SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS (216-119-132-95.ipset12.wt.net)
Subject: Agriculture Secretary Veneman Campaigns to Keep Job (despite her multiple blunders with mad cow disease)
Date: October 17, 2004 at 1:52 pm PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Agriculture Secretary Veneman Campaigns to Keep Job (despiter her multiple blunders with mad cow disease)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:32:12 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE


Agriculture Secretary Campaigns to Keep Job
Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:50 AM ET

(Page 1 of 2)

By Charles Abbott

CHIPPEWA FALLS, Wis. (Reuters) - Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman is on
the road frequently this fall, often in states vital to President Bush's
re-election, talking about rising U.S. demand for corn-based ethanol and
the certainty of another year of high farm income.

The speeches at farm implement shows and county fairs highlight the
resurgent agricultural economy, good news ahead of the November
election. If Bush wins, they may help keep Veneman as a member of the
Cabinet.

The first woman to head the Agriculture Department, Veneman gets high
grades from lawmakers and farm groups for a speedy response to the
discovery of the first U.S. case of mad cow disease nearly a year ago.
The administration strengthened the safeguards against the fatal cattle
disease and is trying to rebuild beef exports.

"Everybody respects Ann because of her knowledge on trade and food
safety. That will be her legacy," says Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas
Republican and longtime farm-policy leader.

Veneman's sure-footed handling of the mad-cow crisis quieted the
criticism of her early months in office, when the administration was out
of step with Congress on the cost and direction of the 2002 farm subsidy
law.

MAD COW MISSTEPS

But there were two missteps this year. The USDA had to backtrack on
imports of Canadian beef that it quietly allowed despite originally
saying they were banned. And meat safety officials failed to test a
12-year-old cow in Texas in April, although it showed symptoms
associated with mad cow disease.

Consumer groups and some lawmakers criticized the slips. Rep. Earl
Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat, called USDA's handling of Canadian
imports "a very serious breach" of the public trust.

Hailed as an experienced farm-trade negotiator, Veneman has spent most
of her time in maintaining trade pacts, not writing new ones. The World
Trade Organization ruled this year in favor of Brazil's claim that U.S.
subsidies for cotton farmers were illegal, a case Washington plans to
appeal.

There were no signs the White House wanted to replace Veneman under a
second Bush term.

"It's up to the president," Veneman told reporters at a recent farm show
in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, when asked if she would stay as
agriculture secretary.

If Sen. John Kerry wins the White House in November's election, commonly
mentioned as possible successors are Reps. Charles Stenholm of Texas,
Democratic leader on the House Agriculture Committee, and Cal Dooley of
California. Both are fiscal conservatives.

Veneman spoke at Wisconsin Farm Technology Days during a week in late
September that began at the United Nations and included a research show
in Ohio en route to the show north of Chippewa Falls. "It's been a
little busy on the travel schedule lately," she told the farm-show
audience.

She has announced $673 million in grants and loans -- for biofuels
research, hurricane relief, school nutrition classes, rural Internet
access and public utility projects -- during appearances in California,
Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin and Washington state
since Aug. 1.

The largest announcement, made at the farm show, was $409.5 million in
loans for rural electric projects in 15 states.

Aides say her trips are official business, not campaign appearances.
Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota and Wisconsin are regarded as toss-ups in
the presidential race.

FARMERS WATCH MILK SUBSIDY

Wisconsin is the No. 2 dairy state. During a speech at the farm show,
Veneman pointed to high farm income, the rosy outlook for corn-distilled
ethanol and the benefits of Bush's tax cuts.

A week before her arrival, Rep. Dave Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat,
contended the administration might let a dairy subsidy expire in 2005,
and even impose a "milk tax" on farmers to offset federal deficits. The
charges were based on a briefing paper written by a USDA economist in
April.

"It's being brought up for political purposes. It does not represent
administration position," Veneman said.

Bush told a rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, last week that he would work
with Congress to reauthorize the so-called Milk Income Loss Contract
program, which expires next Sept. 30. An attempt in Congress to extend
the program died this month.

Since it began at the end of 2001, about $2 billion has been paid
through MILC to compensate farmers when prices are below trigger prices.
Westerners say the program favors the smaller dairy herds of the Midwest
and Northeast. Payments are limited to 2.4 million gallons of milk per
farm in a year.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=RS4DMB5NXT2VACRBAE0CFFA?type=politicsNews&storyID=6521309&pageNumber=1tss

TSS

THAT one cow in TEXAS was just the tip of the ice burg, there were
500+ more just like it ;

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

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


WHAT about the constant violations of the voluntary and partial ruminant
feed ban violations since the 8/4/97 ban was put into effect that are still
happening in 2004 ;

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Dallas District
4040 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75204-3145


June 15, 2004

Ref: 2004-DAL-WL-18

WARNING LETTER

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Patrick ORay, CEO & President
Specialty Brands, Inc.
P.O. Box 51467
Ontario, CA 91761-1057

Dear Mr. ORay:

An inspection of your food manufacturing facility located at 601 E. 3rd
Street, Lampasas, Texas, was conducted on February 26 and March 1, 2004
by Investigators from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
inspection found significant deviations from the requirements set forth
in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 589.2000 - Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed (21 CFR 589.2000). This regulation
is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).

Our inspection revealed that your firm sells its reduction stream waste
for use as animal feed and that it contracted with [redacted] to dispose
of this manufacturing process stream waste. [redacted] used this process
stream waste as animal feed for ruminants.

At the close of the inspection, a list of inspectional observations (FDA
483) was issued to your firm and discussed with Mr. Anthony E. Rocz,
Plant Manager. The following violation was observed during the inspection:

Products that contain protein derived from mammalian tissues and that
are intended for use in animal feed must be labeled with the cautionary
statement, Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants, as required by 21
CFR 589.2000(d)(1). For example, your firm manufactures Mexican
specialty food products such as tortillas, taquitos, and burritos that
contain beef. The production process stream waste includes ground corn,
product shells, and filling material, it is then placed in a
transportable bin for disposal by feeding to livestock. This
transportable waste bin did not bear the cautionary statement Do Not
Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants.

Because your manufacturing stream waste did not bear this cautionary
statement, these products are misbranded within the meaning of section
403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

You should know that this serious violation of the law may result in FDA
taking regulatory action without further notice to you. These actions
include, but are not limited to, seizure and/or injunction.

We are in receipt of a letter from Mr. Anthony E. ROCZ, Plant Manager,
dated March 2, 2004, in which he stated that your factory was under a
contract with [redacted] to remove and dispose of the production stream
waste generated at the factory since April 15, 2003. Our investigators
conveyed to Specialty Brands, Inc., on February 24, 2004, that the
disposal container was not properly labeled to indicate that the
material is not to be fed to cattle or other ruminants in accordance
with the BSE regulation. On February 26, 2004, our investigators
returned to your plant and conveyed to Mr. Rocz that earlier that
morning they observed cattle consuming the manufacturing stream waste
supplied by your firm to [redacted] The practice of supplying process
stream waste to [redacted] was indefinitely suspended on February 26,
2004. At that time, an alternative waste removal service was obtained to
dispose of the process stream waste in a sanitary landfill facility and
each load would be logged, a manifest detailing the pounds of process
waste disposed would be generated, and a certification of proper
disposal is to be provided for the record. This alternative stream waste
disposal process appears to be acceptable. Your letter also states that
your corporate Food Safety and Quality Assurance department is in the
process of drafting a corporate wide policy to ensure that all of your
factories are in compliance with the BSE regulation.

It is necessary for you to take prompt action on this matter now. Please
notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days from the
date you receive this letter of the specific actions you have taken to
prevent the recurrence of the violations, and when those actions were
taken or will be taken at your other corporate facilities having similar
disposal plans. Your reply should be sent to Edwin Ramos, Compliance
Officer, at the above stated address. If you have any questions
concerning this letter, you may contact Mr. Ramos at 214-253-5218.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael A. Chappell
Dallas District Director

cc:
Specialty Brands, Inc.
Mr. Anthony E. Rocz, Plant Manager
601 E Third Street
Lampasas, TX 76550-2903

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4898d.htm

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Dallas District
4040 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75204-3145


June 10, 2004

Ref: 2004-DAL-WL-17

WARNING LETTER

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Jack Chapman, Owner
Chapman Ranch
11071 CR 1255
Lampasas, TX 76550

Dear Mr. Chapman:

An inspection of your ruminant feeding operation located at 11071 CR
1255, Lampasas, Texas, was conducted on February 26 and March 1, 2004 by
Investigators from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
inspection found significant deviations from the requirements set forth
in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 589.2000 - Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed (21 CFR 589.2000). This regulation
is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).

Our inspection revealed that you feed prohibited material, as defined by
21 CFR 589.2000(a), to ruminants. This prohibited material consists of
manufacturing process stream waste from [redacted] a manufacturer of
products such as fully cooked tacos, burritos, and taquitos that contain
beef. This manufacturing process stream waste contains meat products
that have been cooked and offered for human food but that have not been
further heat processed for feed. This failure to further heat process
the material causes the feed to be adulterated under section
402(a)(2)(C)(i) because it contains an unapproved food additive (i.e.,
the meat products that have not been further heat processed for feed).

At the close of the inspection, copies of the BSE Guidance documents 69,
70 and 76 were provided to you and further discussed. Also, you
previously received a copy of 21 CFR 589.2000, the BSE regulation, which
was again explained in more specific detail. You should know that this
serious violation of the law may result in FDA taking regulatory action
without further notice to you. These actions include, but are not
limited to, seizure and/or injunction.

It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. Please send a
written response to this office within fifteen (15) working days from
the date you receive this letter. Your response should specifically
identify the actions you are taking to correct the violations and
provide specific timeframes for achieving compliance. Also, as part of
your written response, you should provide information regarding the
current feeding practices followed at your facility and information
pertaining to the planned marketing of your animals. Your reply should
be sent to Edwin Ramos, Compliance Officer, at the above stated address.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, you may contact Mr.
Ramos at 214-253-5218.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael A. Chappell
Dallas District Director

horizonal rule

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4899d.htm


Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Atlanta District Office
60 8th Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309


June 10, 2004

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

WARNING LETTER
(04-ATL-13)

M. Dennis Burroughs
President
B & G Seed Company
591 Beck Road
Hull, Georgia 30646

Dear Mr. Burroughs:

An inspection of your feed mill was conducted by a Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) investigator on March 30, 2004. Our investigator
determined that you manufacture various products, including ruminant
feeds, which are animal feeds within the meaning of section 201(w) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act}. The inspection
revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title
21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR), Part 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 feed being
manufactured and distributed by your facility to be misbranded within
the meaning of sections 403(a)(1) of the Act.

The inspection revealed that not all of your feeds that contain protein
derived from mammalian tissues and that are intended for use in animal
feed (prohibited material) were labeled with the statement Do not feed
to cattle or other ruminants, as required by 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) and
(c)(1)(i). An example is your B & G Pig Grower. In addition, you have
routinely provided scrap or salvage dog food containing prohibited
material to be used as pig feed that was not labeled with the required
statement. In the case of bulk feed ingredients, the statement could
appear on the placard and invoice that accompany the shipment. The lack
of the required statement causes these feeds to be misbranded as defined
in section 403(a)(1) of the Act.

Our investigator also noted that you had failed to provide for adequate
measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination of products that
contain or may contain prohibited material into feeds that may be used
for ruminants, as required under 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(iii). You also
failed to establish written procedures for separating products which may
contain prohibited material from all other protein products from the
time of receipt until the time of shipment, as required under 21 CFR
589.2000(e)(1)(iv).

The above is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your
firm. As a manufacturer of animal feeds, you are responsible for
ensuring that your overall operation and the products you manufacture
and distribute are in compliance with the law. We have included a copy
of the FDA Guidance for Industry 68 - Small Entities Compliance Guide -
Protein Blenders, Feed Manufacturers, and Distributors.

You should take prompt action to correct the above violations, and you
should establish procedures 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 the receipt of 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. We do note that you initiated some corrective
actions during the inspection, including a feed recall and printing new
labels. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days,
state the reason for the delay and date by which the corrections will be
completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating
that corrections have been made. Your response should be directed to
Philip S. Campbell, Compliance Officer, at the address noted in the
letterhead.

Sincerely,

/s/

Mary Woleske, Director
Atlanta District

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4900d.htm


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

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Cincinnati District Office
Central Region
6751 Stager Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45237-3097
Telephone: (513) 679-2700
FAX: (513) 679-2771

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

April 8, 2004

Mr. Thomas S. Hurst, Jr., Owner
Bardstown Mill, Inc.
204 W. Muir St
Bardstown, KY 40004

WARNING LETTER CIN-04-20830

On January 7,21-22, 2004, a Food and Drug Administration investigator
conducted an inspection of your feed mill located at 204 W. Muir St.,
Bardstown, KY 40004. The inspection revealed significant deviations from
the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This
regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).

Our inspection found your firm failed to label feeds or mark the
invoices of feeds that contain, or may contain, prohibited materials
with the required cautionary statement Do Not Feed To Cattle Or Other
Ruminants. We suggest this statement be distinguished by different type
size or color or other means of highlighting the statement so it is
easily noticed by the purchaser.

The deviations from the BSE regulations, as noted above, cause products
being manufactured and distributed by your facility to be misbranded
within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food Drug and
Cosmetic Act (the Act).

This letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deficiencies
at your facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal
feed use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation
and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with
the law. We have enclosed a copy of the FDAs Small Entity Compliance
Guide to assist you with complying with the regulation. You should take
prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a
system whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct
these violations may result in regulatory action without further notice.
Such actions include seizure and/or injunction.

You should notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) working
days of the receipt of 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 CGMP violations and
prevent their recurrence.

If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state
the reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be
completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating
that corrections have been made.

Your response should be directed to Stephen J. Rabe, Compliance Officer
at the address listed above.

Sincerely,

/s/

Carol A. Heppe
District Director
Cincinnati District

Attachment: Small Entity Compliance Guide

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4608d.pdf

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Cincinnati District Office
Central Region
6751 Steger Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45237-3097
Telephone: (513) 679-2700
FAX: (513) 679-2771

April 8, 2004

WARNING LETTER
via Federal Express

CIN-04-201679

Ralph K. Halter, President
Halter Feed & Grain, Inc.
11501 Baywood Street
Robertsville, OH 44670

Dear Mr. Halter:

An inspection of your unlicensed feed mill, Halter Feed & Grain, Inc.,
located at 405 Tremont Ave. SW, Massilon, OH 44646, conducted by Food
and Drug Administration investigators, on 11/21 - 12/03/2003, 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). Such deviations cause products being manufactured
and distributed by your facility to be adulterated within the meaning of
Section 402(a)(4) and misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(f) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

Our investigator found the following violations of 21 CFR 589.2000:

1) failure to label products that contain or may contain prohibited
materials with the caution statement - Do not feed to cattle or other
ruminants, as required by 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1);

2) failure to establish and maintain written procedures, including
clean-out and flushing procedures, to avoid commingling and
cross-contamination of common equipment, as required by 21 CFR
589.2000(e)(1)(iv);

3) failure to maintain records sufficient to track prohibited materials
throughout their distribution in that you do not always document the
customer name or address for the sale and distribution of feeds
containing meat and bone meal, as required by 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1).

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

You should notify this office, in writing, within fifteen (15) working
days of the receipt of this letter of the present operational status of
this facility. We understand that this facility may have been put out of
production by a fire that occurred on January 16, 2004. Since there is
the possibility that the facility will again be operational, you should
include an explanation of each step that will be taken to correct the
violations and prevent their recurrence.

Your response should be directed to Charles S. Price Compliance Officer,
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 6751 Steger Drive, Cincinnati, OH
45237-3097. If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may
call Mr. Price at telephone (513) 679-2700 extension 165.

Sincerely,

/s/

Carol A. Heppe
District Director
Cincinnati District

cc: George H. Snyder, Manager
Halter Feed & Grain, Inc.
P.O. Box 821
Massillon, OH 44648

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4609d.pdf

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

NOW, i wonder why i go MRSA after my third neck surgery and damn
near died cause the vancomycin stopped working 6 weeks plus, twice
a day with vancomycin through PIC long-line, straight to the heart.
gotta love it;

> Our investigator also found that you hold animals under conditions
> which are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals
> bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food
> supply


Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

New Orleans District
Nashville Branch Office
297 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: 616-781-5360
Facsimile: 616-781-5391

April 7, 2004

Warning Letter No. 2004-NOL-20

FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Frank Kilpatrick
2625 Ownby Road
Lewisburg, Tennessee 37091

Dear Mr. Kilpatrick:

An inspection of your operation located in Lewisburg, Tennessee, was
conducted by our investigator on January 14 and 21, 2004. That
inspection confirmed that you offered a dairy cow for sale for slaughter
as food in violation of Section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) and 402 (a)(4) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). You can find the Act and
associated regulations through links on FDAs homepage at www.fda.gov
.

On October 23, 2003, you sold a Holstein dairy cow; identified by U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) sample number 423394 and back tag
number 1969, to [redacted] which was slaughtered for human food at
[redacted]. USDA analysis of tissue samples collected from the cow
identified the presence of 0.46 parts per million (ppm) gentamicin in
kidney tissue. There is no tolerance established for residues of
gentamicin in edible tissues of cattle (Title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 556.300). The presence of this drug in the edible
tissue from this animal causes the food to be adulterated.

Our investigator also found that you hold animals under conditions which
are so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing
potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply.
For example, you lack an adequate system for assuring that animals have
been treated only with drugs which have been approved for use in those
species; and for assuring that animals medicated by you have been
withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit
depletion of potentially hazardous residues of drugs from edible
tissues. Foods from animals held under such conditions are adulterated.

The violations listed above are not intended to be an all-inclusive
list. It is your responsibility to assure that your operations are in
compliance with the law. As a producer of animals offered for use as
food, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
the foods you distribute are in compliance with the law.

You should take prompt action to correct the above violations and to
establish procedures whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to do
so 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 receipt of this letter of the steps you have taken to bring your
operation into compliance with the law. Your response should include
each step being taken, that has been taken, or will be taken to correct
the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot
be completed within fifteen (15) working days, state the reason for the
delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed.
Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that
corrections have been made.

Your reply should be directed to the attention of Kari L. Batey,
Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 297 Plus Park
Boulevard, Nashville, Tennessee 37217.

Sincerely,

/s/

Patricia K. Schafer
Acting District Director
New Orleans District

Enclosure: Form FDA 483

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4610d.pdf

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

New York District
300 Pearl Street, Suite 100
Buffalo, NY 14202

April 6, 2004

WARNING LETTER NYK 2004-10

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Paul J. Wawrzyniak, Owner
Red Creek Farms
218 Schad Road
Alden, NY 14004

Dear Mr. Wawrzyniak:

An investigation was conducted at your dairy farm operation located at
Red Creek Farms, 218 Schad Road, Alden, NY, by U.S. Food and Drug (FDA)
Investigator Michael W. Burd from February 23 to March 9, 2004. The
investigation confirmed that you offered three cows for sale for
slaughter as food in violation of Sections 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) and
402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

On or about February 26, 2003, you contacted [redacted], to transport a
cow bearing farm tag 20 from Red Creek Farm, Alden, NY to [redacted] .
[redacted] applied yellow back tag 458 and delivered the cow to
[redacted]. This cow, which also bore ear tag 21WYU7968, was
subsequently delivered to and slaughtered at [redacted], on or about
February 28, 2003. USDA analysis of tissue samples from that animal
revealed the presence of the drug flunixin at a level of 0.662 ppm in
the liver. This level exceeds the 0.125 ppm tolerance identified in 21
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 556.286 by more than five times. The
presence of flunixin at this level in cattle causes the food to be
adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act.

On or about October 20,2003, you contacted [redacted], to transport two
cows from Red Creek Farms, Alden, NY to [redacted]. These two cows were
subsequently delivered to and slaughtered at [redacted], on or about
October 21, 2003.

The first cow transported from your farm on or about October 20, 2003
bore your farm tag 284. It bore yellow back tag 830 applied by
[redacted] at your farm, and back tag 21PL9378 when it arrived at
[redacted]. USDA analysis of tissue samples from this animal revealed
the presence of the drug sulfadimethoxine at a level of 1.02 ppm in the
liver and 0.58 ppm in the muscle. These levels exceed the 0.1 ppm
tolerance identified in 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 556.640 by
more than 10 times and five times, respectively. The presence of
sulfadimethoxine at these levels in cattle causes the food to be
adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act.

The second cow, transported from your farm on October 20, 2003 bore your
farm tag 275. It bore yellow back bag 831 applied by [redacted] at your
farm, and back tag 21PL9385 when it arrived at [redacted]. USDA analysis
of tissue samples from this animal revealed the presence of the drug
sulfadimethoxine at a level of 0.24 ppm in the liver and 0.22 in the
muscle. These levels also exceed the 0.1 ppm tolerance identified in 21
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 556.640. The presence of
sulfadimethoxine at these levels in cattle causes the food to be
adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Our investigation found that you hold animals under conditions which are
so inadequate that diseased animals and/or medicated animals bearing
potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply.
For example, you lack a system for assuring that drugs are used in a
manner not contrary to label instructions, and for assuring animals
medicated on your farm have been withheld from slaughter for appropriate
periods of time to permit depletion of potentially hazardous drug
residues from edible tissues. Food from animals held under such
conditions is adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(4) of the
Act.

Our investigation also revealed you administered the drug Banamine
(flunixin) to the cow bearing your farm tag 20 to treat a fever.
Although you had no Banamine at your farm at the time of our
investigation, we note label instructions for this drug state it is not
for use in lactating or dry cows. Use of Banamine in lactating or dry
dairy cows constitutes extra-label use. Use of a drug contrary to label
instructions (extra-label use) without veterinary supervision causes the
drug to be unsafe within the meaning of Section 512 of the Act and
adulterated under Section 501 (a)(5) of the Act.

You should take prompt action to correct the above violations and to
establish procedures whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to
achieve prompt corrective action may result in regulatory action -
without further notice. This may include seizure and injunction.

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations. As
a producer of animals offered for use as food, it is your responsibility
to assure your operations are in compliance with the requirements of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. As a dairy farmer, you are the
individual who introduces or offers for introduction into interstate
commerce the adulterated animals. It is not necessary for you to
personally ship an animal into interstate commerce to be responsible for
violation of the Act. The fact that you caused the adulteration of an
animal that was sold and subsequently offered for sale to an auction
barn and/or slaughterhouse that ships in interstate commerce is
sufficient to hold you responsible for violation of the Act.

Please notify this office in writing within 15 working days of the steps
you have taken, or intend to take, to prevent recurrence of these or
similar violations. Your response should be directed to Patricia A.
Clark, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 300 Pearl
Street, Suite 100, Buffalo, New York 14202, telephone 716-551-4461, ext.
3168.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jerome G. Woyshner
District Director

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4611d.pdf

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

San Francisco District
50 United Nations Plaza, Room 526
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: 415-556-2062

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Our Reference: 3003381803

March 29, 2004

Pete Dykstra, Co-Owner
John P. Dykstra, Co-Owner
John Dykstra Dairy
6801 Avenue 176
Tulare, California 93274

WARNING LETTER

Dear Mssrs. Dykstra and Dykstra:

An investigation of your dairy operation in Tulare, California conducted
by a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigator on February 9, 10,
13, and 17, 2004 confimmed that you offered animals for sale for
slaughter as food in violation of Sections 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) and
402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21
U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii) and 342(a)(4). You also caused an animal drug to
become adulterated within the meaning of Section 501(a)(5) of the Act,
21 U.S.C. 351, because the drug was used in a manner that does not
conform with its approved uses or the extralabel use regulations at
Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 530 (21 C.F.R. 530).

On or about August 7, 2003, September 10, 2003, and January 15, 2004 you
consigned three cows identified by United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) laboratory report numbers 431697, 431744, and 442325,
respectively, to be slaughtered for human food. You consigned the first
cow to [redacted] and the second and third cows to [redacted] USDA
analysis of tissue samples collected from these animals identified the
presence of sulfadimethoxine and penicillin in the tissues of the cows,
as follows:

Date of Consignment USDA Laboratory Report Number Residue Level Residue
Type Site
8/7/03 431697 0.10 ppm Sulfadimethoxine Liver
0.14 ppm Sulfadimethoxine Muscle
9/10/03 431744 0.11 ppm Penicillin Kidney
1/15/04 442325 1.14 ppm Penicillin Kidney
0.48 ppm Penicillin Liver

A tolerance of 0.1 ppm is established for negligible residues of
sulfadimethoxine in uncooked edible tissues of cattle (21 C.F.R.
556.640). A tolerance of 0.05 ppm has been established for residues of
penicillin in the uncooked edible tissues of cattle (21 C.F.R. 556.510).
The presence of sulfadimethoxine and penicillin above established
tolerance levels in the edible tissues from these animals causes the
foods to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii)
of the Act.

A food is adulterated under Section 402(a)(4) of the Act if it has been
prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may
have been rendered injurious to health. As it applies in this case,
insanitary conditions means that you hold animals which are ultimately
offered for sale for slaughter as food under conditions whereby
medicated animals bearing possibly harmful drug residues could enter the
food supply. For example, our investigator observed the following:

1. Your firm fails to maintain an adequate system for assuring that
the drug, [redacted] Penicillin G Procaine, is used in a manner
consistent with its approved labeling or a written prescription from
your veterinarian;

2. Your firm fails to have veterinarian prescription labeling that
provides adequate directions for use of bottles of [redacted]
ceftiofur hydrochloride sterile suspension (50 mg per mL), which FDA
found in your drug storage area.

3. Your firm fails to establish and maintain a drug
inventory/accountability system.

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations. As
a producer of animals offered for use as food, you are responsible for
assuring that your overall operations and the food you distribute are in
compliance with the law.

Our investigator also observed that you have adulterated the drug,
[redacted] Penicillin G Procaine, that your firm uses on cattle within
the meaning of Section 501(a)(5) of the Act when you failed to use the
drug in conformance with its approved labeling or in accordance with a
written prescription from your veterinarian. Specifically, you offered a
cow for slaughter only one day after treating it with [redacted] Sterile
Penicillin G Procaine, despite the warning on the drugs labeling to
discontinue use of the drug 10 days before treated animals are
slaughtered for food.

It is not necessary for you to personally ship an adulterated animal in
interstate commerce to be responsible for a violation of the Act. The
fact that you caused the adulteration of an animal that was sold and
subsequently offered for sale to a slaughterhouse that ships in
interstate commerce is sufficient to hold you responsible for a
violation of the Act.

You should take prompt action to correct the above violations and to
establish procedures whereby such violations do not occur. Failure to do
so may result in regulatory action, such as a seizure and/or injunction,
without further notice.

You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of
receipt of this letter of the steps you have taken to bring your dairy
into compliance with the law. Your response should include each step
being taken, that has been taken, or that will be taken to correct the
violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be
completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the
time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please
include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that
corrections have been made.

Your response should be directed to: Ms. Harumi Kishida, Compliance
Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1431 Harbor Bay Parkway,
Alameda, CA 94502-7070.
If you have any questions regarding any issue in this letter, please
contact Ms. Kishida at (510) 337-6824.

Sincerely,

/s/

Barbara J. Cassens
District Director
San Francisco District

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4615d.pdf

OLDER FEED BAN VIOLATIONS ;

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

USDA Inc.: How Agribusiness has hijacked regulatory policy at the US
Department of Agriculture
Author: Philip Mattera
Date Published: July 23, 2004
Source: Agribusiness Accountability Initiative and Corporate Research
Project, Good Jobs First
PDF:

USDA Inc.

snip...

The extent to which agribusiness has packed USDA with its people is
apparent when looking at
the biographies of the top officials of the Department, up to and
including Secretary Ann Veneman.
In addition to her time as a public official, Veneman served on the
board of biotech company Calgene
(later taken over by Monsanto). Many of Venemans key aides and the
heads of various USDA agencies
are political appointees who spent much of their career working for
agribusiness companies and
trade associations.
For example, 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, such as
Tyson and Cargill. Deputy
Secretary James Moseley was a co-owner of a large factory farm in
Indiana. Floyd Gaibler, a Deputy
Under Secretary, used to be executive director of the dairy industrys
National Cheese Institute.
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Mary Waters was a senior
director and legislative
counsel for ConAgra Foods, one of the countrys largest food processors.
These industry-linked appointees have helped to implement policies that
undermine the regulatory
mission of USDA in favor of the bottom-line interests of a few
economically powerful companies...

FULL TEXT 40 PAGES;

http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1%3E

WE must remove politics/industry from science, or all we will ever have
is junk science and lies...TSS





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: