SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS (216-119-132-53.ipset12.wt.net)
Subject: Joint Press Statement For The Resumption Of Trade In Beef And Beef Products by the Government of United States and the Government of the Japan AND TSS
Date: October 23, 2004 at 7:07 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Joint Press Statement For The Resumption Of Trade In Beef And Beef Products by the Government of United States and the Government of the Japan
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:00:40 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

Joint Press Statement For The Resumption Of Trade
In Beef And Beef Products
by the Government of United States and the Government of the Japan
October 23, 2004


On October 21, 22 and 23, 2004, the Government of the United States (USG) and the Government of Japan (GOJ) held Director-General level consultations in Tokyo on the resumption of beef trade between the two countries. During the meetings, the GOJ explained the review process of domestic measures against BSE. The USG explained their domestic measures taken against BSE and presented basic ideas for the resumption of two-way beef trade.

The USG and GOJ, as a result of their consultation, shared the view that under the following conditions and modalities the two countries will resume two-way trade in beef and beef products, subject to their respective domestic approval processes, based upon science. Further details of some conditions and modalities remain to be worked out by experts and working-level officials of both countries by the time of the actual resumption of trade.

A. JAPANESE EXPORT TO THE UNITED STATES

The United States will permit Japanese export of beef and beef products following relevant domestic rule-making procedures.

B. U.S. EXPORT TO JAPAN: MARKETING PROGRAM

The United States will establish a marketing program that enables a resumption of some trade for an interim time period (interim trade program). The operational details of the Beef Export Verification (BEV) Program managed by U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will be further worked out by U.S. experts and Japanese, major points of which are as follows:

1. Specified risk materials (SRMs) must be removed from animals of all ages.

a) The range of SRMs is defined as bovine heads (except for tongues and cheek meat, but including tonsils), spinal cords, distal ileum (two meters from connection to caecum), vertebral column (excluding the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, the wings of the sacrum and the vertebrae of the tail) of all ages.

b) In regard to treatment of SRMs, USDA will verify the control program of each facility managed by HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) or SSOP (Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures).

2. Beef items including offals and variety meats must be derived from bovine animals verified to be 20 months of age or younger.

3. Bovine animals included in the BEV Program for Japan must be traceable to live animal production records which indicate that they are 20 months of age or younger at the time of slaughter. Records that will be used to verify this requirement by the USG must meet at least one of the following criteria:

a) Individual Animal Age Verification

b) Group Age Verification

c) Insemination Age Verification

d) USDA Process Verified Animal Identification and Data Collection Services

4. Experts of both countries will continue to consult on carcass grading and quality attributes with a view to verifying physiological age to evaluate carcasses to be 20 months of age or younger. Additional information will be developed by USDA for consideration by the experts, including a special physiological maturity study (Terms of Reference attached in the Annex). This study will involve examination of maturity grades of samples of representative cattle. When the carcass grading system objectively demonstrates that it can verify physiological age to evaluate carcasses to be 20 months of age or younger, it will be used as a method to satisfy the BEV program requirement.

C. DOMESTIC PROCEDURES AND TIMING OF RESUMING TRADE

The necessary modifications to U.S. and Japanese regulations would be completed expeditiously so the United States and Japan will resume two-way beef trade immediately after completing their respective domestic procedures. In Japan's case, such domestic approval process includes deliberation by the Food Safety Commission. Both countries will undertake these domestic procedures and endeavor to resume the beef trade as soon as possible.

D. CONTINUED JOINT SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS

1. Joint consultations by the U.S. and Japanese experts will be continued to help both sides gain a fuller understanding of the pathogenesis and patterns of the BSE disease. Specific topics to be addressed would include (but not limited to): BSE definition and testing methods; transmissibility; and current and ongoing research including the Japanese transgenic mouse assay.

2. Other international experts including from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and the World Health Organization (WHO) would be invited to participate in the consultations.

3. The consultations would begin immediately and be conducted to provide information to be available for the BEV Program Review (as described in E below).

E. BEV PROGRAM REVIEW

The BEV Program (as described in B above) will be reviewed for modification as may be appropriate in July 2005. The joint review by officials of the Governments of the United States and Japan will take into account a scientific review to be conducted by OIE and WHO experts. The conclusion of the review, including the action to be taken, will be made by the consensus judgment of both Governments. In Japan's case, it will be subject to deliberation by the Food Safety Commission.

- Scientific Review. Experts from the OIE and the WHO will be asked to review existing and new information to be compiled during operation of the BEV Program and to provide guidance as to modifications that might be appropriately made and assure consumer safety in U.S.- Japan beef trade. The information to be reviewed will include:

Information made available by the joint scientific consultation as described in D above;

The United States BSE status according to OIE criteria to be reviewed; results of the U.S. enhanced surveillance program; U.S. feed regulations; and the range of BSE amelioration measures in place in the United States;

Cut-off age for BSE testing; and

Other relevant scientific information.

F. PREVENTION OF TRADE DISRUPTION

Both the United States and Japan have food safety systems in place that are sufficiently robust such that identification of a few additional BSE cases will not result in market closures and disruption of beef trade patterns without scientific foundations.

G. AUDIT SYSTEM

Following equivalency audits of each country's relevant food safety system and resumption of trade, both countries will cooperate to audit each side's facilities on a regular basis.

# # #

ANNEX

Terms of Reference: Physiological Maturity of Beef Cattle Carcasses


The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will conduct a special study in which steers and heifers of known ages (births identified within a one month period) are slaughtered and evaluated for physiological maturity. The purpose of the study is to determine an expected end-point maturity that will assure the exclusion of steers or heifers with a chronological age greater than 20 months from a certification program for export to Japan. This evaluation of physiological maturity on a representative sample of the U.S. fed-beef slaughter population will provide a reliable assessment of the age of cattle. The study, in consultations with Japanese experts, will be designed and the data analyzed utilizing internationally recognized sampling and statistical methods.

The study will be completed and a report presented within 45 days.

USDA News
oc.news@usda.gov
202 720-4623

TSS

################# BSE-L-subscribe-request@uni-karlsruhe.de #################

THE USDA GOV may be able to force Japan to import beef to Japan,
BUT GW et al CANNOT force the People of Japan to buy and eat there
tainted products;


October 2004 FOOD SAFETY
USDA and FDA Need
to Better Ensure
Prompt and Complete
Recalls of Potentially
Unsafe Food

snip...

Page 38 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
To examine the voluntary recall of beef products associated with the
December 2003 discovery of an animal infected with BSE, we analyzed the
distribution lists USDA collected from companies and the verification
checks it conducted to develop a diagram illustrating the location and
volume of recalled beef that reached different levels of the distribution
chain. We compared the distribution lists and verification checks to
identify how many customers listed on the distribution lists did not receive
the recalled beef and the number of customers not listed on distribution
lists that received the recalled beef. We interviewed USDA and FDA staff
involved with the recall to understand the timing of recall actions and the
challenges encountered during the recall.
To develop information on the 2002 recall of ground beef by a ConAgra
plant in Greeley, Colorado, we reviewed USDA’s recall file and other
documents on the recall. We also met with the department’s Office of
Inspector General and reviewed the Inspector General’s September 2003
report.1
We conducted our review from May 2003 through August 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Great
Plains Region Audit
Report: Food Safety and Inspection Service: Oversight of Production
Process and Recall at
ConAgra Plant (Establishment 969), Report No. 24601-2-KC (September 2003).
Page 39 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE Appendix II
On December 23, 2003, USDA announced that a cow in the state of
Washington had tested positive for BSE—commonly referred to as mad
cow disease. This appendix describes the actions USDA took to recall the
meat and the actions FDA took with respect to FDA-regulated products,
such as animal feed and cosmetics, made from rendered parts of the
animal.
Beef Recall Was
Triggered by a BSEPositive
Sample from
One Cow
On December 9, 2003, the recalling company slaughtered 23 cows. USDA,
in accordance with its BSE surveillance policy at the time, took a sample of
1 cow that was unable to walk, although the condition of the tested cow is
now disputed. USDA did not process the sample in its Ames, Iowa National
Veterinary Services Laboratory in an expedited manner because the cow
did not show symptoms of neurological disorder. USDA test results
indicated a presumptive positive for BSE on December 23, 2003.
Recall Begun in
December 2003 Was
Completed in March
2004
On December 23, 2003, after learning about the positive BSE test, USDA
headquarters notified the Boulder District Office, which is the field office
with jurisdiction over the recalling firm. The Boulder District began
gathering information about the recalling company’s product distribution.
Field staff telephoned the recalling company and were on-site at 7:00 p.m.
The Boulder District initially thought 3 days of the recalling company’s
production would have to be recalled, but further examination of facility
cleanup and shipping records revealed that it was only necessary to recall 1
day of production. USDA recall staff convened at 9:15 p.m. and discussed
the science related to BSE and whether the recalling company’s cleanup
practices were sufficient to limit the recall to 1 day of production.
Following USDA’s determination to conduct a Class II recall—that is, the
beef posed a remote possibility of adverse health consequences—USDA
contacted the recalling company to discuss recall details and the press
release. The press release and Recall Notification Report were released
that evening.
On December 24, 2003, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
sent inspectors to the recalling company’s primary customers to obtain
secondary customer distribution lists and product shipping records. USDA
conducted 100 percent verification checks for this recall—it contacted
every customer that received the recalled meat. This level of verification
checks is well above the percentage of checks conducted by USDA district
offices for the Class I recalls we reviewed.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 40 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
On December 26, 2003, USDA began checking the primary and secondary
customers of the recalling company that it was aware of, although the
entire product distribution chain was unknown. During the checks, USDA
tried to determine if the product was further distributed, and it used
verification checks to acquire distribution lists for secondary and tertiary
customers of the recalling company.
Verification checks continued until February 25, 2004. Three USDA
districts conducted these verification checks. The Boulder District
coordinated the checks and assigned checks to the Minneapolis District
Office for customers in Montana and to the Alameda District Office for
customers in California. USDA required that 100 percent of the primary
checks, 50 percent of the secondary checks, and 20 percent of the tertiary
checks be conducted on-site. According to USDA, more than 50 percent of
the secondary checks were actually conducted on-site. FDA officials
helped conduct verification checks. According to USDA, the recall took a
long time to complete because USDA contacted each customer at least
twice. USDA first contacted each customer to conduct the check and again
to verify product disposition.
On February 25, 2004, the Boulder District concluded that the recall was
conducted in an effective manner. On March 1, 2004, USDA’s Recall
Management Division recommended that the agency terminate the recall,
and USDA sent a letter to the recalling company to document that USDA
considered the recall to be complete.
Recall Was
Complicated by
Inaccurate Distribution
Lists and Mixing of
Potentially
Contaminated and
Noncontaminated Beef
USDA used distribution lists and shipping records to piece together where
the recalled product was distributed. According to USDA, one of the
recalling company’s three primary customers was slow in providing its
customer list. USDA could not begin verification activities for that primary
customer without this list. Furthermore, some customers of the recalling
company provided USDA with imprecise lists that did not specify which
customers received the recalled product. As a consequence, USDA could
not quickly determine the scope of product distribution and had to take
time conducting extra research using shipping invoices to determine which
specific customers received the product.
Even when USDA determined the amount and location of beef, the agency
still had trouble tracking the beef in certain types of establishments, such
as grocery store distributors. USDA could not easily track the individual
stores where those distributors sent the beef because of product mixing
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 41 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
and the distributors’ record-keeping practices. Generally, distributors
purchase beef from multiple sources, mix it in their inventory, and lose
track of the source of the beef they send to the stores that they supply. To
deal with this problem, USDA first identified the dates when recalled beef
was shipped to the distributors and then asked for a list of the stores that
were shipped any beef after those dates. Consequently, some stores were
included in the recall that may never have received recalled beef.
The recall was also complicated by repeated mixing of recalled beef with
nonrecalled beef, thereby increasing the amount of meat involved in the
recall. The recalling company slaughtered 23 cows on December 9, 2003,
and shipped those and 20 other carcasses to a primary customer on
December 10, 2003. The recalling company’s carcasses were tagged to
identify the slaughter date and the individual cow. The primary customer
removed the identification tags and mixed the 23 recalled carcasses with
the 20 nonrecalled carcasses. Because the carcasses could not be
distinguished, the recall included all 43 carcasses at the primary customer.
After one round of processing at the primary customer, the meat from the
carcasses was shipped to two other processing facilities. Both
establishments further mixed the recalled meat from the 43 carcasses with
meat from other sources. In all, the mixing of beef from 1 BSE-positive cow
resulted in over 500 customers receiving potentially contaminated beef.
Imprecise distribution lists and the mixing of recalled beef combined to
complicate USDA’s identification of where the product went. Specifically,
on December 23, 2003, USDA’s initial press release stated that the recalling
company was located in Washington State. Three days later, on December
26, 2003, USDA announced that the recalled beef was distributed within
Washington and Oregon. On December 27, 2003, USDA determined that one
of the primary customers of the recalling firm distributed beef to
facilities
in California and Nevada, in addition to Washington and Oregon, for a total
of four states. On December 28, 2003, USDA announced that some of the
secondary customers of the recalling company may also have distributed
the product to Alaska, Montana, Hawaii, Idaho, and Guam, for a total of
eight states and one territory.
On January 6, 2004, over 2 weeks from recall initiation, USDA determined
that the beef went to only six states—Washington, Oregon, California,
Nevada, Idaho, and Montana—and that no beef went to Alaska, Hawaii, or
Guam. To reach that conclusion, USDA used the distribution lists, shipping
records, and sales invoices that it received from companies to piece
together exactly where the recalled beef may have been sent. The lists
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 42 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
showed that 713 customers may have received the recalled beef; 6 of those
may have received beef from more than one source. USDA determined that
176 customers on the lists did not actually receive recalled beef, including
the customers in Guam and Hawaii. USDA’s review also indicated that
recalled beef was probably not shipped to Alaska or Utah, and USDA
checked 2 retailers in Alaska and 3 retailers in Utah to confirm that
was the
case. In total, USDA conducted verification checks on 537 of the 713
customers on the lists. USDA’s initial checks identified an additional 45
customers that may have received the recalled beef that were not included
on the distribution lists, for a total of 582 verification checks. Figure 4
summarizes USDA’s verification efforts during the recall.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 43 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Figure 4: USDA’s Recall Verification Checks by Location and Customer
Type for Meat Associated with the Animal Infected with
BSE
Note: USDA checked 15 primary, 40 secondary, and 526 tertiary customers
plus the recalling
company, for a total of 582 verification checks.
USDA’s press release stated that the recall involved 10,410 pounds of beef
products, and the USDA recall coordinator for this recall told us that
downstream processors mixed the recalled beef with nonrecalled beef, for
a total of more than 38,000 pounds of beef that was distributed at the
secondary customer level. According to USDA officials involved with the
D = Distributor
R = Retailer
SF = Storage facility
P = Processor
Primary customers
(15 total)
Recalling
slaughterhouse
(WA) 1 R
(OR)
1 P
(WA) 1 P
(OR)
1 P
(OR)
11 R
(WA)
Secondary customers
(40 total)
Tertiary customers
(526 total)
1 R
(OR)
1 SF
(OR)
3 D
(OR)
3 D
(WA)
2 dual D
(OR)
59 R
(OR)
79 R
(WA)
5 R
(ID)
3 R
(UT)
4 R
(MT)
161 R
(WA)
8 R
(ID)
15 R
(OR)
2 R
(AK)
31 R
(OR) 8 R
(WA)
10 R
(NV)
5 R
(ID)
10 R
(CA)
2 R
(CA)
17 R
(OR)
5 R
(WA)
1 D
(NV)
11 R
(CA)
85 R
(NV)
3 D
(OR) 11 R
(OR)
2 D
(CA) 26 R
(CA)
2 R
(WA)
( ) Acronyms in parentheses are postal abbreviations for each state.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA verification check documents.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 44 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
recall, the precise amount of meat that was sold at the retail level is
unknown because retailers at the tertiary level further mixed nonrecalled
meat with potentially contaminated meat. USDA told us that more than
64,000 pounds of beef was ultimately returned or destroyed by customers,
and that, because of the mixing, it was not able to determine how much of
the original 10,410 pounds of recalled beef was contained in the 64,000
pounds that were recovered.
FDA’s Role in USDA’s
Recall
Parts of the BSE-infected animal slaughtered on December 9, 2003, were
not used for food, but they were sent to renderers to be separated into raw
materials, such as proteins and blood. Rendered materials are used for
many purposes, including cosmetics and vaccines. FDA has jurisdiction
over renderers.
When USDA learned of the BSE-infected cow on December 23, 2003, the
agency immediately notified FDA. On December 24, 2003, FDA sent an
inspection team to a renderer that handled materials from the BSE cow.
Inspectors confirmed that the parts of the slaughtered BSE positive cow
were on the premises. FDA later identified a second company that
potentially rendered material from the slaughtered BSE cow. Both
renderers agreed to voluntarily hold all product processed from the
diseased cow and dispose of the product as directed by FDA and local
authorities.
On January 7, 2004, 15 containers of potentially contaminated, rendered
material (meat and bone meal) were inadvertently loaded on a ship, and on
January 8, 2004, the ship left Seattle, Washington, for Asia. The renderer
initiated steps to recover the shipped material, so it could be disposed
of as
directed by FDA and local authorities. The ship carrying the material
returned to the United States on February 24, 2004, and the material was
disposed of in a landfill on March 2, 2004.
On January 12, 2004, FDA asked both renderers to expand their voluntary
holds to rendered materials processed from December 23, 2003, through
January 9, 2004, because they may have rendered some recalled meat or
trim that was recovered from retail establishments. Both renderers agreed
to the expanded product hold. In total, FDA requested that renderers
voluntarily hold approximately 2,000 tons of rendered material. FDA
confirmed that none of the potentially contaminated, rendered material
entered commerce, because FDA accounted for all rendered material. FDA
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 45 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
reported that no recall was necessary because no product was distributed
commercially by the rendering companies.
USDA and FDA
Worked Together on
the Recall
USDA and FDA worked together in two ways. First, both agencies notified
each other if their investigations yielded any information about products
within the jurisdiction of the other agency. For instance, when conducting
the second round of verification checks, USDA tracked the disposition of
the product to renderers and landfills and notified FDA when the product
went to renderers. Second, FDA officials helped conduct verification
checks. FDA conducted 32 of the 582 verification checks (approximately 5
percent) for the USDA recall. Officials from both agencies indicated they
regularly interacted and shared information. Table 3 outlines the agencies’
actions.
Table 3: Detailed Timeline of USDA, FDA, and Company Actions Related to
the Discovery of an Animal Infected with BSE
Date USDA recall actions FDA actions Company actions
12/9/03 • USDA samples cow for BSE. • BSE cow is slaughtered.
12/11/03 • Sample is sent to Ames, Iowa, for BSE
testing.
• Recalling company sends
carcasses to primary customer for
processing.
12/12/03 • Primary customer sends meat
products to two other primary
customers for further processing.
12/12 -
12/23/03
• Other primary customers distribute
recalled product to secondary
customers.
• Secondary customers distribute
recalled product to tertiary
customers.
12/23/03 • BSE test results are presumptively
positive.
• Recall meeting.
• Initiation of voluntary recall.
• Press release.
• FDA notified of BSE test results.
• FDA dispatches investigation teams.
12/24/03 • FDA inspects Renderer 1.
• FDA determines some rendered
material from Renderer 1 is intended
for Indonesia.
• FDA discovers some material may
have been sent to Renderer 2.
• Renderer 1 agrees to hold remaining
rendered material.
• Recalling company contacts
primary customers.
• Primary customers contact their
customers.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 46 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
12/25/03 • USDA receives confirmation from
reference lab in England that cow in
question is BSE positive.
12/26/03 • Verification checks begin
• USDA announces recalled product in
Washington State and Oregon.
• FDA begins process of comparing
records to ensure all products from
Renderers 1 and 2 are accounted for.
• Renderer 2 agrees to hold all material
that may have been derived from
BSE cow. None of the rendered
material has been distributed.
12/27/03 • USDA announces recalled product was
distributed in Washington State,
Oregon, California, and Nevada.
• FDA issues statement confirming that
the rendering plants that processed
all of the nonedible material from the
BSE cow have placed a voluntary
hold on all of the potentially infectious
product, none of which had left the
control of the companies and entered
commercial distribution.
12/28/03 • USDA announces recalled product was
distributed in Washington State,
Oregon, California, Nevada, Montana,
Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam.
12/29/03 • Food Safety and Inspection Service
determines that the recalled meat
products were distributed to 42
locations, with 80 percent of the
products distributed to stores in
Oregon and Washington State.
12/31/03 • FDA offers assistance to USDA to
complete recall verification checks.
1/6/04 • USDA determines recalled product
was only distributed in Washington
State, Oregon, California, Nevada,
Montana, and Idaho.
1/8/04 • FDA is notified by the renderer that
some of the rendered material on
hold from Renderer 1 was
inadvertently shipped to Asia.
Renderer 1 commits to isolate and
return the rendered material.
• Rendering company notifies FDA of
shipment of product on hold.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date USDA recall actions FDA actions Company actions
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 47 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Source: GAO analysis of USDA and FDA information.
1/12/04 • FDA advises Renderers 1 and 2 that
they may have rendered meat or trim
subject to recall from retail stores.
• FDA requests Renderers 1 and 2 to
place all rendered material from
December 23 to January 9 on hold.
• FDA determines neither renderer had
shipped rendered material
manufactured after December 23,
2003.
2/9/04 • All rendered material was disposed of
in landfill, except material shipped to
Asia.
2/24/04 • Ship carrying rendered material
returns to U.S. port.
2/25/04 • Verification checks complete.
• USDA Boulder District Office
concludes recall is effective.
3/1/04 • Recall is closed.
3/2/04 • FDA observes disposal in landfill of
remaining rendered material...

snip...

REPORTS

1. Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and Complete
Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food. GAO-05-51, October 7.tss
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-51
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0551high.pdf

PRODUCT
Product is custom made steer/cattle feed packaged in 100 lb. poly bags.
The product has no labeling. Recall # V-001-5.
CODE
The product has no lot code. All custom made feed purchased between June
24, 2004 and September 8, 2004.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Farmers Elevator Co, Houston, OH, by telephone and letter dated
September 27, 2004. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Feed may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues which is
prohibited in ruminant feed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approximately 80 1û2 tons of steer/cattle feed.
DISTRIBUTION
OH.

_______________________________

PRODUCT
Product is custom made sheep/goat feed packaged in 100 lb. poly bags.
The product has no labeling. Recall # V-002-5.
CODE
The product has no lot code. All custom made feed purchased between June
24, 2004 and September 8, 2004.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Farmers Elevator Co, Houston, OH, by telephone and letter dated
September 27, 2004. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Feed may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues which is
prohibited in ruminant feed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approximately 8 tons.
DISTRIBUTION
OH.

_______________________________

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR October 20, 2004

PRODUCT
Product is custom made deer feed packaged in 100 lb. poly bags. The
product has no labeling. Recall # V-003-5.
CODE
The product has no lot code. All custom made feed purchased between June
24, 2004 and September 8, 2004.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Farmers Elevator Co, Houston, OH, by telephone and letter dated
September 27, 2004. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Feed may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues which is
prohibited in ruminant feed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approximately 6 tons.
DISTRIBUTION
OH.

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR October 20, 2004

http://www.fda.gov/TSS

PRODUCT
a) Product is 9 Mile Steer Feed, packaged in white poly weaved
bags, each containing 100 lbs. A white label tied to the
inlet of each bag with twine identifies the product. Recall
# V-187-4;
b) Product is 9 Mile Pig and Sow Feed, packaged in white poly
weaved bags, each bag containing 100 lbs. A white label tied
to the inlet of each bag with twine identifies the product.
Recall # V-188-4.
CODE
The products contain no code date.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Farmers Elevator, Co., Houston, OH, by telephone and letters dated
September 8, 2004. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Products may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues which is
prohibited in ruminant (steer) feed. FDA regulation, if the feed is
intended for non-ruminants (pigs), the bag labels must bear the
statement ìDo not feed to cattle or other ruminantsî.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
700 lbs. Steer feed and 1,500 lb. Pig and sow fed.
DISTRIBUTION
OH.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2004/ENF00869.html

PRODUCT
a) Premier Catfish Food, packaged in 50 pound bags (white paper
with an orange label). Recall #V-190-4;
b) Happy Fisherman Fish Food, pellet form, 50 pound bags.
Recall # V-191-4.
CODE
a) T1 Best By 08/27/05;
b) T21 Best By 11 DEC 05 and T11 Best By 02 OCT 05.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Sunshine Mills, Inc., Tupelo, MS, by telephone beginning on April 14,
2004. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The catfish food contains prohibited material (meat & bone meal) but
does not contain the cautionary statement, "Do not feed to cattle or
other ruminants" on the label.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,092 ‚ 50 pound bags.
DISTRIBUTION
TX and MO.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2004/ENF00869.html

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


Greetings list members,

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
UNKNOWN.

DISTRIBUTION
UNKNOWN.


gotta love those USDA BSE/TSE triple fire walls ;-).....TSS



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: