 |
From: TSS (216-119-162-83.ipset44.wt.net)
Subject: Docket No. 01-068-1 -- Risk Reduction Strategies BSE Pathways Involving Downer Cattle and Dead Stock of Cattle and Other Species (TSS SUBMISSION)
Date: January 21, 2003 at 9:09 am PST
In Reply to: Risk Reduction Strategies for Potential BSE Pathways Involving Downer Cattle and Dead Stock of Cattle and Other Species posted by TSS on January 21, 2003 at 6:32 am:
Subject: Docket No. 01-068-1 -- Risk Reduction Strategies for Potential BSE Pathways Involving Downer Cattle and Dead Stock of Cattle and Other Species
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:14:57 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: regulations@aphis.usda.gov
CC: flounder@wt.net, CCM@cbsnews.com, rummel_david@hotmail.com, rummel@nytimes.comDocket No. 01-068-1 Risk Reduction Strategies for Potential BSE Pathways Involving
Downer Cattle and Dead Stock of Cattle and Other Species Greetings, i would like to kindly comment on the importance of this
docket please. we must ban _all_ ruminant-to-ruminant feeding and we _must_
ban all SRMs (specified risk materials) and MRMs (mechanically
recovered meats) and most importantly, we must ban _all_
DOWNER cattle/sheep/goats/deer/elk/mink/dog/cats from entering
the human/animal food chain. these rules and regulations must
be strictly enforced. my name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr. and i have been
following the BSE/TSE situation around the world for
5 years now since the death of my mother to hvCJD,
the Heidenhain Variant CJD. i find it appalling that the
USA officials and their Governing bodies still refuse
to admit we have a very serious problem in the USA
concerning TSEs in many species, including man. we have
been feeding TSE infected CNS materials for decades to
not only cattle, but to deer/elk/sheep and goats through
feed that was manufactured with everything from downer
cattle that did have CNS disorders, to scrapie infected
sheep/goats, to cwd infected deer/elk. The USDA/APHIS
and the USA federal Gov. keeps trying to hide behind the
bought and paid for by the industry study of The Harvard
Risk Analysis, but this was deemed terribly flawed by
the GAO BSE report; 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 if you read below, it was documented in the trial of Oprah Winfrey VS
cattle ass. that some CNS disorder cattle were in fact sent to render; Friday, January 23, 1998 5:49 a.m. CT Witness testifies some ill cattle sent to rendering plant By CHIP CHANDLER
Globe-News Staff Writer A senior vice president of Cactus Feeders Inc. testified Thursday that
cattle with central nervous system diseases were sent to a rendering plant. Attorneys for talk-show host Oprah Winfrey tried to link those diseases
with mad cow disease during a sometimes heated cross-examination. Mike Engler -- son of Paul Engler, the original plaintiff and owner of
Cactus Feeders Inc. -- agreed that more than 10 cows with some sort of
central nervous system disorder were sent to Hereford By-Products. snip... Encephalitis was indicated on the death certificates -- or ``dead
slips'' -- of three Cactus Feeders cows discussed in court. The slips
then were stamped, ``Picked up by your local used cattle dealer'' before
the carcasses were taken to the rendering plant. snip... http://www.amarillonet.com/ns-search/stories/012398/cattle.shtml?NS-search-set=/3704d/aaaa2813004db0d&NS-doc-offset=93& this is just one example, of only one person that got caught. BUT, now we have many many feed ban violations since the
8/4/97 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban that went into place,
which very few actually new about. they are ongoing up to May 2002,
when the Bush administration took another step and made _secret_
all mad cow feed ban violations in the USA in the name of
'terrorism risk factor' so i am assuming that the 'industry'
is now the terrorist? or why were these warning letters made secret?
the public now has to obtain any information on this
matter through the FOIA. this is very disturbing news, and in
my opinion, proves they are just hiding more violations.
i was an upexpected/uninvited guest of the jan. 9, 2001
USA emergency 50 state BSE conference call, and was shocked
at the number of industry individuals that had absolutely
no idea what was going on, and some had never even heard of
the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban that was put into a
voluntarily effect on 8/4/97, they could not even assure me
that 'tissue/serum donor herds' had never been fed ruminant
materials. all this i documented here; 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
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de######### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#########Greetings List Members, I was lucky enough to sit in on this BSE conference
call today and even managed to ask a question.
that is when the trouble started. I submitted a version of my notes to
Sandra Blakeslee of the New York Times,
whom seemed very upset, and rightly
so. "They tell me it is a closed meeting and
they will release whatever information
they deem fit. Rather infuriating." and i would have been doing just fine,
until i asked my question. i was surprised
my time to ask a question so quick. (understand, these are taken from my notes for now.
the spelling of names and such could be off.) [host Richard Barns]
and now a question from Terry S. Singeltary of
CJD Watch. [TSS]
yes, thank you,
U.S. cattle, what kind of guarantee can you
give for serum or tissue donor herds? [no answer, you could hear in the back ground,
mumbling and 'we can't. have him ask the question
again.] [host Richard]
could you repeat the question? [TSS]
U.S. cattle, what kind of guarantee can you
give for serum or tissue donor herds? [not sure whom ask this]
what group are you with? [TSS]
CJD Watch, my Mom died from hvCJD and we are
tracking CJD world-wide. [not sure who is speaking]
could you please disconnect Mr. Singeltary [TSS]
you are not going to answer my question? [not sure whom speaking]
NO from this point, i was still connected, got to listen
and tape the whole conference. at one point someone
came on, a woman, and ask again; [unknown woman]
what group are you with? [TSS]
CJD Watch and my Mom died from hvCJD
we are trying to tract down CJD and other
human TSE's world wide. i was invited to
sit in on this from someone inside the USDA/APHIS
and that is why i am here. do you intend on banning
me from this conference now? at this point the conference was turned back up,
and i got to finish listening. They never answered
or even addressed my one question, or even addressed
the issue. BUT, i will try and give you a run-down
for now, of the conference. IF i were another Country, I would take heed to my
notes, BUT PLEASE do not depend on them. ask for
transcript from; RBARNS@ORA.FDA.GOV
301-827-6906 he would be glad to give you one ;-) snip...please see full text documented here; http://vegancowboy.org/TSS-part1of8.htm FROM New York TIMES Subject: Re: BSE 50 STATE CONFERENCE CALL thread from BSE List and FDA
Posting of cut version...
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:02:47 -0700
From: "Sandy Blakeslee"
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: 1Hi terry -- thanks for all your help. I know it made a difference with
the FDA getting out that release. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:06 PM
Subject: BSE 50 STATE CONFERENCE CALL thread from BSE List and FDA
Posting of cut version... > http://www.vegsource.com/talk/lyman/messages/8219.html
> http://www.vegsource.com/talk/lyman/messages/8220.html
> http://www.vegsource.com/talk/lyman/messages/8221.html
> http://www.vegsource.com/talk/lyman/messages/8222.html
> http://www.vegsource.com/talk/lyman/messages/8230.html
>
> hi sandy, >From the New York Times NYTimes.com, January 11, 2001 Many Makers of Feed Fail to Heed Rules on Mad Cow Disease
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE Large numbers of companies involved in manufacturing animal feed are not
complying with regulations meant to prevent the
emergence and spread of mad cow disease in the United States, the Food
and Drug Administration said yesterday. The widespread failure of companies to follow the regulations, adopted
in August 1997, does not mean that the American food supply is unsafe,
Dr. Stephen Sundlof, director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine at
the F.D.A., said in an interview. But much more needs to be done to ensure that mad cow disease does not
arise in this country, Dr. Sundlof said. The regulations state that feed manufacturers and companies that render
slaughtered animals into useful products generally may not feed mammals
to cud-chewing animals, or ruminants, which can carry mad cow disease. All products that contain rendered cattle or sheep must have a label
that says, "Do not feed to ruminants," Dr. Sundlof said. Manufacturers
must also have a system to prevent ruminant products from being
commingled with other rendered material like that from chicken, fish or
pork. Finally, all companies must keep records of where their products
originated and where they were sold. Under the regulations, F.D.A. district offices and state veterinary
offices were required to inspect all rendering plants and feed mills to
make sure companies complied. But results issued yesterday demonstrate
that more than three years later, different segments of the feed
industry show varying levels of compliance. Among 180 large companies that render cattle and another ruminant,
sheep, nearly a quarter were not properly labeling their products and
did not have a system to prevent commingling, the F.D.A. said. And among
347 F.D.A.-licensed feed mills that handle ruminant materials - these
tend to be large operators that mix drugs into their products - 20
percent were not using labels with the required caution statement, and
25 percent did not have a system to prevent commingling. Then there are some 6,000 to 8,000 feed mills so small they do not
require F.D.A. licenses. They are nonetheless subject
to the regulations, and of 1,593 small feed producers that handle
ruminant material and have been inspected, 40 percent
were not using approved labels and 25 percent had no system in place to
prevent commingling. On the other hand, fewer than 10 percent of companies, big and small,
were failing to comply with the record-keeping
regulations. The American Feed Industry Association in Arlington, Va., did not return
phone calls seeking comment. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/science/11COW.html Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA July 2000 FULL TEXT about 16 pages http://www.vegsource.com/talk/lyman/messages/8278.html http://www.vegsource.com/talk/lyman/messages/8279.html plus, with this data now coming from Collinge et al, that
in fact, BSE transmission to the 129-methionine
genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype which is
indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest
sporadic CJD. how many of the sporadic CJDs in the USA
are type 2 PrpSc? it's a whole new ballgame now. this
will/should have great implications on the surgical/medical
arena. please read this letter from Collinge et al; 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
____________________________________ i have posted full text here; http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912118.html here is data supporting confirmation of some sort of TSE
in USA cattle that was documented way back in the 80s,
but the USA refuses to acknowledge this fact; ROUND TABLE ON BSE -- WASHINGTON -- 27-28 JUNE 1989 snip... The summary does tend to give a particular slant to the epidemiology of
BSE which is not totally sound. It is a possibility that the agent of
BSE may be in the cattle population in a number of countries already
apart from the USA and that clinical cases are occurring on rare
occasions. It is also important to off the possibility of the
relationship between BSE and certain low-temperature rendering systems.
For that reason a number of other countries apart from the USA and
France are at risk and, in particular, the Netherlands, Denmark,
Germany and Belgium. For these reasons it would be wise to move to an
international ban on the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants. Clearly the summary also needs to refer to the incidence of BSE in the
UK and not solely to Great Britain. No doubt this has been tidied up
in your comments on the summary conclusions. It is a pity that more of
the comments put forward by Dr. Kimberlin have not been included in the
summary since his views on page 13 are succinct and valuable... snip... http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/08/29003001.pdf Is there a Scrapie-like disease in cattle ? IN CONFIDENCE R.F. MARSH snip... re-mink rancher 'Wisconsin' dead stock feeder using >95%
downer or dead dairy and a few horses... http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/06/10004001.pdf 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
=============
DATABASE CHANGE After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that was used to
compile these numbers. The Agency is starting a new database on April
15, 2002, and future updates on BSE enforcement will draw from it. snip... http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/2002/May_June.htm#Ruminant no where did it state that they would cease to publish the
ruminant-to-rumiant feed ban violations after the above
publication. so, again, where are these now being posted
on the web, what URL??? let us look at a review of past ruminant BSE feed ban warning
letters. these are just the ones i found. most of you have
seen them in the past, but it does not hurt to remind us of
why they no longer post them to the public. if that is
the case? 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') we must not forget the ANIMAL PROTEIN FED TO DEER/ELK.
those warning letters were stopped long ago; Subject: MAD DEER/ELK DISEASE AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:41:46 -0700
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: BSE-L
To: BSE-L8420-20.5% Antler Developer
For Deer and Game in the wild
Guaranteed Analysis Ingredients / Products Feeding Directions snip... _animal protein_ http://www.surefed.com/deer.htm BODE'S GAME FEED SUPPLEMENT #400
A RATION FOR DEER
NET WEIGHT 50 POUNDS
22.6 KG. snip... _animal protein_ http://www.bodefeed.com/prod7.htm Ingredients Grain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain By-Products,
Forage Products, Roughage Products 15%, Molasses Products,
__Animal Protein Products__,
snip... http://www.bodefeed.com/prod6.htm
=================================== MORE ANIMAL PROTEIN PRODUCTS FOR DEER Bode's #1 Game Pellets
A RATION FOR DEER
F3153 GUARANTEED ANALYSIS
Crude Protein (Min) 16%
Crude Fat (Min) 2.0%
snip... Ingredients Grain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain By-Products,
Forage Products, Roughage Products, 15% Molasses Products,
__Animal Protein Products__,
Monocalcium Phosphate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Salt,
snip... FEEDING DIRECTIONS
Feed as Creep Feed with Normal Diet http://www.bodefeed.com/prod8.htm INGREDIENTS Grain Products, Roughage Products (not more than 35%), Processed Grain
By-Products, Plant Protein Products, Forage Products,
__Animal Protein Products__,
L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Monocalcium/Dicalcium
snip... DIRECTIONS FOR USE Deer Builder Pellets is designed to be fed to deer under range
conditions or deer that require higher levels of protein. Feed to deer
during gestation, fawning, lactation, antler growth and pre-rut, all
phases which require a higher level of nutrition. Provide adequate
amounts of good quality roughage and fresh water at all times. http://www.profilenutrition.com/Pro...er_pellets.html DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION April 9, 2001 WARNING LETTER 01-PHI-12
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Brian J. Raymond, Owner
Sandy Lake Mills
26 Mill Street
P.O. Box 117
Sandy Lake, PA 16145
PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT Tel: 215-597-4390 Dear Mr. Raymond: Food and Drug Administration Investigator Gregory E. Beichner conducted
an inspection of your animal feed manufacturing operation, located in
Sandy Lake, Pennsylvania, on March 23, 2001, and determined that your
firm manufactures animal feeds including feeds containing prohibited
materials. The inspection 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 misbranded within the meaning of
Section 403(f), of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). Our investigation found failure to label your swine feed with the
required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to cattle or other Ruminants"
The FDA suggests that 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. In addition, we note that you are using approximately 140 pounds of
cracked corn to flush your mixer used in the manufacture of animal
feeds containing prohibited material. This flushed material is fed to
wild game including deer, a ruminant animal. Feed material which may
potentially contain prohibited material should not be fed to ruminant
animals which may become part of the food chain. 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 FDA's Small Entity Compliance Guide
to assist you with complying with the regulation... blah, blah, blah... http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1115d.pdf
=================================================== now, what about those 'deer scents' of 100% urine',
and the prion that is found in urine, why not just
pass the prion with the urine to other deer... Mrs. Doe Pee Doe in Estrus
Model FDE1 Mrs. Doe Pee's Doe in Estrus is made from Estrus urine
collected at the peak of the rut, blended with Fresh Doe Urine for an
extremely effective buck enticer. Use pre-rut before the does come into
heat. Use during full rut when bucks are most active. Use during
post-rut when bucks are still actively looking for does. 1 oz. http://www.gamecalls.net/huntingproducts/deerlures.html ELK SCENT/SPRAY BOTTLE
*
Works anytime of the year
*
100 % Cow Elk-in-Heat urine (2oz.)
*
Economical - mix with water in spray mist bottle
*
Use wind to your advantage Product Code WP-ESB $9.95 http://www.elkinc.com/Scent.asp prions in urine? [PDF] A URINE TEST FOR THE IN-VIVO DIAGNOSIS OF PRION DISEASES http://www.sigov.si/vurs/PDF/diagnoastika-bse-urin.pdf 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: BSE-L
To: BSE-L3. 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 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: BSE-L
To: BSE-LInvestigators: 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 i will patiently await a reply from FDA lurkers about this
serious matter for public awareness... kind regards,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA
============================================= Subject: USA BSE/TSE RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED BAN VIOLATIONS ''cover-up''
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:17:40 -0600
To: BSE-LGreetings List members, i have tried to inquire about the USA BSE/TSE feed ban
violations with no luck via USDA/APHIS. since about april
or may of 2002, the warning letters have ceased to be posted
publicly, and at the site CVM and Ruminant feed inspections
site url, they have not been updated either. it seems to
me the new administration has taken away all rights for
the public to view these violations. where are they now being posted ??? you can hide it, but it will not make it go away. would/could the USDA/APHIS whom lurk on this list,
please comment? http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/InpectionListDescriptionforHP.htm http://www.testcowsnow.com GBR risk assessment of BSE should be changed to all TSEs. USA GBR II should be changed to GBR III immediately! now about those ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations
that have ceased to be published? why you may ask? Subject: Re: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ???
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:08:13 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L
References:
<3E075C47.3080506@wt.net> <3E21BA6C.3040900@wt.net>
<3E23107A.433C64BF@airtime.co.uk>hello Dr. Dealler, please do not hold your breath for any USA
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters
since May of 2002 to be released anytime soon,
this could be fatal for you;-)
i have not gotten them yet, if any exist.
but i am trying.
hopefully GW et al will not think i am one of
the terrorist, and will allow for this information
to be released (with no charge attached$$$)... kindest regards,
terry Steve Dealler wrote: > 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:
>
>
>>
>>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/
>>
>>on second thought, i now see why they are cutting back on these warning
>>letters of the infamous 8/4/97 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in the USA,
>>that never was. same reason they are not testing cows in sufficient
>>numbers to find any TSEs.
>>
>>they simply don't want to know, and don't want the public to know
>>either, thus keep the gold card 'BSE FREE'.
>>
>>one more time, to all EU/SEAC members please re-evaluate the current GBR
>>of the USA, and change from GBR II to GBR III. the complete GBR
>>assessment should be changed to include _all_ TSEs...
>>
>>P.S. i wonder how deer/elk feed would be listed on FDA site? odd with
>>all the products i sent through the list on deer/elk feed with _animal
>>protein_, i have not seen any warning letters on deer/elk feed. course,
>>it could be filed with the infamous and very handy 'non-species coding
>>system' that is used on imports (i documented here many times).
>>
>>still disgusted in Bacliff, Texas USA Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>>
>>Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:
>>
>>>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>>#########
>>>
>>>Greetings and Happy Holidays,
>>>
>>>hi Linda,
>>>
>>>many thanks for this reply, was just checking in to see
>>>if anything new had happened since our last correspondence.
>>>i thought i had missed something?
>>>
>>> > Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated than
>>>
>>> > the old one, and it does not lend itself to presenting data in
>>>
>>> > a simple spreadsheet as we did in the past.
>>>
>>>how convenient;-) i had no problems with the old one...
>>>
>>> > Please be assured that CVM is working to solve this problem,
>>>
>>> > and we do plan to post this data in the future.
>>>
>>>thank you, if USDA/APHIS are lucky, i will hold my breath until
>>>that time;-)
>>>
>>>nothing personal Linda, take care, and may the New Year bring
>>>
>>>PEACE...
>>>
>>>TSS
>>>
>>>CVM HomePage wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Mr. Singeltary:
>>>>
>>>>As mentioned in my e-mail of December 4, FDA's Center for Veterinary
>>>>Medicine never posted the Warning Letters for ruminant feed
violations on
>>>>our "BSE" page -- http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bse/bsetoc.html.
However,
>>>>these Warning Letters have been included on the FDA "Warning Letters"
>>>>page
>>>>-- http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning.htm that is located on the FDA's
>>>>"Electronic Freedom of Information Reading Room" page. But, not as a
>>>>separate category of Warning Letters for violations of the ruminant
feed
>>>>rules.
>>>>
>>>>I checked the Warning Letter page, and found that quite a few Warning
>>>>Letters have been posted since May; however, I did not find any more
>>>>recent
>>>>than May 7, 2002, regarding "Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>>>Feed/Misbranded" (ruminant feed rule violations.) You may wish to
>>>>file a
>>>>Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to determine if more recent
>>>>Warning Letters have been issued, but not posted on the FDA Home Page.
>>>>Information about filing a FOIA request may be found at:
>>>>http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foiahand.html
>>>>
>>>>As mentioned on the "CVM and Ruminant Feed (BSE) Inspections" site --
>>>>
>>>>"After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that was used to
>>>>compile these listings. The Agency started a new database on April 15,
>>>>2002,
>>>>and future updates on BSE enforcement and inspectional findings
will draw
>>>>from it. The format of the information presented here may change,
due to
>>>>design changes of the new database. This site will be updated after a
>>>>period
>>>>of time that allows for transition into the new database system."
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated than the old
>>>>one,
>>>>and it does not lend itself to presenting data in a simple spreadsheet
>>>>as we
>>>>did in the past. Please be assured that CVM is working to solve this
>>>>problem, and we do plan to post this data in the future.
>>>>
>>>>We have nothing new to report at this time.
>>>>
>>>>I hope that this information is helpful.
>>>>
>>>>Sincerely yours,
>>>>
>>>>Linda A. Grassie for the FDA Home Page
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [mailto:flounder@wt.net]
>>>>Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:03 PM
>>>>To: CVMHomeP@cvm.fda.gov
>>>>Subject: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Greetings,
>>>>
>>>>i have noticed the inspections and warning letters
>>>>from firms not complying with the ruminant-to-ruminant
>>>>feed ban violations has not been updated since (March 11, 2002)?
>>>>
>>>>2) Firms Currently Considered as Not in Compliance with the BSE Feed
>>>>Rule
>>>>
>>>>The following spreadsheet is a subset of Spreadsheet 1 and contains the
>>>>name, address, and firm identifier of all firms that were considered as
>>>>not being in compliance with the BSE feed regulation at their most
>>>>recent inspection, according to the BSE inspection database. Compliance
>>>>status was determined by examination of the BSE Inspection Checklist.
>>>>The dates of the inspections and the specific BSE provision violations
>>>>for each inspection are also included. The listing is organized
>>>>alphabetically first by the FDA District and then by the state in which
>>>>the inspected facility is located.
>>>>
>>>>Most Recent BSE Inspections, Firms Not in Compliance
>>>>
>>>>http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/InpectionListDescriptionforHP.htm
>>>>
>>>>i would be interested to know if all firms are now complying and
that no
>>>>warning letters have been issued since may of 2002, or have they
just not
>>>>been posted?
>>>>
>>>>if so, how can i locate them?
>>>>
>>>>thank you,
>>>>kind regards,
>>>>terry
=======================================================TRIPLE FIRE WALLS OF WHAT ??? NOW about those triple fire walls and imports and what
about these potential biological 'TSE/FMD SUITCASE BOMBS'.
omitting the 44 tons of MBM/GREAVES we imported from the UK; Subject:
Re: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???
From:
S.J.Pearsall@esg.maff.gsi.gov.uk
Date:
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:03:16 +0000
To:
flounder@wt.net (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt
Notification Requested) Terry Meat and bonemeal is not specifically classified for overseas trade
purposes. The nearest equivalent is listed as "flours and meals of meat
or offals (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves". UK
exports of this to the US are listed below: Country Tonnes
1980
1981 12
1982
1983
1984 10
1985 2
1986
1987
1988
1989 20
1990 Data for exports between 1975 and 1979 are not readily available. These
can be obtained (at a charge) from data retailers appointed by HM
Customs and Excise: BTSL (Tel: 01372 463121) or Abacus (01245 252222). Best wishes
Simon Pearsall
Overseas trade statistics Stats (C&F)C Simon
as discussed
thanks
Julie
---
Forwarded message:
Sent: Fri Feb 04 21:47:01 2000
Received: Fri Feb 04 21:45:15 2000
========================================= or what about these potential BSE/TSE imports; Bovine anmls bnlss ex prcssd frozen/U.S. Imports for Consumption 1997
year to date (custom value, in thousands of dollars)
(units of quantity: kilograms) United Kingdom 37,122 kilograms, 43 thousand dollars
Netherlands 56,260 kilograms, 413 thousand dollars
Canada 18,141,481 kilograms, 23,914 million dollars http://mad-cow.org/~tom/sept_mid_98_news.html#offals and if there is BSE in sheep, here is UK sheep/goat export; http://www.vegsource.com/articles/sheep_exports.htm BSE/TSE MADCOW SUITCASE BOMBS USCS=UNSPECIFIED SPECIES CODING SYSTEM=ANYTHING GOES
THE USA SEALED BORDERS ARE LEAKING, AND HAVE BEEN
FOR DECADES...TSS Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:42:56 -0800
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: USA SEALED BORDERS AND THE ''USCS'' (unspecified species
coding system) MORE POTENTIAL B.S.eeeChange in Disease Status of Greece With Regard to Foot-and-Mouth [Federal Register: March 21, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 55)] snip... Under Sec. 94.11, meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine,
including ship stores, airplane meals, and baggage containing these meat
or animal products, may not be imported into the United States except in
accordance with Sec. 94.11 and the applicable requirements of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service at 9 CFR
chapter III. snip... From an economic standpoint, the proposed rule would have little or no
impact on U.S. animal stock and commodities. There are two reasons.
First, the proposed rule would not remove other disease-based
restrictions on the importation of ruminants or swine (and certain meat
and other products from those animals) from Greece into the United
States. Because bovine spongiform encephalopathy is considered to exist
in Greece, the importation of ruminants and meat, meat products, and
certain other products of ruminants that have been in Greece is prohibited. snip... http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid=02-6837-filed ======================== What are the U.S. imports of affected animals or animal products from
the country? Very few products that would be of risk for transmission of BSE were
imported into the US from Greece during 2000 or 2001 (January - April).
Due to the above mentioned import ban, no live ruminants, ruminant meat,
meal made from ruminants, or other high risk products from ruminants
were imported from Greece during this time period. In 2001 (January -
April), 3000 kg of enzymes and prepared enzymes and 5 kg of medicants
containing antibiotics for veterinary use were imported. The data do not
provide a species of origin code for these products, therefore they may
not contain any ruminant product. Sources: World Trade Atlas What is the level of passenger traffic arriving in the United States
from the affected country? Approximately 185,000 direct flights from Greece arrived to US airports
in fiscal year 2000. Also, an unknown number of passengers from Greece
arrived via indirect flights. Under APHIS-PPQ's agriculture quarantine inspection monitoring, 584 air
passengers from Greece were sampled for items of agricultural interest
in fiscal year 2000. Of these passengers, 14 carried meat (non-pork)
items that could potentially transmit pathogens that cause BSE; most
passengers carried from one to two kilograms (kg) of meat, although one
passenger in November 1999 carried 23 kg of meat in a suitcase. Florida,
Massachusetts, and New York were the reported destinations of these
passengers. None of the passengers with meat items reported plans to
visit or work on a ranch or farm while in the US. Source: US Department of Transportation, and APHIS-PPQ Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection data base http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_greece0701.htm Greetings list members, i just cannot accept this; > 23 kg of meat in a suitcase (suitcase bomb...TSS) > The data do not provide a species of origin code for these >
products, therefore they may not contain any ruminant product. what kind of statement is this? how stupid do they think we are? it could also very well mean that _all_ of it was ruminant based products ! Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA What is the level of passenger traffic arriving in the United States
from Slovenia? There were no direct flights from Slovenia to the US in fiscal year 2000. APHIS-PPQ’s agriculture quarantine inspection monitoring sampled 27 air
passengers from Slovenia for items of agricultural interest in fiscal
year 2000. One of these 27 passengers was carrying two kilograms of a
meat item that could potentially harbor pathogens that cause BSE. This
passenger arrived to Elizabeth, New York, in June 2000 and declared no
intention to visit a farm or ranch in the US. Source: US Department of Transportation, and APHIS-PPQ Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection data base http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_slovenia1101.htm What is the level of passenger traffic arriving in the United States
from the affected country? A total of 45,438 passengers arrived in the US on direct flights from
the Czech Republic in fiscal year 2000. It is likely that additional
passengers originating in the Czech Republic traveled to the US on
non-direct flights. As part of APHIS-PPQ’s Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring, 238
air passengers from the Czech Republic were inspected for items of
agricultural interest in fiscal year 2000. Of these, 10, or 4.2%, were
found to be carrying a total of 17 kg of items that could potentially
present a risk for BSE. None of the passengers with items reported plans
to visit or work on a farm or ranch while in the US. Source: US Department of Transportation, and APHIS-PPQ Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection data base http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_cz0601.htm What are the US imports of affected animals or animal products from Austria? Between 1998 and June 2001, US imports from Austria included goat meat,
animal feeds, and sausage. The sausage and animals feeds were from
unspecified species. Source: World Trade Atlas snip... What is the level of passenger traffic arriving in the United States
from Austria? A total of 168,598 passengers on direct flights from Austria arrived at
US airports in fiscal year 2000. An undetermined number of passengers
from Austria arrived in the US via indirect flights. Under APHIS-PPQ’s agricultural quarantine inspection monitoring, 565 air
passengers from Austria were sampled for items of agricultural interest
in fiscal year 2000. Ten (10) of these passengers, or 1.7 percent,
carried a total of 23 kg meat (non-pork) items that could potentially
harbor the pathogen(s) that cause BSE. None of these passengers from
whom meat items were confiscated reported plans to visit or work on a
ranch or farm during their visit to the US. Source: US Dept. of Transportation; APHIS-PPQ http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_austria1201.htm Greetings FDA and public, if you go to the below site, and search all BSE known countries and
check out their air traffic illegal meat they have confiscated, and
check out the low number checked, compared to actual passenger traffic,
would not take too much for some nut to bring in FMD/TSEs into the USA
as a 'suitcase bomb'. [[Under APHIS-PPQ's agricultural quarantine inspection monitoring, 284
air passengers from Israel were sampled for items of agricultural
interest in fiscal year 2001. Seven of these passengers, or 2 percent,
carried a total of 11 kg of meat items that could potentially harbor the
pathogen that causes BSE. None of these passengers from whom meat items
were confiscated reported plans to visit or work on a ranch or farm
during their visit to the U.S.]] if they were to have questioned the terrorist that bombed the Twin
Towers with jets, if they were to have questioned them at flight school
in the USA, i am sure that they would have said they did not intend to
visit the Twin Towers as a flying bomb either. what am i thinking, they
probably did ask this? stupid me. [[In 1999 a small amount of non-species specific meat and offal was
imported and a small amount of fetal bovine serum (FBS) was also
imported. FBS is considered to have a relatively low risk of
transmitting BSE.]] more of the USA infamous 'non-species coding system', wonder how many of
these species are capable of carrying a TSE? snip... A total of 524,401 passengers arrived on direct flights to the U.S. from
Israel in fiscal year 2000. This number does not include passengers who
arrived in the U.S. from Israel via indirect flights. Under APHIS-PPQ's agricultural quarantine inspection monitoring, 284 air
passengers from Israel were sampled for items of agricultural interest
in fiscal year 2001. Seven of these passengers, or 2 percent, carried a
total of 11 kg of meat items that could potentially harbor the pathogen
that causes BSE. None of these passengers from whom meat items were
confiscated reported plans to visit or work on a ranch or farm during
their visit to the U.S. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_israel0602.htm Source: U.S. Department of Transportation and APHIS-PPQ Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection data base. What is the level of passenger traffic arriving in the United States
from Japan? Approximately 6.84 million passengers on 29,826 direct flights from
Japan arrived at US airports in fiscal year 2000. An undetermined number
of passengers from Japan arrived in the US via indirect flights. Under APHIS-PPQ's agriculture quarantine inspection monitoring, 801 air
passengers from Japan were sampled for items of agricultural interest in
fiscal year 2000. Of these 801 passengers, 10 carried meat (non-pork)
items that could potentially harbor the pathogen(s) that cause BSE; most
passengers carried an average of 1.7 kilograms of meat. None of these
passengers from whom meat items were confiscated reported plans to visit
or work on a ranch or farm during their visit to the US. Source: US Department of Transportation, and APHIS-PPQ Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection data base http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_japan0901.htm What is the level of passenger traffic arriving in the United States
from the affected country? A total of 3.3 million passengers arrived in the US on direct flights
from Germany in 1998, although many of these passengers would not have
originated in Germany. As part of APHIS-PPQ's Agriculture Quarantine
Inspection Monitoring, 8,247 air passengers from Germany were inspected
for items of agricultural interest. Of these, 198, or 2.3%, were found
to be carrying a total of 304 kg of items that could potentially present
a risk for BSE. Thirty (30) of the passengers with items reported plans
to visit or work on a farm or ranch while in the US. Reported
destination states of these 30 passengers were CA, CO, DE, FL, LA, MT,
OH, VA, and WY. Source: US Department of Transportation, and APHIS-PPQ Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection data base http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bse_germany1200e.htm search archives at bottom of page of each BSE Country; http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/iw_archive.htm kind regards, Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA more on non-species coding system and TSEs and potential
'suitcase bombs' http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9911936.html http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9911943.html
========================================================== ANOTHER COW GOES DOWN WITH CWD IN LAB STUDIES; Subject: Re: CWD TO CATTLE by inoculation (ok, is it three or four???)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:20:41 +0000
From: Steve Dealler
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Organization: Netscape Online member
To: BSE-L
References: Dear Dr Miller,
I have to admit it was difficult to me to believe either....but in the
end I just had to realise that it
was true.
When I investigated the age at which cattle actually were becoming
infected it was shocking to find that
the majority were infected under 1 month of age (and many of them seemed
to be within the first week,
although the data on this was more shakey, and the rest seemed to be
infected in a decreasing slope up to
the 7th month.
The question was: just how could the cattle be infected simply so young?
What also was turning out was that I could not find any obvious sign of
multipoint inoculation and it was
as if either there was a major dose arriving at one point or not at all.
Again the maths on that was
difficult but would probably stand up to the logic. These figures could
only be certain in the period on
either of the feed ban in the UK in 1988: but then again there was no
change in the age distrubution
after some other factors are removed since that point. For a long time we had been wondering why, during the epidemic, the age
distribution of cases did not
change greatly, when the actual amount of infectivity in the total diet
of the battle population may have
gone up 10,000fold. Surely, if infection was taking place at many
points in an animal's life then they
would have been becoming younger when dying of disease as the epidemic
progressed?..but this was not
seen. So...when you argue that a lamb is unlikely to have been infected
naturally at a single point....I think
that this is almost certainly incorrect and that they are indeed
infected when exceedingly young and
probably at a single point. Also I now believe that the amount of
infectivity needed to infect these
animals is likely to be very low compared with adults when given orally.
(this was all published in the
British Food Journal in 2001)
Steve Dealler "Janice M. Miller" wrote: > ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#########
>
> I did not mean to imply that it wouldn't be possible for an animal to
> consume that amount of material, especially over a lifetime. I was
> merely pointing out that it is unlikely a lamb would be naturally
> exposed to that amount of material at a single time point early in its
> life and therefore such a short incubation period would not be expected
> to occur under non-experimental conditions.
>
> >>> flounder@WT.NET 12/09/02 12:35PM >>>
>
>
> hello Dr. Miller,
>
> i was curious about this statement;
>
> > It was not a true natural exposure, however, because they fed
>
> > the lambs 2-5 grams of infectious brain, which is very likely a
>
> > much larger dose than would occur under natural conditions.
>
> how do you come to the conclusion that 2-5 grams is a
> 'much larger dose than would occur under natural conditions',
> considering 1/2 to 1 gram is lethal for a cow ?
>
> "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."
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2001/new00752.html
>
> if we look at these studies, we will find that
> the 5.5 grams would be more than sufficient to
> infect a cow, if the feed was tainted with TSEs...TSS
>
> please read page 4, 5 and 6 of some 53;
>
> Scientific Steering Committee
> ORAL EXPOSURE OF HUMANS TO THE BSE AGENT:
> INFECTIVE DOSE AND SPECIES BARRIER
>
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out79_en.pdf
>
> 9 DR. BROWN: If I am not mistaken, and I can be
> 10 corrected, I think a half a gram is enough in a cow, orally;
> 11 in other words, one good dietary-supplement pill.
>
> [FULL TEXT ABOUT 600 PAGES]
> 3681t2.rtf
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber01.htm
>
> thank you,
>
> kind regards,
> terry
>
> Janice M. Miller wrote:
> >
> > With scrapie it's believed that most infections occur at or
> shortly
> > after birth, either from exposure to placenta from the lamb's own
> > infected dam or from another placent of another infected ewe that is
> > lambing at the same time. There are several experiments reported,
> > however, in which older sheep from scrapie-free flocks have been put
> in
> > contact with lambing ewes from scrapie flocks and transmission has
> > occurred. In these cases the incubation period appears to be
> longer.
> > Recently we heard in England that they have been able to reproduce
> > scrapie within 6 months (an incredibly short incubation period for
> that
> > disease) by oral exposure of 2-week old lambs. It was not a true
> > natural exposure, however, because they fed the lambs 2-5 grams of
> > infectious brain, which is very likely a much larger dose than would
> > occur under natural conditions. The effect of age on incubation
> period
> > may reflect the amount of lymphoid tissue available in the
> intestinal
> > tract of lambs because they experience a significant amount of
> atrophy
> > in that tissue diromg the first year of life. I don't remember
> anyone
> > suggesting that age plays a role in either the success of
> transmissions
> > or incubation periods when sheep are inoculated initracerebrally.
> That
> > seems to depend mostly on infectious titer of the inoculum and the
> > genetics of the recipient sheep.
> > In CWD no one has found any evidence that placenta is
> infectious
> > so the source of infectivity for transmission is unknown. In the
> highly
> > contaminated wildlife research facility at Colorado they lose over
> 90%
> > of their deer by about 2 years of age so it is likely that those
> animals
> > are infected at a very young age. In the wild, however, they are
> > reporting some positive animals that are much older so while there
> might
> > be some development of resistance with age, it certainly isn't
> complete.
> > I don't know that anyone has reported doing experiments where
> CWD-free
> > deer of different ages were put into a contaminated environment to
> see
> > if the transmission rates or incubation periods would be influenced
> by
> > age.
> >
> >
> >>>>taotm@EARTHLINK.NET 11/26/02 08:24AM >>>
> >>>
> >
> > Dr. Miller,
> >
> > About a year ago there was a report of from a Colorado DoW staffer
> who
> > recalled seeing scrapie sheep in
> > pens near the sickly-looking deer at the Ft. Collins research
> facility.
> > Although there's some debate about
> > whether those sheep actually had scrapie, given the results of the
> > intercerebral tests-- "... The other
> > sheep, necropsied 35 months after inoculation, showed clinical signs
> > and histopathologic lesions that were
> > indistinguishable from scrapie..."-- has there been any attempt to
> > recreate the alleged conditions at Ft.
> > Collins? In other words, an environmental test where scrapie sheep
> > would be put in close proximity to
> > healthy deer? Clearly there's a huge questions about the mechanics
> of
> > jumping the species barrier. But is
> > it possible that this was the way the CWD prion fire was initially
> lit?
> > Farmed sheep to wild cervids?
> >
> > Also, have there been any tests looking at the age at which an
> animal
> > becomes infected? Are younger,
> > smaller animals more at risk? Does the same dose of infectious
> material
> > as given an adult affect them
> > faster or more intensely?
> >
> > thank you,
> >
> > Janet Ginsburg
> >
> > "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." wrote:
> >
> >>hello Janice,
> >>
> >>many thanks for this update.
> >>
> >> > we do not know if the CWD agent in white-tailed deer
> >> > would be equivalent to that obtained from mule deer.
> >>
> >>i was just reading some data where it states;
> >>
> >>Although few white tailed deer were available for biopsy,
> >>findings were consistent with those in mule deer and
> >>support similarity in lymphoid accumulation of PrPCWD
> >>between the species that has been observed post-mortem.
> >>However, because PrPCWD does not appear to accumulate
> >>in lymphoid tissue to the same degree in elk as deer
> >>(T.R. Spraker, unpublished data)
> >>
> >>i am confused?
> >>
> >>thank you,
> >>kind regards,
> >>
> >>terry
> >>
> >>Janice M. Miller wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>> The statement that 4 cattle have developed evidence of CWD
> >>
> > transmission
> >
> >>>following intracerebral inoculation is correct because an
> >>
> > additional
> >
> >>>animal has been found prion positive subsequent to the 2001 paper
> >>
> > that
> >
> >>>presented preliminary findings after only 2 and a half years of
> >>>observation. Following this message is a summary of the current
> >>
> > status
> >
> >>>of our CWD cross-species transmission experiments in cattle and
> >>
> > sheep.
> >
> >>>This information was prepared in anticipation of questions about
> >>
> > these
> >
> >>>studies that we expected would be raised at the recent annual
> >>
> > meeting of
> >
> >>>the U.S. Animal Health Association.
> >>> I would like to correct one statement in the newspaper
> >>
> > article
> >
> >>>that was attributed to me that is in error. I did not imply that
> >>
> > our
> >
> >>>work thus far could be extrapolated to the situation with
> >>
> > white-tailed
> >
> >>>deer and dairy cattle. While there is no indication that there
> >>
> > should
> >
> >>>be any difference in susceptibility of beef versus dairy cattle, we
> >>
> > do
> >
> >>>not know if the CWD agent in white-tailed deer would be equivalent
> >>
> > to
> >
> >>>that obtained from mule deer. For that reason Dr. Hamir is now
> >>>repeating the original experiment in cattle with brain suspension
> >>
> > from
> >
> >>>affected white-tails as inoculum.
> >>>
> >>>Experimental Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) to
> >>
> > Cattle
> >
> >>>and Sheep
> >>>Progress report - October 15, 2002
> >>>
> >>>Transmission of CWD (mule deer) to cattle:
> >>>
> >>>Background:
> >>>In 1997, 13 calves were inoculated intracerebrally with brain
> >>>suspension from mule deer naturally affected with CWD. During the
> >>
> > first
> >
> >>>3 years, 3 animals were euthanized 23, 24, and 28 months after
> >>>inoculation because of weight loss (2) or sudden death (1).
> >>
> > Although
> >
> >>>microscopic examination of the brains did not show classical
> >>
> > lesions of
> >
> >>>transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), a specific TSE
> >>
> > marker
> >
> >>>protein, PrPres, was detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and
> >>
> > western
> >
> >>>blot . Detailed information on these animals has been published
> >>>previously (A Hamir et al., J Vet Diagn Invest 13: 91-96, 2001).
> >>>
> >>>Update:
> >>>During the 3rd and 4th years of observation, 5 additional animals
> >>
> > have
> >
> >>>been euthanized because of health concerns (primarily chronic joint
> >>
> > and
> >
> >>>foot problems). Although all tests for PrPres are not complete,
> >>
> > IHC
> >
> >>>results indicate that 1 of these animals, necropsied 59 months
> >>
> > after
> >
> >>>inoculation, was positive for PrPres. This animal (# 1746) had not
> >>
> > been
> >
> >>>eating well for approximately 1 week prior to being found
> >>
> > recumbent. At
> >
> >>>necropsy, significant gross lesions consisted of an oblique
> >>
> > fracture of
> >
> >>>L1 vertebral arch with extension into the body, and moderate
> >>
> > multifocal
> >
> >>>hemorrhagic ulceration in the abomasum. Microscopic examination
> >>
> > of
> >
> >>>brain revealed a few isolated neurons with single or multiple
> >>
> > vacuoles,
> >
> >>>but neither neuronal degeneration nor gliosis was observed. IHC
> >>>revealed the presence of PrPres in sections from several areas of
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>brain.
> >>>
> >>>Summary of findings on this case and data from previous animals:
> >>>
> >>> Necropsy Survival Disease Clinical
> >>>Histo- IHC SAF WB
> >>> No. Route date period course signs
> >>
> > pathology
> >
> >>>________________________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>1745 i/c 8/18/99 23m 2m +
> >>>+/- + - +
> >>>
> >>>1768 i/c 9/22/99 24m 3m +
> >>>+/- + + +
> >>>
> >>>1744 i/c 1/29/00 28m 3d ±
> >>>- + + +
> >>>
> >>>1749 i/c 5/20/01 44m NA -
> >>> - - NT NT
> >>>
> >>>1748 i/c 6/27/01 45m NA -
> >>>- - NT NT
> >>>
> >>>1743 i/c 8/21/02 59m NA -
> >>>- - Pending Pending
> >>>
> >>>1741 i/c 8/22/02 59m NA -
> >>>- - Pending Pending
> >>>
> >>>1746 i/c 8/27/02 59m 7d ±
> >>>+/- + Pending Pending
> >>>
> >>>NT = not tested; IHC = immunohistochemistry for PrPres; SAF =
> >>
> > scrapie
> >
> >>>associated fibrils; NA = not applicable; WB = Western blot
> >>>(Prionics-Check); + = lesions or antigen present; - = lesions or
> >>>antigen absent; ± = signs/lesions equivocal; i/c = intracerebral;
> >>
> > m =
> >
> >>>months; d = days.
> >>>
> >>>Summary:
> >>>After 5 years of observation we have 4 CWD transmissions to cattle
> >>
> > from
> >
> >>>a group of 13 inoculates. These animals, which were necropsied 23,
> >>
> > 24,
> >
> >>>28, and 59 months after inoculation, did not show the clinical
> >>
> > signs or
> >
> >>>histopathologic lesions typical of a TSE, but PrPres was detected
> >>
> > in
> >
> >>>brain samples. Four other animals that were necropsied during the
> >>
> > 4th
> >
> >>>and 5th years of observation have not shown evidence of prion
> >>
> > disease
> >
> >>>(although not all tests are complete) and the 5 remaining cattle
> >>
> > are
> >
> >>>apparently healthy. Note that this study involved direct
> >>
> > intracerebral
> >
> >>>inoculation of cattle with the CWD agent, which is an unnatural
> >>
> > route of
> >
> >>>exposure. It is likely that transmission by a more natural route,
> >>
> > such
> >
> >>>as oral exposure, would be much more difficult to accomplish.
> >>
> > Cattle
> >
> >>>have been inoculated orally at the University of Wyoming with the
> >>
> > same
> >
> >>>inoculum used for this experiment, and 5 years into the study
> >>
> > these
> >
> >>>animals remain healthy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Experimental Transmission of CWD (mule deer) to sheep
> >>>
> >>>Eight Suffolk sheep from the NADC scrapie-free flock were
> >>
> > inoculated
> >
> >>>intracerebrally with the CWD brain suspension used to inoculate
> >>
> > cattle.
> >
> >>>PRNP genotyping showed that 4 of the sheep were QQ at codon 171 and
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>other four were QR. Two of the QQ sheep were euthanized during the
> >>
> > 3rd
> >
> >>>year of observation. At necropsy one of these animals had a
> >>
> > urethral
> >
> >>>obstruction and PrPres was not detected in brain or lymphoid
> >>
> > tissues.
> >
> >>>The other sheep, necropsied 35 months after inoculation, showed
> >>
> > clinical
> >
> >>>signs and histopathologic lesions that were indistinguishable from
> >>>scrapie. IHC tests showed typical PrPres accumulations in brain,
> >>>tonsil, and some lymph nodes. The 2 remaining QQ sheep and all 4
> >>
> > QR
> >
> >>>sheep are apparently healthy 39 months after inoculation.
> >>>
> >>>Summary:
> >>>After 3 years of observation we have 1 transmission of CWD to a 171
> >>
> > QQ
> >
> >>>sheep. This animal, which was necropsied 35 months after
> >>
> > inoculation,
> >
> >>>showed clinical signs and histopathologic lesions that were
> >>>indistinguishable from scrapie. Another QQ sheep that was
> >>
> > necropsied
> >
> >>>during the 3rd year showed no evidence of prion disease and all
> >>>remaining sheep (2 QQ and 4 QR) are apparently healthy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>flounder@WT.NET 11/23/02 06:54PM >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>1: J Vet Diagn Invest 2001 Jan;13(1):91-6
> >>>
> >>>Preliminary findings on the experimental transmission of chronic
> >>>wasting
> >>>disease agent of mule deer to cattle.
> >>>
> >>>Hamir AN, Cutlip RC, Miller JM, Williams ES, Stack MJ, Miller MW,
> >>>O'Rourke KI, Chaplin MJ.
> >>>
> >>>National Animal Disease Center, ARS, USDA, Ames, IA 50010, USA.
> >>>
> >>>To determine the transmissibility of chronic wasting disease (CWD)
> >>
> > to
> >
> >>>cattle and to provide information about clinical course, lesions,
> >>
> > and
> >
> >>>suitability of currently used diagnostic procedures for detection
> >>
> > of
> >
> >>>CWD
> >>>in cattle, 13 calves were inoculated intracerebrally with brain
> >>>suspension from mule deer naturally affected with CWD. Between 24
> >>
> > and
> >
> >>>27
> >>>months postinoculation, 3 animals became recumbent and were
> >>>euthanized.
> >>>Gross necropsies revealed emaciation in 2 animals and a large
> >>>pulmonary
> >>>abscess in the third. Brains were examined for protease-resistant
> >>>prion
> >>>protein (PrP(res)) by immunohistochemistry and Western blotting
> >>
> > and
> >
> >>>for
> >>>scrapie-associated fibrils (SAFs) by negative-stain electron
> >>>microscopy.
> >>>Microscopic lesions in the brain were subtle in 2 animals and
> >>
> > absent
> >
> >>>in
> >>>the third case. However, all 3 animals were positive for PrP(res)
> >>
> > by
> >
> >>>immunohistochemistry and Western blot, and SAFs were detected in 2
> >>
> > of
> >
> >>>the animals. An uninoculated control animal euthanized during the
> >>
> > same
> >
> >>>period did not have PrP(res) in its brain. These are preliminary
> >>>observations from a currently in-progress experiment. Three years
> >>>after
> >>>the CWD challenge, the 10 remaining inoculated cattle are alive
> >>
> > and
> >
> >>>apparently healthy. These preliminary findings demonstrate that
> >>>diagnostic techniques currently used for bovine spongiform
> >>>encephalopathy (BSE) surveillance would also detect CWD in cattle
> >>>should
> >>>it occur naturally.
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11243374&dopt=Abstract
>
> >>>Sat, Nov 23, 2002
> >>>
> >>>Scientists unsure if CWD can jump species
> >>>
> >>>By Jessica Bock
> >>>Wausau Daily Herald
> >>>jbock@wdhprint.com
> >>>
> >>>snip...
> >>>
> >>>Janice Miller, a veterinarian in charge of the experiment, said
> >>
> > she
> >
> >>>believes previous research shows it is hard for the disease to be
> >>>transmitted naturally from whitetail deer to dairy cattle.
> >>>"Our study says nothing of how it could be transmitted in natural
> >>>surroundings," she said.
> >>>
> >>>Miller has been studying the transmission of CWD from mule deer to
> >>>cattle since 1997. Since then, chronic wasting disease was
> >>
> > transmitted
> >
> >>>to four out of 13 cattle injected with brain tissue from naturally
> >>>infected mule deer, she said.
> >>>
> >>>In Wyoming, Williams has been studying cattle that were given a
> >>>concoction of diseased brain tissue orally, and five years into
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>study the animals remain healthy, Miller said.
> >>>No one knows if chronic wasting disease could ever spread to
> >>
> > another
> >
> >>>species through natural surroundings.
> >>>
> >>>"Our experience is that it's pretty hard to predict," Miller said.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/wdhlocal/277564794712612.shtml
> >>>
> >>>greetings list,
> >>>
> >>> > Since then, chronic wasting disease was
> >>>
> >>> > transmitted to four out of 13 cattle
> >>>
> >>>is this a typo by the media or has another cow gone down
> >>>with CWD since the preliminary findings were found?
> >>>
> >>>TSS
=======================================================
scrapie in USA increasing;Subject: SCRAPIE 'USA' ANNUAL REPORT (105 newly infected flocks 2002) &
CWD IN USA
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:17:17 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: flounder@wt.netDate: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 21:21:10 -0600
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: SCRAPIE 'USA' ANNUAL REPORT (105 newly infected flocks 2002) &
CWD IN USAAs of September 30, 2002, there were 45 scrapie infected and source
flocks (figure 3). There were 105 newly infected flocks, reported in
FY2002 (figure 4). In addition, 379 scrapie cases were confirmed and
reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in FY
2002 (figure 5) and (figure 6). Five cases of scrapie in goats were
reported in FY 2002 (figure 7), the last of which was confirmed in
August 2002. New infected and source flocks numbers and the number of
these flocks released in FY 2002 are depicted in chart 4. One hundred
(100) flocks which is 67 percent of the scrapie infected and source
flocks present in FY 2002 were released or put on clean-up plans in FY2002. Slaughter Surveillance Slaughter Surveillance is currently in Phase II which is intended to
determine the prevalence of scrapie in the US culled sheep population.
Through September 2002 samples from 3,269 sheep were submitted to NVSL
for testing. Samples from a total of 6,795 sheep have been submitted
since the beginning of Phase II on April 1, 2002. Surveillance regions
are depicted in (figure 8). Scrapie Testing During FY 2002 11,751 animals have been tested for scrapie which
includes: 2,711 regular necropsy cases, 1,343 third eyelid biopsies for
the test validation project, 546 third eyelid biopsies for the
regulatory program, and approximately 7,151 animals for Phase I & II of
SOSS (chart 5). Laboratory testing has been taking 10 - 11 days on
average with a range of 3 - 34 days. Ear Tag Orders During FY 2002 9.9 million plastic and 6.0 million metal tags were
distributed by APHIS (chart 6). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/annual_report/annual-report.html NEW SCRAPIE INFECTED AND SOURCE FLOCKS http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/annual_report/figure04.gif DISTRIBUTION OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE THROUGHOUT THE STATES (as of
Oct. 2002) http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/cwd-distribution.html CWD USA surveillance http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/cwd-state.html now let us compare BSE/TSE testing in USA to EU Countries; Subject: Re: USDA : Triples Number of Tests for BSE
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:50:12 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
References: <20030116151819.25104.qmail@web20107.mail.yahoo.com>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#########Greetings List Members, > USDA MARKS PROGRESS ON BSE PREVENTION ACTION STEPS
> Triples Number of Tests for BSE
> Release No. 0012.03 big deal, i am not impressed. i don't care about no sample study fuzzy math either.
i use common sense and have seen what happened to other
Countries that thought they too were BSE free, but
eventually went down to BSE/TSE when massive rapid
testing went down, they are wiser today for it, and
the public is safer. BUT the USA refuses to listen. lets compare figures; In fiscal year 2002, USDA tested 19,990 cattle for BSE using a targeted
surveillance approach designed to test the highest risk animals,
including downer animals (animals that are non-ambulatory at slaughter),
animals that die on the farm, older animals and animals exhibiting signs
of neurological distress. During FY 2001, USDA tested 5,272. http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/01/0012.htm Backgrounder on USDA's BSE Surveillance July 2001
Veterinary Services The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) constantly evaluates its means
and methods for safeguarding American agriculture from foreign animal
diseases, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). As science
moves forward and new information and technologies become available,
USDA continually works to ensure that the latest advances are
incorporated in its efforts to prevent the introduction of foreign
diseases and pests. No case of BSE has ever been detected in the United States to date out
of more than 13,900 sampled. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/backgrounder.html Greetings again list members, so let us add up the _TOTAL_ BSE/TSE testing _EVER_ to 2001
with the token tripling cases of fiscal year 2002; 13,900
19,990 33,890 TOTAL CATTLE EVER TESTED IN THE USA TO DATE considering; total USA cattle pop. any given year 100 MILLION
total USA cattle slaughter annually 37 MILLION
total USA DOWNER CATTLE annually 190 THOUSAND (190,000) total USA CATTLE BSE/TSE tested to date [33,890] now, compare with just Ireland, considering the smaller
cattle pop. factor; Three cases of BSE disclosed this week January 17, 2003 (17:04) Three cases of BSE, one each in Louth, Meath and Sligo, have
been disclosed in the past week. This brings the total number of BSE
cases for 2003 to 18. One of the cases disclosed this week was identified by means of
traditional passive surveillance. The remaining two cases have been
identified under the increased active surveillance programme. Under this
programme, testing of a proportion of fallen stock and cattle destined
for human consumption was initiated in July 2000. This was extended in January 2001 to test all cattle over 30 months
destined for human consumption and all casualty animals. Since July
2001, all fallen cattle are also tested. Over 662,000 tests were carried
out in 2001 and over 688,000 tests were carried out in 2002. Over 27,600
tests have been carried out this year to-date. The underlying trend remains positive, and the increasing age profile of
animals confirmed with the disease indicates that the enhanced controls
introduced in 1996 and early 1997 are proving effective. http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0117/bse.html now let us look at all EU TESTING and compare to USA; BSE TESTING Cumul January-October 2002 Belgique/België 1.5 MILLION
Danmark 0.9 MILLION
Deutschland 6.3 MILLION
Ellas 0.3 MILLION
España 3.4 MILLION
France 11.2 MILLION
Ireland 3.6 MILLION
Italia 3.4 MILLION
Luxembourg 0.1 MILLION
Nederland(7) 1.7 MILLION
Österreich 1.0 MILLION
Portugal 0.8 MILLION
Suomi-Finland 0.4 MILLION
Sverige 0.7 MILLION
United Kingdom(6) 5.0 MILLION Total 40.4 MILLION BSE TESTS please see full text and results of testing; http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/bse_cumul_10-02_en.pdf and this from the USDA; USDA, NEWS RELEASE USDA MARKS PROGRESS ON BSE PREVENTION ACTION STEPS
Triples Number of Tests for BSE
Release No. 0012.03 WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2002 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture more than
tripled the number of cattle it tested for bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) during the last fiscal year and has made
significant steps on other prevention measures aimed at keeping the
disease from entering the United States."We remain vigilant at
strengthening programs to keep BSE out of this country,” said
Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman. “Our surveillance level far
exceeds international testing standards and is just one component of a
multi-faceted regulatory and compliance system that is keeping the
United States free of BSE.” Full text http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/01/0012.htm but they fail to tell you about the ruminant-to-ruminant
feed ban warning letters they have _ceased_ to give out to
the public since May 2002? so really, i would dispute
the above statement until we know more, and i really
would dispute the statement of USA being BSE/TSE FREE with
the above findings and statements from the USDA/APHIS
(and findings from my submission to FDA below).
actions speak louder than words, and comparing figures
and findings of BSE testing in the EU with the USA,
the USDA/APHIS token triple of testings in 2002, is
nothing more than a band-aid approach to a problem that
needs a tourniquet, a neck brace and a lot of pain killers.
especially with the increase in Scrapie and the rapid
spreading of CWD, lack of BSE/TSE rapid testing, and past
and present feeding practices of ruminant feed, and the
late Richard Marsh findings, how could there not be? # Re: Docket No. 02N-0273 – Substances Prohibited From Use In Animal
Food Or Feed (TSS SUBMISSION) http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912338.html Re: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ??? http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912301.html evidently the EU countries know something is up with BSE/TSE
here in the USA since they demand that USA export removes SRMs.
oddly/sadly enough, the USA citizen is too ignorant to understand
what is being put on their plates, and what really is going on; Re: USA BEEF PRODUCTS EXPORT $$$ U.S.A. Abattoirs approved for Swiss
export $ SRMs http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912298.html if you don't believe me, ask the Queen and Her Majesty's Court.
this was just last year; Bovine Embryos and Live Cattle: Imports from North America The Earl of Caithness asked her Majesty's Government: When the ban on the importation of embryos and live cattle from
North America will be lifted; and [HL3912] What is the scientific evidence for the imposition of a ban on
the importation of embryos and live cattle from North America. [HL3913] Lord Whitty: Her Majesty's Government have not imposed a ban on imports
of bovine embryos and live cattle from North America. The European Parliament and European Council introduced legislation in
May last year laying down rules for the prevention, control and
eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs).
The legislation was introduced in response to the recommendations of the
Office International des Epizooties (OIE--the international animal health
organisation) and advice from the Commission's scientific comittees. The
legislation (and the transitional measures which came into effect in
October last year) includes requirement that imports into the EU of
bovine embryos and live cattle must be accompanied by certification
confirming that the feeding of ruminants with protein derived from
mammals has been banned and that the ban has been effectively enforced.
Some exporting countries, such as _Canada_ and the _USA_, are currently
__unable__ to meet these new requirements. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds02/text/20425w04.htm#20425w04_sbhd2 RAPID TSE TEST USA CATTLE NOW, 1 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR FIVE YEARS
(if we want the truth) http://www.testcowsnow.com TSS ########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
############ ================================================== Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
'MOMS AUTOPSY REPORT' http://www.vegsource.com/talk/lyman/messages/7548.html CJD WATCH http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/349/part1cjd.htm TSS MADCOW NEWS http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/index.html
=============================================== TSS
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
