SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: JOHANNS PONDERING LETTING THOSE MAD COW DOWNERS BACK ON YOUR DINNER PLATE
Date: July 25, 2006 at 12:44 pm PST

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

US Ban On Downer Cattle Protects Humans From BSE-Study

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. ban on slaughtering downer cattle – cattle
that are too sick or injured to walk - has some effect on keeping consumers
safe, but does very little to combat the spread of mad-cow disease in herds,
according to an updated Harvard University study.

"The measure does reduce predicted potential human exposure" to mad-cow
disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, by about 3%, the study said,
but noted that the downer ban has "little effect" on the average number of
animals that could become infected.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture banned downer cattle meat from the human
food supply in response to the first infected cow found in the U.S. in
December 2003. That rule, though, was only an "interim" measure and has not
been replaced yet with a final rule.

The USDA has taken the results of the Harvard Center For Risk Analysis
study - updated in October 2005, but not released publicly until now - as it
writes final rules to replace temporary BSE safety measures it put in place
about three years ago. Draft copies of the USDA final rules have been
circulating around USDA for months, but none have been made public.

The USDA has announced finding two more cases of BSE since the first one was
discovered in December 2003.

USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, when asked recently whether the department
would continue its ban on downer cattle on a permanent basis, said no
decision had been reached yet.

Johanns said July 20 that there have been "a number of meetings on that over
the past few months."

The existing, yet temporary, downer prohibition can be unfair to ranchers,
Johanns has said in the past. In a March 2005 interview, he noted that many
downer cattle suffer some sort of injury such as a broken leg and present no
disease risk.

U.S. cattle and beef industry groups generally opposed the restriction on
downer cattle because they are worth far more when slaughtered for human
food.

Ranchers sold about 150,000 head of downer cattle a year to slaughterhouses
before the prohibition was enacted, according to data compiled by the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Source: Bill Tomson; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-646-0088;
bill.tomson@dowjones.com


http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=54885


Johanns states ;

USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, when asked recently whether the department
would continue its ban on downer cattle on a permanent basis, said no
decision had been reached yet.

Johanns said July 20 that there have been "a number of meetings on that
over the past few months."

The existing, yet temporary, downer prohibition can be unfair to ranchers,
Johanns has said in the past. In a March 2005 interview, he noted that many
downer cattle suffer some sort of injury such as a broken leg and present no
disease risk. ......end


Greetings,

I can see the writing on the wall, those mad cow downers are going back to
the market regardless, it's just a matter of a little more time, and a lot
more spin, hey, but those triple BSE firewalls been in place since 8/4/97,
and no problem in the USA, just Canada ;-) and nobody knows about Mexico,
but all Three are classified as BSE GBR III, but then GW et al change rules
to BSE MRR, which we all know what this means, the legal trading of all
strains of TSE globally, and that's just what is happeing. ...TSS

BSE Regulation Has Not
Been Fully Implemented by
the Feed Industry
To determine how firms were implementing the June 1997 BSE regulation,
FDA, with the assistance of state officials, inspected over 9,100 firms from
January 1998 through January 2000. Table 1 shows the types and number of
firms inspected.
Table 1: Types of Firms Inspected
a Includes haulers and distributors of feed, and firms or persons who
receive prohibited
materials directly from manufacturers.
Source: FDA.
The BSE inspection results revealed that 1,688 of the 9,184 firms were not
aware of the new BSE feed regulation. Furthermore, inspection results of
the 2,481 firms that were identified as handling “prohibited” material—
Type of firm Number of firms inspected
Licensed feed mill 1,029
Nonlicensed feed mill 4,901
Ruminant feeder 1,400
Dairy farm 495
Renderer 211
Protein blender 121
Othera 1,027
Total 9,184
B-285212
Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-255 Safety of Animal Feed
material that is not allowed to be fed to ruminants—revealed some serious
deficiencies. For example:
• Required cautionary statement not on product label. Of the firms
inspected, 699, or 28 percent, did not label their products with the
required cautionary statement that the feed should not be fed to cattle
or other ruminants.
• Required records not properly maintained. One-hundred and thirtyseven
firms, or about 6 percent, did not properly maintain the name and
address of the consignee of their products, which would make it difficult
to trace sales of contaminated feed.
In addition, of the 1,771 firms that manufacture both prohibited and
nonprohibited material, 361, or 20 percent, did not have a system in place
to prevent commingling and cross-contamination, as required by the
regulation.
Because renderers and FDA-licensed feed mills are at the greatest risk of
introducing BSE to a wide segment of the animal feed market, the
inspection results for these firms were particularly disturbing. For
example,
• Twenty-three of the 211 renderers inspected, about 11 percent, were not
aware of the BSE regulation.
• Twenty-seven of the 163 renderers that handle prohibited material,
about 17 percent, did not label their products with the required
cautionary statement.
• Ten of the 63 renderers that manufacture both prohibited and
nonprohibited material, about 16 percent, did not have a system in place
to prevent commingling.
The results for the FDA-licensed feed mills were similar. For example,
• Sixty-three of the 1,023 mills, about 6 percent, were not aware of the
regulation.
• Eighty-five of the 409 mills that handle prohibited material, about 21
percent, did not label their products with the required cautionary
statement.
• Thirty-seven of the 300 mills that manufacture both prohibited and
nonprohibited material, about 12 percent, did not have a system in place
to prevent commingling.
B-285212
Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-255 Safety of Animal Feed
FDA told us that as a result of the BSE inspections, two warning letters
have been issued and five firms have voluntarily recalled products. As of
July 2000, however, FDA had not completed its analysis of the inspection
results and had not updated its enforcement strategy for achieving industry
compliance with the BSE regulation. FDA also told us that the next rounds
of BSE inspections will include only those firms that handle prohibited
material. In addition, FDA told us it will direct its efforts towards those
firms or segments of the industry that are not in compliance with the
regulation. ........


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00255.pdf


NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED, EVEN IN 2006. ...TSS


----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 9:26 AM
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE - USDA/FDA
TRIPLE BSE FIREWALL CONTINUES TO FAIL


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################

CJD WATCH MESSAGE BOARD
TSS
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE
Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22
71.248.128.67


RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals,
Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg),
Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL
FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE
a) Bulk
b) None
c) Bulk
d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and
by press release on June 16, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00960.html

JOHANNS ET AL STATE ON JULY 13, 2006 REGARDING CANADA'S SEVENTH CASE OF BSE,
FROM ULAN BATOR, MONGOLIA ;

''I am dispatching a USDA expert to participate in the investigation of this
case, particularly as it relates to how this animal may have been exposed to
BSE infected material.''

http://www.usda.gov/

MY GOD, that's like the blind leading the blind, what a hoot. WHAT Johanns
et al need to do first is figure out why the USDA's supposedly BSE triple
firewalls have failed so terribly here in the USA, why not only the feed ban
has failed, but also the infamous rigged June 2004 Enhanced BSE surveillance
program where everything from the BSE testing protocols, the BSE
surveillance, and the BSE feed bans have all failed time and time again
since the August 4, 1997 _partial_ and _voluntary_ mad cow feed ban was put
in place. IT'S a failed policy PERIOD, and the testing results meaningless
considering all of the above, and this is not only my opinion, this is fact,
and I will be glad to reference any and all for those that just don't get
it. IT's all been referenced here time and time again over the years. ...

still disgusted in Sunny, Hot, Bacliff, Texas

TSS

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
####################

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: