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

From: TSS ()
Subject: Estimation of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Prevalence in the United States
Date: July 24, 2006 at 1:50 pm PST

Estimation of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Prevalence in the United States

Information Provided (per OMB Bulletin 70 FR 2676)

04/28/06 Peer Review Plan

07/20/06 Scientific Document Prior to Peer Review

07/20/06 Charge to Peer Reviewers
The charge is found on page 4-1 and 4-2 of the Peer Reviewer’s Report.

07/20/06 Peer Reviewers’ Names and Affiliations
The names of the peer reviewers are found on pages 6-1, 6-2, 6-10, and 6-21 of the Peer Reviewer’s Report.

07/20/06 Peer Reviewers’ Credentials and Experiences
The credentials and experiences of the peer reviewers are found on pages 6-1, 6-2, 6-10, and 6-21 of the Peer Reviewer’s Report.

07/20/06 Peer Reviewers’ Report

07/20/06 Agency Response to the Report

07/20/06 Scientific Document Revised After Peer Review

Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002


EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)
Last updated: 19 July 2005
Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

Summary of the Scientific Report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.

Publication date: 20 August 2004


Since the North American cattle industry has been so highly integrated, not only by cattle movements, but also feed, and the fact both countries blatantly ignored feed bans, what makes the USA cattle industry so much safer than the Canadian ?

Based on our scientific knowledge of the disease, we have taken several key steps - some of which have been in place for years -- to safeguard the health of U.S. livestock and our food supply from BSE. And we are fortunate that Canada shares our commitment and overall approach to dealing with this disease by taking comparable and effective measures consistent with ours. This is especially important given that historically the North American cattle industry has been highly integrated.!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/0/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F06%2F0204.xml

JUST because Canada is looking harder to document BSE cases than the USDA, does not make it have more BSE cases, just makes it look like USDA is not looking hard enough. I find it rather comical that Dehaven/Johanns et al preach the OIE gospel on testing figures when they repeatedly repeat, the infamous OIE safeguards and math numbers of testing for a disease of some 400 cattle out of some 100 million. WHEN defending there BSE cover-up program ....... i mean surveillance program, USDA et al boast about these figures and that they are testing 10 x those 400 head of cattle, then on the flop, defending the higher and more frequent numbers of BSE in Canada, they boast the same, but from the opposite end of spectrum, defending higher numbers of BSE. talk about the pot calling the kettle black ...


SEC. JOHANNS: Larry, thank you very much, and to everyone out there good morning. Thank you also for joining us today as we talk about BSE surveillance in the United States.

USDA will soon be transitioning to an ongoing BSE surveillance program after having successfully achieved our goals with the enhanced surveillance program. The ongoing surveillance program will involve sampling approximately 40,000 animals each year. As with the enhanced surveillance, the focus will be on cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found and samples will be taken from a variety of locations.

This approach will maintain our ability to detect BSE even at the very, very low levels that the analysis shows it might exist in the United States. It will also enable us to identify any change in BSE prevalence if a change were to occur. This ongoing BSE surveillance program will exceed surveillance guidelines set forth by the World Animal Health Organization, also known as OIE.

In fact, the program will provide at testing at a level ten times that which is recommended by the OIE.


REPORTER: Well, thank you, Larry. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking the questions. This is actually a question first for Dr. DeHaven, and then I'll follow up with you, Mr. Secretary, if I can.

Dr. DeHaven, are you convinced that the Canadian testing system meets OIE standards given the large number of positives they have had with a relatively much lower testing sample? And then Mr. Secretary, if I could follow up, is it true? I've been hearing reports that the big stumbling block with Korea is a commingling of American and Canadian beef on our slaughter lines. And can we resolve that without some other internal controls about Canadian beef coming in?

DR. DEHAVEN: Peter, thank you for your question. This is Ron DeHaven. And let me take the questions in a little bit reverse order in terms of the adequacy of their program; and you indicated a lower level of testing in Canada. If you look at the number of animals that they are testing in Canada in comparison to their adult cattle population as a percentage, and then compare what we are testing, they in fact are testing a proportionate sample consistent or actually exceeding the number that we are. So I would argue that in fact they do have a testing program in Canada that not only meets OIE requirements but far exceeds it.

And arguably the fact that they have now found six or seven cases in Canada is evidence that their surveillance system is working. They are finding the cases that are there. I think there's a lot of epidemiological evidence that is relevant-- for example, the clustering effect that they are finding and where they're finding those samples. But here again I think the fact that they have now found six or seven positive animals is evidence that they are testing at an appropriate level consistent with the testing that we're doing and in excess of OIE requirements.!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=2006%2F07%2F0256.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=TRANSCRIPT#7_2_5JM

SO, if you dont have BSE or a low level, then you preach the OIE BSE gospel.

AND if you do have an increased number of BSE and even if it is clustering, then you still preach the OIE BSE gospel.

regardless, you are going to have BSE, and if you look at all the other countries that went by these same OIE guidelines, they too went down with BSE.

so what does this tell the 'lay' person, if you go by OIE guidelines only and even exceed it by USA standards, or even more by Canadian standards, you still get BSE.

confusious is confused again ;-)

also, Johanns states ;

SEC. JOHANNS: I might just add a thought to Dr. DeHaven's comments, and then I'll address your question on South Korea. Keep in mind that from a food safety standpoint, the real key here is the removal of the specified risk materials. Those who are trying to convince their consumers that universal testing or 100 percent testing somehow solves the problem, really are misleading. You solve the problem by dealing with the problem; you solve the problem by removing specified risk materials. And that's how you protect human health. ..........!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=2006%2F07%2F0256.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=TRANSCRIPT#7_2_5JM

COULD someone please explain to me that by testing for BSE, and by removing these documented BSE animals when they are found, how is this NOT protecting human health, especially when all SRMs are NOT being removed, and the fact as we speak, there is a Nationwide mad cow feed recall of some 10,878.06 tons of mad cow feed product srms, going to cattle for human and animal consumption, so please explain to me, by removing these mad cows, that were found by testing, how is this not protecting human/animal health in some way ??? IS this some kind of reverse BSE psychology there using now ???


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: