SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Transcript of Tele-News Conference on Animal I.D. Ag. Sec. Mike Johanns, Bill Hawks, Keith Collins and Ron DeHaven (more BSe) Release No. 0150.05
Date: May 15, 2005 at 7:12 pm PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Transcript of Tele-News Conference on Animal I.D. Ag. Sec. Mike Johanns, Bill Hawks, Keith Collins and Ron DeHaven (more BSe) Release No. 0150.05
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 21:09:14 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: BSE-L


Release No. 0150.05
Contact:
Office Of Communications (202)720-4623


Transcript of Tele-News Conference on Animal I.D. Issues With
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs Bill Hawks Chief Economist Keith Collins and
Administrator of the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Ron DeHaven,
Washington D.C.

May 5, 2005

snip...


> "Standards must be uniform and systems must be compatible. It must be
> inclusive to assure that it works for all ag species and also to
> assure adequate participation. In other words, it must be effective
> without being burdensome.
>

how in the world can you try and i.d. every species out there that
human/aniamls consume and this not be somewhat burdensome?

i think what he meant to say was that there not messing with this
until 2009, so let the next administration worry about it.

> "I think that is something we can all agree on. It's important to note
> that in order to work the animal ID system must be a cooperative
> state, federal and industry program. We don't expect that the USDA can
> do this alone, and we should not.
>

no doubt about that. if there not going to test properly for TSE
and send the most suspect ones to be rendered without testing
at all, then why bother with animal i.d.'s.

> "And secondly, what animals will this cover? I would assume it will
> cover cattle and pigs. But does it cover poultry? Would it cover other
> animals that are raised for meat? I assume it won't cover fish. Please
> give us those details."
>
> SEC. JOHANNS: "Great. I'll start with your question about process.
> I'll ask Bill Hawks to offer a thought on your second question
> relative to what animals are covered.
>
> "In terms of process, this is not rulemaking. What we are attempting
> to do here is to put out our thoughts, our thinking, put that in
> writing, spread that as far and wide as we possibly can, to get public
> reaction to that thinking.
>

so, take some of those mad fish ban warning letters from fda,
that these fish farms have been feeding these fish. say we take
a few of those bags of fish feed potentially tainted with TSE via
ruminant protein we still have commercially in cycle in 2005,
say a farmer/rancher feeds some of that feed too cattle, pig,
deer, elk, or even maybe a fish by-product, cat eats some of
this fish feed in the barn and then the cat gets rendered, or mouse
in the barn eats this fish feed and cat eats mouse, the cat rendered,
etc etc etc. no need to trace that feed would there be...right!


Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From ...

... Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS
USA AUGUST 8,
... Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed View File Integral Fish Foods, ...
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html -
68k - Cached

2/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Feed Mill/Animal Proteins Prohibited
in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated View File Himmelspach, William W. 8/08/01
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed View
File Integral Fish Foods, Inc. 6/12/01 Denver District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed View File Jefferson Milling Company
4/16/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
Ruminant Feed


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html

> SEC. HAWKS: "Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Well, it's certainly our
> intention to have all species of animals covered here. You asked the
> question specifically about fish. There's actually species working
> groups that is involved with fish. I've actually attended aquaculture
> meetings to have those discussions. So as we look at what needs to be
> covered, we think that any species that's out there that has a disease
> situation that would benefit from this we think it would be important
> to cover it.
>

EVEN if it does not have a disease situation, if the agent is in the
gut and then rendered for other species, the agent could spread.
.1 of a gram is a very small amount to be lethal.


> SEC. HAWKS: "All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
>
> "We are, when we held those listening sessions we constantly got
> questions about confidentiality and liability. And sometimes I think
> we have those two being interchanged. My thoughts are that a liability
> that one might have, they are already exposed to it if they're doing
> something wrong. If they're doing nothing wrong, there shouldn't be
> any significant liability.
>
> "What we're doing here shouldn't create any additional liability.
>
> "Having said that, we do feel very strongly that this confidentiality
> as the Secretary has said earlier is something that needs to be
> addressed. And I personally attended all those listening sessions, and
> that was the number one issue.
>
> "So I think while liability is obviously one that is raised
> consistently, I think it's one that probably is not as big an issue.
> If you can protect the confidentiality then I think all the producers
> will be coming on board."
>

nope, nobody is ever responsible. this is the damn problem, they sit in back
rooms trying to figure out how to cover up mad cow disease. it's going
on in the
USA right now, and it happened in the past.


FDA Statement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
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.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known
as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is
no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal
feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other
ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and
informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in
swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be
destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the
firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the
material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the
farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed
for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian
protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA
established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the
U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant
protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it
will not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates
closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The
animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE,
but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving
the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html


PAST HISTORY OF BSE COVER-UP...TSS


STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995

snip...

To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed
compounders.

To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through
adverse publicity.

To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
changes which may be required.

snip...

THE FUTURE

4..........

MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
handling potentially explosive issues.

5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.

6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...

SEE full text ;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf


> REPORTER: "Yes, thank you. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to know when you
> say "individual identification of cattle," will this include
> information like birth dates? I ask because this is critical
> information to the Japanese and Japanese consumers."
>
> SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, here's what I would offer on that. I was asked
> that question a week ago and we look for an animal identification
> system that again the industry offers their input and birth date could
> be a possibility, could be a part of that. But here's what I'd say
> relative to Japan.
>
> "We have that standard at such a level in terms of testing
> 20-month-old animals, it is so below the international standard of 30
> months that quite honestly I just don't see any concern here
> whatsoever insofar as food safety issues with the Japanese consumer
> and BSE, which is the issue as you know we've been working on relative
> to birth dates.
>
> "So again, just let me assure people, not withstanding how this animal
> identification system may turn out with where we're starting with
> Japan we're 10 months under the international standard. So we've made
> a major concession there to try to get things started with Japan. And
> needless to say, we hope to move that further.
>
> "Ron, did you have a comment?"
>
> DR. DEHAVEN: "Just from a more technical standpoint, Mr. Secretary, I
> would point out that one of the questions that we're asking in the
> Federal Register notice is, when should animals be identified? Should
> it be at time of birth, should it be at the time the animals leave the
> premises of birth? Tell us what you think should be the requirement
> recognizing that there in fact may be some species differentiation.
>
> "For example, poultry raised in confinement we know exactly when their
> birth date was. On the other hand, the other extreme would be cattle
> in the western states where they're probably born in many cases on the
> back 40,000 acres and you may not be able to precisely determine the
> date of birth.
>
> "Certainly the system would have the capability of capturing that. We
> would just like input on when and how we should do that."
>
snip...

> "And the strategic document will suggest that by April of 2007 we
> would start, by putting out alerts to producers that we are soon going
> to be requiring individual animal ID and premises registration with
> the thought process being that in January 2008 we would have mandatory
> premises registration and individual animal identification or as the
> case may be group animal identification for those animals that move in
> lots.
>
> "And then by January of 2009 we would have a mandatory requirement for
> reporting animal movements so we could actually track animals through
> the system.
>
> "Again I would emphasize that this is our current thinking. The
> strategic plan suggests that we would have a voluntary system going to
> mandatory, and that would be the milestones of the timelines along the
> way that we would envision that happening. But we would again actively
> solicit your input on voluntary versus mandatory and then the proposed
> timeline."
>


what's the hurry...


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/2/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F05%2F0150.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM


USA BSE GBR RAISED TO BSE GBR III

Working Group Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR
III) of USA 2004 ''extremely/very unstable BSE/cattle system''

USA BSE GBR III

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

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

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

What GAO Found
United States Government Accountability Office
Why GAO Did This Study
Highlights
Accountability Integrity Reliability
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-101.
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
robinsonr@gao.gov.
Highlights of GAO-05-101, a report to
congressional requesters
February 2005
MAD COW DISEASE
FDAs 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 GAOs 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 nations 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
firms.
" 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.
" FDAs 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 FDAs guidance calls for such
communication.
" 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 FDAs enforcement of the feed
ban and recommended corrective
actions. This report looks at FDAs
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.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-101
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05101high.pdf

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

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

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


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html

PART 2


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html


Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Dallas District
4040 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75204-3145


January 12, 2005

Ref: 2005-DAL-WL-11

WARNING LETTER

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. William L. Brown, Owner
Brown Cattle Company
1 Feed Lot Road
P.O. Box 281
Petrolia, TX 76377

Dear Mr. Brown:

An inspection of your ruminant feeding operation located at 1 Feed Lot
Road, Petrolia, Texas, was conducted on August 24 and September 8, 2004
by an Investigator from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
inspection found significant deviations from
the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed (21 CFR
589.2000). This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).

Our inspection revealed that you feed prohibited material, as defined by
21 CFR 598.2000(a), to ruminants. This prohibited material consists of
human food processing waste, which is derived from corn dog
manufacturing and contains hot dogs and corn dogs. Inspected meat
products that have been cooked and offered for human food and further
heat processed for animal feed are not prohibited material. This is more
fully described in Guidance for Industry 76, which was previously
provided to your firm. The human food processing waste you are using has
not been further heat processed. The failure to further heat process
this material causes the feed to be adulterated within the meaning of
Section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

During our previous inspection on January 17, 2002, copies of the BSE
Guidance documents 69, 70 and 76 and 21 CFR 589.2000, the BSE
regulation, were provided to and discussed with you.

Failure to correct these violations may result in FDA taking regulatory
action without further notice including, but not limited to, seizure
and/or injunction.

It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. Please notify
this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days from the date
you received this letter. Your response should specifically identify the
actions you are taking to correct the violations and provide specific
timeframes for achieving compliance. Also, as part of your written
response, you should provide information regarding the current feeding
practices followed at your facility and information pertaining to the
planned marketing of your animals. Your reply should be sent to Edwin
Ramos, Compliance Officer, at the above stated address. If you have any
questions concerning the stated matters, you may contact Mr. Ramos at
214-253-5218.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael A. Chappell

Dallas District Director

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5175d.htm


Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Dallas District
4040 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75204-3145

February 7, 2005

Ref: 2005-DAL-WL-12

WARNING LETTER

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Dwayne Woody, Owner
W.W. Cattle Company
6391 Old Agnes Road
Poolville, TX 76487

Dear Mr. Woody:

An inspection of your feed manufacturing operation located at 6391 Old
Agnes Road, Poolville, Texas, was conducted on August 27 and September
2, 2004 by an Investigator from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The inspection found significant deviations from the requirements set
forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed (21 CFR 589.2000). This regulation
is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Because you failed to follow the
requirements of this regulation, the corn dogs containing cooked meat
and other ingredients used for manufacturing ruminant feed are
adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) and misbranded
within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Federal, Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (the Act).

The use of protein derived from mammalian tissues, as defined in 21 CFR
589.2000(a)(1), as an animal feed ingredient or in animal feeds must
comply with the requirements of 21 CFR 589.2000. That regulation
provides that the use of protein derived from mammalian tissues in
ruminant feed is prohibited. The definition of protein derived from
mammalian tissues excludes inspected meat products which have been
cooked and offered for human food, such as the corn dogs you receive,
that have been further heat processed for use in animal feed. This
requirement was previously communicated to you in an April 3, 2001
letter from the Texas State Feed and Fertilizer Control Service. In the
absence of the required further heat processing, such products for use
in ruminant feeds are adulterated under Section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Act.

Our inspection revealed that whole corn dogs which contain protein
derived from mammalian tissues and are sold by your firm to the
[redacted] for use in ruminant feed are not subjected to further
adulterated feed under Section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Act.

In addition, because the whole corn dogs are not subjected to further
heat processing and are thus not exempt from the regulation, they must
bear the caution statement, Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants.
Our inspection revealed that they do not bear this caution statement,
which causes them to be misbranded animal feed under Section 403(a)(1)
of the Act.

Copies of the BSE Guidance documents 69, 70 and 76 were provided to Mr.
Billy J. Brooks, General Manager, and further discussed by personnel
from the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service. Also, you received a
copy of the 21 CFR 589.2000, the BSE regulation which was again
explained in more specific detail. These serious violations of the law
may result in FDA taking regulatory action without further notice to
you. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure and/or a
court injunction against further sale of protein derived from mammalian
tissues for use in ruminant feed or ruminant feed containing such
materials.

It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. Please notify
this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days from the date
you received this letter. Your response should specifically identify the
actions you are taking to correct the violations that would involve the
continued use of corn dogs to manufacture ruminant feed and provide
specific timeframes for achieving compliance. Your reply should be sent
to Edwin Ramos, Compliance Officer, at the above stated address. If you
have any questions concerning the stated matters, you may contact Mr.
Ramos at 214-253-5218.

Sincerely,
/s/

Michael A. Chappell
Dallas District Director

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5184d.htm


RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY - CLASS II

_______________________________

PRODUCT

a) Bulk whole corn. Recall # V-150-4;
b) Bulk rolled corn. Recall # V-151-4;
c) Bulk rolled corn with added fat. Recall # V-152-4.

CODE

No coding information is used.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Fresno Farming LlC, Traver, CA, by letters on June 30, 2004. Firm
initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON
Corn for feed may be contaminated with RUMINANT MEAT AND BONE MEAL.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Unknown.

DISTRIBUTION
Unknown.
____________________________

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2004/ENF00857.html


Greetings list members,

> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> UNKNOWN.
>
> DISTRIBUTION
> UNKNOWN.

gotta love those USDA BSE/TSE triple fire walls ;-).....TSS






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: