgets to add here that on that one additional non-definitive test of July 27, 2005, here again they could not use WB due to samples being preserved. Here in 2005 we have still not gotten the proper BSE/TSE testing protocol done correctly, after being told that we did since 1997.

hey, but its not about 'sound science' or 'human health'. GWs enhanced SRM program was nothing more than commodities and futures in action;

Our analysis suggests that if all slaughter animals are tested, but

there is no increase in access to either the Japanese or

South Korean markets, the result would be a net loss of

$17.50 (the estimated cost of testing) per head. Alternatively,

if full access to the Japanese and South Korean

markets is regained without implementing a broad

based BSE testing program, the potential revenue gain

ranges from about $45 to $66 per head (Figure 1).

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/agec2/MF2679.pdf

GW seems to get his cake and eat it too $

nothing like 'sound science' in this administration, to hell with human health.


>>>Then you do a comparison of the countries. We have a herd size of about 90 million. We process about 30 million animals a year, thereabouts, probably a little bit more than that. We've been able to identify since the enhanced surveillance started one case that was actually so difficult to find we had to test and test and test to find it even. <<<

IN TEXAS we feed our cattle 5.5 grams of potentially BSE/TSE tainted protein, and that's o.k. per the FDA;

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
P01-05
January 30, 2001
Print Media: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

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

Note: On Dec. 23, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a cow in Washington state had tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease). As a result, information on this Web page stating that no BSE cases had been found in the United States is now incorrect. However, because other information on this page continues to have value, the page will remain available for viewing.

FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT


Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.

FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.

It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated.

According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."

Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.

FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.

This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.

FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html

WE know what happens to most stumbling and staggering suspect mad cows in TEXAS too. THERE tissue samples either sit up on a shelf for 7+ months waiting for everyone to forget about, OR ;

FDA Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.

FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html

WE know now, and we knew decades ago, that 5.5 grams of suspect feed in TEXAS was enough to kill 100 cows.

look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused 7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;

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
Summary 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 efficiency 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 findings 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.

snip...

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 first 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://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa

It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf


2

6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley’s answer (that it would take less than say 100

grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one

considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise that it

could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route within the

same species. This information did not become available until the "attack rate"

experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment

designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to ensure

that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the study

and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to trigger

infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that time

ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the designing

scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the results because all the

dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf


Re: BSE .1 GRAM LETHAL NEW STUDY SAYS via W.H.O. Dr Maura Ricketts

[BBC radio 4 FARM news]

http://www.maddeer.org/audio/BBC4farmingtoday2_1_03.ram

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

2) Infectious dose:

To cattle: 1 gram of infected brain material (by oral ingestion)

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/bio/bseesbe.shtml

SADLY, DEC 2005 SHOWS THAT WE STILL HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH BSE/TSE MAD COW DISEASE FEED


GAO


GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program

October 11, 2005


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

CVM Update
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


http://www.fda.gov/cvm/5580.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

========================================================

========================================================

OLD TSS SUBMISSIONS;

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 Management Docket: 96N-0417 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice
in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients a
Comment Number: EC -2
Accepted - Volume 7

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/031403/96N-0417-EC-2.htm


[PDF] Appendices to PL107-9 Inter-agency Working Group Final Report 1-1
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Agent, Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations Unit Federal Bureau of
those who provided comments in response to Docket No. ...
Meager 8/18/01 Terry S. Singeltary Sr ...


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/pubs/PL107-9_Appen.pdf

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

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt

# Docket No: 02-088-1 RE-Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of
2002; [TSS SUBMISSION ON POTENTIAL FOR BSE/TSE & FMD 'SUITCASE BOMBS'] -
TSS 1/27/03 (0)

Docket Management

Docket: 02N-0276 - Bioterrorism Preparedness; Registration of Food Facilities, Section 305
Comment Number: EC-254 [TSS SUBMISSION]

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0276/02N-0276-EC-254.htm


Dockets Entered On October 2, 2003 Table of Contents, Docket #,
Title, 1978N-0301,

OTC External Analgesic Drug Products, ... EMC 7, Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #: 1, ...

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm


Daily Dockets Entered on 02/05/03

DOCKETS ENTERED on 2/5/03. ... EMC 4 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 2.
... Vol#: 1.

03N-0009 Federal Preemption of State & Local Medical Device Requireme. ...


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Feb03/020503/020503.htm


Docket Management

Docket: 02N-0370 - Neurological Devices; Classification of Human Dura Mater

Comment Number: EC -1

Accepted - Volume 1


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be11.html


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


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


Daily Dockets - 04/10/03

... 00D-1662 Use of Xenotransplantation Products in Humans.
EMC 98 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3. 01F ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Apr03/041003/041003.htm - 05-20-2003
- Cached


2003D-0186
Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed


EMC 1
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #:
1

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jun03/060903/060903.htm


2003D-0186
Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed


EMC 7
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #:
1

2003D-0186
Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed


EMC 7
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #:
1


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm


01N-0423 Substances Prohibited from use in animal food/Feed Ruminant

APE 5 National Renderers Association, Inc. Vol#: 2

APE 6 Animal Protein Producers Industry Vol#: 2

APE 7 Darling International Inc. Vol#: 2

EMC 1 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Oct01/101501/101501.htm


still disgusted in cold cold Bacliff, Texas, dreaming of the warm Caribbean Isands. take us away...

TSS





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: