SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: Feds skipped key mad cow disease test in 2004 case USDA changes its protocols after animal initially had been cleared
Date: June 17, 2005 at 11:46 am PST

In Reply to: Re: Feds skipped key mad cow disease test in 2004 case USDA changes its protocols after animal initially had been cleared posted by TSS on June 17, 2005 at 10:35 am:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: hey there mike, some history on TERRY'S mad cow from TEXAS that was inconclusive ;-)
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:24:22 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: hansmi@consumer.org
CC: diane@prwatch.org, hallje@consumer.org


Mike,

for your files for a later date;-)

I WANT THAT TEXAS MAD COW!

follow the thread. moser of prionics is in it and Everet of TAHC.

SO close, BUT yet so damn far away...TSS

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:12:06 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de

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

US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED

The US plans to measure the incidence
of mad cow disease in its cattle with a
test that its own officials have said gives
too many false positives. Some experts
fear the choice reflects an official desire
to downplay the impact of the first
positive BSE tests that emerge, when
they turn out not to be confirmed.

Last week the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) approved two tests,
including one made by the Californian
firm BioRad, for screening up to 300,000
cattle for BSE, starting in July. No more
tests will be licensed for months.
Announcing the testing plan, chief
veterinary officer Ron DeHaven cautioned
that "there will be positive results",
many of them false.

BioRad's antibody-based test for the
prion protein that causes BSE has given
numerous false positives in Belgium and
Germany. And in Japan only 8 of 113 cattle
that repeatedly tested positive with
BioRad were confirmed by slower tests
that do not give false positives.

The USDA even wrote last May that
"it is well known" that tests like
BioRad's give false positives. It states
that other kinds of quick tests are more
suitable for testing for very low levels of
BSE, which are expected in the US.

The second quick test approved by
the USDA, made by Maine-based IDEXX,
could also in theory give false positives.
It remains unclear how reliable it is,
because there has been little practical
experience with the test so far. It is not
yet approved for use in Europe, where
the vast majority of BSE tests are done.


Debora MacKenzie,
Brussels correspondent,
New Scientist.
tel +32-2-245-0412
fax +32-2-245-0552
mobile +32-49-754-0444

http://www.newscientist.com/
=====================

Greetings,

odd that the USDA et al approves two US-OWNED tests that are
_known_ to give false positives, when they know other rapid
TSE test are much more reliable. IT's like they purposely do
not want to find any TSE in the USA bovine, so they pick the
worst test available. The USDA own experts think BioRad is
not suitable for supposedly BSE/TSE free and low incidence
areas, so why did they choose this test and or the IDEXX,
which i dont think has even been submitted to the EU for evaluation
and has no commercial experiance to my knowledge. You could
almost get the feeling they are deliberately skipping over
Prionics for the least supperior TSE rapid test. I believe
the Canadians finally did choose prionics. maybe paul or marcus
might comment? seems if North America is going to be a
consolidated BEEF trading market amongst themselves and expect
to export there tainted products everywhere, they could at least
come up with the same TSE rapid Test. how can one use a less
reliable test and the other use a more reliable test, and it
all be the same? i know there is a word Dehaven used, but it
slips my mind now, (consolidated markets) that's not it,
but you get the just of my thoughts, i think;-)...TSS

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:53:39 +0100
From: Moser Markus
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de

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

Regarding your question about Canada's BSE-test choice for their official BSE surveillance, I can confirm that they chose the Prionics-Check Western rapid test.
Regards
Markus


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:11:04 +0100
From: Roland Heynkes
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de

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

Dear Terry,

> odd that the USDA et al approves two US-OWNED tests
> that are _known_ to give false positives, when they
> know other rapid TSE test are much more reliable.
>

the BioRad-test seems to be the most sensitive rapid
BSE test and it is clear that you "get" false positive
results when you try to confirm its results with a
less sensitive method like immune histochemistry.
Poorly trained technicians of course may produce
some false positives with the BioRad-test, but
immune histochemistry produces many false negatives
especially in the hands of not very experienced
people. Generally the false negative and not the
much fewer false positive results are the problem
of all actually available BSE tests.

It is therefore not so easy to say, if the BioRad-test
produced a false positive or if the confirming test
produced a false negative result and which of them
is more reliable. I for sure would not eat the meat
of a cow which was seemingly false positive tested
with the BioRad-test.

> IT's like they purposely do not want to find any
> TSE in the USA bovine, so they pick the worst test
> available.
>
The BioRad-test is definitively not the worst test
available (have a look on the EU results) and when
a government does not want to get positive results,
it uses immune histochemistry instead.

> The USDA own experts think BioRad is not suitable
> for supposedly BSE/TSE free and low incidence areas,
> so why did they choose this test and or the IDEXX,
> which i dont think has even been submitted to the
> EU for evaluation and has no commercial experiance
> to my knowledge.
>
Are you sure that USDA has experts for BSE testing?

> You could almost get the feeling they are deliberately
> skipping over Prionics for the least supperior TSE
> rapid test. I believe the Canadians finally did
> choose prionics. maybe paul or marcus might comment?
>
The Prionics western blot test is also a good rapid
test which of course does not produce false positive
results. In addition this test allows to see new
variants of BSE, which would not be seen with the
BioRad. But at least in Europe its positive results
become confirmed by the OIE Western blot exactly as
the BioRad results. Because of this control step
the BioRad test cannot produce significantly more
problems.

> seems if North America is going to be a consolidated
> BEEF trading market amongst themselves and expect
> to export there tainted products everywhere, they
> could at least come up with the same TSE rapid Test.
> how can one use a less reliable test and the other
> use a more reliable test, and it all be the same?
> i know there is a word Dehaven used, but it slips
> my mind now, (consolidated markets) that's not it,
> but you get the just of my thoughts, i think;-)...TSS
>
Not the minor differences between the rapid tests are
the problem, but the much to low testing numbers and
the prefered IHC-testing in the USA. In Germany we
test every month as many as the USA is going to test
per year (mostly with BioRad) - and we have only
13 million cattle.

kind regards

Roland

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:51:09 +0100
From: Moser Markus
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de

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

Dear Roland
Immunohistochemistry, correctly executed, is the gold standard, together with the OIE Western blotting method. It allows detection of infection even in cases where prion aggregates can only be detected in few individual cells. It is certainly not less sensitive than either Bio-Rad or Prionics. In fact, the abundant data on all three methods indicate equal diagnostic sensitivity (if sampling is done appropriate: note that immunohistochemistry has to be conducted on different tissue samples, since the tissue has to be formalin fixed). In case a BSE case obtained with a rapid test cannot be confirmed in a first approach with one of the gold standard methods, the second method will be used. I agree, that the sensitivity of immunohistochemistry can be negatively influenced e.g. by only looking at a limited number of slides or by not carefully examining the slides for prion aggregates. However, if a rapid test is not confirmed by immunohistochemistry due to a sloppy analysis, it will still show up in the OIE Western blot. Nevertheless, it is of course possible, that a true positive result cannot be confirmed e.g. if only the tissue sample used for the initial testing contained prion aggregates, which is theoretically possible, since the aggregates are not evenly distributed in the tissue. This is why it is not formally possible to disproof with 100% certainty an initial positive diagnosis (and you are right: it's certainly wise to rather not eat any suspicious animals). Nevertheless, false positives cannot in general be attributed to faulty confirmatory tests, but to the fact that the ELISA method simply produces a certain rate of false positives, which is why we offer rapid BSE tests on both platforms, the ELISA and the Western technology. And we make it clear to our customers, that when choosing the Prionics-Check LIA (the ELISA based test) coping with occasional false positive results will be inevitable. The LIA is therefore mostly used in European countries, with well established levels of BSE, while the Prionics-Check Western is also used in BSE-free countries (where a maximum positive predictive value is important to support the conclusion of low frequency or absence of BSE, which would otherwise be difficult for the reason you indicated and I mentioned above, i.e. due to the reason that it is hard to formally disprove an initial diagnosis with absolute certainty).
Regards,
Markus


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ''INCONCLUSIVE'' IS NEGATIVE or so they claim...OFFICIAL
REPORT
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:59:27 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

To: BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
References: <41A3B789.6080907@wt.net> <41A4ED7C.4090501@wt.net>

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
##################### -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:
BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ??? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:07:51
-0600 From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: Carla Everett References:
<419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A2724F.3000901@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A27EBC.4050700@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041122183204.02801d88@tahc.state.tx.us> ok, thank you
Carla. i hate rumors and 'inconclusive' announcements. kind regards,
terry Carla Everett wrote: > our computer department was working on a
place holder we could post > USDA's announcement of any results. There
are no results to be > announced tonight > by NVSL, so we are back in a
waiting mode and will post the USDA > announcement > when we hear
something. > > > At 06:05 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote: > >> why was the
announcement on your TAHC site removed? >> >> Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy: >> November 22: Press Release title here >> >> star
image More BSE information >> >> >> >> terry >> >> Carla Everett wrote:
>> >>> no confirmation on the U.S.' inconclusive test... >>> no
confirmation on location of animal. I still want my Texas mad cows
confirmed BY WB! TSS


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:07:51 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A2724F.3000901@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A27EBC.4050700@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041122183204.02801d88@tahc.state.tx.us>

ok, thank you Carla.
i hate rumors and 'inconclusive' announcements.

kind regards,
terry

Carla Everett wrote:

> our computer department was working on a place holder we could post
> USDA's announcement of any results. There are no results to be
> announced tonight
> by NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA
> announcement
> when we hear something.
>
>
> At 06:05 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote:
>
>> why was the announcement on your TAHC site removed?
>>
>> Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy:
>> November 22: Press Release title here
>> star image More BSE information
>>
>>
>>
>> terry
>>
>> Carla Everett wrote:
>>
>>> no confirmation on the U.S.' inconclusive test...
>>> no confirmation on location of animal.
>>


I still want my Texas mad cows confirmed BY WB!

TSS

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:

> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
>
> Greetings list members,
>
>
> I find this very very disturbing. IN fact i will say that if the
> USDA/APHIS
> do not get a second opinion from the experts overseas, I would say
> that there is a cover-up. WE now know that they are willing to do
> anything to cover-up BSE in the USA by what they did with the other
> stumbling and staggering cow they refused to TSE test and sent to the
> render in TEXAS. IN fact I am hearing from International experts on
> TSE that they do NOT buy the latest USDAs test result. why should they?
> Seems they did not even do a western blot from what i was told. They run
> two rapid test that turn up positive, but the USDA finds that to be
> inconclusive.
> They also said they would not be telling us of any 'inconclusive', but
> they did.
> SO, why was it announced? I will tell you why, because the likelihood
> of it
> being positive was very high. Even the CEO of BioRAD and Prionics said
> this.
> IN fact, USDA has never said they would run 2 IHC, so again, why did they
> this time? I will tell you why, they wanted a negative so bad, they
> would test
> the samples until they found a portion of the brain/tissue sample that
> would not show a positive. THIS REEKs of industry/political
> manipulation. I cannot believe that our foreign alies/exporting
> countries (if there is any left), continue
> to risk there people through the lies from this administration. why won't
> USDA et al send samples for independent examinations if they are still
> having
> such a hard time with this? what do they have to hide? IF both the
> TSE laboratory in Waybride, England and the University of Bern,
> Switzerland
> (OIE Reference Laboratory) dont get a sample of this tissue from this cow
> to give second opinions, then in my opinion that cow was positive.
> Hell, we get official slides of Japan's infected samples to survey.
> but in the USA, it's all closed doors now and they will test the damn
> animal
> as many times as it takes to get a negative. total bull sh!t
> encephalopathy this
> is, what i call BSeee, politics at it's finest hour. when will it all
> end$
>
> IF we look at the original U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform
> Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary i posted in 1999,
> it states very clearly;
>
>> If additional tests do suggest a presumptive diagnosis of BSE, an NVSL
>> pathologist will hand carry the sample to the United Kingdom for
>> confirmation. It is at this critical point, when NVSL suggests a
>> diagnosis of BSE and is preparing to send the sample to the United
>> Kingdom, that this BSE Response Plan is initiated. The Plan begins the
>> preliminary notification from NVSL to APHIS...
>
>
>
>
> snip...end
>
> BUT this administration has clearly shown they have no rules and
> regulations, they change them with the wind to suit there needs$
>
> for full text,
>
> ORIGINAL POSTING;
>
> Subject: U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan
> Summary
> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 18:25:12 -0500
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> Reply-To: BSE-L
> To: BSE-L
>
> IT'S IN THE ARCHIVES at BSE-L...TSS
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:
>
>> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>> #####################
>>
>> Release No. 0508.04
>>
>> Statement by John Clifford, Deputy Administrator- Animal & Plant
>> Health Inspection Service
>>
>> November 23, 2004
>>
>>
>> "The USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames,
>> Iowa, has determined that the inconclusive screening test sample
>> reported on Nov. 18 has tested negative for BSE upon confirmatory
>> testing.
>> "The Nov. 18 sample is the first that has tested inconclusive under
>> an APHIS protocol announced in August that calls for public reporting
>> of screening results only after two reactive screens. NVSL used the
>> immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, an internationally-recognized gold
>> standard test for BSE, and received a negative result on Nov. 22.
>> Because the Nov. 18 screening test results were reactive in both the
>> first and second screens, NVSL scientists made the recommendation to
>> run the IHC test a second time. On Nov. 23 they reported the second
>> IHC test was negative. Negative results from both IHC tests makes us
>> confident that the animal in question is indeed negative for BSE.
>>
>> "APHIS began an enhanced surveillance program on June 1 and to date
>> has tested over 121,000 samples for BSE. Screening tests are designed
>> to be extremely sensitive and false positives are not unexpected.
>> APHIS has reported three inconclusives including the Nov. 18 sample
>> and all have tested negative on confirmatory testing."
>>
>>
>> #
>>
>>
>> USDA News
>> oc.news@usda.gov
>> 202 720-4623
>>
>>
>> TSS
>>
>> ############## BSE-L-subscribe-request@kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de
>> ##############
>>
>>
>
> ############## BSE-L-subscribe-request@kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de
> ##############
>
>


######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
##########


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:21 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>

The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all
callers to the USDA web site. We have no information
about the animal being in Texas. Carla

At 09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:
>Greetings Carla,
>
>i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from
>TEXAS. can you comment on this either way please?
>
>thank you,
>Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>
>


-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.us>

Greetings Carla,


still hear a rumor;

Texas

single beef cow

not born in Canada

no beef entered the food chain?


and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up for
something, but they forgot a url for update?

I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET...

can you confirm???

terry

Carla Everett wrote:

> The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all
> callers to the USDA web site. We have no information
> about the animal being in Texas. Carla
>
>
>
> At 09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:
>
>> Greetings Carla,
>>
>> i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is
>> from
>> TEXAS. can you comment on this either way please?
>>
>> thank you,
>> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>>
>>
>
>


-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:05:16 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A2724F.3000901@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx.us>

why was the announcement on your TAHC site removed?

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy:
November 22: Press Release title here

star image More BSE information

terry

Carla Everett wrote:

snip...end

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:20 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A2724F.3000901@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A27EBC.4050700@wt.net>

our computer department was working on a place holder we could post
USDA's announcement of any results. There are no results to be announced
tonight
by NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA
announcement
when we hear something.

snip........end

Dear friends...
We have one more great reason to celebrate the holidays!
We've received notice from the USDA that the inconclusive test on a U.S.
cow is negative!
Carla Everett, Texas Animal Health Commission

Statement
by
John Clifford, Deputy Administrator
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
November 23, 2004


“The USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames,
Iowa, has determined that the inconclusive screening test sample
reported on Nov. 18 has tested negative for BSE upon confirmatory testing.

“The Nov. 18 sample is the first that has tested inconclusive under an
APHIS protocol announced in August that calls for public reporting of
screening results only after two reactive screens. NVSL used the
immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, an internationally-recognized gold
standard test for BSE, and received a negative result on Nov. 22.
Because the Nov. 18 screening test results were reactive in both the
first and second screens, NVSL scientists made the recommendation to run
the IHC test a second time. On Nov. 23 they reported the second IHC test
was negative. Negative results from both IHC tests makes us confident
that the animal in question is indeed negative for BSE.

“APHIS began an enhanced surveillance program on June 1 and to date has
tested over 121,000 samples for BSE. Screening tests are designed to be
extremely sensitive and false positives are not unexpected. APHIS has
reported three inconclusives including the Nov. 18 sample and all have
tested negative on confirmatory testing.”


#


===========================


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: USDA Statement-- U.S. BSE "Inconclusive" Cow is Negative!
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:06:48 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <6.0.0.22.2.20041123185246.02757b28@tahc.state.tx.us>

Greetings again Carla,

INDEED it is a good thing. however, no body more than me was
looking for that cow to be positive, for different reasons. i only ponder
other TSEs such as BASE, and or the atypical TSE in cattle in japan's
8th case that showed infectivity in tissue's other than CNS, and how
there so called 'gold standard' works on that? i bet bio-rad is furious
with this 3rd set of inconclusive.

FYI;


Dear Colleagues,

It is my great pleasure to invite you to Sendai and the International
Symposium of
Prion Diseases held here from October 31 to November 2.,2004

Sendai is the city in which the International Congress of Virology was
held in 1984.

snip...

ORAL 8

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Japan

Takashi Yokoyama, Kumiko M. Kimura, Morikazu Shinagawa
Prion Disease Research Center, National Institute of Animal Health, Japan

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has become an important problem
not only for animal industry, but
also for public health. In Japan, BSE was first recognized in September
2001 by fallen stock surveillance.
Since October 2001, BSE examination for all cattle slaughtered at
abattoirs has started. In April 2004, all dead
cattle examination (over 24 months) has been conducted at livestock
hygiene service center. Samples positive
in enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are further subjected to
western blot (WB) and
immunohistochemistry (IHC). Thirteen BSE cases have been reported by
September 2004. Twelve cases
were classified as typical BSE, and the remained one was an atypical
BSE. Variant forms of BSE with atypical
histopathological and/or biochemical phenotype were reported in Italy
and France. Further study is required
for BSE prion characteristics.
To characterize BSE prion properties, brain homogenates of Japanese BSE
cases were intracerebrally
inoculated into wild-type mice. The first case (BSE/Chiba) was
successfully transmitted to rodents. The mean
incubation periods (409.0 days) in this experiment was preferably longer
than that of previously reported.
PrPSc distribution, prion titer, mice susceptibility and/or storage
condition of sample might be influenced the
result. Recently, we introduced transgenic mice that overexpress a
bovine PrP gene to overcome the species
barrier problem. These mice are expected to accelerate the transmission
experiment of BSE prion.
Transmission of atypical BSE case is undergoing by using these
transgenic mice. snip...end

According to Nov. 2 Yomiuri Newspaper, researchers of the Prion
Disease Research Center, the National Institute of Animal Health
of Japan reported in the International Symposium of Prion Diseases
held in Sendai from October 31 to November 2., 2004, that they
detected prion in the adrenal gland and peripheral (sciatic and
peroneal) nerves of the 11th BSE case of Japan (a 94-months old
cow found dead on the farm on March 4 this year).

http://www.maff.go.jp/www/press/cont2/20041101press_7.htm
(only in Japanese)

snip...end

BSE prions propagate as either variant CJD-like or sporadic CJD-like
prion strains in transgenic mice expressing human prion protein

Emmanuel A. Asante, Jacqueline M. Linehan, Melanie Desbruslais, Susan
Joiner, Ian Gowland, Andrew L. Wood, Julie Welch, Andrew F. Hill, Sarah
E. Lloyd, Jonathan D.F. Wadsworth and John Collinge1

MRC Prion Unit and Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, Institute of
Neurology, University College, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK 1
Corresponding author e-mail: j.collinge@prion.ucl.ac.uk


Received August 1, 2002; revised September 24, 2002; accepted October
17, 2002

Abstract


Variant CreutzfeldtJakob disease (vCJD) has been recognized to date
only in individuals homozygous for methionine at PRNP codon 129. Here we
show that transgenic mice expressing human PrP methionine 129,
inoculated with either bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or variant
CJD prions, may develop the neuropathological and molecular phenotype of
vCJD, consistent with these diseases being caused by the same prion
strain. Surprisingly, however, BSE transmission to these transgenic
mice, in addition to producing a vCJD-like phenotype, can also result in
a distinct molecular phenotype that is indistinguishable from that of
sporadic CJD with PrPSc type 2. These data suggest that more than one
BSE-derived prion strain might infect humans; it is therefore possible
that some patients with a phenotype consistent with sporadic CJD may
have a disease arising from BSE exposure...

http://embojournal.npgjournals.com/cgi/content/full/21/23/6358

THE new findings of BASE in cattle in Italy of Identification of a
second bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy: Molecular
similarities with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease


http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0305777101v1


Adaptation of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent to primates
and comparison with Creutzfeldt- Jakob disease: Implications for
human health

THE findings from Corinne Ida Lasmézas*, [dagger] , Jean-Guy Fournier*,
Virginie Nouvel*,

Hermann Boe*, Domíníque Marcé*, François Lamoury*, Nicolas Kopp [Dagger

] , Jean-Jacques Hauw§, James Ironside¶, Moira Bruce [||] , Dominique

Dormont*, and Jean-Philippe Deslys* et al, that The agent responsible
for French iatrogenic growth hormone-linked CJD taken as a control is
very different from vCJD but is similar to that found in one case of
sporadic CJD and one sheep scrapie isolate;

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/041490898v1

Characterization of two distinct prion strains
derived from bovine spongiform encephalopathy
transmissions to inbred mice

Sarah E. Lloyd, Jacqueline M. Linehan, Melanie Desbruslais,
Susan Joiner, Jennifer Buckell, Sebastian Brandner,
Jonathan D. F. Wadsworth and John Collinge

Correspondence
John Collinge
j.collinge@prion.ucl.ac.uk

MRC Prion Unit and Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, Institute of
Neurology,
University College, London WC1N 3BG, UK
Received 9 December 2003
Accepted 27 April 2004

Distinct prion strains can be distinguished by differences in incubation
period, neuropathology
and biochemical properties of disease-associated prion protein (PrPSc)
in inoculated mice.
Reliable comparisons of mouse prion strain properties can only be
achieved after passage in
genetically identical mice, as host prion protein sequence and genetic
background are known
to modulate prion disease phenotypes. While multiple prion strains have
been identified in
sheep scrapie and CreutzfeldtJakob disease, bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) is
thought to be caused by a single prion strain. Primary passage of BSE
prions to different lines
of inbred mice resulted in the propagation of two distinct PrPSc types,
suggesting that two
prion strains may have been isolated. To investigate this further, these
isolates were
subpassaged in a single line of inbred mice (SJL) and it was confirmed
that two distinct prion
strains had been identified. MRC1 was characterized by a short
incubation time (110±3 days),
a mono-glycosylated-dominant PrPSc type and a generalized diffuse
pattern of PrP-immunoreactive
deposits, while MRC2 displayed a much longer incubation time (155±1 days),
a di-glycosylated-dominant PrPSc type and a distinct pattern of
PrP-immunoreactive deposits
and neuronal loss. These data indicate a crucial involvement of the host
genome in modulating
prion strain selection and propagation in mice. It is possible that
multiple disease phenotypes
may also be possible in BSE prion infection in humans and other animals.

http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/8/2471


i know there are a lot of things you cannot tell me,
but it does not hurt for me to ask :-)

you and your family have a Great Thanksgiving.

kindest regards,
terry

Carla Everett wrote:

> Dear friends...
> We have one more great reason to celebrate the holidays!
> We've received notice from the USDA that the inconclusive test on a
> U.S. cow is negative!
> Carla Everett, Texas Animal Health Commission
>
> Statement
> by
> John Clifford, Deputy Administrator
> Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
> November 23, 2004
>
>
> The USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames,
> Iowa, has determined that the inconclusive screening test sample
> reported on Nov. 18 has tested negative for BSE upon confirmatory
> testing.
>
> The Nov. 18 sample is the first that has tested inconclusive under an
> APHIS protocol announced in August that calls for public reporting of
> screening results only after two reactive screens. NVSL used the
> immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, an internationally-recognized gold
> standard test for BSE, and received a negative result on Nov. 22.
> Because the Nov. 18 screening test results were reactive in both the
> first and second screens, NVSL scientists made the recommendation to
> run the IHC test a second time. On Nov. 23 they reported the second
> IHC test was negative. Negative results from both IHC tests makes us
> confident that the animal in question is indeed negative for BSE.
>
> APHIS began an enhanced surveillance program on June 1 and to date
> has tested over 121,000 samples for BSE. Screening tests are designed
> to be extremely sensitive and false positives are not unexpected.
> APHIS has reported three inconclusives including the Nov. 18 sample
> and all have tested negative on confirmatory testing.
>
>
> #
>
>
>
END

I WANT MY DAMN TEXAS MAD COW!

course this one did not count ;-(it counted in my mad cow files)

May 13, 2004

Failure To Test Staggering Cow May Reflect Wider Problems
Rep. Waxman raises concerns that the recent failure of USDA to test an
impaired cow for BSE may not be an isolated incident, citing the failure
of USDA to monitor whether cows condemned for central nervous system
symptoms are actually tested for mad cow disease.

- Letter to USDA

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_may_13_let.pdf


http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_may_13_let.pdf


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.

####

rule

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

THAT DAMN COW SHOULD COUNT TOO!

let alone these;

THAT ONE TEXAS MAD COW IS ONLY TIP OF ICE BURG;

No mad cow results for nearly 500 cows

By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 8/11/2004 11:23 AM


WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture failed
to test for mad cow disease or collect the correct portion of the brain
on nearly 500 suspect cows over the past two years -- including some in
categories considered most likely to be infected -- according to agency
records obtained by United Press International.

The testing problems mean it may never be known with certainty whether
these animals were infected with the deadly disease. Department
officials said these animals were not included in the agency's final
tally of mad cow tests, but the records, obtained by UPI under the
Freedom of Information Act, indicate at least some of them were counted...

snip...

--

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 040810-042935-2066r


DON'T FORGET THAT LITTLE OLD FEED MILL IN TEXAS
EITHER, THE PURINA AT GONZALES, TEXAS. ONLY
5.5 GRAMS EACH COW COULD HAVE CONSUMED,
NO BIG DEAL, ESPECIALLY SINCE AS LITTLE AS .1 GRAM
IS LETHAL TO A DAMN COW;


From: TSS (216-119-138-125.ipset18.wt.net)
Subject: TESTS ON PURINA FEED CONFIRMS BAD FEED $$$ CJD DEATHS IN TEXAS
RISING, another sad story ...
Date: January 31, 2001 at 7:01 am PST

Jan. 30, 2001, 11:02PM

FDA says amount of bad feed eaten by cows not risky

By KATHRYN A. WOLFE

Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN -- Tests show that most of the 1,222 cows quarantined at a
Gonzales feedlot ate feed that was banned as a safeguard against mad-cow
disease, but the amount was too small to present much risk, the Food and
Drug Administration said Tuesday.

FDA tests confirmed that the cattle ate feed containing a "very low
level" of cow bone and meat byproducts, which have been banned as cattle
feed since 1997.

But the FDA's Dr. Murray Lumpkin told the Associated Press the Texas
scare could be a wake-up call and that the agency will re-examine feed
regulations to see if additional safeguards are needed.

"This is not a one-time thing," he warned. Feed makers and regulators,
he said, "are going to have to recommit themselves to abiding by the
best feeding practices we have established."

The contamination came just weeks after the FDA discovered that hundreds
of feed makers were violating rules associated with the ban, raising
questions about loopholes that could allow cattle
to become infected.

The agency has warned feed makers that continued violations will prompt
seizures of feed, company closures and even prosecution.

Scientists have theorized that mad-cow disease is contracted when cattle
eat feed that has bone and meat byproducts of cows that had the disease.

In the Gonzales case, the feed with beef byproducts was mistakenly
distributed to the feedlot by manufacturer Purina Mills. The FDA found
that after testing the feed, each cow, which weighs about 600 pounds,
could have consumed a maximum of 5.5 grams of the banned feed.

"It's just such a tiny amount. About a quarter of an ounce is what it
amounts to per cow," said Allen Spelce, Texas Department of Agriculture
assistant commissioner.

The FDA report also said that because the feed was produced in the
United States, where there have been no known cases of mad-cow disease,
the risk of the cattle having contracted the disease is "exceedingly
low."

Additionally, the cattle that ate the feed never entered the food chain
and are therefore not a risk to consumers, said Carla Everett, a
spokeswoman for the Texas Animal Health Commission.

"You're not going to catch it in your H-E-B or anything," she said.

The FDA report said that Purina Mills, which has offered to purchase the
1,200 quarantined cattle rather than have them enter the food chain,
"behaved responsibly" by voluntarily reporting the error that caused the
banned feed to be distributed to the lot. The cows were quarantined when
the error was discovered less than a day later.

Purina Mills also discontinued the use of meat byproducts in any of its
feed last week.

Mad-cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, first appeared in Britain in 1984 and has since been
blamed for the deaths of 83 Britons. The importation of cows and cow
byproducts from a foreign country has been banned since 1997.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/810849

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
P01-05
January 30, 2001
Print Media:
301-827-6242
Broadcast Media:
301-827-3434
Consumer Inquiries:
888-INFO-FDA

FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT

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

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

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

According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy
Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators
and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One
important defense is to prohibit the use of any
ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined
with other steps, like U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals
from affected countries, these steps
represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."

Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless
announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222
of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed
containing the prohibited material. Therefore,
meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA
believes any cattle that did not consume
feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident,
and should be handled in the beef supply
clearance process as usual.

FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first
reporting the human error that resulted in the
misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely
with State and Federal authorities.

This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into
place is essential for protecting the food
supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned,
to ensure these rules are followed
routinely.

FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials
to ensure that companies and
individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the
U.S. food supply.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html

Subject: prohibited material confirmed fed toTexas cattle
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:53:57 -0800
From: tom
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de

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

In cahoots with industry, FDA had a busy day protecting public
perception of the safety of the beef and candy supply. Here's their
press release,
conveniently posted at 7:00 pm east coast time when offices are closed
and deadlines looming, that takes us to the next level of this hoaky
event.

Some folks in the rendering industry have opined that the buyback and
incineration arrangements were finalized long before the feed got put on
the wrong truck. Incineration has not been announced yet but where is
Purina Mills going to hold 1,221 cattle, in their parking lot? It is
more
Vermont sheep and Vancouver water buffalo -- dramatic, symbolic
displays of resolve to trading partners rather than real risk
management.

FDA keeps saying there is no BSE in the US, these are only precautionary
measures. Yes, but if a man has had a vasectomy, why would his wife
still
be taking birth control pills?

Purina MIlls has displayed some excellent leadership in shifting out of
bovine byproducts in feed in terms of US risk reduction; we shall see if
the whole industry is going to follow suit and what becomes of the offal
from 35,000,000 slaughtered cattle a year. Rendering served a good
purpose historically in the sense that this material got recycled and
utilized.

Can't go wrong on candy -- FDA announced earlier it doesn't care how a
manufactured product is sourced, it is only regulating raw materials.

CJD aka MADCOW DISEASE IN TEXAS

(i receive letters like this all the time,
got this one last night. is it not a sad situation when the government
agencies continue to lie in the name of the INDUSTRY responsible for all
these
deaths...)

Last Friday we buried my aunt who unfortunately fell to the mercy of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The disease progressed so rapidly, it ripped
her
life away from us in a year. Ironically, the local and national media
was plastered that day with articles and commentaries on the Mad Cow
disease,
it's association with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and it's threat to
society. I was shocked to see the claims that there have been no
reported cases in the
US as of yet. My aunt was diagnosed with the dreadful illness several
weeks ago after she had dredged through the stages of depression,
insomnia, memory loss, dementia and was reaching the final stages with
speech and hearing loss, loss of limb control, cessation of eating and
then constant sleep.

I would have guessed that this finding would have been reported to
health officials. Obviously I was wrong. I was also surprised to hear
that none of
the Houston doctors would even touch her where the topic of autopsy is
concerned. Odd, she would need a brain biopsy to confirm the disease.
Once arriving at the conclusion that she did indeed have
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, we were informed that there are others in the
area who are fighting
the losing battle against this same disease. Is anyone aware that there
is a great possibility that there may be cases associated with Mad Cow
Disease in
this area? I guess I shouldn't be surprised if they did and are
attempting to keep it under wraps for as long as possible. I understand
the cattle industry's interest in deterring this outbreak information,
but who's going to buy their meat when everyone's already died from it?
We have made a few attempts to open the eyes of the community through
the local newspapers and news, but each time it tends to make us look
crazy. One official from the Texas department of health rebutted that
this was a rare disease that is seen in persons over the age of 60 and
symptoms include loss of memory, depression
and numbness in the limbs and face. This does not come close to
describing the symptoms my aunt had. It's very frustrating to not be
able to get the
truth out. No one wants to cooperate. The mortuary lies, the doctors
lie, the Department of Health is lying. We called 4-5 weeks before she
passed
away to make funeral arrangements. Considering the disease she had, the
mortuary explained that they might not be able to embalm her as they
feared
it could be airborne once they cut her open. They told the family not
to worry about it for then and they would do some research. They called
the
doctors in Houston that were working with her case and they ended up
having to order a special suit to perform the embalming. When the
newspaper
interviewed the representative of the mortuary, he said they did not
know what type of disease she had and that they take the same
precautions with
everyone using gloves, masks, and aprons.
Is this worth fighting?

TSS

BSE/TSE .1 GRAM LETHAL NEW STUDY SAYS via W.H.O. Dr Maura Ricketts
[BBC radio 4 FARM news] (audio realplayer LISTEN)

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912425.html


MIKE, dont forget about these FSIS inspectors that were bribed :-)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FSIS FOOD INSPECTOR CONVICTED FELONY BRIBERY FOR PASSING
DOWNERS/TSE FOR CONSUMPTION
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:42:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE

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

Issued June 2000


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection


1998 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States Congress


snip...

*

In March 1998, an FSIS food inspector and a Federal plant in New
York were each sentenced on one felony count of bribery. The
inspector was assessed a criminal fine of $17,000, assessed a $100
special assessment fee, and placed on probation for 5 years. The
inspector was also required to serve 6 months in home detention
and complete 200 hours of community service. The Federal plant was
assessed a criminal fine of $10,000, paid a $100 special
assessment fee, and was placed on probation for 5 years. The
investigation revealed that the inspector accepted money in
exchange for inspecting and passing downer (dying, diseased or
disabled) livestock that were supposed to be inspected by an FSIS
veterinarian and for allowing company employees to slaughter
animals and to use inspection brands when the inspector was not
present.

snip...


Civil Enforcement Actions

The following Civil Enforcement Actions are a representative sample of
actions taken during FY 1998:

* In June 1998, an Illinois Federal plant entered into a settlement
agreement with the USDA and the United States Attorney for
violating the FMIA, PPIA, and False Claims Act (FCA). The firm
agreed to pay the Court-ordered civil penalty of $20,000. The
investigation revealed that the firm prepared various meat and/or
poultry egg rolls without the benefit of Federal inspection, sold
and transported the non-federally inspected products in interstate
commerce, and used the official mark of meat and poultry
inspection without authorization...

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,
maybe that is why some got CJD;

In June 1996, a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in
Oakland, California, sentenced the former vice president of a closed meat
processing establishment and the establishment for violations of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act. The official paid $250,000 as part of a
restitution/fine
payment, received 5 years' probation, and was required to perform 1,000
hours
of community service. The firm was ordered to pay $500,000 in restitution to
the Defense Logistics Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense. In addition,
three co-defendants were sentenced for selling adulterated meat to the now
defunct establishment. The co-defendants were convicted of illegally
slaughtering cattle and transporting and selling the adulterated meat to
the now
defunct firm, knowing the meat would be processed for resale and human
consumption. The former vice president admitted buying dead, dying,
diseased, or disabled cattle from the co-defendants and using the
adulterated
meat to prepare meat products for commercial sales and for Government
military contracts. The investigation was conducted in 1993 by the USDA
Office of Inspector General, officials from the Defense Criminal
Investigation
Service, and FSIS compliance officers. Restitution to the military was
initiated under the Affirmative Civil Enforcement program...

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc96.pdf

February 2003


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection
2000 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress

snip...

MORE BRIBERY FOR PASSING DOWNERS FOR HUMAN/ANIMAL
CONSUMPTION...TSS

* June 2000. A USDA Judicial Officer (JO) issued a Decision
upholding indefinite withdrawal of inspection services from a meat
and poultry company located in Greenville, New York. The JO’s
Decision upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Decision. The
decisions were the result of an administrative hearing before the
ALJ wherein USDA presented evidence to show that the company was
“unfit” for inspection service. The proceeding to withdraw
inspection was based on the company’s felony conviction of bribing
a public official. An investigation revealed that the company
provided money to an inspector in exchange for inspecting and
passing dying, diseased, or disabled livestock requiring
additional inspection by a Veterinary Medical Officer. The
inspector and company were convicted in separate trials. The
company has appealed to a U.S. District Court...

snip...


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc2000/rtc2000chap3.htm#4

March 2001


Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection
1999 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress


Preface

snip...

January 1999. The owner of an export inspection station was sentenced on
two felony counts for using simulated export certificates with intent to
defraud. The defendant was sentenced to 3 years' probation and fined
$10,000. The investigation revealed that the defendant fraudulently
exported approximately 3 million pounds of meat and poultry products to
Mexico.

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/rtc99/rtc99chap3.htm


* 2000
(Issued February 2003) [PDF
, 93 pp. 768 KB]
* 1999 (Issued
March 2001)
* 1998 (Issued June
2000; HTML text with PDF attachments)
* 1997 (Issued November
1999; PDF, 950 KB)
* 1996 (Issued
September 1997; PDF, 257 KB)

TSS

################# BSE-L-subscribe-request@uni-karlsruhe.de #################


NOW, with that mad goat confirmed with BSE, makes those imported Belgium
sheep in VERMONT
more interesting, especially since those mouse bio assays were put off
for more than two years.
will forward that to ya later........terry





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: