|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: TSS ()
In Reply to: Re: cattletoday.com CENSORS TSS ON BSE AKA MAD COW posted by TSS on March 21, 2006 at 2:16 pm:
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/10/23006001.pdf http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/10/20006001.pdf CONFIRMATION OF CJD IN FOURTH FARMER http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/11/03008001.pdf now story changes from; SEAC concluded that, if the fourth case were confirmed, it would be to; This is not unexpected... was another farmer expected? http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/11/13010001.pdf 4th farmer, and 1st teenager http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1996/02/27003001.pdf 2. snip... 3. You will recall that the advice provided by Professor Smith in http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/01/31004001.pdf http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/10/13007001.pdf http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/10/13003001.pdf http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/10/04004001.pdf CJD in Farmers 12. The third case of CJD in a dairy farmer had been considered by SEAC in January 1995 [YB95/1.13/1.1-1.4]. At that time SEAC had recommended that, as a matter of priority, further statistical analysis should be undertaken comparing the relative risks of developing CJD between farmers and other workers who had contact with cattle with other occupational groups who did not. The Committee also noted that cases of CJD in dairy farmers occurred in other European countries where BSE was very rare and that it was therefore important that the incidence of CJD in farmers in the UK was compared with those cases before conclusions were drawn. The Committee did not consider that there was any need to revise the measures already taken to safeguard the public health. (Annex A to minute from Charles Lister dated 11th August 1995. [YB95/8.11/3.1-3.19 at 3.4]) 5 13. By 11th August 1995, it was apparent that the incidence of CJD in dairy farmers in France, Germany and the UK was “remarkably similar.” Dr Will had also followed up SEAC’s recommendations for a statistical analysis. Although Dr Will’s work was not complete, it appeared that some “low risk” occupational groups, such as clerics, had a higher incidence of CJD than farmers. (Minute from Mr Lister dated 11th August 1995 [YB95/8.11/3.1-3.19]). 14. Dr Will’s work in relation to CJD and occupation was set out in the CJDSU fourth annual report [IBD23 (vol IBD2 tab 12)], a draft of which was sent to me under cover of a minute dated 19th September 1995 from Mr Lister [YB95/9.19/1.1-1.2]. Part of the conclusions of that report in the section headed “Case Control Study” (pages 26 and 27) read as follows: “Analysis of occupational histories has revealed no evidence that any of the occupations considered on biological grounds as theoretically carrying a risk of CJD were actually associated with an increased risk of CJD. The occurrence of CJD in 3 dairy farmers with potential exposure to BSE is clearly a matter of concern. It is of note that occupations with no apparent increased biological risk in relation to CJD have a higher incidence than farmers in the United Kingdom and that the incidence of CJD in farmers in continental Europe is similar to the United Kingdom. This does not suggest that there is any additional risk factor for CJD to farmers in the United Kingdom in relation to other countries..” 15. On 28th September 1995, Dr Wight minuted me about a probable fourth case of CJD in a dairy farmer [YB95/9.28/3.1]. I met staff at the Department of Health the next day to discuss the latest findings in research and any further safety measures which should be taken (paragraph 92 of my witness statement [WS179]). 16. SEAC held an emergency meeting on 4th October 1995 to discuss this case [YB95/4.10/1.1-1.8]. As is evident from the minutes, at the conclusion of the meeting of 4th October 1995, SEAC was requested and agreed to draw up a statement on how it viewed the significance of a fourth case. The Committee was 6 also invited to consider whether it was satisfied that nothing else needed to be done in terms of practical measures at that time. SEAC’s statement was finalised by late October 1995 [YB95/10.19/2.1]. That statement read as follows: “The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) have reviewed the reported suspect case of CJD in a farmer who has had a case of BSE in his beef suckler herd. Three previous CJD cases have been confirmed in dairy farmers whose herds had had cases of BSE. The Committee concluded that it was difficult to explain this as simply a chance phenomenon. There is a statistical excess of cases in cattle farmers compared with the general population but the absolute risk, even for farmers, is extremely low at about 2 cases per million per year. There may be other explanations for such an association besides infection with BSE, and the Committee noted that there are no reported cases in other occupational groups such as veterinarians who might be expected to be similarly exposed. They also noted that surveillance of CJD elsewhere in Europe has shown a similar incidence of CJD in farmers, including dairy farmers, in countries with no or very few cases of BSE. They therefore felt that it was important to undertake further epidemiological studies to detect any particular risk factors which might be involved, and reiterated their advice that the UK cases of CJD in cattle farmers and the strain of the agent recovered from them should be studied in detail. The Committee have asked for further work to be done, but have not altered their advice to Government on the precautions necessary to protect either the public health, including farmers, or animal health.” 17. It will be remembered that the diagnosis of CJD in the fourth farmer was not confirmed at this time. ...snip...full text; http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s179b.pdf snip... To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity. To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by snip... THE FUTURE 4.......... MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at 5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which 6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed SEE full text ; http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf TSS ######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########
|
