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

From: TSS ()
Date: April 6, 2005 at 10:04 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:32:27 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

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



The Senior Animal Health Officials of Mexico, Canada and the United States met in
Mexico city on March 17TH 2005 to conclude discussions on the establishment of
common minimum standards for measures to effectively manage the risk of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopalhy (BSE) in North America. The conclusions reached built on
previous meetings that included representatives oflhe appropriate public health agencies

These meetings were held to allow the Chief Veterinary Officers (CVO's) to develop a
science based framework, with the goal of normalizing trade in ruminants and ruminant
products within the region and to promote an international BSE strategy consistent with
the OIE chapter on BSE. It is the view oflhe CVOs that the establishment and
implementation of equivalent BSE measures in each country will protect public and
animal health and provide for the restoration of safe trade.

Minimum Standards

As a result of these meetings, the CVOs have developed a set of minimum standards for
BSE measures in North America. These minimum standards will be presented to the
appropriate animal health and public health officials in each country for consideration
within the respective regulatory processes, and therefore should be considered pre-
decisional. This document does not change requirements for products currently being

Specified Risk Materials (SRMs): For export purposes of food for human consumption,
the following tissues are considered SRMs which are not allowed in food for human
consumption: brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column, and
dorsal root ganglia from cattle over 30 months of age; and tonsils and distal ileum from
cattle of any age. SRM removal must be performed in a manner that minimizes the
contamination of edible tissues.

Non-ambulatory Disabled Cattle: The slaughter for human consumption of non-
ambulalory disabled cattle for export is prohibited.

Currently, both Mexico and Canada have implemented policies prohibiting the slaughter
of non-ambulatory disabled cattle for plants exporting to the United States. The United
States policy is to condemn all cattle that are non-ambulatory or disabled when presented
for slaughter. ...


May 4, 2004

Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms

On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a
cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to
a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately
began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA
investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the
farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially
received the cow from the slaughterhouse.

FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over
the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
... snip... full text ;


The CVOs noted that downers may be excluded from slaughter for reasons not related to
BSE. For example, Canada is currently developing regulations that would prohibit the

transport of disabled animals because of welfare concerns. Additionally, they recognized
that alternative measures may provide equivalent protection against BSE. For example, s
very young animal (e.g., a veal calf) that is disabled is not likely to be infected with the
BSE agent. Likewise, a veterinarian could determine that an older animal has become
disabled for an apparent reason, such as an injury during transport to slaughter, that is not
consistent with BSE signs. Finally, non-ambulatory animals that are tested with negative
result for BSE are not excluded from the food chain in the European Union or Japan. ...


HERE we go again, more lies. the first mad cow in USA that was documented,
the one old dave capped, was a good walker, a healthy cow, one capped simply
because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. IF that cow would not
have been bolted where it was, that cow would be on the dinner plate of many
US citizens and maybe even a tourist or two from Japan. ALSO, the myth that
young cattle are not silent carriers of this agent is nothing more than a
false myth ;

THE youngest age of BSE case to date is 20 months old; As at: 31 May
2003 Year of onset Age youngest case (mnths) Age 2nd youngest case
(mnths) Age 2nd oldest case (yrs.mnths) Age oldest case (yrs.mnths) 1986
30 33 5.03 5.07 1987 30 31 9.09 10.00 1988 24 27 10.02 11.01(2) 1989 21
24(4) 12.00(2) 15.04 1990 24(2) 26 13.03 14.00 1991 24 26(3) 14.02 17.05
1992 20 26 15.02 16.02 1993 29 30(3) 14.10 18.10 1994 30(2) 31(2) 14.05
16.07 1995 24 32 14.09 15.05 1996 29 30 15.07 17.02 1997 37(7) 38(3)
14.09 15.01 1998 34 36 14.07 15.05 1999 39(2) 41 13.07 13.10 2000 40 42
17.08 19.09 2001 48(2) 56 14.10 14.11 2002 51 52 15.08 15.09(2) 2003 50
62 11.11 14.11

The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the most
BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten in
Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of that
age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet accumulated
enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to develop BSE on
record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are fast incubators.
Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months per year are infected
with BSE and enter the food chain currently in Britain. Of these 3-5
could be fast incubators and carrying detectable quantities of prion.


Stunning: The use of pithing (laceration, after stunning, of central nervous tissue by
means of an elongated rod-shaped instrument introduced into the cranial cavity) and air-
injection stunning are prohibited.

Mechanical Meat Separation Processes: Appropriate process controls are in place to
ensure that products derived from mechanical meat harvesting processes are consistent
with SRM exclusion requirements. For example, the mechanical harvesting of meat from
the skull and vertebral column of cattle over 30 months of age is prohibited. '

Import Controls: Import requirements must recognize that specified products, such as
milk, semen, and embryos, can be safely trade regardless of the BSE risk status of the
exporting region, while some products should not be traded from any region affected by
BSE. For other products, import measures should be based on the relative risk of the
exporting region and the relative risk of the product intended for import.

Surveillance: The CVOs reiterated that surveillance focused on the high-risk cattle
population is the most effective way to detect BSE if present. An active targeted
surveillance program is in place to detect BSE focusing on the total adult cattle
population of the region. The current surveillance programs will fully consider any
adjustments adopted by the 01E in May of 2005, as well as results from current ongoing
surveillance programs.

Ruminant Feed Restrictions: The achievement of effective feed restriction to preclude
the amplification or dissemination of the BSE agent, which encompasses the exclusion of
ruminant protein (excluding milk and milk products), avoidance of cross-contamination,
and the conducting of verification activities. ...



Ruminant Feed Restrictions, there kidding right? here in the USA, officials think
it is O.K. to feed USA cattle 5.5 grams of ruminant protein ;

January 30, 2001
Print Media: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA


Note: On Dec. 23, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported
that a cow
in Washington state had tested positive for bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease). As a result, information on
this Web page stating that no BSE cases had been found in the United
States is now incorrect. However, because other information on this page
continues to have value, the page will remain available for viewing.


Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests
taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing
meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's
1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants.
Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found
in the feed fed to cattle.

FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in
total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of
prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.

It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in
origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there
is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed
only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore
exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated. ...


What GAO Found
United States Government Accountability Office
Why GAO Did This Study
Accountability Integrity Reliability
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert A.
Robinson at (202) 512-3841 or
Highlights of GAO-05-101, a report to
congressional requesters
February 2005
FDA’s Management of the Feed Ban Has
Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses
Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness
FDA has made needed improvements to its management and oversight of the
feed-ban rule in response to GAO’s 2002 report, but program weaknesses
continue to limit the effectiveness of the ban and place U.S. cattle at
risk of
spreading BSE. Improvements made include FDA establishing a uniform
method of conducting compliance inspections and training FDA inspectors,
as well as state inspectors who carry out inspections under agreements with
FDA, on the new method. FDA also implemented new data-entry procedures
that are designed to more reliably track feed-ban inspection results.
Consequently, FDA has a better management tool for overseeing compliance
with the feed-ban rule and a data system that better conforms to standard
database management practices. However, various program weaknesses
continue to undermine the nation’s firewall against BSE. For example:
• FDA acknowledges that there are more feed manufacturers and
transporters, on-farm mixers, and other feed industry businesses that are
subject to the feed ban than the approximately 14,800 firms inspected to
date; however, it has no uniform approach for identifying additional
• FDA has not reinspected approximately 2,800, or about 19 percent, of
those businesses, in 5 or more years; several hundred are potentially
high risk. FDA does not know whether those businesses now use
prohibited material in their feed.
• FDA’s feed-ban inspection guidance does not include instructions to
routinely sample cattle feed to test for potentially prohibited material as
part of the compliance inspection. Instead, it includes guidance for
inspectors to visually examine facilities and equipment and review
invoices and other documents.
• Feed intended for export is not required to carry a caution label
“Do not
feed to cattle or other ruminants,” when the label would be required if
the feed were sold domestically. Without that statement, feed containing
prohibited material could be inadvertently or intentionally diverted back
to U.S. cattle or given to foreign cattle.
• FDA has not always alerted USDA and states when it learned that cattle
may have been given feed that contained prohibited material. This lapse
has been occurring even though FDA’s guidance calls for such
• Although research suggests that cattle can get BSE from ingesting
even a
small amount of infected material, inspectors do not routinely inspect or
review cleanout procedures for vehicles used to haul cattle feed.
More than 5 million cattle across
Europe have been killed to stop the
spread of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), commonly
called mad cow disease. Found in
26 countries, including Canada and
the United States, BSE is believed
to spread through animal feed that
contains protein from BSE-infected
animals. Consuming meat from
infected cattle has also been linked
to the deaths of about 150 people
worldwide. In 1997, the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) issued
a feed-ban rule prohibiting certain
animal protein (prohibited
material) in feed for cattle and
other ruminant animals. FDA and
38 states inspect firms in the feed
industry to enforce this critical
firewall against BSE. In 2002, GAO
reported a number of weaknesses
in FDA’s enforcement of the feed
ban and recommended corrective
actions. This report looks at FDA’s
efforts since 2002 to ensure
industry compliance with the feed
ban and protect U.S. cattle.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends FDA, among
other things, develop procedures
for finding additional firms subject
to the feed-ban and using tests to
augment inspections. FDA said the
study was thorough but disagreed
on four of nine recommendations.
GAO continues to believe that,
given the discovery of BSE in North
America and the oversight gaps
described in the report, the
recommended actions are needed
to protect U.S. cattle from BSE.

3. Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved,
but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness.
GAO-05-101, Feb. 25.
Highlights -

Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]

Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in

Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

Comment Number: EC -10

Accepted - Volume 2




Animal Identification System: Adequate animal identification is present to ensure the
integrity of the surveillance sampling program and successful epidemiological traceback
(particularly the ability to trace an animal back to its birth herd or to any subsequent point
of exposure). The compatibility of identification systems within the region must be
considered as the national systems are developed.

Risk Assessment: Determination of the BSE risk status of the bovine animal population
of a country or a zone based on four parts: release assessment, exposure assessment,
consequence assessment, and risk estimation. ...


TRY telling these folks this ;

State Class Action Filed Over Beef Recall Following BSE Detection in
Washington Cow

SEATTLE--A Bellevue, Wash., family March 5 filed a
proposed class action against a supermarket chain for
allegedly failing to adequately inform customers about
the federal government's recall of beef potentially
contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) (Crowson v. Quality Food Centers Inc., Wash.
Super. Ct., No. 04-2-05608-OSEA, filed 3/5/04).

The lawsuit, filed in Washington Superior Court, King
County, charges that Quality Food Centers Inc. (QFC)
should have used information in its Advantage Card
customer loyalty program to inform consumers that
ground beef purchased during a certain period could
have included beef from a Washington cow infected with
BSE, which can cause Creutzfeldt-Jakob (vCJD), or "mad
cow," disease.

The proposed class action covers all persons who
bought, at any QFC store in Washington, "9 percent
leanest ground beef" that was subject to a Dec. 23,
2003, recall by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
following detection of BSE in the slaughtered cow.

The class includes "at least" hundreds of people, but
the identity and exact number could be quickly
determined by QFC, because its Advantage Card program
tracks consumers' purchases, the lawsuit said.

QFC is owned by The Kroger Company.

Adequate Warning

The complaint, filed by the Seattle law firms of
Hagens Berman and Kargianis Werner, alleges QFC
violated the Washington Product Liability act by
failing to adequately warn consumers about the
possibly contaminated meat.

On behalf of the proposed class, the plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and medical monitoring costs. Mad
cow disease is a rare, fatal brain disorder that has
an incubation period of 15 months to 30 years, the
complaint said.

The plaintiffs and members of the proposed class "have
suffered, and will continue to suffer, severe
emotional distress" since they are "burdened with the
possibility that they presently carry the vCJD disease
that may have an incubation period of up to 30 years,"
the lawsuit said. No medical tests exist to determine
whether they have been infected by contaminated meat,
the complaint said.

About 40 QFC stores received beef that was included in
the Agriculture Department's recall of 10,410 pounds
of potentially infected meat, the lawsuit said. QFC
was notified of the recall Dec. 23, 2003, but did not
withdraw the 9 percent leanest percent ground beef
until Dec. 24, because initially the company did not
believe it had any of the meat subject to the recall,
the lawsuit said.

QFC did not post its "small signs" in stores regarding
the recall until Dec. 27, the complaint said. The
recall was for beef purchased between Dec. 17 through
Dec. 26, 2003, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs Bought, Ate Affected Beef

Jill Crowson, one of the named plaintiffs, bought the
9 percent leanest ground beef at a QFC store in
Bellevue Dec. 22 and 23, and she and family members
ate the meat Dec. 23, "thereby exposing themselves to
possible infection by vCJD," the lawsuit said.

"Despite the fact that QFC had the means and ability
to notify plaintiffs and hundreds of others who
consumed this recalled meat, and thereby prevent
plaintiffs' and class members' consumption of the
potentially infectious meat, QFC failed and neglected
to do so, despite knowledge of the highly hazardous
nature of the meat," the suit said.

QFC did not inform the plaintiffs of the risk until
after Jan. 12, 2004, in response to a written request
from plaintiff Michael Crowson, according to the
complaint. QFC required written requests before
disclosing such information to any customer, the
lawsuit said.

According to the complaint, QFC is strictly liable
under the Washington Product Liability Act for the
unsafe meat and the company violated the state law by
failing to give adequate warnings that the meat was
potentially dangerous. The complaint also claimed
negligence under the state law.

QFC did not return phone calls seeking comment on the



Trade within North America

The CVOs also considered which products could safely be traded within the region with
these minimum standards in place. While the long-term goal is to bring trade conditions
for ruminants and ruminant products into line with the provisions of the 0IE Code, the
CVOs recognized that conditions for regional trade should be established in the shorter
term while the minimum standards are being put in place.

Beef and Offal (includes edible and inedible offal)

Trade in beef (boneless and bone-in) and both edible and inedible offal (tissues excluding
SRMs) from animals of any age could safely occur given the implementation of effective
measures to safeguard public and animal health. The removal of SRMs is the appropriate
measure to protect public health, and effective ruminant feed restrictions provide
protection against exposure of susceptible animals.

Live Cattle

The implementation of the minimum standards within North America is also relevant to
trade in live cattle within the region. The ability to trace and maintain the identity of
animals as they move within the region is a key factor. The CVOs agreed that the
minimum standards, especially SRM removal and feed restrictions, provided adequate
protection to permit the trade of live cattle (both for immediate slaughter and for
feeding). Trade in breeding cattle would, be permitted for those animals born after the
effective implementation of the feed ban and which can be traced for the herd of origin.

Other live ruminants and their meat and products:

Movement of other ruminants and their derived products (except meat and bone meal
from such animals) would not be restricted on account of BSE. As applicable,
requirements for live ruminants based on other TSE control programs will be applied.

Camelids and Cervids and their meat and products:

Movement of camelids and cervids and their products would not be restricted on account
of BSE. ...


NO big deal here either, right? CWD transmits to cattle and sheep in the lab.
give it time and it will transmit in the field, my opinion...TSS


>From cattle of any age, tonsil and distal ileum, and any commodity containing them
should not be traded for the preparation of food, feed, fertilizers, cosmetics,
pharmaceuticals including biologicals or medical devises. In addition, from cattle that
were 30 months of age or older a the time of slaughter, brains, eyes, spinal cord, skull,
vertebral column, and derived protein products should not be traded for the preparation of
food, feed, fertilizers; cosmetics, pharmaceulicals including biologicals or medical
devises. ...


ODD, I just picked up a catelog from STANDARD PROCESS INC. 2003 - 2004 Product Catalog
(a chiropractor had just left this catalog in my wifes foot doctors office 4/5/05)
and it's full of THOSE SRMS FOR HUMANS. I wonder how much is still left on the market,
and how much is still in production, how much crosses the borders? 5 pages of products
full of SRMs for humans. THIS is a really fine catalog, i am just now going over.
LOADED with SRMs for humans. NO wonder my neighbors mom died from CJD while taking
these damn mad cow pills. THEY even have a candy bars loaded with SRMs. HERE is one ;

(i will just list animal organs)

bovine adrenal, bovine liver, bovine spleen, ovine spleen, bovine kidney...


bovine adrenal, bovine liver, bovine spleen, ovine spleen, bovine kidney...


bovine orhic glandular extract


bovine uterus PMG


bovine heart PMG extract, veal bone PMG extract, bovine liever, porcine duodenum,
bovine adrenal Cytosol extract, bovine spleen, ovine spleen (some yummy stuff)

IPLEX (neighbors mom died from CJD while taking these pills for years)

bovine eye PMG extract, veal bone PMG, bovine liver, porcine stomach, bovine adrenal,
bovine kidney, bovine adrenal Cytosol extract, BOVINE BRAIN, bovine bone, veal bone


bovine heart PMG, bovine liver, porcine stomach, bovine orchic extract, bovine
spleen, ovine spleen, bovine adrenal Cytosol extract, BOVINE BRAIN


bovine orchic Cytosol extract, bovine spleen, BOVINE BRAIN PMG EXTRACT,




bovine liver, porcine stomach, bovine spleen ovine spleen,



bovine liver, bovine orchic Cytosol extract, porcine stomch,
bovine spleen, ovine spleen, BOVINE BRAIN


veal bone PMG extract, veal bone PMG extract, bovine liver,
porcine stomach, bovine adrenal, bovine spleen, ovine spleen,


bovine pancreas PMG extract, porcine duodenum, bovine adrenal PMG,
BOVINE PITUITARY PMG EXTRACT, bovine thyroid PMG extract



BOVINE BRAIN, veal bone PMG extract, bovine adrenal, bovine prostate
Cytosol extract, veal bone meal, bovine liver PMG extract, bovine spleen,
ovine spleen, bovine liver


bovine liver PMG extract, bovine adrenal, BOVNE BRAIN, veal bone meal, bovine
kidney, bovine orchic extract, bovine spleen, ovine spleen ..........

THESE are just a few of MANY of just this ONE COMPANY...TSS

Docket Management Docket: 96N-0417 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice
in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients a
Comment Number: EC -2
Accepted - Volume 7



*Blood and blood products, from cattle which were not subjected to a stunning process,
prior to slaughter, with a device injecting compressed air or gas into the cranial
cavity, or to a pithing process.

*The eligibility for trade will be further considered by the animal health
and public health authorities following the determination adopted by the OIE in May,

Veterinary Biologics:

Biologicals produced for use in any species are not made from bovine SRMs, or
have been subject to an individual risk assessment. ...


>or have been subject to an individual risk assessment. ...

WHY? CANNOT be the fact they did not have the data ;

PITUITARY EXTRACT, this was used to help cows super ovulate.
This tissue wsa considered to be of the greatest risk of containing BSE and
consequently transmitting the disease...


8 June 1988 Internal CVL meeting to discuss the implications of
BSE to Biologicals Products containing bovine extracted material
(Annex 6). (YB 88/06.08/11.1-11.2) Following a detailed review
of situation the following recommendations were made:1.
Specific concern over use of pituitary gland
products by veterinary surgeons and companies. Paper to
be produced for Tolworth (Veterinary Medicines Division)...


5 July 1988 Biologicals Committee Meeting
Detailed discussion of Geoff Wood's draft guidelines (SP3875.2)
(Annex 7) (YB 88/07.05/6.1-6.4)Major concern over pituitary
gland products and a letter being sent to all licence holders.
Amended paper to be presented to NOAH on 11 July and sent to


11 July 1988 Meeting with NOAH. (Annex 8) (YB
88/07.11/12.1-12.4)Dr Little briefed the meeting on the emergence
of BSE and showed the MAFF Video.Mr Wood presented the
proposed guidelines which were discussed. Mr Cook on behalf of
NOAH agreed to comment as soon as possible and agreed to
obtain information on pharmaceutical products which contained
bovine material of UK origin.
6 September 1988 Biologicals Committee of VPCSome replies
from companies using pituitary glands in their products received.
Copies of draft guidelines have been sent to NIBSC and DHSS.
(Annex 9) (YB 88/09.06/5.1-5.4)
8 November 1988 Meeting with NOAH. (Annex 10)(YB
88/11.25/5.1 ; YB 88/11.08/5.1-5.6)
Dr Little briefed the meeting on the current BSE situation. Some
problems with implementing the guidelines were discussed but
NOAH were keen to see them published quickly.
20 December 1988 Letter from Sir Richard Southwood asking what
detailed consideration had been given to this issue and asking for
views on whether some form of guidance to industry might be
useful. (Annex 11) (YB 88/12.20/2.1)
3 January 1989 Meeting between Medicines Division of
DHSS (Dr Adams, Dr Jeffreys and Dr Purves) and MAFF (CVL)
(Dr Little, Mr Kidd and Mr Bradley) Detailed review of the
situation and the need to 'keep in step'. A further meeting to be
held after MAFF guidelines have been reviewed by the VPC at its
January meeting. (Annex 12) (YB 89/01.03/2.1-2.2)
19 January 1989 Veterinary Products Committee
The draft guidelines to assist manufacturers of biological products
containing materials of bovine origin was provided for members'
comments. Mr Ray Bradley provided members with an extensive
briefing on the BSE problem. Written comments on the guidelines
were requested before the February meeting. (Annex 13) (YB
89/01.19/6.1 ; YB 89/01.00/2.1-2.3)
26 January 1989 Reply sent to Sir Richard Southwood
(Annex 14) (YB 89/01.26/2.1-2.4)
1 February 1989 Meeting between MAFF officials (Dr Little,
Mr Kidd, Mr Bradley) and D of H (Drs Jeffrey and Adams) from
Medicines Division) plus representation from NIBSC and
Biologicals Committee of CSM.The meeting agreed the text of
what were now joint MAFF/DH guidance for manufacturers plus a
timetable for clearance by various advisory committees to enable
publication in MAIL before Easter.
15/16 February 1989 Veterinary Products Committee Meeting (Annex 15)
(YB 89/02.15/6.1 ; YB 88/02.15/7.1)VPC (89) 38 containing the
revised CSM/VPC guidelines for industry were presented for
comment together with the correspondence with Sir Richard
Southwood.Subject to some minor changes the Guidelines were
22 February 1989 Human and Veterinary Medicines Briefing
Group on BSEThe meeting was called to consider the DH/MAFF
draft guidelines to advise CSM. The meeting consisted of members
of the Biologicals Sub Committee of CSM, invited experts,
representatives of the Department of Health Medicines Division,
the Department of Health and MAFF prior to the publication of the
Southwood Report (Annex 16) (YB 89/2.22/11.1-11.8)
7 March 1989 Biologicals Committee of VPCA joint set of
guidelines had been agreed with D of H. A separate (MAFF)
questionnaire had been prepared asking for details of all products
had been sent out to all licence holders for reply by May 1989.
(Annex 17)(YB 89/03.07/2.1-2.5)
21 March 1989 Meeting with NOAH (Annex 18) (YB
89/03.21/13.1-13.4)Dr Little outlined the current situation and
explained why members had received the guidelines from both D
of H and MAFF. He explained that the guidelines set a very high
standard but indicated that manufacturers may present equivalent
methods to obtain the required standard.
1 April 1989 VMD establishedColleagues from Veterinary
Medicines Division, the Medicines Unit and part of BP&S join up
to become the VMD as recommended by the Cunliffe Review. Dr
Rutter was appointed as Chief Executive designate. I moved on to
take over the Agency Project Team for CVL.
Contact with the Department of Health
9. I have been asked specifically about my attendance at the Biological Sub
Committee of the CSM. (Annex 19) (YB 87/09.09/1.1-12)
10. On 9 September 1987 I attended a meeting of the Biological
Sub-Committee of
the CSM. This Sub-Committee is made up of independent experts. The
function of the
Sub-Committee is to advise the Committee on Safety of Medicines, which
is also made
up of independent experts. A number of officials, mainly from the
Department of Health,
attend both committees. Both committees advise on the safety of human
including vaccines, but do not normally address matters relating to
animal health...



The BSE Inquiry / Statement No 522
Mr Robert Newman
Issued 22/09/1999 (not scheduled to give oral evidence)

8. Having seen now a number of BSE animals, I recall having seen many
animals in the
past, suffering from similar conditions usually considered to have
deficiency or "staggers". The conditions are very similar: the cows
would get very
nervous and upset and try to attack you. Of course, they could not do
this because they
had lost co-ordination and would fall down. For many of them, there was
nothing you
could do with them. Unless you shot them, they would die in a few days.
If they were not
too far gone, you could salvage their meat but mostly they went to the
knackerman. I
believe that some of these animals, on reflection, might have been BSE
animals as early
as the 1960s.


10. While carrying out my slaughtering operations, of course my main
business and concern
was selling meat. However, occasionally I or my slaughterhouse manager
contacted by various people who wanted to obtain various parts of the
carcase. These
included pituitary glands, eyes, "nightcaps" (part of the pigs stomach)
and sometimes
whole cattle heads. One person, I recall, was a professor from St Marys
Hospital in
Paddington. As far as I understood, the parts he took were used for
research. We never
refused anyone who wanted to collect these parts they used to go into
the gut room
(where all the waste offal was stored) and help themselves, unless there
was anything
particular they wanted, when the slaughtermen would get it for them.
These people paid
the slaughtermen directly. The payments were regarded as the
slaughtermens "perks". At
Marlow, the slaughtermen used to get "a nice few quid" out of the sales.
We also had a lot of Chinese gentlemen who used to collect cattle parts.
They behaved as
"if they were in a candy store" going through the guts to find what they
11. The "sale" of carcase parts continued at the Farnborough abattoir.
To my recollection,
there were then several different organisations which collected the
parts. We had no
particular recollection of who they were. Simply, someone would ring up
and ask for
permission to come down. Again, they were never refused. No records were
kept as all
the payments were in cash to the slaughtermen. Nor could we identify
which cattle the
parts came from. Although my slaughtermen were reticent about telling me
precisely how
much was removed, I gained the impression that the quantity of material was
considerable. My manager can be more specific as to what parts were taken.
12. As to the SBO ban, I have no clear recollection as to when it was
introduced, and this is
perhaps a reflection of the little importance given to it by the
officials. I was still
operating at Marlow at the time and I do not recall any specific
restrictions being placed
on the movement of offals. In 1991, when we went to Farnborough, again
there were no
particular restrictions on the movement of offal, except perhaps the
spinal cords. These
were out in plastic bag and they went to the renderers. In fact, we
always removed spinal
cords from carcases, as a matter of routine, before any ban and before
even BSE became
an issue...


3. On or about August 22, 2002, you sold a _downer_ cow to [redacted]
number 842 ET. This cow was subsequently identified on analysis of
tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of
Oxytetracycline at 8.47 ppm in the liver and 3.20 ppm in muscle tissue.
The maximum allowable tolerance for Oxytetracycline in cattle is 6 ppm
in the liver and 2 ppm in muscle tissue. In addition, Sulfadimethoxine
was found at 12.03 ppm in the liver and at 5.83 ppm in muscle tissue.
The maximum tolerance for Sulfadimethoxine in edible tissue of cattle is
0.1 ppm.

I was quite prepared to believe in unofficial pituitary hormones, also
in the 1970's, whether as described by Dr. Little, or in other
circumstances, for animal use.
The fact that there were jars of pituitaries (or extract) around on
shelves is attested by the still potent 1943 pituitaries, described in
Stockell Hartree et al. (J/RF/17/291) which had come from the lab. at
Mill Hill. Having taken the trouble to collect them, they were not
lightly thrown out...
more on the 1968 medicine act, they forgot to follow
Draft cover letter to product licence holders (considered by Human and
Vet Medicines including deer)
(It was noted with concern that hormone extracts could be manufactured
by a veterinary surgeon for administration to animals under his care
without any Medicines Act Control.)
3.2 Minute 5.3-5.4 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

It was reported that some replies had been recieved from Companies
using pituitary glands in their products. Copies of the BSE document
had also been sent to DHSS and DEBSC...



Pet Food:

In the absence of OIE standard for pet food, bovine origin pet food may be
traded based on a risk assessment conducted by the importing country.
Pet food of non-bovine origin can be safely traded if verification assurances
can be provided by the exporting country. ...

>Pet food of non-bovine origin can be safely traded

NO mention of the NSCS non species coding system that allows anything
and everything to go, a handy importing/exporting tool for sure, and
a great way to import and export TSEs, knowingly.
YOU can read about that here;

DOES THIS mean that pet food containing CWD infected deer and elk,
scrapie infected sheep and all the road kill (dogs and cats) that
have been fed on ruminant protein for decades, does this mean all these
ingredients are safe ??? hardly the case. ...



Protein free tallow and derivatives made from this tallow;

Allow the unrestricted importation and/or transit of protein-free
tallow and derivatives (maximum level of insoluble impurities of 0.15
percent in weight). Import and/or transit conditions may require documentation
demonstrating that the tallow contains a maximum level of insoluble impurities
of 0.15 percent.

MEXICO United States of America Canada
MVZ Jose Angel del Valle Molina W. Ron DeHaven DVM Dr. Brian R. Evans
Director General de Salub Animal Administrator Chief Veterinary Officer of

>the CVOs have developed a set of minimum standards for
>BSE measures in North America


HELL, that's all they have ever had over the past decades
is a half-ass minimum standard for BSE. Sad part is, even those
minimum BSE standards were never adhered too. THIS policy is nothing
more than a slap in the face to every country that has followed
the BSE GBR guidelines. ALL this policy will do is spread this agent
from Country to Country for all those that import North American
Products. FOR those that follow this stupid policy GW et all
thought up, will reep what you sow, and deserve every bit of it.
THE stupid OIE BSE/TSE standards is exactly what caused this
damn disease to spread in the first place, just look at the
documented BSE countries to date that followed those same guidelines...

Terry S. Singeltary SR.

######### ##########

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: