SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C.
Date: April 16, 2006 at 1:24 pm PST

Latest Information
Latest Information (as of April 16, 2006 - 15:00 EST)
Testing at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg has confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a cow from British Columbia. No part of this animal entered the human food or animal feed systems.
The CFIA is also conducting a thorough examination of potential sources of infection. Investigators will pay particular attention to the feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life, when cattle are most susceptible to BSE.


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/situatione.shtml

FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C.
OTTAWA, April 16, 2006 - Testing at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg has confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a cow from British Columbia. As reported on April 13, 2006, samples from this animal were sent to Winnipeg for additional testing after screening tests produced inconclusive results.

This finding does not affect the safety of Canadian beef. Tissues in which BSE is known to concentrate in infected animals are removed from all cattle slaughtered in Canada for domestic and international human consumption. No part of this animal entered the human food or animal feed systems.

Preliminary investigations conducted prior to receiving final results identified the animal’s exact date of birth and birth farm — two critical elements required to trace other animals of interest, as defined by the World Organization for Animal Health. With the confirmed positive results and this information already in hand, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has immediately undertaken the animal component of its investigation on a priority basis.

The CFIA is also conducting a thorough examination of potential sources of infection. Investigators will pay particular attention to the feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life, when cattle are most susceptible to BSE. The CFIA is collecting records of feed purchased by and used on the animal’s birth farm. As in previous investigations, the CFIA will also fully consider all other scientific pathways in an attempt to definitively determine how the animal became infected.

This animal, a six-year-old dairy cow, developed BSE after the implementation of Canada’s feed ban. Similar situations are common to almost all BSE-affected countries that have introduced feed controls. Although the design, implementation and compliance of Canada’s feed ban have been rigorously assessed by a number of countries over the past several years, and have been described as robust and effectively enforced, the Government is committed to continuously making improvements where possible. An enhanced feed ban would accelerate the eradication of BSE in Canada. Accordingly, the CFIA has published proposed regulatory amendments, and following extensive consultations, is now in the process of finalizing their content.

The feed ban and national surveillance program which identified this animal, contribute to Canada's interlocking BSE controls. While the feed ban continues to limit the spread of BSE, Canada's national surveillance program effectively monitors the health of the Canadian cattle herd. The national surveillance program, which targets cattle most at risk of having BSE, has tested more than 100,000 such animals since 2003. The detection of only five animals within this high-risk population over the past three years and the age of the animals detected supports the conclusion that the level of BSE in Canada is very low and declining.

The strong participation of producers to facilitate the detection of any suspect cases at the farm level, as demonstrated once again by this most recent finding, and the close collaboration between the Provinces and Federal Government in the surveillance effort demonstrates the shared commitment which exists to protect animal and human health in Canada.

In keeping with its ongoing practice, the CFIA will post to its website updated information as it becomes available.

- 30 -

For information:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Media Relations: (613) 228-6682

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2006/20060416e.shtml

C A N A D I A N F O O D

I N S P E C T I O N A G E N C Y

F E E D B A N R E V I E W

March 2, 2005

snip...

Mammalian-to-ruminant Feed Ban: Refers to the 1997 Health of Animals

Regulations that prohibits feeding protein derived from mammals to ruminant animals

such as cows, sheep, deer, etc., with the exception of porcine- or equine-derived

protein.

snip...

Canada’s feed ban prohibits feeding most mammalian proteins to ruminant animals,

such as cattle, sheep and goats. The ban requires rendering facilities, feed

manufacturers, feed retailers and livestock producers to follow and document

production and feeding procedures to prevent the inclusion of prohibited materials

in feed and feed ingredients intended for ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep and

goats.

snip...

1.3 Canada’s feed industry

The feed ban regulations apply to Canada’s feed and livestock industry, which

consists of rendering plants, commercial feed mills (that manufacture half of

Canada’s production), and feed retailers. The regulations also apply to on-farm feed

mills and farms that feed cattle and other ruminants.

The feed sector is Canada’s 16th largest manufacturing industry, with annual

production of 15 million metric tonnes. It employs about 9,000 people. The value

of production from this sector is $3.5 billion annually. In addition to the feed sold in

Canada, feed is exported (primarily to the US), and feed from the US is also

distributed and sold in Canada. Swine, dairy and poultry feed accounts for 85% of

all feed produced and sold by Canadian feed manufacturers.

The chart below depicts a typical feed cycle showing the feed inputs from farms,

abattoirs and dead stock that enter the feed manufacturing cycle. The product enters

through the rendering process and is passed through to the feed mills and

distributors.

snip...

Canada’s rendering industry

It is important to note that only six of the 29 rendering facilities have a permit from

the CFIA that authorizes them to handle both prohibited and non-prohibited

material.

Two thirds of the 29 rendering facilities in Canada are owned and operated by large

corporations. These corporations include international vertically integrated food

companies. Seven rendering facilities are attached to federally registered slaughter

plants, which helps to ensure that these companies have very tight control over the

rendering and disposition of raw material from their operations.

In 2003, Canadian renderers processed approximately 2.2 million tonnes of inedible

animal by-products. More than 50% (556,000 tonnes) of the products manufactured

by rendering were protein meals (including blood meal). The remaining products

were animal fats and fatty acids. In 2003, Canada produced approximately 478,000

tonnes of MBM (including cattle, pork, poultry and fish protein meals). In 2003,

approximately 535,000 tonnes of animal fats, fatty acids and oils, and 77,600 tonnes

of blood and feather protein meals were also produced.

All of Canada’s rendering plants are members of the Animal Protein Producers

Industry Association (APPI), and this association has sponsored the adoption of

HACCP-based Quality Assurance Programs. A number of large rendering facilities

representing 74 % of the production have implemented these process controls which

include an audit by a third party to ensure compliance.

snip...

As a precautionary measure, Canada imposed a partial mammalian-to-ruminant feed

ban on August 4, 1997.

snip...

The United States introduced similar regulations at the same time in an effort to

institute a North American strategy to prevent BSE from gaining a foothold in the

US and Canada. The Canadian and US regulations were harmonized. The provisions

were similar in content and the timing of their application in order to maximize the

integration of the North American feed system. A notable difference in Canadian

regulation was the exclusion of poultry litter and plate waste from feeds.

When the ban was introduced, a decision was reached not to recall the feed that was

currently in the system, given the perceived low risk. All retailers were given a grace

period until September 3, 1997 to use or distribute feed already produced. Feed

manufactuerers received a grace period until October 3, 1997 to comply with

labelling requirements. Livestock producers were given a grace period until October

3, 1997 to use the feed manufactured prior to the feed ban. The US also adopted

these measures, given the similar risk profiles of the two countries.

snip...

Canada followed a responsive and precautionary approach with respect to

developing the 1997 feed ban regulations

Canada, along with international partners, had devoted considerable effort to

controlling BSE over the decade leading up to the 1997 feed ban. The following is a

chronology of events relating to BSE and the control measures Canada put in place

to mitigate the spread of the disease:

􀂃 1978 – Canada banned meat and bone meal (MBM) for livestock feed imported

from the United Kingdom (as well as other countries) due to Foot and Mouth

Disease.

􀂃 1982 (to 1990) – Canada imported cattle from the UK.

􀂃 1986 – BSE was first documented in the UK.

􀂃 1988 – Importation of meat meal, bone meal, and blood meal were officially

banned from all countries except the US

􀂃 1990 – BSE was designated a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Act.

􀂃 1990 – Canada prohibited further importation of cattle from the UK (a total of

191 animals had been imported from the U.K. during the period1982 - 1990).

􀂃 1990 – Canada places UK origin cattle under an animal health monitoring

program.

􀂃 1992 – The National BSE surveillance program was implemented.

􀂃 1993 – A cow imported from the U.K. that was in the monitoring program

initiated in 1990 was confirmed infected with BSE.

􀂃 1994 – All remaining UK cattle imports were either returned to the UK, or were

euthanized. All tested negative for BSE.

􀂃 1996 – World Health Organization recommended that all countries implement

feed bans.

􀂃 1997 – Canada and the United States implemented their respective mammalian

protein feed bans (with some exceptions) as a precautionary measure in response

to WHO recommendations. CFIA amended its National Feed Inspection

Program to include the mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban regulations, which

targeted renderers, feed manufactures, feed retailers and farms in order to verify

compliance with the regulations.

􀂃 2000 – CFIA suspended the importation of all rendered animal protein products,

of any species, from any country that Canada did not recognize as free of BSE.

􀂃 2001 – The creation of a Canadian Cattle Identification Program was instituted

for cattle and bison, enhancing our ability to trace individual animals from the

herd of origin to slaughter.

􀂃 2003 – In May, Canada detected the first case of BSE in a cow born and reared

in this country.

􀂃 2003 – In July, Canada amended the Health of Animals Regulations and the Food and

Drug Regulations to remove Specified Risk Material (SRM) from the human food

supply.

􀂃 2003 – In December, BSE was confirmed in a cow in Washington State that was

imported from Canada.

􀂃 2004 – In December, Canada proposed strengthening BSE precautionary

measures by requiring all Specified Risk Material (SRM) to be removed from all

animal feed.

􀂃 2005 – On January 2 and 11, respectively, two additional cases of BSE were

confirmed in indigenous Canadian cattle.

snip...

Figure 1 shows that industry compliance, on a plant-by-plant basis, has been in the

92-97% range for feed mills and 90-97% range for renderers over the last three fiscal

years. Figure 1 also shows major non-compliance items and indicates the low rate of

such non-compliance. (Minor items have not been included.) The breakdown

between major and minor non-compliance items is presented in Appendix 3. Figure

3 in Appendix 3 indicates how including “minor” non-compliance items affects

overall compliance rates for feed mills and renderers. As noted above, major items

can potentially result in cross-contamination whereas minor non-compliance items

relate to administrative items (i.e. paperwork).

Figure 2 illustrates the compliance trends at feed mills and rendering plants for this

period for all BSE-related tasks. Overall compliance has been high and it has been

improving during the period examined.

snip...see full text 33 pages ;

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/revexa/revexae.pdf

Questions and Answers
FEED BAN REVIEW REPORT
Q1. Why did the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) review the effectiveness of Canada’s feed ban?
A1. Following the confirmation of two cases of BSE in 2005 and at the request of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) undertook a review of the feed ban to verify that this important safeguard has provided an appropriate level of animal health protection since its implementation.
The specific objectives of the review were to determine if the 1997 feed ban regulations were suitably designed, appropriately implemented and consistently complied with by commercial feed mill and rendering industries.

Q2. What was reviewed?
A2. The review included a study of:
The process used to design the 1997 Feed Ban regulations.
The process used by the CFIA to support the implementation of the Feed Ban across the feed mill and rendering industries in Canada
The inspection strategy that the CFIA uses to ensure that the mills and rendering industries comply with the feed ban regulations.
The implementation of the feed ban requirements on the part of industries, including the level of their compliance with these requirements.

Q3. What were the overall conclusions of the review?
A3. The CFIA’s report concludes that Canada’s feed ban is providing an effective barrier that limits the spread of BSE and will lead to the eventual eradication of the disease from the Canadian cattle herd.
The ban was designed in accordance with international guidelines and drew from the science and most current understanding of BSE available at the time.

The CFIA took significant steps to increase awareness of the ban and to help industry integrate the ban’s requirements into standard feed production practices.

Annual feed ban inspections require feed mills and rendering facilities to obtain a satisfactory rating on numerous BSE-related tasks. These tasks can be categorized as high-risk and low-risk.Low risk tasks are primarily administrative in nature. High-risk tasks, such as flushing procedures, relate to those activities that are most important to prevent the potential cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited material.

The review determined that compliance with the feed ban’s requirements at rendering facilities and feed mills is high. On average, 95% of feed mills and 93% of rendering facilities have been fully compliant with all high-risk tasks over the past three years.

The CFIA requires industry to take immediate corrective action in all cases of non-compliance with high-risk tasks. Non-compliance with low-risk tasks must also be rectified.

Q4. What follow-up actions will the CFIA take based on what the review uncovered?
A4. The review indicated that the Canadian feed ban is effectively reducing BSE risks to animal health. The CFIA, committed to continuously improving Canada’s BSE safeguards, will evaluate the findings of both the Canadian and American reviews over the coming months with a view to further elevating compliance levels. As well, the CFIA is now reviewing comments submitted on the proposed removal of specified risk material from the animal feed system.
Q5. The feed ban review report indicates that there are some compliance problems. How can the feed ban be effectively limiting the spread of BSE if the feed ban is not being fully complied with?
A5. 100% compliance with the feed ban is not required to produce desired disease control effects. The experiences of countries such as the United Kingdom confirm that, even with less than perfect compliance, feed bans such as Canada’s effectively limit the spread of BSE and can be expected to lead to the eventual eradication of the disease. The United States Department of Agriculture’s report also acknowledges this fact.
The number of cases detected in North America indicates that only an extremely low level of BSE is present in this part of the world. Based on this finding, there is only a small possibility that an infected animal could enter the animal feed system. If this were to happen, rendering practices would decrease the level of infectivity.

In addition, not all cattle are equally susceptible to developing BSE.

Q6. Do most feed mills in Canada run both prohibited and non prohibited material through the same system or do they have separate systems to handle different types of feed ingredients?
A6. Ninety-four of the 550 feed mills in Canada handle both prohibited and non prohibited material. These mills use common lines to produce various feeds, but are required to use flushing and sequencing practices to limit cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited material. CFIA inspections verify, among other feed ban requirements, that these practices are being appropriately administered.
Q7. Was non-compliance found in rendering facilities and feed mills that handle both prohibited and non-prohibited material?
A7. Yes, but the majority of non-compliance issues related to low-risk tasks, such as documentation requirements, that do not necessarily signify increased risks of cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited materials.
Q8. The report indicates that the feed mill industry has in some instances been very slow to comply with the feed ban. Why does non-compliance take so long to resolve?
A8. Non-compliance, if observed, is immediately communicated to feed mill or rendering facility management. Management must then submit for CFIA approval an action plan, which details what corrective action will be taken. Depending on the severity of the non-compliance, industry may be permitted up to 60 days to remedy a situation. Once corrective action has been taken, the CFIA follows up to verify that non-compliance has been appropriately addressed. The review showed that the time required to resolve non-compliance appears to be decreasing.
Q9. How can you explain that compliance levels in feed mills and rendering plants declined in the 2004-2005 period - even after BSE was detected in Canada and created such a crisis?
A9. The increases in non-compliance observed in 2004-2005 reflect minor fluctuations, which are common within complex systems such as the feed production chain.
Q10. How did the CFIA conduct an objective assessment of the feed ban?
A10. The review was lead by the CFIA’s Executive Director of Corporate Planning, Reporting and Accountability . The review followed government-wide standards for independent evaluation and incorporated sound audit principles and generally accepted criteria for the design of regulatory programs.
The USDA’s report supports the findings of the CFIA’s review. It indicates that the Government and the Canadian feed industry have taken appropriate actions to implement and administer the feed ban.

Moreover, the USDA report concluded that Canada’s feed ban, which is similar to that of the United States, is effectively limiting the transmission of BSE through feed.

Q11. The CFIA’s report mentions one serious incident of non-compliance during an inspection in January 2005. What happened?
A11. The CFIA review identified one serious-or high-risk-compliance problem. This incident involved improper flushing practices between the production of feeds for non-ruminant and ruminant animals. A CFIA investigation determined that the potential cross-contamination of ruminant feed would pose only a very low BSE-related risk. Any prohibited material that could have entered the feed would have come from cattle less than 30 months of age. Typically, such animals are too young to develop infective levels of BSE. Based on a review of other records from this feed mill, the CFIA determined this was an isolated occurrence. The feed mill was required to tighten its operating procedures, and the CFIA is considering enforcement action.
Q12. Why did the review only focus on feed mills and rendering facilities?
A12. The feed ban regulations apply to feed retailers, livestock producers and on-farm feed mills as well. However the review focussed on commercial feed mills and rendering plants because they represent a higher risk in terms of potential contamination of non-prohibited material or ruminant feed with prohibited material.


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/revexa/revqueste.shtml

CANADIAN FEED POLICY AND BSE

Prepared by:
Frédéric Forge
Science and Technology Division
11 July 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

USE OF ANIMAL PROTEIN IN FEED

REGULATIONS COVERING BSE-RELATED FEED CONTROL

A. The 1997 Feed Ban
B. Review of the 1997 Feed Ban
C. Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Feed Ban

FEED IMPORTS

A. Import Policy
B. Import Statistics

CONCLUSION: BANNING “CANNIBALISM” IN THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY?

APPENDIX 1 – CURRENT AND PREVIOUS BSE IMPORT POLICIES

APPENDIX 2 – DATA ON SELECTED CANADIAN IMPORTS, 1995-2003


A. The 1997 Feed Ban

In 1997, rendered protein products derived from almost all mammals were
banned for use in ruminant feed under Part XIV of the Health of Animals
Regulations. Rendered protein products, including bovine products, can still
be used in animal feed for non-ruminants such as hogs and poultry that are
not susceptible to BSE. The United States implemented a similar feed ban the
same year.

Canadian producers may feed their ruminants only approved animal protein
(products) such as pure porcine, equine, poultry and fish products. Protein
that includes meat and bone meal from mammals other than pigs and horses is
prohibited in ruminant feeds. Milk, blood, gelatin, rendered animal fats and
their products have not been banned.


http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0506-e.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0506-f.htm


PRB 04-12E
CHRONOLOGY OF BSE-RELATED EVENTS
AND GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES

Prepared by:
Marc LeBlanc
Economics Division
Revised 20 September 2005
20 May 2003

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0412-e.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0412-f.htm


MAD COW DISEASE
AND CANADA'S CATTLE INDUSTRY

Prepared by:
Frédéric Forge, Science and Technology Division
Jean-Denis Fréchette, Principal, Economics Division
Revised 12 July 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT BSE

BSE IN CANADA BEFORE 2003
A. The 1993 Case
B. BSE Monitoring
C. Measures to Prevent the Emergence of the Disease in Canada….

MAY 2003: A NEW CASE OF MAD COW DISEASE
A. Results of the Investigation
B. Suggested Additional Measures

BSE: THE NORTH AMERICAN ISSUE

CONSEQUENCES FOR CANADA’S CATTLE INDUSTRY
A. Resuming Export Trade
1. The American Border
2. International Trade Rules: Complying with National Health Measures
B. Repositioning the Industry

CONCLUSION

CHRONOLOGY

APPENDIX: BEEF PRODUCT EXPORTS

see full text;


http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0301-e.htm


http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0301-f.htm

EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR)
of Canada
Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)
[Last updated 08 September 2004]

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_v2_en1.pdf


Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA


https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9dOpenDocument&AutoFramed


Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf

USA AND MEXICO EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical
BSE-Risk (GBR)


http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_v2_en1.pdf


http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf


Subject: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed
Rule, Docket No. 2002N-0273 C-534 VOL 45 (PhRMA) and Entered On February 17,
2006
Date: March 10, 2006 at 5:23 pm PST

Marie A. Vodicka, PhD

Assistant Vice President

Biologics & Blotechnology

Scientlflc & Regulatory Affairs

SCIENCE & REG AFFAIRS

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane, rrn . 1061

Rackville, MD 20862

Re: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed Rule,
Docket

No. 2002N-0273

February 14, 2006

Dear Sir or Madam :

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is
providing

comment to the proposed rules issued. ......

snip...

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000534-01-vol45.pdf

Subject: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances
Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed PAUL BROWN
Date: January 20, 2006 at 9:31 am PST

December 20,2005

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane

Room 1061

Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)

Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed

Dear Sir or Madame:

As scientists and Irecognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs
for

decades, we are deeply concerned by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE
infected

cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to
this very.........

snip...

Given that BSE can be transmitted to cattle via an oral route with just .OO1
gram of infected tissue, it may not take much
infectivity to contaminate feed and keep the disease recycling. ........


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf


December 19, 2005

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane

Room 1061

Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)

Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed

Dear Sir or Madame:

The McDonald’s Corporation buys more beef than any other restaurant in the
United States. It is

essential for our customers and our company that the beef has the highest
level of safety.

Concerning BSE, ...........

snip.......

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273_emc-000134-02.pdf

THE SEVEN 1/2 SCIENTIST REPORT ON BSE/TSE ***


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf


***

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

Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System

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


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


TSS





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: