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

From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: June 2005 Update on BSE Feed Enforcement Activities MAD COW JOKE
Date: June 29, 2005 at 1:59 pm PST

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: "Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: June 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE and TSE surveillance update in the USA

> Greetings list members,
>
> i have a mad cow joke for you today and a question please ;
>
> here's the joke ;-)
>
>
> Release No. 0036.04
>
> Contact:
> Office of Communications (202) 720-4623
>
>
> Dr. J.B. Penn
> Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services
> and other USDA and FDA Officials - Press Briefing on BSE - U.S. Embassy
> Auditorium
> Tokyo, Japan
> January 23, 2004
>
>
> CRAWFORD: snip...
>
>
> >>>Now let me address the problem, finally, of whether or not small
> facilities are involved. Even if a person in the United States buys only
> one bag of feed a year to feed half a cow, they still have to be in complete
> compliance with this particular regulation. The fines for non-compliance are
> extraordinary. If you violate the animal feed regulation of the United
> States, you may be fined up to two million dollars for each violation or two
> million dollars per day as long as you are out of compliance. You also may
> face a jail term of five years for each violation. Nobody wants that. And
> FDA is convinced there are no lapses in this. <<<
>
>
>
> http://www.usda.gov/Newsroom/0036.04.html
>
>
>
> here's the question ;
>
> could someone please tell me if these following company's were fined for
> there mad cow feed ban violations, and if so, please tell me how many
> millions and millions they were fined ; where did all this money go? we
> could test every cow for nothing for BSE/TSE for the next 100 years with all
> this money crawford speaks of... ;
>
>
>
> THE TEXAS GONZALES/PURINA INCIDENT SHOWED THAT 5.5 GRAMS OF
> RUMINANT PROTEIN WAS FED TO CATTLE ;
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> P01-05
> January 30, 2001
> Print Media:
> 301-827-6242
> Broadcast Media:
> 301-827-3434
> Consumer Inquiries:
> 888-INFO-FDA
>
> FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT
>
> Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests
> taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot
> that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic
> cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997
> prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants.
> Results indicate that a very low level of
> prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.
>
> FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in
> total, five-and-one-half grams -
> approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals
> weigh approximately 600 pounds.
>
> It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in
> origin (therefore not likely to contain infected
> material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a
> very low level, and fed only once. The
> potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even
> if the feed were contaminated.
>
> According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy
> Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators
> and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One
> important defense is to prohibit the use of any
> ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined
> with other steps, like U.S. Department
> of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals
> from affected countries, these steps
> represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."
>
> Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless
> announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222
> of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed
> containing the prohibited material. Therefore,
> meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA
> believes any cattle that did not consume
> feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident,
> and should be handled in the beef supply
> clearance process as usual.
>
> FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first
> reporting the human error that resulted in the
> misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely
> with State and Federal authorities.
>
> This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into
> place is essential for protecting the food
> supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned,
> to ensure these rules are followed
> routinely.
>
> FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials
> to ensure that companies and
> individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the
> U.S. food supply.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html
>
>
>
> PRODUCT
> Product is custom made deer feed packaged in 100 lb. poly bags. The
> product has no labeling. Recall # V-003-5.
> CODE
> The product has no lot code. All custom made feed purchased between June
> 24, 2004 and September 8, 2004.
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
> Farmers Elevator Co, Houston, OH, by telephone and letter dated
> September 27, 2004. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
> REASON
> Feed may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues which is
> prohibited in ruminant feed.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> Approximately 6 tons.
> DISTRIBUTION
> OH.
>
> END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR October 20, 2004
>
> http://www.fda.gov/
>
>
> RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
> ______________________________
>
> PRODUCT
> Unlabeled bulk "Cattle Feed" sold by weight to user/farmers who pick it
> up at the firm. Product is a ruminant feed used to feed beef cattle.
> Recall # V-046-3.
> CODE
> Product is bulk and uncoded.
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
> Zephyr Feed Company, Zephyrhills, FL., by letters on March 19, 2003 and
> March 26, 2003. FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
> REASON
> Cattle feed was distributed to farmers that may contain prohibited
> protein for ruminants.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> 517,990 lbs.
> DISTRIBUTION
> FL.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enfor...3/ENF00792.html
>
>
> RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE--CLASS II
>
> _____________________________
> PRODUCT
> Red Rooster Booster, Super Gallo (brand), 60 capsules. Recall # V-011-3.
> CODE
> All codes.
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
> Thomas Laboratories, Tolleson, AZ, by letters on or about November 8,
> 2002. State initiated recall is ongoing.
> REASON
> Is not labeled "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants" and contains a
> bovine tissue derivative.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> Unknown.
> DISTRIBUTION
> Nationwide.
>
> _____________________________
>
> PRODUCT
> CATTLE FEED, Flock #999, Date: 12/5/02, Quantity 8000, Load A, Feed
> C205, Grower# Z001, Tag C100. Recall # V-012-3.
> CODE
> C-205, C-210, C-220, C-302, C-406 and all other codes manufactured and
> distributed by Grove River Mills, Inc.,
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
> Grove River Mills Inc., Pendergrass, GA, by telephone and letter on
> December 9, 2002. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
> REASON
> Cattle Feed contaminated with prohibited materials.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> 235,668 lbs.
> DISTRIBUTION
> GA.
>
> END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2003
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enfor...3/ENF00781.html
>
> another description here;
>
>
> FEBRUARY 2003
>
> PRODUCT Red Rooster Booster, Super Gallo (brand), 60 capsules.
>
> CODE All codes.
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Thomas Laboratories, Tolleson, AZ,
>
> REASON Is not labeled "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants" and
> contains a bovine tissue derivative.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE Unknown.
> DISTRIBUTION Nationwide.
>
>
> PRODUCT CATTLE FEED, Flock #999, Date: 12/5/02, Quantity 8000, Load A,
> Feed C205, Grower# Z001, Tag C100.
>
> CODE C-205, C-210, C-220, C-302, C-406 and all other codes manufactured
> and distributed by Grove River Mills, Inc.,
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Grove River Mills Inc., Pendergrass, GA,
>
> REASON Cattle Feed contaminated with prohibited materials.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 235,668 lbs.
> DISTRIBUTION GA.
>
> http://www.recalls.org/vet2003.html
>
>
> Message Title: ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations USA
> Author: TSS Posted: 01\16\2003 16:09
> Location: TEXAS
> Message:
> Subject: Re: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ???
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:16:10 +0000
> From: Steve Dealler
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> Organization: Netscape Online member
> To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
> References: <3E075C47.3080506@wt.net> <3E21BA6C.3040900@wt.net>
>
> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
>
> This was absolutely excellent for Terry to have got this from the US
> Government...you should have tried getting this sort of thing from MAFF in
> the UK
> at the beginning of the nineties!
> Steve Dealler
>
> "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." wrote:
>
> > ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
> >
> > Greetings List Members,
> >
> > as you know, i finally had to request to the FOIA
> > for the USA madcow feed ban warning letters. so i thought
> > some of you may be interested in an update on this matter.
> >
> > so here it is;
> >
> > Subject: Request to FDA via FOIA of ALL USA Ruminant-to-Ruminant Feed
> > Ban Violations Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003
> > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:32:43 -0600
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > To: BSE-L
> >
> > Food and Drug Administration
> > Office of Information Resources Management
> > Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35)
> > 5600 Fishers Lane
> > Rockville, MD 20857
> >
> > Or requests may be sent via fax to: (301) 443-1726. If there are
> > problems sending a fax, call (301) 443-2414.
> >
> > 1/6/03
> >
> > Request to FDA via FOIA of ALL USA Ruminant-to-Ruminant Feed Ban
> > Violations Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003
> >
> > Greetings FDA and To Whom it may concern,
> >
> > i wish to request all ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations from Jan.
> > 2001 to Jan. 2003. it seems none has been posted since May 2001 on the
> > FDA site. I also kindly request that all fees be wavered due to the fact
> > this is public information, public health is at risk, and this
> > will be distributed 'freely' to the public...
> >
> > thank you,
> > kind regards,
> >
> > I am sincerely,
> >
> > Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> > P.O. Box Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
> > CJD Watch
> > http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/349/part1cjd.htm
> > ==========================================================
> >
> > now since then, just this past Friday 1/10/03, i get this from
> > FDA;
> >
> > REPLY FROM DPH/FDA to TSS;
> >
> > PLEASE note, my request was for all R-T-R feed ban
> > violations from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003. BUT in the
> > reply, they posted Jan. 2002 to Jan. 2003. i called
> > and this is to be corrected. hopefully this FOIA
> > request will ignite some enthusiasm from the FDA
> > into posting to the public any R-T-R MAD COW
> > FEED BAN violations, since GW et al new policy
> > on secrecy took effect on this matter in May of 2002
> > (correcting my below 'since May 2001).
> >
> > TSS
> >
> > Department of Health & Human Services
> >
> > Food and Drug Administration
> > Rockville MD 20857
> >
> > 1/7/03
> >
> > In reply refer to;
> >
> > xxxxxxx
> >
> > Dear Requester,
> >
> > The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received your
> > Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records
> > regarding;
> >
> > RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED - BAN VIOLATIONS 1/02 - 1/03
> >
> > We will respond as soon as possible and may charge you a fee
> > for processing your request. If you have any questions
> > about your request, please call Edna G. Wilkerson,
> > Information Technician, at 301-827-6564 or write to us
> > at;
> >
> > Food and Drug Administration
> > Division of Freedom of Information
> > 5600 Fishers Lance, HFI - 35
> > Rockville, MD 20857
> >
> > If you call or write, use the reference number above
> > which will help us to answer your questions more quickly...
> > ===========================================================
> > now, Sunday, i read this in the Houston Chronicle 1/12/03;
> >
> > SENATOR AIMS TO UPGRADE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
> >
> > TEXAS Sen. John Coprnyn says he wants to improve public access to
> > government records in Washington, a position that appears to put
> > him at odds with the Bush administration.
> >
> > Cornyn, a moderate Republican who sits on the Senate Judiciary
> > Committee, said he'll work on legislation in the coming weeks to
> > improve the Freedom of Information Act.
> >
> > "FOIA needs to be strenghened," he said, "We need to quicken the
> > turnaround time and create a mechanism that allows an indepentent,
> > third party to decide whether a record should be kept secret."
> >
> > Echoing sentiments he expressed while serving as Texas attorney
> > general, Cornyn added: "I believe in a system of governement
> > that allows consent of the people. And people can't consent if they
> > don't what their elected officials are doing."
> >
> > Since taking office two years ago, the Bush Administration has
> > taken steps to restrict access to governement information, an effort
> > that was accelerated in the name of national security following
> > the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks......
> >
> > Greetings again BSE-L list members,
> >
> > how would _USA_ ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning
> > letters have anything to do with terrorism and National
> > Security?
> >
> > you can see a list of sample USA madcow warning letters;
> >
> > http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912238.html
> >
> > FYI, please see a bit of history on this topic;
> >
> > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:04:42 -0700
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS USA 'update' (where did
> > all Terry's MAD COW warning letters go?)
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > Food and Drug Administration Kansas City District Southwest Region 11630
> > West 60 Street P.O. Box 15905 Lenexa, Kansas 66265-4905 Telephone: (913)
> > 752-2100
> >
> > July 29, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED WARNING LETTER
> > Ref. KAN 2002-09
> >
> > Jerry Behimer, Owner Bakery Trading Company/Ingredient Exchange 401 N.
> > Lindbergh Blvd., Suite 315 St. Louis, MO 63141-7816
> >
> > Dear Mr. Behimer:
> >
> > An inspection of your animal feed premix-manufacturing operations,
> > located at 14521 2nd Ave., Ottumwa, Iowa, was conducted by an
> > Investigator from our office on June 18 & 19, 2002. During this
> > inspection, a significant deviation from the requirements set forth in
> > Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins
> > Prohibited in Ruminant Feed was identified. The regulation is intended
> > to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform
> > Encephalopathy (BSE). Under 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(g)(2), such a deviation
> > causes products being manufactured and/or distributed by your facility
> > to be deemed misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(l) of the
> > Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), and these products may
> > not be lawfully introduced, or delivered for introduction, into
> > interstate commerce.
> >
> > Our investigation found a failure to label your Powdered Cooked Beef,
> > Product No. 5013, produced during the period of 2/13/02 to approximately
> > 4/18/02, with the cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other
> > Ruminants," as required by 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(d). The FDA suggests the
> > statement be distinguished by different type size or color, or other
> > means of highlighting the statement so that it is easily noticed by a
> > purchaser.
> >
> > The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from
> > the regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed
> > use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
> > the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the
> law.
> >
> > You should take prompt action to correct this violation, and you should
> > establish a system whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to
> > promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action
> > without further notice, such as seizure and/or injunction.
> >
> > It is necessary for you to take action on this matter now. We request
> > you provide our office documentation of corrective action and final
> > disposition for Lot 030402, approximately 21 tons, which was on hand
> > during the inspection. Let this office know in writing within fifteen
> > (15) working days from the date you received this letter what steps you
> > are taking to correct the problem.
> >
> > Your reply should be sent to Nadine Nanko Johnson, Compliance Officer,
> > at the above address.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > /s/
> >
> > Charles W. Sedgwick
> >
> > District Director
> >
> > Kansas City District
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g3430d.htm
> >
> > Food and Drug Administration Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd
> > Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021-4421 Telephone: 425-466-6766 FAX: 426-483-4996
> >
> > May 7, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED In reply refer to
> > Warning Letter SEA 02-46 WARNING LETTER
> >
> > Mr. Philip C. Anderson, General Manager Darling International, Inc. 2041
> > Marc Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98401
> >
> > Dear Mr. Anderson:
> >
> > An inspection of your rendering operation conducted by Investigator
> > Donald B. McKechnie, on February 22 and 26, 2002, found a significant
> > deviation from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal
> > Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
> > Feed. The regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
> > amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Such deviation
> > causes products being manufactured and/or distributed by your facility
> > to be misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(f) of the Federal
> > Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
> >
> > Our investigation found a failure to consistently label your meat and
> > bone meal product shipped to [redacted], with the required cautionary
> > statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants". The meat and bone
> > meal contains beef offal along with other ingredients including chicken,
> > fish, and pork. The FDA suggests the statement be distinguished by
> > different type size or color or other means of highlighting the
> > statement so that it is easily noticed by a purchaser.
> >
> > The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from
> > the regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed
> > use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
> > the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the
> > law. We have enclosed a copy of the FDA?s Small Entity Compliance Guide
> > to assist you with complying with the regulation.
> >
> > You should take prompt action to correct this violation, and you should
> > establish a system whereby such violation does not recur. Failure to
> > promptly correct this violation may result in regulatory action without
> > further notice, such as seizure and/or injunction.
> >
> > You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of
> > receipt of this letter, of the steps you have taken to bring your firm
> > into compliance with the law. Your response should include an
> > explanation of each step being taken to correct the violation, and to
> > prevent its recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed in 15
> > working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the
> > corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available
> > documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.
> >
> > Please send your reply to the Food and Drug Administration, Attention:
> > Thomas S. Piekarski, Compliance Officer, 22201 23rd Drive SE, Bothell,
> > Washington 98021. If you have questions regarding any issue in this
> > letter, please contact Mr. Piekarski at (425) 483-4975. Sincerely,
> > Charles Breen District Director
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g3276d.htm
> >
> > where, oh where, did all Terry's mad cow feed ban warning letters go$
> >
> > FDA Cuts Back on Warnings
> >
> > 10/01/02
> >
> > WASHINGTON -- The Food and Drug Administration has substantially cut
> > back on warnings sent to companies that run afoul of its rules, a move
> > the agency contends will result in more-effective enforcement but that
> > critics say lets violators off the hook.
> >
> > The drop results from a policy change in late February that requires the
> > FDA chief counsel's office to clear all warning letters to ensure they
> > are legally sound. Before the change, division and district offices
> > around the country issued such letters unilaterally. In the six months
> > since, the agency issued 279 warning letters, a drop of 64% from the
> > same period last year, a review of agency records shows. The FDA says
> > the chief counsel's office rejected only 6% of the 699 warning letters
> > and other citations it reviewed. At the same time, division and district
> > enforcers may be holding back letters they once would have sent.
> >
> > SEE FULL STORY
> >
> > http://online.wsj.com/
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:21:00 -0700
> > Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Subject: 'TONNAGE' OF TAINTED FEED $ what's up with the mad cow warning
> > letters
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > since the FDA has apparently stopped issuing some warning letters;
> >
> > 10/7/02
> >
> > Senate Questions FDA Commissioner Nominee
> >
> > In testimony today before the U.S. Senate, Dr. Mark McClellan, the Bush
> > administration nominee for Commissioner of Food and Drugs, said that
> > under his leadership, the FDA would uphold its enforcement authority to
> > ensure the safety and effectiveness of the products it regulates and to
> > ensure that accurate and truthful information is conveyed to the public.
> >
> > Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education,
> > Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, expressed concern at the start of
> > the hearing that the FDA may be backing away from its regulatory
> > authority, noting a drop in the number of Warning Letters issued by the
> > agency, rumors that the FDA may regulate certain contact lenses as
> > cosmetics rather than as devices and the agency's re-examination of its
> > policies in light of First Amendment challenges.
> >
> > Although McClellan did not comment directly on any of the specific
> > examples cited by Kennedy, the nominee said that he sees "no intent on
> > FDA's part to retreat from its mission" of protecting the public health...
> >
> > snip...
> >
> > http://www.thompson.com/fda
> >
> > maybe i was not too far off when i acting in haste on the previous
> > thread on BSE-L, see archived thread;
> >
> > Subject: USA/THOMPSON TURNS TO COMMUNISM TACTICS, FDA TURNS TO SECRECY
> > ON MAD COW FEED WARNING LETTERS Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:07:02 -0700
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." Reply-To: BSE-L
> >
> > so, i was nosing around the FDA warning letters and other files, came
> > across these and thought since 1/2 to 1 GRAM is lethal to a cow, i
> > thought these TONNAGE in some of these violations i ran across most
> > interesting. no telling how many dead road-kill CWD infected carcasses
> > were rendered into this, along with whatever type TSE in USA cattle, and
> > we can't forget about all the scrapie infected sheep that may have been
> > added to the soup. with a combination of CWD, SCRAPIE, TME and all the
> > different variants that may have come from them over the years, what in
> > the world would you call the TSEs in USA cattle, once they test to find,
> > and then find? could be a nasty one. or maybe none at all? doubtful
> > though (just my opinion, if i still allowed one here);
> >
> > PRODUCT BioFlavor F2425, BioFlavor F21002 and BioFlavor C20058. The
> > product, packaged in 50 lb. bags, is labeled in part, " *** PALATABILITY
> > ENHANCER INTENDED FOR CAT FOOD USE AT LESS THAN 10% *** INGREDIENT
> > LISTING: *** Beef Broth *** ". Recall # V-140-2 CODE Product Codes F2425
> > 107B-RB-1 107B-RB-2 149C 201D 202C 205D 210A F21002 143B 143D 146D 144B
> > 144D 139D 142D 150D 151D 152C 152D 201C 205C 206C 208A 211A C20058 143D
> > 144C 146C 208B RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Bioproducts,
> > Inc., Fairlawn, OH, by telephone and letter on April 5, 2002.
> > Manufacturer: Bioproducts, Inc., Aurora, MO. Firm initiated recall is
> > ongoing. REASON Animal feed product with beef protein does not contain
> > required BSE statement on labels.
> >
> > VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 354,150 lbs.
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION TX, KS, MO and MI. _______________________
> >
> > PRODUCT Steamed Bonemeal in 50-lb. bags, product code C# 13581, packaged
> > under two different labels: Premium Steamed Bonemeal Manufactured by
> > Buchheit Premium Feeds, Perryville, MO, and Steamed Bonemeal
> > Manufactured for Siemer's Enterprises Inc., Teutopolis, IL. Recall #
> > V-141-2. CODE Not coded. RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Buchheit, Inc.,
> > Perryville, MO, by telephone on May 14, 2002. FDA initiated recall is
> > ongoing. REASON Label lacks BSE warning statement.
> >
> > VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> >
> > Approx. 902/50-lb. bags.
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION MO and IL.
> >
> > END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JUNE 5, 2002
> >
> > ####
> >
> > PRODUCT
> >
> > The following custom mixed animal feeds are recalled --- a)
> > [non-ruminant]: Horse Feed, Hog Feed, and 14% Pig Feed. Recall #
> > V-157-2; b) [ruminant]: Dairy Feed, Steer Feed, New Goat Feed, Cattle
> > Feed, and Beef Feed. Recall # V-158-2. CODE The product is coded only
> > with the manufacturing date and invoice numbers. All feed products
> > manufactured and shipped since July 9, 2001 are affected by this recall.
> > RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Shepard Grain Company, Inc.,
> > Urbana, OH, by telephone on January 11, 2002. Manufacturer: Shepard
> > Grain Company, Inc., W. Liberty, OH. FDA initiated recall is complete.
> > REASON Ruminant and non-ruminant animal feeds contain BSE prohibited
> > material, and are either misbranded or adulterated.
> >
> > VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> >
> > 41,129 LBS (20.5 tons).
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION OH.
> >
> > END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 28, 2002 ####
> >
> > PRODUCT:
> >
> > Buckeye 40% Poultry Concentrate. Recall #V-016-1. CODES: The bags are
> > uncoded. Firm is recalling product manufactured since December 1998;
> > however, they are only completing field corrections on product
> > manufactured within the last six months (November 2000). MANUFACTURER:
> > Yachere Feed, Inc. Rockwood, Pennsylvania. RECALLED BY: Manufacturer, by
> > visit on 3/19/01 and 3/20/01. Firm-initiated recall complete.
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION:
> >
> > Pennsylvania.
> >
> > QUANTITY:
> >
> > Nine containers, each weighing 100 pounds.
> >
> > REASON: The animal feed contains product derived from mammalian tissues
> > and must bear the statement "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants"
> > on the label to prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE
> > through feed. This statement does not appear on the label. ________
> >
> > PRODUCT:
> >
> > "Our Own Pig & Hog Grower" hog feed, packaged in 50 pound bags, with
> > paperboard tags sewn onto the bags. Recall #V-017-1. CODES: The bags are
> > uncoded. MANUFACTURER: The Perry Coal and Feed Company, Perry, Ohio.
> > RECALLED BY: Manufacturer, by telephone on March 22, 2001.
> > Firm-initiated recall complete.
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION:
> >
> > Ohio.
> >
> > QUANTITY:
> >
> > Approximately 350 pounds of hog feed (7/50 pound bags).
> >
> > REASON: The animal feed contains protein derived from mammalian tissues
> > and must bear the statement "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants"
> > on the label to prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE
> > through feed. This statement does not appear on the label. ________
> >
> > PRODUCT
> >
> > Loweís 40% Hog Concentrate - swine feed for mixing grower and finisher
> > rations, in 50-pound bulk bags. Recall #V-057-0. CODE All codes between
> > August 1, 1999 and November 23, 1999. MANUFACTURER Lowe's Feed & Grain,
> > Inc., Bowling Green, Kentucky. RECALLED BY Manufacturer, by letter dated
> > November 18, 1999, and by telephone. Firm-initiated recall complete.
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION
> >
> > Ohio.
> >
> > QUANTITY
> >
> > 12.46 tons were distributed.
> >
> > REASON Product contained protein derived from mammalian tissue and
> > according to regulation must bear the statement "Do not feed to cattle
> > or other ruminants" on the label. This regulation is designed to prevent
> > the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed. This statement
> > does not appear on the label. ________
> >
> > RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETMED -- CLASS II
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > RECALL NUMBER, PRODUCT AND CODE: V-353-1 through V-370-1, Chicken feed
> > products: Recall # Tag # Product V-353-1 587 B. Challenger Scratch Feed
> > V-354-1 588 B. 18% Gamebird Conditioner V-355-1 2060 B. Kickin' Chicken
> > Premium Game Cock Feed V-356-1 2066 B. Kickin' Chicken Premium Gamebird
> > 16% V-357-1 586 B. Scratch Grain V-358-1 2051 B. Pit Performer 17%
> > V-359-1 575 B. Classic Yard Feed V-360-1 576 Eliminator Maintainer
> > V-361-1 578 Eliminator Conditioner V-362-1 586 Producer Scratch Grain
> > V-363-1 4587 Producer 12% Gamebird Yard Feed V-364-1 2065 Cleveland
> > Trophy Cock Feed V-365-1 80181AAA Consolidated Hen Scratch V-366-1 2051
> > B&B Maintenance 12 V-367-1 2052 B&B Conditioner 14 V-368-1 2050 B&B
> > Scratch 10 V-369-1 4590 Kingsport Original Prater Mix V-370-1 2062 PC 10
> > (unlabeled bags) ALL CODES The "B" indicates that the Burkmann Feeds
> > brand name is listed on the tag labels. The suspect products are also
> > bagged and distributed under the following private labels:
> >
> > Producer Feeds, Louisville, Kentucky Kingsport Milling, Kingsport,
> > Tennessee Consolidated Nutrition, L.C., Omaha, Nebraska B&B Feeds,
> > Knoxville, Tennessee Eagle Roller Mill Co., Inc., Shelby, North Carolina
> > Central Farm Supply of Kentucky, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky
> >
> > REASON: The chicken feed products may contain proteins derived from
> > mammalian tissues. The products are not labeled with the required BSE
> > caution statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants."
> >
> > MANUFACTURER/RECALLING FIRM: Burkmann Feeds, London, Kentucky
> >
> > RECALLED BY: On May 5, 2001, the firm mailed recall letters with
> > attached BSE sticker-labels to all customers outside the state of
> > Kentucky. The recall notices were hand- delivered to customers within
> > the state of Kentucky by Burkmann's Sales Representatives. Customers
> > were asked to complete and return a recall response form that was
> > included with each letter documenting the numbers of bags and varieties
> > of products for which the customers affixed the BSE sticker-labels. The
> > firm expanded their recall on May 10, 2001, and mailed recall letters
> > with BSE labels and response forms to the affected customers. FIRM
> > INITIATED RECALL:
> >
> > Ongoing DISTRIBUTION: KY, GA, NC, TN, VA
> >
> > QUANTITY:
> >
> > 933 tons _______________________________
> >
> > RECALL NUMBER, PRODUCT AND CODE: V-377-1, Renner's brand 45% meat and
> > bone meal, packed in 100 pound bags. REASON: The product contained
> > protein material derived from bovine mammalian tissues; however, the
> > bags are not labeled with the required BSE cautionary statement.
> > MANUFACTURER/RECALLING FIRM: F. W. Renner & Sons, Inc., Canton, Ohio
> > RECALLED BY: The recalling firm contacted the consignees by telephone on
> > June 19, 2001. FIRM INITIATED RECALL: Complete
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION: OH
> >
> > QUANTITY: 2,500 lbs _______________________________
> >
> > RECALL NUMBER, PRODUCT AND CODE: V-378-1 to V-384-1, RenPro 58% (brand
> > name) swine and poultry feeds in bulk, as follows: V-378-1 - Poultry
> > Layer #215 - guaranteed analysis 15% crude protein, 3% crude fat, and
> > 3.5% crude fiber. V-379-1 - Poultry Layer #216 - guaranteed analysis 16%
> > crude protein, 3% crude fat, and 3.5% crude fiber. V-380-1 - Poultry
> > Layer #217 - guaranteed analysis 17% crude protein, 3% crude fat, and
> > 3.5% crude fiber. V-381-1 - Poultry Layer #218 - guaranteed analysis 18%
> > crude protein, 3% crude fat, and 3.5% crude fiber. V-382-1 - Poultry
> > Layer #219 - guaranteed analysis 19% crude protein, 3.5% crude fat, and
> > 4% crude fiber. V-383-1 - Poultry Prelay #115 - guaranteed analysis 16%
> > crude protein, 3% crude fat, and 5% crude fiber. V-384-1 - Poultry
> > Developer #110 - guaranteed analysis 14% crude protein, 3% crude fat,
> > and 5.5% crude fiber. MANFACTURER: Esbenshade Mills, Mount Joy, PA
> > RECALLED BY: On 5/24/01, the manufacturer notified their customers of
> > the labeling requirement via letter. FIRM INITIATED RECALL: Complete
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION: PA
> >
> > QUANTITY: None. The product turn over is two weeks or less.
> >
> > END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 25, 2001.
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/
> >
>
>
>
> RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
> ______________________________
>
> PRODUCT
> Unlabeled bulk "Cattle Feed" sold by weight to user/farmers who pick it
> up at the firm. Product is a ruminant feed used to feed beef cattle.
> Recall # V-046-3.
> CODE
> Product is bulk and uncoded.
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
> Zephyr Feed Company, Zephyrhills, FL., by letters on March 19, 2003 and
> March 26, 2003. FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
> REASON
> Cattle feed was distributed to farmers that may contain prohibited
> protein for ruminants.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> 517,990 lbs.
> DISTRIBUTION
> FL.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2003/ENF00792.html
>
>
> RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE--CLASS II
>
> _____________________________
> PRODUCT
> Red Rooster Booster, Super Gallo (brand), 60 capsules. Recall # V-011-3.
> CODE
> All codes.
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
> Thomas Laboratories, Tolleson, AZ, by letters on or about November 8,
> 2002. State initiated recall is ongoing.
> REASON
> Is not labeled "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants" and contains a
> bovine tissue derivative.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> Unknown.
> DISTRIBUTION
> Nationwide.
>
> _____________________________
>
> PRODUCT
> CATTLE FEED, Flock #999, Date: 12/5/02, Quantity 8000, Load A, Feed
> C205, Grower# Z001, Tag C100. Recall # V-012-3.
> CODE
> C-205, C-210, C-220, C-302, C-406 and all other codes manufactured and
> distributed by Grove River Mills, Inc.,
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
> Grove River Mills Inc., Pendergrass, GA, by telephone and letter on
> December 9, 2002. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
> REASON
> Cattle Feed contaminated with prohibited materials.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
> 235,668 lbs.
> DISTRIBUTION
> GA.
>
> END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2003
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2003/ENF00781.html
>
> another description here;
>
>
> FEBRUARY 2003
>
> PRODUCT Red Rooster Booster, Super Gallo (brand), 60 capsules.
>
> CODE All codes.
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Thomas Laboratories, Tolleson, AZ,
>
> REASON Is not labeled "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants" and
> contains a bovine tissue derivative.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE Unknown.
> DISTRIBUTION Nationwide.
>
>
> PRODUCT CATTLE FEED, Flock #999, Date: 12/5/02, Quantity 8000, Load A,
> Feed C205, Grower# Z001, Tag C100.
>
> CODE C-205, C-210, C-220, C-302, C-406 and all other codes manufactured
> and distributed by Grove River Mills, Inc.,
> RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Grove River Mills Inc., Pendergrass, GA,
>
> REASON Cattle Feed contaminated with prohibited materials.
> VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 235,668 lbs.
> DISTRIBUTION GA.
>
> http://www.recalls.org/vet2003.html
>
> Red Rooster Booster - 60 Capsules $7.95
> 210-4610-C03
>
>
>
> Concentrated nutritional supplement for body building gamebirds.
>
> http://www.thomasveterinarydrug.com/mailorder/catalog/product_info.php?manuf
> acturers_id=11&products_id=65
>
>
> interesting;
> Bone Meal with D3 - 25 lb. Powder $69.95
> 520-0210-P09
>
>
> http://www.thomasveterinarydrug.com/mailorder/catalog/product_info.php?manuf
> acturers_id=11&products_id=651
>
>
> THOSE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY I HAVE IN MY FILES, BUT AGAIN ;
>
>
> >>>you may be fined up to two million dollars for each violation or two
> million dollars per day as long as you are out of compliance<<<
>
> SHOW me these millions collected in fines??? more lies. for more listing of
> more mad cow feed ban violations,
> see below ;
>
>
> Docket No, 04-047-l Regulatory Identification No. (RIN) 091O-AF46 ...
>
> https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08
> d?OpenDocument
>
>
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
>
>
> 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
>
>
> TSS
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:55 PM
> Subject: June 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread
> of BSE and TSE surveillance update in the USA
>
>
> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
>
> From: TSS ()
> Subject: June 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread
> of BSE and TSE surveillance update in the USA
> Date: June 26, 2005 at 4:49 pm PST
>
> June 20, 2005
>
>
> June 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
>
> To help prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed in
> the United States, FDA implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of
> most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21
> Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant
> Feed Ban , became effective on August 4, 1997.
>
> This is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant feed
> regulation. FDA's CVM has assembled data from the inspections that have been
> conducted AND whose final inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's
> inspection database as of June 11, 2005. As of June 11, 2005, FDA had
> received over 37,000 inspection reports. The majority of these inspections
> (around 68%) were conducted by State officials under contract to FDA, with
> the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
>
> Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to
> reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the
> objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are
> reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated
> (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
>
> An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable
> conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in
> order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation.
> An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of
> manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not
> contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI
> violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions
> to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
>
> A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or
> practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory
> significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of
> findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with
> VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These
> include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions
> involving non-ruminant feeds.
>
> An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or
> practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the
> documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
>
> The results to date are reported here both by “segment of industry” and “in
> total”. NOTE – A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a
> result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually
> exclusive.
>
> RENDERERS
>
> These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal
> proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein
> blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
>
> Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
> 263
>
> Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
> feed – 176 (67% of those active firms inspected)
>
> Of the 176 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
> inspection revealed that:
>
> 2 firms (1.1%) were classified as OAI
>
> 8 firms (4.5%) were classified as VAI
>
> LICENSED FEED MILLS
>
> FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The
> license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent
> drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time.
> This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under
> the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required
> to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
>
> Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
> 1,069
>
> Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
> feed – 411 (38% of those active firms inspected)
>
> Of the 411 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
> inspection revealed that:
>
> 1 firm (0.2%) was classified as OAI
>
> 7 firms (1.7%) were classified as VAI
>
> FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
>
> These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
>
> Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
> 5,145
>
> Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
> feed – 1,920 (37% of those active firms inspected)
>
> Of the 1,920 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
> inspection revealed that:
>
> 2 firms (0.1%) were classified as OAI
>
> 27 firms (1.4%) were classified as VAI
>
> PROTEIN BLENDERS
>
> These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing
> quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
>
> Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA --
> 329
>
> Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
> feed – 117 (36% of those active firms inspected)
>
> Of the 117 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
> inspection revealed that:
>
> 0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI
>
> 3 firms (2.6%) were classified as VAI
>
> RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS
>
> This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited
> material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
>
> Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial
> inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,550
>
> Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with
> prohibited materials – 553 (8.4% of those active firms inspected)
>
> Of the 553 of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing
> with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
>
> 5 firms (0.9%) were classified as OAI
>
> 20 firms (3.6%) were classified as VAI
>
> OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
>
> Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food
> manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal
> feed transporters.
>
> Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
> 12,575
>
> Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
> feed – 3,288 (26% of those active firms inspected)
>
> Of the 3,288 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
> inspection revealed that:
>
> 8 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI
>
> 90 firms (2.7%) were classified as VAI
>
> TOTAL FIRMS
>
> Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category;
> therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be
> more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
>
> Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
> 15,676
>
> Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
> feed – 4,093 (26% of those active firms inspected)
>
> Of the 4,093 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
> inspection revealed that:
>
> 10 firms (0.2%) were classified as OAI
>
> 98 firms (2.4%) were classified as VAI
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Issued by:
> FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
> Communications Staff, HFV-12
> 7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
> Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
> Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm
>
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cvm/bse0605.htm
>
>
> THOSE TRIPLE BSE MAD COW FIREWALLS are still leaking in June 2005. The
> 8/4/97 ruminant to ruminant feed ban was nothing more than ink on paper.
> Lets look at one year ago;
>
>
> Of the 3,444 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
> inspection revealed that:
>
> 16 firms (0.5%) were classified as OAI
>
> 89 firms (2.6%) were classified as VAI
>
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cvm/bseup112304.htm
>
>
> BSE/TSE .1 GRAM LETHAL NEW STUDY SAYS via W.H.O. Dr Maura Ricketts
> [BBC radio 4 FARM news] (audio realplayer LISTEN)
>
>
> http://www.maddeer.org/audio/BBC4farmingtoday2_1_03.ram
>
>
> THE TEXAS GONZALES/PURINA INCIDENT SHOWED THAT 5.5 GRAMS OF
> RUMINANT PROTEIN WAS FED TO CATTLE ;
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> P01-05
> January 30, 2001
> Print Media:
> 301-827-6242
> Broadcast Media:
> 301-827-3434
> Consumer Inquiries:
> 888-INFO-FDA
>
> FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT
>
> Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests
> taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot
> that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic
> cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997
> prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants.
> Results indicate that a very low level of
> prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.
>
> FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in
> total, five-and-one-half grams -
> approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals
> weigh approximately 600 pounds.
>
> It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in
> origin (therefore not likely to contain infected
> material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a
> very low level, and fed only once. The
> potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even
> if the feed were contaminated.
>
> According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy
> Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators
> and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One
> important defense is to prohibit the use of any
> ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined
> with other steps, like U.S. Department
> of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals
> from affected countries, these steps
> represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."
>
> Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless
> announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222
> of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed
> containing the prohibited material. Therefore,
> meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA
> believes any cattle that did not consume
> feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident,
> and should be handled in the beef supply
> clearance process as usual.
>
> FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first
> reporting the human error that resulted in the
> misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely
> with State and Federal authorities.
>
> This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into
> place is essential for protecting the food
> supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned,
> to ensure these rules are followed
> routinely.
>
> FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials
> to ensure that companies and
> individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the
> U.S. food supply.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html
>
>
> Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in
> primates
>
> Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog,
> Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie
> Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe
> Deslys
> Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform
> encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
> (vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral
> infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to
> transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to
> non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate
> from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological
> disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease
> at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we
> made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which
> provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can
> prevent transmission of BSE to man.
>
> Published online January 27, 2005
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa
>
>
> 06/09/05 BSE Roundtable Discussion Transcript
>
>
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> 2 Based on our scientific knowledge
>
> 3 of the disease, we have taken several key
>
> 4 steps, some of which have been in place for a
>
> 5 number of years to safeguard the health of US
>
> 6 livestock and our food supply against BSE.
>
> 7 And we are fortunate that Canada shares our
>
> 8 commitment and overall approach to dealing
>
> 9 with the disease by taking comparable and
>
> 10 effective measures consistent with our own.
>
> 11 This is especially important given that
>
> 12 historically the North American cattle
>
> 13 industry has been highly integrated.
>
> 14 In 1997, long before finding the
>
> 15 first native born case in North America, both
>
> 16 Canada and the United states implemented feed
>
> 17 regulations banning, with some exceptions,
>
> 18 the feeding of ruminant protein back to other
>
> 19 ruminants. This critical action has helped
>
> 20 prevent an outbreak similar to those seen in
>
> 21 countries where feed bans were instituted
>
> 22 only after BSE cases were identified. Expert
>
> Page 28
>
> ~4525779.txt
>
> 23 risk analyses have repeatedly shown that if
>
> 24 BSE were introduced into the US herd, the
>
> 25 feed ban, even if not perfectly enforced,
>
> 30
>
> 1 would prevent the disease from becoming
>
> 2 established and spread in the United States.
>
> 3 Additional safeguards in place,
>
> 4 both in the United States and Canada include
>
> 5 comparable and effective import restrictions,
>
> 6 slaughter restrictions, the rendering process
>
> 7 and removal of specified risk materials from
>
> 8 the human food supply. Given these
>
> 9 safeguards and the fact that BSE can be
>
> 10 transmitted only under very specific
>
> 11 conditions and not through casual contact
>
> 12 between animals, the risk of BSE transmission
>
> 13 in the United States and Canada remains
>
> 14 extremely low. ...
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/BSE_roundtable_6_9_05.pdf
>
>
> Release No. 0066.05
> Contact:
> Ed Loyd (202) 720-4623
> Jim Rogers (202) 690-4755
>
>
>
>
> USDA RELEASES TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CANADIAN
> FEED BAN
>
> WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2005
>
>
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> >>> USDA assembled a team of technical experts that arrived in Canada on
> Jan. 24 to gather all relevant information to do an in-depth assessment on
> Canada's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban and their feed ban inspection
> program. USDA took this additional step to ensure compliance with Canada's
> feed ban control measures. The feed ban has been determined to be an
> important BSE risk mitigation measure to protect animal health.
>
> The inspection team's report states that "Canada has a robust inspection
> program, that overall compliance with the feed ban is good and that the feed
> ban is reducing the risk of transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
> in the Canadian cattle population." <<<
>
>
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> tentid=2005/02/0066.xml
>
>
> HOLY MAD COW, this is like the blind leading the blind. the total lack of
> BSE protocol here again shows that the USDA/APHIS et al should NOT be giving
> any expert BSE advise to anyone. ...TSS
>
>
>
> Questions and Answers on BSE
> (Items 14-22 added on May 18, 2005)
>
>
> [Overall BSE measures/firewalls]
>
>
> Are all cattle inspected prior to slaughter?
> Why isn't USDA testing all cattle slaughtered in the United States?
> Do you think you will find more cases of BSE? (APHIS)
> [SRM]
>
> Are all SRMs properly removed? What is the procedure? How is SRM-removal and
> prevention of cross-contamination ensured?
> Isn't Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR) still being used?
> [Feed Ban]
>
> Feed ban: The United States claims that it has been implementing a ban on
> feeding mammalian proteins to ruminants since 1997, but it still is
> primarily a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. How can you prevent
> bovine-derived poultry feed, for example, from commingling with cattle feed?
> [Compliance]
>
> What was the rate of compliance of the U.S. feed ban in the initial stages
> of its implementation?
> Please provide an update on the investigation into the recent labor union
> allegation of problems with the implementation/compliance of the SRM
> regulation.
> [About A40]
>
> What is A Maturity?
> How can A40 assure that animals are younger than 21 months old?
> How can you verify that each inspector correctly and consistently performs
> the maturity grading? Do you have any monitoring system in place to assure
> the accuracy of the inspector?
> [Other]
>
> What is vCJD? How many vCJD cases have been found in the United States? What
> about the alleged cases in New Jersey?
> With respect to trade between the United States and Canada, now that Canada
> has found 3 BSE cases (4 including the one found in Washington state), how
> will the United States ensure that no BSE-infected animals will enter the
> United States when the U.S.-Canadian border opens?
> [Added May 18, 2005]
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> Q6. The United States claims that it has been implementing a ban on feeding
> mammalian proteins to ruminants since 1997, but it still is primarily a
> ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. How can you prevent bovine-derived poultry
> feed, for example, from commingling with cattle feed?
>
> A6. There is a scientific consensus that BSE cannot be transmitted through
> the use of mammalian origin meat-and-bone meal (MBM) tp swine, poultry, or
> other non-ruminant species. However, firms that handle or produce feed for
> ruminants and non-ruminants are required to have separate equipment or
> facilities or have an adequate cleanout process in order to prevent
> cross-contamination.
>
> The feed ban's restrictions on the use of mammalian protein apply only to
> its use in ruminant feed and not to feed for other species. Therefore,
> mammalian origin meat-and-bone meal (MBM) may be used in feed for swine,
> poultry, and other non-ruminant species. However, firms that handle material
> prohibited for ruminants (but allowed for non-ruminants) and also produce
> ruminant feed are required to have separate equipment or facilities or else
> have cleanout procedures adequate to prevent cross-contamination. This
> requirement applies to firms at all levels, from rendering to on-farm
> mixing. They also are required to clearly label prohibited material as not
> to be fed to ruminants. Guidance on preventing cross-contamination is
> available through FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.
>
>
> Q7. What was the rate of compliance of the U.S. feed ban in the initial
> stages of its implementation?
>
> A7. FDA initiated a feed ban in August 1997. Compliance rates for the first
> year showed higher than anticipated for a new program with 50-85 percent of
> the renderers and feed manufacturers in compliance with all aspects of the
> regulation. The majority of problems were minor, relating to noncompliance
> of simple documentation requirements as opposed to serious concerns such as
> the presence of prohibited material. As of July 2004, conditions or
> practices warranting regulatory sanctions had been found in less than one
> percent of inspected facilities. Inspection results are posted in a
> searchable online database. In August, 2005, the U.S. will have had an
> effective feed ban in place for 8 years, the time period recommended by OIE
> to effectively mitigate the spread or introduction of BSE within a domestic
> herd.
>
>
> Q14. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 19
> percent of the feed industry has not been re-inspected in the past five
> years. How can the FDA ensure the Japanese people that U.S. cattle are not
> consuming meat-and-bone meal?
>
> A14. To maximize enforcement of the ruminant feed ban, FDA inspects firms
> (renderers, feed mills, etc.) considered to be of highest risk more
> frequently than low risk firms. High-risk firms are those which manufacture,
> or process feeds or feed ingredients containing prohibited meat-and-bone
> meal (which is allowed for non-ruminants). High-risk firms are inspected at
> least once every year to ensure their compliance with FDA requirements
> preventing cross contamination.
>
> Low risk firms are those that purchase feed or feed ingredients from
> high-risk firms, but do not further process or re-manufacture the feed or
> feed ingredients. For most of these firms there is no commercial handling of
> meat-and-bone meal since they are handling only packaged products like pet
> food. As a result, it would be highly unlikely that cattle would have access
> to any of these products.
>
> Once FDA has established through inspection that these firms do not
> manufacture or process feeds containing meat-and-bone meal, the frequency of
> re-inspection is reduced so that greater enforcement activities can be
> focused on the high-risk firms. The 19 percent of the feed industry cited in
> the GAO report consist entirely of low risk firms.
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> Q22. What is the U.S. response to the EU's classification of the U.S. as
> having a risk level III in its geographical bovine encephalopathy risk
> assessment (GBR)?
>
> A22. The U.S. has expressed its disappointment to the EU over this
> determination, which was based on unsubstantiated assumptions and uses
> worst-case scenarios without proper justification. In fact, we feel that the
> U.S. has learned many lessons over the past 15 years from GBR III countries
> with demonstrated risks (as in Europe). We used this information to develop
> a strong BSE control program that ensures that the risk to consumers in the
> U.S. is negligible.
>
> More specifically, we implemented BSE control measures such as an import ban
> and a feed ban long before the 1st case of BSE was discovered in Canada. As
> a result, despite extensive surveillance, BSE has never been disclosed in an
> animal born in the United States. Also the U.S. and Canada both implemented
> multiple BSE controls to prevent the spread of BSE in North America. That is
> why the U.S. has had no domestic cases of BSE except for one Canadian cow,
> and why Canada has had only 4 cases confined to a small geographical area.
> ...
>
>
> http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20050304-71.html#14
>
>
> National Renderers Association Public Response to USDA-APHIS
> ANPR “Risk Reduction Strategies for Potential BSE Pathways Involving Downer
> Cattle and Dead Sock of Cattle and Other Species”
>
>
> Docket No. 01-68-1, Federal Register, Vol.68, No.13: 2703 – 2711, 01/21/2003
>
>
> http://www.rendermagazine.com/news/USDA-ANPRDownersApendices.doc
>
>
> SCRAPIE USA UPDATE MAY 2005
>
>
> SCRAPIE has increased drastically since the report i posted in March 2005,
> with additional case in a goat;
>
>
> SCRAPIE USA MONTHLY REPORT 2005
>
> 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. ...
>
> FULL TEXT ;
>
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.htm
> l
>
>
> SCRAPIE USA MAY 2005
>
> AS OF MAY 31, 2005, there were 104 scrapie infected and source flocks
> (Figure 3). There were 20 new infected and source flocks reported in May
> (Figure 4) with a total of 104 flocks reported for FY 2005 (Figure 5). The
> total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 are 63
> (Figure 6), with 16 flocks released in May. The ratio of infected and source
> flocks released to newly infected and source flocks for FY 2005 = 0.61 : 1.
> In addition, as of May 31, 2005, 367 scrapie cases have been confirmed and
> reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which
> 85 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 75 NEWLY confirmed cases in May
> 2005 (Figure 8). Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since
> 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat case was reported in May 2005. ........
>
> snip...
>
>
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.htm
> l
>
>
> CWD USA UPDATE
>
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/cwd-distribution.html
>
>
>
> Press Releases
> 5/13/2005: More Negatives for Chronic Wasting Disease in Captive Heards
> Learn More
>
> 5/9/2005: Negative Results for Chronic Wasting Disease in Captive Herd Learn
> More
>
> 5/4/2005: DEC Announces Sampling Results for Chronic Wasting Disease Learn
> More
>
> 4/29/2005: DEC Issues Emergency Regulations in Response to Discovery of
> Chronic Wasting Disease. Learn More
>
> 4/27/2005: Chronic Wasting Disease Found in Oneida County Deer. Learn More.
>
> 4/21/2005: DEC Releases Results of Tests for Chronic Wasting Disease. Learn
> More.
>
> 4/13/2005: DEC to Test For Chronic Wasting Disease in Hamilton County. Learn
> More.
>
> 4/8/2005: Chronic Wasting Disease Update: Test Results Reveal Three
> Additional Positives From Index Herd. Learn More.
>
> 4/5/2005: Chronic Wasting Disease Update. Learn More.
>
> 4/2/2005: Second Case of CWD Found in Oneida County Deer. Learn More.
>
> 3/31/2005: Positive Case of CWD Found in Oneida County Deer. Learn More.
>
> Transcript from March 31 Press Conference Regarding First Case of CWD in
> NewYork State
>
> If you have difficulty opening the PDF files, please contact the Department
> of Agriculture & Markets.
>
>
> http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AI/cwd.html
>
>
> TME USA UPDATE
>
>
> Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy
> Veterinary Services
>
> February 2002
>
> Transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) is a rare illness that affects the
> central nervous system of ranch-raised mink. It was first detected in the
> United States in 1947. Since then, TME outbreaks have been reported in
> numerous locations worldwide, including the United States, Canada, Finland,
> Germany, and the republics of the former Soviet Union.
>
> Related Diseases
>
> TME is classified as a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE).
> Different TSE's are caused by similar as-yet uncharacterized agents that
> produce spongiform changes in the brain. Other TSE's include scrapie, which
> affects sheep and goats; bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE); feline
> spongiform encephalopathy; chronic wasting disease of deer and elk; and five
> rare diseases in humans, kuru, both classical and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> disease (CJD), Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker syndrome, and fatal familial
> insomnia. TSE's have also been reported in Europe in captive wild ruminants,
> cats, and monkeys. The occurrence of TSE's in captive wild animals is
> believed to have resulted from BSE-contaminated feed.
>
> These rare, progressively degenerative central nervous system diseases are
> characterized by a very long incubation period, a short clinical course, and
> a 100 percent mortality rate. The infectious agent responsible for TME is
> smaller than the smallest known virus and has not been characterized to
> date. There are three main theories on the nature of this agent: (1) the
> agent is a virus with unusual characteristics, (2) the agent is a prionóan
> exclusively host-coded protein that is modified to a protease-resistant form
> after infection, or (3) the agent is a virinoóa small, noncoding regulatory
> nucleic acid coated with a host-derived protective protein. The TME agent is
> extremely resistant to heat and to normal sterilization processes. It also
> does not evoke any detectable immune response or inflammatory reaction in
> host animals.
>
> Public interest surrounding TSE's soared when the United Kingdom announced
> in March 1996 that BSE may be linked to a variant form of CJD. BSE, widely
> referred to as "mad cow disease," has devastated the cattle industry in the
> United Kingdom. The fear of this disease prompted countries around the world
> to step up measures to ensure that they remain free of BSE. BSE has not been
> detected in the United States, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
> works proactively to keep it that way. USDA's Animal and Plant Health
> Inspection Service (APHIS) and Food Safety and Inspection Service take
> aggressive measures in prevention, education, surveillance, and response.
>
> Clinical Signs
>
> TME has an average incubation period of more than 7 months before the onset
> of clinical signs. These signs can last from 3 days to 6 weeks. Early
> clinical signs, which can be quite subtle, include an increase in nest
> soiling and dispersal of droppings throughout the cage. In addition, mink
> may step into their food often or eat with difficulty. As the disease
> progresses, an infected animal becomes increasingly excited, arching its
> tail over its back like a squirrel. TME-infected animals may exhibit severe
> incoordination, difficulty walking, and pronounced jerkiness of hind limbs.
> In advanced cases, signs include rapid circling, compulsive chewing of the
> tail, and clenching of the jaw. Seizures rarely occur. Near death, affected
> mink become sleepy and unresponsive.
>
> Diagnosis
>
> TME produces no changes in the body that are visible upon necropsy
> examination. However, microscopic examination shows that the disease is
> limited to the central nervous system, causing distinct spongelike changes
> in specific areas of the brain.
>
> Currently, there are no validated tests to detect TSE's in a live animal.
> Veterinary pathologists confirm disease by microscopic examination of brain
> tissue or by the detection of the prion protein.
> Epidemiology
>
> Epidemiologic studies suggest that animals contract the disease by external
> exposure to the infectious agent, such as by eating contaminated feed. No
> evidence suggests that the TME agent spreads by contact between unrelated
> mink or from mother to nursing young. The disease has been identified in
> both genders and all color phases in animals greater than 1 year old.
>
> The first documented TME outbreak in the United States occurred in 1947 on
> one ranch in Wisconsin and then on a ranch in Minnesota that had received
> mink from the Wisconsin ranch. In 1961, TME outbreaks occurred on five
> ranches in Wisconsin. In 1963, outbreaks occurred in Idaho, Minnesota, and
> Wisconsin. Epidemiologic data from the Minnesota and Wisconsin outbreaks
> trace the cases in those States to one common purchased food source.
>
> The 1985 Stetsonville Outbreak
>
> The most recent TME outbreak occurred on one mink ranch in Stetsonville, WI,
> in 1985. In the herd of 7,300 adult mink, 60 percent of the animals died.
> Clinical signs included tail arching, incoordination, and hyperexcitability.
> At the most advanced stages of the disease, the animals were in trancelike
> states and eventually died.
>
> The outbreak lasted 5 months. Microscopic examination of sections of the
> brain confirmed the spongelike changes characteristic of TME. Diagnostic
> tests identified the prion protein. The following year, mink born during the
> outbreak showed no signs of TME.
>
> The late Richard Marsh, a veterinary virologist at the University of
> Wisconsin who studied the transmission of TME and other TSE's, investigated
> this outbreak. Marsh learned that the mink were fed a diet composed of fresh
> meat products from "downer cattle" and commercial sources of fish, poultry,
> and cereal. Downer cattle are nonambulatory and cannot rise because they are
> affected with a condition such as a metabolic disease, broken limbs, or a
> central nervous system disorder. Marsh theorized that the meat from these
> downer cattle introduced a TSE agent to the mink in which TME resulted.
>
> Although Marsh's hypothesis is based on speculation and anecdotal evidence,
> in 1993 APHIS adjusted its national BSE surveillance program to include
> testing downer cattle for evidence of a TSE. The brains of more than 20,141
> cattle have been examined at APHIS' National Veterinary Services
> Laboratories and other State diagnostic laboratories. Not a single tissue
> sample has revealed evidence of BSE or another TSE in cattle.
> Additional Information
>
> Veterinarians and livestock and poultry owners who suspect an animal may be
> affected with a TSE should immediately contact State or Federal animal
> health authorities.
>
> For further information, contact
> USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Services
> Emergency Programs
> 4700 River Road, Unit 41
> Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
> Telephone: (301) 734-8073
> Fax: (301) 734-7817
>
>
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_ahtme.html
>
>
>
> To be published in the Proceedings of the
> Fourth International Scientific Congress in
> Fur Animal Production. Toronto, Canada,
> August 21-28, 1988
>
> Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy
> Results from Feeding Infected Cattle
>
> R.F. Marsh* and G.R. Hartsough
>
> •Department of Veterinary Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
> Wisconsin 53706; and ^Emba/Creat Lakes Ranch Service, Thiensville, Wisconsin
> 53092
>
> ABSTRACT
> Epidemiologic investigation of a new incidence of
> transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) in Stetsonville, Wisconsin
> suggests that the disease may have resulted from feeding infected
> cattle to mink. This observation is supported by the transmission of
> a TME-like disease to experimentally inoculated cattle, and by the
> recent report of a new bovine spongiform encephalopathy in
> England.
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> Transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) was first reported in 1965 by
> Hartsough
> and Burger who demonstrated that the disease was transmissible with a long
> incubation
> period, and that affected mink had a spongiform encephalopathy similar to
> that found in
> scrapie-affecied sheep (Hartsough and Burger, 1965; Burger and Hartsough,
> 1965).
> Because of the similarity between TME and scrapie, and the subsequent
> finding that the
> two transmissible agents were indistinguishable (Marsh and Hanson, 1969), it
> was
> concluded that TME most likely resulted from feeding mink scrapie-infecied
> sheep.
> The experimental transmission of sheep scrapie to mink (Hanson et al., 1971)
> confirmed the close association of TME and scrapie, but at the same time
> provided
> evidence that they may be different. Epidemiologic studies on previous
> incidences of
> TME indicated that the incubation periods in field cases were between six
> months and
> one year in length (Harxsough and Burger, 1965). Experimentally, scrapie
> could not be
> transmitted to mink in less than one year.
> To investigate the possibility that TME may be caused by a (particular
> strain of
> scrapie which might be highly pathogenic for mink, 21 different strains of
> the scrapie
> agent, including their sheep or goat sources, were inoculated into a total
> of 61 mink.
> Only one mink developed a progressive neurologic disease after an incubation
> period of
> 22 mon..s (Marsh and Hanson, 1979). These results indicated that TME was
> either caused
> by a strain of sheep scrapie not yet tested, or was due to exposure to a
> scrapie-like agent
> from an unidentified source.
>
> OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS
>
> A New Incidence of TME. In April of 1985, a mink rancher in Stetsonville,
> Wisconsin
> reported that many of his mink were "acting funny", and some had died. At
> this time, we
> visited the farm and found that approximately 10% of all adult mink were
> showing
> typical signs of TME: insidious onset characterized by subtle behavioral
> changes, loss of
> normal habits of cleanliness, deposition of droppings throughout the pen
> rather than in a
> single area, hyperexcitability, difficulty in chewing and swallowing, and
> tails arched over
> their _backs like squirrels. These signs were followed by progressive
> deterioration of
> neurologic function beginning with locomoior incoordination, long periods of
> somnolence
> in which the affected mink would stand motionless with its head in the
> corner of the
> cage, complete debilitation, and death. Over the next 8-10 weeks,
> approximately 40% of
> all the adult mink on the farm died from TME.
> Since previous incidences of TME were associated with common or shared
> feeding
> practices, we obtained a careful history of feed ingredients used over the
> past 12-18
> months. The rancher was a "dead stock" feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or
> dead dairy
> cattle and a few horses. Sheep had never been fed.
>
> Experimental Transmission. The clinical diagnosis of TME was confirmed by
> histopaihologic examination and by experimental transmission to mink after
> incubation
> periods of four months. To investigate the possible involvement of cattle in
> this disease
> cycle, two six-week old castrated Holstein bull calves were inoculated
> intracerebrally
> with a brain suspension from affected mink. Each developed a fatal
> spongiform
> encephalopathy after incubation periods of 18 and 19 months.
>
> DISCUSSION
> These findings suggest that TME may result from feeding mink infected cattle
> and
> we have alerted bovine practitioners that there may exist an as yet
> unrecognized
> scrapie-like disease of cattle in the United States (Marsh and Hartsough,
> 1986). A new
> bovine spongiform encephalopathy has recently been reported in England
> (Wells et al.,
> 1987), and investigators are presently studying its transmissibility and
> possible
> relationship to scrapie. Because this new bovine disease in England is
> characterized by
> behavioral changes, hyperexcitability, and agressiveness, it is very likely
> it would be
> confused with rabies in the United Stales and not be diagnosed. Presently,
> brains from
> cattle in the United States which are suspected of rabies infection are only
> tested with
> anti-rabies virus antibody and are not examined histopathologically for
> lesions of
> spongiform encephalopathy.
> We are presently pursuing additional studies to further examine the possible
> involvement of cattle in the epidemiology of TME. One of these is the
> backpassage of
> our experimental bovine encephalopathy to mink. Because (here are as yet no
> agent-
> specific proteins or nucleic acids identified for these transmissible
> neuropathogens, one
> means of distinguishing them is by animal passage and selection of the
> biotype which
> grows best in a particular host. This procedure has been used to separate
> hamster-
> adapted and mink-udapted TME agents (Marsh and Hanson, 1979). The
> intracerebral
> backpassage of the experimental bovine agent resulted in incubations of only
> four months
> indicating no de-adaptation of the Stetsonville agent for mink after bovine
> passage.
> Mink fed infected bovine brain remain normal after six months. It will be
> essential to
> demonstrate oral transmission fiom bovine to mink it this proposed
> epidemiologic
> association is to be confirmed.
>
> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
> These studies were supported by the College of Agricultural and Life
> Sciences,
> University of Wisconsin-Madison and by a grant (85-CRCR-1-1812) from the
> United
> States Department of Agriculture. The authors also wish to acknowledge the
> help and
> encouragement of Robert Hanson who died during the course of these
> investigations.
>
> REFERENCES
> Burger, D. and Hartsough, G.R. 1965. Encephalopathy of mink. II.
> Experimental and
> natural transmission. J. Infec. Dis. 115:393-399.
> Hanson, R.P., Eckroade, R.3., Marsh, R.F., ZuRhein, C.M., Kanitz, C.L. and
> Gustatson,
> D.P. 1971. Susceptibility of mink to sheep scrapie. Science 172:859-861.
> Hansough, G.R. and Burger, D. 1965. Encephalopathy of mink. I.
> Epizoociologic and
> clinical observations. 3. Infec. Dis. 115:387-392.
> Marsh, R.F. and Hanson, R.P. 1969. Physical and chemical properties of the
> transmissible mink encephalopathy agent. 3. ViroL 3:176-180.
> Marsh, R.F. and Hanson, R.P. 1979. On the origin of transmissible mink
> encephalopathy. In Hadlow, W.J. and Prusiner, S.P. (eds.) Slow transmissible
> diseases of the nervous system. Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, pp
> 451-460.
> Marsh, R.F. and Hartsough, G.R. 1986. Is there a scrapie-like disease in
> cattle?
> Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Western Conference for Food Animal
> Veterinary
> Medicine. University of Arizona, pp 20.
> Wells, G.A.H., Scott, A.C., Johnson, C.T., Cunning, R.F., Hancock, R.D.,
> Jeffrey, M.,
> Dawson, M. and Bradley, R. 1987. A novel progressive spongiform
> encephalopathy
> in cattle. Vet. Rec. 121:419-420.
>
> MARSH
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf
>
>
> Title: Transmission of Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy (Tme) to Raccoons
> (Procyon Lotor) by Intracerebral Inoculation
>
> Authors
>
> Hamir, Amirali
> Miller, Janice
> O'Rourke, Katherine
> Bartz, Jason - CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY
> Stack, Mick - VLA, WEYBRIDGE, UK
> Chaplin, Melanie - VLA, WEYBRIDGE, UK
>
>
> Submitted to: Journal Of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation
> Publication Acceptance Date: January 21, 2003
> Publication Date: January 1, 2004
> Citation: Hamir, A.N., Miller, J.M., O'Rourke, K.I., Bartz, J.C., Stack,
> M.J., Chaplin, M.J. 2004. Transmission Of Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy
> (Tme) To Raccoons (Procyon Lotor) By Intracerebral Inoculation. Journal Of
> Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 16(1):57-63.
>
> Interpretive Summary: To determine the transmissibility of transmissible
> mink encephalopathy (TME) agent to raccoons and to provide information about
> clinical course, lesions and suitability of currently used diagnostic tests
> for detection of TSEs in raccoons, 4 raccoon kits were inoculated in the
> brain with a brain suspension from mink experimentally infected with TME.
> One uninoculated raccoon kit served as a control. All 4 animals in the
> TME-inoculated group became sick and were euthanized between 21 and 23 weeks
> post inoculations (PI). Necropsy examinations revealed no gross lesions.
> However, laboratory tests were positive for the disease (spongiform
> encephalopathy). These findings further confirm that TME is transmissible to
> raccoons and that tests currently used for transmissible spongiform
> encephalopathy (TSE) in livestock detects the disease (prion protein) in
> raccoon tissues. According to previously published data, the incubation
> period of sheep scrapie in raccoons is 2 years, whereas chronic wasting
> disease (CWD) had not shown transmission after 3 years of observation.
> Further studies, such as the incubation periods of bovine spongiform
> encephalopathy (BSE, mad cow disease) and other TSE isolates in raccoons are
> needed before the raccoon model can be recommended for differentiation of
> TSE agents. IMPACT: Since incubation periods for the 3 US TSEs (scrapie, TME
> and CWD) in raccoons appear to be markedly different, it may be possible to
> use raccoons for differentiating unknown TSE agents.
> Technical Abstract: To determine the transmissibility of transmissible mink
> encephalopathy (TME) agent to raccoons and to provide information about
> clinical course, lesions and suitability of currently used diagnostic
> procedures for detection of TSEs in raccoons, 4 raccoon kits were inoculated
> intracerebrally with a brain suspension from mink experimentally infected
> with TME. One uninoculated raccoon kit served as a control. All 4 animals in
> the TME-inoculated group became sick and were euthanized between 21 and 23
> weeks post inoculations (PI). Necropsy examinations revealed no gross
> lesions. Spongiform encephalopathy was observed by light microscopy and the
> presence of protease-resistant prion protein (PrPres) was detected by
> immunohistochemistry and Western blot techniques. Scrapie associated fibrils
> (SAF) were observed by negative stain electron microscopy in the brains of
> 3/4 inoculated raccoons. These findings further confirm that TME is
> transmissible to raccoons and that diagnostic techniques currently used for
> transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) in livestock detects prion
> protein in raccoon tissue. According to previously published data, the
> incubation period of sheep scrapie in raccoons is 2 years, whereas chronic
> wasting disease (CWD) had not shown transmission after 3 years of
> observation. Since incubation periods for the 3 US TSEs (scrapie, TME and
> CWD) in raccoons appear to be markedly different, it may be possible to use
> raccoons for differentiating unknown TSE agents. However, further studies,
> such as the incubation periods of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and
> other TSE isolates in raccoons, as well as characterization of the raccoon
> PrP gene and information concerning PrP polymorphisms are needed before the
> model can be further characterized for differentiation of TSE agents.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Page Modified: 06/26/2005
>
>
> http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=14
> 0042
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Statement By Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Regarding The Passage Of
> S.J.Res. 4 By The United States Senate
>
> March 3, 2005
>
> "I am very disappointed in today's vote by the United States Senate to
> disapprove the rule submitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
> establish minimal risk regions and resume trade in Canadian beef and cattle
> under 30 months of age.
>
> "Today's action undermines the U.S. efforts to promote science-based
> regulations, complicates U.S. negotiations to reopen foreign markets to U.S.
> beef and would perpetuate the economic disruption of the beef and cattle
> industry.
>
> "USDA remains confident that the requirements of the minimal-risk rule, in
> combination with the animal and public health measures already in place in
> the United States and Canada, provide the utmost protection to both U.S.
> consumers and livestock. We also remain fully confident in the underlying
> risk assessment, developed in accordance with the OIE guidelines, which
> determined Canada to be a minimal risk region.
>
> "I will now work with the U.S. House of Representatives to prevent passage
> of this resolution, which is strongly opposed by the Bush Administration,
> and continue our aggressive efforts to reopen international markets to U.S.
> beef."
>
>
> Last Modified: 03/04/2005
>
>
>
>
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> tentid=2005/03/0074.xml
>
>
> THIS MMR POLICY THAT JOHANNS AND GW HAVE SHOVED DOWN THE THROAT OF MILLIONS,
> well, in doing so they also have shoved TSEs down the throat of millions and
> millions have needlessly become exposed. ALL the OIE did in approving this
> was give the green light for the legal trading of all strains of TSEs
> globally. IT was an assinine move on all parties involved, it was a move
> based on nothing more than greed (commodities and futures), there was no
> science involved. with the many strains of TSE in North America in cattle,
> sheep, goats, deer, elk, mink, humans, we have a very unique and dangerous
> situation with all these different strains of TSEs being rendered and fed
> back to humans and animals for human consumption. for this administration to
> continue to base it's BSE/TSE mad cow protocols and policy solely on
> commodities and futures will continue to further expose this deadly agent
> needlessly to millions of animals and humans, thus the accumulation will
> continue, the agent will amplify and spread in feed, the hospital surgical
> arena, tissue and blood, cosmetics, supplements, in short a multitude of
> proven routes and sources. Johanns statement about BSE mad cow disease and
> walking across the street to the store to buy beef, and the chances of being
> run over by a car greater, than dying from beef, might hold true for some.
> there are many out there though, this did NOT hold true to. course, the
> sporadic CJD does not count, kinda like that 3 postive test they did not
> announce on the Texas inconclusive did not count. but science and
> transmission studies speak for themselves;
>
>
> Medical Sciences
> Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy:
> Molecular similarities with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
>
> Cristina Casalone *, Gianluigi Zanusso , Pierluigi Acutis *, Sergio Ferrari
> , Lorenzo Capucci , Fabrizio Tagliavini ¶, Salvatore Monaco ||, 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; 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.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> C.C. and G.Z. contributed equally to this work.
>
> ||To whom correspondence should be addressed.
>
> E-mail: salvatore.monaco@mail.univr.it .
>
> www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0305777101
>
>
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0305777101v1
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR)
> of the United States of America (USA)
> Publication date: 20 August 2004
> Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)
>
> Report
>
> Summary
> Summary of the Scientific Report
>
> The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group
> on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
> Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an
> up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America,
> i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected
> with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific
> report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering
> the period 1980-2003.
>
> The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic
> cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid
> eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to
> an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported
> meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to
> an internal challenge in the early nineties.
>
> A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports
> from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly)
> into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist,
> and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by
> imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the
> risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from
> BSE risk countries.
>
> EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely
> but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically)
> infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in
> rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus,
> the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with
> the BSE-agent persistently increases.
>
>
> http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573_e
> n.html
>
>
>
> From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder@wt.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:03 PM
> To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
> Cc: ggraber@cvm.fda.gov; Linda.Grassie@fda.gov; BSE-L
> Subject: Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION
> TO DOCKET 2003N-0312]
>
> Greetings FDA,
>
> snip...
>
> PLUS, if the USA continues to flagrantly ignore the _documented_ science to
> date about the known TSEs in the USA (let alone the undocumented TSEs in
> cattle), it is my opinion, every other Country that is dealing with BSE/TSE
> should boycott the USA and demand that the SSC reclassify the USA BSE GBR II
> risk assessment to BSE/TSE GBR III 'IMMEDIATELY'. for the SSC to _flounder_
> any longer on this issue, should also be regarded with great suspicion as
> well. NOT to leave out the OIE and it's terribly flawed system of disease
> surveillance. the OIE should make a move on CWD in the USA, and make a risk
> assessment on this as a threat to human health. the OIE should also change
> the mathematical formula for testing of disease. this (in my opinion and
> others) is terribly flawed as well. to think that a sample survey of 400 or
> so cattle in a population of 100 million, to think this will find anything,
> especially after seeing how many TSE tests it took Italy and other Countries
> to find 1 case of BSE (1 million rapid TSE test in less than 2 years, to
> find 102 BSE cases), should be proof enough to make drastic changes of this
> system. the OIE criteria for BSE Country classification and it's
> interpretation is very problematic. a text that is suppose to give
> guidelines, but is not understandable, cannot be considered satisfactory.
> the OIE told me 2 years ago that they were concerned with CWD, but said any
> changes might take years. well, two years have come and gone, and no change
> in relations with CWD as a human health risk. if we wait for politics and
> science to finally make this connection, we very well may die before any
> decisions
> or changes are made. this is not acceptable. we must take the politics and
> the industry out of any final decisions of the Scientific community. this
> has been the problem from day one with this environmental man made death
> sentence. some of you may think i am exaggerating, but you only have to see
> it once, you only have to watch a loved one die from this one time, and you
> will never forget, OR forgive...yes, i am still very angry... but the
> transmission studies DO NOT lie, only the politicians and the industry do...
> and they are still lying to this day...TSS
>
>
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt
>
>
> >> Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations
> >> regarding specific risk material (SRM) removal.
>
> snip...end
>
> full text ;
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf
>
>
> It was, however, performed in the USA in 1979, when it was shown that cattle
> inoculated with the scrapie agent endemic in the flock of Suffolk sheep at
> the United States Department of Agriculture in Mission, Texas, developed a
> TSE quite unlike BSE. 32
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820543
>
>
> The findings of the initial transmission, though not of the clinical or
> neurohistological examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr
> Watson, Director of the CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the
> project leaders in the Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States
> Department of Agriculture. 33
>
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820546
>
>
> The results were not published at this point, since the attempted
> transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been inconclusive.
> The results of the clinical and histological differences between
> scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar studies in
> which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula derived
> from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
> different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
> 34
>
> ===========================
>
> Subject: BSE--U.S. 50 STATE CONFERENCE CALL Jan. 9, 2001
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:49:00 -0800
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE-L
>
> http://vegancowboy.org/TSS-part1of8.htm
>
>
> Moms death from hvCJD (Heidenhain Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease)
>
> http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/7252.html
>
>
> 'MOMS AUTOPSY REPORT'
>
> http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/7548.html
>
>
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>
> P.O. BOX 42
>
> Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
>
> #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
> ####################
>

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup