SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: BSE 'MAY HAVE ENTERED BABY FOOD IN 70s' (i tried telling them in Nov. 1999)
Date: March 4, 2005 at 6:18 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: BSE 'may have entered baby food in 70s'
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:18:24 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE


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

BSE 'may have entered baby food in 70s'

James Meikle, health correspondent
Friday March 4, 2005
The Guardian

Scientists are to test a hypothesis that young people who have died from
the human form of BSE were infected by contaminated baby foods as far
back as 1970.

The controversial idea supposes that some meat products were harmful to
people 16 years before BSE in cows was even recognised, and 25 years
before young adults began dying from its dreadful human equivalent.

Should this prove true, it will mean rethinking the likely future course
of the disease, which is predominantly British, although cases have
occurred in other countries.

Variant CJD here appears to be on the wane. Only nine people died in
2004, the fewest since 1995, its first recorded year, giving rise to the
hope that no more than a few hundred may eventually succumb to it. Since
1995, 154 Britons have been identified with the disease, a handful of
whom are still alive.

But the hypothesis advanced by Stephen Dealler, a microbiologist at
Lancaster Royal infirmary, suggests that only the "first wave" is
declining.

He argues that there were further infections in the mid- to late-1980s,
when teenagers and others ate contaminated meat, including burgers. By
then hundreds of thousands of cattle were carrying BSE and the tissues
most likely to contain infection were not banned in food until 1989.

Babies are more susceptible to infection because their gut walls are
more permeable, Dr Dealler said yesterday. But even in them the disease
took about 25 years to take its course.

People infected later would take far longer, up to 40 or 50 years, to
develop the clinical disease, indeed might never do so at all, but could
still be in fectious; a nightmare for blood transfusion services, which
depend on the under 40s for donations.

Dr Dealler put his ideas to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory
Committee, a government advisory body, which greeted them with scepticism.

But even doubters are concerned that the average age of victims at death
is still in the late 20s, an average which ought to be getting higher as
more years pass since the food controls introduced in the late 1980s.

Extrapolation from studies of otherwise healthy appendixes have
suggested that as many as 3,800 people may be carrying the infection.

Moreover, all those who have died from the disease so far have been from
one genetic group, but evidence of vCJD infection in the spleen has been
found in a patient who died from another cause and had a different
genetic make-up.

This raised the fear that far more people may yet go down with the
disease while displaying different symptoms.

Dr Dealler claims that his hypothesis fits the evidence from animals
with similar diseases, and from cannibals in Papua New Guinea acciden
tally infected with a brain disease.

"It has been shown that neonatal animals are more easily infected, and
with lower doses of disease, than older animals," he said. "The real
epidemic of BSE in humans has not actually started. What we are just
seeing is the beginning with young children."

Proving his ideas will be difficult, and food manufacturers have refused
to give him data from the 1970s and 1980s.

The possible drawbacks to his hypothesis include the fact that many of
the 15 people infected with vCJD recorded abroad had never been to
Britain, and only one, from the US, was a baby in Britain.

Other scientists question his assumptions about the incubation periods
in animals and humans.

Professor James Ironside, of the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh, was
cautious, but admitted: "Exposure to baby food is indeed a possibility."

Professor Chris Higgins of Imperial College London, who chairs Seac, was
blunter: "There is a lot of anecdote there, rather than hard and fast data.

"We really need to go away and assess that before anyone jumps to any
conclusions. I think we would all accept there is some age range during
which infection probably occurs. But I am not at all convinced at the
moment, until we have looked at all the details, that the idea that it
is first the very young, and secondly pre-the main epidemic is likely to
be right at all."

The Infant and Dietetic Foods Association, representing baby food
manufacturers, insists on its website that manufacturers "have never
used any of the high risk materials banned as a result of the controls
on BSE".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bse/article/0,2763,1430267,00.html

From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

Subject: Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]


99. Mr. Lawrence wrote a letter
to Sir Richard on 6 January 1989 (110) explaining that there were _no_
special regulations with regard to the composition of baby food except
in relation to additives, and that there was therefore _nothing_ in the
rules that would exclude certain parts of animal being incorporated into
baby foods as long as they were fit for human consumption. 152. There is
_no_ evidence of written assurances from the manufacturers supplied to
either MAFF or the Department of Health asserting that Baby Food did not
contain bovine brain, spinal cord, spleen, intestines or thymus. 155.
The reply also outlined the following actions already taken or to be
taken by the Government in response to the Working Party's
recommendations. 1) As a precautionary measure the Government would
enact secondary legislation to ensure it was illegal to sell Baby Food
containing brain, spinal cord, spleen and intestines. 165. On 23 May
1989 Mr. Cockbill prepared draft regulations prohibiting the use of
certain _specified offals_ in Baby Foods... Kind Regards, Terry S.
Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA "Robert A. LaBudde" wrote: > > At
11:35 AM 11/24/99 -0600, Terry wrote: > >Heather Paine should be
educated on the products she over-sees. These > >children's > >health
are at risk, and if she does not know what has and has not been > >going
into > >baby-foods, she does not need to hold that position. The Inquiry
was very > >concerned > >about baby foods, and at one point said
something about; > > It is very unlikely that baby food would contain
SBO's, since baby food is > the most highly regulated and safest of all
commercial foods. > > So, if baby food is suspected as a vehicle for
BSE->ukCJD, then it would be > base on its containing normal cuts of
meat. Baby foods contain more liver > than the general population eats,
so perhaps there could be a correlation > there. > > Babies of all
species have more porous intestinal membranes, so uptake of > prions
would be expected to be more efficient. > >
================================================================ >
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS e-mail: ral@lcfltd.com > Least
Cost Formulations, Ltd. URL: http://lcfltd.com/ > 824 Timberlake Drive
Tel: 757-467-0954 > Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239 Fax: 757-467-2947 > >
"Vere scire est per causae scire" >
================================================================ >

snip...

Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:03:22 +0000
Reply-To: BSE-L
Sender: BSE-L
From: J Ralph Blanchfield
Organization: Consultant
Subject: Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]
In-Reply-To:

BSE-L

Hello Terry and Everyone,

On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:36:34 -0600, Terry wrote:

>Hello Ralph and All, >I think you are correct Ralph, after reading
back over my comments, I was a bit >hasty, and in a friends eyes, may
have even seemed rude. >For that I would like to apologize to Heather
and You.

Thank you. I shall forward your post on to Heather, and invite her to
send me a response, which I shall forward to BSE-L.

>It still does not change my position on the matter. It would have been
better >directed, if I would have directed my haste, to the _whole_
industry involved, as >opposed to Heather and the Baby Food industry.
>For obvious reasons, if the DFA's are accurate, and the statements
within from the >Working Party and the Gov. and the statement from the
manufacturers of Baby Foods, >where they are stating in DFA 9; >"152.
There is no evidence of written assurances from the manufacturers
supplied >to either Maff or the Department of Health asserting that Baby
Food did not >contain bovine brain, spinal cord, spleen, intestines or
thymus".


snip...end


SNIP....


From: J Ralph Blanchfield Organization: Consultant Subject: Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms.
[re-baby food]

In-Reply-To: <38407D4F.68838E7B@wt.net>

Hello Terry and Everyone, On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:54:39 -0600, Terry
wrote: > >I have one question for you Ralph; >from the statement made by
the manufactures to the Gov. >"152. There is no evidence of written
assurances from the manufacturers supplied to >either Maff or the
Department of Health asserting that Baby Food did not contain bovine
>brain, spinal cord, spleen, intestines or thymus". >If in fact, the
manufactures could not supply this information to the Gov., confirming
>that baby food did not or has not contained bovine brain, spinal cord,
spleen intestines >and thymus; > >What would you understand this to
mean? Firstly, the DFA paragraph 152 does _not_ say "the manufactures
could not supply this information to the Gov". It says that there is no
written evidence that they did -- not the same thing at all. I do _not_
understand the DFA paragraph 152 to mean "the statement made by the
manufacturers to the Gov." and nor should you. Paragraph 152 refers to
the _absence_ of written evidence of a statement by the baby food
manufacturers. You should not find it difficult to perceive the
difference between what paragraph 152 actually says and what you say it
says. I have no first-hand knowledge of what was contained in babyfoods
on sale in the UK at that time, and neither do you; but from my much
earlier first-hand experience of babyfood manufacture, and Rachel's
first-hand experience too, I regard it prima facie as most unlikely that
SBOs were ever used in babyfoods. Nor do I personally (or you) have any
knowledge of _why_ there was "no evidence of written assurances from the
manufacturers supplied to either Maff or the Department of Health
asserting that Baby Food did not contain bovine brain, spinal cord,
spleen, intestines or thymus". Fortunately, in answer to my requests for
her comments on your previous posts, I have now received two e-mail
messages from Heather Paine which give clear answers on these matters,
and which I regard as setting the record straight,.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Ralph Further to our telephone conversation yesterday here is a brief summary of my discussion with the journalist John Radowitz re BSE and babyfoods. The journalist was mainly interested in MRM and asked me if the baby food industry used MRM to 'bulk out' baby foods! I said no and that to my knowledge the UK baby food industry had never used MRM. I also told him that when the SBO offal ban came into being this had no effect on baby food industry practice because we didn't use these materials either. Commercial baby food manufacturers work to very strict specifications and only use ingredients that meet their tough specifications. Mothers expect baby food manufacturers to use the best cuts of meat and so the meat used is similar to that used in preparing baby foods at home. Baby food manufacturers, therefore, do not use MRM from the carcases of cattle, sheep (lamb) or pig. I also questioned his assumption that at one year old the child would have been fed only commercial baby foods. At that age it was just as likely that the child would be eating home made foods/family meals. Hope this helps Heather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Ralph Just read your latest e-mail. Nice to see the apology which I accept, but I do not accept his accusations that we are still guilty. Just because MAFF have no written assurance about SBOs not being used in baby foods doesn't mean that we used these materials. In fact, MAFF were fully aware in 1989 that the baby food industry did not use SBOs. The trouble was that there is no written record. When the Southwood Report was being put together, MAFF contacted IDFA at quite a late stage (and it was me in those days) to ask whether the baby food industry used these materials. We said 'no' (both IDFA and individual companies were contacted) but it was all by telephone, (MAFF wanted a quick response so they could advise the Southwood Committee) - so unfortunately there is nothing on record (at least IDFA records)! - Except, after the Southwood Report was published IDFA complained to the then Minister about their handling of the issue which implied a change in baby food industry practice. Of course when the consultation on the Regulations took place IDFA did not comment as we did not use SBOs and so we had no objections. Again no written record! But the fact is UK baby food manufacturers did not use these materials in their products. The moral of the story is of course always place your comments on record - even when you have 'no objections'. Hindsight is a wonderful thing! All the best Heather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards Ralph ******************************************************************

SOME GOOD READING AND DEBATING IN NOV. 1999 ;

1. Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case
* Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(99 lines)
From: tom
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:38:18 -0700
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(116 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:18:39 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(36 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:29:44 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(56 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:54:41 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(58 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:37:08 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(217 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 21:27:12 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(227 lines)
From: Univ.-Prof.Dr.Herbert Budka
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:28:31 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(115 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:12:21 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(49 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 09:18:50 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(57 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 14:07:20 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(37 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:17:42 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, could be youngest BSE case

(76 lines)
From: Univ.-Prof.Dr.Herbert Budka
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:31:24 +0100
2. Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms.
* Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms.

(80 lines)
From: Debora MacKenzie
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 23:05:33 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms.

(90 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:35:44 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms.

(55 lines)
From: Robert A. LaBudde
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 06:30:22 -0500
3. Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(90 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 11:21:52 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(82 lines)
From: Robert A. LaBudde
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:17:45 -0500
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(214 lines)
From: J Ralph Blanchfield
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:30:36 +0000
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(47 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:27:17 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(50 lines)
From: Rachel Shepherd
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 15:41:51 PST
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(42 lines)
From: Tim Sly
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:12:01 -0500
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(48 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:04:47 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(60 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:15:47 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(303 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:36:34 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(84 lines)
From: Robert A. LaBudde
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:36:12 -0500
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(100 lines)
From: Tam Garland
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:47:54 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(402 lines)
From: J Ralph Blanchfield
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:03:22 +0000
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(588 lines)
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:54:39 -0600
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(179 lines)
From: J Ralph Blanchfield
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 11:46:07 +0000
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(79 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:43:01 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(55 lines)
From: Rachel Shepherd
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:12:27 PST
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(73 lines)
From: Torsten Brinch
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:06:54 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(69 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:24:48 +0100
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(64 lines)
From: Rachel Shepherd
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:44:26 PST
* Re: Girl, 13, shows CJD symptoms. [re-baby food]

(95 lines)
From: Roland Heynkes
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:56:04 +0100

TSS

######### 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: