SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS (216-119-133-159.ipset13.wt.net)
Subject: Cattlemen's Corner Industry Leader Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture
Date: September 15, 2004 at 1:19 pm PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Cattlemen's Corner Industry Leader Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:14:00 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE


Cattlemen's Corner

Industry Leader


Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary of Agriculture

Ann M. Veneman was sworn in as the 27th Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) on January 20, 2001. Her lifelong commitment to
food and farm issues, along with her bipartisan approach to solving
problems and confronting new challenges, are reasons that explain why
she was chosen by President George W. Bush to serve in his Cabinet and
unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Growing up on a family farm in a small rural community, Ann Veneman
understands well the issues important to Americas farmers and ranchers.
She has spent much of her career dedicated to food and agriculture
issues and advancing sound U.S. farm and food policies.

President Bush has often said that the spirit of the American farmer is
emblematic of the spirit of America, signifying the values of hard work,
faith and entrepreneurship. Secretary Veneman believes strongly in these
principles and since taking office, has worked to foster economic
opportunities for farmers and ranchers, ensure a safe and wholesome food
supply, protect agriculture against pests and diseases, encourage
conservation and environmental stewardship, invest in rural communities,
and support the next generation of agricultural leaders through new
educational opportunities.

Secretary Veneman brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the
USDA. She is no stranger to managing the complexity of a large
government agency and working with the Congress. Her management style
encourages teamwork, innovation, and mutual respect in forging common
sense solutions to issues facing American agriculture.

From 1991 to 1993, Veneman served as USDAs Deputy Secretary, the
Departments second-highest position. She also served as Deputy
Undersecretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity
Programs from 1989 to 1991. Veneman joined the USDAs Foreign
Agricultural Service in 1986 and served as Associate Administrator until
1989. From 1995 to 1999, Veneman served as Secretary of the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), managing agricultural
programs and services for the nations largest and most diverse
agricultural producing state.

Secretary Venemans extensive background and experience has been
valuable since taking office as American agriculture has confronted
critical issues such as new farm policy, international trade, homeland
security, environmental stewardship and food safety.

Within months of taking office, Secretary Veneman released the Bush
Administrations vision for American agriculture through the publication
of Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century. This
publication outlines the Administrations priorities for farm sector
policy, trade expansion, infrastructure enhancement, conservation and
the environment, rural communities, nutrition and food assistance, and
USDA program integration. The report, available on USDAs website at
www.usda.gov/farmpolicy/farmpolicy.htm has received widespread praise
for its candor and forward-looking vision.

Secretary Veneman has played a key role in eliminating trade barriers
and expanding opportunities for American farmers through new export
markets. She has worked closely with U.S. Trade Representative Robert
Zoellick, helping lead to the successful launch of a new round of trade
negotiations for the World Trade Organization.

Following a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease in parts of
Europe and the tragic events of September 11th, Secretary Veneman and
her team acted swiftly to respond to potential threats and continues
working to strengthen USDAs protection systems. The Secretary has been
an advocate for strong pest and disease, food safety and research
programs to ensure U.S. agriculture and consumers have a safe, wholesome
food supply and the infrastructure to protect it.

Secretary Veneman has been a strong advocate of agriculture education
and established the Leaders of Tomorrow initiative to strengthen USDA
education programs, particularly those involved with mentoring young
adults.

The Secretary earned her bachelors degree in political science from the
University of California, Davis, a masters degree in public policy from
the University of California, Berkeley, and a juris doctorate degree
from the University of California, Hastings College of Law. In a
personal capacity, she serves as a board member of the Close Up
Foundation, a nonpartisan civic education organization.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=2816

matt@cattlenetwork.com


Greetings,

> Cattlemen's Corner Industry Leader Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of
> Agriculture


AMEN! they finally got it right, she is indeed the industry leader and
the industry has her right where they want her, right in there pocket$
at the same time she is suppose to protect and have the best interest
of the US public in mind, i thought. however, this is not the case.

> along with her bipartisan approach to solving problems and

> confronting new challenges, are reasons that explain why

> she was chosen by President George W. Bush

i hate to repeat myself, but facts are facts, and here are a few of them
again. i know this irritates a few on this list, but i must document this
stuff for future use. please just delete if it irritates you;

with that said, let us look at the BSE/TSE issue alone;

USDA INC. : HOW AGRIBUSINESS WAS HIJACKED
REGULATORY POLICY AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE {FULL TEXT}

snip...

PACKING USDA

What has happened in USDA goes beyond a process of capture intended to
restrict competition. Thanks to its political influence, Big
Agribusiness has been
able to pack USDA with appointees who have a background of working in the
industry, lobbying for it, or performing research or other functions
on its behalf. These appointees have helped to implement policies that
undermine the regulatory mission of USDA in favor of the bottom-line
interests
of agribusiness. In other words, public health and livelihoods are at
stake.
To see that agribusiness has packed USDA with its apparent representatives,
one has only to look at the biographies on the Departments website of
its roughly 45 top
officials, including the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries,
Assistant S
ecretaries, Deputy Under Secretaries, Deputy Assistant Secretaries and
heads of key
offices. Many of the biographies cite previous work with agribusiness
companies and their
trade associations, lobbying firms and research arms, including university
research centers bankrolled by the food industry. Additional research
makes clear that there are approximately as many industry people among the
appointees as there are career civil servants.
Here are some examples of appointees with past industry ties (unless
otherwise noted, the source for each affiliation is the individuals
biography on the USDA website):

Secretary ANN M. VENEMAN served on the board of biotech company Calgene.7

Secretary Venemans chief of staff DALE MOORE was executive director for
legislative
affairs of the National Cattlemens Beef Association (NCBA), a trade
association heavily
supported by and aligned with the interests of the big meatpacking
companies.

Venemans recently named Deputy Chief of Staff, MICHAEL TORREY, was a
vice president
at the International Dairy Foods Association.8

Director of Communications ALISA HARRISON was formerly executive
director of public relations at NCBA.

Deputy Secretary JAMES MOSELEY was a partner in Infinity Pork LLC, a
factory farm in Indiana.9

Under Secretary J.B. PENN was an executive of Sparks Companies, an
agribusiness consulting firm.

Under Secretary ELSA A. MURANO conducted industry-sponsored research
while a university professor (see below).

Under Secretary JOSEPH JEN was director of research at Campbell Soup
Companys Campbell Institute of Research and Technology.

Deputy Under Secretary FLOYD D. GAIBLER was executive director of the
National Cheese Institute and the American Butter Institute, which are
funded by
the dairy industry.

Deputy Under Secretary KATE COLER was director of government relations
for the Food Marketing Institute.

10 USDA INC. : HOW AGRIBUSINESS HAS HIJACKED REGULATORY
POLICY AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Deputy Under Secretary CHARLES LAMBERT spent 15 years working for NCBA.

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations MARY WATERS was a
senior director and legislative counsel for ConAgra Foods.

Industry infiltration also extends to USDAs non-food areas. For
example, Mark E. Rey, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the
Environment,
who oversees the Forest Service, was previously a vice president of the
American Forest
and Paper Association.10 By contrast, there are virtually no
associations with family farm,
consumer or environmental groups to be found among the appointees. The
allies of Big
Agribusiness have a tight lock on the main food policy arm of the
federal government.

CAPTURED PRODUCER GROUPS

In addition to previous affiliations with food processing
giants such as ConAgra, many of USDAs top
appointees used to be affiliated with producer groups
such as the National Cattlemens Beef Association and
the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). These
organizations have close ties with the big agri-food
corporations. Such corporations can join NPPC
through the Councils Pork Alliance, which is represented
on NPPCs board of directors.11 NPPC
acknowledges that the dues paid by corporate members
(among which are Cargill and Monsanto) are
used to fund critical industry priorities in the legislative
and regulatory areas. NCBA has an Allied
Industry Partners program with several categories of
membership, depending on the level of financial support
provided by a company. Bigger contributors
(which here, too, include Cargill and Monsanto) and
are eligible to join the Allied Industry Council, which
has representation on NCBAs board of directors.12
NCBA, in fact, was created in 1996 through the merger
of the National Cattlemens Association and the
National Livestock and Meat Board (including its Beef
Industry Council), which put producers and processors
under the same roof.13
Given these relationships, it is not surprising that
groups such as NPPC and NCBA consistently side
with the interests of the big processors and ignore the
interests of small producers. This rift between small
and large producers has been most apparent in the
controversy over mandatory federal promotion and
11
The increasing dominance of
USDA policymaking by
agribusiness interests and
personnel can be traced to two
sources: the growing concentration
of ownership in food production
and processing, and the growing
political influence exercised by the
large players in the industry.

snip...

THE PROBLEM

Since the late 1980s, the world beef industry has
contended with a threat called bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), more popularly known as
mad cow disease. The problem was originally concentrated
in Britain, where at least 141 people have
died since a variation of the disease spread to
humans.21 For more than a decade, Americans
thought that BSE was mainly a European problem.
U.S. consumers continued to consume prodigious
quantities of beef and accepted assurances from federal
officials that everything was being done to prevent
the disease from infecting domestic herds.
That confidence began erode in May 2003,
when a BSE-infected cow was found in the
Canadian province of Alberta, prompting the U.S.
government to suspend beef imports from our
neighbor to the north. Japan and South Korea
demanded that all beef they bought from the U.S. be
labeled as born, raised and processed in the United
States. USDA refused such labeling, insisting to
those countries, as it had to U.S. consumers, that
existing rules were sufficient for safety and confidence
in the food supply.
The bigger shock came in December 2003, when the first cow in the
United States tested positive for BSE. For several days, during which
the beef
market crashed, USDA withheld the fact that the cow was from Canada.
Countries such as Japan and South Korea wasted no time in banning U.S.
imports, yet Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and other department
officials
insisted that the diseased Holstein in Washington State was an isolated
case
and that they were acting quickly to address the issue for the North
American herd. Veneman made a show of saying that she intended to serve
beef to her family at Christmas. About a week after the BSE discovery, USDA
announced that it would impose some of the stricter rules that
independent analysts
had long been advocating. These included a prohibition on the use of
downer cows (those unable to walk because of injury or illness) and a
ban on the use of certain body parts (such as brains and spinal cords,
which are
most likely to harbor BSE). The latter applied only to cows older than
30 months.
The downer cow policy came as a surprise to most Americans, who
had no idea that their hamburgers may have come from crippled animals.
Yet, for more than a decade, the beef processing industry had successfully
thwarted efforts in Congress to ban the practice.
15
"At a time when [USDA] should be
bending over backward to reassure
customers, it keeps taking actions
that suggest more concern with
protecting the financial interests of
the beef industry than with
protecting public health...No one
can be confident if the department
remains so blatantly protective of
the American meat industry."
Despite the level of public concern in the
wake of the Washington State
BSE discovery, the industry
was not prepared to accede to new rules,
such as the testing of all
cattle for BSE, country-of-origin
labeling and a ban on using cattle remains
in the production of animal
feed. In early January the
chief lobbyist of the National Cattlemens
Beef Association (NCBA)
declared: Were not about to let
the federal government come in here and
overregulate at a time when they
think they ought to do
something.22
As it turned out, the NCBA had little to worry about. USDA wrapped up
its investigation of the Washington State BSE case in only seven weeks,
after having failed to find almost two-thirds of the
80 cattle that entered the United States from Canada with the infected
Holstein. W. Ron DeHaven, chief veterinary officer of USDA, declared:
Its time to move on.23 The rigor of USDAs investigation came under
Congressional scrutiny shortly thereafter, when a report by the House
Committee on Government Reform, citing three eyewitnesses, disputed USDAs
claim that the infected cow was a downer. Committee Chairman Thomas M.
Davis III (R-VA) and ranking Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman of California
wrote to Secretary Veneman, stating that the new evidence could have
serious
implications for both the adequacy of the national [mad cow] surveillance
system and the credibility of the USDA.24 Under pressure such as this,
USDA reluctantly agreed to expand its testing program a bit more, but it
still
resisted the more aggressive measures that were widely advocated outside
the
Department and the beef industry. USDA also continued to deny that
country-of-origin labeling would help re-establish export markets
and consumer confidencedespite the certification requested by Japan and
South Korea. Consumer surveys showed a strong preference for
country-of-origin
labeling. World Animal Health Organization rules state that a country
can maintain
BSE free status if an infected animal is proven to be imported. But
Tyson, Cargill,
and Swiftwhich have large meatpacking and production operations
in Canada, Australia, Argentina and other countriesdid not want to
identify the source of the meat they sold to consumers. USDA, as a
result, adamantly
refused to change it position on labeling. USDAs inclination to put the
interests of the
big meatpackers ahead of public safety was so strong that the Department
went on the
attack against a small maverick beef company. Kansas-based Creekstone
Farms operates
what is reputedly an ultramodern plant and has sold premium meat to
customers in places as far away as Russia. Realizing that its business
would be crippled unless foreign customers were assured that its product
was free of BSE,
Creekstone spent more than $500,000 to install its own BSE testing
laboratorythe first in a
U.S. slaughterhouseto test every head of cattle it slaughtered. The
company hired seven
chemists and biologists to operate the facility. Rather than praising
Creekstone for its initiative,
USDA prevented the company from operating the lab by refusing to sell it
necessary testing
materials, domestic distribution of which is controlled by the federal
government. In a position
that was supported by NCBA,25 USDA insisted that its own policy
of limited testing was the only acceptable one and that allowing
Creekstone to do comprehensive testing might lead consumers to think
that meat from
other companies was not safe. USDA also claimed that false positive
results for BSE could
have a negative impact on cattle and beef markets.
The inadequacy of USDAs regulatory approach has become even clearer
with some recent events. In May there were reports that a cow with evidence
of neurological problems (which is considered to be a marker of higher
risk of BSE)
was discovered at a Lone Star Beef slaughterhouse in Texas, yet it
16 USDA INC. : HOW AGRIBUSINESS HAS HIJACKED REGULATORY
POLICY AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
was not tested for BSE. The animal was removed from the meat production
line but was sent to a rendering plant to be made into animal feed,
which could
allow a BSE infection to return to the human food supply. USDA could not
explain
how this animal slipped through its supposedly strengthened testing
program.
Revelations such as these prompted the New York Times to editorialize:
At a time when [USDA] should be bending over backward to reassure
customers,
it keeps taking actions that suggest more concern with protecting the
financial interests
of the beef industry than with protecting public health&No one can be
confident if the
department remains so blatantly protective of the American meat
industry.26
It then came to light that, in September 2003, USDA had allowed
meatpackers to resume imports of some meat products from Canada that were
prohibited by an August 2003 regulation that responded to the discovery
of BSE in
that country. Over a six month period, more than 30 million
pounds of ground beef and other high-risk beef products were brought
into the country. The willingness of USDA to take this reckless secret
action can
only be interpreted as another example of an agency totally subservient
to the interests
of industry. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) was so outraged
that he urged President Bush to ask for the resignation of Secretary
Veneman (whose spokeswoman claimed the Secretary knew nothing
about the imports), adding that the public deserved to know
who may have benefited from favored treatment, and why.27

THE USDA-FOOD INDUSTRY CONNECTION

snip...

full text worth reading;

http://www.competitivemarkets.com/pdf/USDAagencyCapture.pdf
http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/92885.html
http://www.competitivemarkets.com/ocm1.html

Last Thursday, Department of Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman told
reporters that the three rounds of meetings Japan and the United States
held in late July were going fairly smoothly.

"We have concluded out of those technical discussions that we will move
forward with an arrangement with the Japanese where they will not
require testing of all ages of animals," she said.

"That is not factual," Mamoru Ishihara, vice minister of agriculture,
forestry and fisheries, said in a news conference after hearing
Veneman's remarks.

"We have not yet determined what to do with Japan-U.S. negotiations,
including setting a schedule for further talks," said Ishihara.

http://www.meatingplace.com/DailyNews/init.asp?iID=12965

Article Published: Sunday, May 23, 2004 When advocates become regulators

President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once
lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.

snip...


FOOD SAFETY

Charles Lambert

As a USDA official, the former lobbyist for the meat industry who
opposed labeling told a hearing that mad cow disease was not a threat.

Mad cow disease had yet to surface in the United States last June when a
U.S. Department of Agriculture official - a meat-industry lobbyist only
eight months earlier - bet his job on the promise that the ailment
couldn't sneak into the country through imports.

Congress had just passed a law requiring meat labels to state which
country a cow lived in before slaughter. Food safety groups say those
labels could, among other things, help consumers avoid buying beef from
countries with mad cow disease.

The USDA opposed such labeling. The person making the agency's case,
Deputy Undersecretary Charles Lambert, knew the arguments against such
labels. He'd made them as a lobbyist for the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association.

Lambert spent 15 years at the Cattlemen's Association working in Denver
before coming to Washington, D.C., where he worked as lobbyist and chief
economist. He left in December 2002 to join the USDA as undersecretary
for marketing and regulatory programs.

When asked about mad cow and the labels, Lambert said mad cow disease
wasn't a threat.

"Is there a possibility that it could get through?" Rep. Joe Baca, a
California Democrat, asked Lambert at a hearing last June.

Lambert answered, "No, sir."

"None at all?" Baca asked.

"No," Lambert replied.

"You would bet your life on it - your job on it, right?"

Lambert answered, "Yes, sir."

The disease was discovered in the U.S. six months later - apparently
brought here by a cow from Canada.

Lambert now says, "I overstated my case."

More than a dozen other high-ranking USDA officials appointed under Bush
also have ties to the meat industry.

"Whether it's intentional or not, USDA gives the impression of being a
wholly owned subsidiary of America's cattlemen," said Carol Tucker
Foreman, director of the Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy
Institute. She served as a USDA assistant secretary in the Carter White
House. "Their interests rather than the public interests predominate in
USDA policy."

When he came to the USDA, Lambert signed an agreement stating that in
his first year he would "not participate personally and substantially in
any particular matter involving specific parties in which (Cattlemen's)
is a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate."

During that period he met at least 12 times with current or former
members of Cattlemen's and its affiliates, an office calendar obtained
by The Denver Post shows.

Lambert said that at any meeting where policy was discussed, he acted
only as a facilitator and that another USDA person was present. The
calendar shows meetings where other USDA people were present, although
it is not always clear what was discussed.

The rest of those meetings were at social settings, he said.

"You're not required to sever all personal and past relationships ...
when you come to federal employment," Lambert said in an interview.


snip...

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E11676%7E2164693,00.html

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said after
the briefing that USDA officials admitted "mistakes were made," and Rep.
Charles Stenholm, D-Abilene, the committee's Democratic leader, said the
improper import permits constituted "a breakdown in the process."

"The secretary was saying one thing, and something different was
happening," Stenholm said. "When you have a policy that isn't being
carried out, you have a problem."

The agent that causes mad cow disease can be transmitted to humans, but
that has happened rarely. The brain-wasting disease has killed about 150
people, mostly in Europe.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2585212

NOW, we have young people in USA dying from sporadic CJD,
we have old dying of sporadic CJD, with symptoms of nvCJD,
sCJD duration from onset of symptoms to death same as nvCJD,
but it's all sporadic. RIGHT! again, we must have all fell of the shrimp
boat and drowned to believe some stupid criteria such as this.
Gummer himself must have thought this up in the back room with
Dehaven/Veneman et al. you know, some of these folks remind me
of the Iraqi information minister and the hillarious stuff he was putting
out, the one that kept saying stuff like;

'we have the embasils on the run"

"that is not Saddam you captured, that is Santa Clause" "

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

"They're coming to surrender or be burned in their tanks."

"We have destroyed 2 tanks, fighter planes, 2 helicopters and their
shovels - We have driven them back."

"We have them surrounded in their tanks"

"I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in
appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are
pretending things which have never taken place."

"Let the American infidels bask in their illusion"

"I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad."

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

"Despite this finding, we remain confident in the safety of our beef
supply," Veneman said.

At this time of year many Americans are making plans for the holidays
and for food. We see no need for people to alter those plans or their
eating habits or to do anything but have a happy and healthy holiday
season. I plan to serve beef for my Christmas dinner. And we remain
confident in the safety of our food supply.

snip...

We have been taking steps since 1990 to protect our beef supplies from
this disease. We implemented a feed ban; we have required the removal of
any kind of risk materials from an animal like this one, a downer
animal, and we have a whole series of actions that have been taken to
reduce, substantially, the risk to public health from this disease if it
ever were found. And that's why we continue to believe that this
finding, while unfortunate, does not pose any kind of significant risk
to the human food chain.

snip..

The safety of our food supply and public health are high priorities of
this Administration and high priorities of USDA. In the last year we
have tested 20,526 head of cattle for BSE, which is triple the level of
the previous year of 2002. The presumptive positive today is a result of
our aggressive surveillance program. This is a clear indication that our
surveillance and detection program is working.

snip...

SECRETARY VENEMAN: Well, I would certainly hope that people will remain
confident in the food supply. As I said, we in some ways had some
experience with this because of the one find in Canada. What we found
because of the actions that were taken both in Canada and in the United
States with the case earlier this year is that demand for beef did not
diminish partly because we believe the people in North America know that
we have the strongest food safety systems in the world. We have the
protections in place, and again, I, personally, do not hesitate to
recommend to anyone that beef is absolutely safe to eat.

snip...

. But again, one thing that is important to remember is that muscle cuts
of meats have almost no risk. In fact, as far as the science is
concerned, I know of no science to show that you can transmit BSE from
muscle cuts of meat. So the fact that it's gone to further processing is
not significant in terms of human health.

snip...

SECRETARY VENEMAN: Well, again as Dr. Murano just indicated, there is
virtually no chance that the meat has been contaminated and the agents,
that would be the high risk agents in any animal have been removed from
this particular animal so we really dont believe that there iswe
believe that the risk of any kind of human health effect is extremely low.

PARTICIPANT: Yes, but what if you find another animal on the farm that
is contaminated.

DR. MURANO: Well, you should know that the agent that causes mad cow
disease as I said earlier resides mainly in those tissues that I
mentioned, the brain, spinal cord, distal ileum, which were removed from
this animal and sent to rendering so they were not in the food supply.
The scientific community believes that there is no evidence to
demonstrate that muscle cuts or whole muscle meats that come from
animals that are infected with mad cow disease agent themselvesthe meat
itself is effective to human beings. There is no evidence to show that
and that is as far as we can state that. Its a good thing obviously
that the infectious materials from this animal were removed and sent to
rendering which is something that we do as standard practice on these
downer animals that are tested by APHIS.

snip...

WASHINGTON FIRM RECALLS BEEF PRODUCTS FOLLOWING PRESUMPTIVE BSE
DETERMINATION

WASHINGTON, Dec. 23, 2003 - Verns Moses Lake Meats, a Moses Lake, Wash.,
establishment, is voluntarily recalling approximately 10,410 pounds of
raw beef that may have been exposed to tissues containing the infectious
agent that causes bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced today.

snip...

RON DeHaven snip;

Any infectious tissues would have gone to rendering and would not have
gone to the human food chain and any of the tissues that would have gone
for human consumption would be safe tissues even if they came from an
infected animal. And as far as protecting animal health we have had in
place in this country since August 1997 a feed ban that would prohibit
the feeding of protein from cattle back to other cattle so we think
measures have been in place to ensure the safety of both the public and
animals.

snip...

RON DeHaven;

We are working at changing that international standard, making that
standard based on the existing science, make it more consistent with the
current international standards as we also are currently working with
that international organization, the OIE, to update those existing
standards in hopes that we will again base trade in the future on the
science and not on public perception.

snip...

So even though the carcass was not retained, only those tissues, the
meat, if you will, that is safe for human consumption, went into the
human food chain.
Operator, next question, please.

snip...

QUESTION: Yes. Seth Bornstein at Knight Ridder again. You said that
there was nine--in 1997, there was 75 percent compliance on the feed ban
and now 99 percent. Doing the math, you're talking about the years of
suspicion being 1999 through 2001.
Can you tell us what the compliance was in those years, whether the
compliance was worse in certain regions, and what kind of enforcement
action was done in places that did not comply, found not in compliance?

DR. DeHaven: We'll have Steve Sundlof from FDA answer that question.

DR. SUNDLOF: I don't have those figures in front of me. We do have the
information. If you would like, we can provide that information to you.

snip...

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Antonio Regilotto (sp).

ANTONIO REGILOTTO: Hi, there. I'm from the Wall Street Journal.

I had just a follow-up question on the risk. You said that there's no
evidence that this meat that was sold and possibly consumed could carry
the agent. Can you cite the scientific evidence for that and whether
there's any evidence that there is a risk or that it could carry the agent?

DR. DEHAVEN: I can't off the top of my head give you the literature
citations on that, but clearly there have been numerous studies done in
Europe and elsewhere where animals have been infected artificially and
then follow-up studies on those animals to identify the infectious agent
from various tissues. So it's been through extensive research,
particularly on livestock species like beef and dairy cattle to
determine where the infections agent is found to harbor.

So we can I'm sure separately give you some literature citations to
support that, but it's clearly recognized in the international community
and indeed the international standards set by the OIE recognize that
meat is a commodity that can safely be traded even from those countries
that have had a high prevalence of the disease.

snip...

more from Ron;

Indeed, we have reason to be confident that our preventive measures have
afforded us a high level of protection. Some of those measures would
include the surveillance program that we've had in place for over 10
years now, targeting that high-risk population; the fact that we've had
a feed ban in place to prevent animal-to-animal transmission -- and
that's been in place since August of 1997; and that we stopped the
importation of animals from the European Union in 1989, again which is
the most likely source of any infection that we would have in North America.

snip...

DR. DEHAVEN: Next question, Operator, please?

OPERATOR: Thank you. Antonio Regiletto (sp), you may ask your question,
and please state your company name.

ANTONIO REGILETTO: Hi, there. I'm with the Wall Street Journal.

Can someone tell me whether the spine of this animal was split open or
down the middle during processing? And related questions -- what is the
advice to consumers who've eaten the beef patties or other meat from
this particular animal?

DR. DEHAVEN: We'll refer that question to Dr. Ken Petersen with Food
Safety Inspection Service.

DR. KEN PETERSON: Thank you. Typical of all cattle slaughter, part of
this slaughter process, the animal's vertebrae is split down the middle
with a large saw, and so the animal is split into two halves. That's
part of the inspection process. And when you do that, it exposes the
spinal cord, which is then removed elsewhere in the process.

So yes, that was done in this particular case as it would be done in
virtually all cases of large cattle slaughter.

The second question regarding the consumption of meats, we recommend, we
encourage two things. One, we expect by now that many of the customers
that may have purchased some of this meat have been notified by the
grocery chain or other store where perhaps they purchased it. If not,
they can contact those stores and ask them if the meat they purchased on
particular days is related to the recall. So we would suggest they do that.

As far as consumption, if it has occurred, as you've heard us state
repeatedly the risk related to consumption of this muscle meat is
virtually zero. And that's because of the cautions that were put in
place revolving around the extent of this particular recall. So the meat
per se, because it did not contain any spinal cord-related material, we
think is a very, very low risk to consumers.

snip...

OPERATOR: Thank you. Steve Mitchell, you may ask your question, and
please state your company name.

STEVE MITCHELL: This is Steve Mitchell with United Press International.
The officials keep insisting that this meat likely presented zero risk,
but a number or at least several studies have shown that infectious
agent could be contained in some of these meat products and even the
blood. So is that, are those studies just not relevant here, or what do
you make of those?

DR. DEHAVEN: I certainly am not aware of the studies that you make
reference to. So let me explain how we are basing our statements. There
is in fact a large body of scientific evidence to suggest that meat from
cattle is not a tissue at risk as it relates specifically to BSE. There
is an international standard-setting body called the OIE, or
Organization of International Epizootics, that is recognized by the
World Trade Organization as the animal health International
standard-setting body.

They have a chapter, the OIE has a chapter specifically on BSE, and the
purpose of the chapter is to establish standards under which countries
can safely trade in animals and products given an exporting country's
relative risk for BSE. That chapter acknowledges that countries can
safely import meat products from countries that are affected by BSE even
from countries that have a moderate to high risk of having BSE.

snip...

DR. DEHAVEN: You know, as I just explained, we feel very strongly in the
US that international trade and any trade restrictions should be well
founded in the science. We have had in the United States a very good
program to preclude BSE in this country. And while this recent find has
been unfortunate, indeed the system we have in place has a number of
safeguards and firewalls in place.

On top of that knowing that the prevalence of the disease in the US is
at worst a very small prevalence, a very minor risk, adding to the fact
that scientifically we know that certain commodities like beef meat
products are safe even from countries that have a moderate to high
prevalence of the disease, that would all suggest that trade
restrictions that are being imposed now are not well-founded in the science.

The US certainly recognized that, and we were actively engaged in trying
to modify the international reaction, in many estimations over-reaction
by the international community, to a find of BSE in a country that's had
a good program.

Our actions that I'm referring to have to do with the fact that we
started allowing importation of meat from animals under 30 months into
the United States from Canada. We had proposed a rule that would allow
the importation of even live animals, for example animals under 30
months of age, into the United States from Canada. So we were actively
engaged in a process of changing the international standard, going
towards what the OIE chapter says in basing trade policy on what we know
about the science.

Unfortunately with this situation what we've seen internationally is,
again, an over-reaction, trade restrictions imposed more out of public
perception than based on the science that we know about this particular
disease. Though sorry for the long answer, but the short answer is, yes
indeed, we think that the restrictions that are being imposed should be
lifted.

snip...

DR. DEHAVEN: It really is too premature for us to make any statement
about whether or not we are dealing with the same strain of the disease
in the United States or with this particular cow that we found in the
United States as compared to the BSE that has been prevalent in Europe
and especially in the United Kingdom.

Some of those studies are ongoing, but it would be premature to
speculate. One thing we can say, and this was brought out in the risk
assessment that was conducted by Harvard University's Center for Risk
Assessment, is that the risk that we had in North America, and I would
speak both to Canada and the US here, comes from animals and product
imported years ago from UK and elsewhere in Europe.

So if we had some exposure it would have been years ago from animals and
product that may have come in from the UK, and one could then speculate
that we are probably dealing with a similar disease as to what there has
been in the UK. But I want to emphasize, we do not have any testing
results available to us relative to this new find in the United States.

snip...

And our surveillance testing has been based on a statistically valid
sample that would tell us that if the infection existed in the United
States even at a low prevalence of one in a million animals that we
should find the disease. And so it's on that basis that we feel
comfortable when we say, the worst case scenario is the disease exists
in the United States at a very low prevalence and even if it is here our
procedures and most notably the feed ban would be eliminating the disease.

And that is information that has independently been confirmed by the
Harvard Risk Assessment.

snip...

DR. PETERSEN: I'd just add that at slaughter of course these
nonambulatory animals do occasionally arrive. Many times they are recent
injuries. Perhaps they even occurred on the transportation truck. But
regardless of the cause of these animals being nonambulatory, if it is
nonambulatory those animals are always inspected by our USDA
veterinarian. That veterinarian looks at the animals and decides whether
they may be fit to proceed into the slaughter plant.

Last year those veterinarians that had ante-mortem identified just over
130 animals that had true, clinical signs for central nervous system
disease. Those would be the highest risk animals for BSE. All of those
animals were tested through the APHIS program.

snip...

SEC. VENEMAN: I don't expect an increase in the price to consumers. The
number of cattle that enter into the food supply as downer animals
currently is a very small number when compared to the universe of cattle
that we slaughter in this country. We slaughter somewhere in excess of
35 million head a year, and it's estimated that the downer cattle were
in the range of 150,000 to 200,000. So as you can see, that's a very
small percentage.

snip...

RANDY FABI: Randy Fabi with Reuters.

Is the USDA willing to test all US cattle at slaughter like in Japan?
Presidential candidate Howard Dean said this would only cost 3 cents a
pound to do so. I'm just wondering if that was accurate.

DR. DEHAVEN: We feel very comfortable that we've had in place in this
country a very good and appropriate program, given what we know about
the disease and given what we know about our exposure to the disease. So
I would start by emphasizing that there have been appropriate firewalls
and safeguards in place in this country.

I would quickly add however that it's only prudent that given this new
finding that we look at our program, our overall system as it relates to
US beef in total, and consider changes that we may need to make based on
this new information. One of the things that we are looking at is,
additional testing and what populations of cattle would be appropriate
for that additional testing.

We would hope to also as we take those different options into
consideration fall back on the science, and the science would suggest
that this is a disease of older animals. Incubation period is typically
between 3 and 6 years of age, which is why we've been focusing our
testing on not only nonambulatory animals but older animals. That is why
we are currently allowing product in from Canada that comes from animals
under 30 months of age.

So we need to take into account the science that we know about this
disease as we consider any modifications to our overall system. And I
can assure you, all of those options are on the table, and they are
actively being discussed within USDA as well as with our colleagues in
the Food and Drug Administration.

snip...

TINA HUDSON (sp): Hi. I'm with the St. Lewis Post Dispatch.

And my question is about the spontaneous occurrence of BSE. Do we know
if BSE can arise spontaneously in the cattle population, and is the
current testing level enough to detect BSE should it arise by means
other than through tainted feed?

DR. DEHAVEN: Thank you for the question. There is known to occur in
humans in the human version of the disease or of the TSE called
Crutzfeldt Jakob Disease, the occurrence of or the spontaneous
occurrence of the disease, meaning that for no known reason people come
down with this disease at the approximate prevalence of 1 in one million.

I mentioned earlier that our surveillance testing has been focused on
identifying the disease at a prevalence of 1 in a million infected
cattle, and we're testing at enough frequency to have a 95 percent
confidence level that we would detect the disease at a 1 in a million
prevalence level.

So if we were to extrapolate from the human situation where there
apparently is spontaneously occurring CJD, then in fact if it occurs at
the same prevalence in cattle then we should detect it.

Having said that, we have no evidence to suggest that BSE occurs
spontaneously in cattle. It's one of those situations where it's very,
very difficult to prove a negative. How can you prove that it doesn't occur?

So there is no scientific basis to say that we do have spontaneous cases
of BSE. On the other hand, we don't have sufficient data at this point
to definitively say that it doesn't occur.

(please note there is also no scientific evidence that not one case of
sporadic CJD is a spontaneous happening without route and source,
this is another myth...TSS)

snip...

DR. CRAWFORD: The question relates to the use of these materials in
non-ruminants as I take it, and there is no scientific evidence that
animals such as pigs and chickens can get the disease BSE, and therefore
that action has not been taken.

snip...

DR. DEHAVEN: (?) So the ban in fact does -- would preclude those
tissues, but only from animals over 30 months of age. And clearly that
is a restriction that is based in science, and that we know from
research studies that the prion, the infectious agent, typically does
not appear in those tissues until well after that 30-month age mark.

snip...END

Greetings again List members,

simply amazing, the USA continues to boast about the O.I.E. and
there BSE regulations, but fail to mention the fact that most every
country that went by those same BSE guidelines, most all
became BSE documented countries. SO, what does this tell
you? it tells me the O.I.E. regs. pertaining to TSE was/is terribly
flawed...snip...end...TSS

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

Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

[20 August 2004]


http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/catindex_en.html

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder@wt.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:03 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Cc: ggraber@cvm.fda.gov; Linda.Grassie@fda.gov; BSE-L
Subject: Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION
TO DOCKET 2003N-0312]

Greetings FDA,

snip...

PLUS, if the USA continues to flagrantly ignore the _documented_ science
to date about the known TSEs in the USA (let alone the undocumented TSEs
in cattle), it is my opinion, every other Country that is dealing with
BSE/TSE should boycott the USA and demand that the SSC reclassify the
USA BSE GBR II risk assessment to BSE/TSE GBR III 'IMMEDIATELY'. for the
SSC to _flounder_ any longer on this issue, should also be regarded with
great suspicion as well. NOT to leave out the OIE and it's terribly
flawed system of disease surveillance. the OIE should make a move on CWD
in the USA, and make a risk assessment on this as a threat to human
health. the OIE should also change the mathematical formula for testing
of disease. this (in my opinion and others) is terribly flawed as well.
to think that a sample survey of 400 or so cattle in a population of 100
million, to think this will find anything, especially after seeing how
many TSE tests it took Italy and other Countries to find 1 case of BSE
(1 million rapid TSE test in less than 2 years, to find 102 BSE cases),
should be proof enough to make drastic changes of this system. the OIE
criteria for BSE Country classification and it's interpretation is very
problematic. a text that is suppose to give guidelines, but is not
understandable, cannot be considered satisfactory. the OIE told me 2
years ago that they were concerned with CWD, but said any changes might
take years. well, two years have come and gone, and no change in
relations with CWD as a human health risk. if we wait for politics and
science to finally make this connection, we very well may die before any
decisions
or changes are made. this is not acceptable. we must take the politics
and the industry out of any final decisions of the Scientific community.
this has been the problem from day one with this environmental man made
death sentence. some of you may think i am exaggerating, but you only
have to see it once, you only have to watch a loved one die from this
one time, and you will never forget, OR forgive...yes, i am still very
angry... but the transmission studies DO NOT lie, only the politicians
and the industry do... and they are still lying to this day...TSS


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
HARVARD STUDY bought and paid for by your local cattle dealer
(USDA paid Harvard $800,000 for study) there 'gold standard' study
they use as the bible of all BSE studies.

original Risk Assessmen November 26, 2001)

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/bse-riskassmt.html


SUPPRESSED PEER review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf

Report of the Secretarys Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and
Poultry Diseases

Measures Relating to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
in the United States

February 13, 2004

Concerns Regarding Differing Opinions on Risk

The Subcommittee made many additional recommendations. However, the
Committee cannot adequately resolve the differing BSE risk assessment
presented by the Subcommittee as compared to the assessment by Harvard
University. A major discrepancy exists with the Subcommittees
conclusions that BSE continues to circulate, or even amplify, in the US
and North America, when compared with the Harvard risk assessment. The
Committee must have this issue of risk resolved prior to completing its
recommendations to the Secretary. It is imperative that the Secretary
has the best available science and more precise risk assessments in
order to make appropriate regulatory decisions.

Recommendations by the Committee

· Prior to implementing regulatory changes in addition to what USDA
and FDA have already announced, the Committee recommends that
representatives of Harvard University be asked to review the
Subcommittee Report and its findings (Harvard and the Subcommittee
should communicate directly and come to consensus if possible) in light
of the risk model they have previously developed and report back to the
Secretary and this Committee;
· Immediately develop and implement an enhanced national surveillance
program for BSE to increase testing of high risk animals (cattle showing
symptoms of central nervous system disease, non-ambulatory cattle, and
cattle that die on farms); this action will further the scientific
evaluation of risk for BSE in the U.S. and North America;
· Concurrent with an enhanced surveillance for BSE, a comprehensive
system must be implemented to facilitate adequate pathways for dead and
non-ambulatory cattle to allow for collection of samples, and for
proper, safe disposal of carcasses; this must be done to ensure
protection of public health, animal health and the environment; such as
system will require expending federal resources to assist with costs for
sampling, transport and safe disposal;

snip...

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/bse_sec_adv_comm.doc

REPORT ON MEASURES RELATING TO
BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE)
IN THE UNITED STATES

2 February 2004

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/US_BSE_Report.doc

Subject: INTERNATIONAL BSE/TSE EXPERT SAYS "We believe that the
infection in North America took place at least 10 years
Date: February 5, 2004 at 9:18 am PST

Mad cow has home on U.S. ranges

International experts say the disease is "indigenous" to North America, and
it will take drastic measures to stop its spread.

Kihm said he thought that infection of the North American herd had begun
before the disease was diagnosed extensively in Britain and linked to
human deaths but that it only recently had spread to detectable levels
in Canada and the United States.

"We believe that the infection in North America took place at least 10
years ago," Kihm said. "You need one cycle before you have a few animals
positive, and you don't see them in the first cycle. You need a second
or a third."

The findings were presented to a USDA subcommittee appointed by Veneman.
Some members expressed frustration.

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/madcow/index.ssf?/special/oregonian/madcow/040205_home.html


[PDF] GAO-02-183: Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban
...

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

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 90s 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.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573_en.html


THE MAD COW DOWNER THAT WALKED

Dave Louthan - Killed the Mad Cow
http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/louthan.html

Senator Michael Machado from California

''USDA does not know what's going on''.

''USDA is protecting the industry''.

''SHOULD the state of California step in''


Stanley Prusiner

''nobody has ever ask us to comment''

''they don't want us to comment''

''they never ask''

i tried to see Venemon, after Candian cow was discovered with BSE.
went to see lyle. after talking with him... absolute ignorance... then
thought i should see Venemon... it was clear his entire policy was to
get cattle boneless beef prods across the border... nothing else
mattered... his aids confirmed this... 5 times i tried to see Venemon,
never worked... eventually met with carl rove the political... he is the
one that arranged meeting with Venemon... just trying to give you a sense
of the distance... healh public safety... was never contacted... yes i
believe that prions are bad to eat and you can die from them...END

Dr. Stan bashing Ann Veneman - 3 minutes

http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/08snip.ram

Recall Authority and Mad Cow Disease: Is the Current System Good for
Californians?

Tuesday, February 24, 2004
JOINT HEARING


AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND SELECT
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT - MACHADO, ORTIZ, and SPEIER, Chairs
Choose a RealPlayer video --->
Selected excerpts:

Opening Statement by Senator Michael Machado

http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/machado.html

HERE IS THE TEXAS MAD COW THAT WENT TO THE RENDER WITHOUT BEING TESTED
AND OTHER MULTIPLE FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM;

July 13, 2004

IG Audit Finds Multiple Flaws in Mad Cow Surveillance Plan
Rep. Waxman raises questions about the effectiveness and credibility of
USDA's response to mad cow disease, citing an audit by the USDA
Inspector General that finds systemic deficiencies in the Department's
surveillance plan and new evidence that USDA misled the public in the
wake of the detection of an infected cow in Washington State.

- Letter to USDA
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_july_13_ig_let.pdf


IG Draft Audit
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_july_13_ig_rep.pdf


May 13, 2004

Failure To Test Staggering Cow May Reflect Wider Problems
Rep. Waxman raises concerns that the recent failure of USDA to test an
impaired cow for BSE may not be an isolated incident, citing the failure
of USDA to monitor whether cows condemned for central nervous system
symptoms are actually tested for mad cow disease.

- Letter to USDA

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_may_13_let.pdf


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

THAT ONE TEXAS MAD COW IS ONLY TIP OF ICE BURG;

No mad cow results for nearly 500 cows

By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 8/11/2004 11:23 AM


WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture failed
to test for mad cow disease or collect the correct portion of the brain
on nearly 500 suspect cows over the past two years -- including some in
categories considered most likely to be infected -- according to agency
records obtained by United Press International.

The testing problems mean it may never be known with certainty whether
these animals were infected with the deadly disease. Department
officials said these animals were not included in the agency's final
tally of mad cow tests, but the records, obtained by UPI under the
Freedom of Information Act, indicate at least some of them were counted...

snip...

--

Steve Mitchell is UPI's Medical Correspondent. E-mail sciencemail@upi.com
Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040810-042935-2066r

QUESTION: "Good morning, Madam Secretary and staff. We appreciate you so
much spending time with us this morning. A follow-up to Gary Wergen's
question in regard to the Japanese. Mr. Ishihara yesterday suggesting
that he would have questions for the U.S. officials of the 680 suspect
animals that FY '02 and '04 that were showing symptoms of central
nervous system disorder with a majority of those that were not tested.
How do you respond to him?

"And then my question would be, in the WTO framework we're running out
of time for an end-of-July deadline. What can we do to make that work?
Thank you."

SEC. VENEMAN: "If I might just on the suspect animals, what I believe
that 680 number that you're referring to is, is a number that was
identified by the Inspector General of CNS or central nervous system
disorder animals that were deemed to have been in the system over a
three-year period.

"Now the reason some of those were not tested is, they were clearly
under the age of the requirement for testing. There are a number of
diseases that impact particularly younger animals like calves, like ear
infections that can make the appearance of a CNS type symptom. And so
the FSIS inspector marked that down as CNS.

full text;

http://www.usda.gov/Newsroom/0295.04.html

WASHINGTON A recall in the meat industry.

A Pennsylvania company is recalling about 170-thousand pounds of
hamburger patties containing Canadian meat. The Agriculture Department
says the meat should not have been imported under rules imposed after
last year's Canadian mad cow disease case.An Agriculture Department
official says the beef poses no risk to humans because the butchered
cattle were considered too young to develop mad cow.The ground beef
being recalled was produced by Quaker Maid Meats of Reading,
Pennsylvania, between July 15th and 19th and marketed under the
Philly-Gourmet and Philly Homestyle labels. Copyright 2004 Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=2103706


> An Agriculture Department official says the beef poses no risk to
> humans because the butchered cattle were considered too young to
> develop mad cow.


170,000 pounds of hamburger patties = however many cows?
+ what were the age of each of those cows? (i am sure there are records
of each cow?)+youngest cow to date with TSE=20 month old confirmed
with existing TSE testing sensitivity=more BSee...TSS

Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA [takes a few minutes to load]

Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

11/03/2003 01:19 PM


To:

regulations@aphis.usda.gov

cc:


bcc:


Subject:

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


I would like to kindly comment on Docket No. 03-080-1

USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA ;

>Under this proposal, ruminant and ruminant products eligible for entry
into
>the United States from a BSE minimal risk region would include:
>
>1) bovine
>animals less than 30 months of age for immediate slaughter;
>
>2) bovine
>animals for feeding to be moved to a designated feedlot and then to
>slaughter at less than 30 months of age;
>
snip...

>6) fresh (chilled or frozen)
>meat from bovines less than 30 months of age; 7) fresh (chilled or frozen)
>whole or half carcasses of bovines less than 30 months of age; 8) fresh
>(chilled or frozen) bovine liver; 9) fresh (chilled or frozen) bovine
>tongues;


the myth that cattle under 30 months of age are free from BSE/TSE is
just that, a myth,
and it's a false myth !

the youngest age of BSE case to date is 20 months old; As at: 31 May
2003 Year of onset Age youngest case (mnths) Age 2nd youngest case
(mnths) Age 2nd oldest case (yrs.mnths) Age oldest case (yrs.mnths) 1986
30 33 5.03 5.07 1987 30 31 9.09 10.00 1988 24 27 10.02 11.01(2) 1989 21
24(4) 12.00(2) 15.04 1990 24(2) 26 13.03 14.00 1991 24 26(3) 14.02 17.05
1992 20 26 15.02 16.02 1993 29 30(3) 14.10 18.10 1994 30(2) 31(2) 14.05
16.07 1995 24 32 14.09 15.05 1996 29 30 15.07 17.02 1997 37(7) 38(3)
14.09 15.01 1998 34 36 14.07 15.05 1999 39(2) 41 13.07 13.10 2000 40 42
17.08 19.09 2001 48(2) 56 14.10 14.11 2002 51 52 15.08 15.09(2) 2003 50
62 11.11 14.11

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-statistics/bse/yng-old.html

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/index.html

The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the most
BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten in
Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of that
age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet accumulated
enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to develop BSE on
record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are fast incubators.
Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months per year are infected
with BSE and enter the food chain currently in Britain. Of these 3-5
could be fast incubators and carrying detectable quantities of prion.

http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail/html-home/28-html/0359.html

> 3) sheep and goats less than 12
>months of age for immediate slaughter; 4) sheep and goats for feeding
to be
>moved to a designated feedlot and then to slaughter at less than 12 months
>of age;
>
even if one believes that scrapie does not transmit to humans (without
scientific proof and realizing
scrapie transmits to primates) what about the potential for BSE in
sheep/goats and what about the
many different tissues that are infectious ?

Research into sheep TSEs - audit reports & IAH's response

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-publications/bse-publications-index.html#audit


snip...

[takes a while to load]

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/BSEFrameset?OpenFrameSet&Frame=BottomFrame&Src=_25t156hb3dtmisrjjconjcc9n6ph6ccr66oqjgdpo74qm6e1l68qjcp9hc4o30dhgckq34phfc8rjgoj16orjep9ic8o66c9i64s3achl6pi68cpg60r38eb675i3ujrgcln48rr3elmmarjk4p0nat3f8pp62rb5cg0_


Sort by relevance

Sorted by date


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

WSTM-TV, NY - 48 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

Team 4 News, CA - 48 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

WQAD, IL - 49 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

WCAX, VT - 49 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

KESQ, CA - 49 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

WANE, IN - 49 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

WTVM, GA - 49 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

WOOD-TV, MI - 49 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

KVIA, TX - 49 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease case. ...


Company recalls patties after Canadian beef is mislabeled

KAIT, AR - 51 minutes ago
The Agriculture Department says the meat should not have been imported
under rules imposed after last year's Canadian mad cow disease
case....snip...end

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=2102656

http://keyetv.com/trouble/recalls_story_210224714.html

USDA policy treats details of voluntary beef recalls, such as customer
lists and delivery manifests, as secret business information...

Source: Bee research
http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/10257290p-11177602c.html

QFC sued over mad cow case

Grocer negligently exposed them to beef, family claims

Friday, March 5, 2004

By LEWIS KAMB
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

An Eastside family who says they ate beef linked to the nation's only
known case of mad cow disease yesterday filed a class-action lawsuit
against QFC, claiming the grocery store chain negligently exposed them
and others to "highly hazardous" meat and did not properly notify them
that they had bought it.

Attorneys for Jill Crowson, a 52-year-old interior designer from Clyde
Hill, filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court on behalf of her
family and possibly hundreds of other customers who unwittingly bought
and consumed beef potentially exposed to mad cow disease.

"I was pretty upset about it," Crowson said. "I've spent all of my kids'
lives trying to be a responsible parent for them to keep them safe. I
felt badly that the food I served could be harmful to their health."

The lawsuit is believed to be the first stemming from this country's
only confirmed case of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, which was detected in a slaughtered Holstein from a
Yakima Valley ranch on Dec. 23.

Neither officials at Quality Food Centers' Bellevue headquarters, or
Kroger -- the company's Ohio-based corporate parent -- could be reached
for comment about the lawsuit yesterday.

The suit contends the family bought and later ate ground beef from their
local QFC that was part of a batch processed at Vern's Moses Lake Meats
on Dec. 9 and included meat from the diseased Holstein.

The beef was later shipped to wholesalers and retailers in Washington,
Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.

On Dec. 23 -- after government scientists confirmed the Holstein was
infected with BSE -- businesses began pulling potentially affected beef
from store shelves under a voluntary recall.

But the family's suit claims that, although QFC was aware of the recall
on Dec. 23, the store did not begin pulling the recalled beef from about
40 of its stores that carried it until Dec. 24.

The company also did not try to warn customers about the recalled beef
until Dec. 27 -- and only then with small, inconspicuous signs inside
the stores, the suit claims.

Steve Berman, the family's attorney, said the company had "a duty to
warn" consumers who bought the beef under terms of the Washington
Product Liability Act.

QFC could've easily notified customers by taking out TV, radio or
newspaper ads, or by tracking and notifying those who bought the beef
through customers' QFC Advantage Cards, Berman said.

At Berman's downtown Seattle firm yesterday, Crowson described how on
Dec. 22 and Dec. 23 -- the day of the recall -- she bought single
packages of "9 percent leanest ground beef" from her local QFC store at
Bellevue Village.

Crowson took the beef home, cooked it and made tacos one night and
spaghetti the next -- serving the dinners to herself; her daughter,
Laura, 22; son, Nicholas, 19; and her niece, Claire De Winter, 23.
Members of the family also ate leftovers from those meals for the next
several days, Crowson said.

"When the news about mad cow came out, I instantly became concerned,"
Crowson said. "But the initial stories didn't mention anything about
QFC, so I thought we were OK."

While shopping at the grocery store a few days later, Crowson said she
asked a store butcher whether QFC stores had sold any of the recalled
beef. The butcher assured her they had not, she said.

The family only learned QFC had sold any of the beef in question after
reading a news story Jan. 10 about a Mercer Island man who discovered
his family had eaten affected beef that he bought at a local QFC store,
Crowson said.

Crowson later called QFC and faxed the company a signed letter asking
that it track purchases made on her QFC Advantage Card -- a store
discount card issued to customers. On Jan. 12, the company notified
Crowson that the beef she bought and served to her family was, in fact,
part of the recalled batch, she said.

Scientists believe people who eat beef from infected cows can contract a
fatal form of the disease.

The family is "now burdened with the possibility that they presently
carry (the disease) that may have an incubation period of up to 30
years," the lawsuit says.

Lawyers for the family say they believe hundreds, if not thousands, of
QFC customers, and those of other stores, likely ate beef from the
recalled batch -- the reason why Berman filed their legal claim as a
class-action lawsuit. A USDA official this week said that up to 17,000
pounds of meat affected by the recall likely was eaten or thrown out by
customers.

Berman added that an investigator from his firm learned that QFC buys
beef for its "9 percent leanest ground beef" products in large tubs that
can weigh several hundred pounds, and then regrinds and packages the
meat for sale.

Because QFC stores regrind the beef before selling it, Berman contends
that makes the store a manufacturer responsible under the Washington
Product Liability Act for not selling any unsafe product.

Scientists believe people who eat beef from cows infected with BSE can
contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob, a fatal brain-wasting disease that
has been detected in about 150 people worldwide.

However, officials with the U.S. Agriculture Department have repeatedly
said the risk from eating muscle cuts from an infected cow -- the likely
cut of meat processed and sold for hamburger in the recalled batch -- is
extremely low.

Although Crowson said she tries not to "obsess over it," she is fearful
that her family could one day become sick.

"It's pretty scary," she said.

Because no medical test is available to determine whether a living
person is infected with the disease, the couple's "stress and fear
cannot be allayed," the lawsuit said.

The family seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress and medical
monitoring costs.

Crowson said her reason for bringing the lawsuit isn't about money. "The
more I've thought about this, the angrier I've gotten," she said.


snip...

http://home.hetnet.nl/~mad.cow/archief/2004/mar04/sued.htm

QFCs Delayed Mad Cow Response Draws Lawsuit
Family claims QFC should have used customer database to warn those at
risk sooner

March 05, 2004

SEATTLE  A Bellevue, Wash. family today filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Quality Food Centers (QFC), a subsidiary of Kroger
(NYSE: KR), claiming the grocery store chain should have used
information gathered through its customer loyalty program to warn those
who purchased beef potentially tainted with mad cow disease.

The suit, filed in King County Superior Court, seeks to represent all
Washington residents who purchased the potentially tainted meat, and
asks the court to establish a medical monitoring fund.

Jill Crowson purchased the potentially tainted beef from a Bellevue QFC
on Dec. 22 and 23, and used her Advantage Card, QFCs customer loyalty
program. She served the meat to her husband over Dec. 25 and 26, and
later heard of the recall in the newspaper.

Steve Berman, the attorney representing the Crowsons, asserts that since
the company tracks purchases, it should have warned the Crowsons and
many other customers who purchased the beef at approximately 40 stores
across Washington.

If you lose your keys with an Advantage Card attached, QFC will return
them to you free of charge, said Berman. If they can contact you over
a lost set of car keys, why couldnt they contact you and tell you that
the beef you purchased could kill you?

QFC is among the large number of grocers that track customer purchases
through loyalty cards like the Advantage Card. Once a customer shares
contact information  including name, address and phone number  they
are given discounts on certain items.

Regardless of any discounts offered, the loyalty card tracks customers
every purchase and stores them in a central database, the complaint states.

We contend that QFC knew which Advantage Card customers purchased the
suspect meat, and could have easily called to warn them, said Berman.
Instead, QFC used a series of spurious excuses to hide their failure to
act.

On Dec. 23, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered the recall of
approximately 10,410 pounds of raw beef that may have been infected with
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which if consumed by humans can
lead to the always-fatal Cruetzfeldt-Jakobs Disease (vCJD).

According to the complaint, QFC at first mistakenly believed it did not
have any of the affected beef and took no action to remove the product
from its shelves. The store later removed the beef on Dec. 24, but then
did little to warn those who earlier purchased the meat, the suit claims.

It wasnt until Dec. 27 that the grocery chain posted small signs with
information about the recall, the complaint alleges.

The Crowsons contacted QFC when they suspected they had purchased the
potentially tainted meat, but QFC would not confirm their suspicions for
two more weeks, the suit states. According to Berman, the family had to
file a written request before QFC would confirm their fears.

According to health experts, Cruetzfeldt-Jakobs Disease can have an
incubation period of as long as 30 years. There is no test to determine
if infection took place after possible exposure, nor is there any
treatment once one is infected. The condition is always fatal.

If the court grants the suit class-action status, QFC would likely be
compelled to turn over the names of those who purchased the potentially
tainted beef.

The proposed class-action claims QFC violated provisions of the
Washington Product Liability Act by failing to give adequate warning to
consumers about the potentially dangerous meat.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for the plaintiffs, as well as the
establishment of a medical monitoring fund.

http://www.hagens-berman.com/frontend?command=PressRelease&task=viewPressReleaseDetail&iPressReleaseId=654

QFC's Delayed Mad Cow Response Draws Lawsuit

... subsidiary of Kroger , claiming the grocery store chain should ...
beef potentially tainted with "mad cow disease ... beef at approximately
40 stores across Washington...

http://www.forrelease.com/D20040305/ sff005.P2.03042004214558.03634.html
- 9k -

040307 Woman Sues QFC Over Mad-Cow Recall
... Jakob disease, the
human form of mad-cow, from eating ... QFC is subject to the Washington
Product Liability ... been found in a slaughtered Yakima County dairy
cow....

http://www.spcnetwork.com/mii/2004/040307.htm - 6k

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder@wt.net]

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:03 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Cc: ggraber@cvm.fda.gov; Linda.Grassie@fda.gov; BSE-L
Subject: Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION
TO DOCKET 2003N-0312]

Greetings FDA,

snip...

PLUS, if the USA continues to flagrantly ignore the _documented_ science
to date about the known TSEs in the USA (let alone the undocumented TSEs
in cattle), it is my opinion, every other Country that is dealing with
BSE/TSE should boycott the USA and demand that the SSC reclassify the
USA BSE GBR II risk assessment to BSE/TSE GBR III 'IMMEDIATELY'. for the
SSC to _flounder_ any longer on this issue, should also be regarded with
great suspicion as well. NOT to leave out the OIE and it's terribly
flawed system of disease surveillance. the OIE should make a move on CWD
in the USA, and make a risk assessment on this as a threat to human
health. the OIE should also change the mathematical formula for testing
of disease. this (in my opinion and others) is terribly flawed as well.
to think that a sample survey of 400 or so cattle in a population of 100
million, to think this will find anything, especially after seeing how
many TSE tests it took Italy and other Countries to find 1 case of BSE
(1 million rapid TSE test in less than 2 years, to find 102 BSE cases),
should be proof enough to make drastic changes of this system. the OIE
criteria for BSE Country classification and it's interpretation is very
problematic. a text that is suppose to give guidelines, but is not
understandable, cannot be considered satisfactory. the OIE told me 2
years ago that they were concerned with CWD, but said any changes might
take years. well, two years have come and gone, and no change in
relations with CWD as a human health risk. if we wait for politics and
science to finally make this connection, we very well may die before any
decisions
or changes are made. this is not acceptable. we must take the politics
and the industry out of any final decisions of the Scientific community.
this has been the problem from day one with this environmental man made
death sentence. some of you may think i am exaggerating, but you only
have to see it once, you only have to watch a loved one die from this
one time, and you will never forget, OR forgive...yes, i am still very
angry... but the transmission studies DO NOT lie, only the politicians
and the industry do... and they are still lying to this day...TSS

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt

EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk
(GBR) of the United States of America (USA)
Publication date: 20 August 2004

Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

* 167 kB Report


* 105 kB Summary

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 90s 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.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573_en.html

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/catindex_en.html


BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL JANUARY 2, 2000

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/320/7226/8/b#EL1

NEUROLOGY

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/eletters/60/2/176#535

Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Singeltary, Sr et al. JAMA.2001; 285: 733-734.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/6/733?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dignosing+and+reporting+creutzfeldt+jakob+disease&searchid=1048865596978_1528&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama


Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA [takes a few minutes to load]

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/BSEFrameset?OpenFrameSet&Frame=BottomFrame&Src=_25t156hb3dtmisrjjconjcc9n6ph6ccr66oqjgdpo74qm6e1l68qjcp9hc4o30dhgckq34phfc8rjgoj16orjep9ic8o66c9i64s3achl6pi68cpg60r38eb675i3ujrgcln48rr3elmmarjk4p0nat3f8pp62rb5cg0_


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

PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary
Sr. [flounder@wt.net] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ...

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf

Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine
genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable
from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm

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





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: