SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS (216-119-139-29.ipset19.wt.net)
Subject: APHIS/USDA WERE WARNED A YEAR AGO ABOUT THE RENDERED BSE CANADIAN COW THAT WENT TO 1,800 sites, including 1,200 individual producers or consumers
Date: October 9, 2004 at 7:01 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: APHIS/USDA WERE WARNED A YEAR AGO ABOUT THE RENDERED BSE CANADIAN COW THAT WENT TO 1,800 sites, including 1,200 individual producers or consumers
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 09:08:44 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


10/8/2004 3:31:31 PM

R-CALF USA - U.S. Cattle Producers Respond to Concerns about BSE Cow
Entering Canadian Feed Supply

(Billings, Mont.) – R-CALF USA is fielding numerous calls from members
and media inquiring about recent news reports that indicate parts of the
BSE-positive cow discovered in Canada in May 2003 were turned into feed
and may have been mistakenly fed to cattle.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has known of this problem for
more than one year. R-CALF USA cited an APHIS report dated Oct. 3, 2003,
as the source of this information.

And in formal comments to APHIS on January 5, 2004, R-CALF USA wrote,
“Even more alarming is that the BSE infected cow discovered in Canada on
May 20, 2003, was rendered in Canada, and APHIS reported that the
rendered cow could have been distributed to approximately 1,800 sites,
including 1,200 individual producers or consumers.”

“We are extremely disappointed that USDA -- charged with protecting the
economic interests of the U.S. cattle industry under its congressional
mandate to prevent, detect, control, and eradicate animal diseases --
has not addressed this problem in a more serious context, especially in
light of its own efforts to liberalize U.S. import standards when
dealing with countries like Canada where BSE has been found,” said
R-CALF USA President Leo McDonnell.

R-CALF USA warned APHIS in its January comments that the distribution of
the Canadian cow’s infected remains within the Canadian animal-feed
system “raises the possibility that a new cycle of BSE may have begun in
Canada as a result of rendering this cow in 2003, and APHIS reinforces
this concern by stating in its risk analysis that it cannot be assumed
there is complete compliance with a [Canadian] feed ban.”

This risk associated with importing Canadian beef was recognized by U.S.
District Judge Richard Cebull, who granted R-CALF USA a preliminary
injunction against USDA in May, which blocked APHIS from allowing
additional Canadian beef products (other than boneless beef) from being
imported into the United States.

Cebull wrote in his ruling: “Since there are no requirements that
imports of Canadian beef products be labeled to indicate the country of
origin, once those products cross the border they become virtually
impossible to recover or segregate if additional cases of BSE are
discovered in the Canadian herd. Moreover, U.S. consumers will not have
the option to try to reduce their risk of exposure to BSE by eliminating
consumption of Canadian beef products.”

“These recent reports of BSE problems within Canada’s BSE-firewalls
would be harmful to the U.S. cattle industry if USDA does not adequately
maintain our import standards,” McDonnell said. “This issue within
Canada will make it very difficult for USDA to provide scientific
support for the further liberalization of U.S. import standards. And
such problems within Canada clearly show this is not a North American
cattle-industry problem, but rather a problem confined to Canada’s
cattle industry.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=3073TSS

Greetings,


> “These recent reports of BSE problems within Canada’s BSE-firewalls
> would be harmful to the U.S. cattle industry if USDA does not
> adequately maintain our import standards,” McDonnell said. “This issue
> within Canada will make it very difficult for USDA to provide
> scientific support for the further liberalization of U.S. import
> standards.
>
> And such problems within Canada clearly show this is not a North
> American cattle-industry problem, but rather
>
> a problem confined to Canada’s cattle industry.
>

THIS is simply not true!

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


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

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


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

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY - CLASS II

_______________________________

PRODUCT

a) Bulk whole corn. Recall # V-150-4;

b) Bulk rolled corn. Recall # V-151-4;

c) Bulk rolled corn with added fat. Recall # V-152-4.

CODE

No coding information is used.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Fresno Farming LlC, Traver, CA, by letters on June 30, 2004. Firm

initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

Corn for feed may be contaminated with RUMINANT MEAT AND BONE MEAL.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

Unknown.

DISTRIBUTION

Unknown.

____________________________

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2004/ENF00857.html


> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> UNKNOWN.
>
> DISTRIBUTION
> UNKNOWN.

WHAT ABOUT USDA BSE/TSE triple fire walls ?

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

San Francisco District
1431 Harbor Bay Parkway
Alameda, CA 94502-7070
Telephone: 510/337-6700


VIA HAND DELIVERY

Our Reference No. 1000123954

June 23, 2004

Ronald M. Foster, Manager
Randall C. Boyce, Manager
Trevor O. Foster, Manager
George P. Foster, Manager
Fresno Farming LLC
P.O. Box 457
1000 Davis Street
Livingston, California

WARNING LETTER

Dear Mssrs. Foster, Boyce, Foster, and Foster:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection of
your medicated animal feed mill operation, Fresco Farming LLC, located
in Traver, California from April 14, 2004 through May 6, 2004, and found
significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code
of Federal Regulations, Section 589.2000 (21 C.F.R. 589.2000) - Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The regulation is intended to
prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE). Because you failed to follow this rule, products
you manufactured and distributed are adulterated within the meaning of
Section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act)
because they were prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions
whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health.

Our inspection found the following violations of 21 C.F.R. 589.2000:

1. Failure to provide for measures to avoid commingling or
cross-contamination of products that contain or may contain protein
derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or feeds that may be
used for ruminants to comply with 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(iii).

* Your firm uses a vacuum system to clean up spilled product in the
tunnel area. This tunnel area houses the two receiving conveyor
systems and the elevators for the two conveyor systems. When
product, including ruminant meat and bone meal, is spilled onto
the floor of this area, the spilled product is vacuumed up by the
vacuum system and, via a discharge hose, was placed into a
conveyor system that your firm had designated as free of ruminant
meat and bone meal. Your firm admitted that it was unaware of the
vacuum system discharging into the conveyor systems designated as
free of ruminant meat and bone meal and that this had been in
place since April 2003. Your firm remedied this problem during
FDAs April/May 2004 inspection by removing the discharge hose
connection to the conveyer system that your firm had designated as
free of ruminant meat and bone meal .
* Your firm uses a dust collection system that pulls dust from
systems that receive both ruminant meat and bone meal and feed
ingredients intended for ruminants. This dust system then
discharged collected product back into the two conveyor systems
via a cross connection, thereby making it likely that ruminant
meat and bone meal became commingled with ruminant feed
ingredients. Your firm admitted that it was unaware of the cross
connection and that it had been in place since April 2003. Your
firm removed the cross connection during FDAs April/May 2004
inspection.

2. Failure to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out
procedure or other means, and specifying the procedures for separating
products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian
tissue from all other protein products from the time of receipt until
the time of shipment, to comply with 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(iv). This
observation was also noted during FDAs July/August 2003 inspection of
your firm.

* There are no written procedures for separating products that
contain prohibited material from ingredients used in ruminant
feeds from the time of receipt until the time of shipment.
* The written procedure for cleaning out or flushing equipment after
mixing feeds containing prohibited material was not adequate to
prevent contamination of ruminant feed with prohibited material.

3. Failure to maintain records sufficient to track materials that
contain protein derived from mammalian tissues throughout their receipt,
processing, and distribution to comply with 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(i).
This observation was also noted during FDAs July/August 2003 inspection
of your firm.

* Specifically, your firm has failed to develop and implement
complete written procedures to separate ruminant meat and bone
meal from feed ingredients intended for ruminants from the time of
receipt until the time of distribution. The written procedures
that do exist fail to address the use of equipment common to
ruminant meat and bone meal and ruminant feed ingredients.

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

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

Please send your reply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Attention: Ms. Harumi Kishida, Compliance Officer, 1431 Harbor Bay
Parkway, Alameda, California 94502-7070. If you have questions regarding
this letter, please contact Ms. Kishida at (510) 337-6824.

Sincerely,

/s/

CD Moss, Acting DD for
Barbara J. Cassens
District Director
San Francisco District

cc:
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
C. Michael Blasco, Feed Mill Manager
Fresno Farming LLC
P.O. Box 430
Traver, California 93673

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4849d.htm


Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Chicago District
550 West Jackson Blvd., 15th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: 312-353-5863


July 12, 2004

WARNING LETTER
CHI-16-04

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Donald E. Hamilton, President/Owner
Illini Feeds, Inc.
P.O. Box 86, 1145 State Hwy. 94
Aledo, Illinois 61231

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

On February 19 and 20, 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
conducted an inspection of your animal feed handling facility located at
1145 State Highway 94, Aledo, Illinois. The inspection found significant
deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 589.2000 (21 CFR 589.2000) - Animal Proteins
Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the
establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE). The deviations cause the swine feed manufactured by your facility
to be misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

Our investigation found that salvaged pet food containing prohibited
material was added as an ingredient to the swine products manufactured
at your facility. During the inspection, our investigator found that you
failed to label your non-ruminant products with the required caution
statement - Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants. [21 CFR
589.2000(d)(1)]

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations. As
a manufacturer of materials intended for use in animal feed, you are
responsible for assuring that your overall operation and the products
you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law.

You should take prompt action to correct this violation, and you should
establish a system whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to
promptly correct this violation may result in regulatory action without
further notice, such as seizure and/or injunction.

During the inspection, you told the investigator that you would put the
required cautionary statement on your products that contain prohibited
material, and maintain tracking documents for all incoming ingredients,
including animal proteins prohibited in ruminant feed. Please notify
this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving this letter
of any further steps you have taken to assure that your firm is in
compliance with the law. Your response should also include an
explanation of each step taken to correct the violations, and prevent
their recurrence. Please include copies of any available documentation
such as written procedures, corrected labeling, etc., demonstrating that
corrections have been made. If corrections cannot be completed within 15
working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the
corrections will be completed.

Your reply should be directed to Paul A. Boehmer, Compliance Officer, at
the above address.

Sincerely,

/s/

Scott J. MacIntire
District Director

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4840d.htm


Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Chicago District
550 West Jackson Blvd., 15th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: 312-353-5863


June 15, 2004

WARNING LETTER

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. David W. Bernauer
CEO and Chairman of the Board
Walgreen co.
200 Wilmot Rd.
Deerfield, IL 60015

Dear Mr. Bernauer:

Inspection of your firms warehouse at 5100 Lake Terrace N.E., Mt.
Vernon, Illinois, by the Illinois Department of Public Health and the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on February 25, 26, and 27, and
March 2, 2004, documented numerous insanitary conditions which caused
the food and drug products stored there to become adulterated.

Our inspection showed that the food and drug products stored and held at
your facility violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
Act), rendering them adulterated. These adulterated fwd and drug
products: a) consisted in whole or in part of filthy substances,
including rodent fecal pellets, rodent hair, and insects, in violation
of Section 402(a)(3) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(3)]; and/or b) had
been held under insanitary conditions whereby they have become
contaminated with rodent filth, in violation of Sections 402(a)(4) and
501(a)(2)(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4), 351(a)(2)(a)].

Evidence of rodent activity documented throughout the old and new
warehouse included dead mice in traps, excreta pellets, and gnawed paper
material observed in, on, and near food and drugs stored in the
warehouse. Rodents gnaw holes were observed into several packaged food
products with rodent hairs at gnaw holes into products. Many more fecal
pellets were on food and drug packages and still more were found near
the stored foods, drugs, and cosmetics in the warehouse.

Other conditions observed during the inspection that could be
contributing factors to rodent infestation include damaged and/or poorly
fitting rail and truck dock doors, gaps around a conduit entry into the
building, and the structural condition of the concrete and expansion
gaps at floor/wall/support beam junctions in various areas of the
warehouse allowing the entry or harborage of pests. Additionally, the
investigators observed cobwebs, dead insects, dust, debris, product
spillage, and papers in the warehouse, indicating a general lack of good
sanitation practices.

Also, products that contain or may contain animal protein prohibited
ruminant feed (BSE material) failed to bear the caution statement, Do
not feed to cattle or other ruminants. Specifically, pet food products
were salvaged, repackaged, and donated to [redacted] and other similar
organizations in the area, without the proper labeling and agreement
that they would not be used for ruminants. Please refer to Title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 589.2000, concerning these
requirements.

Our laboratory confirmed the findings of rodent excreta, rodent hairs on
product gnaw holes, and rodent gnawed fibers (packaging material)
sampled from the warehouse during the inspection.

The above listed violations are not intended to be all-inclusive. It is
your responsibility to assure adherence with each requirement of the Act
and its implementing regulations. The investigators reported that you
destroyed food products that showed evidence of contamination and began
to take some steps to correct the insanitary conditions in your
facility. We request that you take prompt action to correct all violations.

Please provide this office, within 15 working days of receipt of this
letter, a detailed response stating the actions you plan to take and
have taken to correct and prevent the recurrence of these objectionable
conditions. Provide the time within which corrections will be completed,
reasons why any corrective action cannot be completed, and documentation
to show that corrections have been made. Failure to take prompt action
to correct all violations may result in regulatory action without
further notice. Such action includes seizure and/or injunction.

Your reply should be directed to Paul A. Boehmer, Compliance Officer, at
the Chicago District Office.

Sincerely,

/s/

Scott J. MacIntire
District Director

cc:
Stephen J. Lawrence,
Distribution Center Manager
Walgreen Co.
5100 Lake Terrace NE
Mount Vernon, IL 62864-9665

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4853d.htm


PRODUCT

Custom dairy cattle feed made for two customers. Recall # V-123-4.

CODE

None.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Maribel Grain Co., Maribel, WI, by visit on February 25, 2004. Firm

initiated recall is complete.

REASON

Possible cross contamination of cattle feed by steamed bone meal which

is prohibited material.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

2,040 pounds.

DISTRIBUTION

WI.

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

PRODUCT

B & G Seed Co., PIG GROWER, 50 lbs. Recall # V-126-4.

CODE

All.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

B & G Seed Company, Inc., Hull, GA, by telephone on March 30, 2004. Firm

initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

Feed contains meat & bone meal (prohibited material), without the

mandatory ruminant warning on the label.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

25/50 lb. bags.

DISTRIBUTION

GA.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2004/ENF00843.html

PRODUCT

Custom deer feed made for a Wisconsin farm. The product was in bags

holding about 40 pounds each. Recall # V-122-4.

CODE

1-30-04 on the product invoice and mixing record.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Crivitz Feed Mill, Crivitz, WI, by telephone on February 20, 2004.

Wisconsin State initiated recall is complete.

REASON

The recalled deer feed contained steamed bone meal which is prohibited

material in feed for ruminants.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

515 pounds.

DISTRIBUTION

WI.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2004/ENF00842.html

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

PRODUCT

ZuPreem Feline Diet, 14.0 oz cans for Non-Domesticated

Carnivores in the families Fedlidae, Canidea, and Hyenadea.

Recall # V-115-4.

CODE

6910 S1 SF01 military time of production: 06:05.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Menu Foods, Inc., Pennsauken, NJ, by telephone on February 2, 2004. FDA

initiated recall is complete.

REASON

LACF Feiline Diet for non-domestic carnivores does not carry the BSE

warning statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

1,620 cases.

DISTRIBUTION

KS.

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

PRODUCT

Product is a horse supplement packed into a 5 lb. Plastic

container with a yellow/green/red/brown label printed in

part "FORMULA: Each 5 pounds contains: Chondroitin Sulfate

27,000 mg D-Glucosamine HCL 100,000 mg Collagen hydrolyzed

27,000 MSM (methysulfonylmethane) 2,500 mg. Carti-Flex

COMPLEX net wt. 5 lbs, a concentrated natural joint

supplement containing Glucosamine HCL, Chondroitin sulfate,

Hydrolixed collagen and MSM". Recall # V-116-4.

CODE

All codes without the required cautionary statement are under recall.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Interfarma Corporation, Miami, FL, by letters on February 4, 2004. FDA

initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

This animal feed product does not contain the required BSE cautionary

statement: "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants".

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

80 cases 4-5 lb. Containers per case.

DISTRIBUTION

Venezuela, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

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

PRODUCT

Calf Primer II-R (Monensin) sold in bulk. Recall # V-113-4.

CODE

93125 (1-7-04).

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Tennessee Farmers Cooperative, La Vergne, TN, by telephone on January 9,

2004. Firm initiated recall is complete.

REASON

Calf feed, which had a medicated swine feed inadvertently mixed into it,

was distributed.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

28,040 pounds.

DISTRIBUTION

TN.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2004/ENF00840.html

TSS






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: