|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: TSS ()
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 12:08:50 -0500 ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Greetings list members, I have been looking for urls to the Meat & Poultry Inspection: Report of the thank you, a.. 2000 (Issued February 2003) [PDF, 93 pp. 768 KB] I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND THESE REPORTS; Order Code IB10127 Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues for Congress Updated January 13, 2005 Geoffrey S. Becker Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ~ The Library of Congres snip... In May 2004 in response to a lawsuit, USDA acknowledged it had erred administratively by permitting millions of pounds of previously suspended Canadian beef cuts to enter. A court agreement limited such imports to lower-risk beef until appropriate rulemaking (see above) is completed. However, another lawsuit against the rule has been filed. snip... Meat Recall. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which most meat and poultry for human food, determined that the brain, spinal lower intestine of the BSE cow - tissues most likely to be infective - had at slaughter. It also announced "out of an abundance of caution" a voluntary pounds of raw beef from 20 animals slaughtered on the same day as the BSE Lake, Washington, facility. Officials, who in early February 2004 expanded 38,000 pounds, said some meat likely was consumed, but they attempted to consumers that the meat posed "zero risk" to human health. ... snip... PLEASE NOTE; 107 snip... 3 The United States, Canada, and Mexico have worked through the OIE World Animal Health (or OIE, the French acronym) on new guidance for resuming have reported BSE. See The OIE standards on BSE: a guide for understanding implementation, January 2004, at 4 USDA backgrounder on BSE, July 10, 2003. For more details, see CRS Issue and Poultry Inspection Issues. The APHIS website on surveillance is at lpa/issues/bse/bse-surveillance.html]. 5 See CVM and Ruminant Feed (BSE) Inspections, at RuminantFeedInspections.htm]. For background on the rendering industry, also RS21771, Animal Rendering: Economics and Policy. CRS-3 Domestic Cattle "Feed Ban". FDA, which regulates animal feed ingredients, banned most mammalian proteins from cattle feed on August 4, 1997.5 existed for blood and blood products; gelatin; inspected, processed, and products for human consumption (such as restaurant plate waste); milk products containing pork and equine proteins only. Most mammalian proteins fed to other animals such as pigs, poultry, and pets. To ensure compliance, enforcement includes education, and inspections of the estimated 264 IB10127 01-13-05 prepare animal parts not destined for human food), and of all known feed 9,240 or more, according to the agency). ... snip... PLEASE NOTE ; CVM Update July 29, 2004 JULY 2004 UPDATE ON RUMINANT FEED (BSE) ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES To help prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed This is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions The results to date are reported here both by segment of industry and RENDERERS These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal * Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported * Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in * Of the 161 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most o 0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI o 4 firms (2.5%) were classified as VAI LICENSED FEED MILLS FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The * Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported * Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in * Of the 367 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most o 3 firms (0.8%) were classified as OAI o 5 firms (1.4%) were classified as VAI FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds. * Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported * Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in * Of the 1,358 active firms handling prohibited materials, their o 6 firms (0.4%) were classified as OAI o 36 firms (2.7%) were classified as VAI PROTEIN BLENDERS These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing * Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported * Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in * Of the 67 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most o 1 firm (1.5%) was classified as OAI o 2 firms (3.0%) were classified as VAI RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS This category includes any firm that is represented by any of the above * Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose * Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders * Of the 556 of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders o 8 firms (1.4%) were classified as OAI o 19 firms (3.4%) were classified as VAI OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet * Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported * Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in * Of the 2,205 active firms handling prohibited materials, their o 16 firms (0.7%) were classified as OAI o 76 firms (3.4%) were classified as VAI TOTAL FIRMS Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm * Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported * Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in * Of the 2,901 active firms handling prohibited materials, their o 17 firms (0.6%) were classified as OAI o 86 firms (3.0%) were classified as VAI ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Issued by: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/bse72004up.htm LET'S TAKE A BETTER LOOK ; June 15, 2004 WARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. David W. Bernauer Dear Mr. Bernauer: Inspection of your firms warehouse at 5100 Lake Terrace N.E., Mt. Our inspection showed that the food and drug products stored and held at Evidence of rodent activity documented throughout the old and new Other conditions observed during the inspection that could be Also, products that contain or may contain animal protein prohibited Our laboratory confirmed the findings of rodent excreta, rodent hairs on The above listed violations are not intended to be all-inclusive. It is Please provide this office, within 15 working days of receipt of this Your reply should be directed to Paul A. Boehmer, Compliance Officer, at Sincerely, /s/ Scott J. MacIntire cc: http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4853d.htm _______________________________ PRODUCT a) Bulk whole corn. Recall # V-150-4; CODE No coding information is used. RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Fresno Farming LlC, Traver, CA, by letters on June 30, 2004. Firm REASON VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2004/ENF00857.html VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION gotta love those USDA BSE/TSE triple fire walls ;-).....TSS PRODUCT _______________________________ PRODUCT _______________________________ END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR October 20, 2004 http://www.fda.gov/TSS Public Health Service Seattle District VIA FEDEX In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 05-07 William B. Parrish, Chairman of the Board WARNING LETTER Dear Mr. Parrish: An inspection of your feed mill operation, Conway Feed, Inc., located at Our investigation found that because you failed to adequately inspect the The investigation also revealed that the label of your Game Bird Crum/Pellet The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from the You should take prompt action to correct these violations, and you should You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receipt Please send your reply to the Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Bruce If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Mr. Sincerely, /S/ Charles M. Breen cc: Scott C. McKnight, General Manager Enclosure: Form FDA 483 http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5086d.htm New Orleans District WARNING LETTER NO. 2005-NOL-07 FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Alan O. Bostick, President Dear Mr. Bostick: On September 7 and 14, 2004, a United States Food and Drug Administration The inspection indicated you manufacture products containing beef meat and The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from You should take prompt action to correct these violations and establish a We are aware you sent label corrections for the last shipment of each of the Please send your reply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Sincerely, /s H. Tyler Thornburg Enclosures: cc: http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5105d.htm Dallas District Ref: 2005-DAL-WL-11 WARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. William L. Brown, Owner Dear Mr. Brown: An inspection of your ruminant feeding operation located at 1 Feed Lot Road, Our inspection revealed that you feed prohibited material, as defined by 21 During our previous inspection on January 17, 2002, copies of the BSE Failure to correct these violations may result in FDA taking regulatory It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. Please notify Sincerely, /s/ Michael A. Chappell Dallas District Director http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5175d.htm Dallas District February 7, 2005 Ref: 2005-DAL-WL-12 WARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Dwayne Woody, Owner Dear Mr. Woody: An inspection of your feed manufacturing operation located at 6391 Old Agnes The use of protein derived from mammalian tissues, as defined in 21 CFR Our inspection revealed that whole corn dogs which contain protein derived In addition, because the whole corn dogs are not subjected to further heat Copies of the BSE Guidance documents 69, 70 and 76 were provided to Mr. It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. Please notify Sincerely, Michael A. Chappell http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5184d.htm 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 PART 2 https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08 snip...CONTINUE...TSS CRS-8 Testing Issues Publicizing Test Results. In late June 2004, USDA had announced that screening tests had shown "inconclusive" (i.e., possible positive) results animals. They emphasized that neither animal, whose whereabouts they had entered the food supply and that they posed no safety threat. Subsequent Ames laboratory found that neither animal had BSE. On November 18, 2004, another "inconclusive" was reported by USDA. After confirmatory testing, USDA announced on November 23 that this test sample negative for BSE. At their start, officials had warned the public that the might produce so-called false positives that later may prove to be BSE department had come under intense criticism for both its test sampling reporting of results. For example, cattle markets were volatile during the to conduct more rigorous tests on the first two inconclusives: the industry negatively, and then prices then seemed to rise and fall in response to animals' type, location, and status. Officials had defended their decision to make preliminary results known as possible. They argued further that even if subsequent testing were to find a BSE, the various BSE safeguards now in place would protect public health by no infective materials reach consumers (or could spread to other animals). USDA had altered its announcement policy. Now, if the initial screening test "inconclusive," the department will screen two more samples from the same only make an announcement if one of the two samples also tests necessitates further testing at the Ames laboratory. (This occurred in the Testing Protocol. BSE testing matters were the focus of a joint hearing held 2004, by the House Government Reform and Agriculture Committees. USDA's General (IG) testified on a draft OIG report which cites a number of department's expanded surveillance plan. For example, testing results may be because the plan: is not truly random because participation is voluntary; is confined only to the high-risk cattle population while other studies show animals could have BSE; does not include a process for obtaining animals on farms; cannot obtain a statistically appropriate geographical population; does not allow APHIS to find and test enough cattle in the The final OIG report, issued in late August 2004, generally parallels the Secretary Veneman and other USDA officials defended their testing, noting other things that the OIG observations were based on the plan before it was that many of the report's recommendations have been addressed. APHIS is representative mix of samples from all locations, reaching deeply into the population, and the statistical basis for the sampling is sound, officials that adjustments have been made as the result of ongoing assessments of the After it was widely reported that USDA had failed to test a suspicious cow in late April 2004, the department announced revisions in its BSE sampling (The cow was condemned so its meat never entered the food supply, USDA stated that it was retraining inspectors, mandating that FSIS rather than IB10127 01-13-05 collect brain samples, and requiring that all cattle condemned antemortem for human food) be tested for BSE, not just those with suspicious symptoms. the Texas case, OIG found that officials had erred - but did not engage in misconduct or knowingly provide misleading information - in failing to to suspicious Texas cow. OIG reached similar conclusions about how the characterized the Washington BSE cow as nonambulatory in December 2003. Private Testing. Several smaller firms (notably Creekstone Farms Premium have expressed interest in testing all of their cattle for BSE - as the demanding. USDA has asserted that 100% testing is not scientifically based. claims authority to approve test methods and their uses under the denied the Creekstone request. USDA and meat industry officials are other things, that consenting to 100% testing would undermine trade and misleadingly imply that BSE-tested meat is safer than untested meat.9 snip... A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS ; USDA vets question agency's mad cow lab By Steve Mitchell WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- The federal laboratory in Ames, Iowa, that The veterinarians also claim the facility -- part of the USDA and known as http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040209-061848-3665r By Steve Mitchell WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Federal agriculture officials did not test any The U.S. Department of Agriculture's records of mad cow screenings, In addition, no mad cow tests were conducted during the two-year period at In 2002, nearly every test conducted in Washington was on animals from http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-041124-1470r FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242 On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely #### http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html TSS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ APHIS Statement: June 29 Inconclusive BSE Test is Negative APHIS Statement: First Inconclusive BSE Test is Negative APHIS Statement Regarding Second Inconclusive BSE Test APHIS Statement Regarding First Inconclusive BSE Test Week 25 Week 5 By Steve Mitchell WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued an The order, sent May 6 by e-mail from the USDA's Dallas district office, was The deadly illness also is known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Both the USDA and its Inspector General -- amid allegations that an offsite The order, which was obtained by UPI, was issued by Ijaz Qazi, circuit Although the language might sound innocuous, experienced inspectors familiar The National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals -- the national Inspectors alleged the order also suggests the agency is concerned about its "Anytime the government suppresses an individual's freedom of speech, that's Stanley Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council, said the USDA has "It's an intimidation thing," Painter told UPI. Inspectors have the right to USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said he was not familiar with the notice from Asked if employees could speak freely as long as they clarified that their Qazi told UPI the notice was not issued in conjunction with the Texas case Painter said the USDA's efforts to keep its employees from talking about mad "To keep federal employees from reporting government waste, misuse of "And believe me there's so many indicators saying that the USDA's mad cow At least one member of Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, agrees. Harkin, a long-time critic of the USDA, sent a letter to Agriculture The USDA has proposed testing more than 200,000 cows -- or 10 times its "We simply cannot tolerate a BSE testing system that fails to give valid "We look forward to receiving (Harkin's) letter and having the opportunity Jim Rogers, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection The question is central to the USDA's implementation of its expanded Furthermore, the USDA has not provided any evidence it has worked out Loyd said the agency is "working very hard to get animals on the farm that However, he was unable to provide the names or locations of the rendering -- Steve Mitchell is UPI's Medical Correspondent. E-mail sciencemail@upi.com Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040511-015527-4917r By Steve Mitchell WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims it USDA officials said the difference is made up in animals tested at state In addition, the state lab figures were not included in a March 2004 USDA "This is just adding to the demise of USDA's credibility," said Felicia "If the USDA is going to exclude from testing the animals most likely to Nestor, who has monitored the USDA's mad cow surveillance program closely Concerns about the number of cows in U.S. herds with brain disorder symptoms The Texas incident has alarmed the public and members of Congress because Dr. Peter Lurie, of the consumer group Public Citizen, said CNS cows should "CNS animals are far and away the most important animals to test," said "If there's any category that needs 100 percent testing, that's it, because USDA officials said the agency has no estimate on how many CNS cows occur in After failing to respond to repeated requests from UPI for clarification of "We also include data reported to us from state veterinary diagnostic "We were not using any other labs during this period, other than (the USDA However, the state labs did not use the immunohistochemistry test, which the The histopathology test, unlike the IHC test, does not detect prions -- According to the USDA's Web site, histopathology proves reliable only if the That is one reason the agency began using the IHC test -- it can confirm a The state labs used histopathology to screen 266 CNS cases in FY 2003, as Linda Detwiler, a former USDA veterinarian who oversaw the agency's mad cow Other mad cow disease experts, however, said having a back-up test such as The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations offers similar The USDA seems to agree on the need for a back-up test. Its expanded "Subtle changes can be missed on histopathology that would probably not be "Therefore I believe it is valuable to run (histopathology)," Mumford told She noted that in Europe, two tests -- neither one the histopathology Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and chief executive officer of the Swiss "There were cases which were (histopathology) negative but still clearly He agreed with Detwiler that histopathology should be suitable for most "It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the subtle changes in a Loyd asserted the additional CNS cases from the state labs actually yielded According to data the USDA provided to the House Committee on Government The USDA surveillance plan document makes no mention of the number of CNS USDA officials also did not include the state lab figures in response to a Loyd did not respond to a request from UPI asking why agency officials did The committee has taken note of the CNS issue and plans to delve into it "The committee will explore this and other issues surrounding USDA and BSE -- Steve Mitchell is UPI's Medical Correspondent. E-mail sciencemail@upi.com Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040608-014607-3865r Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys 1. What is the standard regime for testing of suspect animals in the EU? The regime is an initial screening by a high-output test, the Bio-Rad test. 2. How long has this been the case? Its a fairly recent development. Only recently has the Western blot test Reproducibility is the problem with the IHC test. It is not standardized; 3. Is there a way to measure the three tests in sensitivity, accuracy and Historically, yes. The IHC was the gold standard at one point, but we have 4. The USDA in 2003 used the Western blot to confirm the BSE case in Its not logical. If you have two consecutive questionable screenings, you 5. We are hearing now about a new strain of BSE, atypical BSE or aBSE. Or Yes. There have been a few cases, one in Italy, one in Belgium, one here in This his a very recent phenomenon. I have no opinion on its virulence. We do BSE was around for a long time before we caught it and by then, it was I cant stress enough that systematic testing is necessary. Withdrawing all What can happen with testing of only cattle that are clearly at risk is that When people choose to protect their economic interests over public health, By systematic testing, I mean doing as we do in the EU, which is to test 6. USDAs list of specified risk materials excludes some products, like With SRMs, where do you stop? Tests have found prions in meat, nerves travel Certainly, you can stop the spread of BSE with a total ban on offal. But it Systematic testing makes far more sense. I think of it as a thermometer. It To an extent, our environment is contaminated. About 10 percent of wild People complain that testing is very expensive. It is much more expensive to 7. In your opinion, is infected feed the sole method of transmission of BSE, Feed is the main problem. However, we are seeing some other possibilities, (FOLLOW QUESTION: Would that allow BSE to develop into an infective level in 8. You were involved in a study that tested two primates who were fed The findings suggest that as little as five grams is enough to infect. The An animal could be just below the testing level, and not be particularly 9. BSE is a pretty horrifying disease, but overall, it has killed less than This is not a sterile world. But the danger is that now that the crisis SNIP...CONTINUE...TSS 6 See [http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/bse72001.htm] and 7 Joshua Cohen and George M. Gray, Evaluation of the Potential Spread of BSE Possible Human Exposure Following Introduction of Infectivity into the pp. 1-2 (undated 2003 report), Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, School of [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/harvard_10-3/text_wrefs.pdf]. The considered import as well as domestic practices in its assessment. Both the study did note that noncompliance with the feed ban could occur at many Moreover, FDA does not actually test the feed for prohibited material. CRS-4 Assessments of the BSE Safeguards Some had criticized the effectiveness of the 1997 feed ban. For example, a 2002 GAO study (Mad Cow Disease: An Improvement in the Animal Feed Ban; 183) reported that 364 out of 10,576 firms inspected by FDA were still out FDA in July 2003 began to assert that industry compliance has been exceeding The GAO report also asserted that the FDA was using flawed data to track and had no clear enforcement strategy for firms that were not obeying the GAO report states, "Federal actions do not sufficiently ensure that all or products are kept out or that if BSE were found, it would be detected spread to other cattle through animal feed or enter the human food supply." had criticized USDA's failure to test the brains of cattle that die on farms subsequently resulted in a change in the testing program) and questioned the inspection procedures for imported meats. Another GAO report on the FDA feed anticipated early this year. On the other hand, a USDA-funded study issued in November 2001 by the Center for Risk Analysis, based on a three-year risk analysis, stated in extremely unlikely to become established in the United States.... Similarly be no potential for an epidemic of BSE resulting from scrapie, chronic other cross-species transmission of similar diseases found in the U.S.... If indeed occur spontaneously in cattle, as some have suggested, it would cases per year with little spread. Only a small amount of potentially reach the human food supply and be available for possible human After a BSE case was found in Canada in May 2003, USDA asked Harvard to the risk. Harvard responded that although "the possible introduction of BSE from Canada cannot be dismissed," the likelihood is very low, and U.S. by now would have contained any possible spread. The Harvard study is based computer simulation, which several critics indicate could be based upon assumptions. The study authors acknowledge that their model is "not amenable validation because there are no controlled experiments in which the consequences of BSE introduction to a country has been monitored and authors assert that they tested the model's predictions against an actual in Switzerland and found them "reasonably close to empirical observations."7 IB10127 01-13-05 However, the Harvard reassessment also noted that a group of cattle imported Canada from the United Kingdom in 1993 included one that was found to have report observed that if additional animals in this group harbored BSE, were rendered, infectivity may have been introduced into the Canadian and U.S. supplies before the 1997 feed ban was implemented in both countries. "If were infected, they may have been exported to the U.S. as well.... [It] related introduction of BSE into the U.S. from Canada would have been due to of either infected animals or contaminated feed. Imports are a plausible introduction of BSE into the U.S. from Canada because the American and industries are closely linked. During the previous five years, the U.S. on over 1.2 million cattle and 185,000 tons of feed annually from Canada" snip... WHAT ABOUT that surppressed PEER REVIEW OF THAT HARVARD BSE STUDY OCTOBER http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf SNIP...CONTINUE...TSS Policy Changes After the U.S. BSE Case USDA. The U.S. BSE incident caused USDA officials to re-examine their safeguards. On December 30, 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture announced the steps to strengthen the safeguards, most focusing on FSIS-regulated are slaughtered and processed. The Secretary also asked an international actions, and she also announced that BSE surveillance would be expanded. snip... > re-examine their existing safeguards how about re-examine there over all june 2004 BSE ENHANCED COVER-UP OF BSE snip... 15 See the APHIS website at RL32627, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ("Mad Cow Disease") and Canadian CRS-13 USDA Actions to Readmit Canadian Beef and Cattle.15 As of mid-January, a new U.S. rule to allow younger live cattle and other additional Canadian products was still in play, set to take effect March 7, 2005. That final December 29, 2004, and published in the January 4, 2005, Federal Register. growing number of critics have called on USDA to rescind it or at least it in light of the new BSE cases. Back in late May 2003, the United States had issued an interim final rule Canada under its standing BSE import restrictions - that is, all Canadian sheep, goats, deer, elk, etc.) and ruminant products were prohibited from States. It began to ease that ban on August 8, 2003, when USDA announced accept applications for permits to import selected ruminant products from boneless beef from cattle under 30 months old and boneless veal from calves 36 weeks at slaughter; and boneless sheep and goat meat from animals under USDA's decision was based on what it said was a "thorough scientific minimal risk from these imports. The August 2003 announcement was not formal rulemaking. On November 4, 2003, USDA did publish in the Federal Register a proposed change its standing BSE policy so as to allow imports of certain live from "minimal risk" regions, including Canada. Permitted would be imports of slaughter under 30 months old; sheep and goats for slaughter under 12 deer and elk) for immediate slaughter; and various other products from these However, APHIS already was further expanding the list of allowed (so-called products. A list published on August 15, 2003, included, in addition to the announced on August 8 (see above), bone-in as well as boneless veal (but not and trimmings (if such trim was from otherwise low-risk boneless cuts). A 22 version of the list included beef lips, tongues, hearts and kidneys. The October 22 lists were posted on the APHIS website, but neither was Federal Register issuance, press release or other public communication. On April 19, 2004, USDA published on its website, again without further or public notice, yet another list and memorandum effectively expanding products to include bone-in as well as boneless beef from under-30-month of cattlemen led by Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United America (R-CALF USA), filed a lawsuit to stop the expanded imports, and, on IB10127 01-13-05 16 Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund USA vs. USDA (CV-04-51-BLG-RFC). CRS-14 federal judge in Montana issued a temporary restraining order to halt the other issues, the judge cited concerns about whether USDA followed procedures.16 USDA subsequently reached an agreement with plaintiffs that it allow beef and veal products beyond the types listed on August 15, 2003 (see issuance of the final rule that was first proposed on November 4, 2003. In an accounting of what had come in so far, the department reported that a 518.6 million pounds of Canadian beef and veal products had entered the between September 1, 2003, and April 30, 2004. Of this, 18.9 million pounds or bone-in veal; 241 million pounds were boneless beef cuts; 238 million boneless beef trim; nearly 7 million pounds were liver, tripe or cheek meat; pounds were tongue, heart or kidney; 5.6 million pounds were "further partly or fully cooked hamburger, hot dogs, deli meats, sausages, jerky, 142,000 pounds were bone-in beef cuts. USDA officials stated that only 7.3 of the 518.6 million pound total incorrectly came in under categories not August 8 announcement (as modified by the August 15 list), and that none of products posed any food safety risk. Officials stated further that Secretary been unaware that APHIS had expanded the list of eligible products after The final version of the November 4, 2003, proposal was announced on 2004, several hours before Canada revealed its second possible BSE finding. the rule creates a new category of "minimal risk" BSE regions - those in BSE-infected animals have been diagnosed, but where sufficient regulatory been in place to ensure that the introduction of BSE into the United States rule further classifies Canada in this category, the first such region to USDA declared was "a thorough risk analysis." (In addition, a region with regulatory measures that has never detected the disease, but cannot be can qualify as a "minimal risk.") The following additional products are for importation from Canada: ! Cattle and other bovines for feeding and for immediate slaughter. All must be under 30 months of age and be slaughtered at less than 30 months. All cattle must be moved in closed containers, be tagged on the ear to traceback to their birth herds, and be accompanied by health and other information, among other requirements. Feeder cattle must be branded and can only be moved to a single feedlot, and from that lot directly to ! Sheep and goats (ovines and caprines) for feeding and immediate slaughter, which must be under 12 months of age and slaughtered by 12 months. Similar movement and identification rules apply to these animals. ! Most meat from bovines, ovines, caprines, and cervids (deer, elk, etc.). includes, for example, bone-in cuts and cuts from cattle over 30 months. ! Certain other products and byproducts including bovine livers and tongues, gelatin, and tallow. Congress has 60 legislative days from publication to review the rule, as the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 60-day period is required to allow for congressional review whenever a rule IB10127 01-13-05 CRS-15 significant. Constituents and industry interests are already weighing in which have been mixed. An apparently growing number of producers and others expressed strong doubts about the rule. Many of the producers worry about cattle prices if large numbers of Canadian cattle begin to cross the border; opening the border to potentially risky Canadian animals could undermine the Japanese and other skittish foreign markets. R-CALF filed another federal court on January 10, 2005, to overturn the rule, arguing that it and unnecessary increased risk of infection of the U.S. cattle herd ... and contaminated with BSE into the United States." NCBA demanded that USDA and investigate Canada's feed ban compliance before the rule is implemented. Others have defended USDA's assertion that - because Canada has in place that are at least equivalent to those of the United States, and because the market has become an integrated one - the rulemaking is reasonable. contend that the Department's assessment of risk has been thorough and it is necessary if the United States wants to convince other countries that safe. Several believe USDA should have gone further. For example, the Institute, representing meat packers, filed a federal lawsuit charging that scientific basis for continuing to ban imports of over-30-month-old cattle, from over-30-month-old cattle will be permitted. (U.S. meat packers also are the rule puts them at a competitive disadvantage because they won't have over-30 animals that Canada will kill. Several plants already have reported operations due to what they say are cattle shortages.) Congressional Response BSE is expected to remain a high priority for many Members of the 109th number of them already have joined others in calling for a delay or rule (see above). BSE, and specifically the Canada situation, was a major Senate Agriculture Committee's January 6 confirmation hearing for nominated Secretary Michael Johanns, who repeatedly pledged his full attention and matter. The committee has scheduled a hearing on BSE and trade for February before other committees are possible as well. Representative Pomeroy introduced a bill (H.R. 187) to prohibit the Canada United States access to major markets for United States exports of cattle is equivalent or better than the access status accorded such exports as of Separately, in a January 5, 2005, letter to the incoming Secretary of Conrad and Representative Waxman charged that USDA had failed to review evidence questioning the effectiveness of the Canadian feed ban, and called investigate. So far, USDA and FDA have been using their existing statutory authorities to BSE developments, including adoption of new safeguards. However, several additional changes, introduced (but generally not passed) in the 108th in the 109th Congress. For example, companion bills offered in 2003 (S. 1202 and H.R. 3546) would required a traceability system for all stages of production, processing, and IB10127 01-13-05 CRS-16 meat and poultry and their products, essentially from the birthplace of consumer. In 2004, other bills (H.R. 3787, H.R. 3822, H.R. 3961, H.R. 4005, 2070) setting various requirements for a national livestock ID system were Ruminant ID systems would have been required in two wider-ranging BSE and prevention-related bills (S. 2007 and H.R. 3714, respectively). The BSE issue was raised in the debate over whether to delay and/or modify country-of-origin labeling (COOL) of meats and other foods, initially set by bill to take effect in September 2004. The consolidated FY2004 appropriation 199) postponed mandatory COOL for meat for two years. Several bills (H.R. 3993, S. 2451) then proposed reinstatement of the original 2004 However, the House Agriculture Committee on July 21, 2004, approved H.R. would have replaced mandatory COOL with a voluntary program. Other bills COOL included H.R. 2270 and H.R. 3083 (see also CRS Report 97-508, Labeling for Foods). None advanced further. In November 2003, the Senate had approved an amendment to the FY2003 appropriations bill to prohibit FSIS inspections of downed animals out of the food supply). A similar House floor amendment to the bill last narrowly defeated, and the Senate amendment was removed in the House-Senate on the measure. Earlier, both houses of the 107th Congress had included in farm bills a ban on marketing downers unless they were humanely euthanized. conferees dropped the provision from the final version (P.L. 107-171), Secretary to study industry downer practices and issue rules if necessary. Congress to ban downers include H.R. 2519 and S. 1298. Another bill, H.R. 3705, would have required BSE tests on all cattle food. S. 2051 focused on strengthening animal feed rules. Several (H.R. H.R. 2431, H.R. 2636, H.R. 4001, S. 1036) were introduced to increase and surveillance on chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk or on CRS-16...END FULL TEXT OF THIS REPORT HERE; http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05jan/IB10127.pdf Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues Updated January 7, 2005 Geoffrey S. Becker Resources, Science, and Industry Division CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Current Standard Inspection and HACCP Systems Authorities State Inspection Import Inspection Basic Features of Inspection Systems Meat Safety and BSE U.S. Case Canada Rule BSE Surveillance Inspection Funding Issues FSIS Bioterrorism Preparedness Other Legislative and Administrative Issues Humane Slaughter Equine Slaughter Meat Traceability HACCP-Related Legal Action Pathogen Performance Standards E. coli O157:H7 Listeria monocytogenes Recall and Civil Penalty Proposals LEGISLATION 109th Congress 108th Congress IB10082 01-07-05 Congressional Research Service ~ The Library of Congress Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues SUMMARY The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for inspecting most meat, poultry, and processed egg products for safety, wholesomeness, and proper labeling. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for ensuring the safety of all other foods, including seafood. In the early 1990s, food safety officials recognized that most foodborne illness cases traced to meat and poultry products were being caused by naturally occurring microbiological contamination that was not being adequately addressed by the traditional, sight-, smell-, and touch-based system of inspection. Through the federal rule-making process, FSIS developed and initiated the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system at all federally inspected slaughtering and processing plants. HACCP regulations require all firms to implement preventive actions at each point along the manufacturing chain where microbial contamination is likely to occur. FSIS inspectors monitor the performance of firms' HACCP systems in addition to performing traditional inspection under the existing statutes. Despite data suggesting HACCP-related reductions in pathogen levels, periodic recalls of very large amounts of product continue to illustrate the difficulty of preventing contamination in processed products. Several bills addressing aspects of this issue were introduced in the 108th Congress, and could resurface in the 109th Congress. These include proposals to give FSIS the authority to (1) mandate recalls of suspected contaminated products; (2) set and enforce performance standards for foodborne pathogens under HACCP; and (3) impose civil penalties for violations of inspection laws and regulations. In December 2003, USDA announced the first confirmed U.S. case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). On January 12, 2004, FSIS published interim rules banning potentially higher BSE-risk cattle parts and non-ambulatory ("downer") cattle from food, prohibiting the labeling as "meat" of mechanically removed muscle tissue; and banning a form of pre-slaughter stunning that can potentially spread infective brain and nervous system tissue into the meat. Since January 12, any carcass tested for BSE must be held until negative results are received. In June 2004, USDA began a 12-18 month program to test 200,000-268,000 cattle for BSE (compared with 20,000 in 2003). The Administration has been criticized for its handling of some aspects of the BSE situation. For example, USDA officials acknowledged last year that they had failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures in readmitting certain types of beef from Canada, which reported its own BSE cases in early 2003 and late 2004. Final rules to permit younger Canadian live cattle and additional types of Canadian beef to enter the United States were published by USDA in the January 4, 2005, Federal Register. The FY2005 agriculture appropriation (Division A of H.R. 4818; P.L. 108-447) provides $823.8 million for FSIS. Congressional deliberations on the FY2006 FSIS budget are expected to begin in February with submission of the Administration's budget proposal. IB10082 01-07-05 CRS-1 MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on January 4, 2005, published to permit younger Canadian live cattle and additional types of Canadian beef United States. These rules, scheduled to take effect in early March, are Congressional review period, during which committee hearings on them are The rules were unveiled as Canada was investigating the discovery of its of BSE, in another Alberta dairy cow. U.S. and Canadian officials said that did not present any food safety danger, and that it would not slow import rule - despite criticism by some lawmakers that opening the border BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Current Standard Inspection and HACCP Systems FSIS carries out its duties with total staff of nearly 10,000, and an annual of more than $800 million. In addition, FSIS uses revenue from fees paid by industry for overtime (above three shifts) and holiday inspection services, laboratories that apply for FSIS certification to perform official meat (they originally were authorized in 1919). Revenue from the fees amounts to million annually in additional program support. More than 7,500 of FSIS's roughly 1,000 of them veterinarians, are at some 6,200 plants and import Traditional inspection under the original statutes comprises constant inspection (for appearance, odor, and feel) at slaughter operations and sample products and operations at processing plants. In the early 1990s, debate over how to respond to mounting evidence that invisible, contamination on meat and poultry posed greater public health risks than focus of traditional inspection methods), FSIS began to add testing for on various species and products to its inspection system. In 1995, under existing statutes, FSIS published a proposed rule to program changes in a mandatory program called the Hazard Analysis and Point (HACCP) system. In this system, hazards are identified and risks are phase of production, "critical control points" for preventing such hazards monitored, and corrective actions are taken when necessary. Record keeping are used to ensure that the system is working. FSIS published the final rule since January 2000 all slaughter and processing operations are required to plans in place. HACCP is intended to operate as an adjunct to the inspection, which still are mandatory under the original statutes. Authorities. The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, as amended (21 U.S.C. et seq.), requires USDA to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and plant to be slaughtered and processed into products for human consumption. Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), made inspection mandatory for any domesticated birds intended for use as human IB10082 01-07-05 current list of included species is chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, emu, and rhea), and squabs (pigeons up to one month old). FSIS also offers voluntary, fee-for-service inspection for buffalo, migratory water fowl, game birds, and rabbits, which is authorized under the Marketing Act (7 U.S.C. 1621). These so-called "exotic" meat species are FDA (under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) inspected under the voluntary FSIS program. FDA has jurisdiction over meat exotic species in interstate commerce, even if they bear the USDA inspection In May 1995, the authority for processed egg inspection was transferred from Agricultural Marketing Service to FSIS. The Egg Products Inspection Act, as U.S.C. 1031 et seq.), is the authority under which FSIS assures the safety and dried egg products, domestic and imported, and the safe disposition of eggs. FDA holds regulatory authority over shell eggs used in restaurants and State Inspection. Twenty-eight states currently have their own meat and/or inspection programs covering about 2,100 small or very small establishments. the programs cooperatively with FSIS, which provides up to 50% of the funds them, or about $50 million annually. A state program operating under a agreement with FSIS must demonstrate that its system is equivalent to However, meat and poultry products produced under state inspection are commerce only. About half of the states have discontinued their inspection or poultry (or both). In these states FSIS has assumed responsibility for formerly state-inspected plants, although actual inspection is performed by snip... CRS-4 Meat Safety and BSE Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow disease") entered the public policy spotlight in 2003, with the discovery of the first native in 2003. (Canadian officials found a third case in December 2004, announcing of the disease on January 2, 2005.) First diagnosed in Britain in 1986, BSE is a slowly progressive, incurable affecting the central nervous system of cattle. Scientists consider BSE to diseases, called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), that species. Investigators in the British BSE outbreak connected the use in protein from TSE-infected sheep with the appearance of BSE in cattle. In scientists determined that there was a possible link between consumption of from BSE cattle and an outbreak in humans of a newer variant of a fatal Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD) that had begun in Europe in the late FSIS is one of the three federal agencies primarily responsible for keeping the food supply. The other two agencies involved in BSE are APHIS and the the Department of Health and Human Services). The Centers for Disease Prevention (CDC) also play a role regarding public health protection. (For coverage of BSE and related livestock industry and public health issues, see IB10127, Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues for Congress; and CRS Report Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE): Current and Proposed Safeguards.) APHIS, which (among other things) is responsible for protecting U.S. foreign diseases, in 1989 imposed a ban on the import of all live ruminants where BSE is known to exist. In 1991, APHIS banned the import of rendered from ruminants, and then it banned, as of December 2000, the import of all protein products (whether from ruminants or not). After the Canadian BSE announcement of the first North American case in May APHIS banned all ruminants and products from Canada. In August 2003 APHIS it was permitting the entry of some products (notably boneless beef from months) after determining that they were low-risk. In November 2003, APHIS rule to allow imports of primarily younger live ruminants, along with and other ruminants and ruminant products, from a new category of BSE regions, the first one to be Canada. U.S. Case. While this proposed rule was pending, the U.S. case was December 2003. Officials reassured the public that any human health risks and that no high-risk tissues had entered the food supply. However, they "an abundance of caution," a voluntary recall of 38,000 pounds of meat from slaughtered at the same plant that day, and acknowledged that some of it consumed. FSIS also published, as interim final rules in the January 12, Register, several actions to bolster U.S. BSE protection systems, effective IB10082 01-07-05 CRS-5 ! Downer (nonambulatory) cattle are no longer allowed into federally inspected or state-inspected slaughter and processing facilities. ! Cattle selected for testing cannot be marked as "inspected and passed" until confirmation is received that they have tested negative for BSE. ! Specified risk materials (SRM), which include the skull, brain, trigeminal ganglia, eyes, vertebral column, spinal column, and dorsal root ganglia of cattle over 30 months of age, and the small intestine of cattle of all ages, are now prohibited from the human food supply. ! Slaughter facilities are required to develop and implement procedures to remove, segregate, and dispose of SRM and make information readily available for review by FSIS inspection personnel. ! SRM from cattle 30 months or older cannot be in a product labeled as "meat" if derived from advanced meat recovery (AMR) technology, which USDA said would help ensure it does not contain spinal tissue. ! Mechanically separated meat may not be used for human food. ! Air injection stunning is banned, to ensure that portions of the animal brain are not dislocated into the carcass. FDA, which regulates animal feed ingredients domestically, banned the mammalian proteins to ruminants in August 1997. Until recently, periodic less than full compliance with the regulations. A February 2002 Government Office (GAO) study reported that 364 out of 10,576 firms inspected by FDA 11,741 total firms potentially handling ruminant material) were still out of FDA's labeling, record keeping, and commingling requirements. In July 2003, FDA reported that compliance had reached 99%. Nevertheless, the animal feed ban remains a focus of efforts to improve U.S. safeguards. The FDA had announced on January 26, 2004, that it would tighten ingredient and processing rules. On July 14, 2004, FDA took tentative steps an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), in which it said it was on specified risk materials (SRMs, which are designated higher-risk cattle brains and spinal cords) from all animal feeds. Industry groups said they the agency was proceeding carefully but concerned about compliance costs. advocates argued that rulemaking was moving too slowly. The July 14 ANPR was jointly with USDA and sought comments on a number of additional BSE being considered. Canada Rule. Earlier, on April 19, 2004, while the November 2003 proposal to expand Canadian imports was still under consideration, APHIS posted on its decision to add bone-in beef from under-30-month cattle to the list of April 26, a federal judge in Montana issued a temporary restraining order additional imports, citing concerns about food safety and USDA's failure to rulemaking procedures. By May 2004, USDA acknowledged that it had not procedures in allowing some 7.3 million pounds of certain types of Canadian into the United States that were not on the list of so-called "low-risk" first publicized widely in August 2003. The 7.3 million pounds were among a million pounds of Canadian beef that the United States has admitted from through April 2004. It also promised not to permit any of these additional Canada until after it issued a final rule on what it proposed in November IB10082 01-07-05 CRS-6 USDA published the final rule on BSE "minimal risk" regions, and on Canadian imports, in the January 4, 2005, Federal Register, to take effect The rule makes Canada eligible to export to the United States live cattle months, along with other ruminants, most types of beef (including from months) and other cattle and ruminant products. Importers must adhere to tracking requirements, and slaughter the cattle by 30 months of age, among requirements. USDA said Canada qualified as minimal risk because it had safeguards in place, such as adequate ongoing surveillance for BSE, a ban on materials in the food and feed supply, appropriate risk assessment measures, restrictions on imports from other BSE countries. Some congressional critics, notably several from northern cattle-producing argued that USDA should not have opened the border to live cattle at a time another Canadian BSE case was being investigated, and when U.S. negotiators convince the Japanese and other important foreign markets to begin accepting USDA officials countered that the new rule is based on a thorough scientific potential risks, that denying Canada entry of safe products was inconsistent negotiating stance that U.S. beef is safe, and that a few new BSE cases were particularly in older cattle born prior to the 1997 feed ban (see below). American cases were in such cattle, according to authorities. BSE Surveillance. Prior to the appearance of the first U.S. case of BSE in 2003, FSIS's role in keeping the disease out of the food supply was to put inspection force on alert to detect and divert from processing any cattle clinical symptoms, and to contact an APHIS inspector to evaluate the animal a brain tissue sample to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in testing. USDA (APHIS) by 2003 was testing approximately 20,000 cattle focusing particularly on high-risk animals, including downers (animals that slaughter establishments), those that die on farms, older animals, and those neurological distress. USDA began, in June 2004, a new 12- to 18-month surveillance program to test many as 268,000 or more mostly higher-risk animals. USDA's aim is to measure if any, of BSE in U.S. herds; officials assert it is not a safety assurance USDA has approved various "rapid tests" for the initial BSE screening in laboratories around the country. If these tests indicate samples may be samples are forwarded to Ames for confirmation through a more sophisticated than 167,000 had been tested through December 31, all negative for BSE. posted on the agency website.) USDA in April 2004 denied a request by a private meat company, Creekstone to use a rapid test to screen all of its cattle for BSE as a way to markets lost after the U.S. BSE finding. USDA has argued that such "100% unscientific, would imply falsely that meat from BSE-tested animals is safer untested cattle, and would undermine government-to-government negotiations markets. Creekstone has argued that it would test merely to satisfy On July 14, 2004, the House Government Reform and Agriculture Committees joint hearing on BSE surveillance. USDA's Inspector General (IG) testified IB10082 01-07-05 CRS-7 officials erred - but did not engage in intentional misconduct or knowingly misleading information - when they failed to test a suspicious cow for BSE April 2004, and when they characterized the Washington BSE cow as December 2003. The IG also testified on weaknesses in USDA's BSE to strengthen it. The new nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, Governor Johanns of Nebraska, peppered with a variety of questions and comments about BSE at his January 6 hearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture. The committee chairman that he will convene another hearing specifically on the Canadian import Congress has 60 legislative days to review and can overturn (unless vetoed However, Members might raise additional topics, such as the difficulties of additional foreign markets to U.S. beef, progress on implementing a national identification program (see "Meat Traceability," below), complaints from inspectors and others that packers are not fully complying with the new safeguards, and the status of possible changes in the FDA feed ban, for Inspection Funding Issues From time to time in the past, FSIS has had difficulty in sufficiently obligations to the meat and poultry industries. Usually a combination of shortages, including new technologies that increase plant production speeds insufficient appropriated funds to hire additional inspectors at times of in demand for inspections, problems in finding qualified people to work in unpleasant environments or at remote locations, etc. These staffing problems exacerbated by the addition of HACCP requirements on top of the traditional inspection duties. In order to monitor the staffing situation more closely, included language in the conference report to accompany the FY2000 USDA law (P.L. 106-78), requiring FSIS to prepare a quarterly report on budget levels, and staffing needs (these are available on the FSIS website under to Congress"; see In order to address staffing problems, most administrations over the past 20 proposed in their annual budget requests to charge the meat-packing industry sufficient to cover the entire cost or a portion of federal inspection rationale for more comprehensive user fees has been that resources would to hire new inspectors as necessary. USDA economists estimate that the cost consumers from such a fee would be no more than one cent per pound. appropriators have rejected new user fee proposals every year, stating that food supply is a legitimate responsibility of the government. In addition, have argued that the large meat recalls that have occurred since HACCP was illustrate why the government should retain taxpayer-funded regulatory The Bush Administration's initial FY2005 budget proposal (February 2004) user fee proposals made in FY2003 and FY2004 to increase the industry's for FSIS inspection beyond one shift per day. The Administration's rationale regular working day should be considered standard inspection, and any beyond that time should be considered additional, hence subject to a higher Congressional appropriators traditionally have rejected these proposals, and IB10082 01-07-05 they have included report language stating that they will not consider appropriations with greater revenue from user fees unless authorizing been passed. No new fees are assumed in the FY2005 appropriation (see The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818) sets a of $823.8 million for FSIS in FY2005, close to the Senate-reported (S. 2803) $43.9 million increase from the FY2004 enacted level. The House-passed bill recommended $824.7 million. In P.L. 108-447, and also part of the FSIS $17.3 million for frontline inspectors and humane slaughter enforcement; regulatory and scientific training; $3 million for overseeing BSE-related million for inspector training; and increases for food defense activities, million for biosurveillance, $2 million for the Food Emergency Response million for the network's data systems support. Conferees also included $2.7 Codex Alimentarius activities. Congressional review of the FY2006 FSIS budget will begin with submission of President's FY2006 proposal in early February 2005. snip... 109th Congress H.R. 187 (Pomeroy) To prohibit operation during a calendar year of USDA's final rule to for the designation of minimal-risk regions for the introduction of BSE into States, including designation of Canada as a minimal-risk region, unless markets for United States exports of cattle and beef products is equivalent the access status accorded such exports as of January 1, 2003. Introduced referred to the Committee on Agriculture. snip... H.R. 3705 (Miller) The Mad Cow Testing Act of 2004 would have amended the Federal Meat Act to require BSE testing on all cattle for human food, with testing done costs borne by packers/processors. Introduced January 20, 2004; referred to Agriculture. H.R. 4121 (Rehberg) The Consumer and Producer Protection Act of 2004 would amend the Federal Inspection Act to permit inspection of nonambulatory cattle unable to walk stress, obdurator nerve paralysis, obesity, or one or more broken or severed tendons or ligaments, or dislocated joints." Introduced April 1, Committee on Agriculture. snip... CRS-16 S. 1298 (Akaka)/H.R. 2519 (Ackerman) The Downed Animal Protection Act would direct the Secretary of Agriculture promulgate regulations to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and nonambulatory livestock by a covered entity, including a requirement that euthanized. It would prohibit such animals from being inspected and passed in Federal Meat Inspection Act establishments. S. 1298 introduced June 19, to the Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 2519 introduced June 19, 2003; Committee on Agriculture. (See H.R. 2673 for related amendments.) S. 2007 (Durbin)/H.R. 3714 (DeLauro) The BSE and Other Prion Disease Prevention and Public Health Protection Act set new restrictions intended to ensure that many imported foods, feeds, supplements, medicines, cosmetics, and other specified articles do not infectivity; prohibit such articles from entering interstate or foreign specified risk materials from ruminants; spell out new procedures for FDA animal feed; mandate a national ruminant identification program; and programs for prion disease monitoring and testing, among other things. S. January 20, 2004; referred to Committee on Agriculture; H.R. 3714 introduced 2004; referred to Committees on Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; and Ways S. 2051 (Cantwell) The Animal Feed Protection Act of 2004 would prohibit in interstate or commerce animal feeds, nutritional supplements, and animal medicines that risk materials from ruminants, any ruminant materials from USDA-designated countries, or any materials from ruminants with neurological disease signs. February 5, 2004; referred to Committee on Agriculture. S. 2910 (Durbin)/H.R. 5259 (DeLauro) The Safe Food Act of 2004 would consolidate federal food safety including those of FSIS and FDA, under a new Food Safety Administration. October 7, 2004. S. 2910 referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture; referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and on Agriculture. http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05jan/IB10082.pdf Meat & Poultry Inspection: Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the a.. 2000 (Feb 2003) | PDF (768 k) FoodNet Reports Updates: Budget Execution, Staffing Levels & Staffing Needs Testimony a.. Report on Consumer Safety Officers to the United States House and a.. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Imported Fresh Muscle Cuts a.. Current Food Safety and Inspection Service Laws and Policies a.. Humane Handling and Slaughter Enforcement Activities - Report to a.. Report (March 2004, PDF Only) and Attachments: a.. Feasibility & Design of an Interstate Shipment Pilot for Ohio (March a.. Public Health Benefits Assessment of Mandatory Ratite Inspection a.. Report on Meat and Poultry Recalls to the United States House and a.. Report on Risk-Based Inspection to the United States House and a.. 2000 (Issued February 2003) [PDF, 93 pp. 768 KB] a.. 1998 Report to Congress: FoodNet: An Active Surveillance System for a.. FY 2001 -- First Quarter, Second Quarter, Third Quarter, Fourth Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the US Congress, 2000 -------- Original Message -------- Issued June 2000 * In March 1998, an FSIS food inspector and a Federal plant in New snip... The following Civil Enforcement Actions are a representative sample of * In June 1998, an Illinois Federal plant entered into a settlement snip... http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc98.htm FSIS REPORT TO CONGRESS 1996 HELL, why not sell those 'DOWNERS' for our GIs to eat, In June 1996, a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of snip... http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc96.pdf February 2003 snip... MORE BRIBERY FOR PASSING DOWNERS FOR HUMAN/ANIMAL * June 2000. A USDA Judicial Officer (JO) issued a Decision snip... March 2001 snip... January 1999. The owner of an export inspection station was sentenced on snip... http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc99/rtc99chap3.htm TSS ################# BSE-L-subscribe-request@uni-karlsruhe.de BrainTalk Communities - Fsis Food Inspector Convicted Felony ... TSS #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ---------------------------------
|
