SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: STATEMENT BY AGRICULTURE SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS REGARDING THE REOPENING OF THE JAPANESE MARKET TO U.S. BEEF
Date: July 27, 2006 at 1:24 pm PST

Release No. 0265.06
Contact:
Ed Loyd (202)720-4623

STATEMENT BY AGRICULTURE SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS REGARDING THE REOPENING OF THE JAPANESE MARKET TO U.S. BEEF
July 27, 2006

"I am pleased that Japan announced today it would resume imports of U.S. beef from cattle 20 months of age and younger. This has been a long process as we've confirmed that our system is in full compliance with Japan's import requirements and provided Japan with clear, scientific data confirming that American beef is extremely safe. It is gratifying to know that these efforts paid-off, as did the patience demonstrated by Congress.

"It is unfortunate that the trade resumption launched last December was cut short in January of this year. Nations need reasonable methods of addressing the inadvertent shipment of products that don't meet an importing country's specifications, without disrupting an entire trading relationship. The U.S. has such methods of addressing noncompliant shipments from Japan, as well as our other trading partners, and I am hopeful that going forward Japan will take a similar approach.

"As we look forward, we must also continue to strive to move beef trade with Japan and throughout the world toward science-based international guidelines. Science provides us with clear data upon which to build trading standards. All of us must be mindful of these guidelines and work toward complying with them.

"In 2003, the United States exported $1.4 billion worth of beef and beef products to Japan. I look forward to the day when we resume that level of trade. To that end, I have asked the Japanese Government to meet with us this fall to discuss the next steps toward strengthening our beef trading relationship and graduating to standards based in science."

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/07/0265.xml

Red Meat Export Requirements for Japan

Eligible/Ineligible Product

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Japan_Requirements/index.asp

TO bad for USA consumer, and Tourists consuming beef products in the USA, that they cannot buy USDA certified beef for Japan export in grocery stores here in USA. Long ago i stated that consumers in USA were the ones getting screwed i.e. product most likely to contain the TSE agent, considering what exporting countries of USDA product were getting, just does not make sense$ BUT for the Tourist that is here for medical and surgical procedures, that think they are not going to eat beef, thus be safe from BSE/TSE here in the USA due to ongoing documented USDA BSE blunders, i would guess again about some of those surgical procedures and the safety from TSE in the USA medical and surgical arena. ...

you can fool some of us, some of the time, but you cannot fool all of us, all of the time. ...TSS

Subject: MADCOW USA BEEF PRODUCTS EXPORT $$$ U.S.A. Abattoirs approved for Swiss export $ SRMs
Date: January 4, 2003 at 7:42 am PST

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 09:26:54 -0600
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: Re: USA BEEF PRODUCTS EXPORT $$$ U.S.A. Abattoirs approved for Swiss export $ SRMs

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

Greetings List Members,

i can't believe the extremes that the USA Gov. will go to, to deceive the USA consumer$ removing SRMs and having other safety standards only for exported products, but still allowing potentially TSE tainted products for USA consumers, all for a buck$ to bad the USA consumer does not have enough backbone to demand their products coming from only the companies below. also, i cannot understand why the media does not pick up on this. i guess they are to consumed with war.

kind regards, terry

Export Library

EUFreshM 12/30/2002

Eligible Plants List - EU Fresh Meat

Format Plants are listed by ESTABLISHMENT NUMBER which is the meat number unless the plant has no meat number or one was not specified then the poultry number becomes the ESTABLISHMENT NUMBER.

Search Information Searches can be done by visual scan (scrolling down the list) of the ESTABLISHMENT NUMBER in most cases. If the plant was registered by both meat number and poultry number, look for the meat number first and the poultry number should be listed with it. A computer search can be performed using "Find on This Page" from the "Edit" menu of your MSIExplorer or Netscape browsers. ID warehouses may have either an "M" or "P" number. I-House and Equine "E" numbers may also be shown.

Report plant data changes to the Export Staff at the FSIS Technical Service Center on company letterhead fax to (402 221-7479) after making the official change to plant data on FSIS form 5200-2 (Grant of Inspection Application) submitted to the appropriate FSIS District Office.

Est. Numbers --- Est. Name --- Address --- City --- State--- Zip --- Species --- Special

Slaughter/ Cutting .....snip

>> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>> #########
>>
>> Greetings List Members,
>>
>> I am sorry to say that the USDA/APHIS/FDA
>> officials that lurk on this list have not
>> answered the questions i posed. So i took
>> it upon myself to try and seek answers.
>>
>> If you remember correctly, i was concerned
>> with the continued use of SRMs and stunning
>> in the U.S.A., and that the U.S. public
>> were still being put at risk from the continued
>> use of these materials and methods, buy yet
>> for export purposes, the U.S. had set up
>> separate regulations and plants for export
>> purposes, to separate SRMs and to use other
>> methods of slaughter for export purposes
>> only.
>>
>> i pass some information that may bring just
>> this to light;
>>
>> thank you,
>> Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA
>>
>> Export Library
>>
>> EUREQ9 06/1/01
>>
>> EXPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION
>>
>> snip...
>>
>> M. Stunning
>>
>> The injection of air during stunning is prohibited.*
>>
>> N. Opening of stomachs and intestines
>>
>> There must be a separate room for emptying and cleaning stomachs and
>> intestines, unless the processing is done by
>> closed-circuit mechanical equipment which avoids contamination and
>> eliminates odors.
>>
>> O. Batch condemnation
>>
>> If carcasses, offals and blood are not correlated at the final
>> postmortem inspection point, a batch system shall be operated in
>> such a way that the Inspector in Charge (IIC) can demonstrate that if a
>> carcass is condemned its offal and blood shall also be
>> condemned.
>>
>> P. Casings
>>
>> Casing destined to the EU must be processed in EU approved
>> establishments that are operating under FSIS' inspection
>> program, as well as comply with the following additional EU
>> requirements:
>>
>> 1. Medical certification for product handlers as outlined in
>> Section III of these requirements.
>>
>> 2. Water testing requirements as outlined in Section IV of
>> these requirements.
>>
>> 3. Hand wash basins in processing rooms and lavatories must
>> not be hand-operated.
>>
>> 4. Walls must be light colored, with washable coating, up to a
>> height of 2 meters.
>>
>> 5. The use of wood is not allowed. However, wooden pallets may
>> be brought into processing rooms solely for the
>> transport of packaged casings.*
>>
>>
>> snip...
>>
>> XVII. DOCUMENTATION - LIST OF REQUIRED CERTIFICATES
>>
>> A. These requirements describe the conditions for export to the EU as
>> indicated in Council Decision 98/258 (the "Veterinary
>> Equivalence Agreement). Issuance of the indicated certificates meats
>> that the product complies with Decision 98/258. Only
>> meat and poultry and meat and poultry products slaughtered, processed,
>> and stored at approved establishments that meet the
>> requirements described herein may be certified for export to the EU. All
>> certificates for EU except FSIS Form 9060-5 must
>> have a preprinted blue seal. All EU documents must be signed by an FSIS
>> Veterinarian in a color other than black.*
>>
>> B. The following SRM statement must be typed in the remarks section or
>> on a separate letterhead certificate for all meat from
>> ruminants and products containing meat from ruminants:
>>
>> "The product of animal origin does not contain, and is not derived
>> from, specified risk material as defined in
>> Annex I, point 1(a) of Decision 2000/418/EC, produced after 31
>> March 2001, or mechanically recovered meat
>> obtained from the bones of the head or vertebral column of bovine,
>> ovine or caprine animals, produced after 31
>> March 2001. The animals have not been slaughtered, after 31 March
>> 2001, after stunning by means of a gas
>> injected into the cranial cavity or killed instantaneously by the
>> same method, or slaughtered after laceration,
>> after stunning, of central nervous tissue by means of an elongated
>> rod-shaped instrument introduced into the
>> cranial cavity."
>>
>> Note: EU Decision 2000/418 Annex I, Point 1a refers to any of the
>> following "specific risk materials":
>>
>> (1) the skull including the brains and eyes, the tonsils, the
>> spinal cord and the ileum of bovine animals aged over 12
>> months;*
>> (2) the skull including the brains and eyes, the tonsils and the
>> spinal cord of ovine and caprine animals aged over 12
>> months or that have a permanent incisor erupted through the gum,
>> and the spleen of ovine and caprine animals of all
>> ages.*
>>
>> snip...
>>
>> XVIV. LISTS OF ELIGIBLE PLANTS
>>
>> Lists of eligible plants for the various product categories are
>> available through the Export Library. Plants must meet all EU
>> requirements in addition to being listed on the appropriate list.
>> Contact the FSIS Technical Service Center, Export Staff for
>> assistance at (402) 221-7400.
>>
>> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OFO/export/euroreqs.htm
>>
>> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OFO/export/explib.htm#notices
>>
>> TSS
>>
>>
>> "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." wrote:
>>
>>> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>> #########
>>>
>>> Greetings List Members,
>>>
>>> if you go to Swiss Veterinary Service;
>>>
>>> http://www.bvet.admin.ch/0_navigation-e/0_index-intern.html
>>>
>>> click on;
>>>
>>> imports/exports
>>>
>>> click on;
>>>
>>> Liste der Fleischerzeugnisse mit Rind, die in die Schweiz eingeführt
>>> werden dürfen Liste des produits à base de viande contenant du boeuf qui
>>> sont admis à l'importation en Suisse List of meat products containing
>>> beef approved for import into Switzerland
>>>
>>> then click on USA;
>>>
>>> you will then see a list of ''Approved abattoirs''
>>> for Switzerland.
>>>
>>> i would be curious to know if these abattoirs
>>> have different process for products exported to
>>> Switzerland as opposed to what they process
>>> for the U.S.A. ???
>>>
>>> or are these abattoirs strictly for export
>>> to EU countries due to SRM ban ???
>>>
>>> in other words, is the U.S feeding it's
>>> public products contaminated with SRMs,
>>> but separating these SRMs for products
>>> exported to EU Countries ???
>>>
>>> what is the difference between these abattoirs
>>> approved for export to Switzerland and ones that
>>> are not ???
>>>
>>> for instance, we know the U.S. 'carefully'
>>> ;-) stuns it's cattle, so how do they kill these cattle for export to
>>> Switzerland, if EU restrictions does not allow this ??? (i still
>>> have not figured out how burger king 'carefully' stuns it's cattle) i
>>> think it was Roland who said that electric stunning was the only
>>> stunning safe. i am sure he will correct me if i am wrong. But
>>> i don't think this works on cows (electric stunning)?
>>>
>>> SO, is that what these 'approved' abattoirs are
>>> for in the U.S., to go by EU guidelines for
>>> export products to EU ''only'' ???
>>>
>>> but for U.S. Public, we are still getting
>>> beef products tainted with SRMs ???
>>>
>>> hmmm, could be another reason the feed mills
>>> in TEXAS are getting away with NOT going by
>>> 8/4/97 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban as of
>>> 7/12/01. i see a few of these approved
>>> abattoirs in Texas. We know of the token
>>> purina feed mill that was handed to us from
>>> the FDA, after the NY Times broke the story
>>> of the 'infamous' feed ban that never was.
>>> BUT what about the others in TEXAS. i have
>>> already shown you one such feed mill, that
>>> i personally bought feed from, with absolutely
>>> NO warning of DO NOT FEED TO RUMINANTS;
>>
>>
>>
>> snip...
>>
>> TSS
>>
>> ########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
>> ############

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


Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

New Orleans District
297 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37217

Telephone: 615-781-5380
Fax: 615-781-5391

May 17, 2006

WARNING LETTER NO. 2006-NOL-06

FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner
Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products
2621 State Street
Dallas, Texas 75204

Dear Mr. Shirley:

On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to follow the requirements of this regulation; products being manufactured and distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:

You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after processing mammalian tissues.

You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.

As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Act.

This letter is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.

You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating corrections have been made.

Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie, Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.

Sincerely,

/S

Carol S. Sanchez
Acting District Director
New Orleans District


http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5883d.htm

USDA APHIS 4TH QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT 2005
Submitted by flounder on Thu, 03/23/2006 - 14:00.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT July 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

DESERET MEAT 04852 M SPANISH FORK, UT
07/27/05
08/01/05
X
X
On 7/27/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

MONTEBELLO MEAT PROCESSING, INC 19075 M19075 P MANATI, PR
08/01/05
08/18/05
X
X
X
09/26/05
On 8/1/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Table 7. Administrative Actions: Very Small HACCP Plants (7/01/05 to 9/30/05)

snip...

A.J. CEKAK'S MEAT MARKET 09/01/05 09/20/05 On 9/1/05, an enforcement action

21562 M

concerning failure to meet regulatory ORD, NE requirements for Escherichia coli X X X Biotype 1 (E. coli) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy/Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

BROWN'S PROCESSING 13100 M13100 P ELSBERRY, MO
08/08/05
08/16/05
X
X
X
On 8/8/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

FIVE STAR PACK INC. 08725 M08725 P GOLDEN CITY, MO 09/01/05 09/09/05 X X On 9/1/05, an enforcement action concerning failure to meet regulatory requirements for Escherichia coli Biotype 1 (E. coli) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy/Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

H AND P MEATS 21352 M SOUTH PITTSBURG, TN 07/28/05 08/08/05 08/17/05 08/19/05 X X On 8/17/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

HOPKINS PACKING COMPANY 11069 M BLACKFOOT, ID
07/28/05
08/01/05
X
X
On 7/28/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

NORTHWEST PREMIUM MEATS LLC 11032 M11032 P NAMPA, ID 07/26/05 07/29/05 X X On 7/26/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

PARADISE LOCKER MEATS 31865 M31865 P TRIMBLE, MO
09/21/05
X
X
On 9/21/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

PARAGON SPRAY DRYING, LLC 31792 M31792 P WAUKON, IA
09/06/05
09/12/05
X
X
X
On 9/6/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

RANDALL MEAT COMPANY 10669 M HOT SPRINGS, AR
07/01/05
07/28/05
X
X
X
On 7/1/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

08/04/05

08/19/05

On 8/4/05,

an enforcement action 01046 M01046 P concerning Bovine SpongiformKANSAS CITY, MO X X Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

THE MEAT SHOP 08/18/05 09/06/05

09/09/05

On 9/6/05, a suspension action 31561 M concerning Bovine SpongiformBENSON, VT Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3. XX X X X

THEURER'S QUALITY MEATS, 07/27/05 07/29/05

On 7/27/05, a suspension action INC concerning Bovine Spongiform31647 M31647 P Encephalopathy and Specified Risk X X

LEWISTON, UT Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

TOOELE VALLEY MEATS 07/25/05 08/01/05

On 7/25/05, a suspension action 20594 M20594 Pconcerning Bovine Spongiform

GRANTSVILLE, UT X X Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

52 pages

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q4_FY2005.pdf

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or

“Mad Cow Disease”): Current and Proposed

Safeguards

Updated October 13, 2005

Geoffrey S. Becker

Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Resources, Science and Industry Division

Sarah A. Lister

Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology

Domestic Social Policy Division

SNIP...

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05oct/RL32199.pdf


WORK FOR GOAL 1

BSE Surveillance Program and Specified

Risk Material Controls Could Be Improved

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarcfirsthalf06.pdf


FY 2005 - Second Half

EXAMPLES OF AUDIT AND

INVESTIGATIVE WORK FOR GOAL 1

OIG Continuing To Review Effectiveness of

BSE Surveillance Program

We are continuing our work with bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE), widely known as “mad cow

disease.” With the discovery of a BSE-infected

animal in December 2003, the nimal and Plant

Health Inspection Service ( PHIS) decided to expand

its Surveillance Program to test a larger number of

high-risk animals—those that exhibited a disorder of

the central nervous system (CNS), such as difficulty

standing, walking, etc., and cattle that died on the

farm from unclear causes. Our overall objective is

to evaluate whether the expanded BSE Surveillance

Program is accomplishing its intended objectives—to

ensure detection with 99-percent confidence that the

BSE prevalence rate was 1 in 10 million and a swift

response to its introduction into the United States—and

has been effectively implemented and administered.

nother objective is to evaluate whether the Food

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has effectively

enforced the ban on Specified Risk Material (certain

beef tissues and products, i.e., brain, skull, eyes, spinal

cord) in meat products, and effectively implemented its

testing program and controls to prevent CNS tissue in

dvanced Meat Recovery systems (special equipment

to remove meat from bones similar to hand trimming in

that bones remain basically intact).

1

2

Route for Cattle Smuggler Leads to Conviction,

Proceedings Pending for Another

In September 2004, OIG and PHIS began an

investigation into the smuggling of cattle into the United

States from Canada. In March 2005, 2 individuals were

indicted in U.S. Federal Court for smuggling 169 head

of cattle across the U.S. border through an Indian

Reservation, and then trucking them to U.S. auction

houses. OIG, PHIS, and FSIS traced the path of the

smuggled cattle to ensure that they were properly

slaughtered or returned to Canada. In July 2005, one

of the men pled guilty to smuggling and conspiracy

charges with sentencing scheduled for November

2005. dditional judicial proceedings against the other

defendant in this case are continuing.

snip...

FSIS Needs To Track the Shipment of Recalled

Product More Closely

On July 28, 2004, Quaker Maid Meats, Inc., recalled

approximately 170,000 pounds of mislabeled ground

beef patties made, in part, from 41,000 pounds of finely

textured beef trim (meat scavenged from beef taken off

the bone at high pressure) from Canada. This product

was not eligible for importation after the detection of

a Canadian cow with mad cow disease in May 2003.

The beef patties had been shipped to 474 distribution

centers and stores in 10 States; the recall recovered

more than 93 percent of the ineligible product.

In reviewing the recall, we concluded that FSIS had

strengthened its procedures regarding the oversight

of meat and poultry recalls and complied with the

recent revision made to recall policy. However, FSIS

compliance officers did not determine the amount of

product purchased by consignees for 26 of the recall’s

58 effectiveness checks. FSIS’ recall policy did not

provide specific direction on identifying and evaluating

the amount of product purchased by consignees, thus

reducing assurance that mislabeled product had been

retrieved. FSIS agreed to revise its form, “Report of

Recall Effectiveness,” to require compliance officers

to explain why any amounts of product purchased

by consignees are not identified. FSIS also agreed

to revise its procedures to provide specific direction

on identifying and evaluating the amount of product

purchased by the consignees and guidance on when

it is acceptable not to identify this amount. (FSIS

Oversight of the 2004 Recall by Quaker Maid Meats,

Inc., udit Report No. 24601-4-Hy)

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarcfinal060223.pdf

First Half 2005

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/SarcFirstHalf05.pdf

Issued June 2000


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection


1998 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States Congress


snip...

*

In March 1998, an FSIS food inspector and a Federal plant in New
York were each sentenced on one felony count of bribery. The
inspector was assessed a criminal fine of $17,000, assessed a $100
special assessment fee, and placed on probation for 5 years. The
inspector was also required to serve 6 months in home detention
and complete 200 hours of community service. The Federal plant was
assessed a criminal fine of $10,000, paid a $100 special
assessment fee, and was placed on probation for 5 years. The
investigation revealed that the inspector accepted money in
exchange for inspecting and passing downer (dying, diseased or
disabled) livestock that were supposed to be inspected by an FSIS
veterinarian and for allowing company employees to slaughter
animals and to use inspection brands when the inspector was not
present.

snip...


Civil Enforcement Actions

The following Civil Enforcement Actions are a representative sample of
actions taken during FY 1998:

* In June 1998, an Illinois Federal plant entered into a settlement
agreement with the USDA and the United States Attorney for
violating the FMIA, PPIA, and False Claims Act (FCA). The firm
agreed to pay the Court-ordered civil penalty of $20,000. The
investigation revealed that the firm prepared various meat and/or
poultry egg rolls without the benefit of Federal inspection, sold
and transported the non-federally inspected products in interstate
commerce, and used the official mark of meat and poultry
inspection without authorization...

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc98.htm

FSIS REPORT TO CONGRESS 1996

HELL, why not sell those 'DOWNERS' for our GIs to eat,
maybe that is why some got CJD;

In June 1996, a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in
Oakland, California, sentenced the former vice president of a closed meat
processing establishment and the establishment for violations of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act. The official paid $250,000 as part of a
restitution/fine
payment, received 5 years' probation, and was required to perform 1,000
hours
of community service. The firm was ordered to pay $500,000 in restitution to
the Defense Logistics Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense. In addition,
three co-defendants were sentenced for selling adulterated meat to the now
defunct establishment. The co-defendants were convicted of illegally
slaughtering cattle and transporting and selling the adulterated meat to
the now
defunct firm, knowing the meat would be processed for resale and human
consumption. The former vice president admitted buying dead, dying,
diseased, or disabled cattle from the co-defendants and using the
adulterated
meat to prepare meat products for commercial sales and for Government
military contracts. The investigation was conducted in 1993 by the USDA
Office of Inspector General, officials from the Defense Criminal
Investigation
Service, and FSIS compliance officers. Restitution to the military was
initiated under the Affirmative Civil Enforcement program...

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc96.pdf

February 2003


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection
2000 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress

snip...

MORE BRIBERY FOR PASSING DOWNERS FOR HUMAN/ANIMAL
CONSUMPTION...TSS

* June 2000. A USDA Judicial Officer (JO) issued a Decision
upholding indefinite withdrawal of inspection services from a meat
and poultry company located in Greenville, New York. The JO’s
Decision upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Decision. The
decisions were the result of an administrative hearing before the
ALJ wherein USDA presented evidence to show that the company was
“unfit” for inspection service. The proceeding to withdraw
inspection was based on the company’s felony conviction of bribing
a public official. An investigation revealed that the company
provided money to an inspector in exchange for inspecting and
passing dying, diseased, or disabled livestock requiring
additional inspection by a Veterinary Medical Officer. The
inspector and company were convicted in separate trials. The
company has appealed to a U.S. District Court...

snip...


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc2000/rtc2000chap3.htm#4

March 2001


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection
1999 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress


Preface

snip...

January 1999. The owner of an export inspection station was sentenced on
two felony counts for using simulated export certificates with intent to
defraud. The defendant was sentenced to 3 years' probation and fined
$10,000. The investigation revealed that the defendant fraudulently
exported approximately 3 million pounds of meat and poultry products to
Mexico.

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc99/rtc99chap3.htm


* 2000
(Issued February 2003) [PDF
, 93 pp. 768 KB]
* 1999 (Issued
March 2001)
* 1998 (Issued June
2000; HTML text with PDF attachments)
* 1997 (Issued November
1999; PDF, 950 KB)
* 1996 (Issued
September 1997; PDF, 257 KB)


TSS




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: