SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: S. Korea will not automatically accept OIE ruling on U.S. beef: minister
Date: March 22, 2007 at 7:50 am PST

S. Korea will not automatically accept OIE ruling on U.S. beef: minister

SEOUL, March 21 (Yonhap) -- South Korea is not obliged to automatically accept a planned ruling by a world animal health body that may make it easier for the United States to export beef, a senior policymaker said Wednesday.

Agriculture Minister Park Hong-soo said U.S. demands that South Korea fully open its beef market once the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) announces an updated mad cow risk classification cannot be accepted. He said Seoul will insist on bilateral import negotiations with new import guidelines.

"The government will only use the OIE findings as a reference material, while reserving the right to decide what types of meat are safe for import," he said on a radio talk show.

The U.S. side has said the beef issue must be resolved before the two countries can sign off on a free trade agreement (FTA) at the end of the month.

The OIE is expected to declare the U.S. is a "controlled risk country" in late May, technically allowing it to export all non-specified risk materials (SRMs) beef products, including bone-in beef. SRM refers to such parts as head bones, brains, vertebral columns, spinal cords and dorsal root ganglions, which pose the greatest risk of transmitting mad cow disease to humans.

In an agreement reached in January 2006, South Korea agreed to import boneless beef from cattle less than 30 months old. No American beef has reached the domestic market since late 2003, when a mad cow case was reported in the country.

On other crucial sticking points in the FTA negotiations such as rice, citrus and dairy products, the minister said very little headway was being made.

Seoul stressed repeatedly that sensitive agricultural products must be kept out of the FTA, while Washington maintains that there must be no exceptions to lowering and eventually dismantling tariffs.

He said speculation about a "big deal" in which South Korea makes concessions in areas like textiles to hold onto agriculture are not true.

"We may make concessions within the agricultural sector to protect sensitive products but nothing is being discussed that will require a give-and-take with other industries," he said.

Negotiators engaged in the third day of FTA talks on agriculture said little progress is being made due to differences on beef and tariff reductions.

"After settling less controversial subjects, the two sides have not budged on key issues," a ministry spokesman said.

He said if neither side gives in negotiators may not be able to settle the last remaining obstacles to signing an FTA in the talks, which started on Monday.

If this is the case, all unresolved issues will have to be decided at a higher-level meeting planned for next week in Seoul.

South Korea and the U.S. have held eight rounds of FTA talks.

yonngong@yna.co.kr
(END)

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070321/650000000020070321153917E2.html


postcard from... Seoul

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3940

EXPORTATION AND IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS:
BSE; MRR AND IMPORTATION OF COMMODITIES, 65758-65759 [E6-19042]

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3854


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0611&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3381


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=498


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=10277


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=9972


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=4492


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2583


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2470

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL containing blood meal cross contaminated with prohibited MBM OVER 1,000,000 lbs. IN COMMERCE WI, ID, AND NV USA


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL containing blood meal cross contaminated with prohibited MBM OVER 1,000,000 lbs. IN COMMERCE WI, ID, AND NV USA
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling’s 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI

___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal, TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY, A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html


Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]

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


Subject: [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf


Page 1 of 17 9/13/2005 [PDF]
... Page 1 of 17 From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder9@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday,
September 08, 2005 6:17 PM To: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov Subject ...
www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.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 McDonalds 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, the most effective way to insure this is to create a system that processes cattle that are not exposed to the disease. As a company we take numerous precautions via our strict specifications to help and assure this, however we feel that the force of federal regulation is important to ensure that the risk of exposure in the entire production system is reduced to as close to zero as possible. The exemptions in the current ban as well as in the newly proposed rule make this difficult if not impossible, as there are still legal avenues for ruminants to consume potentially contaminated ruminant protein. In addition, the USDA still has not implemented a system of identification and traceability. It is our opinion that the government can take further action to reduce this risk and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very important proposed rule.

After the identification of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in indigenous North American cattle, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responded rapidly to implement measures to protect public health in regard to food. Our company recognizes and supports the importance of the current feed ban which went into effect in August 1997. However, given what is known about the epidemiology and characteristically long incubation period of BSE, we urge the FDA to act without further delay and implement additional measures which will reduce the risk of BSE recycling in the US cattle herd. We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a justification to relax or impede further actions. While this surveillance indicates an epidemic is not underway, it does not clear the US cattle herd from infection. The positive cases indicate probable exposure prior to the 1997 feed ban, a time when BSE appears to have been circulating in animal feed. BSE cases are most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced surveillance provides an 18 month snapshot, it does not negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE and that the current feed controls contain “leaks”.


We feel that for the FDA to provide a more comprehensive and protective feed ban, specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock must be removed from all animal feed and that legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk) should be discontinued.


SRMs, as defined by the USDA, are tissues which, in a BSE infected animal, are known to either harbor BSE infectivity or to be closely associated with infectivity. If SRMs are not removed, they may introduce BSE infectivity and continue to provide a source of animal feed contamination. Rendering will reduce infectivity but it will not totally eliminate it. This is significant, as research in the United Kingdom has shown that a calf may be infected with BSE by the ingestion of as little as .001 gram of untreated brain.


The current proposed rule falls short of this and would still leave a potential source of infectivity in the system. In fact by the FDA’s own statement the exempted tissues which are known to have infectivity (such as distal ileum, DRGs, etc) would cumulatively amount to approximately 10% of the infectivity in an infected animal. Leaving approximately 10% of the infectious tissues in the system is not good enough. The proposed rule still allows the possibility for cattle to be exposed to BSE through:


Feeding of materials currently subject to legal exemptions from the ban (e.g., poultry litter, plate waste)
Cross feeding (the feeding of non-ruminant rations to ruminants) on farms; and
Cross contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant feed


We are most concerned that the FDA has chosen to include a provision that would allow tissues from deadstock into the feed chain. We do not support the provision to allow the removal of brain and spinal cord from down and deadstock over 30 months of age for several reasons. These are the animals with the highest level of infectivity in tissues which include more than brain and spinal cord. Firstly, there are two issues regarding the complex logistics of this option. We do not feel that it is possible to have adequate removal especially during the warmer months. In addition, we do not feel that there are adequate means to enforce complete removal. Unlike slaughterhouses, there are no government inspectors at rendering plants or deadstock collection points.


Most importantly, there is emerging information that at end stage disease (a natural BSE case); infectivity may also be included in additional tissues such as peripheral nerves (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005 – see attached). This published work supports publicly reported studies in Japan where by western blot testing, prions have been found in the peripheral nerves of a naturally infected 94-month-old cow. If this is the case, the amount of infectivity left in the system from an infected bovine would surpass 10% and the full extent is still unknown.


McDonalds has convened it own International Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) as well as co-sponsored a symposium of TSE scientists on the issue of tissue distribution. The consensus of both groups was that the pathogenesis of BSE might not be entirely different from TSEs in other species at the point where the animal is showing signs of the disease. These scientists feel that the studies as reported above have merit. The current studies not only re-enforce the risk of down and deadstock but also appear to provide additional information that these animals may be a potential source of greater levels of infectivity into the feed system. Hence, we suggest that the FDA consult with TSE scientists as well.


Leaving the tissues from the highest risk category of cattle in the animal feed chain will effectively nullify the intent of this regulation. This point is illustrated by the 2001 Harvard risk assessment model that demonstrated that eliminating dead and downer, 4D cattle, from the feed stream was a disproportionately effective means of reducing the risk of re-infection.

“The disposition of cattle that die on the farm would also have a substantial influence on the spread of BSE if the disease were introduced.” The base case scenario showed that the mean total number of ID50s (i.e., dosage sufficient to infect 50 percent of exposed cattle) from healthy animals at slaughter presented to the food/feed system was 1500. The mean total number of ID50s from adult cattle deadstock presented to the feed system was 37,000. This illustrates the risk of “4D cattle” (i.e., deadstock).


From the Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001, Appendix 3A Base Case and Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001 Executive Summary

McDonalds also urges agencies of the US government to work with academia and industry on research in the following areas:

· Methods to inactivate TSEs agents which then may allow a product to be used and even fed to animals without risk

· Alternative uses for animal byproducts which would maintain some value

In July 2004, McDonalds in cooperation with others sponsored a meeting at Penn State. The purpose of the meeting was to review work conducted by Dr. Bruce Miller looking at the feasibility of using carcasses and animal byproducts as renewable alternatives to fossil fuels in large energy generating boilers. A number of government representatives were also invited to this meeting. We are aware that Dr. Miller continues this work which shows great promise. We suggest that the FDA explore the possibility of this alternative use that may also have a positive impact on the environment.

The McDonalds Corporation will continue to work with the FDA and other government agencies to implement a strong BSE risk control program. We would like to reiterate our opinion that for the FDA to provide a more comprehensive and protective feed ban, specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock must be removed from all animal feed and that legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk) should be discontinued. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments to the public record.


Respectfully,

Dick Crawford

Corporate Vice President, Government Relations


630-623-6754 Direct

630-623-3057 Facsimile

630-841-7968 Mobile

630-963-6068 Residence

dick.crawford@mcd.com


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC203.htm


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC205.htm


PAUL BROWN M.D.


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

9 December 2005
Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)

SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION
James J. Kramer, Ph.D.
Vice President, Corporate Operations


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf


Embassy of Japan


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm


Dockets Entered on December 22, 2005
2005D-0330, Guidance for Industry and FDA Review Staff on Collection of Platelets
by Automated ... EC 203, McDonald's Restaurants Corporation, Vol #:, 34 ...


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/05/Dec05/122205/122205.htm

03-025IF 03-025IF-631 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF]
Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-631 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2. Page 3. Page 4.
Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8. Page 9. Page 10. Page 11. Page 12.


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-631.pdf


03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF]
Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2.
Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8.


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-634.pdf


Page 1 of 17 9/13/2005 [PDF]
... 2005 6:17 PM To: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA]
FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food ...
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

03-025IFA 03-025IFA-6 Jason Frost [PDF]
... Zealand Embassy COMMENTS ON FEDERAL REGISTER 9 CFR Parts 309 et al [Docket No. 03-
025IF] Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and ...


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-6.pdf


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Search/Search_Results/Index.asp?q=03-025IF&mode=simple&num=10&as_occt=any&restrict=FSIS_DOCKET_COMMENTS

In its opinion of 7-8 December 2000 (EC 2000), the SSC ... [PDF]
Page 1. Linda A. Detwiler, DVM 225 Hwy 35 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 Phone: 732-741-2290
Cell: 732-580-9391 Fax: 732-741-7751 June 22, 2005 FSIS Docket Clerk US ...


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-589.pdf

THE USDA JUNE 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WAS TERRIBLY FLAWED ;


CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006


The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier
this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to
them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest
case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at
least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is
thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they
consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,
incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated
with the mad cow pathogen.

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer
that."

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end


http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r

CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ...
Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central
Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room
4A-05, ...


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm


TSS




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: