From: TSS (216-119-163-115.ipset45.wt.net)
Subject: oh where, oh where, did all Terry's madcow warning letters go $
Date: October 1, 2002 at 12:23 pm PST
In Reply to: MAD COW USA FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS ''UPDATE'' posted by TSS on October 1, 2002 at 10:18 am:
FDA Cuts Back on Warnings
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/
FIVE QUESTIONS FOR DR. RAYMOND L. WOOSLEY
Terror Adds to Safety Issues Awaiting New F.D.A. Chief
By JULIE FLAHERTY
[A] FTER 20 months without a leader, the Food and Drug Administration
may be getting one. Last Wednesday, President Bush nominated Dr. Mark B.
McClellan, a White House adviser who is an expert in health care
economics, to the position. Dr. McClellan, whose confirmation by the
Senate is widely expected, would be in charge of one of the biggest and
most wide-ranging agencies in Washington, with jurisdiction over
products representing 20 percent of every consumer dollar spent.
The appointment of a new commissioner has been eagerly awaited by food
and medical safety experts. Dr. Raymond L. Woosley, a pharmacologist and
vice president for health sciences at the University of Arizona, is
known for his research into the safe use of medicine. He spoke on
Thursday about the challenges facing Dr. McClellan. JULIE FLAHERTY
Q. What do you see as the most important priority for Dr. McClellan at
the F.D.A.?
A. There is a whole new range of priorities after 9/11, so No. 1 has to
be an expedited review and approval of drugs for the protection from
terrorism. The whole related question of food safety is a critical part
of this. Even before 9/11, food safety was a serious problem, and
continues to be, with mad cow disease and E. coli and other concerns.
Another major priority, I hope, will be addressing the problems of
regulating the dietary supplements that really aren't dietary
supplements. The F.D.A. is going to have to start reviewing and
regulating them as drugs to protect the public.
snip...
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/business/yourmoney/29FIVE.html?ex=1033963200&en=6a56fd1e2b76612e&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER
who are the real terrorists of mad cow disease and CJDs ???
USA 8/4/97 RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED BAN that never was...
'ANIMAL PROTEIN' SEARCH 9/9/02
==============================
Darling International, Inc.
5/07/02
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
[HTML] All American Feed & Tractor
4/01/02
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
[HTML] Tyson Foods
2/12/02
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
[HTML] The Feed Bucket
12/11/01
Atlanta District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
[HTML] Finlayson Ag Center
11/08/01
Minneapolis District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
[HTML] Dixon Feeds, Inc.
10/24/01
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
[HTML] Buckeye Feed Mills, Inc.
9/20/01
Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
[HTML] Wilcox Farms, Inc.
9/14/01
Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed [PDF]
[HTML]
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/full_text.cfm?full_text=animal+protein&Search=Search
now, compare search on 8/8/01...tss
===================================
'ANIMAL PROTEIN' SEARCH 8/8/01
==============================
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:13:43 -0700
Reply-To: BSE-L
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE-L
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS U.S.A. AUGUST 8, 2001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021-4421
Telephone: 426-486-8788 FAX: 426-483-4996
August 8, 2001
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 01-75
William W. Himmelspach, Owner 22195 S.W. 78th Tualatin, Oregon 97062
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Himmelspach:
An investigation at your animal feed manufacturing operation located at
22195 S.W. 78th Tualatin, Oregon 97062, conducted by a Food and Drug
Administration investigator on July 12, 2001, found significant
deviations 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 deviations
cause products being manufactured at this facility to be adulterated
within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C), and 402(a)(4) of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
Our investigation found a failure to separate the receipt, processing,
and storage of the product containing prohibited material from
non-prohibited material; failure to establish a written system,
including clean-out and flushing procedures, to avoid commingling and
cross-contamination of common equipment; and failure to maintain records
sufficient to track the materials throughout the receipt, processing,
and distribution of your products.
In addition, our investigation found a failure to label your products
with the required cautionary, statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other
Ruminants," Your pig feeds, containing prohibited materials, were not
labeled with the cautionary statement, and you reuse poly-tote bags for
ruminant feed and pig feed, where the bags could become contaminated
with prohibited material. 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
William W. Himmelspach Tualatin, Oregon Re: Warning Letter SEA 01-75 Page 2
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 these violations, 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.
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 violations, and
prevent their 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.
Your reply should be directed to the Food and Drug Administration,
Attention: Bruce Williamson, Compliance Officer. If you have any
questions please contact Mr. Williamson at (425) 483-4976.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Breen District Director
Enclosure; Form FDA 483 Small Entity Compliance Guide
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1619d.pdf
Warning Letters Index - Search Form Results Company Name Date Issued
Issuing Office
Subject
File Adrian Elevator, Inc. 5/03/01 Minneapolis District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Alaska Garden and Pet Supply, Inc. 4/27/01 Seattle District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Bryan Enterprises 2/20/01 Cincinnati District Office Feed
Mill/Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated
View File Carrollton Farmers Exchange 7/12/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Centerburg Mill and General Store, Inc 3/23/01 Cincinnati
District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Centerburg Mill and General Store, Inc. 5/23/01 Cincinnati
District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Central Ohio Farmers Cooperative, Inc. 5/24/01 Cincinnati
District Office Animal Protein Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Champaign Landmark, Inc. 3/05/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Misbranded
View File Countryline Co-Op, Inc. 5/14/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Dorset Milling 4/16/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Earl B. Olson Feed Mill 4/23/01 Minneapolis District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Faler Feed Store, Inc. 3/21/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Farmers Mill & Elevator Company 3/30/01 Atlanta District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Farnam Companies, Inc. 7/20/01 Kansas City District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated
View File Greeley Elevator Company 4/04/01 Denver District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Hartville Elevator Company, Inc. 2/22/01 Cincinnati District
Office Feed Mill/Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated
View File Himmelspach, William W. 8/08/01 Seattle District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Integral Fish Foods, Inc. 6/12/01 Denver District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Jefferson Milling Company 4/16/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Lime Creek Ag Services, Inc. 4/25/01 Minneapolis District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Material Resources LLC 5/04/01 Chicago District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Material Resources, LLC 5/04/01 Chicago District Office Animal
Protein Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Medina Landmark, Inc. 3/23/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Minister Farmers Cooperative Exchange, Inc. 4/10/01 Cincinnati
District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Feed Mill
View File Peco Foods, Inc. 2/23/01 New Orleans District Office CGMP
Requirements for Medicated Feeds/Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Perry Coal and Feed Company 4/16/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Rietdyk's Milling Company 3/05/01 Seattle District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File River Valley Co-Op 3/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibeted in Ruminant Feed
View File River Valley Co-Op 5/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Round Lake Farmers Coop. 5/30/01 Minneapolis District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Rudy, Inc. 3/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins
Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Rudy, Inc. 5/22/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins
Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Sandy Lake Mills 4/09/01 Philadelphia District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Shields Feed and Supply Company 3/07/01 New Orleans District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Stewart's Farm Supply 3/21/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Superior Feeds 6/06/01 Seattle District Office Animal Proteins
Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File The Scoular Company 5/30/01 Minneapolis District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File University of Minnesota 5/10/01 Minneapolis District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Valley Feed Mill, Inc. 5/22/01 Cincinnati District Office
Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc. 5/17/01 Seattle District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc. 5/17/01 Seattle District
Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Western Reserve Farm Cooperative 3/21/01 Cincinnati District
Office Animal Protein Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Yachere Feed, Inc. 4/09/01 Philadelphia District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File Z & W Mill, Inc. 3/27/01 Denver District Office Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
View File
http://63.75.126.221/scripts/wlcfm/resultswl.cfm
(TYPE IN 'ANIMAL PROTEIN')
Subject: Meat and Poultry: Better USDA Oversight and Enforcement of Safety
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:17:59 -0700
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <######### Bovine Spongiform
EBSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de>
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########3. Meat and Poultry: Better USDA Oversight and Enforcement of Safety
Rules Needed to Reduce Risk of Foodborne Illnesses. GAO-02-902, August
30.
FSIS Is Not Ensuring that Plants' HACCP Plans Meet Regulatory
Requirements
snip...
According to FSIS's food safety systems correlation reviews, inspectors
are not consistently identifying and documenting failures of plants'
HACCP plans to meet regulatory requirements. Furthermore, FSIS does
not expect its inspectors to determine whether HACCP plans are based on
sound science--the cornerstone of an effective plan. While in-depth
verification reviews examine the scientific aspects of HACCP plans, they
have been conducted in very few plants, and consumer safety officers
hired to review the scientific soundness of HACCP plans may take several
years to assess the plans at all plants. Moreover, inspectors in 55
percent of the 5,000 plants nationwide did not document any HACCP
violations during fiscal year 2001. When we brought this information to
the attention of FSIS officials, they were surprised that so many plants
had no HACCP violations for an entire year.
snip...
2. USDA believes that the title of the report is misleading. We disagree.
We believe the title accurately reflects the concerns detailed
throughout the body of the report.
snip...
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-902
########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
Subject: GAO ''BLASTS'' USA FDA HALF-ASS MAD COW FEED BAN RULES (or the
lack of)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:29:57 -0800
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########Investigators: FDA Lax on Mad Cow
Tue Feb 26,11:37 AM ET
By PHILIP BRASHER, AP Farm Writer
WASHINGTON - The Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites ) has
failed to properly enforce its restrictions on animal feed that are
intended to keep mad-cow disease from spreading if it ever gets into the
country, congressional investigators say.
Feed mills and other firms that violate the rules are seldom punished,
and FDA has never even identified all the businesses that should be
inspected, the General Accounting Office (news - web sites) said in a
report released Tuesday.
The report also raises concerns about import controls that are supposed
to keep infected meat and other material from entering the country
"The continuing absence of (mad cow disease) in the United States today
cannot be sufficiently ensured by current federal prevention efforts,"
the report said.
The agency outlawed the feeding of mammalian meat and bone meal to
cattle, sheep and goats in 1997 and imposed a series of rules to ensure
that feed mills comply with the ban.
Animals are believed to get the brain-wasting disease, formally known as
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (news - web sites ), through eating the
brain or nervous system tissue from diseased animals. Meat and bone meal
has long been added to animal feed as a protein supplement.
The disease has never been found in the United States but has devastated
the beef industry in Europe and spread to Japan.
An FDA spokesman had no immediate comment Tuesday on the GAO report. In
a letter to the investigators, however, FDA said it is correcting
problems in its inspection system. Improvements in the system "will make
the present small risk of introduction and spread (of mad-cow disease
even smaller," the agency said.
The food industry became alarmed last year about the problems FDA was
having enforcing the rules and began requiring meat processors to
certify that the cattle were not given prohibited feed. Slaughterhouses,
in turn, started requiring similar paperwork from their cattle suppliers.
The congressional investigators said "the nature and severity of the
problem" in FDA's enforcement of the feed ban "point to insufficient
attention by FDA management."
The report also says that the Agriculture Department is testing too few
cattle for the disease. USDA plans to increase its testing from 5,000 to
12,500 cattle a year.
Sen. Richard Durbin (news ), D-Ill., who requested the GAO report along
with Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa and the
panel's ranking Republican, Richard Lugar of Indiana, plans to introduce
legislation to tighten federal regulation of animal feed and meat
processing.
Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute, said the GAO
report "misinterprets, or simply ignores the effectiveness of measures
already taken" by the government.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...pe/us_mad_cow_3
FULL TEXT OF GOA REPORT BELOW (takes a while to load)
2. Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other
Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts. GAO-02-183,
January 25.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-183
Greetings List Members,
''again'', i implore to all EU Members, to change the BSE/TSE
status in the United States to a GBR # 3, for the same reasons
i stated on the BSE-L on Jan. 17, 2001;
Greetings List Members and ALL EU Countries,
Because of this report, and the recent findings
of the 50-state BSE Conference call, I respectfully
seriously suggest that these Countries and the SSC
re-evaluate the U.S.A. G.B.R. to a risk factor of #3.
I attempted to post this to list in full text,
but would not accept...
thank you,
kind regards,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA
Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA
July
2000
PART II
REPORT ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE
RISK OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
snip...
TSS
########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
Subject: Re: GAO ''BLASTS'' USA FDA HALF-ASS MAD COW FEED BAN RULES (or
the lack of) typical USDA/APHIS PR SPIN$
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:08:50 -0800
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
References: <3C7BE235.80508@wt.net>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########Greetings List Members,
does not take long for the USDA/APHIS PR machine to start them
wheels spinning and spinning. the old spin-doctors are hard
at work. what gets me, is that they _still_ don't get the
big picture. while they continue to spin, the TSEs continue
to spread, and i pray not from my Country to yours;
Release No. F.S. 0071.02
USDA RESPONSE TO GAO RECOMMENDATIONS ON BSE PREVENTION
spin...
GAO Recommendation. In order to strengthen the BSE surveillance
program, we further recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture increase
the number of tests from cattle that die on farms in the BSE
surveillance program.
USDA Response. USDA is on track to double testing this year. On January
10, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Defense Appropriations
bill, which bolstered USDA homeland security efforts. This bill
included $105 million for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service for pest and disease exclusion, detection and monitoring. A
portion of these funds are being expended to increase BSE surveillance,
and indeed USDA is already well on its way to the goal of testing 12,500
cattle brains this fiscal year, up from 5,200 last year, as recommended
in the Harvard risk assessment. A focus of this increased surveillance
is to obtain more samples from animals that die on farms. In fact, so
far this year there have been well over 400 samples taken from this
population. Modern, properly equipped laboratory facilities are required
to support testing. The Secretary of Agriculture has submitted a plan
to Congress requesting funds to enhance USDA's laboratory infrastructure.
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/02/fs0071.htm
spin...
ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO STRENGTHEN BSE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Announces Status Report of Actions, Including Doubling of Testing for
BSE in Cattle, Following the Harvard BSE Risk Assessment
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 2002--The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Health and Human Services today reported the status of
action steps designed to further prevent bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) in U.S. cattle, including doubling the number of
BSE tests it will conduct this fiscal year compared to the previous
year. The USDA, HHS, as well as other federal and state agencies, are
working together to continue strengthening protection systems to prevent
BSE from entering the country.
USDA and HHS are reporting the status of the action steps first outlined
Nov. 30, 2001 following the release of the landmark risk analysis on BSE
conducted by Harvard University. The report showed that the risk of BSE
occurring in the United States is extremely low. The report showed that
early protection systems put into place by the USDA and HHS have been
largely responsible for keeping BSE out of the U.S. and would prevent it
from spreading if it ever did enter the country.
spin...
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/02/0070.htm
[they just don't get it. they will continue to lie and deceive
about the mad cow issue simply because the 'industry' owns
them. they have bought and paid for this harvard study, and
it would take a complete fool to believe the PR spin they
are putting up now. it's the same BSeee that has been said for the
last 15 years in the USA. Even when it's put to them in print
by the GAO, they still do the 'cover-up']
spin..
· As stated above, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) is on track to double testing for BSE in cattle this year. The
target for FY 2002 is 12,500 compared to approximately 5,200 sampled in
FY 2001. The increase includes testing deceased cattle from farms.
spin...
[oh give me a break, again, lets compare apples to oranges...TSS]
Last year some 630,000 tests were carried out.
The spokeswoman said the numbers should be considered in the light of
Ireland's total cattle population of 7.6 million.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...2/hl_nm/irish_2
USA
Figure 1: National Veterinary Services Laboratories BSE Surveillance
Total Bovine Brain Submissios by State, May 10,1990 thru
December 31, 2001
TOTAL 21,451
VDL Submissions are from 1986 through February 4, 2002.
*Prepared 1-16-02.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/bse/bsesurvey.html#charts
USA cattle Pop. any given year 100 MILLION +
All cattle and calves in the United States as of July 1, 2001, totaled
105.8 million head, slightly below the 106.3 million on July 1, 2000 and
1 percent below the 107.0 million two years ago.
http://www.usda.gov/nass/
EU
BSE testing - Cumulative table from January to November 2001 [pdf]
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/b...results_en.html
TSS
spin...
BSE has never been detected in U.S. cattle, nor has there been a case of
the human form of the disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease,
detected in the United States. Since 1989, USDA has taken a series of
preventive actions to protect against this animal disease. This
includes banning the import of live ruminants, such as cattle, sheep and
goats, and most ruminant products from the United Kingdom and other
countries having BSE. The ban was extended to Europe in 1997. To stop
the way the disease is thought to spread, in 1997, FDA prohibited the
use of most mammalian protein in the manufacture of animal feed intended
for cows and other ruminants.
spin...
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/02/0070.htm
[at this point, i am even embarrassed for _them_ and _ashamed_
of our Countries continued deliberate denial of the inevitable.
i think they are starting to believe their own lies now...TSS]
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman
Regarding The GAO Report on BSE
February 26, 2002
spin...
"While we support the GAO's efforts to examine ways to strengthen the
government's ongoing efforts to prevent BSE, the report fails to
appropriately recognize the conclusions and recommendations made last
year by Harvard University in it's comprehensive, 3-year study on BSE.
"The Harvard Risk Analysis showed that the risk of BSE occurring the in
United States is extremely low and that early government protection
systems have been largely responsible for keeping BSE out of the United
States. and would prevent it from spreading if it ever did enter the
country.
spin...
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/02/0071.htm
excluding the 44 TONS of MBM/GREAVES imported from the UK
during the BSE epidemic, (including 12 tons in 1981
and 10 in 1984) and not considering our own
home grown versions of TSE in USA cattle due to our own
bad feeding practices and total disregard for the
8/4/97 ruminant-to-ruminant, what happened to those
sealed borders?
check out imports from BSE Countries and our 'sealed borders'
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_japan0901.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/c...austria1201.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/c...finland1201.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/c...lovenia1101.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/c...lovakia1001.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/c..._greece0701.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_cz0601.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_italy0101.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/c...ermany1200e.htm
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bsedenmark.htm
GAO's report pointed to weaknesses in USDA's and FDA's import controls
and said the U.S. imported 125 million pounds (.35 percent of total
imports) and about 1,000 cattle (.003 percent of total imports) from
countries that later discovered BSE in their herds.
http://www.meatami.com/Template.cfm...&PressRe&News=Y
another thought of mine, what part of 'extremely unstable'
do they not understand?
Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA
July 2000
snip...
Stability: Before 1990 the system was extremely unstable because feeding
of MBM to cattle happened, rendering was inappropriate with regard to
deactivation of the BSE-agent and SRM and fallen stock were rendered for
feed. From 1990 to 1997 it improved to very unstable, thanks to efforts
undertaken to trace imported animals and exclude them from the feed
chain and intensive surveillance. In 1998 the system became neutrally
stable after the RMBM-ban of 1997.
External challenges: A moderate external challenge occurred in the
period before 1990 because of importation of live animals from
BSE-affected countries, in particular from the UK and Ireland. It cannot
be excluded that some BSE-infected animals have been imported by this
route and did enter the US rendering and feed production system. The
efforts undertaken since 1990 to trace back UK-imported cattle and to
exclude them from the feed chain reduced the impact of the external
challenge significantly.
Interaction of external challenges and stability: While extremely
unstable, the US system was exposed to a moderate external challenge,
mainly resulting from cattle imports from the UK. It can not be excluded
that BSE-infectivity entered the country by this route and has been
recycled to domestic cattle. The resulting domestic cases would have
been processed while the system was still very unstable or unstable and
would hence have initiated a number of second or third generation cases.
However, the level of the possible domestic prevalence must be below the
low detection level of the surveillance in place.
snip...
oh, and before i forget, i see that the GAO was as concerned
about those _missing_ cattle from Japan as i was, amongst
other imports. but again, i will stress the need to test
at least 1 MILLION cattle annually here in the USA for the
next five years, to find our own home-grown version of
a TSE in the US cattle herds. anyting less would be a slap
in the face to every other Country trying to stop the spread
of these TSEs...
P.S. you can order your first copy of any documents for free
at the GAO site;
Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other
Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts. GAO-02-183,
January 25
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-183
order form url;
Order Printed Copies of GAO Reports
Please use this form to place orders for single copies of printed GAO
Reports and Testimonies. You may order up to twelve items at one time.
The first copy of any printed GAO report is free.
just be sure to use this number in the order form; GAO-02-183
disgusted again in Bacliff, Texas, USA,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Subject: GAO: FDA Must Improve Feed Ban Compliance, Inspection Database
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:00:46 -0800
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########Subject: GAO: FDA Must Improve Feed Ban Compliance, Inspection Database
GAO: FDA Must Improve Feed Ban Compliance, Inspection Database
The General Accounting Office (GAO) suggests in a recent report that
the FDA must improve its enforcement of a 1997 federal regulation (62 FR
30976) that attempts to prevent the emergence and spread of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or "mad cow" disease by restricting the
feeding of certain mammalian proteins to ruminant animals and requiring
renderers, feed mills, feed mixers and others subject to the rule to
implement labeling and record-keeping practices.
In the January 2002 report - entitled "Mad Cow Disease: Improvements
in the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Efforts Would Strengthen
U.S. Prevention Efforts" - the GAO claims that the FDA's BSE inspection
database is unreliable and that the FDA and other federal agencies are
not able to adequately screen imports that may contain BSE-contaminated
materials.
According to the report, although the "FDA has reported hundreds of
firms out of compliance" with the rule, until last year, the agency had
issued only two Warning Letters. Although the number of Warning Letters
issued by the agency increased dramatically in 2001 - when 48 such
letters were issued - six of the 50 firms that have received Warning
Letters were found to be out of compliance upon reinspection. In
addition, the report states that noncompliant firms are not reinspected
by the agency in a timely manner. Although state agencies conduct
roughly 80 percent of the inspections under the rule, the FDA does not
closely monitor state enforcement action.
Adequate enforcement of the rule is further hindered by flaws in the
FDA database used to store information gathered from inspections of
firms subject to the feed ban rule. The GAO's researchers found that the
database contained inconsistent reports and that, in some cases, it was
unclear which firm was being inspected. In addition, some reports were
not entered into the database at all.
The GAO also suggests that the FDA failed to assign adequate
personnel to work on BSE-related issues. In the study, the GAO asserts
that from August 1997 until early 2001, just one person in the FDA's
Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) was responsible for designing the
inspection form used to inspect firms subject to the rule. This unnamed
employee also was responsible for collecting data and making enforcement
decisions, the report states.
The FDA has hired a contractor to improve the database and has
"progressively increased its enforcement approach" since January 2001,
according to a letter from Bernard Schwetz, then the FDA's Acting
Principal Deputy Commissioner. A CVM spokesperson said that the agency
is also developing a program that will "allow it to focus on compliance
efforts [of] firms that are not properly complying with the feed rule."
A more detailed report covering FDA's enforcement of the BSE feed
ban can be found on http://www.warningletters.com.
______________________________________________________________________
For more information on this topic and other FDA regulatory news, click
here:
http://www.thompson.com/fda
Please feel free to forward this alert to a colleague!
=======================================================================
GREETINGS list members,
> The GAO also suggests that the FDA failed to assign
> adequate personnel to work on BSE-related issues.
i have said this time and time and have gotten volumes
emails from people on the 'inside looking out' stating the
same thing. a few examples of private emails in relation
to BSE surveillance and 50 State Conference Call;
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 Encephalopathyhttp://vegancowboy.org/TSS-part1of8.htm
snip...
[I saw the comment regarding the "emergency number" for BSE. I saw the
issue of "complete quotes." The issue is complete surveillance. I am not
trying to badmouth anyone, but between you and me, confidentially, there
is no program to make Vets aware of what to look for. Sure its on the
web, sure there are a few seminars but by and large there is nothing.
Producers don't know what to look for- except what the hyped up news
tells them. There is no program to educate them. As late as Dec 2000
there was no endemity plan to buy out herds that the USDA would want to
slaughter, like the vermont sheep that are still in court. Why would a
producer want to pay a vet to diagnosis a disease that will result in
the demise of his livelyhood? It makes no sense. I have talked to to
many producers about this.
snip...
vets, very very few know anything about the workings of BSE. So Dr.
Detwilers comments about calling in are full of it. The only ones that
could call in would be the vets at a diagnostic clinic who get a cow
head that is a rabies suspect. I think she has over glorified the
surveillance situation.]
=============================================================
1/3/01
"In May, 1990, a plan of drastic surveillance was set up with
the cooperation of more than 250 federal veterinarians formed to
diagnose the foreign animal"
>From Karin's email translation...
I had to laugh...then cry a little bit. If anyone thinks there are 250
federal vets who would even recognize or be able to diagnose BSE in
cattle...someone is very, very naive. I believe there are probably two,
yes two, who would be honest enough, skilled enough, and brave enough to
actually diagnose the disease. The next piece of information is only for
your information...do not reveal this info to anyone!!! Do you know
exactly how many federal veterinarians are actually focused on BSE
issues in USDA...........ONE, yes ONE,....there is ONE, yes one assigned
to CWD... a nice person, but totally new to this topic....One for
Scrapie, nationally, who is only politically astute...who will admit
they know nearly nothing about the science...one more who is temporarily
assigned and does not know much about the whole thing and wants
out...meaning they are applying to get another job someplace else!!!
They are seeking one more for the Scrapie, but the requirement is that
the person ONLY FOCUS ON SCRAPIE and cannot be interested, seeking,
inquisitive about any other TSE...the person they want won't compromise
and has told the powers that they will only support the truth and the
the science...and will not play political games...now you know THAT
person is not gonna be a player!!!! Also, the winds of twisted
distortion are roaring...the latest is that the Mink Spongiform
Encephalopathy described by Dr. Richard Marsh is from CWD...that is the
answer for all our last problems...this is the new credo that is
being spread to unfocus attention on cattle/BSE and Scrapie....All of
the above should not be passed on unless you can find another source.
Please do not reveal this information...but store it someplace with
the date of transmission...the future will afford an opportunity for
truth....
===================================================
MAD COWS IN USA (some strain) $$$ why not???
Part of the Proceedings of an International Roundtable on Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, June 27-28, 1989.
The possibility of infection with BSE in the United States, as defined
by studies on the disease in Great Britain, is judged to be low on the
basis of the following: (1) meat and bonemeals imported into the United
States from Great Britain between 1980 and 1988 were used mainly in
poultry, not ruminant feed; (2) the Scrapie Eradication Program had
reduced the prevalence of scrapie in the United States compared with
that in Great Britain; and (3) little, if any, rendered animal products
are used for protein supplements in cattle feed in the United States.
However, there is some evidence that there may already be a scrapie-like
disease in cattle in the United States. This evidence comes from
epidemiologic studies on an incident of transmissible mink
encephalopathy (TME) in Stetsonville, Wis, in 1985. This mink farmer
used no commercially available animal by-product mixtures in his feed,
but instead slaughtered all animals going into the mink diet, which
included mostly (>95%) "downer" dairy cows, a few horses, but never
sheep. To examine the possibility that cattle may have been the source
of this incident of TME, two 6-week-old Holstein bull calves were
inoculated intracerebrally with mink brain from the affected farm. The
bulls developed neurologic disease 18 and 19 months after inoculation.
Both brains had spongiform degeneration at necropsy and both were
transmissible back to mink by either intracerebral (incubation period of
4 months) or oral (incubation period of 7 months) inoculation
Whereas TME has been thought to be caused by feeding scrapie-infected
sheep to mink, this theory has no conclusive evidence. Experimental oral
inoculation of mink with several different sources of sheep scrapie has
never been successful, and an incubation period of less than 12 months
has never (sic) produced by intracerebral inoculation. Transmissible
mink encephalopathy can develop naturally by infection with incubation
periods of less than 12 months.
There is reason to believe that scrapie has not been transmitted in the
United States from sheep to cattle by rendered protein concentrates as
it was in Great Britain. However, some circumstantial evidence exists
that cattle may be a source of some TME infections. It is recommended
that we increase our surveillance for a BSE-like disease in American
cattle by encouraging state diagnostic laboratories to formalin-fix
specimens of midbrain and brain stem from bovine brains submitted for
rabies testing. If results of these tests are negative, these fixed
tissues can then be examined for evidence of spongiform degeneration of
the gray matter.
> -Comments on bovine spongiform encephalopathy
> J Am Vet Med Assoc 197 (4): (1990)
>
Letter to the Editor, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association, August 15, 1990
In my article, "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United States"
(JAVMA, May 15, 1990, p 1677), I stated that "little, if any, rendered
animal products are used for protein supplements in cattle feed in the
United States." I have since learned that this is incorrect, because of
the recent trend of using less assimilated "by-pass" proteins in cattle
feed. A large amount of meat-and-bone meal is being fed to American
cattle, and this change in feeding practice has greatly increased the
risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) developing in the United
States.
Epidemiologic studies on BSE in Great Britain have indicated that the
disease originated in cattle by exposure to the heat-resistant
transmissible agent in compounded feed containing rendered animal
protein. The most likely source of infection was assumed to be
meat-and-bone meal prepared from scrapie-infected sheep, but it is also
possible that a heretofore unrecognized scrapie-like infection of cattle
could have been spread in the same manner.
Because of concern for the possible development of BSE in the United
States, the American rendering industry discontinued the processing of
fallen and sick sheep last December. In my opinion, this was a prudent
policy, but one that will not prevent the possible transmission of BSE
from cattle to cattle. As emphasized in my article, there is some
evidence that BSE-like infection may already exist in American cattle.
The current practice of feeding meat-and-bone meal to cattle solidifies
the most important means to perpetuate and amplify the disease cycle.
In Great Britain, BSE has produced a great economic and emotional
burden. We must take all reasonable measures to prevent BSE from
developing in the United States. Therefore, the practice of using animal
protein in cattle feed should be discontinued as soon as possible.
Waiting until the first case of BSE is diagnosed in the United States
will certainly be "closing the barn door after the horse is gone." With
a disease having a 3- to 6-year incubation period, thousands of animals
would be exposed before we recognize the problem and, if that happens,
we would be in for a decade of turmoil.
R. F. Marsh, DVM, PhD
Madison, Wis
============
TSS
