SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS (216-119-143-141.ipset23.wt.net)
Subject: Mad cow case in U.S. disturbs foreigners more than Americans
Date: December 26, 2004 at 8:13 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Mad cow case in U.S. disturbs foreigners more than Americans
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:48:40 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE


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

Mad cow case in U.S. disturbs foreigners more than Americans


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

One of 10 cows taken from a farm in Washington peers out of its trailer
as it arrives at a slaughterhouse in January.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

By ROXANA HEGEMAN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Last Updated: December 25, 2004, 05:03:44 AM PST

WICHITA, Kan. — After the nation's first case of mad cow disease was
discovered, government regulators and industry officials worked quickly
to reassure consumers it was safe to eat a steak. A year later, you'd
never guess there was any concern at all — the nation's appetite for
beef has remained strong.

But consumer advocates say there's a problem with that lack of reaction
from the public — it might have diminished the impact of the mad cow
case on improving food safety.

Federal regulators, trying to reassure U.S. consumers, promised to
strengthen the country's food safety rules. For the most part, it didn't
happen, said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the
Center of Science in the Public Interest.

"Consumers didn't react very much, so they don't feel the need to take
action, and I think that is unfortunate," Smith DeWaal said.

Some consumer groups say the most significant change made to strengthen
existing safeguards was the banning of so-called downer cattle — animals
too sick to stand — for human consumption. Regulators at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture believe new rules that forbid potentially
infectious material, such as spinal cords, from being incorporated into
food are the most significant reform.

The government's testing program for mad cow — formally known as bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE — was expanded to include more than
221,000 animals, 10 times the number tested in 2003. The surveillance
program went into effect June 1 and is to be completed in a year to 18
months. As of Monday, the agency had tested 152,984 animals.

But animal feed rules designed to prevent future cases of mad cow have
not been strengthened. And a national animal identification system
designed to track individual cattle — in the works before the BSE
discovery, but supposedly expedited after — has yet to be fully implemented.

Other proposed changes, food safety advocates said, were made to benefit
consumers overseas, whose countries quickly closed their borders to
American beef imports after the mad cow discovery.

During recent trade talks with Japan, Smith DeWaal said, U.S.
negotiators seemed willing to apply stricter regulations to cattle 20
months or older that would be marketed to Japanese consumers. The
regulations would start at 30 months for cattle aimed at the domestic
market.

Agriculture Department officials discount that criticism.

"It is our goal to make sure that we are providing a safe and wholesome
product to consumers — whether it is in America or elsewhere globally,"
said Beth Johnson, a specialist assistant to U.S. Agriculture Secretary
Ann Veneman.

Johnson said the continuing strong demand for beef is due to the
confidence consumers have in the U.S. beef supply and the steps the
agency has taken to protect the U.S. cattle herd. She credited
safeguards — such as a ban on high-risk cattle parts in cattle feed
since 1997 — the agency put in place years before the first mad cow case.

Such safeguards have kept the United States from having widespread
incidents of mad cow disease such as those in other nations, she said.

Johnson acknowledged it may be early 2006 before a national animal
identification system that can trace an animal back to its source in 48
hours is fully in place. But the agency said it can now track the
majority of cattle under existing state and industry systems.

Through it all, no deaths or illnesses have been attributed to the sole
confirmed U.S. mad cow case; other diseases such as E.coli or listeria
are far more common. Food-borne diseases account for 5,000 deaths, 75
million cases of illness and 325,000 hospitalizations annually in the
United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates.

"Mad cow disease has had a greater visibility than a number of other
meat-related diseases," said Greg Watchman, executive director of the
Government Accountability Project, a government watchdog group.

"We remain concerned USDA continues to suffer from 'agency capture' —
meaning that it too often does the bidding of large (meat) packers
rather than advancing the mission of protecting America's families,"
Watchman said. "Obviously, the bottom line here is America's families
remain at risk of food-borne illnesses such as mad cow."

On the Net: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome
; Center of Science in the
Public Interest: www.cspinet.org .

http://www.modbee.com/business/story/9664943p-10548756c.html

> Johnson said the continuing strong demand for beef is due to the
> confidence consumers have in the U.S. beef supply and the steps the
> agency has taken to protect the U.S. cattle herd. She credited
> safeguards — such as a ban on high-risk cattle parts in cattle feed
> since 1997 — the agency put in place years before the first mad cow case.
>

r i g h t ;


Dec. 20, 2004, 10:52PM


Union says safe practices ignored


USDA's rules to fight mad cow allegedly violated

By RANDY FABI
Reuters News Service

WASHINGTON - U.S. meat plants are allowing brains and spinal cord from
older cattle to enter the food supply, violating strict government
regulations aimed at preventing the spread of mad cow disease, a federal
meat inspectors union said Monday.


Nearly a year after the first U.S. case of mad cow disease, meat plants
have yet to implement measures required by the U.S. Agriculture
Department to protect consumers, said the National Joint Council of Food
Inspection Locals.

"We are seeing little to no change at these plants," said Stan Painter,
the union's chairman.

The USDA has said its ban on brains, spinal cord, eyes and other
so-called specific-risk material was the most important action it has
taken since the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States.

The deadly disease is carried within the infected animal's brain and
nervous system and can be a threat to humans when eaten.

Older cattle, over 30-months of age, are thought to be at higher risk
for mad cow disease than younger animals.

"We know USDA's zero tolerance is not being met," Painter said. "We
believe this is a widespread problem." He declined to say how many
plants were in violation.

The USDA disagreed with the union, saying no prohibited cattle parts,
called SRMs, were slipping into the food supply.

"Parts that are defined as SRMs are being removed and being disposed of
according to regulations implemented in January 2004," said Steve Cohen,
spokesman for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The American Meat Institute, a trade group representing U.S.
meatpackers, said it was unaware of any plants in violation of the
regulations.

The labor union's allegations come as the United States tries to
convince Japan and South Korea, previously its top buyers, to ease their
bans on U.S. beef.

In October, U.S. meat inspectors began alerting the union that plant
employees were incorrectly identifying carcasses of animals over 30
months old, Painter said. Under USDA procedures, plant employees are
responsible for identifying older cattle by examining their teeth.

Inspectors said plants were also violating a trade agreement with Mexico
by shipping kidneys from cattle over 30 months old.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2957093

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

New Orleans District
Southeast Region
6600 Plaza Drive, Suite 400
New Orleans, Louisiana 70127
Telephone: 504-253-4519
Facsimile: 504-253-4520


December 9, 2004

WARNING LETTER NO. 2005-NOL-07

FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Mr. Alan O. Bostick, President
Sunshine Mills, Inc.
500 6th Street SW
Red Bay, Alabama 35582

Dear Mr. Bostick:

On September 7 and 14, 2004, a United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) investigator inspected your animal feed
manufacturing facility, located at 2103 South Gloster Street, Tupelo,
Mississippi. The inspection revealed 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. The regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Because you
failed to follow the requirements of this regulation, products you
manufactured and/or distributed are misbranded within the meaning of
Section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

The inspection indicated you manufacture products containing beef meat
and bone meal. Products that contain or may contain protein derived from
mammalian tissues, as defined by 21 CFR 589.2000(a), and are intended
for use in animal feed, must be labeled with the cautionary statement
Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants. This is required by 21 CFR
589.2000(c)(1)(i). Your firm failed to label your non-ruminant products
with this required cautionary statement. Specifically, the products that
contained protein derived from mammalian tissues but lacked the required
statement included your Happy Fisherman and Premier catfish feeds.
Under 21 CFR 589.2000(g)(2), failure of these feeds to bear the required
cautionary statement causes them to be misbranded under Section
403(a)(1) of the Act.

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from
regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed
use, you are responsible for assuring your overall operation and
products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law.
A copy of FDAs Small Entity Compliance Guide is enclosed to assist you
in complying with the regulations.

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

We are aware you sent label corrections for the last shipment of each of
the mislabeled products. You also stated you plan [redacted] However,
you should notify this office in writing, within 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 taken to correct violations and prevent their
recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working
days, state the reason for delay and date by which corrections will be
completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating
corrections have been made.

Please send your reply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Attention: Nicole F. Hardin, Compliance Officer, at the above address.
If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact
Ms. Hardin at (504) 253-4519.

Sincerely,

/s

H. Tyler Thornburg
District Director
New Orleans District

Enclosures:
FDA Form 483
FDAs Small Entity Compliance Guide
21 CFR 589.2000

cc:
[redacted]
General Manager
Sunshine Mills, Inc.
2103 South Gloster Street
Tupelo, Mississippi 38801

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5105d.htm


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


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

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 ěDo 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

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 ;-(

still disgusted on this very cold Christmas day.

Merry Christmas, from a SNOWY Bacliff, Texas :-)

TSS

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





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: