SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS (216-119-143-124.ipset23.wt.net)
Subject: Transcript of Tele-news Conference With Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns - Washington, D.C. - January 24, 2005 MORE OF THE SAME BSeee
Date: January 25, 2005 at 9:01 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Transcript of Tele-news Conference With Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns - Washington, D.C. - January 24, 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:34:03 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE


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

Release No. 0027.05
USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623


TRANSCRIPT OF TELE-NEWS CONFERENCE WITH
AGRICULTURE SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS
WASHINGTON, D.C. - JANUARY 24, 2005

MODERATOR: "Good afternoon from Washington. I'm Larry Quinn speaking to
you from the Broadcast Center of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Welcome to today's news conference with the 28th Secretary of
Agriculture, Mike Johanns.


snip...

MODERATOR: "Our next question will come from Dan Looker from Successful
Farming, and he'll be followed by Ken Rahjes who should be standing by.

"Dan, go ahead with your question."

QUESTION: "Thank you. Congratulations, Secretary Johanns.

"You mentioned that you've gotten a lot of support from the Senate, and
I think that's very true. In talking to members of the Senate this last
week a number of them said they had met with you to talk to you about a
number of issues, and they seemed to be pleased with the opportunity.

"One of those senators is Senator Tim Johnson from South Dakota who is
still a very, very strong supporter of country-of-origin labeling. And
he said that he had a chance to talk to you about that issue. And I
wondered if you could tell us whether you think the administration will
change its past position on country-of-origin labeling and support
implementation of that part of the Farm Bill as a result of the
discovery of mad cow disease, the third case in Canada."

SEC. JOHANNS: "As I have said to the Senate Committee, the
Administration's position has been a voluntary position on
country-of-origin labeling. And without hesitation I said to the
committee, if confirmed, and now that I am the Secretary, I will support
the Administration's position.

"I'm also very mindful of the law, and what I said to the Committee is
that: never let there be any doubt that I will follow the law.

"I have no idea, I have not had a specific conversation with the
Administration about what the intentions are on COOL. Again, I would
emphasize that I will work with the Administration and work with
Congress on the issue. So we'll see what unfolds.

"But that's what I said to the Committee, and that's what I would
indicate now that I've been confirmed and sworn in."

MODERATOR: "Our next questioner is Ken Rahjes from Rural Radio Network
in Lexington, Nebraska. And Matt Kaye should be standing by.

"Ken, go ahead with your question."

QUESTION: "Thank you, Larry.

"Good morning, Mr. Secretary, from your home state of Nebraska. My
question is, many have talked about the reopening of Japan to the beef
trade. Will that be one of your first items on your agenda to go over
there, meet face to face with them, and to reassure them and to work
quickly as possible to gain access to that market once again?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "Yes. Ken, it's great to hear your voice, and send my warm
regards to my fellow Nebraskans back there.

"I had the opportunity today to speak on this issue of beef trade with
Japan. And let me offer just a couple of thoughts. Some of this you
heard in my testimony.

"I could not be stronger in my belief that this has to be, really, my
top priority. Many things on the priority list, but this really rises to
the top.

"I've been to Japan on a number of occasions. We have had a very warm,
friendly relationship on a personal level, and we've had a great trading
relationship with Japan through the years.

"When the whole issue of BSE first surfaced in the United States because
of the cow that's been dubbed the cow that stole Christmas, there was
an immediate reaction worldwide. But as we've worked with countries on
the science-based approach, really country after country has reopened
their borders to our beef. Now we're really anxious to cement the deal,
if you will, ink the deal with Japan. And I see every reason to believe
that we can do that.

"Why do I say that? We've spent the last year working on the technical
aspects. We've had delegations there. We've answered the scientific
questions, the technical questions, and all of those things. And I
really believe that the day has arrived for trade to resume between our
two countries on beef.

"Here's the very important point. I don't want anything to happen
because of the transition from one secretary of agriculture to a new
secretary of agriculture. I don't want anything to happen to indicate a
slow-down in the process to reopen the borders. Let me say as
emphatically as I can, I intend to do everything I can to reopen trade.

"It's a very, very important relationship we have. We're going to do
everything we can to reopen trade on beef. I just want to emphasize,
this is my top priority. I'm going to do every possible thing to move
this agenda along."

MODERATOR: "Our next question comes from Matt Kaye with Berns Bureau.
And standing by should be Scott Schultz.

"Matt, go ahead, please."

QUESTION: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let me ask you a question I didn't
get to ask this morning. And that is, going back to your earlier answer
about the COOL program. You seem to continue to nuance your answer a bit
in saying that there is a statute on the books and you have to enforce
that despite the Administration's support of voluntary labeling of meat.

"But will you aggressively push for a change in the law so that the
program is voluntary as the House Agriculture Committee has voted to try
to make it?

"And secondly, on conservation, will you push for changes in the
Conservation Security Program, as Senator Harkin has asked you to do, to
make that program a better program with better payment rates that
farmers want to participate in?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "On the first issue of COOL, let there be no nuance. The
Administration's position is voluntary, and that's the position of this
Secretary of Agriculture. That's about as straightforward as I possibly
can be on that.

"And again I recognize that there's current law on the books. I've not
had a specific discussion with the Administration about what their plans
are for the future. But again let there be no doubt that the Secretary
of Agriculture Mike Johanns stands with the Administration.

"On your second issue, the whole issue of conservation, I was asked that
question, and Senator Harkin has a significant interest in conservation.
You won't have to look very far in my background as governor to indicate
my support for conservation programs.

"It's been a rather remarkable marriage of environmental groups, hunting
groups, ag groups -- in terms of their support for the conservation
program.


"You know what, it comes down to is this. We have to do it in a way that
meets the budget expectations that we have. We have to do it in a way
that the program works. Again I'm a supporter. I like the Conservation
Programs. The President has spoken in support of them, and so I'll do
whatever I can within the budget limitations I have to continue to move
that agenda forward."

snip...

MODERATOR: "I'd remind reporters that if you do have a question to ask,
please press "1" on your telephone touch pad, and that will signal us of
your question request.

"And our next question comes from Scott Schultz from Country Today News.
Scott, go ahead, please."

QUESTION: "Good morning. First of all if I could follow up on the BSE
issue, the previous question was answered saying that you were going to
be taking an aggressive approach to reopening the trade. I assumed you
meant with Japan particularly. But does that mean that you'll also be
aggressive in reopening the border with Canada?

"And then my main question is, during the presidential campaign much in
the upper Midwest was made of the Milk Income Loss Contract program by
the presidential candidates, especially by President Bush. Would you be
aggressive in supporting the extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll address your second question first. I was asked this
during the Senate confirmation hearing. The President spoke about this
issue very specifically when he was in Wisconsin, and indicated that he
would work with Congress for the extension of the Milk Program. And
needless to say, that's the position of myself as Secretary of
Agriculture. I'm very anxious to work with Congress to carry out the
President's wishes in that regard.

"In terms of the trade issue, your observation is correct. My idea of
the discussion I've had is relative to Japan in getting those borders open.

"Let me, if I might, address the issue with Canada, as your question, I
think, calls for me to offer a thought or two on that. The first thing
I'd want to say is, my promise to the Committee was that I would
immediately come up to speed on everything available at my disposal at
the USDA relative to the Canadian rule. And as a matter of fact, I'm
doing that. I've scheduled a series of meetings.

"In fact my first real day on the job is today, and in about an hour and
a half I'll go into my first meetings in this area and I just fully
expect to be immersed in this whole area for the days ahead.

"The other thing I wanted to mention, there is some litigation out
there. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that. R-CALF has made
us aware of its intention to file a motion for preliminary injunction to
prevent the minimal risk rule from taking effect on March 7. Our lawyers
are working with their lawyers on a joint scheduling order for this
motion. Our objective is to get the motion briefed and argued on a
mutually acceptable timetable so the judge will have the benefit of
hearing everyone's point of view before reaching his decision.

"I wanted you to be aware of that because, again, I think your question
kind of gets into this whole area."

MODERATOR: "A reminder once again, if you'd like to ask a question press
"1" on the telephone touch pad so you can be in queue here.

snip...

"What about the flipside though? What advantages might you be able to
bring to the table to maybe bring this negotiation successfully to a
close? In other words, your predecessor talked about some frustrations
with the Farm Ministry and the officials there. What can we do now? What
ideas do you have about maybe breaking this log jam?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, I have one of the best envoys in all the world, I
believe, really the best envoy in all the world supporting me, and
that's the President of the United States. Back on September 21 of last
year he met with the Prime Minister, and they talked extensively about
this issue. And with that kind of support, I really do think we have a
great opportunity to move the agenda.

"Second thing I would offer is, I do have personal experience. I have
been to Japan on a number of occasions. I've had a great working
relationship with our friends in Japan. We agree on one thing -- we've
had some great trade through the years.

This is something that I believe they're anxious to get behind them and
get resolved. And I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that we
can look back here and say that it has been resolved.

"The other thing I would offer is a lot of groundwork has been laid.
Over the last year-plus, the USDA and its team of scientists and
scientists from all over the country have worked with our friends in
Japan to make sure that their questions were answered on safety issues
and the firewalls that are in place and all of those things.

"So a lot of work has been done before I arrived, and it's upon that
base that we can really build our effort here.

"Again, the important thing is that I don't want to send any kind of
message that would indicate that because I showed up here we can take
some steps back. We don't want to take any steps back. Every step needs
to be forward to open that border and do everything we can to have Japan
open up its border to our beef.

"The other thing I would offer, I believe once that happens, that gosh
you'll just see a tremendous response across the world. And so this is a
very important priority. I think if we can get this hurdle overcome then
a lot of things will fall into place for us."

MODERATOR: "Our next question comes from Art Hovey from Lincoln Journal.
And Stewart Doan should be standing by.

"Art, go ahead, please."

QUESTION: "Mr. Secretary, my congratulations also. I'm still trying to
get used to not calling you Governor.

"Something that looms in the news right now is whether or not we can
have effective enforcement on the meat protein ban without much more
extensive BSE testing. Of course the cow in Canada, the most recent one,
was born after the Canadian ban.

"Do you believe that we need to have much more BSE testing than we have
now?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, we're aggressively testing, and we've had rather
remarkable results. So, Art, I would offer that. But here's the other
thing I would offer. Needless to say the situation with the most recent
animal in Canada has not gone unnoticed across the country or by the
USDA. This afternoon a team will leave for Canada. We appreciate the
cooperation of Canadian officials on this issue. We're going to delve
into it. I've asked for personal reports in terms of what they're
finding out, and I expect to receive those in the not too distant future.

"So needless to say, we're jumping on this. And we're going to do
everything we can to figure out what that's about. This animal was
post-feed ban. So needless to say that's on everybody's radar screen. It
definitely is on mine."

snip...

"But I just want to assure people that I'll be the kind of Secretary of
Agriculture that, as Senator Roberts said, will sit on the wagon tongue
and visit with producers. I'm anxious to do that."

MODERATOR: "Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns.

"I'm Larry Quinn bidding you a good afternoon from Washington."


Transcript of Tele-news Conference With Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns - Washington, D.C. - January 24, 2005


#


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/4/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F01%2F0027.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM

TSS

######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########


SOME FACTS PLEASE ;


Working Group Report on
the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of
MEXICO
2004

snip...

- 11 -
4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS
4.1 Interaction of stability and challenges
In conclusion, the stability of the Mexico BSE/cattle system in the past and the
external challenges the system has coped with are summarized in the table 5 below.
From the interaction of the two parameters stability and external challenge a
conclusion is drawn on the level of internal challenge that emerged and had to be
met by the system, in addition to external challenges that occurred.
INTERACTION OF STABILITY AND EXTERNAL CHALLENGE IN MEXICO
Period Stability External Challenge Internal challenge
1980 to 1985
1986 to 1990
Negligible Highly unlikely
1991 to 1995 Very high
1996 to 2000
2001 to 2003
Very unstable
Extremely high
Likely to be present and growing
since 1993
Table 5: Internal challenge resulting from the interaction of the external challenge and stability.
The internal challenge level is determined according to guidance given in the SSC - opinion on
the GBR of July 2000 (as updated in 2002).
An external challenge resulting from cattle import could only lead to an internal
challenge once imported infected cattle were rendered for feed and this contaminated
feed reached domestic cattle. Cattle imported for slaughter would normally be
slaughtered at an age too young to harbour large amounts of BSE infectivity or to
show signs, even if infected prior to import. Breeding cattle, however, would
normally live much longer and only animals having problems would be slaughtered
younger. If being 4 - 6 years old when slaughtered, they could suffer from early signs
of BSE, being approaching the end of the BSE - incubation period. In that case, they
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 4, 1-13 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Mexico
would harbour, while being pre - clinical, as much infectivity as a clinical BSE case.
Hence cattle imports could have led to an internal challenge about 3 years after the
import of breeding cattle (that are normally imported at 20 - 24 months of age) that
could have been infected prior to import. In case of Mexico this implies that an
internal challenge caused by live cattle imports (predominantly from USA or Canada)
first occurred in the mid to late 1990s and continued to the present.
On the other hand imports of contaminated MBM would lead to an internal challenge
in the year of import, if fed to cattle. The feeding system is of utmost importance in
this context. If it could be excluded that imported, potentially contaminated feed stuffs
reached cattle, such imports might not lead to an internal challenge at all. In case of
Mexico this implies that an internal challenge caused by MBM imports
(predominantly from USA or Canada) first occurred around 1993 and continued to the
present.
In view of the above - described consideration the combination of the very / extremely
high external challenges with a very unstable system makes the occurrence of an
internal challenge likely in Mexico from approximately 1993 onwards.
4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing
It is likely that BSE infectivity entered processing at the time of imported at - risk
MBM (1993) and at the time of slaughter of imported live at - risk cattle (mid to late
1990s). The high level of external challenge is maintained throughout the reference
period, and the system has not been made stable, leading to increased internal
challenge.
4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated
It is likely that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated from approximately
1993. The risk has since grown consistently due to a maintained internal and external
challenge and lack of a stable system.
5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE - RISK
5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge
The current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed
that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.

snip...

MEXICO

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/566/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_annex_en1.pdf


Working Group Report on
the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of
CANADA
2004

snip...

- 13 -
4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS
4.1 Interaction of stability and challenges
In conclusion, the stability of the Canada BSE/cattle system in the past and the external
challenges the system has coped with are summarised in the table 6.
INTERACTION OF STABILITY AND EXTERNAL CHALLENGE IN CANADA
Period Stability External Challenge Internal challenge
1980 to 1990 Low Unlikely but not excluded
1991 to 1995 High
1996 to 2000 Extremely high
Likely and rapidly growing
2001 to 2003
Extremely
unstable
Very high Confirmed at a lower level
Table 6: Internal challenge resulting from the interaction of the external challenge and stability. The
internal challenge level is determined according to guidance given in the SSC-opinion on the GBR of
July 2000 (as updated in 2002).
From the interaction of the two parameters stability and external challenge a
conclusion is drawn on the level of internal challenge that emerged and had to be met
by the system, in addition to external challenges that occurred.
An external challenge resulting from cattle import could only lead to an internal
challenge once imported infected cattle were rendered for feed and this contaminated
feed reached domestic cattle. Cattle imported for slaughter would normally be
slaughtered at an age too young to harbour plenty of BSE infectivity or to show signs,
even if infected prior to import. Breeding cattle, however, would normally live much
longer and only animals having problems would be slaughtered younger. If being 4-6
years old when slaughtered, they could suffer from early signs of BSE, being
approaching the end of the BSE-incubation period. In that case, they would harbour,
while being pre-clinical, as much infectivity as a clinical BSE case. Hence cattle imports
could have led to an internal challenge about 3 years after the import of breeding cattle
(that are normally imported at 20-24 months of age) that could have been infected prior
to import. In case of Canada this implies that cattle imported in the mid eighties could
have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the
early 90s.
On the other hand imports of contaminated MBM would lead to an internal challenge in
the year of import, if fed to cattle. The feeding system is of utmost importance in this
context. If it could be excluded that imported, potentially contaminated feed stuffs
reached cattle, such imports might not lead to an internal challenge at all. In case of
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Canada
Canada this implies that it was possible that imported MBM reached domestic cattle and
lead to an internal challenge in the early 90s.
4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing
A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least
partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in
the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew
significantly in the mid 90s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached
processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with
continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated
A risk that BSE-infectivity was recycled and propagated exists since a processing risk
first appeared; i.e. in the early 90s. Until today this risk persists and increases fast
because of the extremely unstable BSE/cattle system in Canada.
5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE-RISK
5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge
The current geographical BSE-risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level
that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.
This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because at
that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.
into account.
GBR.

snip...


http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/563/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_annex_en1.pdf


Working Group Report on
the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2004

snip...

- 14 -
4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS
4.1 Interaction of stability and challenges
In conclusion, the stability of the USA BSE/cattle system in the past and the external
challenge the system has coped with, are summarised in table 5 below.
From the interaction of the two parameters stability and external challenge a
conclusion is drawn on the level of internal challenge that emerged and had to be
met by the system, in addition to external challenges that occurred.
Interaction of stability and external challenge in the USA
Period Stability External Challenge Internal challenge
1980 to
1985
1986 to
1990
Moderate Possibly present
1991 to
1995 Very high
1996 to
2000
2001 to
2003
Extremely
unstable
Extremely high
Likely to be present and
growing
Table 5: Internal challenge resulting from the interaction of the external challenge and stability.
The internal challenge level is determined according to guidance given in the SSC-opinion on
the GBR of July 2000 (as updated in 2002).
An external challenge resulting from cattle import could only lead to an internal
challenge once imported infected cattle were rendered for feed and this contaminated
feed reached domestic cattle. Cattle imported for slaughter would normally be
slaughtered at an age too young to harbour plenty of BSE infectivity or to show signs,
even if infected prior to import. Breeding cattle, however, would normally live much
longer and only animals having problems would be slaughtered younger. If being 4-6
years old when slaughtered, they could suffer from early signs of BSE, being
approaching the end of the BSE-incubation period. In that case, they would harbour,
while being pre-clinical, as much infectivity as a clinical BSE case. Hence cattle
imports could have led to an internal challenge about 3 years after the import of
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 3, 1-17 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of USA
- 15 -
breeding cattle (that are normally imported at 20-24 months of age) that could have
been infected prior to import.
In the case of the USA a few potentially infected cattle were imported from the UK
and more from other BSE-risk countries. Furthermore, large numbers of imported
animals came from Canada. This implies that cattle imported in the mid eighties could
have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the
early 90s.
On the other hand imports of contaminated MBM would lead to an internal challenge
in the year of import, if fed to cattle. The feeding system is of utmost importance in
this context. If it could be excluded that imported, potentially contaminated feed stuffs
reached cattle, such imports might not lead to an internal challenge at all.
In case of the USA this implies that it was possible that imported MBM reached
domestic cattle and lead to an internal challenge in the early 90s.
If Canadian imports would be excluded from this assessment, we find that the USA
receives a moderate challenge for all 5-year intervals since 1980, a high challenge
between 1985 and 2000 and a low challenge thereafter. If combining these moderate
to high challenges due to imports with the extremely unstable system, the conclusion
would still be that the occurrence of an internal challenge is possible during the early
80s and likely in the late 80s.
4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing
A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE
risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together
with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the
mid 90s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given
the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued
imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated
A risk that BSE-infectivity was recycled and propagated exists since a processing risk
first appeared, i.e. in the early 90s. Until today this risk persists and increases fast
because of the extremely/very unstable BSE/cattle system in the USA.
5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE-RISK
5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge
" The current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not
confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the
BSE-agent.
Note1: It is also worth noting that the current GBR conclusions are not dependent on
the large exchange of imports between USA and Canada. External challenge due to
exports to the USA from European countries varied from moderate to high. These
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 3, 1-17 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of USA
challenges indicate that it was likely that BSE infectivity was introduced into the
North American continent.
Note2: This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000)
because at that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.
include
feed,

snip...

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/574/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_annex_en1.pdf

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

Greetings FDA,

snip...

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


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

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

######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: