Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource

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 18, 2005 at 7:35 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 -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

To: DAVID.IVANOVICH @ CHRON.COM

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:35 AM

Subject: Fw: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test Results

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 9:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary
> Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE
> Inconclusive Test Results
>
>
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > a few comments please;
> >
> > >>>The Inspector General, in reviewing our surveillance system that
> > we have in place, decided to retest with a second confirmatory test which
> > is called the Western Blot. We have received test results showing a
> positive
> > on one animal for the Western Blot.<<<
> >
> > >>>The department has not explained why the new tests were ordered. The
> > inspector general's office, an independent arm of the agency, would not
> > comment Monday, saying a brief statement would be issued Tuesday.<<<
> >
> > I happened to write the OIG about this very issue, on several occasions.
> > THIS is _one_ of several emails i sent the OIG about this issue and
> > others in the past, and all the data to back it up. ...TSS
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: re-USDA's surveillance plan for BSE aka mad cow disease
> > Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:59:07 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > To: paffairs@oig.hhs.gov, HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov, contactOIG@hhsc.state.tx.us
> >
> >
> > Greetings Honorable Paul Feeney, Keith Arnold, and William Busby
> > et al at OIG,
> >
> > My name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr. and on 12/14/97 I lost my
> > mother to a most hideous disease called ;
> >
> > Heidenhain Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (CONFIRMED)
> >
> > MY MOM AND MANY MORE
> > were murdered by corporate greed, to say the least.
> >
> > I have wasted almost 8 years of my life seeking the truth.
> > I have been searching for answers ever since. I kindly wish
> > to submit the following data that I have acquired over the last
> > 7+ years. There has indeed been a cover-up of TSE in the USA
> > bovine. PLEASE remember, there is now more than one strain
> > of TSE in cattle. Many strains of TSE in other species. The
> > new TSE in cattle does not resemble BSE in cattle or
> > nvCJD in humans, but very similar to the sporadic CJD ;
> >
> >
> > Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform
> > encephalopathy: Molecular similarities with sporadic
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
> >
> > Cristina Casalone *{dagger} , Gianluigi Zanusso {dagger} {ddagger} ,
> > Pierluigi Acutis *, Sergio Ferrari {ddagger} , Lorenzo Capucci § ,
> > Fabrizio Tagliavini ¶, Salvatore Monaco {ddagger} ||, and Maria Caramelli
> *
> >
> > *Centro di Referenza Nazionale per le Encefalopatie Animali, Istituto
> > Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle d'Aosta, Via
> > Bologna, 148, 10195 Turin, Italy; {ddagger} Department of Neurological
> > and Visual Science, Section of Clinical Neurology, Policlinico G.B.
> > Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy; § Istituto
> > Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via
> > Bianchi, 9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; and ¶Istituto Nazionale Neurologico
> > "Carlo Besta," Via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy
> >
> > Edited by Stanley B. Prusiner, University of California, San Francisco,
> > CA, and approved December 23, 2003 (received for review September 9, 2003)
> >
> > Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), or prion diseases, are
> > mammalian neurodegenerative disorders characterized by a
> > posttranslational conversion and brain accumulation of an insoluble,
> > protease-resistant isoform (PrPSc) of the host-encoded cellular prion
> > protein (PrPC). Human and animal TSE agents exist as different
> > phenotypes that can be biochemically differentiated on the basis of the
> > molecular mass of the protease-resistant PrPSc fragments and the degree
> > of glycosylation. Epidemiological, molecular, and transmission studies
> > strongly suggest that the single strain of agent responsible for bovine
> > spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has infected humans, causing variant
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The unprecedented biological properties of
> > the BSE agent, which circumvents the so-called "species barrier" between
> > cattle and humans and adapts to different mammalian species, has raised
> > considerable concern for human health. To date, it is unknown whether
> > more than one strain might be responsible for cattle TSE or whether the
> > BSE agent undergoes phenotypic variation after natural transmission.
> > Here we provide evidence of a second cattle TSE. The disorder was
> > pathologically characterized by the presence of PrP-immunopositive
> > amyloid plaques, as opposed to the lack of amyloid deposition in typical
> > BSE cases, and by a different pattern of regional distribution and
> > topology of brain PrPSc accumulation. In addition, Western blot analysis
> > showed a PrPSc type with predominance of the low molecular mass
> > glycoform and a protease-resistant fragment of lower molecular mass than
> > BSE-PrPSc. Strikingly, the molecular signature of this previously
> > undescribed bovine PrPSc was similar to that encountered in a distinct
> > subtype of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
> >
> > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0305777101v1
> >
> > ALSO, PLEASE REMEMBER, SCRAPIE IN SHEEP AND
> > GOATS ARE RAMPANT IN THE USA, SCRAPIE TRANSMITS
> > TO PRIMATES, AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN TRANSMISSION STUDIES ON HUMANS ;
> >
> > 1: J Infect Dis 1980 Aug;142(2):205-8
> >
> >
> > Oral transmission of kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and scrapie to
> > nonhuman primates.
> >
> > Gibbs CJ Jr, Amyx HL, Bacote A, Masters CL, Gajdusek DC.
> >
> > Kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease of humans and scrapie disease of
> > sheep and goats were transmitted to squirrel monkeys (Saimiri
> > sciureus) that were exposed to the infectious agents only by their
> > nonforced consumption of known infectious tissues. The asymptomatic
> > incubation period in the one monkey exposed to the virus of kuru was
> > 36 months; that in the two monkeys exposed to the virus of
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was 23 and 27 months, respectively; and
> > that in the two monkeys exposed to the virus of scrapie was 25 and
> > 32 months, respectively. Careful physical examination of the buccal
> > cavities of all of the monkeys failed to reveal signs or oral
> > lesions. One additional monkey similarly exposed to kuru has
> > remained asymptomatic during the 39 months that it has been under
> > observation.
> >
> > PMID: 6997404
> >
> >
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
> > ds=6997404&dopt=Abstract
> >
> >
> > USDA USE TO BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AGENT
> > AND THE POTENTIAL FOR TRANSMISSION TO HUMANS,
> > what changed there mind?
> >
> >
> > 12/10/76
> > AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
> > REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE ON SCRAPIE
> > Office Note
> > CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR PETER WILDY
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > A The Present Position with respect to Scrapie
> > A] The Problem
> >
> > Scrapie is a natural disease of sheep and goats. It is a slow
> > and inexorably progressive degenerative disorder of the nervous system
> > and it ia fatal. It is enzootic in the United Kingdom but not in all
> > countries.
> >
> > The field problem has been reviewed by a MAFF working group
> > (ARC 35/77). It is difficult to assess the incidence in Britain for
> > a variety of reasons but the disease causes serious financial loss;
> > it is estimated that it cost Swaledale breeders alone $l.7 M during
> > the five years 1971-1975. A further inestimable loss arises from the
> > closure of certain export markets, in particular those of the United
> > States, to British sheep.
> >
> > It is clear that scrapie in sheep is important commercially and
> > for that reason alone effective measures to control it should be
> > devised as quickly as possible.
> >
> > Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether
> > scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the
> > disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid
> > speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie,
> > kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of
> > mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of
> > Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit
> > scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed
> > for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)"
> > The problem is emphasised by the finding that some strains of scrapie
> > produce lesions identical to the once which characterise the human
> > dementias"
> >
> > Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be
> > transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety
> > of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action
> > such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the
> > acrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer
> > grievously.
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > 76/10.12/4.6
> >
> > http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12004001.pdf
> >
> > http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12002001.pdf
> >
> >
> > SCRAPIE STATUS USA 2005
> >
> > MONTHLY REPORT
> >
> > AS of March 31, 2005, there were 70 Scrapie infected source flocks
> > (Figure 3). There were 11 new infected and source flocks reported
> > in March (Figure 4) with a total of 51 flocks reported for FY 2005
> > (Figure 5). The total infected and source flocks that have been released
> > in FY 2005 are 39 (Figure 6), with 1 flock released in March. The
> > ratio of infected and source flocks released to newly infected and
> > source flocks for FY 2005 = 0.76 : 1. In addition, as of March 31,
> > 2005, 225 Scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the
> > National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which
> > 53 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 57 newly confirmed
> > cases in March 2005 (Figure 8). Fourteen cases of Scrapie in Goats
> > have been reported since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat cases was
> > reported in January 2005. New infected flocks, source flocks, and
> > flocks released or put on clean-up plans for FY 2005 are depicted
> > in Figure 10...
> >
> >
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.htm
> > l
> >
> >
> > YEARLY REPORT
> >
> > Infected and Source Flocks
> >
> > As of September 30, 2004, there were 67 scrapie infected and source
> > flocks (figure 3
> > ).
> > There were a total of 100** new infected and source flocks reported for
> > FY 2004 (figure 4
> > ).
> > The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2004
> > are 77 (figure 5
> > ).
> > The percent of new infected and source flocks cleaned up or on clean up
> > plans was 96%. In addition, as of September 30, 2004, 368 scrapie cases
> > have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services
> > Laboratories (NVSL) in FY 2004, of which 54 were RSSS cases (figure 6
> > ,
> > and figure 7
> > ).
> > Thirteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (figure
> > 8
> > ).
> > One new goat case was reported in FY 2004. New infected flocks, source
> > flocks, and flocks released for FY 2004 are depicted in chart 4
> > .
> > One new goat case was reported in FY 2004. Approximately 3,058 animals
> > were indemnified comprised of 47% non-registered sheep, 44% registered
> > sheep, 6% non-registered goats and 1% registered goats.
> >
> >
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/yearly_report/yearly-report.html
> >
> >
> > PLEASE note, the june 2004 BSE enhanced surveillance
> > was meaningless and ''NOT SCIENTIFIC'' without WB.
> >
> > just ask the experts ;
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON TEXAS
> > COW WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:53:47 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L@LISTS.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #####################
> >
> > 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. If a result raises suspicion, a confirmatory test is conducted
> > with the Western blot test.
> >
> > 2. How long has this been the case?
> >
> > Its a fairly recent development. Only recently has the Western blot
> > test become sensitive enough, with the addition of phospohtungstic acid
> > precipitation step. The Bio-Rad test (which Deslys helped develop) is
> > extremely sensitive, and the standard Western blot is extremely reliable
> > with high-signal test results. However, it had to be made more sensitive
> > for low-signal (samples with low density of malformed prions) samples.
> > It has been made more sensitive.
> >
> > Reproducibility is the problem with the IHC test. It is not
> > standardized; depending on the lab and its protocols, or even on the
> > technician involved in the test, one can get conflicting results.
> >
> > 3. Is there a way to measure the three tests in sensitivity, accuracy
> > and objectivity?
> >
> > Historically, yes. The IHC was the gold standard at one point, but we
> > have shifted to the Western blot. It requires less work, it is more
> > sensitive and its results are reproducible. IHC relies on localization.
> > If you have a weak signal case, you may get lucky and test a spot with a
> > high concentration of prions. But the opposite it true too; you can miss
> > an infection by testing a sample with low concentrations. Western blot
> > is much better for low signal situations.
> >
> > 4. The USDA in 2003 used the Western blot to confirm the BSE case in
> > Washington state, and it sent samples to the U.K. for independent
> > testing. In the case this November, which it announced was negative, it
> > instead used the IHC test and did not send samples to the U.K. Is this
> > good science?
> >
> > Its not logical. If you have two consecutive questionable screenings,
> > you do another test. I can only advise, its managements duty at USDA
> > to make the decisions. But when you have a discrepancy between the rapid
> > test and the IHC, it is only logical to confirm it with another test.
> >
> > 5. We are hearing now about a new strain of BSE, atypical BSE or aBSE.
> > Or BaSE. We have heard that IHC, the so-called gold standard, cannot
> > detect the variant. Is this true?
> >
> > Yes. There have been a few cases, one in Italy, one in Belgium, one here
> > in France. It seems to only affect very old animals. The distribution in
> > the brain is very different than we see with BSE, it looks very
> > different. The IHC test will come back negative.
> >
> > This his a very recent phenomenon. I have no opinion on its virulence.
> > We do not know where it comes from. It could be a version of sporadic
> > infection. Western blot caught them, but we would not even know it
> > existed if we werent running systematic testing in the EU.
> >
> > BSE was around for a long time before we caught it and by then, it was
> > everywhere. It had become highly infectious. It probably amplified due
> > to low-temperature rendering. The disease was recycled through the food
> > chain, and was given time to amplify. By the time it was identified,
> > even good cooking couldnt eliminate it.
> >
> > I cant stress enough that systematic testing is necessary. Withdrawing
> > all positives from the food chain is the best way to break the cycle.
> >
> > What can happen with testing of only cattle that are clearly at risk is
> > that several can remain undetected. Canada has tested about 30,000 head
> > of cattle and has three positives. That would indicate that there are
> > probably undiscovered cases. And what happens then is that the disease
> > is allowed to amplify. You have to maintain testing.
> >
> > When people choose to protect their economic interests over public
> > health, it can have a boomerang effect. It happened all through Europe.
> > They always deny; its not OUR problem, it is our neighbors problem.
> > And then a single case is discovered and the public reacts. The economic
> > results are devastating. It would be better to just assume BSE is
> > present and use systematic testing as protection. That way, the public
> > is reassured that it is not entering the food supply.
> >
> > By systematic testing, I mean doing as we do in the EU, which is to test
> > every animal over 30 months of age when it is slaughtered. In Europe,
> > three times as many cases of BSE have been caught by systematic testing
> > as by clinical testing (of clearly sick animals). In 2004, eight
> > clinical cases were discovered, 29 were discovered at rendering plants,
> > and 17 at slaughter. We should be using these tests as a weapon to
> > protect the public and to give them assurance that the food supply is
> > being protected.
> >
> > 6. USDAs list of specified risk materials excludes some products, like
> > blood and bone meal, that are banned in the EU and UK. Is our feed
> > supply safe?
> >
> > With SRMs, where do you stop? Tests have found prions in meat, nerves
> > travel through meat, and so on. The main infectivity is in the brain and
> > the spinal cord. A blood and bone meal ban in animal feed is not really
> > necessary, because except in cases of highly infective animals, it is
> > unlikely that they are dangerous in themselves. If you combine
> > systematic testing and targeted SRM removal, the brain and the spinal
> > column in cattle over 30 months, you can have a compromise that is both
> > safer and less costly than expanded feed bans.
> >
> > Certainly, you can stop the spread of BSE with a total ban on offal. But
> > it has to be a total ban. It cant be given to sheep or swine or
> > poultry. It would be very expensive and virtually impossible to
> > accomplish. You can have farmers using the wrong feed or transportation
> > errors.
> >
> > Systematic testing makes far more sense. I think of it as a thermometer.
> > It not only allows us to catch the disease, it also allows us to monitor
> > its progress. We can watch the levels of infectivity and if they start
> > going up instead of down, we can take measures.
> >
> > To an extent, our environment is contaminated. About 10 percent of wild
> > animals test positive for TSEs. If you recycle these agents, they can
> > evolve and get more dangerous. This is probably what happened with
> > BSE. It wasnt very dangerous until it evolved to the disease we know
> > today.
> >
> > People complain that testing is very expensive. It is much more
> > expensive to kill and test whole herds.
> >
> > 7. In your opinion, is infected feed the sole method of transmission of
> > BSE, apart from the very rare maternal transmission?
> >
> > Feed is the main problem. However, we are seeing some other
> > possibilities, including through fat and greases. Calves are fed milk
> > extracts, with the cream removed. To make it nutritious, they are using
> > fat and grease from cattle.
> >
> > (FOLLOW QUESTION: Would that allow BSE to develop into an infective
> > level in cattle younger than 30 months, assuming they might be getting
> > infected at a younger age?)
> >
> > 8. You were involved in a study that tested two primates who were fed
> > infected brain tissue. One eventually died of TSE; the other survived.
> > The press reported that the main finding was that it would take
> > something on the order of 1.5 kilograms of infected matter to create an
> > infection, but that seems to be an oversimplification. Could you explain
> > it further?
> >
> > The findings suggest that as little as five grams is enough to infect.
> > The 1.5 kilo figure is the amount of infected tissue that would have to
> > be ingested from an animal that would be below the threshold of
> > infection, and would test negative. In other words, even though a
> > younger animal may be developing the disease, it would take a
> > considerable amount of tissue to transmit the disease.
> >
> > An animal could be just below the testing level, and not be particularly
> > dangerous. But that is why you have to keep testing. Once it reaches the
> > threshold, it can become highly infective.
> >
> > 9. BSE is a pretty horrifying disease, but overall, it has killed less
> > than 200 humans, and only a handful in recent years. Listeria, by
> > comparison, kills thousands every year. Overall, how do you rate the
> > threat from BSE?
> >
> >
> > The overall risk is not particularly high. Over two million infected
> > animals went into the food chain in Europe, 400,000 of them before the
> > SRMs, the brains and spinal column, were removed from the carcass. Less
> > than 200 died, and less than 4,000 are at risk of developing the
> > disease. What we know now is that one particle is not going to kill you.
> > There has to be condensation of the prions to be truly dangerous.
> >
> > This is not a sterile world. But the danger is that now that the crisis
> > appears to be over, attention will turn elsewhere and that will allow
> > the disease to amplify again. Just as we stopped paying attention to
> > AIDS when medication seemed to control it, then were surprised when a
> > new and more infectious and aggressive strain appeared, we could be
> > surprised by a more serious strain of BSE. That is why I support
> > systematic testing for the long term. The object is to keep levels of
> > BSE low, and to recognize the danger if it suddenly pops back up. ...END
> >
> > TSS
> >
> > ######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
> > ##########
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON
> > TEXAS COW WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:14:14 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L@LISTS.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
> > References: <42692C1B.7090200@wt.net>
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #####################
> >
> > IN FACT, i must bring this up again.
> > IN TEXAS, when they are really worried about a mad cow,
> > when the cow is clinical and stumbling and staggering, TEXAS
> > does not bother TESTING the cow at all. nope, they just send
> > it directly to be rendered head and all to get rid of all evidence.
> > the june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up was just that. the USA
> > could test every cow that goes to slaughter, and it would be meaningless
> > unless properly done with the most sensitive testing to date.
> > but not in TEXAS or any other state in the USA.............
> >
> >
> > FDA Statement
> >
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > Statement
> > May 4, 2004
> >
> > Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
> > Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
> >
> >
> > Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
> >
> > On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a
> > cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to
> > a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
> >
> > FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately
> > began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA
> > investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the
> > farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially
> > received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
> >
> > FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
> > rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over
> > the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
> > material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
> >
> > Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
> > because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known
> > as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is
> > no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal
> > feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other
> > ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
> >
> > FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and
> > informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in
> > swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be
> > destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the
> > firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the
> > material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the
> > farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed
> > for pigs.
> >
> > To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian
> > protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA
> > established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the
> > U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant
> > protein to cattle.
> >
> > Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
> > allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
> > specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it
> > will not be fed to poultry.
> >
> > FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates
> > closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The
> > animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE,
> > but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving
> > the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
> >
> > ####
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
> >
> > TSS
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > APHIS Statement: June 29 Inconclusive BSE Test is Negative
> > 07/02/2004
> >
> > APHIS Statement: First Inconclusive BSE Test is Negative
> > 06/30/2004
> >
> > APHIS Statement Regarding Second Inconclusive BSE Test
> > 06/29/2004
> >
> > APHIS Statement Regarding First Inconclusive BSE Test
> > 06/25/2004
> >
> > Week 25
> > (11/1511/21)
> > 7,900
> > 1
> > Negative
> > 0
> > 7,901
> >
> > Week 5
> > (6/287/4)
> > 3,500
> > 1
> > Negative
> > 0
> > 3,501
> > Week 4
> > (6/216/27)
> > 3,254
> > 1
> > Negative
> > 0
> > 3,255
> >
> >
> >
> > USDA orders silence on mad cow in Texas
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 5/11/2004 10:16 PM
> >
> > WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has
> > issued an order instructing its inspectors in Texas, where federal mad
> > cow disease testing policies recently were violated, not to talk about
> > the cattle disorder with outside parties, United Press International has
> > learned.
> >
> > The order, sent May 6 by e-mail from the USDA's Dallas district office,
> > was issued in the wake of the April 27 case at Lone Star Beef in San
> > Angelo, in which a cow displaying signs of a brain disorder was not
> > tested for mad cow disease despite a federal policy to screen all such
> > animals.
> >
> > The deadly illness also is known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
> >
> > Both the USDA and its Inspector General -- amid allegations that an
> > offsite supervisor overruled the opinion of the inspectors onsite and
> > made the final decision not to test the animal -- have opened up
> > investigations to determine why agency policy was violated.
> >
> > The order, which was obtained by UPI, was issued by Ijaz Qazi, circuit
> > supervisor for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Dallas
> > district, which covers the entire state. It reads: "All BSE inquiries
> > MUST be directed to Congressional Public Affairs Phone 202-720-9113
> > attention Rob Larew OR Steve Khon. This is an urgent message. Any
> > question contact me. Ijaz Qazi."
> >
> > Although the language might sound innocuous, experienced inspectors
> > familiar with USDA parlance have taken to referring to the notice as a
> > "gag order."
> >
> > The National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals -- the national
> > inspectors union -- considers the order a violation of inspectors' free
> > speech rights and is considering legal action against the USDA for
> > breaching the labor agreement they have with the agency.
> >
> > Inspectors alleged the order also suggests the agency is concerned about
> > its personnel leaking damaging information about either the Texas case
> > or the USDA's overall mad cow disease surveillance program, which has
> > come under fire since the discovery of an infected cow in Washington
> > state last December.
> >
> > "Anytime the government suppresses an individual's freedom of speech,
> > that's unconstitutional," Gary Dahl, president of Local 925, the
> > Colorado inspectors union, told UPI.
> >
> > Stanley Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council, said the USDA
> > has sent out notices in the past stating inspectors cannot talk to
> > reporters.
> >
> > "It's an intimidation thing," Painter told UPI. Inspectors have the
> > right to talk to anybody about any subject, as long as they clarify they
> > are not speaking on behalf of the USDA and they are not doing it on
> > government time, he said.
> >
> > USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said he was not familiar with the notice
> > from the Dallas office. He said he would look into it, but did not
> > respond by UPI's publication time. In general, Cohen said, "There's an
> > expectation any statement on behalf of the agency would come from the
> > office of communications (in Washington.)"
> >
> > Asked if employees could speak freely as long as they clarified that
> > their views did not reflect those of the agency, Cohen said, "We'd
> > rather that agency policy be communicated by those in a position to
> > speak for the agency."
> >
> > Qazi told UPI the notice was not issued in conjunction with the Texas
> > case and it was routine agency practice that outside inquiries be
> > referred to the Washington office. He said inspectors are free to talk
> > to outside parties, including reporters, and he did not consider the
> > e-mail a violation of the labor agreement with the inspectors.
> >
> > Painter said the USDA's efforts to keep its employees from talking about
> > mad cow would be better spent "with issues like protecting the consuming
> > public instead of trying to hide things." He added he would "just about
> > bet his last nickel" agency management was attempting to suppress
> > information about the Texas case.
> >
> > "To keep federal employees from reporting government waste, misuse of
> > appropriations -- those types of things -- that's not a good thing
> > either," Dahl said. "If there is something wrong, let's get it out in
> > the open -- let's get it fixed. We're working for the public, the
> > American consumers. I think they have the right to know this," he said.
> >
> > "And believe me there's so many indicators saying that the USDA's mad
> > cow testing program is broken," Dahl added.
> >
> > 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
> > Secretary Ann Veneman on Monday, saying the Texas incident "calls into
> > question the effectiveness and reliability of USDA's current and
> > proposed surveillance system."
> >
> > The USDA has proposed testing more than 200,000 cows -- or 10 times its
> > current rate -- in an expanded program scheduled to begin June 1. Harkin
> > wrote in the five-page letter, however, that given the realities of the
> > cattle industry, it is "quite doubtful" the USDA will be able to test
> > that many cows, particularly because it had difficulty finding 20,000
> > last year.
> >
> > "We simply cannot tolerate a BSE testing system that fails to give valid
> > answers to critical questions for U.S. consumers and foreign customers,"
> > Harkin said in the letter, which sharply criticizes the agency's failure
> > to address explicitly how its new surveillance program will be
> implemented.
> >
> > "We look forward to receiving (Harkin's) letter and having the
> > opportunity to review it and respond to him," USDA spokesman Ed Loyd
> > told UPI. "USDA has acknowledged there was a failure in not testing that
> > cow in Texas for BSE, so we are all working to ensure that does not
> > occur again."
> >
> > Jim Rogers, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
> > Service, which oversees the agency's mad cow surveillance program, told
> > UPI the agency has tested about 15,500 animals since fiscal year 2004
> > began, on Oct. 1, 2003. However, the agency has refused to identify the
> > states and facilities from which the cows originated. Rogers said UPI
> > would have to seek that information through the Freedom of Information
> Act.
> >
> > The question is central to the USDA's implementation of its expanded
> > surveillance program. Downer cows -- those unable to stand or walk --
> > made up the bulk of the animals the agency tested for mad cow in
> > previous years, but these were banned from being slaughtered for human
> > consumption in December. This means the agency inspectors no longer can
> > obtain brain samples from these cows at slaughterhouses as they could in
> > the past.
> >
> > Furthermore, the USDA has not provided any evidence it has worked out
> > agreements with rendering facilities or ranchers, where downers and dead
> > cows are now most likely to be found, to obtain the extra animals for
> > testing.
> >
> > Loyd said the agency is "working very hard to get animals on the farm
> > that would never show up in a processing facility," and he was "not
> > aware of any issues" that would delay the launch of the new program.
> >
> > However, he was unable to provide the names or locations of the
> > rendering facilities where the agency will be obtaining cow brains for
> > BSE testing. He said he would look into it but did not return two
> > follow-up phone calls from UPI before publication.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > USDA did not test possible mad cows
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 6/8/2004 9:30 PM
> >
> > WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims it
> > tested 500 cows with signs of a brain disorder for mad cow disease last
> > year, but agency documents obtained by United Press International show
> > the agency tested only half that number.
> >
> > USDA officials said the difference is made up in animals tested at state
> > veterinary diagnostic laboratories, but these animals were not tested
> > using the "gold standard" test employed by the agency for confirming a
> > case of the deadly disease. Instead, the state labs used a less
> > sensitive test that experts say could miss mad cow cases.
> >
> > In addition, the state lab figures were not included in a March 2004
> > USDA document estimating the number of animals most likely to be
> > infected among U.S. herds, and apparently were not given to a
> > congressional committee that had requested agency data on the number of
> > cows with brain disorder signs that had been tested for the disease.
> >
> > "This is just adding to the demise of USDA's credibility," said Felicia
> > Nestor, senior policy adviser to the Government Accountability Project,
> > a group in Washington, D.C., that works with federal whistleblowers.
> >
> > "If the USDA is going to exclude from testing the animals most likely to
> > have the disease, that would seem to have a very negative impact on the
> > reliability of their conclusion," Nestor told UPI.
> >
> > Nestor, who has monitored the USDA's mad cow surveillance program
> > closely for several years, asked, "Are they deliberately avoiding
> > testing animals that look like they have the disease?"
> >
> > Concerns about the number of cows in U.S. herds with brain disorder
> > symptoms have been heightened due to the recent case in Texas, in which
> > USDA officials failed to test an animal with such symptoms, also known
> > as central nervous system or CNS signs. This was a violation of USDA
> > policy, which stipulates all CNS cows should be tested because they are
> > considered the most likely to be mad cow infected. To date, the
> > Washington cow that tested positive last December is the only confirmed
> > case of mad cow disease -- also known as bovine spongiform
> > encephalopathy -- among U.S. herds.
> >
> > The Texas incident has alarmed the public and members of Congress
> > because humans can contract a fatal brain disorder called variant
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from consuming meat infected with the mad cow
> > pathogen. If the USDA's surveillance program is allowing the riskiest
> > cows to go untested, it raises concerns about the ability of the
> > monitoring system to detect the disease reliably in U.S. herds, Rep.
> > Henry Waxman, D-Calif., charged in a May 13 letter to Agriculture
> > Secretary Ann Veneman.
> >
> > Dr. Peter Lurie, of the consumer group Public Citizen, said CNS cows
> > should be the one category that absolutely has to be tested to have a
> > sound surveillance system.
> >
> > "CNS animals are far and away the most important animals to test," said
> > Lurie, who has done several analyses of the USDA's mad cow surveillance
> > program.
> >
> > "If there's any category that needs 100 percent testing, that's it,
> > because they would be the most likely place to find mad cow in America,"
> > he told UPI. "Any CNS cow that slips into the food supply represents a
> > major case of malpractice by USDA, and similarly, the failure to test
> > the brain of that animal to see if it was indeed infected is really a
> > failure to protect the public."
> >
> > USDA officials said the agency has no estimate on how many CNS cows
> > occur in U.S. herds. But spokesman Ed Loyd has told UPI, and at least
> > one other media outlet, that 500 CNS cows were tested in fiscal year
> > 2003. Yet agency testing records for the first 10 months of FY 2003,
> > obtained by UPI under the Freedom of Information Act, show only 254
> > animals that fall under the CNS category -- or about half the number
> > Loyd cited.
> >
> > After failing to respond to repeated requests from UPI for clarification
> > of the apparent discrepancy, Loyd finally offered the explanation that
> > an additional 45 CNS cows were tested by the USDA during the final two
> > months of FY 2003. The remainder, he said, was made up by CNS cases
> > tested at various state veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
> >
> > "We also include data reported to us from state veterinary diagnostic
> > laboratories, and all of these are CNS cases that have been tested for
> > BSE using a histological examination," Loyd said.
> >
> > "We were not using any other labs during this period, other than (the
> > USDA lab), to run the IHC tests for BSE, which is the gold standard," he
> > said. "This (state laboratory) information contributes important data to
> > our surveillance effort."
> >
> > However, the state labs did not use the immunohistochemistry test, which
> > the USDA has called the "gold standard" for diagnosing mad cow disease.
> > Instead, the labs used a different test called histopathology, which the
> > USDA itself does not use to confirm a case, opting instead for the more
> > sensitive IHC test.
> >
> > The histopathology test, unlike the IHC test, does not detect prions --
> > misfolded proteins that serve as a marker for infection and can be
> > spotted early on in the course of the illness. Rather, it screens for
> > the microscopic holes in the brain that are characteristic of advanced
> > mad cow disease.
> >
> > According to the USDA's Web site, histopathology proves reliable only if
> > the brain sample is removed soon after the death of the animal. If there
> > is too much of a delay, the Web site states, it can be "very difficult
> > to confirm a diagnosis by histopathology" because the brain structures
> > may have begun to disintegrate.
> >
> > That is one reason the agency began using the IHC test -- it can confirm
> > a diagnosis if the brain has begun disintegrating or been frozen for
> > shipping.
> >
> > The state labs used histopathology to screen 266 CNS cases in FY 2003,
> > as well as 257 cases in FY 2002, according to Loyd. He did not explain
> > why this information was not included in the testing records the agency
> > provided to UPI and has not responded to requests for the identity of
> > the state labs.
> >
> > Linda Detwiler, a former USDA veterinarian who oversaw the agency's mad
> > cow testing program, told UPI the histopathology test probably is
> > adequate for screening CNS cows. If they have mad cow disease, she said,
> > it would likely be an advanced stage that should be obvious.
> >
> > Other mad cow disease experts, however, said having a back-up test such
> > as IHC would be advisable, because histopathology tests sometimes can
> > miss evidence of infection.
> >
> > The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations offers
> > similar recommendations in its protocol for conducing a histopathology
> > test. The protocol states that even if histopathology is negative,
> > "further sampling should be undertaken" in cases "where clinical signs
> > have strongly suggested BSE" -- a criteria that includes all of the cows
> > tested at the state labs.
> >
> > The USDA seems to agree on the need for a back-up test. Its expanded
> > surveillance program, which began June 1, calls for using IHC -- or
> > another test called Western blot -- to confirm any positives found on
> > rapid tests. The March 15 document that describes the new program does
> > not mention using histopathology to confirm cases of mad cow disease.
> >
> > "Subtle changes can be missed on histopathology that would probably not
> > be as easy to miss using IHC," said Elizabeth Mumford, a veterinarian
> > and BSE expert at Safe Food Solutions in Bern, Switzerland, a company
> > that provides advice on reducing mad cow risk to industry and governments.
> >
> > "Therefore I believe it is valuable to run (histopathology)," Mumford
> > told UPI.
> >
> > She noted that in Europe, two tests -- neither one the histopathology
> > test -- are used to ensure no cases are missed. A rapid test is used
> > initially for screening, followed by IHC as a confirmatory test.
> >
> > Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and chief executive officer of the
> > Swiss firm Prionics, which manufactures tests for detecting mad cow
> > disease, agrees about the possibility of a case being missed by
> > histopathology.
> >
> > "There were cases which were (histopathology) negative but still clearly
> > positive with the other (testing) methods," Moser said. "BSE testing
> > based on histology on sub-optimal tissue was probably one of the reasons
> > why Germany was allegedly BSE-free until our test discovered that they
> > were not" in 2000, Moser told UPI.
> >
> > He agreed with Detwiler that histopathology should be suitable for most
> > cases of CNS cows, but added it still can fail to detect the disease in
> > some CNS cases -- particularly if the sample is not optimum.
> >
> > "It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the subtle changes
> > in a diseased brain from artifacts like ruptures in the tissue due to
> > tissue damage during the sampling, transport or preparation," he said.
> >
> > Loyd asserted the additional CNS cases from the state labs actually
> > yielded a total of 565 such cows the USDA had tested -- 65 more than his
> > original figure of 500. Whether the USDA considers its total to be 500
> > or 565, however, either figure would exceed the agency's own estimates
> > for the total number of such cows that it identifies annually.
> >
> > According to data the USDA provided to the House Committee on Government
> > Reform, and numbers the agency included in the March document about its
> > expanded surveillance plan, only 201 to 249 CNS cows are identified at
> > slaughterhouses. Approximately 129 additional cases occur on farms
> > annually. At most, that yields a combined total of 378 CNS cows, or
> > nearly 200 less than the 565 Loyd claims the agency tested.
> >
> > The USDA surveillance plan document makes no mention of the number of
> > CNS animals tested at state veterinary diagnostic labs. The figure also
> > does not appear to be included in the agency's estimates of the number
> > of high-risk animals that occur in the United States each year. The
> > latter number was used to help the USDA calculate the number of animals
> > it will screen for mad cow disease in its expanded surveillance plan.
> >
> > USDA officials also did not include the state lab figures in response to
> > a question from the House Committee on Government Reform, a source close
> > to the issue told UPI. The committee, on which Waxman is the ranking
> > Democrat, had requested in a March 8 letter to Veneman that she provide
> > "the number of BSE tests that were conducted on cattle exhibiting
> > central nervous system symptoms" for each of the last five years.
> >
> > Loyd did not respond to a request from UPI asking why agency officials
> > did not provide that information to the committee or include it in
> > USDA's explanation of its expanded surveillance plan.
> >
> > The committee has taken note of the CNS issue and plans to delve into it
> > further in a hearing slated for sometime in the next few months.
> >
> > "The committee will explore this and other issues surrounding USDA and
> > BSE testing at a hearing later this summer," Drew Crockett, spokesman
> > for the committee, told UPI.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> > IN FACT, i must bring this up again.
> > IN TEXAS, when they are really worried about a mad cow,
> > when the cow is clinical and stumbling and staggering, TEXAS
> > does not bother TESTING the cow at all. nope, they just send
> > it directly to be rendered head and all to get rid of all evidence.
> > the june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up was just that. the USA
> > could test every cow that goes to slaughter, and it would be meaningless
> > unless properly done with the most sensitive testing to date.
> > but not in TEXAS or any other state in the USA.............
> >
> >
> > FDA Statement
> >
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > Statement
> > May 4, 2004
> >
> > Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
> > Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
> >
> >
> > Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
> >
> > On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a
> > cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to
> > a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
> >
> > FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately
> > began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA
> > investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the
> > farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially
> > received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
> >
> > FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
> > rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over
> > the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
> > material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
> >
> > Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
> > because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known
> > as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is
> > no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal
> > feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other
> > ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
> >
> > FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and
> > informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in
> > swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be
> > destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the
> > firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the
> > material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the
> > farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed
> > for pigs.
> >
> > To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian
> > protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA
> > established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the
> > U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant
> > protein to cattle.
> >
> > Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
> > allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
> > specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it
> > will not be fed to poultry.
> >
> > FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates
> > closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The
> > animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE,
> > but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving
> > the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
> >
> > ####
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Screening tests for animal TSE: present and future
> > Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 16:02:16 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L@aegee.org
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > ##################### Tests de dépistage des ESST animales : présent et
> > futur Screening tests for animal TSE: present and future J.P. Deslysa
> > and J. Grassib , Corresponding Author Contact Information , E-mail The
> > Corresponding Author aCEA, groupe dinnovation diagnostique et
> > thérapeutique sur les infections à prions, département de recherche
> > médicale, CEA/Fontenay aux Roses, France bCEA, service de pharmacologie
> > et dimmunologie, département de recherche médicale, bâtiment 136,
> > CEA/Saclay, 91191 Gif sur Yvette cedex, France Received 23 February
> > 2004; accepted 28 July 2004. Available online 21 September 2004. Résumé
> > En 1999, trois tests rapides (Prionics, Bio-rad et Enfer) ont été
> > validés par la Commission Européenne pour le diagnostic post-mortem de
> > l'ESB chez les bovins. Aujourd'hui, ils sont utilisés à grande échelle
> > sur le territoire européen. Ils reposent tous sur une détection
> > immunologique de la PrPres. En l'absence d'anticorps reconnaissant
> > spécifiquement la PrPres dans sa conformation native, la distinction
> > avec la forme normale de la PrP est obtenue sur la base des propriétés
> > biochimiques de la forme anormale (résistance à la protéinase K,
> > agrégation en présence de détergents). Dans tous les cas, ces tests
> > incluent une étape de dénaturation de la PrPres afin de permettre sa
> > détection à l'aide d'anticorps. Appliqués sur des populations de bovins
> > à risques ou sur les animaux abattus pour la consommation humaine, ils
> > ont permis de préciser l'étendue réelle de l'épizootie et d'éliminer
> > efficacement de la chaîne alimentaire les animaux présentant un risque
> > pour l'homme. Depuis 2002, ils sont aussi utilisés pour le diagnostic
> > post-mortem de la tremblante chez les ovins et les caprins. Cinq
> > nouveaux tests ont été récemment évalués par la Commission européenne
> > (ID-Lelystad ; Perkin-elmer, Prionics Check LIA, UCSF, Imperial college)
> > mais il est trop tôt pour évaluer la place qu'ils tiendront sur le
> > terrain. Les tests actuels permettent une détection préclinique des
> > ESSTs, notamment chez les ovins où une détection très précoce est
> > possible sur les organes lymphoïdes périphériques. Cependant, à ce jour,
> > aucun test sur animal vivant n'a été véritablement validé. Compte tenu
> > du nombre d'équipes de recherche maintenant mobilisées sur cet objectif,
> > il est raisonnable d'attendre des développements spectaculaires dans les
> > années à venir. Abstract In 1999, three rapid tests (Prionics, Bio-Rad,
> > Enfer) have been validated by the European Commission for the
> > post-mortem diagnosis of BSE in cattle. They are now used on a large
> > scale over the entire Europe. In absence of antibodies specifically
> > recognizing the native conformation PrPres, its selective determination
> > is based on the biochemical properties of this abnormal form (PK
> > resistance, aggregation in presence of detergents). In addition, all
> > these tests include a denaturation step so that PrP can be detected by
> > appropriate antibodies. When applied on risk populations or on
> > healthy animals entering into the human food chain, these rapid tests
> > have provided a better estimation of the epizootic and allowed an
> > efficient removal of animals bearing a risk for human consumption. Since
> > 2002, they have also been used for the post-mortem diagnosis of scrapie
> > in sheep and goat. Five new tests have been recently evaluated
> > (ID-Lelystad; Perkin-elmer, Prionics Check LIA, UCSF, Imperial college)
> > but it is too early to know which place they will take in the field.
> > Current tests allow a preclinical diagnosis of TSE, especially in sheep
> > and goats for which a very early detection is possible in peripheral
> > lymphoid tissues. However, to date, no test on living animal has been
> > validated. Taking into account the important number of research teams
> > now involved on this topic one may expect spectacular progress in the
> > forthcoming years. Mots clés: Encéphalopathies spongiformes subaiguës
> > transmissibles (ESSTs); Encéphalopathie spongiforme bovine; diagnostic
> > des ESSTs; tests rapides; ELISA; western-blot; anticorps anti-PrP
> > Keywords: Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs); bovine
> > spongiform encephalopathy; diagnosis of TSEs; rapid tests; ELISA;
> > western-blot; anti-PrP antibodies Corresponding Author Contact
> > Information Auteur correspondent.
> >
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W8H-4DCD84V-1&_co
> >
> verDate=05%2F31%2F2005&_alid=272857000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi
> >
> =6655&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md
> > 5=e550564d4bd0e589e21154c3b67bbc4c
> > TSS ############ https://www.lists.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
> > ############
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Discriminating BSE from Scrapie in sheep
> > Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 16:13:10 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L@aegee.org
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
> >
> > Discriminating
> > BSE from scrapie
> > in sheep
> >
> > A DISCRIMINATORY diagnostic kit to
> > distinguish between scrapie and BSE in
> > sheep has recently been launched by the
> > Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).
> > DEFRA notes that EU legislation
> > requires that, from 2005, all samples
> > from small ruminants that are positive
> > for a TSE on rapid testing should be further
> > screened using an approved discriminatory
> > method. A small number
> > of methods have been evaluated and
> > approved. The method developed by
> > the VLA uses protein extraction and
> > Western blotting techniques to differentiate
> > between scrapie and BSE. The
> > new kit is a modified version of the
> > Prionics-Check technique and DEFRA
> > says it provides a cleaner, more defined
> > signal of the abnormal prion protein
> > profile for analysis.
> >
> > http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/reprint/156/17/527-a
> >
> > TSS
> >
> > ############ https://www.lists.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
> ############
> >
> >
> > WHY ELSE IS THE NIH NOW DESTROYING OUR LOVED
> > ONES BRAINS THAT WE STRAINED TO DONATE FOR SCIENCE? I will tell you why,
> > they know we are very very close
> > to strain typing and finding route and source of agent;
> >
> > NIH sends mixed signals on CJD brains
> >
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > Medical Correspondent
> >
> > Washington, DC, Apr. 7 (UPI) --
> >
> > Terry Singeltary, whose mother passed away from a type of CJD in 1997,
> > said the NIH should use the samples for scientific research, not just
> > store them in freezers.
> >
> > Both Singeltary and Ewanitz said they would feel more reassured if Major
> > verified in writing the collection will not be destroyed.
> >
> > "I would go further and ask Major what he plans to do with them,"
> > Singeltary said. "If the samples are just going to sit up there and go
> > bad, then they should give them out to researchers looking for cause and
> > cure."
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050407-110535-2570r.htm
> >
> > United Press International: French woman may have had vCJD in 1971
> > ... collection," said Terry Singeltary, who is associated with several
> > CJD patient
> > ... died of a type of CJD called Heidenhain variant in 1997, told UPI. ...
> > www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050323-061733-6847r - 11k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > United Press International: NIH may destroy human brain collection
> > ... Terry Singeltary, whose mother died of a type of CJD called
> > Heidenhain ...
> > a lot of trouble to get these brain samples to the NIH," Singeltary
> > told UPI. ...
> > www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050323-053919-8481r - 14k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > Groups seek to save NIH brain collection
> > ... The NIH, as UPI reported last week, may destroy its collection of
> > brains and
> > ... them is an outrage," Terry Singeltary, whose mom died of CJD in
> > 1997, ...
> > www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&
> > article=UPI-1-20050401-16375100-bc-us-nihbrains.xml - 44k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> > Groups seek to save NIH brain collection - (United Press ...
> > ... Singeltary's mother died of a type of CJD called Heidenhain variant
> > in 1997.
> > Hutchinson's office did not return a call from UPI. ...
> > washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/ 20050401-033307-7296r.htm - 54k - Apr
> > 11, 2005 - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > French re-testing 1971 case for vCJD - (United Press International)
> > ... Allied Countries Collaborative Study Group of CJD, wrote in an
> > e-mail to UPI.
> > ... Singeltary, whose mother died of a type of CJD called the Heidenhain
> > ...
> > www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/ 20050331-095613-8807r.htm - 51k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > SouthAsiaNews.com - US health body to discard brain collection
> > ... find a cure for the brain-wasting illness Creutzfeldt Jakob, reports
> > UPI. ...
> > Terry Singeltary, whose mother died of a type of CJD called Heidenhain ...
> > www.southasianews.com/showNews.asp?nid=1264 - 30k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > Mad Cow: Linked to thousands of CJD cases?
> >
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 12/29/2003 9:50 AM
> >
> > The U.S. government's monitoring system for cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> > disease, a fatal human brain illness, could be missing tens of thousands
> > of victims, scientists and consumer advocates have told United Press
> > International. ...
> >
> > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030721-102924-4786r
> >
> >
> > USDA vets question agency's mad cow lab
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 2/9/2004 7:06 PM
> >
> > WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- The federal laboratory in Ames, Iowa, that
> > conducts all of the nation's tests for mad cow disease has a history of
> > producing ambiguous and conflicting results -- to the point where many
> > federal meat inspectors have lost confidence in it, Department of
> > Agriculture veterinarians and a deer rancher told United Press
> > International.
> >
> > The veterinarians also claim the facility -- part of the USDA and known
> > as the National Veterinary Services Laboratories -- has refused to
> > release testing results to them and has been so secretive some suspect
> > it is covering up additional mad cow cases. ...
> >
> > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040209-061848-3665r
> >
> >
> > UPI Exclusive: No mad cow tests in Wash.
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 1/15/2004 2:46 PM
> >
> > WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Federal agriculture officials did not test
> > any commercial cattle for mad cow disease through the first seven months
> > of 2003 in Washington state -- where the first U.S. case of the disease
> > was detected last month -- according to records obtained by United Press
> > International.
> >
> > The U.S. Department of Agriculture's records of mad cow screenings,
> > conducted on 35,000 animals between 2001 to 2003, also reveal no animals
> > were tested for the past two years at Vern's Moses Lake Meats, the
> > Washington slaughterhouse where the mad cow case was first detected.
> >
> > In addition, no mad cow tests were conducted during the two-year period
> > at any of the six federally registered slaughterhouses in Washington
> > state. This includes Washington's biggest slaughterhouse, Washington
> > Beef in Toppeni$h -- the 17th largest in the country, which slaughters
> > 290,000 head per year -- and two facilities in Pasco that belong to
> > Tyson, the largest beef slaughtering company in the United States.
> >
> > In 2002, nearly every test conducted in Washington was on animals from
> > Midway Meats in Centralia, the packing plant where Vern's Moses sent the
> > infected cow carcass. The meat was distributed to several states where
> > some people apparently consumed it, raising concerns about the
> > possibility of contracting the human equivalent of mad cow, an always
> > fatal, brain-wasting condition known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> > disease. ...
> >
> > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-041124-1470r
> >
> >
> > Mad Cow: Prion research misguided?
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 12/29/2003 9:30 AM
> >
> > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030701-094458-6348r
> >
> >
> > There will be several more emails of my research to follow.
> >
> > I respectfully request a full inquiry into the cover-up of TSEs
> > in the United States of America over the past 30 years. I
> > would be happy to testify...
> >
> > Thank you,
> > I am sincerely,
> >
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > P.O. Box 42
> > Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
> > 281-559-3131
> >
> >
> > Docket No, 04-047-l Regulatory Identification No. (RIN) 091O-AF46 NEW
> > BSE SAFEGUARDS (comment submission)
> >
> >
> https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08
> > d?OpenDocument
> >
> > Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
> > IMPORTS FROM CANADA
> >
> >
> >
> https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?O
> > penDocument&AutoFramed
> >
> >
> > Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
> >
> > Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in
> >
> > Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
> >
> > Comment Number: EC -10
> >
> > Accepted - Volume 2
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html
> >
> >
> > PART 2
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html
> >
> >
> > PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION
> >
> > File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
> >
> > Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary
> >
> > Sr. [flounder@wt.net] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ...
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf
> >
> >
> > Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine
> >
> > genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable
> >
> > from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm
> >
> >
> > Docket Management Docket: 96N-0417 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice
> > in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients a
> > Comment Number: EC -2
> > Accepted - Volume 7
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/031403/96N-0417-EC-2.htm
> >
> >
> > [PDF] Appendices to PL107-9 Inter-agency Working Group Final Report 1-1
> > File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
> > Agent, Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations Unit Federal Bureau of
> > those who provided comments in response to Docket No. ...
> > Meager 8/18/01 Terry S. Singeltary Sr ...
> >
> >
> > www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/pubs/PL107-9_Appen.pdf
> >
> > Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION
> > TO DOCKET 2003N-0312]
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
> >
> > # Docket No: 02-088-1 RE-Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of
> > 2002; [TSS SUBMISSION ON POTENTIAL FOR BSE/TSE & FMD 'SUITCASE BOMBS'] -
> > TSS 1/27/03 (0)
> >
> > Docket Management
> >
> > Docket: 02N-0276 - Bioterrorism Preparedness; Registration of Food
> > Facilities, Section 305
> > Comment Number: EC-254 [TSS SUBMISSION]
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0276/02N-0276-EC-254.htm
> >
> >
> > Dockets Entered On October 2, 2003 Table of Contents, Docket #,
> > Title, 1978N-0301,
> >
> > OTC External Analgesic Drug Products, ... EMC 7, Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > Vol #: 1, ...
> >
> > www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm
> >
> >
> > Daily Dockets Entered on 02/05/03
> >
> > DOCKETS ENTERED on 2/5/03. ... EMC 4 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 2.
> > ... Vol#: 1.
> >
> > 03N-0009 Federal Preemption of State & Local Medical Device Requireme. ...
> >
> >
> > www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Feb03/020503/020503.htm
> >
> >
> > Docket Management
> >
> > Docket: 02N-0370 - Neurological Devices; Classification of Human Dura
> Mater
> >
> > Comment Number: EC -1
> >
> > Accepted - Volume 1
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be11.html
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004bdfe.html
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004bdfc.html
> >
> >
> > Daily Dockets - 04/10/03
> >
> > ... 00D-1662 Use of Xenotransplantation Products in Humans.
> > EMC 98 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3. 01F ...
> > www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Apr03/041003/041003.htm - 05-20-2003
> > - Cached
> >
> >
> > 2003D-0186
> > Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
> >
> >
> >
> > EMC 1
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > Vol #:
> > 1
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jun03/060903/060903.htm
> >
> >
> > 2003D-0186
> > Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
> >
> >
> > EMC 7
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > Vol #:
> > 1
> >
> > 2003D-0186
> > Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
> >
> >
> > EMC 7
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > Vol #:
> > 1
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm
> >
> > 01N-0423 Substances Prohibited from use in animal food/Feed Ruminant
> >
> > APE 5 National Renderers Association, Inc. Vol#: 2
> >
> > APE 6 Animal Protein Producers Industry Vol#: 2
> >
> > APE 7 Darling International Inc. Vol#: 2
> >
> > EMC 1 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Oct01/101501/101501.htm
> >
> > Send Post-Publication Peer Review to journal:
> >
> >
> > Re: RE-Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> >
> > disease in the United States
> >
> >
> > Email Terry S. Singeltary:
> >
> >
> > flounder@wt.net
> >
> >
> > I lost my mother to hvCJD (Heidenhain Variant CJD). I would like to
> >
> > comment on the CDC's attempts to monitor the occurrence of emerging
> >
> > forms of CJD. Asante, Collinge et al [1] have reported that BSE
> >
> > transmission to the 129-methionine genotype can lead to an alternate
> >
> > phenotype that is indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest
> >
> > sporadic CJD. However, CJD and all human TSEs are not reportable
> >
> > nationally. CJD and all human TSEs must be made reportable in every
> >
> > state and internationally. I hope that the CDC does not continue to
> >
> > expect us to still believe that the 85%+ of all CJD cases which are
> >
> > sporadic are all spontaneous, without route/source. We have many TSEs in
> >
> > the USA in both animal and man. CWD in deer/elk is spreading rapidly and
> >
> > CWD does transmit to mink, ferret, cattle, and squirrel monkey by
> >
> > intracerebral inoculation. With the known incubation periods in other
> >
> > TSEs, oral transmission studies of CWD may take much longer. Every
> >
> > victim/family of CJD/TSEs should be asked about route and source of this
> >
> > agent. To prolong this will only spread the agent and needlessly expose
> >
> > others. In light of the findings of Asante and Collinge et al, there
> >
> > should be drastic measures to safeguard the medical and surgical arena
> >
> > from sporadic CJDs and all human TSEs. I only ponder how many sporadic
> >
> > CJDs in the USA are type 2 PrPSc?
> >
> >
> > http://www.neurology.org/cgi/eletters/60/2/176#535
> >
> >
> > LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
> >
> >
> > Volume 3, Number 8 01 August 2003
> >
> >
> > Newsdesk
> >
> >
> > Tracking spongiform encephalopathies in North America
> >
> >
> > Xavier Bosch
> >
> > My name is Terry S Singeltary Sr, and I live in Bacliff, Texas. I lost
> >
> > my mom to hvCJD (Heidenhain variant CJD) and have been searching for
> >
> > answers ever since. What I have found is that we have not been told the
> >
> > truth. CWD in deer and elk is a small portion of a much bigger problem.
> >
> >
> > 49-year-old Singeltary is one of a number of people who have remained
> >
> > largely unsatisfied after being told that a close relative died from a
> >
> > rapidly progressive dementia compatible with spontaneous
> >
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). So he decided to gather hundreds of
> >
> > documents on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) and
> >
> > realised that if Britons could get variant CJD from bovine spongiform
> >
> > encephalopathy (BSE), Americans might get a similar disorder from
> >
> > chronic wasting disease (CWD)the relative of mad cow disease seen among
> >
> > deer and elk in the USA. Although his feverish search did not lead him
> >
> > to the smoking gun linking CWD to a similar disease in North American
> >
> > people, it did uncover a largely disappointing situation.
> >
> >
> > Singeltary was greatly demoralised at the few attempts to monitor the
> >
> > occurrence of CJD and CWD in the USA. Only a few states have made CJD
> >
> > reportable. Human and animal TSEs should be reportable nationwide and
> >
> > internationally, he complained in a letter to the Journal of the
> >
> > American Medical Association (JAMA 2003; 285: 733). I hope that the CDC
> >
> > does not continue to expect us to still believe that the 85% plus of all
> >
> > CJD cases which are sporadic are all spontaneous, without route or
> source.
> >
> >
> > Until recently, CWD was thought to be confined to the wild in a small
> >
> > region in Colorado. But since early 2002, it has been reported in other
> >
> > areas, including Wisconsin, South Dakota, and the Canadian province of
> >
> > Saskatchewan. Indeed, the occurrence of CWD in states that were not
> >
> > endemic previously increased concern about a widespread outbreak and
> >
> > possible transmission to people and cattle.
> >
> >
> > To date, experimental studies have proven that the CWD agent can be
> >
> > transmitted to cattle by intracerebral inoculation and that it can cross
> >
> > the mucous membranes of the digestive tract to initiate infection in
> >
> > lymphoid tissue before invasion of the central nervous system. Yet the
> >
> > plausibility of CWD spreading to people has remained elusive.
> >
> >
> > Part of the problem seems to stem from the US surveillance system. CJD
> >
> > is only reported in those areas known to be endemic foci of CWD.
> >
> > Moreover, US authorities have been criticised for not having performed
> >
> > enough prionic tests in farm deer and elk.
> >
> >
> > Although in November last year the US Food and Drug Administration
> >
> > issued a directive to state public-health and agriculture officials
> >
> > prohibiting material from CWD-positive animals from being used as an
> >
> > ingredient in feed for any animal species, epidemiological control and
> >
> > research in the USA has been quite different from the situation in the
> >
> > UK and Europe regarding BSE.
> >
> >
> > Getting data on TSEs in the USA from the government is like pulling
> >
> > teeth, Singeltary argues. You get it when they want you to have it,
> >
> > and only what they want you to have.
> >
> >
> > Norman Foster, director of the Cognitive Disorders Clinic at the
> >
> > University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI, USA), says that current
> >
> > surveillance of prion disease in people in the USA is inadequate to
> >
> > detect whether CWD is occurring in human beings; adding that, the
> >
> > cases that we know about are reassuring, because they do not suggest the
> >
> > appearance of a new variant of CJD in the USA or atypical features in
> >
> > patients that might be exposed to CWD. However, until we establish a
> >
> > system that identifies and analyses a high proportion of suspected prion
> >
> > disease cases we will not know for sure. The USA should develop a
> >
> > system modelled on that established in the UK, he points out.
> >
> >
> > Ali Samii, a neurologist at Seattle VA Medical Center who recently
> >
> > reported the cases of three hunterstwo of whom were friendswho died
> >
> > from pathologically confirmed CJD, says that at present there are
> >
> > insufficient data to claim transmission of CWD into humans; adding that
> >
> > [only] by asking [the questions of venison consumption and deer/elk
> >
> > hunting] in every case can we collect suspect cases and look into the
> >
> > plausibility of transmission further. Samii argues that by making both
> >
> > doctors and hunters more aware of the possibility of prions spreading
> >
> > through eating venison, doctors treating hunters with dementia can
> >
> > consider a possible prion disease, and doctors treating CJD patients
> >
> > will know to ask whether they ate venison.
> >
> >
> > CDC spokesman Ermias Belay says that the CDC will not be investigating
> >
> > the [Samii] cases because there is no evidence that the men ate
> >
> > CWD-infected meat. He notes that although the likelihood of CWD
> >
> > jumping the species barrier to infect humans cannot be ruled out 100%
> >
> > and that [we] cannot be 100% sure that CWD does not exist in humans&
> >
> > the data seeking evidence of CWD transmission to humans have been very
> >
> > limited.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://infection.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa
> >
> >
> >
> > he complained in a letter to the Journal of the American Medical
> >
> >
> > Association (JAMA 2003; 285: 733). I hope that the CDC does not
> >
> > continue to expect us to still believe that the 85% plus of all CJD
> >
> > cases which are sporadic are all spontaneous, without route or source.<<<
> >
> >
> > actually, that quote was from a more recent article in the Journal of
> >
> > Neurology (see below), not the JAMA article...
> >
> >
> > Full Text
> >
> > Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
> >
> > Singeltary, Sr et al. JAMA.2001; 285: 733-734.
> >
> >
> >
> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/6/733?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=
> >
> 10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dignosing+and+reporting+creutzfeldt+jakob+disease&
> > searchid=1048865596978_1528&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama
> >
> >
> > BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
> >
> >
> > SOMETHING TO CHEW ON
> >
> >
> > BMJ
> >
> >
> > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7220/1312/b#EL2
> >
> >
> > BMJ
> >
> >
> > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7226/8/b#EL1
> >
> >
> > THE PATHOLOGICAL PROTEIN
> >
> > BY Philip Yam
> >
> > Yam Philip Yam News Editor Scientific American www.sciam.com
> > http://www.thepathologicalprotein.com/
> >
> > IN light of Asante/Collinge et al findings that BSE transmission to the
> > 129-methionine genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is
> > indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;
> >
> > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: re-BSE prions propagate as
> >
> > either variant CJD-like or sporadic CJD Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:23:43
> >
> > -0000 From: "Asante, Emmanuel A" To:
> > "'flounder@wt.net'"
> >
> > Dear Terry,
> >
> > I have been asked by Professor Collinge to respond to your request. I am
> >
> > a Senior Scientist in the MRC Prion Unit and the lead author on the
> >
> > paper. I have attached a pdf copy of the paper for your attention. Thank
> >
> > you for your interest in the paper.
> >
> > In respect of your first question, the simple answer is, yes. As you
> >
> > will find in the paper, we have managed to associate the alternate
> >
> > phenotype to type 2 PrPSc, the commonest sporadic CJD.
> >
> > It is too early to be able to claim any further sub-classification in
> >
> > respect of Heidenhain variant CJD or Vicky Rimmer's version. It will
> >
> > take further studies, which are on-going, to establish if there are
> >
> > sub-types to our initial finding which we are now reporting. The main
> >
> > point of the paper is that, as well as leading to the expected new
> >
> > variant CJD phenotype, BSE transmission to the 129-methionine genotype
> >
> > can lead to an alternate phenotype which is indistinguishable from type
> >
> > 2 PrPSc.
> >
> >
> > I hope reading the paper will enlighten you more on the subject. If I
> >
> > can be of any further assistance please to not hesitate to ask. Best
> wishes.
> >
> >
> > Emmanuel Asante
> >
> > <> ____________________________________
> >
> > Dr. Emmanuel A Asante MRC Prion Unit & Neurogenetics Dept. Imperial
> >
> > College School of Medicine (St. Mary's) Norfolk Place, LONDON W2 1PG
> >
> > Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 3794 Fax: +44 (0)20 7706 3272 email:
> >
> > e.asante@ic.ac.uk (until 9/12/02)
> >
> > New e-mail: e.asante@prion.ucl.ac.uk (active from now)
> >
> > ____________________________________
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > full text ;
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm
> >
> >
> > AND 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
> >
> > http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/8/2471
> >
> >
> > ALL animals for human/animal consumption must be tested for TSE.
> >
> > ALL human TSE must be made reportable Nationally and Internationally,
> > of ALL AGES...TSS
> >
> >
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > P.O. Box 42
> > Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
> > 281-xxx-xxxx
> >
> >
> > TSS
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary
> > Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE
> > Inconclusive Test Results
> >
> >
> > > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #####################
> > >
> > > Release No. 0207.05
> > > Contact:
> > > USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
> > >
> > >
> > > Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike
> Johanns
> > > and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Plant Health
> > > Inspection Service Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test
> > > Results Washington, D.C.
> > > June 10, 2005
> > >
> > >
> > > snip...
> > >
> > >
> > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
> > >
> > >
> > > snip...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> > > tentid=2005/06/0207.xml
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>"In addition, there are definite differences between these two tests.
> > The
> > > IHC is internationally recognized, and why we chose that for our
> enhanced
> > > surveillance program is because that particular test does two things. It
> > > allows you to visualize the anatomic location where the lesions are most
> > > likely to be found which is the obex. At the same time it uses a
> staining
> > > technique on the prions, on abnormal prions in the tissue in that
> > location.
> > > ...<<<
> > >
> > >
> > > ANOTHER reason is by only looking at one portion of the brain, you miss
> > the
> > > rest of the brain that could be potentally infected. kinda like a 1 in
> 10
> > > chance of finding
> > > something. but this is par for the course with these folks....TSS
> > >
> > >
> > > USDA 2003
> > >
> > > We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things
> > that
> > > we
> > > forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've
> gotten
> > > away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the
> brain
> > > stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
> > > project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they
> > did
> > > not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
> > > cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
> > > back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the
> USDA,
> > > we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we
> got
> > > away from it. They've recently gone back.
> > > Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides
> > an
> > > 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
> > > .
> > >
> > > Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
> > > they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're
> > looking
> > > only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
> > > ourselves to one area.
> > >
> > >
> > > snip.............
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
> > > Another important thing to get across to the public is that the
> negatives
> > > do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in
> the
> > > disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so
> important.
> > > If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
> > > collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
> > > could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
> > > There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway.
> We
> > > have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
> > we
> > > forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've
> gotten
> > > away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the
> brain
> > > stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
> > > project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they
> > did
> > > not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
> > > cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
> > > back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the
> USDA,
> > > we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we
> got
> > > away from it. They've recently gone back.
> > >
> > > Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides
> > an
> > > 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
> > > .
> > >
> > > Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
> > > they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're
> > looking
> > > only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
> > > ourselves to one area.
> > >
> > >
> > > snip...
> > >
> > >
> > > FULL TEXT;
> > >
> > >
> > > Completely Edited Version
> > > PRION ROUNDTABLE
> > >
> > >
> > > Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94543.html
> > >
> > >
> > > TSS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture
> Secretary
> > > Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE
> > > Inconclusive Test Results
> > >
> > >
> > > > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > > #####################
> > > >
> > > > Release No. 0207.05
> > > > Contact:
> > > > USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike
> > Johanns
> > > > and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Plant Health
> > > > Inspection Service Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test
> > > > Results Washington, D.C.
> > > >
> > > > June 10, 2005
> > > >
> > > > MR. ED LOYD: "Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us
> late
> > on
> > > a
> > > > Friday evening. I certainly appreciate your getting on with us on such
> > > short
> > > > notice for an update of our BSE surveillance. Just so you know, our
> > format
> > > > tonight we're going to have Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is
> going
> > to
> > > > make a brief introductory statement, followed by Dr. John Clifford,
> the
> > > > chief veterinary officer of the APHIS, the Animal Plant Health
> > Inspection
> > > > Service, who will go into some more technical background.
> > > >
> > > > "With that, I will turn this over to Agriculture Secretary Mike
> > Johanns."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, good evening everyone, and let me also just
> express
> > > my
> > > > appreciation for your willingness to join us tonight. As you know,
> over
> > > the
> > > > past many months we have been working on a number of fronts relative
> to
> > > BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "Most recently we had a roundtable discussion in St. Paul yesterday
> > where
> > > > literally all players with a variety of opinions participated. It went
> > > very,
> > > > very well. We've been working with our rulemaking process and the
> > > government
> > > > of Canada to reopen Canada to their exports into our country of beef.
> > > >
> > > > "We have also been working very aggressively and diligently with a
> > number
> > > of
> > > > countries around the world, most notably, of course, Japan and Korea.
> > > >
> > > > "And as you know, now nearly a year ago or maybe even more than a year
> > ago
> > > > we started a very aggressive surveillance system. During that
> > surveillance
> > > > process we have had three inconclusives on rapid tests. It's a rapid
> > test
> > > > that is done, and there were three inconclusives.
> > > >
> > > > "Each was then followed up with an IHC test. Each confirmatory IHC
> test
> > > was
> > > > negative. The Inspector General, in reviewing our surveillance system
> > that
> > > > we have in place, decided to retest with a second confirmatory test
> > which
> > > is
> > > > called the Western Blot. We have received test results showing a
> > positive
> > > on
> > > > one animal for the Western Blot.
> > > >
> > > > "I would like to make a couple of points, and then I'll ask Dr.
> Clifford
> > > to
> > > > offer some thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > "Number two, the firewalls that the USDA put in place did work. As I
> > point
> > > > out, the animal did not enter the food or the feed chain. Therefore,
> > > there's
> > > > no risk to human health.
> > > >
> > > > "The third point is that I feel very strongly that this information
> > should
> > > > not impact our discussions with Japan, Korea or Canada.
> > > >
> > > > "The fourth point that I want to make is that the test was also done,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot test, on the two other animals and those test results
> were
> > > > negative.
> > > >
> > > > "With that, I would like Dr. Clifford to speak about the test, and
> he'll
> > > > take it from here. And then when he's finished, we'll go ahead and
> open
> > it
> > > > up to your questions."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thanks everyone for being
> > on
> > > > the phone tonight.
> > > >
> > > > "Since the USDA enhanced surveillance program for BSE began in June
> 2004
> > > > more than 375,000 animals from the targeted cattle population have
> been
> > > > tested for BSE using a rapid test. Three of these animals tested
> > > > inconclusive and were subsequently subjected to the
> immunohistochemistry
> > > > (IHC) testing. The IHC is an internationally recognized confirmatory
> > test
> > > > for BSE. All three inconclusive samples tested negative using the IHC
> > > test.
> > > >
> > > > "As the Secretary said earlier this week, USDA's Office of Inspector
> > > General
> > > > which has been partnering with APHIS, FSIS and ARS, the Agriculture
> > > Research
> > > > Service, by impartially reviewing BSE-related activities and making
> > > > recommendations for improvement, recommended that all three of these
> > > samples
> > > > be subjected to a second internationally recognized confirmatory test,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot.
> > > >
> > > > "We received final results a short time ago. As the Secretary stated,
> of
> > > the
> > > > three samples two were negative, but the third came back reactive on
> > that
> > > > test.
> > > >
> > > > "Because of the conflicting results on the IHC and Western Blot test,
> a
> > > > sample from this animal will be sent to the OIE recognized reference
> > > > laboratory for BSE in Weybridge, England. USDA will also be conducting
> > > > further testing which will take several days to complete.
> > > >
> > > > "Regardless of the outcome, it is critical to note that USDA has in
> > place
> > > a
> > > > sound system of interlocking safeguards to protect human and animal
> > health
> > > > from BSE including most significantly a ban on specified risk
> materials
> > > from
> > > > the human food supply. In the case of this animal, it was a
> > nonambulatory
> > > > downer animal and as such was banned from the food supply. It was
> taken
> > to
> > > a
> > > > facility that handles only animals unsuitable for human consumption,
> and
> > > the
> > > > carcass was incinerated.
> > > >
> > > > "USDA's enhanced surveillance program is designed to provide
> information
> > > > about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States. Since the
> > > > inception of this program we have fully anticipated the possibility
> that
> > > > additional cases of BSE would be found. And in fact, we are extremely
> > > > gratified that to date more than 375,000 animals have been tested for
> > the
> > > > disease, and with the exception of this conflicting result we received
> > for
> > > > this one animal all have ultimately proven to be negative for the
> > disease.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "USDA is committed to ensuring that our BSE program is the best that
> it
> > > can
> > > > be, keeping pace with science and international guidelines, and to
> > > > considering recommendations made by OIG and others in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > "We are committed to ensuring that we have the right protocols in
> place,
> > > > ones that are solely grounded in science and consistently followed.
> > > >
> > > > "After we receive additional test results on this animal, we will
> > > determine
> > > > what further steps need to be taken and what changes if any are
> > warranted
> > > in
> > > > our surveillance program."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "With that, Operator, we would open this up to some
> > questions."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "Once again if you do want to ask a question at this time
> > please
> > > > press *1 on your touchtone phone, and you must record your name. It
> will
> > > be
> > > > just a moment for the first question. The first question comes from
> Jeff
> > > > Nalley. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Mr. Secretary and Mr. Veterinarian this is Jeff Nalley.
> We're
> > > > broadcasting from Owens Brook, Kentucky, this evening. I'll share with
> > > you;
> > > > we got the news from the USDA while we were in a restaurant, an
> > > > all-you-can-eat steak buffet. So I'm having seconds just to show our
> > > > confidence.
> > > >
> > > > "But how can you give credence to what has been said before that this
> is
> > a
> > > > beef issue and not a human issue and something that we have well in
> hand
> > > > certainly within the OIE standards?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, we have the best example I could possibly give
> > > tonight,
> > > > and that example is this. We've tested 375,000 animals so far. Even
> with
> > > > this one animal, we tested the three that on the rapid test showed a
> > > > positive and the original test showed negative. We went, the IHC
> test--
> > we
> > > > went from there even an additional step. We have two negatives and
> this
> > > > third test we can point to the fact that our firewalls work. This
> animal
> > > was
> > > > a downer animal. It did not get in the food or the feed chain. There
> > just
> > > is
> > > > no risk whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > "Enjoy beef. I'm going to do exactly what you're doing tonight. I'm
> > going
> > > to
> > > > enjoy a good steak. There just simply is not a risk here, and we want
> to
> > > > illustrate, which I believe we have done by even exceeding what's
> > > required.
> > > > We have gone well beyond any standard that is out there to illustrate
> > the
> > > > safety of this herd. And it is a safe beef product; there's just no
> > doubt
> > > > about it."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Could we have the next question, please"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Peter Shinn. Your line is
> open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yes, good evening. This is Peter Shinn from the National
> > > > Association of Farm Broadcasters.
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Secretary, I don't mean to ask a difficult question, but it just
> > > > immediately comes to mind. What exactly happened in terms of how could
> > you
> > > > have gotten it not right the first time? And what's the difference
> > between
> > > > the IHC and the Western Blot? That might be a question for Dr.
> > Clifford."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Yeah. I'll ask Dr. Clifford to get in. It's not really
> a
> > > > question of not getting it right. They are, both tests are accepted by
> > the
> > > > OIE. Both tests if you use those, they are accepted under the
> standard.
> > So
> > > > it's not a question of getting it right. All of the protocols were
> > > followed.
> > > > We had the positive and the rapid response test, the IHC test was
> > applied
> > > > according to the protocols, and that is the test that has been used in
> > the
> > > > United States.
> > > >
> > > > "And so it's not a situation where you've got one test that isn't
> > accepted
> > > > and one that is. They both are accepted. There are differences in the
> > > tests,
> > > > and I'll let Dr. Clifford explain that.
> > > >
> > > > "And maybe, Dr. Clifford, you can even explain if you would just what
> > this
> > > > test showed and how you went about getting through the testing
> process."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And yes, we're confident in
> the
> > > > results of actually both of these tests. The IHC was negative for this
> > > > sample. Actually the Western Blot test, if you go back to the December
> > cow
> > > > that was found from Canada the Western Blot that was run on that
> > > particular
> > > > sample we used one milligram of tissue to run that test and was found
> to
> > > be
> > > > a very strong positive.
> > > >
> > > > "In order to find a positive in this particular case with this Western
> > > Blot,
> > > > they had to enhance or enrich it, in which that basically means you're
> > > > concentrating the abnormal protein. So they had to use 20 times the
> > > amount.
> > > > You would have to use about 20 times the amount of tissue for this to
> > > > determine to be a positive or reactive on the Western Blot versus the
> > one
> > > > that was discovered in December in the state of Washington.
> > > >
> > > > "In addition, there are definite differences between these two tests.
> > The
> > > > IHC is internationally recognized, and why we chose that for our
> > enhanced
> > > > surveillance program is because that particular test does two things.
> It
> > > > allows you to visualize the anatomic location where the lesions are
> most
> > > > likely to be found which is the obex. At the same time it uses a
> > staining
> > > > technique on the prions, on abnormal prions in the tissue in that
> > > location.
> > > >
> > > > "So that's what the IHC does.
> > > >
> > > > "In the Western Blot case, it's actually a homogenate (sp) of a sample
> > of
> > > > brain tissue that is centrifuged and they concentrate the prion
> protein
> > > and
> > > > then they use a protease to destroy the normal protein, leaving the
> > > abnormal
> > > > protein present. And then basically that is run through a gel-type
> > > > separation using specific antibodies that will give you bands.
> > > >
> > > > "And they look at those bands and the molecular weight of those bands
> to
> > > > determine the outcome of that test.
> > > >
> > > > "So this test would actually be referred to as a weak positive test in
> > > this
> > > > case for the Western Blot, and as a result of that and the unusualness
> > of
> > > > this case it's going to require additional testing before we can
> confirm
> > > one
> > > > way or another whether this is truly BSE or not."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, somebody's going to ask you this so let me just
> > ask
> > > > it. When you say "weak positive," it would be helpful if you could
> > > describe
> > > > what you mean by that."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "What we mean by "weak positive," Mr. Secretary, is
> going
> > > back
> > > > to the original case. It required and enrichment of these and a
> greater
> > > > amount of normal tissue in order to enhance this outcome. So in order
> to
> > > > find the abnormal protein present you had to use more material and
> > > > concentrate it."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. We'll take the
> next
> > > > question."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question will come from Joe Pelka (sp). Your line
> is
> > > > open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi. Good evening, gentlemen. I actually have three
> questions.
> > I
> > > > think I can state them succinctly. First of all, why did the IG ask
> for
> > a
> > > > retest in this case? What do you expect they'll do differently at
> > > Weybridge
> > > > that they do from Ames, Iowa, in the IHC testing? And which cow of the
> > > three
> > > > or which animal of the three that had the earlier positives are we
> > looking
> > > > at tonight?
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll answer the first one just as best as I can, and
> then
> > > > Doctor, I'll just queue you up that I'll ask you to answer the final
> > two.
> > > >
> > > > "The IG has been looking at the surveillance. As you know, we've
> tested
> > > now
> > > > 375,000 animals, and Secretary Veneman wanted to be sure that we were
> > > > touching the right places-- regions of the country and etcetera to
> make
> > > sure
> > > > that when that surveillance was done we were satisfied that we got a
> > good
> > > > surveillance of the herd.
> > > >
> > > > "Again, keep in mind that was a surveillance effort; it was never
> > > portrayed
> > > > to be a food safety approach.
> > > >
> > > > "In that effort I believe that the IG decided just to make sure that
> all
> > > the
> > > > bases were touched that this additional testing should be done. So go
> > > ahead,
> > > > Doctor."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The reason we're sending this
> > to
> > > > Weybridge is because we feel this is an unusual case, and we'd like to
> > > have
> > > > the assistance of an internationally recognized laboratory for BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "The inconclusive that we're referring to here is the one that we gave
> > > > notification of in November of 2004. I think it was actually November
> > 15,
> > > > 2004. With regards to the OIG's recommendation, I think that
> > > recommendation
> > > > was based upon a strong reaction on the biorad test and the negative
> > IHC,
> > > > and in order for us to try to resolve those discrepancies that have
> been
> > > > raised relative to that."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, great. Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi. It's Elizabeth Weiss. I'm beginning to think I should
> > never
> > > > go on vacation because every time I do there's a case of BSE. I'm San
> > > Diego,
> > > > and I don't have any of my files. But I'm working from memory here.
> > > >
> > > > "The November case, was that the Texas cow? If it was -"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, Elizabeth, I don't believe the USDA ever
> talked
> > > > about location."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "I presume when you start doing trace back though for this
> > > animal
> > > > you will be then talking about the location?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, I haven't even gotten that far down the road.
> I
> > > > just wanted to get the information out there as quickly as we had it.
> > So."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Okay. And the other question I have -- I'm sorry."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "We had not, we're not that far down the road in terms
> of
> > > what
> > > > that would be about. We just simply wanted to get the information out
> to
> > > you
> > > > folks as quickly as we had it."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "And we appreciate that, especially those of us who don't
> > > publish
> > > > until Monday.
> > > >
> > > > "A further question, at the time of that test I talked to a lot of
> > people
> > > > internationally and actually spoke to the scientist who developed the
> > > > immunohistochemistry test, and he said while his test was state of the
> > art
> > > > when it was first developed he now considers it as he put it more art
> > than
> > > > science. And so I'm wondering, is USDA considering switching to one of
> > the
> > > > newer tests, say the one that Prusinger's Lab has created, something
> > > that's
> > > > got a low false positive but is perhaps a more sensitive test because
> > > Europe
> > > > thinks we've kind of outgrown the immunohistochemistry test.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Yes. You talk about the curiosity of timing; it just so
> > > > happened that today I was touring our Ames laboratory facility in
> Ames,
> > > > Iowa. And that had been set up well before this was an issue, and I
> just
> > > > wanted to see how they were doing there. And I talked to many of the
> > > > scientists that are involved in our BSE research, and I talked about
> the
> > > > tests. And I probed very extensively about both tests being accepted
> > under
> > > > OIE standards.
> > > >
> > > > "I believe at the risk of talking for scientists that you'd get a
> pretty
> > > > lively debate about what test is best, under what circumstances is it
> > > best.
> > > >
> > > > "I do know this, that the IHC test is recognized by the OIE. It's an
> > > > accepted test. It's a test that we have employed and we're not alone.
> > > Other
> > > > parts of the world do.
> > > >
> > > > "We would never make a decision about changing protocol in a knee-jerk
> > > sort
> > > > of way. We would certainly want to debate that. We would want to get a
> > lot
> > > > of good scientific analysis. So it's not something that we would do
> just
> > > > very, very quickly. It's something I'd want very, very cautious,
> careful
> > > > consideration about because there are some who say, 'No the IHC is
> where
> > > you
> > > > want to be.'
> > > >
> > > > "So like I said, at the risk of talking for scientists I think you
> could
> > > get
> > > > a pretty lively debate on your question.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, do you want to offer anything to that?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I just would like to add one thing, Mr. Secretary, or a
> > > > couple of things. Again, to reiterate, we do not, we have not
> confirmed
> > a
> > > > case of BSE in the U.S. at this time. We're going to do further
> analysis
> > > and
> > > > study on this.
> > > >
> > > > "I'd also like to state for the audience, there is such a thing in
> > Europe
> > > > that is called "atypical BSE" about which there's a lot of information
> > and
> > > > data that is still needed out there. And in those particular cases,
> you
> > > have
> > > > in some cases; you had where IHC has been negative and a Western Blot
> > been
> > > > positive.
> > > >
> > > > "In addition with regards to the epidemiology, we have preliminary
> > already
> > > > done some preliminary epidemiology back when the first inconclusive
> was
> > > > first announced, and we'll be ready to perform that as necessary."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Operator, next question, please?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Libby Quaid. Your line is
> open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Thank you. Could you go into a little bit more on what test
> > you
> > > > expect will now be performed and when you expect to know for sure
> > whether
> > > > this was a positive or a negative test?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Go ahead, Doctor."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Actually what I'd like to do is to provide that
> > > > information -- our scientists are working in the Agriculture Research
> > > > Service and APHIS in our National Veterinary Services Lab, and they'll
> > > also
> > > > be discussing this with the scientists at Weybridge, and they'll be
> > > > developing a protocol early next week and procedures for further
> > testing."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Ken Root. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yes. Mr. Secretary, was this a native-born U.S. cow?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Has that been -- that dates back to before I got to the
> > > USDA.
> > > > Doctor, do you know if that's been released?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Actually, Mr. Secretary, it has not. What I can say
> > though
> > > is
> > > > that at this time we would have no information that it was an imported
> > > > animal; also that the animal was an aged animal. It was getting up in
> > age
> > > > and was a beef breed. That's what we're willing to release at this
> > time."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Okay, great. Thank you."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Anita Manning. Your line is
> > open?"
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Oh, my questions have been answered. Thank you."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, thank you, Anita."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "Next question comes from Dan Goldstein. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yeah. Hi. It's Dan Goldstein. Two questions, one for Dr.
> > > Clifford
> > > > and one for the Secretary. Mr. Secretary, first of all, does this
> > somewhat
> > > > do you think may shake the confidence of the international community,
> > one,
> > > > in the ability of the Ames Laboratory and, two, also the efficacy of
> the
> > > IHC
> > > > test?
> > > >
> > > > "And then also for Dr. Clifford, what does this mean in terms of the
> > > > protocols? Will you now have to go back and perhaps test more animals
> > with
> > > > Western Blot tests?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Let me address the question about the Ames Laboratory,
> > and
> > > > I'm sure the doctor will want to offer a thought also.
> > > >
> > > > "One of the things we are very, very proud of is that Ames laboratory.
> > > They
> > > > do great work there, and again I remind everybody that the IHC test is
> > an
> > > > internationally accepted test. And that comes from the OIE, and like I
> > > said
> > > > even amongst scientists you would get debate about the test.
> > > >
> > > > "But it is an internationally accepted test. It was done according to
> > > > protocol. It was properly done and produced negative results as the
> > doctor
> > > > explained.
> > > >
> > > > "In terms of the confidence of the international community, I believe
> > they
> > > > look to us as leaders. Not only are we aggressive when it comes to
> this
> > > > disease; we quite honestly don't leave any stone unturned in terms of
> > our
> > > > efforts to make sure that we're proceeding along the right pathway.
> > > >
> > > > "As the doctor pointed out, this is an aged animal. Our discussions
> with
> > > > Japan have related to 20-month animals as you know. Our discussions
> with
> > > > Korea have related to 30-month animals, and the rule relative to
> Canada
> > or
> > > > the Minimal Risk Rule in general I should say relates to animals under
> > 30
> > > > months and meat product under 30 months.
> > > >
> > > > "So I really don't believe this has any impact on our international
> > > trading
> > > > partners. We'll be working with them to get information in their hands
> > and
> > > > make sure that they understand the situation. But again just because
> of
> > > what
> > > > we're talking about here and the age of the animal, we've got a vast
> > > > difference between what this is about and what we're working with them
> > > > about.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I agree wholeheartedly.
> > > > Internationally our National Veterinary Services Lab is recognized and
> > > well
> > > > respected, and this doesn't put any dent in their armor. They have run
> > the
> > > > IHC flawlessly, and we're confident in every result that's resulted
> from
> > > > that IHC.
> > > >
> > > > "We're confident in the result of the IHC with this particular animal.
> > As
> > > > I'd indicated earlier, and actually the ARS scientists as well as our
> > own
> > > > because this had to be enriched this wouldn't have been found-- this
> > > > particular case would have missed the type testing we did exactly on
> the
> > > > December cow in Canada. It was the IHC and the Western Blot both in
> > those
> > > > cases that were found to be positive.
> > > >
> > > > "We have also discussed this particular issue with international
> > > scientists,
> > > > and I think they have complete confidence in our program while they
> also
> > > > recognize and would recommend that this one particular animal because
> of
> > > the
> > > > unusualness of this case they feel that it should have been run also
> > > against
> > > > the Western Blot."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Tom Stever (sp). Your line is
> > > open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Thank you. How frequently has the Western Blot test been
> > used?
> > > > And also what makes you think that this will not affect the ongoing
> > > efforts
> > > > to reopen the borders to U.S. beef in Japan and Korea?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll talk about the issue relative to our trading
> > partners,
> > > > and Doctor if you could, after I'm done, address the other issue
> > relative
> > > to
> > > > frequency?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, sir.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Again, the doctor points out that this is an aged beef
> > > > animal. What we are working with in terms of Canada as you know is 30
> > > months
> > > > and under. What we are working with Japan, because of a concession
> made
> > in
> > > > the negotiations, is 20 months and under, and then Korea 30 months and
> > > > under.
> > > >
> > > > "And again in terms of our firewalls that are in place, removal of
> > > specified
> > > > risk material, the extensive surveillance that we have done, our
> > diligence
> > > > in the process of testing, I really do believe that this should not
> have
> > > any
> > > > impact on the discussions that we are having with those countries. If
> > > > anything, it should illustrate to them the diligence by which we
> pursue
> > > the
> > > > safety of our feed supply and the safety of our supply of food for
> human
> > > > consumption.
> > > >
> > > > "The other thing I do want to mention is, again I point out that our
> > > > firewall has worked here. This animal did not enter the food supply or
> > the
> > > > feed supply. There are a number of inter-related firewalls that we
> have
> > in
> > > > place, and again we have a prime example tonight that they work and
> this
> > > > animal did not enter the food or feed supply.
> > > >
> > > > Doctor, talk about frequency."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, sir. Actually both of these tests are used
> > extensively
> > > > internationally, and it will vary from country to country as to which
> > test
> > > > they choose or whether they use both tests in some cases. And in most
> > > cases
> > > > countries would not use both though, except under certain
> circumstances
> > or
> > > > unusual circumstances."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Operator, we have time for about two more questions,
> please?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Beth Gorham. Your line is
> open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi, there. Beth Gorham from the Canadian Press Wire
> Service.
> > > > Thanks for taking my question.
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Secretary, I understand that you think that this isn't going to
> > > affect
> > > > talks with international partners, but given the timing of this and
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > quite clear -- I know the protocols are being developed next week,
> but,
> > A,
> > > > is there an answer on how long this will take? And B, given the fact
> > that
> > > > the appeal is scheduled to go ahead on July 13 in Seattle, are you
> > worried
> > > > about the impact as far as the judicial proceedings are concerned?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, I am really not. And let me explain to you
> why.
> > I
> > > > believe that you will have the entire cattle industry over the next
> few
> > > days
> > > > and the folks involved in processing beef and serving beef to
> customers
> > > > recognize and talk very publicly about what we've talked about
> tonight.
> > > And
> > > > that is that the firewalls we have in place do work.
> > > >
> > > > "We did not have an animal that entered the feed or food chain. All of
> > the
> > > > protocols were followed. The laboratory in Ames meticulously followed
> > the
> > > > step-by-step process, came up with a negative, and I just think you're
> > > going
> > > > to have the industry say, hey, what we see is that the USDA firewalls
> > are
> > > > working, they're getting the job done for us.
> > > >
> > > > "And again as you know, Canada really follows the same approach that
> we
> > > do.
> > > > So I just don't anticipate an issue there, and again I don't
> anticipate
> > a
> > > > problem with our trading partners. They'll want to know what the
> issues
> > > are
> > > > and what we have done, and we'll provide them with that information.
> > > >
> > > > "One of the things about this call tonight is, we want to assure them
> > and
> > > to
> > > > assure the public that what we're doing here is transparent. I had
> these
> > > > results just barely 10 minutes before we got on the line to visit with
> > > you.
> > > > So I think that's very important.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, if you could go ahead and offer some thoughts, that would be
> > > great.
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I definitely agree. I
> think
> > > one
> > > > of the things too with BSE that we need to put this disease in a
> proper
> > > > perspective, especially internationally. And just remind everyone that
> > it
> > > > was just a very short time ago that the OIE adopted a new chapter for
> > BSE.
> > > > It talks about the safe trade in certain products, and that's really
> > where
> > > > we need to go with this issue is talking about how you safely trade
> > > products
> > > > with BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "And we have those firewalls and protections in place in the U.S. And
> > also
> > > > to remind everyone that our surveillance program is a program in order
> > to
> > > > determine if the disease exists in this country and if so to estimate
> > the
> > > > prevalence level of the disease in order for us to make the
> > determinations
> > > > that our firewalls are working. And we know that those are working.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, if you might -- and I don't want to extend this
> > > > longer than necessary, but it might be good for a quick refresher on
> the
> >
> > > > significance of the rule specifying 30 months and under and in Japan's
> > > case
> > > > 20 months and under. Do you know what I'm driving at?
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Hang on just a second, sir.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay.
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes. With regard to the SRM removal, yes. Basically the
> > > > animals under 30 months of age, you know with regards to SRM removal
> we
> > > > remove the tonsils and small intestines, and over 30 months of age
> > animals
> > > > we remove the spinal cord, the small intestines, as well as tonsils,
> > > > eyeballs, the brain tissue, and the dorsal root ganglia. Those are the
> > > > tissues that are removed in order to protect the human health in this
> > > > country."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Again, another firewall. We'll go ahead and take
> > the
> > > > next question."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Tom Brand. Your line is open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Good evening. Mr. Secretary, as we've been on this call
> here
> > > this
> > > > evening I was actually with a group of some cattle producers and have
> > been
> > > > relaying some information along to them. And the question has come up
> > from
> > > > them, why are we still running the review of tests that came from an
> > > > inconclusive back in November of 2004?
> > > >
> > > > "They're also interested in why we upped the sample amount to such,
> the
> > 20
> > > > times, in order to get that positive?
> > > >
> > > > "And also just wondering how you feel, will there have to be as much
> of
> > a
> > > > public relations campaign as there was back in December 2003, or do
> you
> > > feel
> > > > like consumer confidence will remain?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Consumer confidence I am very, very confident will
> > remain.
> > > > Again I point out that this is a situation where the firewalls work.
> We
> > do
> > > > not have a human health risk here. This animal did not enter the food
> > > chain.
> > > >
> > > > "So from that standpoint I feel very strongly that it's important that
> > we
> > > > get the facts out, and we have done that. In terms of the question
> about
> > > why
> > > > the additional testing, if you'll remember there was discussion about,
> > > well,
> > > > maybe some additional testing should be done. I believe Secretary
> > Veneman
> > > > also wanted to get a notion as to whether the surveillance process was
> > > > actually touching all of the right bases. And the Inspector General,
> as
> > > you
> > > > know who operates independently in our federal form of government,
> > decided
> > > > to request the additional testing. And so that's how that came about.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, maybe you could offer some thoughts on anything I might have
> > > missed
> > > > there in that answer."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I would only add, when you talk about the enrichment of
> > the
> > > > sample that's something that is allowed with regards to that test and
> > the
> > > > protocol in order to determine if there's low levels of abnormal
> protein
> > > > present. And that's a technique that has been probably used in more
> > recent
> > > > years and is something that is widely used."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Let me just wrap up with just a couple of quick
> > > > comments, and then we'll call it good for the night and we'll let you
> > get
> > > > off the line.
> > > >
> > > > "The first thing I want to mention again is that there is no risk to
> > human
> > > > health here. The animal did not get in the food or the feed chain. The
> > > > firewalls that the USDA put in place some time ago once again have
> shown
> > > > that they do work. I do not believe that the information that we have
> > > > released should impact our discussions with Japan, Korea or Canada.
> > Again,
> > > > age of animal alone would indicate we're dealing with a much different
> > > > circumstance.
> > > >
> > > > "And with that, I do want to point out that as the doctor indicated
> even
> > > > this third test is not a confirmed case of BSE. Additional testing
> will
> > > > occur. The other two animals did test negative on the additional
> > testing.
> > > >
> > > > Doctor, do you want to offer any thoughts to wrap up?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I don't have anything additional, sir."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, great. Thank you, everyone."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Dr. Clifford's statement is now
> on
> > > the
> > > > USDA website, and we will also have a transcript of this call
> available
> > on
> > > > the website, and we will send it out tomorrow morning. As we gather
> > > > additional information, we will make that available, but at this point
> > we
> > > do
> > > > not anticipate any further announcements over the weekend. So have a
> > good
> > > > weekend, everyone."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Last Modified: 06/10/2005
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> > > > tentid=2005/06/0207.xml
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >"The fourth point that I want to make is that the test was also done,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot test, on the two other animals and those test results
> were
> > > > negative. <
> > > >
> > > > WHY, why was WB not done on this Texas cow?
> > > >
> > > > Seems Texas has a serious problem with complying with proper protocol
> > i.e.
> > > > rendering the stumbling and staggering mad cow without any test at all
> > AND
> > > > then this downer
> > > > cow without WB.
> > > >
> > > > WHO gave the authority NOT to use WB???
> > > > PROBABLY the same person that gave the OK to import that banned
> > > > Canadian beef.
> > > >
> > > > THE cow first tested positive with rapid tests.
> > > > Seems some media are saying the cow first tested
> > > > negative. this is simply not true.
> > > >
> > > > TSS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > ----
> > > > Content-type: text/html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Healthy Lifestyle
> > > > EXPO 2005
> > > > TICKETS now available!
> > > > October 14 - 16, Burbank, CA
> > > > Top speakers, all new talks!
> > > > 50,000 square feet of vegan products and exhibits!
> > > > Click here
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
> > > >
> > > > Your message has been posted
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Subscribe to the VegSource Newsletter!
> > > > Enter email address and press Submit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (This will open a new browser, which you can close to return to this
> > > page.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Go to:
> > > > Your Message
> > > > Discussion Board... (Note: You may need to press 'Reload' or 'Refresh'
> > to
> > > > see your message.)
> > > > Your post was added to the message board as follows:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > From: TSS ()
> > > > Subject: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease
> Friday,
> > > June
> > > > 10, 2005
> > > > Date: June 11, 2005 at 1:28 pm PST
> > > >
> > > > Release No. 0207.05
> > > > Contact:
> > > > USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike
> > Johanns
> > > > and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Plant Health
> > > > Inspection Service Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test
> > > > Results Washington, D.C.
> > > >
> > > > June 10, 2005
> > > >
> > > > MR. ED LOYD: "Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us
> late
> > on
> > > a
> > > > Friday evening. I certainly appreciate your getting on with us on such
> > > short
> > > > notice for an update of our BSE surveillance. Just so you know, our
> > format
> > > > tonight we're going to have Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is
> going
> > to
> > > > make a brief introductory statement, followed by Dr. John Clifford,
> the
> > > > chief veterinary officer of the APHIS, the Animal Plant Health
> > Inspection
> > > > Service, who will go into some more technical background.
> > > >
> > > > "With that, I will turn this over to Agriculture Secretary Mike
> > Johanns."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, good evening everyone, and let me also just
> express
> > > my
> > > > appreciation for your willingness to join us tonight. As you know,
> over
> > > the
> > > > past many months we have been working on a number of fronts relative
> to
> > > BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "Most recently we had a roundtable discussion in St. Paul yesterday
> > where
> > > > literally all players with a variety of opinions participated. It went
> > > very,
> > > > very well. We've been working with our rulemaking process and the
> > > government
> > > > of Canada to reopen Canada to their exports into our country of beef.
> > > >
> > > > "We have also been working very aggressively and diligently with a
> > number
> > > of
> > > > countries around the world, most notably, of course, Japan and Korea.
> > > >
> > > > "And as you know, now nearly a year ago or maybe even more than a year
> > ago
> > > > we started a very aggressive surveillance system. During that
> > surveillance
> > > > process we have had three inconclusives on rapid tests. It's a rapid
> > test
> > > > that is done, and there were three inconclusives.
> > > >
> > > > "Each was then followed up with an IHC test. Each confirmatory IHC
> test
> > > was
> > > > negative. The Inspector General, in reviewing our surveillance system
> > that
> > > > we have in place, decided to retest with a second confirmatory test
> > which
> > > is
> > > > called the Western Blot. We have received test results showing a
> > positive
> > > on
> > > > one animal for the Western Blot.
> > > >
> > > > "I would like to make a couple of points, and then I'll ask Dr.
> Clifford
> > > to
> > > > offer some thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > "Number two, the firewalls that the USDA put in place did work. As I
> > point
> > > > out, the animal did not enter the food or the feed chain. Therefore,
> > > there's
> > > > no risk to human health.
> > > >
> > > > "The third point is that I feel very strongly that this information
> > should
> > > > not impact our discussions with Japan, Korea or Canada.
> > > >
> > > > "The fourth point that I want to make is that the test was also done,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot test, on the two other animals and those test results
> were
> > > > negative.
> > > >
> > > > "With that, I would like Dr. Clifford to speak about the test, and
> he'll
> > > > take it from here. And then when he's finished, we'll go ahead and
> open
> > it
> > > > up to your questions."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thanks everyone for being
> > on
> > > > the phone tonight.
> > > >
> > > > "Since the USDA enhanced surveillance program for BSE began in June
> 2004
> > > > more than 375,000 animals from the targeted cattle population have
> been
> > > > tested for BSE using a rapid test. Three of these animals tested
> > > > inconclusive and were subsequently subjected to the
> immunohistochemistry
> > > > (IHC) testing. The IHC is an internationally recognized confirmatory
> > test
> > > > for BSE. All three inconclusive samples tested negative using the IHC
> > > test.
> > > >
> > > > "As the Secretary said earlier this week, USDA's Office of Inspector
> > > General
> > > > which has been partnering with APHIS, FSIS and ARS, the Agriculture
> > > Research
> > > > Service, by impartially reviewing BSE-related activities and making
> > > > recommendations for improvement, recommended that all three of these
> > > samples
> > > > be subjected to a second internationally recognized confirmatory test,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot.
> > > >
> > > > "We received final results a short time ago. As the Secretary stated,
> of
> > > the
> > > > three samples two were negative, but the third came back reactive on
> > that
> > > > test.
> > > >
> > > > "Because of the conflicting results on the IHC and Western Blot test,
> a
> > > > sample from this animal will be sent to the OIE recognized reference
> > > > laboratory for BSE in Weybridge, England. USDA will also be conducting
> > > > further testing which will take several days to complete.
> > > >
> > > > "Regardless of the outcome, it is critical to note that USDA has in
> > place
> > > a
> > > > sound system of interlocking safeguards to protect human and animal
> > health
> > > > from BSE including most significantly a ban on specified risk
> materials
> > > from
> > > > the human food supply. In the case of this animal, it was a
> > nonambulatory
> > > > downer animal and as such was banned from the food supply. It was
> taken
> > to
> > > a
> > > > facility that handles only animals unsuitable for human consumption,
> and
> > > the
> > > > carcass was incinerated.
> > > >
> > > > "USDA's enhanced surveillance program is designed to provide
> information
> > > > about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States. Since the
> > > > inception of this program we have fully anticipated the possibility
> that
> > > > additional cases of BSE would be found. And in fact, we are extremely
> > > > gratified that to date more than 375,000 animals have been tested for
> > the
> > > > disease, and with the exception of this conflicting result we received
> > for
> > > > this one animal all have ultimately proven to be negative for the
> > disease.
> > > >
> > > > "USDA is committed to ensuring that our BSE program is the best that
> it
> > > can
> > > > be, keeping pace with science and international guidelines, and to
> > > > considering recommendations made by OIG and others in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > "We are committed to ensuring that we have the right protocols in
> place,
> > > > ones that are solely grounded in science and consistently followed.
> > > >
> > > > "After we receive additional test results on this animal, we will
> > > determine
> > > > what further steps need to be taken and what changes if any are
> > warranted
> > > in
> > > > our surveillance program."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "With that, Operator, we would open this up to some
> > questions."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "Once again if you do want to ask a question at this time
> > please
> > > > press *1 on your touchtone phone, and you must record your name. It
> will
> > > be
> > > > just a moment for the first question. The first question comes from
> Jeff
> > > > Nalley. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Mr. Secretary and Mr. Veterinarian this is Jeff Nalley.
> We're
> > > > broadcasting from Owens Brook, Kentucky, this evening. I'll share with
> > > you;
> > > > we got the news from the USDA while we were in a restaurant, an
> > > > all-you-can-eat steak buffet. So I'm having seconds just to show our
> > > > confidence.
> > > >
> > > > "But how can you give credence to what has been said before that this
> is
> > a
> > > > beef issue and not a human issue and something that we have well in
> hand
> > > > certainly within the OIE standards?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, we have the best example I could possibly give
> > > tonight,
> > > > and that example is this. We've tested 375,000 animals so far. Even
> with
> > > > this one animal, we tested the three that on the rapid test showed a
> > > > positive and the original test showed negative. We went, the IHC
> test--
> > we
> > > > went from there even an additional step. We have two negatives and
> this
> > > > third test we can point to the fact that our firewalls work. This
> animal
> > > was
> > > > a downer animal. It did not get in the food or the feed chain. There
> > just
> > > is
> > > > no risk whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > "Enjoy beef. I'm going to do exactly what you're doing tonight. I'm
> > going
> > > to
> > > > enjoy a good steak. There just simply is not a risk here, and we want
> to
> > > > illustrate, which I believe we have done by even exceeding what's
> > > required.
> > > > We have gone well beyond any standard that is out there to illustrate
> > the
> > > > safety of this herd. And it is a safe beef product; there's just no
> > doubt
> > > > about it."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Could we have the next question, please"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Peter Shinn. Your line is
> open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yes, good evening. This is Peter Shinn from the National
> > > > Association of Farm Broadcasters.
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Secretary, I don't mean to ask a difficult question, but it just
> > > > immediately comes to mind. What exactly happened in terms of how could
> > you
> > > > have gotten it not right the first time? And what's the difference
> > between
> > > > the IHC and the Western Blot? That might be a question for Dr.
> > Clifford."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Yeah. I'll ask Dr. Clifford to get in. It's not really
> a
> > > > question of not getting it right. They are, both tests are accepted by
> > the
> > > > OIE. Both tests if you use those, they are accepted under the
> standard.
> > So
> > > > it's not a question of getting it right. All of the protocols were
> > > followed.
> > > > We had the positive and the rapid response test, the IHC test was
> > applied
> > > > according to the protocols, and that is the test that has been used in
> > the
> > > > United States.
> > > >
> > > > "And so it's not a situation where you've got one test that isn't
> > accepted
> > > > and one that is. They both are accepted. There are differences in the
> > > tests,
> > > > and I'll let Dr. Clifford explain that.
> > > >
> > > > "And maybe, Dr. Clifford, you can even explain if you would just what
> > this
> > > > test showed and how you went about getting through the testing
> process."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And yes, we're confident in
> the
> > > > results of actually both of these tests. The IHC was negative for this
> > > > sample. Actually the Western Blot test, if you go back to the December
> > cow
> > > > that was found from Canada the Western Blot that was run on that
> > > particular
> > > > sample we used one milligram of tissue to run that test and was found
> to
> > > be
> > > > a very strong positive.
> > > >
> > > > "In order to find a positive in this particular case with this Western
> > > Blot,
> > > > they had to enhance or enrich it, in which that basically means you're
> > > > concentrating the abnormal protein. So they had to use 20 times the
> > > amount.
> > > > You would have to use about 20 times the amount of tissue for this to
> > > > determine to be a positive or reactive on the Western Blot versus the
> > one
> > > > that was discovered in December in the state of Washington.
> > > >
> > > > "In addition, there are definite differences between these two tests.
> > The
> > > > IHC is internationally recognized, and why we chose that for our
> > enhanced
> > > > surveillance program is because that particular test does two things.
> It
> > > > allows you to visualize the anatomic location where the lesions are
> most
> > > > likely to be found which is the obex. At the same time it uses a
> > staining
> > > > technique on the prions, on abnormal prions in the tissue in that
> > > location.
> > > >
> > > > "So that's what the IHC does.
> > > >
> > > > "In the Western Blot case, it's actually a homogenate (sp) of a sample
> > of
> > > > brain tissue that is centrifuged and they concentrate the prion
> protein
> > > and
> > > > then they use a protease to destroy the normal protein, leaving the
> > > abnormal
> > > > protein present. And then basically that is run through a gel-type
> > > > separation using specific antibodies that will give you bands.
> > > >
> > > > "And they look at those bands and the molecular weight of those bands
> to
> > > > determine the outcome of that test.
> > > >
> > > > "So this test would actually be referred to as a weak positive test in
> > > this
> > > > case for the Western Blot, and as a result of that and the unusualness
> > of
> > > > this case it's going to require additional testing before we can
> confirm
> > > one
> > > > way or another whether this is truly BSE or not."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, somebody's going to ask you this so let me just
> > ask
> > > > it. When you say "weak positive," it would be helpful if you could
> > > describe
> > > > what you mean by that."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "What we mean by "weak positive," Mr. Secretary, is
> going
> > > back
> > > > to the original case. It required and enrichment of these and a
> greater
> > > > amount of normal tissue in order to enhance this outcome. So in order
> to
> > > > find the abnormal protein present you had to use more material and
> > > > concentrate it."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. We'll take the
> next
> > > > question."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question will come from Joe Pelka (sp). Your line
> is
> > > > open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi. Good evening, gentlemen. I actually have three
> questions.
> > I
> > > > think I can state them succinctly. First of all, why did the IG ask
> for
> > a
> > > > retest in this case? What do you expect they'll do differently at
> > > Weybridge
> > > > that they do from Ames, Iowa, in the IHC testing? And which cow of the
> > > three
> > > > or which animal of the three that had the earlier positives are we
> > looking
> > > > at tonight?
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll answer the first one just as best as I can, and
> then
> > > > Doctor, I'll just queue you up that I'll ask you to answer the final
> > two.
> > > >
> > > > "The IG has been looking at the surveillance. As you know, we've
> tested
> > > now
> > > > 375,000 animals, and Secretary Veneman wanted to be sure that we were
> > > > touching the right places-- regions of the country and etcetera to
> make
> > > sure
> > > > that when that surveillance was done we were satisfied that we got a
> > good
> > > > surveillance of the herd.
> > > >
> > > > "Again, keep in mind that was a surveillance effort; it was never
> > > portrayed
> > > > to be a food safety approach.
> > > >
> > > > "In that effort I believe that the IG decided just to make sure that
> all
> > > the
> > > > bases were touched that this additional testing should be done. So go
> > > ahead,
> > > > Doctor."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The reason we're sending this
> > to
> > > > Weybridge is because we feel this is an unusual case, and we'd like to
> > > have
> > > > the assistance of an internationally recognized laboratory for BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "The inconclusive that we're referring to here is the one that we gave
> > > > notification of in November of 2004. I think it was actually November
> > 15,
> > > > 2004. With regards to the OIG's recommendation, I think that
> > > recommendation
> > > > was based upon a strong reaction on the biorad test and the negative
> > IHC,
> > > > and in order for us to try to resolve those discrepancies that have
> been
> > > > raised relative to that."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, great. Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi. It's Elizabeth Weiss. I'm beginning to think I should
> > never
> > > > go on vacation because every time I do there's a case of BSE. I'm San
> > > Diego,
> > > > and I don't have any of my files. But I'm working from memory here.
> > > >
> > > > "The November case, was that the Texas cow? If it was -"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, Elizabeth, I don't believe the USDA ever
> talked
> > > > about location."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "I presume when you start doing trace back though for this
> > > animal
> > > > you will be then talking about the location?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, I haven't even gotten that far down the road.
> I
> > > > just wanted to get the information out there as quickly as we had it.
> > So."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Okay. And the other question I have -- I'm sorry."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "We had not, we're not that far down the road in terms
> of
> > > what
> > > > that would be about. We just simply wanted to get the information out
> to
> > > you
> > > > folks as quickly as we had it."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "And we appreciate that, especially those of us who don't
> > > publish
> > > > until Monday.
> > > >
> > > > "A further question, at the time of that test I talked to a lot of
> > people
> > > > internationally and actually spoke to the scientist who developed the
> > > > immunohistochemistry test, and he said while his test was state of the
> > art
> > > > when it was first developed he now considers it as he put it more art
> > than
> > > > science. And so I'm wondering, is USDA considering switching to one of
> > the
> > > > newer tests, say the one that Prusinger's Lab has created, something
> > > that's
> > > > got a low false positive but is perhaps a more sensitive test because
> > > Europe
> > > > thinks we've kind of outgrown the immunohistochemistry test.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Yes. You talk about the curiosity of timing; it just so
> > > > happened that today I was touring our Ames laboratory facility in
> Ames,
> > > > Iowa. And that had been set up well before this was an issue, and I
> just
> > > > wanted to see how they were doing there. And I talked to many of the
> > > > scientists that are involved in our BSE research, and I talked about
> the
> > > > tests. And I probed very extensively about both tests being accepted
> > under
> > > > OIE standards.
> > > >
> > > > "I believe at the risk of talking for scientists that you'd get a
> pretty
> > > > lively debate about what test is best, under what circumstances is it
> > > best.
> > > >
> > > > "I do know this, that the IHC test is recognized by the OIE. It's an
> > > > accepted test. It's a test that we have employed and we're not alone.
> > > Other
> > > > parts of the world do.
> > > >
> > > > "We would never make a decision about changing protocol in a knee-jerk
> > > sort
> > > > of way. We would certainly want to debate that. We would want to get a
> > lot
> > > > of good scientific analysis. So it's not something that we would do
> just
> > > > very, very quickly. It's something I'd want very, very cautious,
> careful
> > > > consideration about because there are some who say, 'No the IHC is
> where
> > > you
> > > > want to be.'
> > > >
> > > > "So like I said, at the risk of talking for scientists I think you
> could
> > > get
> > > > a pretty lively debate on your question.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, do you want to offer anything to that?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I just would like to add one thing, Mr. Secretary, or a
> > > > couple of things. Again, to reiterate, we do not, we have not
> confirmed
> > a
> > > > case of BSE in the U.S. at this time. We're going to do further
> analysis
> > > and
> > > > study on this.
> > > >
> > > > "I'd also like to state for the audience, there is such a thing in
> > Europe
> > > > that is called "atypical BSE" about which there's a lot of information
> > and
> > > > data that is still needed out there. And in those particular cases,
> you
> > > have
> > > > in some cases; you had where IHC has been negative and a Western Blot
> > been
> > > > positive.
> > > >
> > > > "In addition with regards to the epidemiology, we have preliminary
> > already
> > > > done some preliminary epidemiology back when the first inconclusive
> was
> > > > first announced, and we'll be ready to perform that as necessary."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Operator, next question, please?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Libby Quaid. Your line is
> open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Thank you. Could you go into a little bit more on what test
> > you
> > > > expect will now be performed and when you expect to know for sure
> > whether
> > > > this was a positive or a negative test?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Go ahead, Doctor."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Actually what I'd like to do is to provide that
> > > > information -- our scientists are working in the Agriculture Research
> > > > Service and APHIS in our National Veterinary Services Lab, and they'll
> > > also
> > > > be discussing this with the scientists at Weybridge, and they'll be
> > > > developing a protocol early next week and procedures for further
> > testing."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Ken Root. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yes. Mr. Secretary, was this a native-born U.S. cow?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Has that been -- that dates back to before I got to the
> > > USDA.
> > > > Doctor, do you know if that's been released?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Actually, Mr. Secretary, it has not. What I can say
> > though
> > > is
> > > > that at this time we would have no information that it was an imported
> > > > animal; also that the animal was an aged animal. It was getting up in
> > age
> > > > and was a beef breed. That's what we're willing to release at this
> > time."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Okay, great. Thank you."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Anita Manning. Your line is
> > open?"
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Oh, my questions have been answered. Thank you."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, thank you, Anita."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "Next question comes from Dan Goldstein. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yeah. Hi. It's Dan Goldstein. Two questions, one for Dr.
> > > Clifford
> > > > and one for the Secretary. Mr. Secretary, first of all, does this
> > somewhat
> > > > do you think may shake the confidence of the international community,
> > one,
> > > > in the ability of the Ames Laboratory and, two, also the efficacy of
> the
> > > IHC
> > > > test?
> > > >
> > > > "And then also for Dr. Clifford, what does this mean in terms of the
> > > > protocols? Will you now have to go back and perhaps test more animals
> > with
> > > > Western Blot tests?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Let me address the question about the Ames Laboratory,
> > and
> > > > I'm sure the doctor will want to offer a thought also.
> > > >
> > > > "One of the things we are very, very proud of is that Ames laboratory.
> > > They
> > > > do great work there, and again I remind everybody that the IHC test is
> > an
> > > > internationally accepted test. And that comes from the OIE, and like I
> > > said
> > > > even amongst scientists you would get debate about the test.
> > > >
> > > > "But it is an internationally accepted test. It was done according to
> > > > protocol. It was properly done and produced negative results as the
> > doctor
> > > > explained.
> > > >
> > > > "In terms of the confidence of the international community, I believe
> > they
> > > > look to us as leaders. Not only are we aggressive when it comes to
> this
> > > > disease; we quite honestly don't leave any stone unturned in terms of
> > our
> > > > efforts to make sure that we're proceeding along the right pathway.
> > > >
> > > > "As the doctor pointed out, this is an aged animal. Our discussions
> with
> > > > Japan have related to 20-month animals as you know. Our discussions
> with
> > > > Korea have related to 30-month animals, and the rule relative to
> Canada
> > or
> > > > the Minimal Risk Rule in general I should say relates to animals under
> > 30
> > > > months and meat product under 30 months.
> > > >
> > > > "So I really don't believe this has any impact on our international
> > > trading
> > > > partners. We'll be working with them to get information in their hands
> > and
> > > > make sure that they understand the situation. But again just because
> of
> > > what
> > > > we're talking about here and the age of the animal, we've got a vast
> > > > difference between what this is about and what we're working with them
> > > > about.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I agree wholeheartedly.
> > > > Internationally our National Veterinary Services Lab is recognized and
> > > well
> > > > respected, and this doesn't put any dent in their armor. They have run
> > the
> > > > IHC flawlessly, and we're confident in every result that's resulted
> from
> > > > that IHC.
> > > >
> > > > "We're confident in the result of the IHC with this particular animal.
> > As
> > > > I'd indicated earlier, and actually the ARS scientists as well as our
> > own
> > > > because this had to be enriched this wouldn't have been found-- this
> > > > particular case would have missed the type testing we did exactly on
> the
> > > > December cow in Canada. It was the IHC and the Western Blot both in
> > those
> > > > cases that were found to be positive.
> > > >
> > > > "We have also discussed this particular issue with international
> > > scientists,
> > > > and I think they have complete confidence in our program while they
> also
> > > > recognize and would recommend that this one particular animal because
> of
> > > the
> > > > unusualness of this case they feel that it should have been run also
> > > against
> > > > the Western Blot."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Tom Stever (sp). Your line is
> > > open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Thank you. How frequently has the Western Blot test been
> > used?
> > > > And also what makes you think that this will not affect the ongoing
> > > efforts
> > > > to reopen the borders to U.S. beef in Japan and Korea?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll talk about the issue relative to our trading
> > partners,
> > > > and Doctor if you could, after I'm done, address the other issue
> > relative
> > > to
> > > > frequency?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, sir.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Again, the doctor points out that this is an aged beef
> > > > animal. What we are working with in terms of Canada as you know is 30
> > > months
> > > > and under. What we are working with Japan, because of a concession
> made
> > in
> > > > the negotiations, is 20 months and under, and then Korea 30 months and
> > > > under.
> > > >
> > > > "And again in terms of our firewalls that are in place, removal of
> > > specified
> > > > risk material, the extensive surveillance that we have done, our
> > diligence
> > > > in the process of testing, I really do believe that this should not
> have
> > > any
> > > > impact on the discussions that we are having with those countries. If
> > > > anything, it should illustrate to them the diligence by which we
> pursue
> > > the
> > > > safety of our feed supply and the safety of our supply of food for
> human
> > > > consumption.
> > > >
> > > > "The other thing I do want to mention is, again I point out that our
> > > > firewall has worked here. This animal did not enter the food supply or
> > the
> > > > feed supply. There are a number of inter-related firewalls that we
> have
> > in
> > > > place, and again we have a prime example tonight that they work and
> this
> > > > animal did not enter the food or feed supply.
> > > >
> > > > Doctor, talk about frequency."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, sir. Actually both of these tests are used
> > extensively
> > > > internationally, and it will vary from country to country as to which
> > test
> > > > they choose or whether they use both tests in some cases. And in most
> > > cases
> > > > countries would not use both though, except under certain
> circumstances
> > or
> > > > unusual circumstances."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Operator, we have time for about two more questions,
> please?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Beth Gorham. Your line is
> open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi, there. Beth Gorham from the Canadian Press Wire
> Service.
> > > > Thanks for taking my question.
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Secretary, I understand that you think that this isn't going to
> > > affect
> > > > talks with international partners, but given the timing of this and
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > quite clear -- I know the protocols are being developed next week,
> but,
> > A,
> > > > is there an answer on how long this will take? And B, given the fact
> > that
> > > > the appeal is scheduled to go ahead on July 13 in Seattle, are you
> > worried
> > > > about the impact as far as the judicial proceedings are concerned?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, I am really not. And let me explain to you
> why.
> > I
> > > > believe that you will have the entire cattle industry over the next
> few
> > > days
> > > > and the folks involved in processing beef and serving beef to
> customers
> > > > recognize and talk very publicly about what we've talked about
> tonight.
> > > And
> > > > that is that the firewalls we have in place do work.
> > > >
> > > > "We did not have an animal that entered the feed or food chain. All of
> > the
> > > > protocols were followed. The laboratory in Ames meticulously followed
> > the
> > > > step-by-step process, came up with a negative, and I just think you're
> > > going
> > > > to have the industry say, hey, what we see is that the USDA firewalls
> > are
> > > > working, they're getting the job done for us.
> > > >
> > > > "And again as you know, Canada really follows the same approach that
> we
> > > do.
> > > > So I just don't anticipate an issue there, and again I don't
> anticipate
> > a
> > > > problem with our trading partners. They'll want to know what the
> issues
> > > are
> > > > and what we have done, and we'll provide them with that information.
> > > >
> > > > "One of the things about this call tonight is, we want to assure them
> > and
> > > to
> > > > assure the public that what we're doing here is transparent. I had
> these
> > > > results just barely 10 minutes before we got on the line to visit with
> > > you.
> > > > So I think that's very important.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, if you could go ahead and offer some thoughts, that would be
> > > great.
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I definitely agree. I
> think
> > > one
> > > > of the things too with BSE that we need to put this disease in a
> proper
> > > > perspective, especially internationally. And just remind everyone that
> > it
> > > > was just a very short time ago that the OIE adopted a new chapter for
> > BSE.
> > > > It talks about the safe trade in certain products, and that's really
> > where
> > > > we need to go with this issue is talking about how you safely trade
> > > products
> > > > with BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "And we have those firewalls and protections in place in the U.S. And
> > also
> > > > to remind everyone that our surveillance program is a program in order
> > to
> > > > determine if the disease exists in this country and if so to estimate
> > the
> > > > prevalence level of the disease in order for us to make the
> > determinations
> > > > that our firewalls are working. And we know that those are working.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, if you might -- and I don't want to extend this
> > > > longer than necessary, but it might be good for a quick refresher on
> the
> > > > significance of the rule specifying 30 months and under and in Japan's
> > > case
> > > > 20 months and under. Do you know what I'm driving at?
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Hang on just a second, sir.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay.
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes. With regard to the SRM removal, yes. Basically the
> > > > animals under 30 months of age, you know with regards to SRM removal
> we
> > > > remove the tonsils and small intestines, and over 30 months of age
> > animals
> > > > we remove the spinal cord, the small intestines, as well as tonsils,
> > > > eyeballs, the brain tissue, and the dorsal root ganglia. Those are the
> > > > tissues that are removed in order to protect the human health in this
> > > > country."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Again, another firewall. We'll go ahead and take
> > the
> > > > next question."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Tom Brand. Your line is open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Good evening. Mr. Secretary, as we've been on this call
> here
> > > this
> > > > evening I was actually with a group of some cattle producers and have
> > been
> > > > relaying some information along to them. And the question has come up
> > from
> > > > them, why are we still running the review of tests that came from an
> > > > inconclusive back in November of 2004?
> > > >
> > > > "They're also interested in why we upped the sample amount to such,
> the
> > 20
> > > > times, in order to get that positive?
> > > >
> > > > "And also just wondering how you feel, will there have to be as much
> of
> > a
> > > > public relations campaign as there was back in December 2003, or do
> you
> > > feel
> > > > like consumer confidence will remain?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Consumer confidence I am very, very confident will
> > remain.
> > > > Again I point out that this is a situation where the firewalls work.
> We
> > do
> > > > not have a human health risk here. This animal did not enter the food
> > > chain.
> > > >
> > > > "So from that standpoint I feel very strongly that it's important that
> > we
> > > > get the facts out, and we have done that. In terms of the question
> about
> > > why
> > > > the additional testing, if you'll remember there was discussion about,
> > > well,
> > > > maybe some additional testing should be done. I believe Secretary
> > Veneman
> > > > also wanted to get a notion as to whether the surveillance process was
> > > > actually touching all of the right bases. And the Inspector General,
> as
> > > you
> > > > know who operates independently in our federal form of government,
> > decided
> > > > to request the additional testing. And so that's how that came about.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, maybe you could offer some thoughts on anything I might have
> > > missed
> > > > there in that answer."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I would only add, when you talk about the enrichment of
> > the
> > > > sample that's something that is allowed with regards to that test and
> > the
> > > > protocol in order to determine if there's low levels of abnormal
> protein
> > > > present. And that's a technique that has been probably used in more
> > recent
> > > > years and is something that is widely used."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Let me just wrap up with just a couple of quick
> > > > comments, and then we'll call it good for the night and we'll let you
> > get
> > > > off the line.
> > > >
> > > > "The first thing I want to mention again is that there is no risk to
> > human
> > > > health here. The animal did not get in the food or the feed chain. The
> > > > firewalls that the USDA put in place some time ago once again have
> shown
> > > > that they do work. I do not believe that the information that we have
> > > > released should impact our discussions with Japan, Korea or Canada.
> > Again,
> > > > age of animal alone would indicate we're dealing with a much different
> > > > circumstance.
> > > >
> > > > "And with that, I do want to point out that as the doctor indicated
> even
> > > > this third test is not a confirmed case of BSE. Additional testing
> will
> > > > occur. The other two animals did test negative on the additional
> > testing.
> > > >
> > > > Doctor, do you want to offer any thoughts to wrap up?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I don't have anything additional, sir."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, great. Thank you, everyone."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Dr. Clifford's statement is now
> on
> > > the
> > > > USDA website, and we will also have a transcript of this call
> available
> > on
> > > > the website, and we will send it out tomorrow morning. As we gather
> > > > additional information, we will make that available, but at this point
> > we
> > > do
> > > > not anticipate any further announcements over the weekend. So have a
> > good
> > > > weekend, everyone."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Last Modified: 06/10/2005
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> > > > tentid=2005/06/0207.xml
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >"The fourth point that I want to make is that the test was also done,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot test, on the two other animals and those test results
> were
> > > > negative. <
> > > >
> > > > WHY, why was WB not done on this Texas cow?
> > > >
> > > > Seems Texas has a serious problem with complying with proper protocol
> > i.e.
> > > > rendering the stumbling and staggering mad cow without any test at all
> > AND
> > > > then this downer
> > > > cow without WB.
> > > >
> > > > WHO gave the authority NOT to use WB???
> > > > PROBABLY the same person that gave the OK to import that banned
> > > > Canadian beef.
> > > >
> > > > THE cow first tested positive with rapid tests.
> > > > Seems some media are saying the cow first tested
> > > > negative. this is simply not true.
> > > >
> > > > TSS
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:27 PM
> > > > Subject: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary
> > > Mike
> > > > Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE
> > > > Inconclusive Test Results
> > > >
> > > > #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
> > > ####################
> > > >
> > >
> > > #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
> > ####################
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> > Content-type: text/html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Healthy Lifestyle
> > EXPO 2005
> > TICKETS now available!
> > October 14 - 16, Burbank, CA
> > Top speakers, all new talks!
> > 50,000 square feet of vegan products and exhibits!
> > Click here
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
> >
> > Your message has been posted
> >
> >
> > Subscribe to the VegSource Newsletter!
> > Enter email address and press Submit.
> >
> >
> > (This will open a new browser, which you can close to return to this
> page.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Go to:
> > Your Message
> > Discussion Board... (Note: You may need to press 'Reload' or 'Refresh' to
> > see your message.)
> > Your post was added to the message board as follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> >
> > From: TSS ()
> > Subject: Re: Transcript Ag. Secretary Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford,
> > Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test Results
> > Date: June 13, 2005 at 7:33 pm PST
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > a few comments please;
> >
> > >>>The Inspector General, in reviewing our surveillance system that
> > we have in place, decided to retest with a second confirmatory test which
> > is called the Western Blot. We have received test results showing a
> positive
> > on one animal for the Western Blot.<<<
> >
> > I happened to write the OIG about this very issue, on several occasions.
> > THIS is _one_ of several emails i sent the OIG about this issue and
> > others in the past, and all the data to back it up. ...TSS
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: re-USDA's surveillance plan for BSE aka mad cow disease
> > Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:59:07 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > To: paffairs@oig.hhs.gov, HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov, contactOIG@hhsc.state.tx.us
> >
> >
> > Greetings Honorable Paul Feeney, Keith Arnold, and William Busby
> > et al at OIG,
> >
> > My name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr. and on 12/14/97 I lost my
> > mother to a most hideous disease called ;
> >
> > Heidenhain Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (CONFIRMED)
> >
> > MY MOM AND MANY MORE
> > were murdered by corporate greed, to say the least.
> >
> > I have wasted almost 8 years of my life seeking the truth.
> > I have been searching for answers ever since. I kindly wish
> > to submit the following data that I have acquired over the last
> > 7+ years. There has indeed been a cover-up of TSE in the USA
> > bovine. PLEASE remember, there is now more than one strain
> > of TSE in cattle. Many strains of TSE in other species. The
> > new TSE in cattle does not resemble BSE in cattle or
> > nvCJD in humans, but very similar to the sporadic CJD ;
> >
> >
> > Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform
> > encephalopathy: Molecular similarities with sporadic
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
> >
> > Cristina Casalone *{dagger} , Gianluigi Zanusso {dagger} {ddagger} ,
> > Pierluigi Acutis *, Sergio Ferrari {ddagger} , Lorenzo Capucci § ,
> > Fabrizio Tagliavini ¶, Salvatore Monaco {ddagger} ||, and Maria Caramelli
> *
> >
> > *Centro di Referenza Nazionale per le Encefalopatie Animali, Istituto
> > Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle d'Aosta, Via
> > Bologna, 148, 10195 Turin, Italy; {ddagger} Department of Neurological
> > and Visual Science, Section of Clinical Neurology, Policlinico G.B.
> > Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy; § Istituto
> > Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via
> > Bianchi, 9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; and ¶Istituto Nazionale Neurologico
> > "Carlo Besta," Via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy
> >
> > Edited by Stanley B. Prusiner, University of California, San Francisco,
> > CA, and approved December 23, 2003 (received for review September 9, 2003)
> >
> > Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), or prion diseases, are
> > mammalian neurodegenerative disorders characterized by a
> > posttranslational conversion and brain accumulation of an insoluble,
> > protease-resistant isoform (PrPSc) of the host-encoded cellular prion
> > protein (PrPC). Human and animal TSE agents exist as different
> > phenotypes that can be biochemically differentiated on the basis of the
> > molecular mass of the protease-resistant PrPSc fragments and the degree
> > of glycosylation. Epidemiological, molecular, and transmission studies
> > strongly suggest that the single strain of agent responsible for bovine
> > spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has infected humans, causing variant
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The unprecedented biological properties of
> > the BSE agent, which circumvents the so-called "species barrier" between
> > cattle and humans and adapts to different mammalian species, has raised
> > considerable concern for human health. To date, it is unknown whether
> > more than one strain might be responsible for cattle TSE or whether the
> > BSE agent undergoes phenotypic variation after natural transmission.
> > Here we provide evidence of a second cattle TSE. The disorder was
> > pathologically characterized by the presence of PrP-immunopositive
> > amyloid plaques, as opposed to the lack of amyloid deposition in typical
> > BSE cases, and by a different pattern of regional distribution and
> > topology of brain PrPSc accumulation. In addition, Western blot analysis
> > showed a PrPSc type with predominance of the low molecular mass
> > glycoform and a protease-resistant fragment of lower molecular mass than
> > BSE-PrPSc. Strikingly, the molecular signature of this previously
> > undescribed bovine PrPSc was similar to that encountered in a distinct
> > subtype of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
> >
> > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0305777101v1
> >
> > ALSO, PLEASE REMEMBER, SCRAPIE IN SHEEP AND
> > GOATS ARE RAMPANT IN THE USA, SCRAPIE TRANSMITS
> > TO PRIMATES, AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN TRANSMISSION STUDIES ON HUMANS ;
> >
> > 1: J Infect Dis 1980 Aug;142(2):205-8
> >
> >
> > Oral transmission of kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and scrapie to
> > nonhuman primates.
> >
> > Gibbs CJ Jr, Amyx HL, Bacote A, Masters CL, Gajdusek DC.
> >
> > Kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease of humans and scrapie disease of
> > sheep and goats were transmitted to squirrel monkeys (Saimiri
> > sciureus) that were exposed to the infectious agents only by their
> > nonforced consumption of known infectious tissues. The asymptomatic
> > incubation period in the one monkey exposed to the virus of kuru was
> > 36 months; that in the two monkeys exposed to the virus of
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was 23 and 27 months, respectively; and
> > that in the two monkeys exposed to the virus of scrapie was 25 and
> > 32 months, respectively. Careful physical examination of the buccal
> > cavities of all of the monkeys failed to reveal signs or oral
> > lesions. One additional monkey similarly exposed to kuru has
> > remained asymptomatic during the 39 months that it has been under
> > observation.
> >
> > PMID: 6997404
> >
> >
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
> > ds=6997404&dopt=Abstract
> >
> >
> > USDA USE TO BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AGENT
> > AND THE POTENTIAL FOR TRANSMISSION TO HUMANS,
> > what changed there mind?
> >
> >
> > 12/10/76
> > AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
> > REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE ON SCRAPIE
> > Office Note
> > CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR PETER WILDY
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > A The Present Position with respect to Scrapie
> > A] The Problem
> >
> > Scrapie is a natural disease of sheep and goats. It is a slow
> > and inexorably progressive degenerative disorder of the nervous system
> > and it ia fatal. It is enzootic in the United Kingdom but not in all
> > countries.
> >
> > The field problem has been reviewed by a MAFF working group
> > (ARC 35/77). It is difficult to assess the incidence in Britain for
> > a variety of reasons but the disease causes serious financial loss;
> > it is estimated that it cost Swaledale breeders alone $l.7 M during
> > the five years 1971-1975. A further inestimable loss arises from the
> > closure of certain export markets, in particular those of the United
> > States, to British sheep.
> >
> > It is clear that scrapie in sheep is important commercially and
> > for that reason alone effective measures to control it should be
> > devised as quickly as possible.
> >
> > Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether
> > scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the
> > disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid
> > speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie,
> > kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of
> > mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of
> > Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit
> > scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed
> > for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)"
> > The problem is emphasised by the finding that some strains of scrapie
> > produce lesions identical to the once which characterise the human
> > dementias"
> >
> > Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be
> > transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety
> > of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action
> > such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the
> > acrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer
> > grievously.
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > 76/10.12/4.6
> >
> > http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12004001.pdf
> >
> > http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12002001.pdf
> >
> >
> > SCRAPIE STATUS USA 2005
> >
> > MONTHLY REPORT
> >
> > AS of March 31, 2005, there were 70 Scrapie infected source flocks
> > (Figure 3). There were 11 new infected and source flocks reported
> > in March (Figure 4) with a total of 51 flocks reported for FY 2005
> > (Figure 5). The total infected and source flocks that have been released
> > in FY 2005 are 39 (Figure 6), with 1 flock released in March. The
> > ratio of infected and source flocks released to newly infected and
> > source flocks for FY 2005 = 0.76 : 1. In addition, as of March 31,
> > 2005, 225 Scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the
> > National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which
> > 53 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 57 newly confirmed
> > cases in March 2005 (Figure 8). Fourteen cases of Scrapie in Goats
> > have been reported since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat cases was
> > reported in January 2005. New infected flocks, source flocks, and
> > flocks released or put on clean-up plans for FY 2005 are depicted
> > in Figure 10...
> >
> >
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.htm
> > l
> >
> >
> > YEARLY REPORT
> >
> > Infected and Source Flocks
> >
> > As of September 30, 2004, there were 67 scrapie infected and source
> > flocks (figure 3
> > ).
> > There were a total of 100** new infected and source flocks reported for
> > FY 2004 (figure 4
> > ).
> > The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2004
> > are 77 (figure 5
> > ).
> > The percent of new infected and source flocks cleaned up or on clean up
> > plans was 96%. In addition, as of September 30, 2004, 368 scrapie cases
> > have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services
> > Laboratories (NVSL) in FY 2004, of which 54 were RSSS cases (figure 6
> > ,
> > and figure 7
> > ).
> > Thirteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (figure
> > 8
> > ).
> > One new goat case was reported in FY 2004. New infected flocks, source
> > flocks, and flocks released for FY 2004 are depicted in chart 4
> > .
> > One new goat case was reported in FY 2004. Approximately 3,058 animals
> > were indemnified comprised of 47% non-registered sheep, 44% registered
> > sheep, 6% non-registered goats and 1% registered goats.
> >
> >
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/yearly_report/yearly-report.html
> >
> >
> > PLEASE note, the june 2004 BSE enhanced surveillance
> > was meaningless and ''NOT SCIENTIFIC'' without WB.
> >
> > just ask the experts ;
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON TEXAS
> > COW WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:53:47 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L@LISTS.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #####################
> >
> > 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. If a result raises suspicion, a confirmatory test is conducted
> > with the Western blot test.
> >
> > 2. How long has this been the case?
> >
> > Its a fairly recent development. Only recently has the Western blot
> > test become sensitive enough, with the addition of phospohtungstic acid
> > precipitation step. The Bio-Rad test (which Deslys helped develop) is
> > extremely sensitive, and the standard Western blot is extremely reliable
> > with high-signal test results. However, it had to be made more sensitive
> > for low-signal (samples with low density of malformed prions) samples.
> > It has been made more sensitive.
> >
> > Reproducibility is the problem with the IHC test. It is not
> > standardized; depending on the lab and its protocols, or even on the
> > technician involved in the test, one can get conflicting results.
> >
> > 3. Is there a way to measure the three tests in sensitivity, accuracy
> > and objectivity?
> >
> > Historically, yes. The IHC was the gold standard at one point, but we
> > have shifted to the Western blot. It requires less work, it is more
> > sensitive and its results are reproducible. IHC relies on localization.
> > If you have a weak signal case, you may get lucky and test a spot with a
> > high concentration of prions. But the opposite it true too; you can miss
> > an infection by testing a sample with low concentrations. Western blot
> > is much better for low signal situations.
> >
> > 4. The USDA in 2003 used the Western blot to confirm the BSE case in
> > Washington state, and it sent samples to the U.K. for independent
> > testing. In the case this November, which it announced was negative, it
> > instead used the IHC test and did not send samples to the U.K. Is this
> > good science?
> >
> > Its not logical. If you have two consecutive questionable screenings,
> > you do another test. I can only advise, its managements duty at USDA
> > to make the decisions. But when you have a discrepancy between the rapid
> > test and the IHC, it is only logical to confirm it with another test.
> >
> > 5. We are hearing now about a new strain of BSE, atypical BSE or aBSE.
> > Or BaSE. We have heard that IHC, the so-called gold standard, cannot
> > detect the variant. Is this true?
> >
> > Yes. There have been a few cases, one in Italy, one in Belgium, one here
> > in France. It seems to only affect very old animals. The distribution in
> > the brain is very different than we see with BSE, it looks very
> > different. The IHC test will come back negative.
> >
> > This his a very recent phenomenon. I have no opinion on its virulence.
> > We do not know where it comes from. It could be a version of sporadic
> > infection. Western blot caught them, but we would not even know it
> > existed if we werent running systematic testing in the EU.
> >
> > BSE was around for a long time before we caught it and by then, it was
> > everywhere. It had become highly infectious. It probably amplified due
> > to low-temperature rendering. The disease was recycled through the food
> > chain, and was given time to amplify. By the time it was identified,
> > even good cooking couldnt eliminate it.
> >
> > I cant stress enough that systematic testing is necessary. Withdrawing
> > all positives from the food chain is the best way to break the cycle.
> >
> > What can happen with testing of only cattle that are clearly at risk is
> > that several can remain undetected. Canada has tested about 30,000 head
> > of cattle and has three positives. That would indicate that there are
> > probably undiscovered cases. And what happens then is that the disease
> > is allowed to amplify. You have to maintain testing.
> >
> > When people choose to protect their economic interests over public
> > health, it can have a boomerang effect. It happened all through Europe.
> > They always deny; its not OUR problem, it is our neighbors problem.
> > And then a single case is discovered and the public reacts. The economic
> > results are devastating. It would be better to just assume BSE is
> > present and use systematic testing as protection. That way, the public
> > is reassured that it is not entering the food supply.
> >
> > By systematic testing, I mean doing as we do in the EU, which is to test
> > every animal over 30 months of age when it is slaughtered. In Europe,
> > three times as many cases of BSE have been caught by systematic testing
> > as by clinical testing (of clearly sick animals). In 2004, eight
> > clinical cases were discovered, 29 were discovered at rendering plants,
> > and 17 at slaughter. We should be using these tests as a weapon to
> > protect the public and to give them assurance that the food supply is
> > being protected.
> >
> > 6. USDAs list of specified risk materials excludes some products, like
> > blood and bone meal, that are banned in the EU and UK. Is our feed
> > supply safe?
> >
> > With SRMs, where do you stop? Tests have found prions in meat, nerves
> > travel through meat, and so on. The main infectivity is in the brain and
> > the spinal cord. A blood and bone meal ban in animal feed is not really
> > necessary, because except in cases of highly infective animals, it is
> > unlikely that they are dangerous in themselves. If you combine
> > systematic testing and targeted SRM removal, the brain and the spinal
> > column in cattle over 30 months, you can have a compromise that is both
> > safer and less costly than expanded feed bans.
> >
> > Certainly, you can stop the spread of BSE with a total ban on offal. But
> > it has to be a total ban. It cant be given to sheep or swine or
> > poultry. It would be very expensive and virtually impossible to
> > accomplish. You can have farmers using the wrong feed or transportation
> > errors.
> >
> > Systematic testing makes far more sense. I think of it as a thermometer.
> > It not only allows us to catch the disease, it also allows us to monitor
> > its progress. We can watch the levels of infectivity and if they start
> > going up instead of down, we can take measures.
> >
> > To an extent, our environment is contaminated. About 10 percent of wild
> > animals test positive for TSEs. If you recycle these agents, they can
> > evolve and get more dangerous. This is probably what happened with
> > BSE. It wasnt very dangerous until it evolved to the disease we know
> > today.
> >
> > People complain that testing is very expensive. It is much more
> > expensive to kill and test whole herds.
> >
> > 7. In your opinion, is infected feed the sole method of transmission of
> > BSE, apart from the very rare maternal transmission?
> >
> > Feed is the main problem. However, we are seeing some other
> > possibilities, including through fat and greases. Calves are fed milk
> > extracts, with the cream removed. To make it nutritious, they are using
> > fat and grease from cattle.
> >
> > (FOLLOW QUESTION: Would that allow BSE to develop into an infective
> > level in cattle younger than 30 months, assuming they might be getting
> > infected at a younger age?)
> >
> > 8. You were involved in a study that tested two primates who were fed
> > infected brain tissue. One eventually died of TSE; the other survived.
> > The press reported that the main finding was that it would take
> > something on the order of 1.5 kilograms of infected matter to create an
> > infection, but that seems to be an oversimplification. Could you explain
> > it further?
> >
> > The findings suggest that as little as five grams is enough to infect.
> > The 1.5 kilo figure is the amount of infected tissue that would have to
> > be ingested from an animal that would be below the threshold of
> > infection, and would test negative. In other words, even though a
> > younger animal may be developing the disease, it would take a
> > considerable amount of tissue to transmit the disease.
> >
> > An animal could be just below the testing level, and not be particularly
> > dangerous. But that is why you have to keep testing. Once it reaches the
> > threshold, it can become highly infective.
> >
> > 9. BSE is a pretty horrifying disease, but overall, it has killed less
> > than 200 humans, and only a handful in recent years. Listeria, by
> > comparison, kills thousands every year. Overall, how do you rate the
> > threat from BSE?
> >
> >
> > The overall risk is not particularly high. Over two million infected
> > animals went into the food chain in Europe, 400,000 of them before the
> > SRMs, the brains and spinal column, were removed from the carcass. Less
> > than 200 died, and less than 4,000 are at risk of developing the
> > disease. What we know now is that one particle is not going to kill you.
> > There has to be condensation of the prions to be truly dangerous.
> >
> > This is not a sterile world. But the danger is that now that the crisis
> > appears to be over, attention will turn elsewhere and that will allow
> > the disease to amplify again. Just as we stopped paying attention to
> > AIDS when medication seemed to control it, then were surprised when a
> > new and more infectious and aggressive strain appeared, we could be
> > surprised by a more serious strain of BSE. That is why I support
> > systematic testing for the long term. The object is to keep levels of
> > BSE low, and to recognize the danger if it suddenly pops back up. ...END
> >
> > TSS
> >
> > ######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
> > ##########
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON
> > TEXAS COW WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:14:14 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L@LISTS.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
> > References: <42692C1B.7090200@wt.net>
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #####################
> >
> > IN FACT, i must bring this up again.
> > IN TEXAS, when they are really worried about a mad cow,
> > when the cow is clinical and stumbling and staggering, TEXAS
> > does not bother TESTING the cow at all. nope, they just send
> > it directly to be rendered head and all to get rid of all evidence.
> > the june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up was just that. the USA
> > could test every cow that goes to slaughter, and it would be meaningless
> > unless properly done with the most sensitive testing to date.
> > but not in TEXAS or any other state in the USA.............
> >
> >
> > FDA Statement
> >
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > Statement
> > May 4, 2004
> >
> > Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
> > Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
> >
> >
> > Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
> >
> > On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a
> > cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to
> > a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
> >
> > FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately
> > began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA
> > investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the
> > farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially
> > received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
> >
> > FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
> > rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over
> > the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
> > material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
> >
> > Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
> > because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known
> > as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is
> > no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal
> > feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other
> > ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
> >
> > FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and
> > informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in
> > swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be
> > destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the
> > firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the
> > material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the
> > farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed
> > for pigs.
> >
> > To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian
> > protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA
> > established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the
> > U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant
> > protein to cattle.
> >
> > Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
> > allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
> > specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it
> > will not be fed to poultry.
> >
> > FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates
> > closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The
> > animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE,
> > but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving
> > the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
> >
> > ####
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
> >
> > TSS
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > APHIS Statement: June 29 Inconclusive BSE Test is Negative
> > 07/02/2004
> >
> > APHIS Statement: First Inconclusive BSE Test is Negative
> > 06/30/2004
> >
> > APHIS Statement Regarding Second Inconclusive BSE Test
> > 06/29/2004
> >
> > APHIS Statement Regarding First Inconclusive BSE Test
> > 06/25/2004
> >
> > Week 25
> > (11/1511/21)
> > 7,900
> > 1
> > Negative
> > 0
> > 7,901
> >
> > Week 5
> > (6/287/4)
> > 3,500
> > 1
> > Negative
> > 0
> > 3,501
> > Week 4
> > (6/216/27)
> > 3,254
> > 1
> > Negative
> > 0
> > 3,255
> >
> >
> >
> > USDA orders silence on mad cow in Texas
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 5/11/2004 10:16 PM
> >
> > WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has
> > issued an order instructing its inspectors in Texas, where federal mad
> > cow disease testing policies recently were violated, not to talk about
> > the cattle disorder with outside parties, United Press International has
> > learned.
> >
> > The order, sent May 6 by e-mail from the USDA's Dallas district office,
> > was issued in the wake of the April 27 case at Lone Star Beef in San
> > Angelo, in which a cow displaying signs of a brain disorder was not
> > tested for mad cow disease despite a federal policy to screen all such
> > animals.
> >
> > The deadly illness also is known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
> >
> > Both the USDA and its Inspector General -- amid allegations that an
> > offsite supervisor overruled the opinion of the inspectors onsite and
> > made the final decision not to test the animal -- have opened up
> > investigations to determine why agency policy was violated.
> >
> > The order, which was obtained by UPI, was issued by Ijaz Qazi, circuit
> > supervisor for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Dallas
> > district, which covers the entire state. It reads: "All BSE inquiries
> > MUST be directed to Congressional Public Affairs Phone 202-720-9113
> > attention Rob Larew OR Steve Khon. This is an urgent message. Any
> > question contact me. Ijaz Qazi."
> >
> > Although the language might sound innocuous, experienced inspectors
> > familiar with USDA parlance have taken to referring to the notice as a
> > "gag order."
> >
> > The National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals -- the national
> > inspectors union -- considers the order a violation of inspectors' free
> > speech rights and is considering legal action against the USDA for
> > breaching the labor agreement they have with the agency.
> >
> > Inspectors alleged the order also suggests the agency is concerned about
> > its personnel leaking damaging information about either the Texas case
> > or the USDA's overall mad cow disease surveillance program, which has
> > come under fire since the discovery of an infected cow in Washington
> > state last December.
> >
> > "Anytime the government suppresses an individual's freedom of speech,
> > that's unconstitutional," Gary Dahl, president of Local 925, the
> > Colorado inspectors union, told UPI.
> >
> > Stanley Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council, said the USDA
> > has sent out notices in the past stating inspectors cannot talk to
> > reporters.
> >
> > "It's an intimidation thing," Painter told UPI. Inspectors have the
> > right to talk to anybody about any subject, as long as they clarify they
> > are not speaking on behalf of the USDA and they are not doing it on
> > government time, he said.
> >
> > USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said he was not familiar with the notice
> > from the Dallas office. He said he would look into it, but did not
> > respond by UPI's publication time. In general, Cohen said, "There's an
> > expectation any statement on behalf of the agency would come from the
> > office of communications (in Washington.)"
> >
> > Asked if employees could speak freely as long as they clarified that
> > their views did not reflect those of the agency, Cohen said, "We'd
> > rather that agency policy be communicated by those in a position to
> > speak for the agency."
> >
> > Qazi told UPI the notice was not issued in conjunction with the Texas
> > case and it was routine agency practice that outside inquiries be
> > referred to the Washington office. He said inspectors are free to talk
> > to outside parties, including reporters, and he did not consider the
> > e-mail a violation of the labor agreement with the inspectors.
> >
> > Painter said the USDA's efforts to keep its employees from talking about
> > mad cow would be better spent "with issues like protecting the consuming
> > public instead of trying to hide things." He added he would "just about
> > bet his last nickel" agency management was attempting to suppress
> > information about the Texas case.
> >
> > "To keep federal employees from reporting government waste, misuse of
> > appropriations -- those types of things -- that's not a good thing
> > either," Dahl said. "If there is something wrong, let's get it out in
> > the open -- let's get it fixed. We're working for the public, the
> > American consumers. I think they have the right to know this," he said.
> >
> > "And believe me there's so many indicators saying that the USDA's mad
> > cow testing program is broken," Dahl added.
> >
> > 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
> > Secretary Ann Veneman on Monday, saying the Texas incident "calls into
> > question the effectiveness and reliability of USDA's current and
> > proposed surveillance system."
> >
> > The USDA has proposed testing more than 200,000 cows -- or 10 times its
> > current rate -- in an expanded program scheduled to begin June 1. Harkin
> > wrote in the five-page letter, however, that given the realities of the
> > cattle industry, it is "quite doubtful" the USDA will be able to test
> > that many cows, particularly because it had difficulty finding 20,000
> > last year.
> >
> > "We simply cannot tolerate a BSE testing system that fails to give valid
> > answers to critical questions for U.S. consumers and foreign customers,"
> > Harkin said in the letter, which sharply criticizes the agency's failure
> > to address explicitly how its new surveillance program will be
> implemented.
> >
> > "We look forward to receiving (Harkin's) letter and having the
> > opportunity to review it and respond to him," USDA spokesman Ed Loyd
> > told UPI. "USDA has acknowledged there was a failure in not testing that
> > cow in Texas for BSE, so we are all working to ensure that does not
> > occur again."
> >
> > Jim Rogers, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
> > Service, which oversees the agency's mad cow surveillance program, told
> > UPI the agency has tested about 15,500 animals since fiscal year 2004
> > began, on Oct. 1, 2003. However, the agency has refused to identify the
> > states and facilities from which the cows originated. Rogers said UPI
> > would have to seek that information through the Freedom of Information
> Act.
> >
> > The question is central to the USDA's implementation of its expanded
> > surveillance program. Downer cows -- those unable to stand or walk --
> > made up the bulk of the animals the agency tested for mad cow in
> > previous years, but these were banned from being slaughtered for human
> > consumption in December. This means the agency inspectors no longer can
> > obtain brain samples from these cows at slaughterhouses as they could in
> > the past.
> >
> > Furthermore, the USDA has not provided any evidence it has worked out
> > agreements with rendering facilities or ranchers, where downers and dead
> > cows are now most likely to be found, to obtain the extra animals for
> > testing.
> >
> > Loyd said the agency is "working very hard to get animals on the farm
> > that would never show up in a processing facility," and he was "not
> > aware of any issues" that would delay the launch of the new program.
> >
> > However, he was unable to provide the names or locations of the
> > rendering facilities where the agency will be obtaining cow brains for
> > BSE testing. He said he would look into it but did not return two
> > follow-up phone calls from UPI before publication.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > USDA did not test possible mad cows
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 6/8/2004 9:30 PM
> >
> > WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims it
> > tested 500 cows with signs of a brain disorder for mad cow disease last
> > year, but agency documents obtained by United Press International show
> > the agency tested only half that number.
> >
> > USDA officials said the difference is made up in animals tested at state
> > veterinary diagnostic laboratories, but these animals were not tested
> > using the "gold standard" test employed by the agency for confirming a
> > case of the deadly disease. Instead, the state labs used a less
> > sensitive test that experts say could miss mad cow cases.
> >
> > In addition, the state lab figures were not included in a March 2004
> > USDA document estimating the number of animals most likely to be
> > infected among U.S. herds, and apparently were not given to a
> > congressional committee that had requested agency data on the number of
> > cows with brain disorder signs that had been tested for the disease.
> >
> > "This is just adding to the demise of USDA's credibility," said Felicia
> > Nestor, senior policy adviser to the Government Accountability Project,
> > a group in Washington, D.C., that works with federal whistleblowers.
> >
> > "If the USDA is going to exclude from testing the animals most likely to
> > have the disease, that would seem to have a very negative impact on the
> > reliability of their conclusion," Nestor told UPI.
> >
> > Nestor, who has monitored the USDA's mad cow surveillance program
> > closely for several years, asked, "Are they deliberately avoiding
> > testing animals that look like they have the disease?"
> >
> > Concerns about the number of cows in U.S. herds with brain disorder
> > symptoms have been heightened due to the recent case in Texas, in which
> > USDA officials failed to test an animal with such symptoms, also known
> > as central nervous system or CNS signs. This was a violation of USDA
> > policy, which stipulates all CNS cows should be tested because they are
> > considered the most likely to be mad cow infected. To date, the
> > Washington cow that tested positive last December is the only confirmed
> > case of mad cow disease -- also known as bovine spongiform
> > encephalopathy -- among U.S. herds.
> >
> > The Texas incident has alarmed the public and members of Congress
> > because humans can contract a fatal brain disorder called variant
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from consuming meat infected with the mad cow
> > pathogen. If the USDA's surveillance program is allowing the riskiest
> > cows to go untested, it raises concerns about the ability of the
> > monitoring system to detect the disease reliably in U.S. herds, Rep.
> > Henry Waxman, D-Calif., charged in a May 13 letter to Agriculture
> > Secretary Ann Veneman.
> >
> > Dr. Peter Lurie, of the consumer group Public Citizen, said CNS cows
> > should be the one category that absolutely has to be tested to have a
> > sound surveillance system.
> >
> > "CNS animals are far and away the most important animals to test," said
> > Lurie, who has done several analyses of the USDA's mad cow surveillance
> > program.
> >
> > "If there's any category that needs 100 percent testing, that's it,
> > because they would be the most likely place to find mad cow in America,"
> > he told UPI. "Any CNS cow that slips into the food supply represents a
> > major case of malpractice by USDA, and similarly, the failure to test
> > the brain of that animal to see if it was indeed infected is really a
> > failure to protect the public."
> >
> > USDA officials said the agency has no estimate on how many CNS cows
> > occur in U.S. herds. But spokesman Ed Loyd has told UPI, and at least
> > one other media outlet, that 500 CNS cows were tested in fiscal year
> > 2003. Yet agency testing records for the first 10 months of FY 2003,
> > obtained by UPI under the Freedom of Information Act, show only 254
> > animals that fall under the CNS category -- or about half the number
> > Loyd cited.
> >
> > After failing to respond to repeated requests from UPI for clarification
> > of the apparent discrepancy, Loyd finally offered the explanation that
> > an additional 45 CNS cows were tested by the USDA during the final two
> > months of FY 2003. The remainder, he said, was made up by CNS cases
> > tested at various state veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
> >
> > "We also include data reported to us from state veterinary diagnostic
> > laboratories, and all of these are CNS cases that have been tested for
> > BSE using a histological examination," Loyd said.
> >
> > "We were not using any other labs during this period, other than (the
> > USDA lab), to run the IHC tests for BSE, which is the gold standard," he
> > said. "This (state laboratory) information contributes important data to
> > our surveillance effort."
> >
> > However, the state labs did not use the immunohistochemistry test, which
> > the USDA has called the "gold standard" for diagnosing mad cow disease.
> > Instead, the labs used a different test called histopathology, which the
> > USDA itself does not use to confirm a case, opting instead for the more
> > sensitive IHC test.
> >
> > The histopathology test, unlike the IHC test, does not detect prions --
> > misfolded proteins that serve as a marker for infection and can be
> > spotted early on in the course of the illness. Rather, it screens for
> > the microscopic holes in the brain that are characteristic of advanced
> > mad cow disease.
> >
> > According to the USDA's Web site, histopathology proves reliable only if
> > the brain sample is removed soon after the death of the animal. If there
> > is too much of a delay, the Web site states, it can be "very difficult
> > to confirm a diagnosis by histopathology" because the brain structures
> > may have begun to disintegrate.
> >
> > That is one reason the agency began using the IHC test -- it can confirm
> > a diagnosis if the brain has begun disintegrating or been frozen for
> > shipping.
> >
> > The state labs used histopathology to screen 266 CNS cases in FY 2003,
> > as well as 257 cases in FY 2002, according to Loyd. He did not explain
> > why this information was not included in the testing records the agency
> > provided to UPI and has not responded to requests for the identity of
> > the state labs.
> >
> > Linda Detwiler, a former USDA veterinarian who oversaw the agency's mad
> > cow testing program, told UPI the histopathology test probably is
> > adequate for screening CNS cows. If they have mad cow disease, she said,
> > it would likely be an advanced stage that should be obvious.
> >
> > Other mad cow disease experts, however, said having a back-up test such
> > as IHC would be advisable, because histopathology tests sometimes can
> > miss evidence of infection.
> >
> > The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations offers
> > similar recommendations in its protocol for conducing a histopathology
> > test. The protocol states that even if histopathology is negative,
> > "further sampling should be undertaken" in cases "where clinical signs
> > have strongly suggested BSE" -- a criteria that includes all of the cows
> > tested at the state labs.
> >
> > The USDA seems to agree on the need for a back-up test. Its expanded
> > surveillance program, which began June 1, calls for using IHC -- or
> > another test called Western blot -- to confirm any positives found on
> > rapid tests. The March 15 document that describes the new program does
> > not mention using histopathology to confirm cases of mad cow disease.
> >
> > "Subtle changes can be missed on histopathology that would probably not
> > be as easy to miss using IHC," said Elizabeth Mumford, a veterinarian
> > and BSE expert at Safe Food Solutions in Bern, Switzerland, a company
> > that provides advice on reducing mad cow risk to industry and governments.
> >
> > "Therefore I believe it is valuable to run (histopathology)," Mumford
> > told UPI.
> >
> > She noted that in Europe, two tests -- neither one the histopathology
> > test -- are used to ensure no cases are missed. A rapid test is used
> > initially for screening, followed by IHC as a confirmatory test.
> >
> > Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and chief executive officer of the
> > Swiss firm Prionics, which manufactures tests for detecting mad cow
> > disease, agrees about the possibility of a case being missed by
> > histopathology.
> >
> > "There were cases which were (histopathology) negative but still clearly
> > positive with the other (testing) methods," Moser said. "BSE testing
> > based on histology on sub-optimal tissue was probably one of the reasons
> > why Germany was allegedly BSE-free until our test discovered that they
> > were not" in 2000, Moser told UPI.
> >
> > He agreed with Detwiler that histopathology should be suitable for most
> > cases of CNS cows, but added it still can fail to detect the disease in
> > some CNS cases -- particularly if the sample is not optimum.
> >
> > "It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the subtle changes
> > in a diseased brain from artifacts like ruptures in the tissue due to
> > tissue damage during the sampling, transport or preparation," he said.
> >
> > Loyd asserted the additional CNS cases from the state labs actually
> > yielded a total of 565 such cows the USDA had tested -- 65 more than his
> > original figure of 500. Whether the USDA considers its total to be 500
> > or 565, however, either figure would exceed the agency's own estimates
> > for the total number of such cows that it identifies annually.
> >
> > According to data the USDA provided to the House Committee on Government
> > Reform, and numbers the agency included in the March document about its
> > expanded surveillance plan, only 201 to 249 CNS cows are identified at
> > slaughterhouses. Approximately 129 additional cases occur on farms
> > annually. At most, that yields a combined total of 378 CNS cows, or
> > nearly 200 less than the 565 Loyd claims the agency tested.
> >
> > The USDA surveillance plan document makes no mention of the number of
> > CNS animals tested at state veterinary diagnostic labs. The figure also
> > does not appear to be included in the agency's estimates of the number
> > of high-risk animals that occur in the United States each year. The
> > latter number was used to help the USDA calculate the number of animals
> > it will screen for mad cow disease in its expanded surveillance plan.
> >
> > USDA officials also did not include the state lab figures in response to
> > a question from the House Committee on Government Reform, a source close
> > to the issue told UPI. The committee, on which Waxman is the ranking
> > Democrat, had requested in a March 8 letter to Veneman that she provide
> > "the number of BSE tests that were conducted on cattle exhibiting
> > central nervous system symptoms" for each of the last five years.
> >
> > Loyd did not respond to a request from UPI asking why agency officials
> > did not provide that information to the committee or include it in
> > USDA's explanation of its expanded surveillance plan.
> >
> > The committee has taken note of the CNS issue and plans to delve into it
> > further in a hearing slated for sometime in the next few months.
> >
> > "The committee will explore this and other issues surrounding USDA and
> > BSE testing at a hearing later this summer," Drew Crockett, spokesman
> > for the committee, told UPI.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> > IN FACT, i must bring this up again.
> > IN TEXAS, when they are really worried about a mad cow,
> > when the cow is clinical and stumbling and staggering, TEXAS
> > does not bother TESTING the cow at all. nope, they just send
> > it directly to be rendered head and all to get rid of all evidence.
> > the june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up was just that. the USA
> > could test every cow that goes to slaughter, and it would be meaningless
> > unless properly done with the most sensitive testing to date.
> > but not in TEXAS or any other state in the USA.............
> >
> >
> > FDA Statement
> >
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > Statement
> > May 4, 2004
> >
> > Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
> > Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
> >
> >
> > Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
> >
> > On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a
> > cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to
> > a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
> >
> > FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately
> > began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA
> > investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the
> > farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially
> > received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
> >
> > FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
> > rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over
> > the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That
> > material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
> >
> > Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
> > because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known
> > as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is
> > no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal
> > feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other
> > ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
> >
> > FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and
> > informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in
> > swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be
> > destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the
> > firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the
> > material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the
> > farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed
> > for pigs.
> >
> > To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian
> > protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA
> > established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the
> > U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant
> > protein to cattle.
> >
> > Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
> > allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
> > specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it
> > will not be fed to poultry.
> >
> > FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates
> > closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The
> > animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE,
> > but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving
> > the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
> >
> > ####
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Screening tests for animal TSE: present and future
> > Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 16:02:16 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L@aegee.org
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > ##################### Tests de dépistage des ESST animales : présent et
> > futur Screening tests for animal TSE: present and future J.P. Deslysa
> > and J. Grassib , Corresponding Author Contact Information , E-mail The
> > Corresponding Author aCEA, groupe dinnovation diagnostique et
> > thérapeutique sur les infections à prions, département de recherche
> > médicale, CEA/Fontenay aux Roses, France bCEA, service de pharmacologie
> > et dimmunologie, département de recherche médicale, bâtiment 136,
> > CEA/Saclay, 91191 Gif sur Yvette cedex, France Received 23 February
> > 2004; accepted 28 July 2004. Available online 21 September 2004. Résumé
> > En 1999, trois tests rapides (Prionics, Bio-rad et Enfer) ont été
> > validés par la Commission Européenne pour le diagnostic post-mortem de
> > l'ESB chez les bovins. Aujourd'hui, ils sont utilisés à grande échelle
> > sur le territoire européen. Ils reposent tous sur une détection
> > immunologique de la PrPres. En l'absence d'anticorps reconnaissant
> > spécifiquement la PrPres dans sa conformation native, la distinction
> > avec la forme normale de la PrP est obtenue sur la base des propriétés
> > biochimiques de la forme anormale (résistance à la protéinase K,
> > agrégation en présence de détergents). Dans tous les cas, ces tests
> > incluent une étape de dénaturation de la PrPres afin de permettre sa
> > détection à l'aide d'anticorps. Appliqués sur des populations de bovins
> > à risques ou sur les animaux abattus pour la consommation humaine, ils
> > ont permis de préciser l'étendue réelle de l'épizootie et d'éliminer
> > efficacement de la chaîne alimentaire les animaux présentant un risque
> > pour l'homme. Depuis 2002, ils sont aussi utilisés pour le diagnostic
> > post-mortem de la tremblante chez les ovins et les caprins. Cinq
> > nouveaux tests ont été récemment évalués par la Commission européenne
> > (ID-Lelystad ; Perkin-elmer, Prionics Check LIA, UCSF, Imperial college)
> > mais il est trop tôt pour évaluer la place qu'ils tiendront sur le
> > terrain. Les tests actuels permettent une détection préclinique des
> > ESSTs, notamment chez les ovins où une détection très précoce est
> > possible sur les organes lymphoïdes périphériques. Cependant, à ce jour,
> > aucun test sur animal vivant n'a été véritablement validé. Compte tenu
> > du nombre d'équipes de recherche maintenant mobilisées sur cet objectif,
> > il est raisonnable d'attendre des développements spectaculaires dans les
> > années à venir. Abstract In 1999, three rapid tests (Prionics, Bio-Rad,
> > Enfer) have been validated by the European Commission for the
> > post-mortem diagnosis of BSE in cattle. They are now used on a large
> > scale over the entire Europe. In absence of antibodies specifically
> > recognizing the native conformation PrPres, its selective determination
> > is based on the biochemical properties of this abnormal form (PK
> > resistance, aggregation in presence of detergents). In addition, all
> > these tests include a denaturation step so that PrP can be detected by
> > appropriate antibodies. When applied on risk populations or on
> > healthy animals entering into the human food chain, these rapid tests
> > have provided a better estimation of the epizootic and allowed an
> > efficient removal of animals bearing a risk for human consumption. Since
> > 2002, they have also been used for the post-mortem diagnosis of scrapie
> > in sheep and goat. Five new tests have been recently evaluated
> > (ID-Lelystad; Perkin-elmer, Prionics Check LIA, UCSF, Imperial college)
> > but it is too early to know which place they will take in the field.
> > Current tests allow a preclinical diagnosis of TSE, especially in sheep
> > and goats for which a very early detection is possible in peripheral
> > lymphoid tissues. However, to date, no test on living animal has been
> > validated. Taking into account the important number of research teams
> > now involved on this topic one may expect spectacular progress in the
> > forthcoming years. Mots clés: Encéphalopathies spongiformes subaiguës
> > transmissibles (ESSTs); Encéphalopathie spongiforme bovine; diagnostic
> > des ESSTs; tests rapides; ELISA; western-blot; anticorps anti-PrP
> > Keywords: Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs); bovine
> > spongiform encephalopathy; diagnosis of TSEs; rapid tests; ELISA;
> > western-blot; anti-PrP antibodies Corresponding Author Contact
> > Information Auteur correspondent.
> >
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W8H-4DCD84V-1&_co
> >
> verDate=05%2F31%2F2005&_alid=272857000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi
> >
> =6655&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md
> > 5=e550564d4bd0e589e21154c3b67bbc4c
> > TSS ############ https://www.lists.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
> > ############
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Discriminating BSE from Scrapie in sheep
> > Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 16:13:10 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L@aegee.org
> >
> >
> > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
> >
> > Discriminating
> > BSE from scrapie
> > in sheep
> >
> > A DISCRIMINATORY diagnostic kit to
> > distinguish between scrapie and BSE in
> > sheep has recently been launched by the
> > Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).
> > DEFRA notes that EU legislation
> > requires that, from 2005, all samples
> > from small ruminants that are positive
> > for a TSE on rapid testing should be further
> > screened using an approved discriminatory
> > method. A small number
> > of methods have been evaluated and
> > approved. The method developed by
> > the VLA uses protein extraction and
> > Western blotting techniques to differentiate
> > between scrapie and BSE. The
> > new kit is a modified version of the
> > Prionics-Check technique and DEFRA
> > says it provides a cleaner, more defined
> > signal of the abnormal prion protein
> > profile for analysis.
> >
> > http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/reprint/156/17/527-a
> >
> > TSS
> >
> > ############ https://www.lists.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
> ############
> >
> >
> > WHY ELSE IS THE NIH NOW DESTROYING OUR LOVED
> > ONES BRAINS THAT WE STRAINED TO DONATE FOR SCIENCE? I will tell you why,
> > they know we are very very close
> > to strain typing and finding route and source of agent;
> >
> > NIH sends mixed signals on CJD brains
> >
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > Medical Correspondent
> >
> > Washington, DC, Apr. 7 (UPI) --
> >
> > Terry Singeltary, whose mother passed away from a type of CJD in 1997,
> > said the NIH should use the samples for scientific research, not just
> > store them in freezers.
> >
> > Both Singeltary and Ewanitz said they would feel more reassured if Major
> > verified in writing the collection will not be destroyed.
> >
> > "I would go further and ask Major what he plans to do with them,"
> > Singeltary said. "If the samples are just going to sit up there and go
> > bad, then they should give them out to researchers looking for cause and
> > cure."
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050407-110535-2570r.htm
> >
> > United Press International: French woman may have had vCJD in 1971
> > ... collection," said Terry Singeltary, who is associated with several
> > CJD patient
> > ... died of a type of CJD called Heidenhain variant in 1997, told UPI. ...
> > www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050323-061733-6847r - 11k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > United Press International: NIH may destroy human brain collection
> > ... Terry Singeltary, whose mother died of a type of CJD called
> > Heidenhain ...
> > a lot of trouble to get these brain samples to the NIH," Singeltary
> > told UPI. ...
> > www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050323-053919-8481r - 14k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > Groups seek to save NIH brain collection
> > ... The NIH, as UPI reported last week, may destroy its collection of
> > brains and
> > ... them is an outrage," Terry Singeltary, whose mom died of CJD in
> > 1997, ...
> > www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&
> > article=UPI-1-20050401-16375100-bc-us-nihbrains.xml - 44k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> > Groups seek to save NIH brain collection - (United Press ...
> > ... Singeltary's mother died of a type of CJD called Heidenhain variant
> > in 1997.
> > Hutchinson's office did not return a call from UPI. ...
> > washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/ 20050401-033307-7296r.htm - 54k - Apr
> > 11, 2005 - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > French re-testing 1971 case for vCJD - (United Press International)
> > ... Allied Countries Collaborative Study Group of CJD, wrote in an
> > e-mail to UPI.
> > ... Singeltary, whose mother died of a type of CJD called the Heidenhain
> > ...
> > www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/ 20050331-095613-8807r.htm - 51k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > SouthAsiaNews.com - US health body to discard brain collection
> > ... find a cure for the brain-wasting illness Creutzfeldt Jakob, reports
> > UPI. ...
> > Terry Singeltary, whose mother died of a type of CJD called Heidenhain ...
> > www.southasianews.com/showNews.asp?nid=1264 - 30k - Cached
> > - Similar pages
> >
> >
> > Mad Cow: Linked to thousands of CJD cases?
> >
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 12/29/2003 9:50 AM
> >
> > The U.S. government's monitoring system for cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> > disease, a fatal human brain illness, could be missing tens of thousands
> > of victims, scientists and consumer advocates have told United Press
> > International. ...
> >
> > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030721-102924-4786r
> >
> >
> > USDA vets question agency's mad cow lab
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 2/9/2004 7:06 PM
> >
> > WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- The federal laboratory in Ames, Iowa, that
> > conducts all of the nation's tests for mad cow disease has a history of
> > producing ambiguous and conflicting results -- to the point where many
> > federal meat inspectors have lost confidence in it, Department of
> > Agriculture veterinarians and a deer rancher told United Press
> > International.
> >
> > The veterinarians also claim the facility -- part of the USDA and known
> > as the National Veterinary Services Laboratories -- has refused to
> > release testing results to them and has been so secretive some suspect
> > it is covering up additional mad cow cases. ...
> >
> > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040209-061848-3665r
> >
> >
> > UPI Exclusive: No mad cow tests in Wash.
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 1/15/2004 2:46 PM
> >
> > WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Federal agriculture officials did not test
> > any commercial cattle for mad cow disease through the first seven months
> > of 2003 in Washington state -- where the first U.S. case of the disease
> > was detected last month -- according to records obtained by United Press
> > International.
> >
> > The U.S. Department of Agriculture's records of mad cow screenings,
> > conducted on 35,000 animals between 2001 to 2003, also reveal no animals
> > were tested for the past two years at Vern's Moses Lake Meats, the
> > Washington slaughterhouse where the mad cow case was first detected.
> >
> > In addition, no mad cow tests were conducted during the two-year period
> > at any of the six federally registered slaughterhouses in Washington
> > state. This includes Washington's biggest slaughterhouse, Washington
> > Beef in Toppeni$h -- the 17th largest in the country, which slaughters
> > 290,000 head per year -- and two facilities in Pasco that belong to
> > Tyson, the largest beef slaughtering company in the United States.
> >
> > In 2002, nearly every test conducted in Washington was on animals from
> > Midway Meats in Centralia, the packing plant where Vern's Moses sent the
> > infected cow carcass. The meat was distributed to several states where
> > some people apparently consumed it, raising concerns about the
> > possibility of contracting the human equivalent of mad cow, an always
> > fatal, brain-wasting condition known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> > disease. ...
> >
> > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-041124-1470r
> >
> >
> > Mad Cow: Prion research misguided?
> >
> > By Steve Mitchell
> > United Press International
> > Published 12/29/2003 9:30 AM
> >
> > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030701-094458-6348r
> >
> >
> > There will be several more emails of my research to follow.
> >
> > I respectfully request a full inquiry into the cover-up of TSEs
> > in the United States of America over the past 30 years. I
> > would be happy to testify...
> >
> > Thank you,
> > I am sincerely,
> >
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > P.O. Box 42
> > Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
> > 281-559-3131
> >
> >
> > Docket No, 04-047-l Regulatory Identification No. (RIN) 091O-AF46 NEW
> > BSE SAFEGUARDS (comment submission)
> >
> >
> https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08
> > d?OpenDocument
> >
> > Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
> > IMPORTS FROM CANADA
> >
> >
> >
> https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?O
> > penDocument&AutoFramed
> >
> >
> > Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
> >
> > Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in
> >
> > Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
> >
> > Comment Number: EC -10
> >
> > Accepted - Volume 2
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html
> >
> >
> > PART 2
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html
> >
> >
> > PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION
> >
> > File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
> >
> > Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary
> >
> > Sr. [flounder@wt.net] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ...
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf
> >
> >
> > Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine
> >
> > genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable
> >
> > from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm
> >
> >
> > Docket Management Docket: 96N-0417 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice
> > in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients a
> > Comment Number: EC -2
> > Accepted - Volume 7
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/031403/96N-0417-EC-2.htm
> >
> >
> > [PDF] Appendices to PL107-9 Inter-agency Working Group Final Report 1-1
> > File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
> > Agent, Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations Unit Federal Bureau of
> > those who provided comments in response to Docket No. ...
> > Meager 8/18/01 Terry S. Singeltary Sr ...
> >
> >
> > www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/pubs/PL107-9_Appen.pdf
> >
> > Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION
> > TO DOCKET 2003N-0312]
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
> >
> > # Docket No: 02-088-1 RE-Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of
> > 2002; [TSS SUBMISSION ON POTENTIAL FOR BSE/TSE & FMD 'SUITCASE BOMBS'] -
> > TSS 1/27/03 (0)
> >
> > Docket Management
> >
> > Docket: 02N-0276 - Bioterrorism Preparedness; Registration of Food
> > Facilities, Section 305
> > Comment Number: EC-254 [TSS SUBMISSION]
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0276/02N-0276-EC-254.htm
> >
> >
> > Dockets Entered On October 2, 2003 Table of Contents, Docket #,
> > Title, 1978N-0301,
> >
> > OTC External Analgesic Drug Products, ... EMC 7, Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > Vol #: 1, ...
> >
> > www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm
> >
> >
> > Daily Dockets Entered on 02/05/03
> >
> > DOCKETS ENTERED on 2/5/03. ... EMC 4 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 2.
> > ... Vol#: 1.
> >
> > 03N-0009 Federal Preemption of State & Local Medical Device Requireme. ...
> >
> >
> > www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Feb03/020503/020503.htm
> >
> >
> > Docket Management
> >
> > Docket: 02N-0370 - Neurological Devices; Classification of Human Dura
> Mater
> >
> > Comment Number: EC -1
> >
> > Accepted - Volume 1
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be11.html
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004bdfe.html
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004bdfc.html
> >
> >
> > Daily Dockets - 04/10/03
> >
> > ... 00D-1662 Use of Xenotransplantation Products in Humans.
> > EMC 98 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3. 01F ...
> > www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Apr03/041003/041003.htm - 05-20-2003
> > - Cached
> >
> >
> > 2003D-0186
> > Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
> >
> >
> >
> > EMC 1
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > Vol #:
> > 1
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jun03/060903/060903.htm
> >
> >
> > 2003D-0186
> > Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
> >
> >
> > EMC 7
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > Vol #:
> > 1
> >
> > 2003D-0186
> > Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In Animal Feed
> >
> >
> > EMC 7
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > Vol #:
> > 1
> >
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm
> >
> > 01N-0423 Substances Prohibited from use in animal food/Feed Ruminant
> >
> > APE 5 National Renderers Association, Inc. Vol#: 2
> >
> > APE 6 Animal Protein Producers Industry Vol#: 2
> >
> > APE 7 Darling International Inc. Vol#: 2
> >
> > EMC 1 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Oct01/101501/101501.htm
> >
> > Send Post-Publication Peer Review to journal:
> >
> >
> > Re: RE-Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> >
> > disease in the United States
> >
> >
> > Email Terry S. Singeltary:
> >
> >
> > flounder@wt.net
> >
> >
> > I lost my mother to hvCJD (Heidenhain Variant CJD). I would like to
> >
> > comment on the CDC's attempts to monitor the occurrence of emerging
> >
> > forms of CJD. Asante, Collinge et al [1] have reported that BSE
> >
> > transmission to the 129-methionine genotype can lead to an alternate
> >
> > phenotype that is indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest
> >
> > sporadic CJD. However, CJD and all human TSEs are not reportable
> >
> > nationally. CJD and all human TSEs must be made reportable in every
> >
> > state and internationally. I hope that the CDC does not continue to
> >
> > expect us to still believe that the 85%+ of all CJD cases which are
> >
> > sporadic are all spontaneous, without route/source. We have many TSEs in
> >
> > the USA in both animal and man. CWD in deer/elk is spreading rapidly and
> >
> > CWD does transmit to mink, ferret, cattle, and squirrel monkey by
> >
> > intracerebral inoculation. With the known incubation periods in other
> >
> > TSEs, oral transmission studies of CWD may take much longer. Every
> >
> > victim/family of CJD/TSEs should be asked about route and source of this
> >
> > agent. To prolong this will only spread the agent and needlessly expose
> >
> > others. In light of the findings of Asante and Collinge et al, there
> >
> > should be drastic measures to safeguard the medical and surgical arena
> >
> > from sporadic CJDs and all human TSEs. I only ponder how many sporadic
> >
> > CJDs in the USA are type 2 PrPSc?
> >
> >
> > http://www.neurology.org/cgi/eletters/60/2/176#535
> >
> >
> > LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
> >
> >
> > Volume 3, Number 8 01 August 2003
> >
> >
> > Newsdesk
> >
> >
> > Tracking spongiform encephalopathies in North America
> >
> >
> > Xavier Bosch
> >
> > My name is Terry S Singeltary Sr, and I live in Bacliff, Texas. I lost
> >
> > my mom to hvCJD (Heidenhain variant CJD) and have been searching for
> >
> > answers ever since. What I have found is that we have not been told the
> >
> > truth. CWD in deer and elk is a small portion of a much bigger problem.
> >
> >
> > 49-year-old Singeltary is one of a number of people who have remained
> >
> > largely unsatisfied after being told that a close relative died from a
> >
> > rapidly progressive dementia compatible with spontaneous
> >
> > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). So he decided to gather hundreds of
> >
> > documents on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) and
> >
> > realised that if Britons could get variant CJD from bovine spongiform
> >
> > encephalopathy (BSE), Americans might get a similar disorder from
> >
> > chronic wasting disease (CWD)the relative of mad cow disease seen among
> >
> > deer and elk in the USA. Although his feverish search did not lead him
> >
> > to the smoking gun linking CWD to a similar disease in North American
> >
> > people, it did uncover a largely disappointing situation.
> >
> >
> > Singeltary was greatly demoralised at the few attempts to monitor the
> >
> > occurrence of CJD and CWD in the USA. Only a few states have made CJD
> >
> > reportable. Human and animal TSEs should be reportable nationwide and
> >
> > internationally, he complained in a letter to the Journal of the
> >
> > American Medical Association (JAMA 2003; 285: 733). I hope that the CDC
> >
> > does not continue to expect us to still believe that the 85% plus of all
> >
> > CJD cases which are sporadic are all spontaneous, without route or
> source.
> >
> >
> > Until recently, CWD was thought to be confined to the wild in a small
> >
> > region in Colorado. But since early 2002, it has been reported in other
> >
> > areas, including Wisconsin, South Dakota, and the Canadian province of
> >
> > Saskatchewan. Indeed, the occurrence of CWD in states that were not
> >
> > endemic previously increased concern about a widespread outbreak and
> >
> > possible transmission to people and cattle.
> >
> >
> > To date, experimental studies have proven that the CWD agent can be
> >
> > transmitted to cattle by intracerebral inoculation and that it can cross
> >
> > the mucous membranes of the digestive tract to initiate infection in
> >
> > lymphoid tissue before invasion of the central nervous system. Yet the
> >
> > plausibility of CWD spreading to people has remained elusive.
> >
> >
> > Part of the problem seems to stem from the US surveillance system. CJD
> >
> > is only reported in those areas known to be endemic foci of CWD.
> >
> > Moreover, US authorities have been criticised for not having performed
> >
> > enough prionic tests in farm deer and elk.
> >
> >
> > Although in November last year the US Food and Drug Administration
> >
> > issued a directive to state public-health and agriculture officials
> >
> > prohibiting material from CWD-positive animals from being used as an
> >
> > ingredient in feed for any animal species, epidemiological control and
> >
> > research in the USA has been quite different from the situation in the
> >
> > UK and Europe regarding BSE.
> >
> >
> > Getting data on TSEs in the USA from the government is like pulling
> >
> > teeth, Singeltary argues. You get it when they want you to have it,
> >
> > and only what they want you to have.
> >
> >
> > Norman Foster, director of the Cognitive Disorders Clinic at the
> >
> > University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI, USA), says that current
> >
> > surveillance of prion disease in people in the USA is inadequate to
> >
> > detect whether CWD is occurring in human beings; adding that, the
> >
> > cases that we know about are reassuring, because they do not suggest the
> >
> > appearance of a new variant of CJD in the USA or atypical features in
> >
> > patients that might be exposed to CWD. However, until we establish a
> >
> > system that identifies and analyses a high proportion of suspected prion
> >
> > disease cases we will not know for sure. The USA should develop a
> >
> > system modelled on that established in the UK, he points out.
> >
> >
> > Ali Samii, a neurologist at Seattle VA Medical Center who recently
> >
> > reported the cases of three hunterstwo of whom were friendswho died
> >
> > from pathologically confirmed CJD, says that at present there are
> >
> > insufficient data to claim transmission of CWD into humans; adding that
> >
> > [only] by asking [the questions of venison consumption and deer/elk
> >
> > hunting] in every case can we collect suspect cases and look into the
> >
> > plausibility of transmission further. Samii argues that by making both
> >
> > doctors and hunters more aware of the possibility of prions spreading
> >
> > through eating venison, doctors treating hunters with dementia can
> >
> > consider a possible prion disease, and doctors treating CJD patients
> >
> > will know to ask whether they ate venison.
> >
> >
> > CDC spokesman Ermias Belay says that the CDC will not be investigating
> >
> > the [Samii] cases because there is no evidence that the men ate
> >
> > CWD-infected meat. He notes that although the likelihood of CWD
> >
> > jumping the species barrier to infect humans cannot be ruled out 100%
> >
> > and that [we] cannot be 100% sure that CWD does not exist in humans&
> >
> > the data seeking evidence of CWD transmission to humans have been very
> >
> > limited.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://infection.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa
> >
> >
> >
> > he complained in a letter to the Journal of the American Medical
> >
> >
> > Association (JAMA 2003; 285: 733). I hope that the CDC does not
> >
> > continue to expect us to still believe that the 85% plus of all CJD
> >
> > cases which are sporadic are all spontaneous, without route or source.<<<
> >
> >
> > actually, that quote was from a more recent article in the Journal of
> >
> > Neurology (see below), not the JAMA article...
> >
> >
> > Full Text
> >
> > Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
> >
> > Singeltary, Sr et al. JAMA.2001; 285: 733-734.
> >
> >
> >
> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/6/733?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=
> >
> 10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dignosing+and+reporting+creutzfeldt+jakob+disease&
> > searchid=1048865596978_1528&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama
> >
> >
> > BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
> >
> >
> > SOMETHING TO CHEW ON
> >
> >
> > BMJ
> >
> >
> > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7220/1312/b#EL2
> >
> >
> > BMJ
> >
> >
> > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7226/8/b#EL1
> >
> >
> > THE PATHOLOGICAL PROTEIN
> >
> > BY Philip Yam
> >
> > Yam Philip Yam News Editor Scientific American www.sciam.com
> > http://www.thepathologicalprotein.com/
> >
> > IN light of Asante/Collinge et al findings that BSE transmission to the
> > 129-methionine genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is
> > indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;
> >
> > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: re-BSE prions propagate as
> >
> > either variant CJD-like or sporadic CJD Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:23:43
> >
> > -0000 From: "Asante, Emmanuel A" To:
> > "'flounder@wt.net'"
> >
> > Dear Terry,
> >
> > I have been asked by Professor Collinge to respond to your request. I am
> >
> > a Senior Scientist in the MRC Prion Unit and the lead author on the
> >
> > paper. I have attached a pdf copy of the paper for your attention. Thank
> >
> > you for your interest in the paper.
> >
> > In respect of your first question, the simple answer is, yes. As you
> >
> > will find in the paper, we have managed to associate the alternate
> >
> > phenotype to type 2 PrPSc, the commonest sporadic CJD.
> >
> > It is too early to be able to claim any further sub-classification in
> >
> > respect of Heidenhain variant CJD or Vicky Rimmer's version. It will
> >
> > take further studies, which are on-going, to establish if there are
> >
> > sub-types to our initial finding which we are now reporting. The main
> >
> > point of the paper is that, as well as leading to the expected new
> >
> > variant CJD phenotype, BSE transmission to the 129-methionine genotype
> >
> > can lead to an alternate phenotype which is indistinguishable from type
> >
> > 2 PrPSc.
> >
> >
> > I hope reading the paper will enlighten you more on the subject. If I
> >
> > can be of any further assistance please to not hesitate to ask. Best
> wishes.
> >
> >
> > Emmanuel Asante
> >
> > <> ____________________________________
> >
> > Dr. Emmanuel A Asante MRC Prion Unit & Neurogenetics Dept. Imperial
> >
> > College School of Medicine (St. Mary's) Norfolk Place, LONDON W2 1PG
> >
> > Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 3794 Fax: +44 (0)20 7706 3272 email:
> >
> > e.asante@ic.ac.uk (until 9/12/02)
> >
> > New e-mail: e.asante@prion.ucl.ac.uk (active from now)
> >
> > ____________________________________
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > full text ;
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm
> >
> >
> > AND 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
> >
> > http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/8/2471
> >
> >
> > ALL animals for human/animal consumption must be tested for TSE.
> >
> > ALL human TSE must be made reportable Nationally and Internationally,
> > of ALL AGES...TSS
> >
> >
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > P.O. Box 42
> > Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
> > 281-xxx-xxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary
> > Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE
> > Inconclusive Test Results
> >
> >
> > > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #####################
> > >
> > > Release No. 0207.05
> > > Contact:
> > > USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
> > >
> > >
> > > Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike
> Johanns
> > > and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Plant Health
> > > Inspection Service Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test
> > > Results Washington, D.C.
> > > June 10, 2005
> > >
> > >
> > > snip...
> > >
> > >
> > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
> > >
> > >
> > > snip...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> > > tentid=2005/06/0207.xml
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>"In addition, there are definite differences between these two tests.
> > The
> > > IHC is internationally recognized, and why we chose that for our
> enhanced
> > > surveillance program is because that particular test does two things. It
> > > allows you to visualize the anatomic location where the lesions are most
> > > likely to be found which is the obex. At the same time it uses a
> staining
> > > technique on the prions, on abnormal prions in the tissue in that
> > location.
> > > ...<<<
> > >
> > >
> > > ANOTHER reason is by only looking at one portion of the brain, you miss
> > the
> > > rest of the brain that could be potentally infected. kinda like a 1 in
> 10
> > > chance of finding
> > > something. but this is par for the course with these folks....TSS
> > >
> > >
> > > USDA 2003
> > >
> > > We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things
> > that
> > > we
> > > forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've
> gotten
> > > away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the
> brain
> > > stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
> > > project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they
> > did
> > > not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
> > > cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
> > > back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the
> USDA,
> > > we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we
> got
> > > away from it. They've recently gone back.
> > > Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides
> > an
> > > 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
> > > .
> > >
> > > Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
> > > they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're
> > looking
> > > only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
> > > ourselves to one area.
> > >
> > >
> > > snip.............
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
> > > Another important thing to get across to the public is that the
> negatives
> > > do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in
> the
> > > disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so
> important.
> > > If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
> > > collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
> > > could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
> > > There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway.
> We
> > > have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
> > we
> > > forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've
> gotten
> > > away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the
> brain
> > > stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
> > > project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they
> > did
> > > not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
> > > cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
> > > back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the
> USDA,
> > > we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we
> got
> > > away from it. They've recently gone back.
> > >
> > > Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides
> > an
> > > 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
> > > .
> > >
> > > Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
> > > they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're
> > looking
> > > only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
> > > ourselves to one area.
> > >
> > >
> > > snip...
> > >
> > >
> > > FULL TEXT;
> > >
> > >
> > > Completely Edited Version
> > > PRION ROUNDTABLE
> > >
> > >
> > > Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94543.html
> > >
> > >
> > > TSS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture
> Secretary
> > > Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE
> > > Inconclusive Test Results
> > >
> > >
> > > > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > > #####################
> > > >
> > > > Release No. 0207.05
> > > > Contact:
> > > > USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike
> > Johanns
> > > > and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Plant Health
> > > > Inspection Service Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test
> > > > Results Washington, D.C.
> > > >
> > > > June 10, 2005
> > > >
> > > > MR. ED LOYD: "Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us
> late
> > on
> > > a
> > > > Friday evening. I certainly appreciate your getting on with us on such
> > > short
> > > > notice for an update of our BSE surveillance. Just so you know, our
> > format
> > > > tonight we're going to have Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is
> going
> > to
> > > > make a brief introductory statement, followed by Dr. John Clifford,
> the
> > > > chief veterinary officer of the APHIS, the Animal Plant Health
> > Inspection
> > > > Service, who will go into some more technical background.
> > > >
> > > > "With that, I will turn this over to Agriculture Secretary Mike
> > Johanns."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, good evening everyone, and let me also just
> express
> > > my
> > > > appreciation for your willingness to join us tonight. As you know,
> over
> > > the
> > > > past many months we have been working on a number of fronts relative
> to
> > > BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "Most recently we had a roundtable discussion in St. Paul yesterday
> > where
> > > > literally all players with a variety of opinions participated. It went
> > > very,
> > > > very well. We've been working with our rulemaking process and the
> > > government
> > > > of Canada to reopen Canada to their exports into our country of beef.
> > > >
> > > > "We have also been working very aggressively and diligently with a
> > number
> > > of
> > > > countries around the world, most notably, of course, Japan and Korea.
> > > >
> > > > "And as you know, now nearly a year ago or maybe even more than a year
> > ago
> > > > we started a very aggressive surveillance system. During that
> > surveillance
> > > > process we have had three inconclusives on rapid tests. It's a rapid
> > test
> > > > that is done, and there were three inconclusives.
> > > >
> > > > "Each was then followed up with an IHC test. Each confirmatory IHC
> test
> > > was
> > > > negative. The Inspector General, in reviewing our surveillance system
> > that
> > > > we have in place, decided to retest with a second confirmatory test
> > which
> > > is
> > > > called the Western Blot. We have received test results showing a
> > positive
> > > on
> > > > one animal for the Western Blot.
> > > >
> > > > "I would like to make a couple of points, and then I'll ask Dr.
> Clifford
> > > to
> > > > offer some thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > "Number two, the firewalls that the USDA put in place did work. As I
> > point
> > > > out, the animal did not enter the food or the feed chain. Therefore,
> > > there's
> > > > no risk to human health.
> > > >
> > > > "The third point is that I feel very strongly that this information
> > should
> > > > not impact our discussions with Japan, Korea or Canada.
> > > >
> > > > "The fourth point that I want to make is that the test was also done,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot test, on the two other animals and those test results
> were
> > > > negative.
> > > >
> > > > "With that, I would like Dr. Clifford to speak about the test, and
> he'll
> > > > take it from here. And then when he's finished, we'll go ahead and
> open
> > it
> > > > up to your questions."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thanks everyone for being
> > on
> > > > the phone tonight.
> > > >
> > > > "Since the USDA enhanced surveillance program for BSE began in June
> 2004
> > > > more than 375,000 animals from the targeted cattle population have
> been
> > > > tested for BSE using a rapid test. Three of these animals tested
> > > > inconclusive and were subsequently subjected to the
> immunohistochemistry
> > > > (IHC) testing. The IHC is an internationally recognized confirmatory
> > test
> > > > for BSE. All three inconclusive samples tested negative using the IHC
> > > test.
> > > >
> > > > "As the Secretary said earlier this week, USDA's Office of Inspector
> > > General
> > > > which has been partnering with APHIS, FSIS and ARS, the Agriculture
> > > Research
> > > > Service, by impartially reviewing BSE-related activities and making
> > > > recommendations for improvement, recommended that all three of these
> > > samples
> > > > be subjected to a second internationally recognized confirmatory test,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot.
> > > >
> > > > "We received final results a short time ago. As the Secretary stated,
> of
> > > the
> > > > three samples two were negative, but the third came back reactive on
> > that
> > > > test.
> > > >
> > > > "Because of the conflicting results on the IHC and Western Blot test,
> a
> > > > sample from this animal will be sent to the OIE recognized reference
> > > > laboratory for BSE in Weybridge, England. USDA will also be conducting
> > > > further testing which will take several days to complete.
> > > >
> > > > "Regardless of the outcome, it is critical to note that USDA has in
> > place
> > > a
> > > > sound system of interlocking safeguards to protect human and animal
> > health
> > > > from BSE including most significantly a ban on specified risk
> materials
> > > from
> > > > the human food supply. In the case of this animal, it was a
> > nonambulatory
> > > > downer animal and as such was banned from the food supply. It was
> taken
> > to
> > > a
> > > > facility that handles only animals unsuitable for human consumption,
> and
> > > the
> > > > carcass was incinerated.
> > > >
> > > > "USDA's enhanced surveillance program is designed to provide
> information
> > > > about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States. Since the
> > > > inception of this program we have fully anticipated the possibility
> that
> > > > additional cases of BSE would be found. And in fact, we are extremely
> > > > gratified that to date more than 375,000 animals have been tested for
> > the
> > > > disease, and with the exception of this conflicting result we received
> > for
> > > > this one animal all have ultimately proven to be negative for the
> > disease.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "USDA is committed to ensuring that our BSE program is the best that
> it
> > > can
> > > > be, keeping pace with science and international guidelines, and to
> > > > considering recommendations made by OIG and others in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > "We are committed to ensuring that we have the right protocols in
> place,
> > > > ones that are solely grounded in science and consistently followed.
> > > >
> > > > "After we receive additional test results on this animal, we will
> > > determine
> > > > what further steps need to be taken and what changes if any are
> > warranted
> > > in
> > > > our surveillance program."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "With that, Operator, we would open this up to some
> > questions."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "Once again if you do want to ask a question at this time
> > please
> > > > press *1 on your touchtone phone, and you must record your name. It
> will
> > > be
> > > > just a moment for the first question. The first question comes from
> Jeff
> > > > Nalley. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Mr. Secretary and Mr. Veterinarian this is Jeff Nalley.
> We're
> > > > broadcasting from Owens Brook, Kentucky, this evening. I'll share with
> > > you;
> > > > we got the news from the USDA while we were in a restaurant, an
> > > > all-you-can-eat steak buffet. So I'm having seconds just to show our
> > > > confidence.
> > > >
> > > > "But how can you give credence to what has been said before that this
> is
> > a
> > > > beef issue and not a human issue and something that we have well in
> hand
> > > > certainly within the OIE standards?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, we have the best example I could possibly give
> > > tonight,
> > > > and that example is this. We've tested 375,000 animals so far. Even
> with
> > > > this one animal, we tested the three that on the rapid test showed a
> > > > positive and the original test showed negative. We went, the IHC
> test--
> > we
> > > > went from there even an additional step. We have two negatives and
> this
> > > > third test we can point to the fact that our firewalls work. This
> animal
> > > was
> > > > a downer animal. It did not get in the food or the feed chain. There
> > just
> > > is
> > > > no risk whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > "Enjoy beef. I'm going to do exactly what you're doing tonight. I'm
> > going
> > > to
> > > > enjoy a good steak. There just simply is not a risk here, and we want
> to
> > > > illustrate, which I believe we have done by even exceeding what's
> > > required.
> > > > We have gone well beyond any standard that is out there to illustrate
> > the
> > > > safety of this herd. And it is a safe beef product; there's just no
> > doubt
> > > > about it."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Could we have the next question, please"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Peter Shinn. Your line is
> open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yes, good evening. This is Peter Shinn from the National
> > > > Association of Farm Broadcasters.
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Secretary, I don't mean to ask a difficult question, but it just
> > > > immediately comes to mind. What exactly happened in terms of how could
> > you
> > > > have gotten it not right the first time? And what's the difference
> > between
> > > > the IHC and the Western Blot? That might be a question for Dr.
> > Clifford."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Yeah. I'll ask Dr. Clifford to get in. It's not really
> a
> > > > question of not getting it right. They are, both tests are accepted by
> > the
> > > > OIE. Both tests if you use those, they are accepted under the
> standard.
> > So
> > > > it's not a question of getting it right. All of the protocols were
> > > followed.
> > > > We had the positive and the rapid response test, the IHC test was
> > applied
> > > > according to the protocols, and that is the test that has been used in
> > the
> > > > United States.
> > > >
> > > > "And so it's not a situation where you've got one test that isn't
> > accepted
> > > > and one that is. They both are accepted. There are differences in the
> > > tests,
> > > > and I'll let Dr. Clifford explain that.
> > > >
> > > > "And maybe, Dr. Clifford, you can even explain if you would just what
> > this
> > > > test showed and how you went about getting through the testing
> process."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And yes, we're confident in
> the
> > > > results of actually both of these tests. The IHC was negative for this
> > > > sample. Actually the Western Blot test, if you go back to the December
> > cow
> > > > that was found from Canada the Western Blot that was run on that
> > > particular
> > > > sample we used one milligram of tissue to run that test and was found
> to
> > > be
> > > > a very strong positive.
> > > >
> > > > "In order to find a positive in this particular case with this Western
> > > Blot,
> > > > they had to enhance or enrich it, in which that basically means you're
> > > > concentrating the abnormal protein. So they had to use 20 times the
> > > amount.
> > > > You would have to use about 20 times the amount of tissue for this to
> > > > determine to be a positive or reactive on the Western Blot versus the
> > one
> > > > that was discovered in December in the state of Washington.
> > > >
> > > > "In addition, there are definite differences between these two tests.
> > The
> > > > IHC is internationally recognized, and why we chose that for our
> > enhanced
> > > > surveillance program is because that particular test does two things.
> It
> > > > allows you to visualize the anatomic location where the lesions are
> most
> > > > likely to be found which is the obex. At the same time it uses a
> > staining
> > > > technique on the prions, on abnormal prions in the tissue in that
> > > location.
> > > >
> > > > "So that's what the IHC does.
> > > >
> > > > "In the Western Blot case, it's actually a homogenate (sp) of a sample
> > of
> > > > brain tissue that is centrifuged and they concentrate the prion
> protein
> > > and
> > > > then they use a protease to destroy the normal protein, leaving the
> > > abnormal
> > > > protein present. And then basically that is run through a gel-type
> > > > separation using specific antibodies that will give you bands.
> > > >
> > > > "And they look at those bands and the molecular weight of those bands
> to
> > > > determine the outcome of that test.
> > > >
> > > > "So this test would actually be referred to as a weak positive test in
> > > this
> > > > case for the Western Blot, and as a result of that and the unusualness
> > of
> > > > this case it's going to require additional testing before we can
> confirm
> > > one
> > > > way or another whether this is truly BSE or not."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, somebody's going to ask you this so let me just
> > ask
> > > > it. When you say "weak positive," it would be helpful if you could
> > > describe
> > > > what you mean by that."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "What we mean by "weak positive," Mr. Secretary, is
> going
> > > back
> > > > to the original case. It required and enrichment of these and a
> greater
> > > > amount of normal tissue in order to enhance this outcome. So in order
> to
> > > > find the abnormal protein present you had to use more material and
> > > > concentrate it."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. We'll take the
> next
> > > > question."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question will come from Joe Pelka (sp). Your line
> is
> > > > open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi. Good evening, gentlemen. I actually have three
> questions.
> > I
> > > > think I can state them succinctly. First of all, why did the IG ask
> for
> > a
> > > > retest in this case? What do you expect they'll do differently at
> > > Weybridge
> > > > that they do from Ames, Iowa, in the IHC testing? And which cow of the
> > > three
> > > > or which animal of the three that had the earlier positives are we
> > looking
> > > > at tonight?
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll answer the first one just as best as I can, and
> then
> > > > Doctor, I'll just queue you up that I'll ask you to answer the final
> > two.
> > > >
> > > > "The IG has been looking at the surveillance. As you know, we've
> tested
> > > now
> > > > 375,000 animals, and Secretary Veneman wanted to be sure that we were
> > > > touching the right places-- regions of the country and etcetera to
> make
> > > sure
> > > > that when that surveillance was done we were satisfied that we got a
> > good
> > > > surveillance of the herd.
> > > >
> > > > "Again, keep in mind that was a surveillance effort; it was never
> > > portrayed
> > > > to be a food safety approach.
> > > >
> > > > "In that effort I believe that the IG decided just to make sure that
> all
> > > the
> > > > bases were touched that this additional testing should be done. So go
> > > ahead,
> > > > Doctor."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The reason we're sending this
> > to
> > > > Weybridge is because we feel this is an unusual case, and we'd like to
> > > have
> > > > the assistance of an internationally recognized laboratory for BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "The inconclusive that we're referring to here is the one that we gave
> > > > notification of in November of 2004. I think it was actually November
> > 15,
> > > > 2004. With regards to the OIG's recommendation, I think that
> > > recommendation
> > > > was based upon a strong reaction on the biorad test and the negative
> > IHC,
> > > > and in order for us to try to resolve those discrepancies that have
> been
> > > > raised relative to that."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, great. Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi. It's Elizabeth Weiss. I'm beginning to think I should
> > never
> > > > go on vacation because every time I do there's a case of BSE. I'm San
> > > Diego,
> > > > and I don't have any of my files. But I'm working from memory here.
> > > >
> > > > "The November case, was that the Texas cow? If it was -"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, Elizabeth, I don't believe the USDA ever
> talked
> > > > about location."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "I presume when you start doing trace back though for this
> > > animal
> > > > you will be then talking about the location?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, I haven't even gotten that far down the road.
> I
> > > > just wanted to get the information out there as quickly as we had it.
> > So."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Okay. And the other question I have -- I'm sorry."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "We had not, we're not that far down the road in terms
> of
> > > what
> > > > that would be about. We just simply wanted to get the information out
> to
> > > you
> > > > folks as quickly as we had it."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "And we appreciate that, especially those of us who don't
> > > publish
> > > > until Monday.
> > > >
> > > > "A further question, at the time of that test I talked to a lot of
> > people
> > > > internationally and actually spoke to the scientist who developed the
> > > > immunohistochemistry test, and he said while his test was state of the
> > art
> > > > when it was first developed he now considers it as he put it more art
> > than
> > > > science. And so I'm wondering, is USDA considering switching to one of
> > the
> > > > newer tests, say the one that Prusinger's Lab has created, something
> > > that's
> > > > got a low false positive but is perhaps a more sensitive test because
> > > Europe
> > > > thinks we've kind of outgrown the immunohistochemistry test.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Yes. You talk about the curiosity of timing; it just so
> > > > happened that today I was touring our Ames laboratory facility in
> Ames,
> > > > Iowa. And that had been set up well before this was an issue, and I
> just
> > > > wanted to see how they were doing there. And I talked to many of the
> > > > scientists that are involved in our BSE research, and I talked about
> the
> > > > tests. And I probed very extensively about both tests being accepted
> > under
> > > > OIE standards.
> > > >
> > > > "I believe at the risk of talking for scientists that you'd get a
> pretty
> > > > lively debate about what test is best, under what circumstances is it
> > > best.
> > > >
> > > > "I do know this, that the IHC test is recognized by the OIE. It's an
> > > > accepted test. It's a test that we have employed and we're not alone.
> > > Other
> > > > parts of the world do.
> > > >
> > > > "We would never make a decision about changing protocol in a knee-jerk
> > > sort
> > > > of way. We would certainly want to debate that. We would want to get a
> > lot
> > > > of good scientific analysis. So it's not something that we would do
> just
> > > > very, very quickly. It's something I'd want very, very cautious,
> careful
> > > > consideration about because there are some who say, 'No the IHC is
> where
> > > you
> > > > want to be.'
> > > >
> > > > "So like I said, at the risk of talking for scientists I think you
> could
> > > get
> > > > a pretty lively debate on your question.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, do you want to offer anything to that?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I just would like to add one thing, Mr. Secretary, or a
> > > > couple of things. Again, to reiterate, we do not, we have not
> confirmed
> > a
> > > > case of BSE in the U.S. at this time. We're going to do further
> analysis
> > > and
> > > > study on this.
> > > >
> > > > "I'd also like to state for the audience, there is such a thing in
> > Europe
> > > > that is called "atypical BSE" about which there's a lot of information
> > and
> > > > data that is still needed out there. And in those particular cases,
> you
> > > have
> > > > in some cases; you had where IHC has been negative and a Western Blot
> > been
> > > > positive.
> > > >
> > > > "In addition with regards to the epidemiology, we have preliminary
> > already
> > > > done some preliminary epidemiology back when the first inconclusive
> was
> > > > first announced, and we'll be ready to perform that as necessary."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Operator, next question, please?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Libby Quaid. Your line is
> open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Thank you. Could you go into a little bit more on what test
> > you
> > > > expect will now be performed and when you expect to know for sure
> > whether
> > > > this was a positive or a negative test?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Go ahead, Doctor."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Actually what I'd like to do is to provide that
> > > > information -- our scientists are working in the Agriculture Research
> > > > Service and APHIS in our National Veterinary Services Lab, and they'll
> > > also
> > > > be discussing this with the scientists at Weybridge, and they'll be
> > > > developing a protocol early next week and procedures for further
> > testing."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Ken Root. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yes. Mr. Secretary, was this a native-born U.S. cow?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Has that been -- that dates back to before I got to the
> > > USDA.
> > > > Doctor, do you know if that's been released?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Actually, Mr. Secretary, it has not. What I can say
> > though
> > > is
> > > > that at this time we would have no information that it was an imported
> > > > animal; also that the animal was an aged animal. It was getting up in
> > age
> > > > and was a beef breed. That's what we're willing to release at this
> > time."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Okay, great. Thank you."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Anita Manning. Your line is
> > open?"
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Oh, my questions have been answered. Thank you."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, thank you, Anita."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "Next question comes from Dan Goldstein. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yeah. Hi. It's Dan Goldstein. Two questions, one for Dr.
> > > Clifford
> > > > and one for the Secretary. Mr. Secretary, first of all, does this
> > somewhat
> > > > do you think may shake the confidence of the international community,
> > one,
> > > > in the ability of the Ames Laboratory and, two, also the efficacy of
> the
> > > IHC
> > > > test?
> > > >
> > > > "And then also for Dr. Clifford, what does this mean in terms of the
> > > > protocols? Will you now have to go back and perhaps test more animals
> > with
> > > > Western Blot tests?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Let me address the question about the Ames Laboratory,
> > and
> > > > I'm sure the doctor will want to offer a thought also.
> > > >
> > > > "One of the things we are very, very proud of is that Ames laboratory.
> > > They
> > > > do great work there, and again I remind everybody that the IHC test is
> > an
> > > > internationally accepted test. And that comes from the OIE, and like I
> > > said
> > > > even amongst scientists you would get debate about the test.
> > > >
> > > > "But it is an internationally accepted test. It was done according to
> > > > protocol. It was properly done and produced negative results as the
> > doctor
> > > > explained.
> > > >
> > > > "In terms of the confidence of the international community, I believe
> > they
> > > > look to us as leaders. Not only are we aggressive when it comes to
> this
> > > > disease; we quite honestly don't leave any stone unturned in terms of
> > our
> > > > efforts to make sure that we're proceeding along the right pathway.
> > > >
> > > > "As the doctor pointed out, this is an aged animal. Our discussions
> with
> > > > Japan have related to 20-month animals as you know. Our discussions
> with
> > > > Korea have related to 30-month animals, and the rule relative to
> Canada
> > or
> > > > the Minimal Risk Rule in general I should say relates to animals under
> > 30
> > > > months and meat product under 30 months.
> > > >
> > > > "So I really don't believe this has any impact on our international
> > > trading
> > > > partners. We'll be working with them to get information in their hands
> > and
> > > > make sure that they understand the situation. But again just because
> of
> > > what
> > > > we're talking about here and the age of the animal, we've got a vast
> > > > difference between what this is about and what we're working with them
> > > > about.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I agree wholeheartedly.
> > > > Internationally our National Veterinary Services Lab is recognized and
> > > well
> > > > respected, and this doesn't put any dent in their armor. They have run
> > the
> > > > IHC flawlessly, and we're confident in every result that's resulted
> from
> > > > that IHC.
> > > >
> > > > "We're confident in the result of the IHC with this particular animal.
> > As
> > > > I'd indicated earlier, and actually the ARS scientists as well as our
> > own
> > > > because this had to be enriched this wouldn't have been found-- this
> > > > particular case would have missed the type testing we did exactly on
> the
> > > > December cow in Canada. It was the IHC and the Western Blot both in
> > those
> > > > cases that were found to be positive.
> > > >
> > > > "We have also discussed this particular issue with international
> > > scientists,
> > > > and I think they have complete confidence in our program while they
> also
> > > > recognize and would recommend that this one particular animal because
> of
> > > the
> > > > unusualness of this case they feel that it should have been run also
> > > against
> > > > the Western Blot."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Tom Stever (sp). Your line is
> > > open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Thank you. How frequently has the Western Blot test been
> > used?
> > > > And also what makes you think that this will not affect the ongoing
> > > efforts
> > > > to reopen the borders to U.S. beef in Japan and Korea?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll talk about the issue relative to our trading
> > partners,
> > > > and Doctor if you could, after I'm done, address the other issue
> > relative
> > > to
> > > > frequency?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, sir.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Again, the doctor points out that this is an aged beef
> > > > animal. What we are working with in terms of Canada as you know is 30
> > > months
> > > > and under. What we are working with Japan, because of a concession
> made
> > in
> > > > the negotiations, is 20 months and under, and then Korea 30 months and
> > > > under.
> > > >
> > > > "And again in terms of our firewalls that are in place, removal of
> > > specified
> > > > risk material, the extensive surveillance that we have done, our
> > diligence
> > > > in the process of testing, I really do believe that this should not
> have
> > > any
> > > > impact on the discussions that we are having with those countries. If
> > > > anything, it should illustrate to them the diligence by which we
> pursue
> > > the
> > > > safety of our feed supply and the safety of our supply of food for
> human
> > > > consumption.
> > > >
> > > > "The other thing I do want to mention is, again I point out that our
> > > > firewall has worked here. This animal did not enter the food supply or
> > the
> > > > feed supply. There are a number of inter-related firewalls that we
> have
> > in
> > > > place, and again we have a prime example tonight that they work and
> this
> > > > animal did not enter the food or feed supply.
> > > >
> > > > Doctor, talk about frequency."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, sir. Actually both of these tests are used
> > extensively
> > > > internationally, and it will vary from country to country as to which
> > test
> > > > they choose or whether they use both tests in some cases. And in most
> > > cases
> > > > countries would not use both though, except under certain
> circumstances
> > or
> > > > unusual circumstances."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Operator, we have time for about two more questions,
> please?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Beth Gorham. Your line is
> open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi, there. Beth Gorham from the Canadian Press Wire
> Service.
> > > > Thanks for taking my question.
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Secretary, I understand that you think that this isn't going to
> > > affect
> > > > talks with international partners, but given the timing of this and
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > quite clear -- I know the protocols are being developed next week,
> but,
> > A,
> > > > is there an answer on how long this will take? And B, given the fact
> > that
> > > > the appeal is scheduled to go ahead on July 13 in Seattle, are you
> > worried
> > > > about the impact as far as the judicial proceedings are concerned?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, I am really not. And let me explain to you
> why.
> > I
> > > > believe that you will have the entire cattle industry over the next
> few
> > > days
> > > > and the folks involved in processing beef and serving beef to
> customers
> > > > recognize and talk very publicly about what we've talked about
> tonight.
> > > And
> > > > that is that the firewalls we have in place do work.
> > > >
> > > > "We did not have an animal that entered the feed or food chain. All of
> > the
> > > > protocols were followed. The laboratory in Ames meticulously followed
> > the
> > > > step-by-step process, came up with a negative, and I just think you're
> > > going
> > > > to have the industry say, hey, what we see is that the USDA firewalls
> > are
> > > > working, they're getting the job done for us.
> > > >
> > > > "And again as you know, Canada really follows the same approach that
> we
> > > do.
> > > > So I just don't anticipate an issue there, and again I don't
> anticipate
> > a
> > > > problem with our trading partners. They'll want to know what the
> issues
> > > are
> > > > and what we have done, and we'll provide them with that information.
> > > >
> > > > "One of the things about this call tonight is, we want to assure them
> > and
> > > to
> > > > assure the public that what we're doing here is transparent. I had
> these
> > > > results just barely 10 minutes before we got on the line to visit with
> > > you.
> > > > So I think that's very important.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, if you could go ahead and offer some thoughts, that would be
> > > great.
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I definitely agree. I
> think
> > > one
> > > > of the things too with BSE that we need to put this disease in a
> proper
> > > > perspective, especially internationally. And just remind everyone that
> > it
> > > > was just a very short time ago that the OIE adopted a new chapter for
> > BSE.
> > > > It talks about the safe trade in certain products, and that's really
> > where
> > > > we need to go with this issue is talking about how you safely trade
> > > products
> > > > with BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "And we have those firewalls and protections in place in the U.S. And
> > also
> > > > to remind everyone that our surveillance program is a program in order
> > to
> > > > determine if the disease exists in this country and if so to estimate
> > the
> > > > prevalence level of the disease in order for us to make the
> > determinations
> > > > that our firewalls are working. And we know that those are working.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, if you might -- and I don't want to extend this
> > > > longer than necessary, but it might be good for a quick refresher on
> the
> > > > significance of the rule specifying 30 months and under and in Japan's
> > > case
> > > > 20 months and under. Do you know what I'm driving at?
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Hang on just a second, sir.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay.
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes. With regard to the SRM removal, yes. Basically the
> > > > animals under 30 months of age, you know with regards to SRM removal
> we
> > > > remove the tonsils and small intestines, and over 30 months of age
> > animals
> > > > we remove the spinal cord, the small intestines, as well as tonsils,
> > > > eyeballs, the brain tissue, and the dorsal root ganglia. Those are the
> > > > tissues that are removed in order to protect the human health in this
> > > > country."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Again, another firewall. We'll go ahead and take
> > the
> > > > next question."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Tom Brand. Your line is open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Good evening. Mr. Secretary, as we've been on this call
> here
> > > this
> > > > evening I was actually with a group of some cattle producers and have
> > been
> > > > relaying some information along to them. And the question has come up
> > from
> > > > them, why are we still running the review of tests that came from an
> > > > inconclusive back in November of 2004?
> > > >
> > > > "They're also interested in why we upped the sample amount to such,
> the
> > 20
> > > > times, in order to get that positive?
> > > >
> > > > "And also just wondering how you feel, will there have to be as much
> of
> > a
> > > > public relations campaign as there was back in December 2003, or do
> you
> > > feel
> > > > like consumer confidence will remain?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Consumer confidence I am very, very confident will
> > remain.
> > > > Again I point out that this is a situation where the firewalls work.
> We
> > do
> > > > not have a human health risk here. This animal did not enter the food
> > > chain.
> > > >
> > > > "So from that standpoint I feel very strongly that it's important that
> > we
> > > > get the facts out, and we have done that. In terms of the question
> about
> > > why
> > > > the additional testing, if you'll remember there was discussion about,
> > > well,
> > > > maybe some additional testing should be done. I believe Secretary
> > Veneman
> > > > also wanted to get a notion as to whether the surveillance process was
> > > > actually touching all of the right bases. And the Inspector General,
> as
> > > you
> > > > know who operates independently in our federal form of government,
> > decided
> > > > to request the additional testing. And so that's how that came about.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, maybe you could offer some thoughts on anything I might have
> > > missed
> > > > there in that answer."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I would only add, when you talk about the enrichment of
> > the
> > > > sample that's something that is allowed with regards to that test and
> > the
> > > > protocol in order to determine if there's low levels of abnormal
> protein
> > > > present. And that's a technique that has been probably used in more
> > recent
> > > > years and is something that is widely used."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Let me just wrap up with just a couple of quick
> > > > comments, and then we'll call it good for the night and we'll let you
> > get
> > > > off the line.
> > > >
> > > > "The first thing I want to mention again is that there is no risk to
> > human
> > > > health here. The animal did not get in the food or the feed chain. The
> > > > firewalls that the USDA put in place some time ago once again have
> shown
> > > > that they do work. I do not believe that the information that we have
> > > > released should impact our discussions with Japan, Korea or Canada.
> > Again,
> > > > age of animal alone would indicate we're dealing with a much different
> > > > circumstance.
> > > >
> > > > "And with that, I do want to point out that as the doctor indicated
> even
> > > > this third test is not a confirmed case of BSE. Additional testing
> will
> > > > occur. The other two animals did test negative on the additional
> > testing.
> > > >
> > > > Doctor, do you want to offer any thoughts to wrap up?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I don't have anything additional, sir."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, great. Thank you, everyone."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Dr. Clifford's statement is now
> on
> > > the
> > > > USDA website, and we will also have a transcript of this call
> available
> > on
> > > > the website, and we will send it out tomorrow morning. As we gather
> > > > additional information, we will make that available, but at this point
> > we
> > > do
> > > > not anticipate any further announcements over the weekend. So have a
> > good
> > > > weekend, everyone."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Last Modified: 06/10/2005
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> > > > tentid=2005/06/0207.xml
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >"The fourth point that I want to make is that the test was also done,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot test, on the two other animals and those test results
> were
> > > > negative. <
> > > >
> > > > WHY, why was WB not done on this Texas cow?
> > > >
> > > > Seems Texas has a serious problem with complying with proper protocol
> > i.e.
> > > > rendering the stumbling and staggering mad cow without any test at all
> > AND
> > > > then this downer
> > > > cow without WB.
> > > >
> > > > WHO gave the authority NOT to use WB???
> > > > PROBABLY the same person that gave the OK to import that banned
> > > > Canadian beef.
> > > >
> > > > THE cow first tested positive with rapid tests.
> > > > Seems some media are saying the cow first tested
> > > > negative. this is simply not true.
> > > >
> > > > TSS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > ----
> > > > Content-type: text/html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Healthy Lifestyle
> > > > EXPO 2005
> > > > TICKETS now available!
> > > > October 14 - 16, Burbank, CA
> > > > Top speakers, all new talks!
> > > > 50,000 square feet of vegan products and exhibits!
> > > > Click here
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
> > > >
> > > > Your message has been posted
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Subscribe to the VegSource Newsletter!
> > > > Enter email address and press Submit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (This will open a new browser, which you can close to return to this
> > > page.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Go to:
> > > > Your Message
> > > > Discussion Board... (Note: You may need to press 'Reload' or 'Refresh'
> > to
> > > > see your message.)
> > > > Your post was added to the message board as follows:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > From: TSS ()
> > > > Subject: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease
> Friday,
> > > June
> > > > 10, 2005
> > > > Date: June 11, 2005 at 1:28 pm PST
> > > >
> > > > Release No. 0207.05
> > > > Contact:
> > > > USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike
> > Johanns
> > > > and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Plant Health
> > > > Inspection Service Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test
> > > > Results Washington, D.C.
> > > >
> > > > June 10, 2005
> > > >
> > > > MR. ED LOYD: "Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us
> late
> > on
> > > a
> > > > Friday evening. I certainly appreciate your getting on with us on such
> > > short
> > > > notice for an update of our BSE surveillance. Just so you know, our
> > format
> > > > tonight we're going to have Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is
> going
> > to
> > > > make a brief introductory statement, followed by Dr. John Clifford,
> the
> > > > chief veterinary officer of the APHIS, the Animal Plant Health
> > Inspection
> > > > Service, who will go into some more technical background.
> > > >
> > > > "With that, I will turn this over to Agriculture Secretary Mike
> > Johanns."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, good evening everyone, and let me also just
> express
> > > my
> > > > appreciation for your willingness to join us tonight. As you know,
> over
> > > the
> > > > past many months we have been working on a number of fronts relative
> to
> > > BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "Most recently we had a roundtable discussion in St. Paul yesterday
> > where
> > > > literally all players with a variety of opinions participated. It went
> > > very,
> > > > very well. We've been working with our rulemaking process and the
> > > government
> > > > of Canada to reopen Canada to their exports into our country of beef.
> > > >
> > > > "We have also been working very aggressively and diligently with a
> > number
> > > of
> > > > countries around the world, most notably, of course, Japan and Korea.
> > > >
> > > > "And as you know, now nearly a year ago or maybe even more than a year
> > ago
> > > > we started a very aggressive surveillance system. During that
> > surveillance
> > > > process we have had three inconclusives on rapid tests. It's a rapid
> > test
> > > > that is done, and there were three inconclusives.
> > > >
> > > > "Each was then followed up with an IHC test. Each confirmatory IHC
> test
> > > was
> > > > negative. The Inspector General, in reviewing our surveillance system
> > that
> > > > we have in place, decided to retest with a second confirmatory test
> > which
> > > is
> > > > called the Western Blot. We have received test results showing a
> > positive
> > > on
> > > > one animal for the Western Blot.
> > > >
> > > > "I would like to make a couple of points, and then I'll ask Dr.
> Clifford
> > > to
> > > > offer some thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > "Number two, the firewalls that the USDA put in place did work. As I
> > point
> > > > out, the animal did not enter the food or the feed chain. Therefore,
> > > there's
> > > > no risk to human health.
> > > >
> > > > "The third point is that I feel very strongly that this information
> > should
> > > > not impact our discussions with Japan, Korea or Canada.
> > > >
> > > > "The fourth point that I want to make is that the test was also done,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot test, on the two other animals and those test results
> were
> > > > negative.
> > > >
> > > > "With that, I would like Dr. Clifford to speak about the test, and
> he'll
> > > > take it from here. And then when he's finished, we'll go ahead and
> open
> > it
> > > > up to your questions."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thanks everyone for being
> > on
> > > > the phone tonight.
> > > >
> > > > "Since the USDA enhanced surveillance program for BSE began in June
> 2004
> > > > more than 375,000 animals from the targeted cattle population have
> been
> > > > tested for BSE using a rapid test. Three of these animals tested
> > > > inconclusive and were subsequently subjected to the
> immunohistochemistry
> > > > (IHC) testing. The IHC is an internationally recognized confirmatory
> > test
> > > > for BSE. All three inconclusive samples tested negative using the IHC
> > > test.
> > > >
> > > > "As the Secretary said earlier this week, USDA's Office of Inspector
> > > General
> > > > which has been partnering with APHIS, FSIS and ARS, the Agriculture
> > > Research
> > > > Service, by impartially reviewing BSE-related activities and making
> > > > recommendations for improvement, recommended that all three of these
> > > samples
> > > > be subjected to a second internationally recognized confirmatory test,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot.
> > > >
> > > > "We received final results a short time ago. As the Secretary stated,
> of
> > > the
> > > > three samples two were negative, but the third came back reactive on
> > that
> > > > test.
> > > >
> > > > "Because of the conflicting results on the IHC and Western Blot test,
> a
> > > > sample from this animal will be sent to the OIE recognized reference
> > > > laboratory for BSE in Weybridge, England. USDA will also be conducting
> > > > further testing which will take several days to complete.
> > > >
> > > > "Regardless of the outcome, it is critical to note that USDA has in
> > place
> > > a
> > > > sound system of interlocking safeguards to protect human and animal
> > health
> > > > from BSE including most significantly a ban on specified risk
> materials
> > > from
> > > > the human food supply. In the case of this animal, it was a
> > nonambulatory
> > > > downer animal and as such was banned from the food supply. It was
> taken
> > to
> > > a
> > > > facility that handles only animals unsuitable for human consumption,
> and
> > > the
> > > > carcass was incinerated.
> > > >
> > > > "USDA's enhanced surveillance program is designed to provide
> information
> > > > about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States. Since the
> > > > inception of this program we have fully anticipated the possibility
> that
> > > > additional cases of BSE would be found. And in fact, we are extremely
> > > > gratified that to date more than 375,000 animals have been tested for
> > the
> > > > disease, and with the exception of this conflicting result we received
> > for
> > > > this one animal all have ultimately proven to be negative for the
> > disease.
> > > >
> > > > "USDA is committed to ensuring that our BSE program is the best that
> it
> > > can
> > > > be, keeping pace with science and international guidelines, and to
> > > > considering recommendations made by OIG and others in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > "We are committed to ensuring that we have the right protocols in
> place,
> > > > ones that are solely grounded in science and consistently followed.
> > > >
> > > > "After we receive additional test results on this animal, we will
> > > determine
> > > > what further steps need to be taken and what changes if any are
> > warranted
> > > in
> > > > our surveillance program."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "With that, Operator, we would open this up to some
> > questions."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "Once again if you do want to ask a question at this time
> > please
> > > > press *1 on your touchtone phone, and you must record your name. It
> will
> > > be
> > > > just a moment for the first question. The first question comes from
> Jeff
> > > > Nalley. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Mr. Secretary and Mr. Veterinarian this is Jeff Nalley.
> We're
> > > > broadcasting from Owens Brook, Kentucky, this evening. I'll share with
> > > you;
> > > > we got the news from the USDA while we were in a restaurant, an
> > > > all-you-can-eat steak buffet. So I'm having seconds just to show our
> > > > confidence.
> > > >
> > > > "But how can you give credence to what has been said before that this
> is
> > a
> > > > beef issue and not a human issue and something that we have well in
> hand
> > > > certainly within the OIE standards?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, we have the best example I could possibly give
> > > tonight,
> > > > and that example is this. We've tested 375,000 animals so far. Even
> with
> > > > this one animal, we tested the three that on the rapid test showed a
> > > > positive and the original test showed negative. We went, the IHC
> test--
> > we
> > > > went from there even an additional step. We have two negatives and
> this
> > > > third test we can point to the fact that our firewalls work. This
> animal
> > > was
> > > > a downer animal. It did not get in the food or the feed chain. There
> > just
> > > is
> > > > no risk whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > "Enjoy beef. I'm going to do exactly what you're doing tonight. I'm
> > going
> > > to
> > > > enjoy a good steak. There just simply is not a risk here, and we want
> to
> > > > illustrate, which I believe we have done by even exceeding what's
> > > required.
> > > > We have gone well beyond any standard that is out there to illustrate
> > the
> > > > safety of this herd. And it is a safe beef product; there's just no
> > doubt
> > > > about it."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Could we have the next question, please"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Peter Shinn. Your line is
> open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yes, good evening. This is Peter Shinn from the National
> > > > Association of Farm Broadcasters.
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Secretary, I don't mean to ask a difficult question, but it just
> > > > immediately comes to mind. What exactly happened in terms of how could
> > you
> > > > have gotten it not right the first time? And what's the difference
> > between
> > > > the IHC and the Western Blot? That might be a question for Dr.
> > Clifford."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Yeah. I'll ask Dr. Clifford to get in. It's not really
> a
> > > > question of not getting it right. They are, both tests are accepted by
> > the
> > > > OIE. Both tests if you use those, they are accepted under the
> standard.
> > So
> > > > it's not a question of getting it right. All of the protocols were
> > > followed.
> > > > We had the positive and the rapid response test, the IHC test was
> > applied
> > > > according to the protocols, and that is the test that has been used in
> > the
> > > > United States.
> > > >
> > > > "And so it's not a situation where you've got one test that isn't
> > accepted
> > > > and one that is. They both are accepted. There are differences in the
> > > tests,
> > > > and I'll let Dr. Clifford explain that.
> > > >
> > > > "And maybe, Dr. Clifford, you can even explain if you would just what
> > this
> > > > test showed and how you went about getting through the testing
> process."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And yes, we're confident in
> the
> > > > results of actually both of these tests. The IHC was negative for this
> > > > sample. Actually the Western Blot test, if you go back to the December
> > cow
> > > > that was found from Canada the Western Blot that was run on that
> > > particular
> > > > sample we used one milligram of tissue to run that test and was found
> to
> > > be
> > > > a very strong positive.
> > > >
> > > > "In order to find a positive in this particular case with this Western
> > > Blot,
> > > > they had to enhance or enrich it, in which that basically means you're
> > > > concentrating the abnormal protein. So they had to use 20 times the
> > > amount.
> > > > You would have to use about 20 times the amount of tissue for this to
> > > > determine to be a positive or reactive on the Western Blot versus the
> > one
> > > > that was discovered in December in the state of Washington.
> > > >
> > > > "In addition, there are definite differences between these two tests.
> > The
> > > > IHC is internationally recognized, and why we chose that for our
> > enhanced
> > > > surveillance program is because that particular test does two things.
> It
> > > > allows you to visualize the anatomic location where the lesions are
> most
> > > > likely to be found which is the obex. At the same time it uses a
> > staining
> > > > technique on the prions, on abnormal prions in the tissue in that
> > > location.
> > > >
> > > > "So that's what the IHC does.
> > > >
> > > > "In the Western Blot case, it's actually a homogenate (sp) of a sample
> > of
> > > > brain tissue that is centrifuged and they concentrate the prion
> protein
> > > and
> > > > then they use a protease to destroy the normal protein, leaving the
> > > abnormal
> > > > protein present. And then basically that is run through a gel-type
> > > > separation using specific antibodies that will give you bands.
> > > >
> > > > "And they look at those bands and the molecular weight of those bands
> to
> > > > determine the outcome of that test.
> > > >
> > > > "So this test would actually be referred to as a weak positive test in
> > > this
> > > > case for the Western Blot, and as a result of that and the unusualness
> > of
> > > > this case it's going to require additional testing before we can
> confirm
> > > one
> > > > way or another whether this is truly BSE or not."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, somebody's going to ask you this so let me just
> > ask
> > > > it. When you say "weak positive," it would be helpful if you could
> > > describe
> > > > what you mean by that."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "What we mean by "weak positive," Mr. Secretary, is
> going
> > > back
> > > > to the original case. It required and enrichment of these and a
> greater
> > > > amount of normal tissue in order to enhance this outcome. So in order
> to
> > > > find the abnormal protein present you had to use more material and
> > > > concentrate it."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. We'll take the
> next
> > > > question."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question will come from Joe Pelka (sp). Your line
> is
> > > > open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi. Good evening, gentlemen. I actually have three
> questions.
> > I
> > > > think I can state them succinctly. First of all, why did the IG ask
> for
> > a
> > > > retest in this case? What do you expect they'll do differently at
> > > Weybridge
> > > > that they do from Ames, Iowa, in the IHC testing? And which cow of the
> > > three
> > > > or which animal of the three that had the earlier positives are we
> > looking
> > > > at tonight?
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll answer the first one just as best as I can, and
> then
> > > > Doctor, I'll just queue you up that I'll ask you to answer the final
> > two.
> > > >
> > > > "The IG has been looking at the surveillance. As you know, we've
> tested
> > > now
> > > > 375,000 animals, and Secretary Veneman wanted to be sure that we were
> > > > touching the right places-- regions of the country and etcetera to
> make
> > > sure
> > > > that when that surveillance was done we were satisfied that we got a
> > good
> > > > surveillance of the herd.
> > > >
> > > > "Again, keep in mind that was a surveillance effort; it was never
> > > portrayed
> > > > to be a food safety approach.
> > > >
> > > > "In that effort I believe that the IG decided just to make sure that
> all
> > > the
> > > > bases were touched that this additional testing should be done. So go
> > > ahead,
> > > > Doctor."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The reason we're sending this
> > to
> > > > Weybridge is because we feel this is an unusual case, and we'd like to
> > > have
> > > > the assistance of an internationally recognized laboratory for BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "The inconclusive that we're referring to here is the one that we gave
> > > > notification of in November of 2004. I think it was actually November
> > 15,
> > > > 2004. With regards to the OIG's recommendation, I think that
> > > recommendation
> > > > was based upon a strong reaction on the biorad test and the negative
> > IHC,
> > > > and in order for us to try to resolve those discrepancies that have
> been
> > > > raised relative to that."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, great. Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi. It's Elizabeth Weiss. I'm beginning to think I should
> > never
> > > > go on vacation because every time I do there's a case of BSE. I'm San
> > > Diego,
> > > > and I don't have any of my files. But I'm working from memory here.
> > > >
> > > > "The November case, was that the Texas cow? If it was -"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, Elizabeth, I don't believe the USDA ever
> talked
> > > > about location."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "I presume when you start doing trace back though for this
> > > animal
> > > > you will be then talking about the location?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, I haven't even gotten that far down the road.
> I
> > > > just wanted to get the information out there as quickly as we had it.
> > So."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Okay. And the other question I have -- I'm sorry."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "We had not, we're not that far down the road in terms
> of
> > > what
> > > > that would be about. We just simply wanted to get the information out
> to
> > > you
> > > > folks as quickly as we had it."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "And we appreciate that, especially those of us who don't
> > > publish
> > > > until Monday.
> > > >
> > > > "A further question, at the time of that test I talked to a lot of
> > people
> > > > internationally and actually spoke to the scientist who developed the
> > > > immunohistochemistry test, and he said while his test was state of the
> > art
> > > > when it was first developed he now considers it as he put it more art
> > than
> > > > science. And so I'm wondering, is USDA considering switching to one of
> > the
> > > > newer tests, say the one that Prusinger's Lab has created, something
> > > that's
> > > > got a low false positive but is perhaps a more sensitive test because
> > > Europe
> > > > thinks we've kind of outgrown the immunohistochemistry test.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Yes. You talk about the curiosity of timing; it just so
> > > > happened that today I was touring our Ames laboratory facility in
> Ames,
> > > > Iowa. And that had been set up well before this was an issue, and I
> just
> > > > wanted to see how they were doing there. And I talked to many of the
> > > > scientists that are involved in our BSE research, and I talked about
> the
> > > > tests. And I probed very extensively about both tests being accepted
> > under
> > > > OIE standards.
> > > >
> > > > "I believe at the risk of talking for scientists that you'd get a
> pretty
> > > > lively debate about what test is best, under what circumstances is it
> > > best.
> > > >
> > > > "I do know this, that the IHC test is recognized by the OIE. It's an
> > > > accepted test. It's a test that we have employed and we're not alone.
> > > Other
> > > > parts of the world do.
> > > >
> > > > "We would never make a decision about changing protocol in a knee-jerk
> > > sort
> > > > of way. We would certainly want to debate that. We would want to get a
> > lot
> > > > of good scientific analysis. So it's not something that we would do
> just
> > > > very, very quickly. It's something I'd want very, very cautious,
> careful
> > > > consideration about because there are some who say, 'No the IHC is
> where
> > > you
> > > > want to be.'
> > > >
> > > > "So like I said, at the risk of talking for scientists I think you
> could
> > > get
> > > > a pretty lively debate on your question.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, do you want to offer anything to that?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I just would like to add one thing, Mr. Secretary, or a
> > > > couple of things. Again, to reiterate, we do not, we have not
> confirmed
> > a
> > > > case of BSE in the U.S. at this time. We're going to do further
> analysis
> > > and
> > > > study on this.
> > > >
> > > > "I'd also like to state for the audience, there is such a thing in
> > Europe
> > > > that is called "atypical BSE" about which there's a lot of information
> > and
> > > > data that is still needed out there. And in those particular cases,
> you
> > > have
> > > > in some cases; you had where IHC has been negative and a Western Blot
> > been
> > > > positive.
> > > >
> > > > "In addition with regards to the epidemiology, we have preliminary
> > already
> > > > done some preliminary epidemiology back when the first inconclusive
> was
> > > > first announced, and we'll be ready to perform that as necessary."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Operator, next question, please?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Libby Quaid. Your line is
> open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Thank you. Could you go into a little bit more on what test
> > you
> > > > expect will now be performed and when you expect to know for sure
> > whether
> > > > this was a positive or a negative test?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Go ahead, Doctor."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Actually what I'd like to do is to provide that
> > > > information -- our scientists are working in the Agriculture Research
> > > > Service and APHIS in our National Veterinary Services Lab, and they'll
> > > also
> > > > be discussing this with the scientists at Weybridge, and they'll be
> > > > developing a protocol early next week and procedures for further
> > testing."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Ken Root. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yes. Mr. Secretary, was this a native-born U.S. cow?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Has that been -- that dates back to before I got to the
> > > USDA.
> > > > Doctor, do you know if that's been released?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Actually, Mr. Secretary, it has not. What I can say
> > though
> > > is
> > > > that at this time we would have no information that it was an imported
> > > > animal; also that the animal was an aged animal. It was getting up in
> > age
> > > > and was a beef breed. That's what we're willing to release at this
> > time."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Okay, great. Thank you."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Anita Manning. Your line is
> > open?"
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Oh, my questions have been answered. Thank you."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, thank you, Anita."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "Next question comes from Dan Goldstein. Your line is open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Yeah. Hi. It's Dan Goldstein. Two questions, one for Dr.
> > > Clifford
> > > > and one for the Secretary. Mr. Secretary, first of all, does this
> > somewhat
> > > > do you think may shake the confidence of the international community,
> > one,
> > > > in the ability of the Ames Laboratory and, two, also the efficacy of
> the
> > > IHC
> > > > test?
> > > >
> > > > "And then also for Dr. Clifford, what does this mean in terms of the
> > > > protocols? Will you now have to go back and perhaps test more animals
> > with
> > > > Western Blot tests?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Let me address the question about the Ames Laboratory,
> > and
> > > > I'm sure the doctor will want to offer a thought also.
> > > >
> > > > "One of the things we are very, very proud of is that Ames laboratory.
> > > They
> > > > do great work there, and again I remind everybody that the IHC test is
> > an
> > > > internationally accepted test. And that comes from the OIE, and like I
> > > said
> > > > even amongst scientists you would get debate about the test.
> > > >
> > > > "But it is an internationally accepted test. It was done according to
> > > > protocol. It was properly done and produced negative results as the
> > doctor
> > > > explained.
> > > >
> > > > "In terms of the confidence of the international community, I believe
> > they
> > > > look to us as leaders. Not only are we aggressive when it comes to
> this
> > > > disease; we quite honestly don't leave any stone unturned in terms of
> > our
> > > > efforts to make sure that we're proceeding along the right pathway.
> > > >
> > > > "As the doctor pointed out, this is an aged animal. Our discussions
> with
> > > > Japan have related to 20-month animals as you know. Our discussions
> with
> > > > Korea have related to 30-month animals, and the rule relative to
> Canada
> > or
> > > > the Minimal Risk Rule in general I should say relates to animals under
> > 30
> > > > months and meat product under 30 months.
> > > >
> > > > "So I really don't believe this has any impact on our international
> > > trading
> > > > partners. We'll be working with them to get information in their hands
> > and
> > > > make sure that they understand the situation. But again just because
> of
> > > what
> > > > we're talking about here and the age of the animal, we've got a vast
> > > > difference between what this is about and what we're working with them
> > > > about.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I agree wholeheartedly.
> > > > Internationally our National Veterinary Services Lab is recognized and
> > > well
> > > > respected, and this doesn't put any dent in their armor. They have run
> > the
> > > > IHC flawlessly, and we're confident in every result that's resulted
> from
> > > > that IHC.
> > > >
> > > > "We're confident in the result of the IHC with this particular animal.
> > As
> > > > I'd indicated earlier, and actually the ARS scientists as well as our
> > own
> > > > because this had to be enriched this wouldn't have been found-- this
> > > > particular case would have missed the type testing we did exactly on
> the
> > > > December cow in Canada. It was the IHC and the Western Blot both in
> > those
> > > > cases that were found to be positive.
> > > >
> > > > "We have also discussed this particular issue with international
> > > scientists,
> > > > and I think they have complete confidence in our program while they
> also
> > > > recognize and would recommend that this one particular animal because
> of
> > > the
> > > > unusualness of this case they feel that it should have been run also
> > > against
> > > > the Western Blot."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Tom Stever (sp). Your line is
> > > open."
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Thank you. How frequently has the Western Blot test been
> > used?
> > > > And also what makes you think that this will not affect the ongoing
> > > efforts
> > > > to reopen the borders to U.S. beef in Japan and Korea?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "I'll talk about the issue relative to our trading
> > partners,
> > > > and Doctor if you could, after I'm done, address the other issue
> > relative
> > > to
> > > > frequency?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, sir.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Again, the doctor points out that this is an aged beef
> > > > animal. What we are working with in terms of Canada as you know is 30
> > > months
> > > > and under. What we are working with Japan, because of a concession
> made
> > in
> > > > the negotiations, is 20 months and under, and then Korea 30 months and
> > > > under.
> > > >
> > > > "And again in terms of our firewalls that are in place, removal of
> > > specified
> > > > risk material, the extensive surveillance that we have done, our
> > diligence
> > > > in the process of testing, I really do believe that this should not
> have
> > > any
> > > > impact on the discussions that we are having with those countries. If
> > > > anything, it should illustrate to them the diligence by which we
> pursue
> > > the
> > > > safety of our feed supply and the safety of our supply of food for
> human
> > > > consumption.
> > > >
> > > > "The other thing I do want to mention is, again I point out that our
> > > > firewall has worked here. This animal did not enter the food supply or
> > the
> > > > feed supply. There are a number of inter-related firewalls that we
> have
> > in
> > > > place, and again we have a prime example tonight that they work and
> this
> > > > animal did not enter the food or feed supply.
> > > >
> > > > Doctor, talk about frequency."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, sir. Actually both of these tests are used
> > extensively
> > > > internationally, and it will vary from country to country as to which
> > test
> > > > they choose or whether they use both tests in some cases. And in most
> > > cases
> > > > countries would not use both though, except under certain
> circumstances
> > or
> > > > unusual circumstances."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Operator, we have time for about two more questions,
> please?"
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Beth Gorham. Your line is
> open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Hi, there. Beth Gorham from the Canadian Press Wire
> Service.
> > > > Thanks for taking my question.
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Secretary, I understand that you think that this isn't going to
> > > affect
> > > > talks with international partners, but given the timing of this and
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > quite clear -- I know the protocols are being developed next week,
> but,
> > A,
> > > > is there an answer on how long this will take? And B, given the fact
> > that
> > > > the appeal is scheduled to go ahead on July 13 in Seattle, are you
> > worried
> > > > about the impact as far as the judicial proceedings are concerned?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "You know, I am really not. And let me explain to you
> why.
> > I
> > > > believe that you will have the entire cattle industry over the next
> few
> > > days
> > > > and the folks involved in processing beef and serving beef to
> customers
> > > > recognize and talk very publicly about what we've talked about
> tonight.
> > > And
> > > > that is that the firewalls we have in place do work.
> > > >
> > > > "We did not have an animal that entered the feed or food chain. All of
> > the
> > > > protocols were followed. The laboratory in Ames meticulously followed
> > the
> > > > step-by-step process, came up with a negative, and I just think you're
> > > going
> > > > to have the industry say, hey, what we see is that the USDA firewalls
> > are
> > > > working, they're getting the job done for us.
> > > >
> > > > "And again as you know, Canada really follows the same approach that
> we
> > > do.
> > > > So I just don't anticipate an issue there, and again I don't
> anticipate
> > a
> > > > problem with our trading partners. They'll want to know what the
> issues
> > > are
> > > > and what we have done, and we'll provide them with that information.
> > > >
> > > > "One of the things about this call tonight is, we want to assure them
> > and
> > > to
> > > > assure the public that what we're doing here is transparent. I had
> these
> > > > results just barely 10 minutes before we got on the line to visit with
> > > you.
> > > > So I think that's very important.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, if you could go ahead and offer some thoughts, that would be
> > > great.
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I definitely agree. I
> think
> > > one
> > > > of the things too with BSE that we need to put this disease in a
> proper
> > > > perspective, especially internationally. And just remind everyone that
> > it
> > > > was just a very short time ago that the OIE adopted a new chapter for
> > BSE.
> > > > It talks about the safe trade in certain products, and that's really
> > where
> > > > we need to go with this issue is talking about how you safely trade
> > > products
> > > > with BSE.
> > > >
> > > > "And we have those firewalls and protections in place in the U.S. And
> > also
> > > > to remind everyone that our surveillance program is a program in order
> > to
> > > > determine if the disease exists in this country and if so to estimate
> > the
> > > > prevalence level of the disease in order for us to make the
> > determinations
> > > > that our firewalls are working. And we know that those are working.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, if you might -- and I don't want to extend this
> > > > longer than necessary, but it might be good for a quick refresher on
> the
> > > > significance of the rule specifying 30 months and under and in Japan's
> > > case
> > > > 20 months and under. Do you know what I'm driving at?
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Hang on just a second, sir.
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay.
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes. With regard to the SRM removal, yes. Basically the
> > > > animals under 30 months of age, you know with regards to SRM removal
> we
> > > > remove the tonsils and small intestines, and over 30 months of age
> > animals
> > > > we remove the spinal cord, the small intestines, as well as tonsils,
> > > > eyeballs, the brain tissue, and the dorsal root ganglia. Those are the
> > > > tissues that are removed in order to protect the human health in this
> > > > country."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Again, another firewall. We'll go ahead and take
> > the
> > > > next question."
> > > >
> > > > OPERATOR: "The next question comes from Tom Brand. Your line is open.
> > > >
> > > > REPORTER: "Good evening. Mr. Secretary, as we've been on this call
> here
> > > this
> > > > evening I was actually with a group of some cattle producers and have
> > been
> > > > relaying some information along to them. And the question has come up
> > from
> > > > them, why are we still running the review of tests that came from an
> > > > inconclusive back in November of 2004?
> > > >
> > > > "They're also interested in why we upped the sample amount to such,
> the
> > 20
> > > > times, in order to get that positive?
> > > >
> > > > "And also just wondering how you feel, will there have to be as much
> of
> > a
> > > > public relations campaign as there was back in December 2003, or do
> you
> > > feel
> > > > like consumer confidence will remain?"
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Consumer confidence I am very, very confident will
> > remain.
> > > > Again I point out that this is a situation where the firewalls work.
> We
> > do
> > > > not have a human health risk here. This animal did not enter the food
> > > chain.
> > > >
> > > > "So from that standpoint I feel very strongly that it's important that
> > we
> > > > get the facts out, and we have done that. In terms of the question
> about
> > > why
> > > > the additional testing, if you'll remember there was discussion about,
> > > well,
> > > > maybe some additional testing should be done. I believe Secretary
> > Veneman
> > > > also wanted to get a notion as to whether the surveillance process was
> > > > actually touching all of the right bases. And the Inspector General,
> as
> > > you
> > > > know who operates independently in our federal form of government,
> > decided
> > > > to request the additional testing. And so that's how that came about.
> > > >
> > > > "Doctor, maybe you could offer some thoughts on anything I might have
> > > missed
> > > > there in that answer."
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I would only add, when you talk about the enrichment of
> > the
> > > > sample that's something that is allowed with regards to that test and
> > the
> > > > protocol in order to determine if there's low levels of abnormal
> protein
> > > > present. And that's a technique that has been probably used in more
> > recent
> > > > years and is something that is widely used."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Let me just wrap up with just a couple of quick
> > > > comments, and then we'll call it good for the night and we'll let you
> > get
> > > > off the line.
> > > >
> > > > "The first thing I want to mention again is that there is no risk to
> > human
> > > > health here. The animal did not get in the food or the feed chain. The
> > > > firewalls that the USDA put in place some time ago once again have
> shown
> > > > that they do work. I do not believe that the information that we have
> > > > released should impact our discussions with Japan, Korea or Canada.
> > Again,
> > > > age of animal alone would indicate we're dealing with a much different
> > > > circumstance.
> > > >
> > > > "And with that, I do want to point out that as the doctor indicated
> even
> > > > this third test is not a confirmed case of BSE. Additional testing
> will
> > > > occur. The other two animals did test negative on the additional
> > testing.
> > > >
> > > > Doctor, do you want to offer any thoughts to wrap up?"
> > > >
> > > > DR. CLIFFORD: "I don't have anything additional, sir."
> > > >
> > > > SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay, great. Thank you, everyone."
> > > >
> > > > MR. LOYD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Dr. Clifford's statement is now
> on
> > > the
> > > > USDA website, and we will also have a transcript of this call
> available
> > on
> > > > the website, and we will send it out tomorrow morning. As we gather
> > > > additional information, we will make that available, but at this point
> > we
> > > do
> > > > not anticipate any further announcements over the weekend. So have a
> > good
> > > > weekend, everyone."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Last Modified: 06/10/2005
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> > > > tentid=2005/06/0207.xml
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >"The fourth point that I want to make is that the test was also done,
> > the
> > > > Western Blot test, on the two other animals and those test results
> were
> > > > negative. <
> > > >
> > > > WHY, why was WB not done on this Texas cow?
> > > >
> > > > Seems Texas has a serious problem with complying with proper protocol
> > i.e.
> > > > rendering the stumbling and staggering mad cow without any test at all
> > AND
> > > > then this downer
> > > > cow without WB.
> > > >
> > > > WHO gave the authority NOT to use WB???
> > > > PROBABLY the same person that gave the OK to import that banned
> > > > Canadian beef.
> > > >
> > > > THE cow first tested positive with rapid tests.
> > > > Seems some media are saying the cow first tested
> > > > negative. this is simply not true.
> > > >
> > > > TSS
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:27 PM
> > > > Subject: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary
> > > Mike
> > > > Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE
> > > > Inconclusive Test Results
> > > >
> > > > #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
> > > ####################
> > > >
> > >
> > > #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
> > ####################
> > >
> >
> > #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
> ####################
> >
>