SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: USDA/Alabama BSE Epidemiological Update USDA/Alabama BSE Epidemiological Update
Date: April 17, 2006 at 11:14 am PST

Jim Rogers (202) 690-4755
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Christy Rhodes (334) 240-7103
Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries

USDA/Alabama BSE Epidemiological Update

WASHINGTON , March 16, 2006 --Today, officials with the state of Alabama and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have completed work at the farm in Alabama to recover the remains of the cow that tested earlier this week as positive for BSE.

Federal and state agriculture workers excavated the remains of the animal, which had been buried on the farm and did not enter the animal or human food chain, in accordance with USDA protocols. While the carcass matches the description provided by the owner, samples are being sent to USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) in Ames , Iowa to match DNA with the positive sample. The DNA will also be used to match suspected siblings and offspring found during the epidemiological investigation.

After further examination, experts confirmed through dentition that the animal was at least 10 years of age. This means the animal would have been born prior to the implementation of the Food and Drug Administration's 1997 feed ban. Human and animal health in the United States is protected by a system of interlocking safeguards, which ensure the safety of U.S. beef. The most important of these safeguards is the ban on specified risk materials from the food supply and the FDA's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban.

In addition to the carcass, federal agriculture officials located a six-week-old calf belonging to the BSE positive animal. The calf has been quarantined and is being moved to NVSL for further observation.

The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will begin tomorrow to post daily updates on the progress of the epidemiological investigation on its website between 4 and 5 p.m. EST. The updates will be available at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse.shtml.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2006/03/bse_al-epi_vs.shtml

> After further examination, experts confirmed through dentition that the animal was at least 10 years of age.

this is total USDA BSe at it's finest. why cant they confirm the age as in the UK, with blood/dna, to get an accurate age?

> This means the animal would have been born prior to the implementation of the Food and Drug Administration's 1997 feed ban.

no, this means they covered up the age with the excuse of no records and having to use dentition, a prehistoric means of detecting the age of animals, kinda like reading tea leaves, and we are speaking of a borderline case, where months could mean the difference. we can look back at the BSE testing in Texas that took 8 months and an act of congress to get confirmed (and these same fools are in office), a laugher to say the least, we can look at the inconclusive that was preserved prematurely as to render any WB or rapid test only IHC the least likely (this was the Fong effect), or the same with the other 9,200 they only used IHC, the least likely to detect BSE as the (retired Dr. Detwiler;-) tried to tell them, or the mad cow in Texas they just did not test at all, sent that stumbling and staggering cow to the render. nope this is the same old song and dance that has been coming out of the USDA for years and years, and who pays the price? (everybody go look in the mirror now, and that is the answer). or the excuses of inspectors that have to be retrained??? what the heck is that about??? we have been told since 8/4/97 via red books, green books, blue books, bse emergency response plans, bse surveillance, etc, that everything was already in place. now look where we are, nobody can even access BSE for research without specific permission from the federal gov. ...rotaruckther folks!

when you have the industry run the gov, or in the case, usda/aphis/fsis et al, this is what you get. and i see no change in the near future, only body bags, and they are mounting as slow as it may seem $$$

http://www.prwatch.org/node/4624

http://www.prwatch.org/node/4624/print

Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

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

> see increase of sporadic CJD over the years ;
>
>
> http://www.eurocjd.ed.ac.uk/sporadic.htm
>
>
> USA
>
>
> notice steady increase, but also notice in 2005, # 7 the 38 pendings cases
> through Oct. and #8 includes 53 type pending, 1 type unknown.
>
> if you look at 2003 there were 3 type unknown.
>
> wonder if they were the same or different than the unknown in 2005?
>
> considering the soup that has been brewing over here in the USA for years
> via the rendering of BSE and atypical TSE in cattle, CWD, Scrapie, a few
TME
> cases (not too much due to scent gland, but there were a few rendered, but
> all this, and you have one hell of a recipe for a new strains of TSE in
> humans. then who knows what 'friendly fire' cases would look like from
this
> soup via secondary transmission via medical/surgical/dental arena. ...TSS
>
>
> National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center case exams...
>
>
> http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html
>
>
> Full Text
> Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
> Singeltary, Sr et al.
> JAMA.2001; 285: 733-734
>
>
>
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/6/733?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=
>
10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dignosing+and+reporting+creutzfeldt+jakob+disease&
> searchid=1048865596978_1528&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama
>
>
>
>
>
> Coexistence of multiple PrPSc types in individuals with
>
> Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
>
>
> Magdalini Polymenidou, Katharina Stoeck, Markus
> Glatzel, Martin Vey, Anne Bellon, and Adriano Aguzzi
>
>
> Summary
>
>
> Background The molecular typing of sporadic
> Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is based on the size
> and glycoform
>
> ratio of protease-resistant prion protein (PrPSc), and
> on PRNP haplotype. On digestion with proteinase K, type
> 1 and
>
> type 2 PrPSc display unglycosylated core fragments of
> 21 kDa and 19 kDa, resulting from cleavage around amino
>
> acids 82 and 97, respectively.
>
> Methods We generated anti-PrP monoclonal antibodies to
> epitopes immediately preceding the differential proteinase
>
> K cleavage sites. These antibodies, which were
> designated POM2 and POM12, recognise type 1, but not
> type 2, PrPSc.
>
> Findings We studied 114 brain samples from 70 patients
> with sporadic CJD and three patients with variant CJD.
>
> Every patient classified as CJD type 2, and all variant
> CJD patients, showed POM2/POM12 reactivity in the
>
> cerebellum and other PrPSc-rich brain areas, with a
> typical PrPSc type 1 migration pattern.
>
> Interpretation The regular coexistence of multiple
> PrPSc types in patients with CJD casts doubts on the
> validity of
>
> electrophoretic PrPSc mobilities as surrogates for
> prion strains, and questions the rational basis of
> current CJD
>
> classifications.
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> The above results set the existing CJD classifications
>
> into debate and introduce interesting questions about
>
> human CJD types. For example, do human prion types
>
> exist in a dynamic equilibrium in the brains of affected
>
> individuals? Do they coexist in most or even all CJD
>
> cases? Is the biochemically identified PrPSc type simply
>
> the dominant type, and not the only PrPSc species?
>
>
> Published online October 31, 2005
>
>
> http://neurology.thelancet.com
>


TSS






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: