SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Ranchers' Group Seeks Early Judgment in BSE Case
Date: May 18, 2005 at 1:34 pm PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Ranchers' Group Seeks Early Judgment in BSE Case
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:30:37 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@aegee.org


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

Ranchers' Group Seeks Early Judgment in BSE Case

Canadian Press, May 13, 2005

WASHINGTON (CP) - A U.S. ranchers' group blocking the border to Canadian
cattle is asking for an early judgment in the mad cow case, even before
a court hearing scheduled for July in Montana.

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America submitted the request this week to
the U.S. District Court judge that sided with the group in March and
slapped a temporary ban on the cattle trade just days before it was
supposed to resume March 7.

U.S. observers were unsure of the likelihood that Judge Richard Cebull
would make a move to decide the long-term fate of the border before the
full hearing scheduled for July 27 in Billings, Mont.

"Very rarely does that happen," said a government spokesman who didn't
want to be named.

But some experts said there's a chance of an early ruling in the case,
which has devastated the Canadian industry and U.S. meat packers who
said they're losing an estimated $38 million US a week without enough
cows to process.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has until June 8 to respond to the
latest legal salvo from R-CALF, which also wants an end to trade in
processed-beef products.

"We'll lay out why the court should not move quickly," said U.S. Justice
Department spokesman Charles Miller.

"The court will wait for us to file our response."

Dozens of U.S. cattle and farm groups representing the majority of
ranchers are supporting Canada in the legal battle.

But R-CALF has long argued Canadian beef and cattle pose safety risks
because there have been three mad cow cases north of the border.

It argues officials failed to properly assess the risk of Canadian
imports to U.S. herds and humans and acted too quickly to reopen the
border.

The group also criticizes testing levels for mad cow, or bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, on both sides of the border, saying they're
too low.

The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation released a rebuttal this week of
R-CALF's claims Canada doesn't test enough cattle, saying tests each
month of 2004 and 2005 have exceeded what the World Organization for
Animal Health recommends for an entire year.

Canada has about seven million cattle over the age of 30 months, thought
to be at higher risk than younger cows for contracting BSE.

It completed 23,550 tests in 2004 and have already tested 22,883 so far
this year, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said.

"R-CALF has grossly misrepresented the situation to the public and in
court," said Steve Dittmer, the U.S. foundation's executive vice-president.

"How R-CALF reaches it conclusions and justifies its allegations somehow
seems to have nothing to do with the real numbers."

The U.S. beef ban began in May 2003 after Canada's first mad cow case,
costing the industry some $7 billion Cdn.

The Kansas Department of Agriculture estimates the U.S. beef industry,
hit by its own mad cow case 18 months ago and struggling without
Canadian imports, lost up to $4.7 billion US last year.

U.S. officials launched an appeal of the March ruling in Montana
granting a temporary extension of the cattle ban. But no date has yet
been set in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

© The Canadian Press, 2005

http://www.mycattle.com/news/dsp_regulatory_article.cfm?storyid=17185


Canada, USA and Mexico should NOT be allowed to trade
there TSE tainted products to ANYONE. THIS BSE MRR
policy that GW et al is trying to force feed everyone has nothing
to do with science and everything to do with commodities and futures...TSS


European Food Safety Authority
Scientific Expert Working Group on GBR
Working Group Report on
the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of
CANADA
2004
NOTE TO THE READER
Independent experts of the EFSA Scientific Expert Working Group on GBR
have produced this report, applying an innovative methodology by a
complex process to data that were supplied by the responsible country
authorities. Both, the methodology and the process are described in detail
in the final opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) on "the
Geographical Risk of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (GBR)" of 6 July
2000 and its update of 11 January 2002. These opinions are available at the
following Internet address:


snip...

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Canada
2.3 Overall assessment of the external challenge
The level of the external challenge that has to be met by the BSE/cattle
system is
estimated according to the guidance given by the SSC in its final
opinion on the GBR of
July 2000 (as updated in January 2002).
Live cattle imports:
In total the country imported according to the CD more than 2.3 million,
according to
other data 1.5 million live cattle from BSE risk countries, of which 231
(CD)
respectively 698 (other sources) came from the UK. The numbers shown in
table 1 are
the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for
the assessment of
the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the resulting
external challenge is
as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the different
aspects discussed
above that allow to assume that certain imported cattle did not enter
the domestic
BSE/cattle system, i.e. were not rendered into feed. In the case of
Canada, the 500 cattle
imported from UK according to Eurostat were not taken into account and
it is assumed
that all incinerated, buried, exported animals and the animals still
alive did not enter the
rendering system and were therefore excluded from the external challenge.
MBM imports:
In total the country imported according to the CD around 300.000 tons,
according to
other sources nearly 360.000 tons of MBM from BSE risk countries, of
which 149 tons
came from the UK. The majority consisted of MBM imported from the US. The
numbers shown in table 2 are the raw import figures and are not
reflecting the adjusted
imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5
year periods the
resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment
takes into account
the different aspects discussed above that allow to assume that certain
imported MBM
did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system or did not represent an
external challenge
for other reasons. As it was illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone
meal and
MBM from UK since 27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should
only have
included non-mammalian MBM. In the case of Canada all imported MBM from UK,
Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France was not taken into account.
On the basis of the available information, the overall assessment of the
external
challenge is as given in table 3 below.

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Canada
- 8 -
External Challenge experienced by CANADA
External challenge Reason for this external challenge
Period Overall Level Cattle
imports
MBM
imports
Comment
1980 to 1990 Low Low Negligible
1991 to 1995 High Moderate High
1996 to 2000 Extremely
high High Extremely
high
2001 to 2003 Very high High Very high
Table 3: External challenge resulting from live cattle and/or MBM
imports from the UK and other BSE risk
countries. The challenge level is determined according to the
SSC-opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as
updated in January 2002).
3. STABILITY
3.1 Overall appreciation of the ability to avoid recycling of BSE
infectivity, should it enter processing
Feeding
The annual Canadian production of MBM is approximately 575,000 tons of which
approx. 40,000 tons are exported each year, mainly to USA.
Use of MBM in cattle feed
" Before the feed ban, dairy cattle received supplementary feed
containing MBM
during their productive life (maximum 200-400 g MBM per day). Beef
cattle in the
western part of the country do not usually receive complementary feed.
Beef cattle
in the eastern part receive normally no supplement protein but the
calves could have
access to creep feeds containing MBM, after weaning the ratios may have
contained
supplemental protein containing MBM (100-400 g per day).
" According to the CD, MBM is mainly fed to pigs and poultry and
included in pet
food.
" According to the CD, only a proportion of dairy cattle may have
received MBM.
Feed bans
" Before 1997, there was no legal restriction to include MBM into cattle
feed.
" An MBM-ban was introduced in August 1997; it is forbidden since to feed
mammalian MBM to ruminants except if of pure porcine, equine and non
mammalian origin, i.e. in practice a ruminant-to-ruminant ban (RMBM-ban).
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Canada
- 9 -
Potential for cross-contamination and measures taken against
" Cross-contamination in the about 600 feed mills is assumed to be
possible as long as
cattle and pig feed is produced in the same production lines, and premises.
" Cross-contamination during transport is possible, particularly if the
same trucks are
used for transporting ruminant MBM (RMBM) and non-ruminant MBM (porcine or
poultry MBM which still might be included into cattle feed) or for
transporting
pig/poultry feed and cattle feed.
" On-farm cross-contamination is regarded to be possible.
" Cross-contamination of cattle feed with RMBM can not be excluded.
Hence, as
reasonable worst case scenario, it has to be assumed that cattle, in
particular dairy
cattle, can still be exposed to RMBM and hence to BSE-infectivity,
should it enter
the feed chain.
Control of Feed bans and cross-contamination
" With the introduction of the RMBM ban (1997) the feed mills
(approximately 600)
were checked for compliance with the ban, including good manufacturing
practices
(GMP) and record keeping, i.e. the separation in production of MBM
containing
ruminant material (RMBM) from non-ruminant MBM.
" The feed mills had previously  since 1983  been regularly checked in
relation to
production of medicated feed.
" No examinations are performed to assess cross-contamination with RMBM
of the
protein (e.g. non ruminant MBM) that enters cattle feed. Differentiation
would
anyway be difficult.
Rendering
Raw material used for rendering
" Ruminant material is rendered together with material from other
species, but
according to the CD only in the production of MBM prohibited for use in
ruminant
feeds.
" Slaughter by-products, including specified risk material (SRM) and
fallen stock are
rendered.
" The country expert estimated that 20% of the rendering plants,
processing 20% of
the total amount of raw material, are connected to slaughterhouses.
Their raw
material is more than 98 % animal waste from these slaughterhouses while
less than
2 % is fallen stock. No estimation was given for the remaining 80% of
the rendering
capacity.
" There are 32 rendering plants of which 3 are processing blood exclusively.
Rendering processes
" The rendering systems (parameters) were specified for 6 plants
producing mixed
MBM, none of these fulfilled the 133/20/3 standard. Of these, 5 have
dedicated
facilities to produce products for use in ruminant feed and products not
permitted for
use in ruminant feed.
" The remaining plants process porcine or poultry material exclusively.
SRM and fallen stock
" There is an SRM ban for human food in place since 2003.
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Canada
" However, SRM are rendered together with other slaughter waste and
fallen stock.
However, according to the CD, MBM with SRM is not permitted to be fed to
ruminants.
Conclusion on the ability to avoid recycling
" Between 1980 and 1997 the Canadian system would not have been able to
avoid
recycling of the BSE-agent to any measurable extent. If the BSE-agent was
introduced into the feed chain, it could have reached cattle.
" Since 1997 this ability gradually improved with the introduction of
the ruminant
MBM ban and its implementation.
" Since cross-contamination cannot be excluded, and as SRM is still
rendered by
processes unable to significantly reduce BSE-infectivity, the system is
still unable to
avoid recycling of BSE-infectivity already present in the system or
incoming.

snip...


- 11 -
3.3 Overall assessment of the stability
For the overall assessment of the stability, the impact of the three
main stability factors
(i.e. feeding, rendering and SRM-removal) and of the additional
stability factor,
surveillance, has to be estimated. Again, the guidance provided by the
SSC in its
opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as updated January 2002) is applied.
Until 1997, it was legally possible to feed ruminant MBM to cattle and a
certain fraction of
cattle feed (for calves and dairy cattle) is assumed to have contained
MBM. Therefore
feeding was Not OK. In August 1997 a ruminant MBM ban was introduced
but feeding
of non-ruminant MBM to cattle remained legal as well as feeding of
ruminant MBM to
non-ruminant animals. This makes control of the feed ban very difficult
because laboratory
differentiation between ruminant and non ruminant MBM is difficult if
not impossible.
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Canada
- 12 -
Due to the highly specialised production system in Canada, various
mammalian MBM
streams can be separated. Such a feed ban would therefore be assessed as
"reasonably
OK", for all regions where this highly specialised system exists.
However, several areas
in Canada do have mixed farming and mixed feed mills, and in such
regions, an RMBM
ban would not suffice. Additionally, official controls for cattle feeds
to control for the
compliance with the ban were not started until the end of 2003. Thus,
for the whole
country, the assessment of the feeding after 1997 remains "Not OK".
Rendering
The rendering industry is operating with processes that are not known to
reduce infectivity.
It is therefore concluded that the rendering was and is Not OK.
SRM-removal
SRM and fallen stock were and are rendered for feed. Therefore
SRM-removal is assessed
as Not OK
BSE surveillance
Before 1989, the ability of the system to identify (and eliminate)
BSE-cases was limited.
Since 1990 this ability is improved, thanks to a specific (passive) BSE
surveillance.
Today the surveillance should be able to detect clinical BSE-cases
within the limits set
by an essentially passive surveillance system.
" Passive surveillance has been carried out since 1990. In 1993
surveillance was
intensified and has considerably improved with mandatory reporting and basic
compensation ensured, awareness raising measures and education of
veterinarians, and
a specific BSE-surveillance programme targeting cattle showing clinical
signs that
could be compatible with BSE.
" The initiated introduction of active surveillance should improve the
system
significantly.
Stability of the BSE/cattle system in CANADA over time
Stability Reasons
Period Level Feeding Rendering SRM
removal
BSE
surveillance
1980 to 2000 Mainly
passive
2001 to 2003
Extremely
unstable Not OK Not OK Not OK
Improving
with some
testing of
risk groups
Table 5: Stability resulting from the interaction of the three main
stability factors and the BSE
surveillance. The stability level is determined according to the
SSC-opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as
updated in 2002).
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Canada
- 13 -
On the basis of the available information, it has to be concluded that
the country's
BSE/cattle system was extremely unstable until today, i.e., it would
have recycled and
amplified BSE-infectivity very fast, should it have entered the system.
The stability of the
BSE/cattle system in Canada overtime is as given in table 5 above.
4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS
4.1 Interaction of stability and challenges
In conclusion, the stability of the Canada BSE/cattle system in the past
and the external
challenges the system has coped with are summarised in the table 6.
INTERACTION OF STABILITY AND EXTERNAL CHALLENGE IN CANADA
Period Stability External Challenge Internal challenge
1980 to 1990 Low Unlikely but not excluded
1991 to 1995 High
1996 to 2000 Extremely high
Likely and rapidly growing
2001 to 2003
Extremely
unstable
Very high Confirmed at a lower level
Table 6: Internal challenge resulting from the interaction of the
external challenge and stability. The
internal challenge level is determined according to guidance given in
the SSC-opinion on the GBR of
July 2000 (as updated in 2002).
From the interaction of the two parameters stability and external
challenge a
conclusion is drawn on the level of internal challenge that emerged
and had to be met
by the system, in addition to external challenges that occurred.
An external challenge resulting from cattle import could only lead to an
internal
challenge once imported infected cattle were rendered for feed and this
contaminated
feed reached domestic cattle. Cattle imported for slaughter would
normally be
slaughtered at an age too young to harbour plenty of BSE infectivity or
to show signs,
even if infected prior to import. Breeding cattle, however, would
normally live much
longer and only animals having problems would be slaughtered younger. If
being 4-6
years old when slaughtered, they could suffer from early signs of BSE, being
approaching the end of the BSE-incubation period. In that case, they
would harbour,
while being pre-clinical, as much infectivity as a clinical BSE case.
Hence cattle imports
could have led to an internal challenge about 3 years after the import
of breeding cattle
(that are normally imported at 20-24 months of age) that could have been
infected prior
to import. In case of Canada this implies that cattle imported in the
mid eighties could
have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal
challenge in the
early 90s.
On the other hand imports of contaminated MBM would lead to an internal
challenge in
the year of import, if fed to cattle. The feeding system is of utmost
importance in this
context. If it could be excluded that imported, potentially contaminated
feed stuffs
reached cattle, such imports might not lead to an internal challenge at
all. In case of
Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the
Geographical BSE Risk of Canada
Canada this implies that it was possible that imported MBM reached
domestic cattle and
lead to an internal challenge in the early 90s.
4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing
A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada,
and were at least
partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle
imported from UK in
the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist,
and grew
significantly in the mid 90s when domestic cattle, infected by imported
MBM, reached
processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased
over the years with
continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated
A risk that BSE-infectivity was recycled and propagated exists since a
processing risk
first appeared; i.e. in the early 90s. Until today this risk persists
and increases fast
because of the extremely unstable BSE/cattle system in Canada.
5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE-RISK
5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge
The current geographical BSE-risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is
confirmed at a lower level
that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with
the BSE-agent.
This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion,
2000) because at
that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.
into account.


snip...

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


MEXICO

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


USA

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

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


https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08d?OpenDocument

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed

TSS

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: