|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: TSS ()
Link: http://www.usda.gov/2005/07/0259.xml Release No. 0259.04 JOHANNS ANNOUNCES NEXT STEPS FOR IMPORTING Antananarivo, Madagascar, July 15, 2005 - Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today outlined the steps necessary to reopen the U.S. border to Canadian cattle under 30 months of age and other ruminants. "We will move as expeditiously as possible to begin importing Canadian cattle, but we will do so very carefully to ensure the minimal risk rule criteria are clearly met," Johanns said. "We are coordinating very closely with other U.S. and Canadian government agencies to make certain the correct procedures are in place to properly inspect shipments and verify that our criteria are met." USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will issue Standard Operating Procedures to their field offices, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection offices. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) will issue an updated list of approved products that will be allowed across the border. The agency will also issue instructions to FSIS personnel who will inspect cattle received for immediate slaughter. The process for importing shipments of live cattle and other ruminants, once the preparatory steps are complete, will begin in Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency will issue health certificates to verify the age and identification of the animal and ensure it meets the minimal risk rule criteria. Once verified, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will review the documentation and confirm the shipments are appropriate for entry into the United States. The animals will then be released to APHIS veterinarians at border inspection facilities who will inspect the cattle and validate the Canadian certification. Additionally, FSIS inspection personnel will verify U.S. requirements are met at the point of slaughter. # ================ IT"S a damn shame Johanns et al will not work as hard to stop the inefficientcies of the USDA et al in the BSE saga, Working Group Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR USA http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/574/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_annex_en1.pdf> CANADA http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/563/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_annex_en1.pdf MEXICO http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/566/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_annex_en1.pdf http://www.efsa.eu.int/press_room/press_release/575_en.html Greetings FDA, snip... PLUS, if the USA continues to flagrantly ignore the _documented_ science to date about the known TSEs in the USA (let alone the undocumented TSEs in cattle), it is my opinion, every other Country that is dealing with BSE/TSE should boycott the USA and demand that the SSC reclassify the USA BSE GBR II risk assessment to BSE/TSE GBR III 'IMMEDIATELY'. for the SSC to _flounder_ any longer on this issue, should also be regarded with great suspicion as well. NOT to leave out the OIE and it's terribly flawed system of disease surveillance. the OIE should make a move on CWD in the USA, and make a risk assessment on this as a threat to human health. the OIE should also change the mathematical formula for testing of disease. this (in my opinion and others) is terribly flawed as well. to think that a sample survey of 400 or so cattle in a population of 100 million, to think this will find anything, especially after seeing how many TSE tests it took Italy and other Countries to find 1 case of BSE (1 million rapid TSE test in less than 2 years, to find 102 BSE cases), should be proof enough to make drastic changes of this system. the OIE criteria for BSE Country classification and it's interpretation is very problematic. a text that is suppose to give guidelines, but is not understandable, cannot be considered satisfactory. the OIE told me 2 years ago that they were concerned with CWD, but said any changes might take years. well, two years have come and gone, and no change in relations with CWD as a human health risk. if we wait for politics and science to finally make this connection, we very well may die before any decisions Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. BOX 42 Bacliff, TEXAS USA Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Minneapolis District Office WARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL Refer to MIN 05-15 Michael J. Langenhorst Dear Mr. Langenhorst: Our inspection of your rendering plant located at 505 Hardman Avenue South, South St. Paul, Minnesota, from January 12-20, 2005, revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations , Part 589 .2000 (21 CFR 589 .2000), Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Because you failed to follow the requirements of this regulation, products being manufactured and distributed by your facility are adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)], and misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1)]. Our investigation found that you failed to provide for measures to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] in that: 1. You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds that may be used for ruminants. 2. You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds that may be used for ruminants. Our investigation also found that you failed to label products that may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues with the statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." For example, your Feather Meal and Stabilized Poultry By-Product Meal lack this statement, even though the absence of sufficient measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination may result in these products containing protein derived from mammalian tissues. Because your products do not bear this caution statement, they are misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) of the Act [21 U.S .C. 343(a)(1)). The above is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for ensuring that your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should acknowledge this letter within 15 working days of receiving and include any additional corrective actions concerning your facility. We have received your letter dated January 31, 2005, which replies to the Form FDA-483 issued on January 20, 2005, and your letter dated February 25, 2005, that states all corrections have been implemented. The corrections you have reported appear to be adequate but will be evaluated further during our follow-up inspection. Your response should be directed to Compliance Officer Jane E . Nelson at the address on the letterhead. If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may phone Ms. Nelson at (612) 758-7119. Sincerely, /S/ W. Charles Becoat GW's BSE/TSE MRR POLICY IS A LEGAL TRADING POLICY TSEs. A POLICY FOR SUICIDE OF LONG INCUBATION. IT'S ABOUT NOTHING MORE THAN COMMODITIES AND FUTURES $$$ TSS
|
