SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: BSE Minimal-Risk Regions (TRADING TSEs GLOBALLY)
Date: March 11, 2005 at 11:25 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Live Animals and Commodities from Canada March 4, 2005 To: Importers, Brokers and Other Interested Parties
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:23:31 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
References: <422BA4F3.3080003@wt.net>


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

Greetings list members,

THE following report sheds light on what is really going on
with science and this Administrations ties with corporate America.
I only ponder how much of this is tied to the Canadian border
with regards to BSE/TSE ???

reports and research
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Survey Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------


related links


Ispffffff n this section:
Political interference with science

Negative effect on wildlife protection

Chilling effect on scientific candor

Resources and Morale


Survey Supporting Documents
spffffff Survey Press Release

FWS Survey: Summary
PDF
Survey Questions and Results
PDF
Selected Essay Responses
PDF
Directives not to reply to survey
PDF

Survey Results Summaries by Region
spffffff Alaska
PDF
Northeast
PDF
Pacific
PDF
Prairie-Mountain
PDF
Southeast
PDF
Southwest
PDF

Other Related Links
spffffff Restoring Scientific Integrity Campaign

Examples of suppressed, distorted, and manipulated research at USFWS


The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) distributed a 42-question survey to
more than 1,400 USFWS biologists, ecologists, botanists and other
science professionals working in Ecological Services field offices
across the country to obtain their perceptions of scientific integrity
within the USFWS, as well as political interference, resources and
morale. Nearly 30 percent of the scientists returned completed surveys,
despite agency directives not to reply—even on personal time.

I. Political Interference with Scientific Determinations

Large numbers of agency scientists reported political interference in
scientific determinations.

* Nearly half of all respondents whose work is related to endangered
species scientific findings (44 percent) reported that they "have
been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making
jeopardy or other findings that are protective of species." One
in five agency scientists revealed they have been instructed to
compromise their scientific integrity—reporting that they have
been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical
information from a USFWS scientific document,"
such as a biological opinion;

Scientists: sign the statement

on restoring scientific integrity in federal policy making to
voice your concern about the Bush administration's misuse of science.

* More than half of all respondents (56 percent) knew of cases where
"commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or
withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through
political intervention;" and
* More than two out of three staff scientists (70 percent) and
nearly nine out of 10 scientist managers (89 percent) knew of
cases "where U.S. Department of Interior political appointees have
injected themselves into Ecological Services determinations." A
majority of respondents also cited interventions by members of
Congress and local officeholders.

II. Negative Effect on Wildlife Protection

While a majority of the scientists indicated that agency "scientific
documents generally reflect technically rigorous evaluations of impacts
to listed species and associated habitats," there is evidence that
political intrusion has undermined the USFWS’s ability to fulfill its
mission of protecting wildlife from extinction.

* Three out of four staff scientists and even higher proportions of
scientist managers (78 percent) felt that the USFWS is not "acting
effectively to maintain or enhance species and their habitats, so
as to avoid possible listings under the Endangered Species Act;"
* For those species already listed as threatened or endangered under
the ESA, more than two out of three scientists (69 percent) did
not regard the USFWS as effective in its efforts toward recovery
of those listed species;
* Nearly two out of three scientists (64 percent) did not feel the
agency "is moving in the right direction;" and
* More than two-thirds of staff scientists (71 percent) and more
than half of scientist managers (51 percent) did not "trust USFWS
decision makers to make decisions that will protect species and
habitats."

III. Chilling Effect on Scientific Candor

Agency scientists reported being afraid to speak frankly about issues
and felt constrained in their roles as scientists.

* More than a third (42 percent) said they could not openly express
"concerns about the biological needs of species and habitats
without fear of retaliation" in public while nearly a third (30
percent) did not feel they could do so even inside the confines of
the agency;
* Almost a third (32 percent) felt they are not allowed to do their
jobs as scientists;
* A significant minority (19 percent) reported having "been directed
by USFWS decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate or
misleading information to the public, media or elected officials;"
however,
* Scientific collaboration among USFWS scientists, academia and
other federal agency scientists appears to be relatively untainted
by this chilling effect, with a strong majority (83percent)
reporting they felt free to collaborate with their colleagues on
species and habitat issues.

IV. Resources and Morale

There was a broad perception that the agency lacks the resources to
accomplish its mission. Not surprisingly, results showed a strain on
staff morale.

* Half of all scientific staff reported that morale is poor to
extremely poor and only 0.5 percent rated morale as excellent;
* More than nine out of ten (92 percent) did not feel that the
agency "has sufficient resources to adequately perform its
environmental mission;" and
* More than four out of five (85 percent) said that funding to
implement the Endangered Species Act is inadequate.

The survey was sent to 1,410 scientists, of which 414, or 29.4 percent,
responded to the survey.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1601

TSS

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:

> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
>
> United States
> Department of
> Agriculture
> Animal and Plant
> Health Inspection
> Service
> Veterinary Services
> National Animal
> Health Policy and
> Programs
> 4700 River Road
> Unit 33
> Riverdale, MD 20737
> March 4, 2005
> Subject: BSE Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Live Animals and
> Commodities from Canada
> Delay of Effective Date
> To: Importers, Brokers and Other Interested Parties
> (301)734-8093
> FAX (301) 734-8818
> On January 4, 2005, the USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
> Service (APHIS)
> published a final rule which amended the regulations to provide for
> the importation of
> certain ruminants, ruminant products and byproducts from regions that
> pose a minimal
> risk of introducing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) into the
> United States,
> and designated Canada as the first minimal-risk region (70 FR 460-553,
> Docket
> No. 03-080-3). The effective date of the final rule was to be March 7,
> 2005.
> However, on March 2, 2005 the U.S. District Court for the District of
> Montana granted
> a preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of the minimal
> risk rule until the
> R-CALF lawsuit is considered on the merits by the court.
> Therefore, until further notice, the current import requirements for
> ruminant and
> ruminant commodities from Canada will remain unchanged. Only those
> commodities
> that were listed in the August 15, 2003 notice (republished May 6,
> 2004) will be
> eligible for importation from Canada, under the risk-mitigation
> measures specified in
> that notice.
> W^-
> Jere L. Dick
> Associate Deputy Administrator
> National Animal Health Policy and Programs
>
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/bserisk.pdf

snip...end...TSS






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: