SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: TRANSCRIPT OF REMARKS REGARDING HARMONIZATION OF CATTLE TRADE WITH CANADA Washington D.C. - September 14, 2007
Date: September 14, 2007 at 7:19 pm PST

Release No. 0248.07
Contact:
Press Office (202) 720-4623

Printable version
Email this page

TRANSCRIPT OF REMARKS REGARDING HARMONIZATION OF CATTLE TRADE WITH CANADA
WITH CINDY SMITH, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION
SERVICE AND USDA'S CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER DR. JOHN CLIFFORD

Washington D.C. - September 14, 2007

Good morning and thank you all for joining us. I'm Cindy Smith, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

As you all know, we are here to announce USDA's final rule to normalize
trade with countries recognized as presenting a minimal risk of introducing
bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE.

We are confident in taking this important step to normalize cattle trade
with Canada, while continuing to protect the health of the U.S. cattle
population. It is an integral part of our efforts to promote fair trade
practices, consistent with international guidelines. And we will continue to
encourage other countries to also align their trade requirements with these
science-based international standards.

I have with me USDA's Chief Veterinary Officer Dr. John Clifford. Dr.
Clifford will be giving some brief remarks and then we will open the floor
up for questions from the media.

John . . .

Thank you, Cindy.

This morning USDA published a final rule that will harmonize cattle trade
with countries presenting a minimal risk of introducing BSE into the United
States.

The rule expands upon a rule published by USDA in January 2005 that
established conditions for the importation of live cattle under 30 months of
age and certain other commodities from regions with effective BSE prevention
and detection measures.

That rule also designated Canada as the first minimal-risk country
recognized by USDA. The expansion of that rule is a major step in
facilitating fair, science-based trade while continuing to protect animal
health in this country, consistent with international standards as defined
by the World Organization for Animal Health, also known as the OIE.

Specifically, this rule allows for the importation of: cattle and bison for
any use born on or after March 1, 1999 -- the date determined by USDA to be
the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in
Canada; blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under
certain conditions; and casings and part of the small intestines derived
from bovines.

Today's final rule also lifts a delay imposed in March 2005 on meat and meat
products from bovines older than 30 months of age.

Meat and meat products from bovines older than 30 months of age will be
allowed, provided specified risk materials are removed prior to importation.

Before finalizing this rule, APHIS sought public comment and encouraged the
public to participate in the decision-making process. We issued a proposed
rule at the first of the year and the public comment period opened January
9, 2007 and closed on March 12, 2007.

In addition to making the proposed rule and all supporting documents
available for review and comment by the public, APHIS also requested an
external, formal, independent peer review of the risk assessment. The
objective of the peer review was to determine whether the risk assessment
was scientifically sound, transparent and consistent with international
standards.

The review was conducted by recognized experts in the field and was
consistent with guidelines established by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget. An independent contractor coordinated the peer review.

All of the peer reviewers agreed with the risk assessment conclusion that
the likelihood of BSE becoming established in the U.S. cattle population by
allowing additional commodities from Canada is negligible.

All reviewers noted that many of the assumptions in the risk assessment
actually represent worst case scenarios, so the overall findings were
reasonable. The peer reviewers also agreed that the risk assessment followed
OIE guidelines and standards and furthermore, the reviewers acknowledged the
scientific rigor of the assessment in terms of using existing literature and
models appropriately and making sound assumptions.

APHIS incorporated several clarifications and updates suggested by the
reviewers. The changes improved the transparency and accuracy of the
document but did not alter APHIS' original conclusion, which the reviewers
concurred with, that the risk of BSE establishment in the United States
resulting from the changes outlined in the rule is negligible.

In our risk assessment, we carefully considered all of the steps in both
Canada and the United States that would have to occur for BSE to spread to
an animal here in the United States. The risk assessment acknowledged that
BSE is present in Canada and that there likely would be additional cases
identified in the future, and we still concluded that these imports would
present a negligible risk of establishment of BSE in the United States.

If an infected animal from Canada were to be imported into the United
States, a series of multiple safeguards would prevent the disease from being
transmitted to another animal.

I would like to go through a couple of points that we considered as we
developed the final rule and supporting documents. I know that many of you
are aware that Canada has identified two cases of BSE since the proposed
rule was published. We did consider this as we developed the final rule.

In addition, we received comments that indicated that our initial import
projections, especially for the numbers of older cull cattle, were too high.
We also considered this point as we developed the final rule. Let me explain
a bit more about each of these, especially as they tie in to either our risk
assessment and/or the economic analysis.

We analyzed the issue of BSE detections to make sure that our risk
assessment was broad enough to have already considered such occurrences. As
I'll explain in a minute, the conclusions of our original risk assessment
were not changed by these additional considerations.

At the time the proposed rule was published, Canada had documented nine
native BSE cases. All of these cases, along with the negative surveillance
data from the same time period, were considered in the prevalence estimate
used in the original risk assessment. Let me remind you that this prevalence
estimate was derived using the same methods that we recently used to
estimate the prevalence of BSE in the United States.

These methods used a comprehensive model that incorporates information about
the cattle population and the science of BSE to provide a robust estimate of
the true prevalence of disease in the current adult cattle population. This
estimate accounts for both undetected and undetectable cases of BSE.

We added the data from the two additional cases to the model, without
including negative surveillance data from the same time frame. With the two
additional cases, the prevalence estimate was still within the confidence
intervals, which means it fit within the range of our initial prevalence
estimate - thus demonstrating that our initial estimate was very solid.

The second issue I mentioned were our projections of the numbers of older
cattle that might be imported for slaughter. We received information during
the comment period that indicated our estimates of the number of cull cattle
for immediate slaughter were too high, due to the issue of age verification.

The number of these older animals that can have their ages verified, meaning
confirmation that they are born on or after March 1, 1999, is limited.
Therefore, we updated our import projections to reflect this fact, in both
the economic analysis and the risk assessment. While the number of older
cattle for slaughter dropped in these revised projections, the overall
number of imports over the 20 year time frame of the risk assessment
remained essentially the same.

We explain both of these points in more detail in the updates section of the
risk assessment. We also note that, because these points do not significantl
y impact either our initial prevalence estimate or the import projections,
we have not redone the quantitative model used in our exposure assessment,
and our original conclusion remains the same - that the risk of BSE
establishment in the United States resulting from these regulatory
amendments is negligible.

We are committed to ensuring that our regulatory approach keeps pace with
the body of scientific knowledge about BSE and this is an important move in
our efforts to promote fair, science-based trade practices. USDA is
confident in taking this next step while at the same time protecting
American agriculture and maintaining confidence in the U.S. beef supply not
only here in the United States but with our trading partners.

Thank you again for calling in. We will now move to the question and answer
portion of the call.

Thank you again for calling in, and we will now move to the question and
answer portion of the call, and then before that I'll turn it back to Ed.

MODERATOR: Hello everyone, this is Ed Curlett with APHIS Public Affairs.
Before we begin the question and answer portion, I would like to remind
everyone that this call is for media. Stakeholder questions will be
addressed during meetings later today. Reporters, please limit yourself to
one question so we can get as many as possible in. And please identify your
affiliation when asking a question. In addition to Dr. John Clifford, we
have a few other people in the room to assist with questions. Dr. Lisa
Ferguson with APHIS's National Center for Animal Health Programs is here.
Additionally we have from USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service Dr.
Daniel Engeljohn, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Policy
Program and Employee Development.

With that, Operator, we are ready for questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time if you would like to ask a question,
please press *1. You'll be prompted to record your first and last name to
introduce your question. To withdraw a question, press *2. Our first
question comes from Steve Kaye with the Cattle Buyers Weekly. Your line is
open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Good morning. Firstly, what's the economic impact, if any? I'm
sure it's in your analysis. And secondly, what restrictions still apply from
late 2003?

DR. CLIFFORD: The restrictions that would still apply for late 2003 is, this
rule did not address the issue of sheep and goats. Then in addition, with
regard to the economic analysis we would recommend that you look at the
economic analysis on the website that was posted. There was a positive
result from that, from reopening trade with regards to the economic
analysis. There's one other thing that was not allowed in addition from the
2003, and that has to do with rendered protein.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Bill Tomson. Your line is open. You
may ask your question.

REPORTER: Yes. Thank you. It's Bill Tomson with Dow Jones. There was an
earlier assessment that once the border was open, and now it is, that there
would be 610,000 head of these older cattle, these over 30-month-of-age
cattle coming across the border, a year. Is that still the estimate? And how
long do you think from today it will take before those animals start coming
across the border?

DR. CLIFFORD: Bill, actually, as I indicated in my opening remarks, and
based upon the issue of dentition and the evaluation of age of older
animals, we actually in the original you were talking about the 650,000-some
head of cattle. We believe that number in the economic analysis would be
around 75,000 head. The actual effective date of this rule would be November
the 19th. It actually will go into the Federal Register on September the
18th, so if the effective date is November the 19th it would open up after
that date.

OPERATOR: Our next question from Beth Gorham. Your line is open, you may ask
your question.

REPORTER: Hi, there. It's Beth Gorham from the Canadian Press. Just
following on that, so it wouldn't actually open on the 19th. It would have
to open on the 20th?

DR. CLIFFORD: I think the effective date was November the 19th. So it should
be the 19th.

OPERATOR: The next question is from Ron Frizon (sp). Your line is open. You
may ask your question.

REPORTER: Hi. This is Ron Frizon from the Manitoba Cooperator. Do you expect
RCALF to apply for an (unclear) rule, and what are your feelings about their
success given the previous record of this organization?

DR. CLIFFORD: I can only respond to that, and I'm not sure what any
organization may or may not do with regard to this.

MODERATOR: Next question?

OPERATOR: Christopher Gehring, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Thank you for taking my question. I want to see if you guys could
tell me more about Congress. I understand that there's a potential that
Congress could somehow step in and take some legal steps to affect the
outcome. Is there any concern about that happening?

DR. CLIFFORD: Operator, can you have Chris repeat that question? Chris, we
didn't hear you that well.

REPORTER: Sure. I just wanted to see if there's any concern that Congress
could step in, given the concern from some groups, and potentially put a
block to this lifting of this ban entirely moving forward?

DR. CLIFFORD: With this type of rulemaking process, obviously Congress has
60 days to review that. I wouldn't want to discuss what reaction Congress
may or may not have to this rule. However, we feel this rule is very much
scientifically based and the risk is very negligible with regards to
introduction of BSE into the U.S.

OPERATOR: Sally Schuff, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Yes. Hi. This is Sally Schuff with Feedstuffs. Can you define, my
question is for Dr. Clifford, can you define the SRMs that are required to
be removed from the meat coming in?

DR. CLIFFORD: From under - basically Canada is exactly the same as the U.S.,
from under 30 months you're talking about tonsil and distil ileum. Over 30
months, you know it's the brain, spinal cord, there's a number of additional
items.

OPERATOR: Next question from Gina Teal (sp). Your line is open. You may ask
your question.

REPORTER: It's Gina Teal from the Calgary Herald. Other than the birthdate
involved, what are the other import restrictions and protocols associated
with Rule 2?

DR. CLIFFORD: One, the birthdate these animals would be allowed in for any
purpose or use. There is a requirement that they would be identified with an
ear tag. They would also have to have permanent identification such as a
tattoo or a brand unless they are going to direct slaughter. Those moving to
direct slaughter would not require a permanent identification because those
animals are monitored in sealed trucks for that direct slaughter movement.

OPERATOR: Chris Clayton, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Dr. Clifford, do you also have any idea about, given the change
with overall beef how much increased tonnage that would move into the
country from Canada. And the economic assessment that I see on your website
seems like it has not been updated since 2006, so that would seem - I don't
see a difference in terms of numbers of head of cattle coming south across
the border how the numbers would change on the economic analysis.

DR. CLIFFORD: Chris, I couldn't understand the last part of your question.
Can you repeat that?

REPORTER: You mentioned the different number. You lowered that number from
610,000 to potentially 75,000 of head. Just from looking, what I see on your
website it seems like that the economic analysis is older, that maybe it had
not been updated to include those maybe changes in numbers.

DR. CLIFFORD: Chris, those should have been posted at 11:00 today. And I
think we'd make sure you have the most updated information with regards to
that because we definitely did change that based upon the information, the
data we received during the comment period.

OPERATOR: David Irvin, your line is open.

REPORTER: David Irvin from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette calling. The
question I have, you indicated in your opening remarks that this is an
important move to promote fair science-based trade with our partners. To
what degree did considerations with South Korea and Japan play into this
entire process of reviewing the BSE requirements?

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually, with regards to this, as I indicated this is
science-based, it's based upon international standards, and the USDA has not
changed its position. We expect our trading partners to follow the same
science that we follow with regards to this.

OPERATOR: Alan Bjerga, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Yes. Alan Bjerga from Bloomberg News. Following on that, has
conversations about the lifting of this already been a part of some of the
talks you've been having with South Korea, Japan and other countries?

DR. CLIFFORD: I know that our trading partners were aware of this particular
rule. In fact, you know, a number of countries had the opportunity to make
comments on the proposed rule itself. So they are certainly aware, and they
are also aware of our position that as many of those countries are also
members of the OIE, the World Organization for Animal Health, we have the
expectation that all countries will establish and follow the OIE with
regards to trade and safe trade for BSE.

OPERATOR: Chuck Abbott, your line is open. You may ask your question.

REPORTER: Thank you. I'm wondering what's happening on what might be viewed
as the companion measures to this, the revisions to the U.S. Feed Ban. That
has been sitting at FDA for almost uncountable months now, and has been
raised as a point of concern for trading partners.

DR. CLIFFORD: FDA, as you know, is responsible for the promulgation of the
feed ban rules. We worked very closely with FDA as well as Food Safety
Inspection Service, which is part of USDA, on the entire BSE issue. But with
regards to further action on that rule, I would request that you direct your
question to FDA.

OPERATOR: Next question from Lee Melkey. Lee, your line is open; you may ask
your question.

REPORTER: Yes. Lee Melkey with Dairy Line Communications. I assume this
November 19th opening would include dairy heifers. And secondly, I know that
National Milk has voiced concern over the economic implications and has
charged that USDA has not done due diligence in assessing the economic
implications to the U.S. dairy industry of this action.

DR. CLIFFORD: I mean, it sounded like more like a comment. We're certainly
aware of that concern and issue raised by that. But basically, you know, I
would recommend that you look at the economic analysis with regards to the
impact with regards to reopening the border would have. And I think most
importantly, I think it's important to note that regardless of whether we're
talking about breeding or animals for feed and slaughter that it's safe to
come in. The risk is extremely low.

OPERATOR: Our next question from Jim Webster. Your line is open.

REPORTER: A follow-up on that, Dr. Clifford. National Milk suggested that
the impact was cursory because it really didn't look at the total effect on
dairy farm income. They estimated for instance the number of heifers,
47,000; increased milk production and reduced farm milk prices by 18
percent, dairy farm income by $5 billion. Do you agree with that estimate?
Or did you make any change in the impact statement from January?

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually, we did respond to concerns raised by the dairy
sector, and we did not expect imports of dairy animals from Canada to add
significantly to the U.S. national herd.

OPERATOR: Our next question from Jim Dickrell. Jim, your line is open. You
may ask your question.

REPORTER: Jim Dickrell with Dairy Today, and the previous two questioners
asked the questions I had. Thank you.

DR. CLIFFORD: Can you repeat that, sir?

REPORTER: The answer, the questions have been answered that I had. I'm sorry
I didn't get out of the queue in time.

OPERATOR: Our next question is from Blair Andrews. Your line is open.

REPORTER: Yes. Blair Andrews from the Ontario Ag Radio Network. I'm looking
for some clarification on the age issue. Again, how are the age of the
animals going to be determined, and what would be required from a Canadian
exporter?

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually, with regards to the age issue, we depend upon the
government of Canada to make sure, verification of the age. That can be done
in more than one way. Actually you can use dentition for certain aged
animals. As you get into older animals though, you would be looking for
documentation to support that age.

MODERATOR: Operator, we have time for two more questions.

OPERATOR: Ryan Barrett, your line is open.

REPORTER: Hi. This is Ryan Barrett, Canadian Jersey Breeder Magazine. I just
wanted to know if you had any estimates in terms of the number of dairy
heifers that you would expect to be coming down from Canada. Originally it's
been somewhere around 60,000. Do you expect it to be significantly lower
than that?

DR. CLIFFORD: We would actually consider it to be about somewhat similar to
what it previously was, is what really basically was our conclusion.

OPERATOR: Our last question from Carol Sugarman. Your line is open.

REPORTER: Oh, hi. This is Carol Sugarman from Food Chemical News. I was just
wondering how many comments you received on this proposed rule, and if you
could provide a general idea of what percentage were for and against it.

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually the comment numbers were about 400, but I just would
briefly say and summarize you know there were individuals that were for it
and groups that supported it, still providing some recommendations for
change. There were groups that were against it and also provided. So you
know there was a whole range, so it's not appropriate I think to try to
break each one out. So.

MODERATOR: Operator, thank you very much. This is Ed Curlett. I'd like to
encourage everyone to go to WWW.APHIS.USDA.GOV to see the documents
associated with this announcement today. Additionally, if you have further
questions, feel free to contact Karen Eggert at 301-734-7280, or Andrea
McNally at 202-690-4178. Again, go to the website for more information. And
we'd like to thank everyone very much for listening in on the call today.
Thank you.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/09/0248.xml

Greetings,

WELL, it seems they have won. they have there market they wanted, and with
the BSE MRR policy in full force now, it's anyone's guess. THE TSEs that
will now be exported globally due to this policy will rank right up there
with 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'. Time will tell, and i only pray that all my
moaning and groaning has been for naught, that it was all just a pipe dream,
and everything was simply spontaneous and will die itself out. really, if it
was just Canada and the USA, it would not matter much. they both have BSE,
they both have atypical BSE, they both have scrapie and CWD, the tainted
rendered feed product and live cattle have both been traded between the two
by the caravans of truck loads for years and years, legally and illegally.
BOTH were classified as BSE GBR III. but once again this administration did
the old end around science, and chose there own, then rewrote history. THE
BSE MRR policy of GW et al will be another sad part of his long long list of
his sad legacy. ...TSS


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

BIO-RAD BSE TEST POLITICAL REPLY TO TSS

Subject: FSIS NOTICE SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM CATTLE UNDER THE BOVINE
SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE)
ONGOING SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:32:58 -0600

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702&L=sanet-mg&P=720

Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA


snip...


> In recent correspondence, the
> Director General of the OIE acknowledged that there has been an "increase
> in unjustified restrictions in international trade, particularly as it
> relates to cattle and cattle products." The letter was in response to a
> request from Secretary Veneman, Agricultural Minister Lyle Vanclief,
> Canada, and Agriculture Secretary Javier Usabiaga, Mexico, to the OIE to
> provide more practical guidance regarding the resumption of trade with
> countries that have reported cases of BSE.


IF THE OIE CHANGES BSE/TSE GUIDELINES NOW (as weak as they are),
just because the USA, Canada and Mexico does not like them. then all the
work all
other countries have done to erradicate this horrible disease from the
planet over the last
3 decades will go for naught, and the agent will continue to spread...

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed

Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION


----- Original Message -----
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
To: docket.oeca@epa.gov ; delores.b.johnson@aphis.usda.gov
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION


Greetings Dr. Colgrove and Miss Johnson,

Thank you for taking this submission via email. i have had trouble submitting via the comment page due to the length of my submission. I was not sure that my file attachment that i submitted via the ;

EDOCKET: Go to http://www.epa.gov/feddocket

I submitted yesterday, just did not know if the file reached anyone. so to make sure, I am sending to you to submit for me.

many thanks,

Terry

From: TSS ()
Subject: Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION
Date: August 24, 2005 at 2:47 pm PST

August 24, 2005

Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION


Greetings APHIS ET AL,

My name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr.


I would kindly like to comment on [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 ;


PROPOSED RULES
Exportation and importation of animals and animal products:
Whole cuts of boneless beef from-
Japan,
48494-48500 [05-16422]


[Federal Register: August 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48494-48500]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18au05-7]

========================================================================

snip...


WE MUST ADHERE TO THE BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS, WE MUST WORK TO ENHANCE THOSE BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS TO INCLUDE ALL ANIMAL TSEs, USDA/APHIS/GW ET ALs BSE MRR (Minimal Risk Region) should be REPEALED/DISBANDED/TRASHED/NADA and done away with for good. The BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to trade all strains of TSEs globally...


Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

P.O. Box 42

Bacliff, Texas USA 77518


Your Comment with Title "[Docket

http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffItemDetailView?objectId=090007d480993808



http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffAttachDownloadPDF?objectId=090007d480993808



http://docket.epa.gov/edkfed/do/EDKStaffCollectionDetailView?objectId=0b0007d48096b40d


Subject: BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01
Date: January 9, 2007 at 9:08 am PST


[Federal Register: January 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 5)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1101-1129]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ja07-21]


[[Page 1101]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

snip...


EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)


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 90ís 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.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573.html

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573.Par.0004.File.dat/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf


EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of Canada


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 to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Canada, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Canada. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Canada as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into the country middle of the eighties and could have reached domestic cattle in the early nineties. 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 90s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Canada reached domestic cattle and led to an internal challenge in the early 90s.

A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90ís 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 Canada is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the system remains unstable, it is expected that the GBR continues to grow, even if no additional external challenges occur.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564.html

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564.Par.0001.File.dat/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_v2_en1.pdf


R-CALF USA v. USDA, et al., On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, D.C. No. CV-05-00006-RFC - Brief of Appellant December 26, 2006 (Adobe Acrobat Reader PDF File 94K)


see full text 60 pages ;


http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/MSJ%20App%20Merits%20Opening%20Brief.pdf


BSE MRR TSS, R-CALF ON CANADA VS USA


Bill
Rancher


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1418
Location: GWN
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:

Texan wrote:


Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder wrote:

This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.


I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.


I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.


_________________
Canadian Beef....A cut above the rest!

my answer to big muddy from canada ;

*** http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=36

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48


snip...


MY personal belief, since you ask, is that not only the Canadian border, but the USA border, and the Mexican border should be sealed up tighter than a drum for exporting there TSE tainted products, until a validated, 100% sensitive test is available, and all animals for human and animal consumption are tested. all we are doing is the exact same thing the UK did with there mad cow poisoning when they exported it all over the globe, all the while knowing what they were doing. this BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to do just exactly what the UK did, thanks to the OIE and GW, it's legal now. and they executed Saddam for poisoning ???

go figure....


Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518



Comment Submitted
Comment Receipt

Thank you. Your comment on Document ID: APHIS-2006-0041-0001 has been sent. Comment Tracking Number: APHIS-2006-0041-DRAFT-0028

Attachments:
C:\My Music\My Documents\APHIS-2006-0041_January 28.doc


If you wish to retain a copy of the receipt, use the following link to print a copy for your files. Print


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main


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


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A3=ind0701&L=SANET-MG&E=quoted-printable&P=374482&B=------%3D_NextPart_000_00EB_01C733E2.D9F6BCC0&T=text%2Fplain;%20charset=Windows-1252


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A3=ind0701&L=SANET-MG&E=quoted-printable&P=423167&B=------%3D_NextPart_000_00EB_01C733E2.D9F6BCC0&T=text%2Fhtml;%20charset=Windows-1252&XSS=3


18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7
December 2006 are now available.


snip...

64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was
presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more
virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE.

Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform
encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the
prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A
MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.


snip...

http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf




3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse

Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve
University

Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain
discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases
were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of
these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with
Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have
inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain
homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half
of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time
of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to
be infected after more than 2 years.

***These results indicate that BASE is transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than
classical BSE in humans.***


6:30 Close of Day One


http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp


SEE STEADY INCREASE IN SPORADIC CJD IN THE USA FROM
1997 TO 2006. SPORADIC CJD CASES TRIPLED, with phenotype
of 'UNKNOWN' strain growing. ...


http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html

There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last
week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance
collection.

He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively
SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf



From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: CWD UPDATE 88 AUGUST 31, 2007


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0709&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=450


Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:13:08 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: CWD NEW MEXICO RECORDS IT'S 19 CASE (near Texas border again)


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=26079

Monitoring the Potential Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease to Humans
Using a Hunter Registry Database in Wyoming (405 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:23:42 -0500


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=27654


Subject: Cross-sequence transmission of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
creates a new prion strain

Date: August 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm PST


Subject: Cross-sequence transmission of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
creates a new prion strain
Date: August 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm PST

J Biol Chem. 2007 Aug 20; : 17709374

Cross-sequence transmission of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease creates a
new prion strain.

[My paper] Atsushi Kobayashi , Masahiro Asano , Shirou Mohri , Tetsuyuki
Kitamoto

The genotype (methionine or valine) at polymorphic codon 129 of the human
prion protein (PrP) gene and the type (type 1 or type 2) of abnormal isoform
of PrP (PrP(Sc)) are major determinants of the clinicopathological
phenotypes of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD). Here we found that
transmission of sCJD prions from a patient with valine homozygosity (129V/V)
and type 2 PrP(Sc) (sCJD-VV2 prions) to mice expressing human PrP with
methionine homozygosity (129M/M) generated unusual PrP(Sc) intermediate in
size between type 1 and type 2. The intermediate type PrP(Sc) was seen in
all examined dura mater graft-associated CJD cases with 129M/M and
plaque-type PrP deposits (p-dCJD). p-dCJD prions and sCJD-VV2 prions
exhibited similar transmissibility and neuropathology, and the identical
type of PrP(Sc) when inoculated into PrP-humanized mice with 129M/M or
129V/V. These findings suggest that p-dCJD could be caused by cross-sequence
transmission of sCJD-VV2 prions.


snip...


In this study, the strain-dependent traits of sCJDMM1
prions were inherited through cross-sequence
transmission without any modification. The
humanized mice with 129V/V produced type 1 PrPres
after inoculation with sCJD-MM1 prions. Because
sCJD-VV1 cases are extremely rare (at most 1-2%
of the total number of sCJD cases) and characterized
by early onset (mean age at onset: 39.3 years) (5),

####################################

our results raise the possibility that CJD cases
classified as VV1 may include cases caused by
iatrogenic transmission of sCJD-MM1 prions or
food-borne infection by type 1 prions from animals,
e.g., chronic wasting disease prions in cervid. In fact,
two CJD-VV1 patients who hunted deer or
consumed venison have been reported (40, 41). The
results of the present study emphasize the need for
traceback studies and careful re-examination of the
biochemical properties of sCJD-VV1 prions.

###################################

In conclusion, cross-sequence transmission of
sCJD-VV2 prions generates a new prion strain with
altered conformational properties and disease
phenotypes as p-dCJD prions. Furthermore, the
newly generated prions have unique transmissibility
including the traceback phenomenon. In the future, if
atypical prion strains emerge through cross-sequence
transmission, especially from animals, traceback
studies will enable us to identify the origin of the
prions.

REFERENCES...snip...end

FULL TEXT ;


http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/M704597200v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Cross-sequence+transmission+of+sporadic+Creutzfeldt-Jakob+disease+creates+a+new+&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=21267

Re: Colorado Surveillance Program for Chronic Wasting Disease
Transmission to Humans (TWO SUSPECT CASES)


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0704&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=1165


Subject: MAD COW BASE H-TYPE AND L-TYPE

Date: August 23, 2007 at 11:30 am PST


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=19779


From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: TWO MORE Nor98 atypical Scrapie cases detected in USA bringing
total to 3 cases to date


Infected and Source Flocks

As of June 30, 2007, there were .....

snip...

One field case and one validation case were consistent with Nor-98 scrapie.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/scrapie/downloads/monthly_scrapie_rpt.pps


IN the February 2007 Scrapie report it only mentions ;

''One case was consistent with Nor98 scrapie.''

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/scrapie/


(please note flocks of origin were in WY, CO, AND CA. PERSONAL COMMUNCATIONS
USDA, APHIS, VS ET AL. ...TSS)

NOR98 SHOWS MOLECULAR FEATURES REMINISCENT OF GSS


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=14553


An evaluation of scrapie surveillance in the United States


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3427

FOIA REQUEST FOR ATYPICAL TSE INFORMATION ON VERMONT SHEEP


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=10451

SEAC New forms of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 1 August 2007
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:09:38 -0500


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3573

POTENTIAL MAD CAT ESCAPES LAB IN USA

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=7062

USDA VS CREEKSTONE Civil Action No. 06-0544

Tue Sep 4, 2007 14:48


http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=236650;article=519;title=CJD%20DISCUSSION%20BOARD


Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:52:02 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FINAL REGULATIONS FOR NON-AMBULATORY DISABLED CATTLE AND
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS (SRMs)


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=27862


IN A NUT SHELL ;

(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006)

11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate
declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries.
The OIE is not responsible for inaccurate publication of country disease
status based on inaccurate information or changes in epidemiological status
or other significant events that were not promptly reported to then Central
Bureau............

http://www.oie.int/eng/Session2007/RF2006.pdf


Audit Report
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program ≠ Phase II
and
Food Safety and Inspection Service

Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat
Recovery Products - Phase III

Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006

Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle
Still Remain

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf


Report to Congressional Requesters:
February 2005:
Mad Cow Disease:

FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses
Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-101]:

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05101.html

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05101high.pdf


January 2002 MAD COW DISEASE Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and
Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts GAO-02-183

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02183.pdf


TSS




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: