SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  




From: TSS ()
Subject: Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johann Calling in from Madagascar more Johann's BSe
Date: July 16, 2005 at 9:26 am PST

From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: JOHANNS ANNOUNCES NEXT STEPS FOR IMPORTING
Date: July 15, 2005 at 11:39 am PST

Release No. 0260.05
Contact:
Office of Communications (202)720-4623


Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Calling in from Madagascar and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer Animal Plant Health Inspection Service in Washington DC - July 15, 2005
ANNOUNCER: "Good morning. I'm Larry Quinn speaking to you from the Broadcast Center of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington. Welcome to today's news conference with Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns to discuss the Ninth Circuit Court ruling on Canadian cattle trade. The Secretary also will discuss meetings he's held this week with government officials in China and Africa.

"Joining the Secretary from here in Washington is USDA chief veterinarian Dr. John Clifford.

"Reporters, I would remind if you have questions later on for the secretary or Dr. Clifford please press "1" on your telephone touch pad to alert us.

"And now by live connection from Madagascar, here is Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns."

SEC. JOHANNS: "Larry, thank you. And hello to everyone. There are a number of topics I will cover in this call, so I'll just go ahead and get started.

"First I do want to start with the ruling relative to the Canadian beef industry. We will be moving as expeditiously as possible to begin importing Canadian cattle. But of course we will do so carefully to ensure that the minimal risk rule criteria are clearly met.

"There are three steps underway to move the process forward. The first step is that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will issue standard operating procedures to all APHIS field offices, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Offices.

"Secondly, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service will issue updated lists of approved products that will be allowed across the border and instruct personnel who will inspect cattle received for immediate slaughter at FSIS inspected establishments.

"The third area, USDA is communicating with state veterinarians, U.S. importers, U.S. port officials and Canadian officials to ensure all criteria for importing are clear and all systems are in place to properly inspect shipments and ensure the minimal risk rule criteria are met.

"Now once these steps have been taken, here's a general process that will be followed when shipments of live cattle and other ruminants resume. Canada will issue health certificates to verify the age and identification of the animal and ensure it meets minimal risk rule criteria.

"Secondly, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection will receive the documentation and confirm the shipments are appropriate for entry in the U.S., then release two APHIS veterinarians at inspection facilities at the borders.

"Third, APHIS veterinarians will inspect the cattle and verify that the minimal risk rule criteria are met. They'll validate Canadian certification.

"And fourth, FSIS inspection personnel will verify that U.S. requirements are met at the point of slaughter.

"We have been of course in contact with our counterparts in Canada working through these issues, and we'll be working through this process immediately and in the days to come.

"Some quick points on our trip overseas. We are about three-fourths of the way through this major trip. We had good deliverables from our work in China at the JCCT [Joint commission on Commerce and Trade] team meeting we did secure approval of the biotech corn. China has agreed to send to the United States a BSE technical team, and we are anxious to work with China in preparing for that team to come to the United States. That was good news.

"And we executed a SPS Agreement to minimize trade disruption and we also talked with China at great length about the WTO meeting.

"In reference to the WTO meeting in Dalian, I did participate in that meeting. And that meeting I think went well. There's still a tremendous amount of work to be done. But I think the meeting was worthwhile, and there does seem to be a solid commitment by all participating nations to move that WTO process forward.

"I am in Madagascar now. It is a very important country to us. It is the first to receive dollars through the millennium challenge. We are working with Madagascar and agricultural development and markets. Many of the things that they are doing in Madagascar we're very excited about. It's a country that has enjoyed stable government since the new president took office in 2002. They are fostering an atmosphere of democracy and economic growth for their citizens.

"From here tomorrow we go to the AGOA forum and I will be speaking at that forum, and the purpose of that meeting is to do everything we can do to encourage development in Africa. So I look forward to that meeting.

"There has been a lot of discussion about my meeting with the minister of agriculture from Japan. I did meet with him. I indicated to him that we have been very patient in working with them to get through their process. But I believe it is time for that process now to come to an end. I indicated to him that the patience of Congress is bound to run out at some point, and my hope is that we can expeditiously move through the remainder of the Japanese process and resume trade in beef with Japan.

"Very clearly the ruling of this week indicates that we are going to approach these issues based upon sound science as we've explained so many times with Japan, especially recognizing that we're dealing with animals 20 months and younger. The science very definitely is on our side, and it's time for them to reopen their borders and start receiving American beef.

"With that, I'd be happy to take any questions, and as indicated Dr. Clifford is with me to answer any process questions."

ANNOUNCER: "Reminder to reporters, please press "1" on your telephone touch pad to indicate that you wish to ask a question. And our first question today will come from Chris Clayton from the Omaha World Herald. Chris, go ahead with your question, please?"

REPORTER: "Thank you, Secretary, for taking the questions. I'd like to know first do you have a date set for opening that border? And secondly, what has been told to you about the potential now, what happens to this court case in Montana? Does it essentially go away because of this ruling?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "On the first question, Chris, we have not set a date although Canada anticipated that these requirements would be there at whatever time we got a favorable ruling. We anticipated those requirements. So our hope is that we're talking about days and not weeks. It could be as early as next week, but we do want to make sure that everything is in place, that we're prepared for all of the requirements. And so that's what we've been working through.

"If things go well, it could very well be next week, but we haven't set a specific date.

"In terms of the ruling, there is still the hearing before Judge Cebull. You know, the decision on whether the case continues is in RCALF's hands. But we will be prepared to be in his courtroom, and we'll be prepared for the remainder of the case if that is necessary."

ANNOUNCER: "Our next question comes from Libby Quaid from the Associated Press. And standing by would be Randy Fabi. Libby, go ahead, please."

REPORTER: "Mr. Secretary or Dr. Clifford, can you say if USDA or APHIS or even FSIS will be posting updates on the Canada border situation as APHIS has been doing in its ongoing BSE investigation?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "Doctor, can you handle that?"

DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, Mr. Secretary. Yes, we would be obviously (off mike) [inaudible]. We will be updating our fact sheet with regards to the minimal risk rule and be putting those updates on our website."

SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Randy?"

ANNOUNCER: "Randy, go ahead with your question, please?"

REPORTER: "Yes. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to get your reaction if I could in regards to criticism by Japan's Food Safety Commission, which earlier today criticized the U.S. mad cow safeguards as inadequate. Also as a second question, do you see cheaper beef prices for U.S. consumers due to this ruling?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "On the first question, you know I thought about what they are saying, and I must admit it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And here is why. Japan has now recorded; I believe their 20th BSE case. Their animals are older animals. The animals that we will start importing into Japan are 20 months and younger, and there just isn't a situation where you'd find BSE in an animal that young.

"So what they're saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Under what we're proposing with Japan, what they're saying just, there just isn't a possibility that that would occur. You're not going to find BSE in animals 20 months and younger.

"In terms of beef prices, there are so many factors involved in what the price of beef would be it's impossible to tell, and I'd hate to even venture a guess about that because that's what it would be. It would be a guess on my part, and I really don't want to do that.

"Next question?"

ANNOUNCER: "Our next question comes from Don Wick of Red River Farm Network. And he'll be followed by Peter Schinn. Don?"

REPORTER: "Mr. Secretary, you said in the past that the border closing was resulting in a restructuring of the North American cattle industry, the packing industry. Do you think with this announcement from the courts that we can reverse that or maintain the packing industry here in the states?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "I believe we can maintain the industry. There is a certain amount of restructuring that has occurred that will be very difficult to reverse, and I made that statement before the ruling came out on a number of occasions.

"You know, the jobs that were lost in Gering, Nebraska, you know whether they would come back or not would totally be a company decision. But you just worry that those jobs may not, whether it's Gering or some other part of the country.

"Estimates were out there. I don't believe they were our estimates, but there were estimates out there that about 8,000 jobs were impacted, and I'd just worry that many of those jobs are impacted in a very permanent way.

"You know, now that we have a ruling on the Appellate Court, my hope is that that restructuring now will be abated, and this industry can now start getting back to a normal flow of commerce here."

ANNOUNCER: "Our next question comes from Peter Schinn from NAFB, and he'll be followed by Kimberly Haucus (sp). Peter, go ahead."

REPORTER: "Well, thank you very much for taking my question. Mr. Secretary, I have a question for you and then a question for Dr. Clifford. You mentioned some optimism about the WTO mini-ministerial in Dalian , and I just wanted to know how optimistic you feel about that.

"And then for Dr. Clifford, if he has an update on the epidemiological investigation of the most recent case of BSE?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "No, I am optimistic. The countries that were there at that mini-ministerial to the country expressed a real desire to get an agreement. And that is always a very positive sign. There was good discussion about the right approach and although there continues to be debate and even disagreement about that, it was encouraging that countries were very, very engaged.

"I think the concern for everyone is there's just plenty of work to be done. Each day that goes by brings us closer to the Hong Kong meeting, and a lot needs to be done between now and that meeting in December.

"But I'm encouraged. I came away with a notion that if everybody stays focused this is doable, and we can get a good reform-oriented agreement in Hong Kong.

"Doctor, do you want to give us an update on the epidemiological report?"

DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, Mr. Secretary. As we previously indicated and put up on our website, we completed the work in the initial herd [inaudible] actually sampled 67 animals or cattle of interest, and all of those were negative on our [inaudible] and we're continuing the epidemiology with regards to trace outs of herds, and soon as we have that we'll be ready to report on that. But it's not completed as of yet."

SEC. JOHANNS: "Next question?"

ANNOUNCER: "Kimberly Hauca (sp) from Global TV is next. Keith Merkx should be standing by. Kimberly?"

REPORTER: "Yes. Mr. Secretary, I have a question to follow up to the first question you answered. This ruling is on the preliminary injunction, but in a few weeks there will be another hearing, and you said that you'll be prepared to deal with that. But my concern is and I'm wondering, do you have a fear that you'll be giving out that animals will be ready to come into the border only to be possibly sent back again? And if so how would you deal with that?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "We will deal with it, first of all, in a legal manner. The Ninth Circuit has issued its ruling, and the ruling was very clear. And so as I had indicated in the past, with that ruling we are ready to proceed.

"Secondly, of course we always deal with these issues in a scientific manner. We have argued all along that this rule is carefully constructed, thoughtfully put together based upon a thorough risk analysis, and science was on our side. And so we will make that case again before Judge Cebull if that's necessary. And again, we believe that the work was done to lay the platform for the validity of this rule.

"And of course we're very encouraged by the decision of the Ninth Circuit, but if there's more legal process ahead we'll be prepared to deal with that."

ANNOUNCER: "Our next questions comes from Keith Merkx from Texas State Network. And standing by should be Philip Brasher. Keith, go ahead, please."

REPORTER: "Thank you, Larry.

"Mr. Secretary, this sort of expands on some of the previous questions, especially the last one there. Really no reason to believe that a week from this coming Wednesday Judge Cebull won't lay down another permanent injunction this time against the Minimal Risk Rule. Does that mean we might have to wait another four or five months before the Ninth Circuit gets around to reversing it again? How does that work?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "Well, again we'll be prepared for whatever is out there from a legal standpoint. You know in terms of how it works, he has set a hearing. You know, assuming that the case continues we'll be prepared for that hearing. We'll be prepared to put the best case forward. We believe we have a very strong case. And we believe we make a strong case that trade should resume.

"So if it became necessary to follow that case with another appeal, you know we would take whatever steps are necessary. We feel very, very strongly that the border should be reopened. We feel very strongly that beef trade in the world should return to normal within the international guidelines and we're prepared to do that."

ANNOUNCER: "Our next question comes from Philip Brasher, and standing by should be Daniel Goldstein. Philip, go ahead, please."

REPORTER: "Yes, Mr. Secretary, one of my questions was just taken, but I want to follow up with, how do the procedures that you outlined in terms of inspections and so forth that will occur at the border certificates -- how does that compare with what took place prior to May 2003, the time the border was closed?

"And also how do you handle, what do you do with the animal ID that they have in Canada? Does that follow them across the border? Do you --"

SEC. JOHANNS: "Let me ask Dr. Clifford to jump in here and offer some thoughts on both questions. Doctor?"

DR. CLIFFORD: "Yes, Mr. Secretary. The procedures are basically the same procedures as we would follow normally with regards to inspection of animals. We just make sure that the new criteria are being met. As far as animal identification, these animals are required to have Canadian individual ID on them as well as animals for feeding purposes are also required to have a brand."

SEC. JOHANNS: "Okay. Next question, Daniel?"

REPORTER: "Yeah, hi, Mr. Secretary. I just want to confirm that one, no animals today are moving across the border. And then B, some of the equity analysts I've talked to have said they expect that the Tysons, Cargills and the Swifts of the world are going to bring in a large number of animals prior to the 27th just in case Judge Cebull indeed does lay down another injunction. Is that going to be healthy for the U.S. cattle markets to sort of see this kind of hoarding as it were just in case? Or is there something the USDA can do to prevent that from happening?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "On your last question, they have to meet our requirements. I mean, that is the bottom line. We don't try to run the industry, but we do have requirements that all people have to comply with or all processors, all purchasers of cattle. And so our focus will be on making sure that those requirements are met.

"Dr. Clifford, in terms of animals moving can you address that question? There aren't any animals moving I guess is my point, right?"

Dr. CLIFFORD: "There's no animals currently moving. We would not anticipate there would be a hoarding as such toward the courts, that this would be done in a step-wise manner that would make sense with that, and as we go through stages of implementation here --"

SEC. JOHANNS: "This is enough process where it's just going to take everybody some time here to get used to the requirements and the process and the steps that have to be taken. So I would offer that, but again the point is, everybody's got to comply with the requirements, and nothing can happen until those requirements are met.

"Next question?"

ANNOUNCER: "Our next question comes from Jeff Sparska (sp) from Washington Times, and he'll be followed by Orion Samuelson. Jeff, go ahead, please?"

REPORTER: "Hi, Mr. Secretary. Just going back to trade for a second, how do you see the WTO talks and the way they're unfolding and the commitments the U.S. is making affecting the next Farm Bill and prescribing what Congress will be able to do?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "There very definitely is a timing involved here, and if there is a successful WTO round that results in an agreement this December that could very well enter into the discussion and debate on the Farm Bill just simply because it does impact the question of subsidies, exports support, domestic subsidies, market access. All of those things are impacted, and of course that kind of gets to the essence of many parts of the Farm Bill.

"So it very well could have an impact. We have always made the case that we're ready, willing and able to engage in discussion on subsidies. But market access is the key for us. Our farmers are ready to compete with anybody in the world. But we have to have market access.

"We need to have access to the worldwide marketplace for that to occur. So it's very possible that the WTO process could impact the next Farm Bill. Too early to tell just simply because we don't have an agreement yet."

ANNOUNCER: "And our final question comes from Orion Samuelson of WGN. Go ahead, Orion."

REPORTER: "Mr. Secretary, back to Japan for a moment. You indicated you told your counterpart that Congress might lose its patience. Two part question. Is there support on Capitol Hill to take action against Japan if they don't move? And does the Japanese minister understand that we're serious?"

SEC. JOHANNS: "In reference to your first question, Orion, I believe there was support to take action the day I showed up for my confirmation hearing. I was prepared to talk about my qualifications to be Secretary, and as you know we spent almost the entire confirmation hearing talking about Japan. The level of frustration was very, very high at that point.

"What I explained to the Japanese minister was that I believe Congress has been patient in the hopes that this process was logically, thoughtfully moving forward on Japan's part. I also expressed to him that from my vantage point it appeared to me that there were very, very busy between now and the August recess, but after they return from the August recess attention may again turn to whether beef is moving into the Japan marketplace. If it is not, there's a point at which Congress does lose patience.

"And at that point I would be very, very worried that a course of action would be taken that none of us want. This is an excellent trading partner. I don't believe we're asking for anything unreasonable. It is time for them to return to trading with us in beef. We are going to do that with them. We are working on a rule relative to Kobi beef.

"So it very, very truly is time. Science is on our side on this issue. We are not asking them to do anything unusual. So I hope that they will work with us, they will finish this final step in the process, and we can get normal trade resumed.

"With that, everyone-- thank you very, very much. I will see you soon when I'm back in Washington. Take care, everyone."

ANNOUNCER: "Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns speaking to you from Madagascar.


Last Modified: 07/15/2005


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/07/0260.xml


>>>"So what they're saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Under what we're proposing with Japan, what they're saying just, there just isn't a possibility that that would occur. You're not going to find BSE in animals 20 months and younger. <<<


ii. The assumption of low BSE test sensitivity.

Studies coordinated by the EU have shown that the current BSE tests have very

high sensitivity among cattle showing clinical signs of BSE infection. However, due

to the variation in the incubation period for BSE, it is not possible to determine how

sensitive current BSE tests are prior to clinical onset. The updated analysis was

based on the conservative assumption that the test will only pick up infected

animals in approximately the last 3 months prior to clinical disease (as was also

assumed in the 2003 analysis). ...

http://www.seac.gov.uk/publicats/annualreport2004.pdf


Incubation Period

The incubation period usually ranges from 2 to 8 years. Following the onset of clinical signs, the animal's condition gradually deteriorates until the animal becomes recumbent, dies, or is destroyed. This usually takes from 2 weeks to 6 months. Most cases in Great Britain have occurred in dairy cows (Friesians) between 3 and 6 years of age (50). The youngest confirmed case occurred in a 20-month-old heifer, and the oldest case was found in a cow 18 years of age.

http://www.vet.uga.edu/vpp/gray_book/FAD/BSE.htm



Food risks

a.. The Southwood Working Party considered that all reasonably practicable precautions should be taken to reduce the risks that would exist should BSE prove to be transmissible to humans. However, they did not make this plain in their Report and did not recommend that the possible risks from eating animals incubating BSE but not yet showing signs of the disease ('subclinical cases') called for any precautions, other than a recommendation that manufacturers should not include ruminant offal and thymus in baby food. This was a shortcoming in their Report.
b.. Because of a failure to subject the Southwood Report to an adequate review, MAFF and DH failed to identify this shortcoming. Concern about the food risks posed by subclinical cases was, however, expressed by some scientists, by the media and by the public. With the agreement of DH, MAFF reacted by announcing in June 1989 that those categories of offal of cattle most likely to be infectious (SBO) were to be banned from use in human food. The introduction of this vital precautionary measure was commendable. However, this ban was presented to the public in terms that underplayed its importance as a public health measure.
http://www.openi.co.uk/m001026.bse.htm


It cannot be excluded that some, especially long-lived, species of zoo animals, are

currently incubating TSE (e.g. as FSE in cheetahs and felids and BSE in primates), but

the incubation period is unknown and probably is unique to each species (Kirkwood et

al, 1995). Whether or not subclinical infection of the BSE, or some similar, agent can

be transmitted vertically (or conceivably horizontally) within one or more zoo/exotic

species is, as yet, unknown, but is a possibility.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/panels/fseh/papers/fecb2-447e-scan.pdf

FDA Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.

FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html

IN TEXAS, we feed our cattle ruminant protein, and lots of it. but remember (the fda cannot seem to get this right)

.1 gram is lethal;

THE TEXAS GONZALES/PURINA INCIDENT SHOWED THAT 5.5 GRAMS OF
RUMINANT PROTEIN WAS FED TO CATTLE ;

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
P01-05
January 30, 2001
Print Media:
301-827-6242
Broadcast Media:
301-827-3434
Consumer Inquiries:
888-INFO-FDA

FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT

Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests
taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot
that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic
cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997
prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants.
Results indicate that a very low level of
prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.

FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in
total, five-and-one-half grams -
approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals
weigh approximately 600 pounds.

It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in
origin (therefore not likely to contain infected
material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a
very low level, and fed only once. The
potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even
if the feed were contaminated.

According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy
Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators
and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One
important defense is to prohibit the use of any
ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined
with other steps, like U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals
from affected countries, these steps
represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."

Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless
announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222
of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed
containing the prohibited material. Therefore,
meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA
believes any cattle that did not consume
feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident,
and should be handled in the beef supply
clearance process as usual.

FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first
reporting the human error that resulted in the
misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely
with State and Federal authorities.

This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into
place is essential for protecting the food
supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned,
to ensure these rules are followed
routinely.

FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials
to ensure that companies and
individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the
U.S. food supply.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html

From: TSS (216-119-144-34.ipset24.wt.net)
Subject: 1 in 2 CHANCE OF GETTING BSE AKA MAD COW BY THE ORAL ROUTE (PRIMATE STUDY)
Date: January 27, 2005 at 7:03 am PST

Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys
Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can prevent transmission of BSE to man.

Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa

It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf

2

6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley’s answer (that it would take less than say 100

grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one

considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise that it

could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route within the

same species. This information did not become available until the "attack rate"

experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment

designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to ensure

that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the study

and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to trigger

infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that time

ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the designing

scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the results because all the

dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf

Re: BSE .1 GRAM LETHAL NEW STUDY SAYS via W.H.O. Dr Maura Ricketts

[BBC radio 4 FARM news]

http://www.maddeer.org/audio/BBC4farmingtoday2_1_03.ram

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm

2) Infectious dose:

To cattle: 1 gram of infected brain material (by oral ingestion)

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/bio/bseesbe.shtml


NEW MAD COW STRAIN CALLED BASE, VERY SIMILAR TO SPORADIC CJD IN HUMANS;

Medical Sciences
Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy: Molecular similarities with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

Cristina Casalone *, Gianluigi Zanusso , Pierluigi Acutis *, Sergio Ferrari , Lorenzo Capucci , Fabrizio Tagliavini ¶, Salvatore Monaco ||, and Maria Caramelli *

*Centro di Referenza Nazionale per le Encefalopatie Animali, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle d'Aosta, Via Bologna, 148, 10195 Turin, Italy; Department of Neurological and Visual Science, Section of Clinical Neurology, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy; Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna, Via Bianchi, 9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; and ¶Istituto Nazionale Neurologico "Carlo Besta," Via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy

Edited by Stanley B. Prusiner, University of California, San Francisco, CA, and approved December 23, 2003 (received for review September 9, 2003)

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), or prion diseases, are mammalian neurodegenerative disorders characterized by a posttranslational conversion and brain accumulation of an insoluble, protease-resistant isoform (PrPSc) of the host-encoded cellular prion protein (PrPC). Human and animal TSE agents exist as different phenotypes that can be biochemically differentiated on the basis of the molecular mass of the protease-resistant PrPSc fragments and the degree of glycosylation. Epidemiological, molecular, and transmission studies strongly suggest that the single strain of agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has infected humans, causing variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The unprecedented biological properties of the BSE agent, which circumvents the so-called "species barrier" between cattle and humans and adapts to different mammalian species, has raised considerable concern for human health. To date, it is unknown whether more than one strain might be responsible for cattle TSE or whether the BSE agent undergoes phenotypic variation after natural transmission. Here we provide evidence of a second cattle TSE. The disorder was pathologically characterized by the presence of PrP-immunopositive amyloid plaques, as opposed to the lack of amyloid deposition in typical BSE cases, and by a different pattern of regional distribution and topology of brain PrPSc accumulation. In addition, Western blot analysis showed a PrPSc type with predominance of the low molecular mass glycoform and a protease-resistant fragment of lower molecular mass than BSE-PrPSc. Strikingly, the molecular signature of this previously undescribed bovine PrPSc was similar to that encountered in a distinct subtype of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.C. and G.Z. contributed equally to this work.

||To whom correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: salvatore.monaco@mail.univr.it .

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0305777101

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0305777101v1

IF Johann would only look at the TSE science, instead of commodities/futures science, he would see that Japan has a superb BSE/TSE surveillance program. IN fact, Ministry of Agriculture study showed nearly half of the 20 mad cow cases found in Japan would have passed unnoticed under U.S. testing methods, officials said Friday. IF only they knew, the USDA
Enhanced BSE surveillance of June 2004 was nothing more than an enhanced effort not to find one single case of BSE/TSE through there terribly flawwed BSE protocols. THEY knew this system was terribly flawwed, this is why it was implemented this way in the first place. they had no intention on finding any TSE/BSE in the USA, but could not even get that right.
old mad dave louthan capped that healthy walker where he should not have, thus it was considered a downer, when it was not, it was a healthy sub-clinical BSE cow they were forced to test. then you had the infamous postive, postive, secret positive, inconclusive, negative, and finally thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong, a Weybridge confirmation of positive BSE in that Texas cow, something we knew 8 months beforehand. AND of course we will never forget the other Texas mad cow they just rendered without any test at all, that stumbling and staggering other mad cow in Texas. WE all also know how much animal protein is fed in Texas to cows from the Gonzales Texas blunder (purina mill), where the FDA said it was O.K. for an animal to eat 5.5 grams of SRMs ruminant protein, when they knew way back that a gram was lethal, and now, we know that .1 gram is lethal.


Johann and his mad cow crystal ball must go. his crystal ball on BSE/TSE is full of lies and myths.
CAN johann prove that BSE/TSE in cattle will never and has never happened in cattle under 20 months.
please document this science that a cow under 20 cannot carry/harbour the TSE/BSE agent? show me the data?
show me this data that sub-clinical or 2nd passage of the agent does not exist?


yep, everything just hunky dorrie in the USA. no TSEs to worry about. right!

SCRAPIE USA MONTHLY REPORT 2005

AS of March 31, 2005, there were 70 scrapie infected source flocks (Figure 3). There were 11 new infected and source flocks reported in March (Figure 4) with a total of 51 flocks reported for FY 2005 (Figure 5). The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 are 39 (Figure 6), with 1 flock released in March. The ratio of infected and source flocks released to newly infected and source flocks for FY 2005 = 0.76 : 1. IN addition, as of March 31, 2005, 225 scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which 53 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 57 newly confirmed cases in March 2005 (Figure 8). Fourteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat cases was reported in January 2005. New infected flocks, source flocks, and flocks released or put on clean-up plans for FY 2005 are depicted in Figure 10. ...

FULL TEXT ;

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html

WITH the MAY report, a scrapie case documented in a GOAT IN THE USA...TSS

SCRAPIE USA UPDATE MAY 2005


SCRAPIE has increased drastically since the report i posted in March 2005, with additional case in a goat;


SCRAPIE USA MONTHLY REPORT 2005

AS of March 31, 2005, there were 70 scrapie infected source flocks (Figure 3). There were 11 new infected and source flocks reported in March (Figure 4) with a total of 51 flocks reported for FY 2005 (Figure 5). The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 are 39 (Figure 6), with 1 flock released in March. The ratio of infected and source flocks released to newly infected and source flocks for FY 2005 = 0.76 : 1. IN addition, as of March 31, 2005, 225 scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), of which 53 were RSSS cases (Figure 7). This includes 57 newly confirmed cases in March 2005 (Figure 8). Fourteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (Figure 9). The last goat cases was reported in January 2005. New infected flocks, source flocks, and flocks released or put on clean-up plans for FY 2005 are depicted in Figure 10. ...

FULL TEXT ;

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html

CWD USA UPDATE

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/cwd-distribution.html

Press Releases
5/13/2005: More Negatives for Chronic Wasting Disease in Captive Heards Learn More

5/9/2005: Negative Results for Chronic Wasting Disease in Captive Herd Learn More

5/4/2005: DEC Announces Sampling Results for Chronic Wasting Disease Learn More

4/29/2005: DEC Issues Emergency Regulations in Response to Discovery of Chronic Wasting Disease. Learn More

4/27/2005: Chronic Wasting Disease Found in Oneida County Deer. Learn More.

4/21/2005: DEC Releases Results of Tests for Chronic Wasting Disease. Learn More.

4/13/2005: DEC to Test For Chronic Wasting Disease in Hamilton County. Learn More.

4/8/2005: Chronic Wasting Disease Update: Test Results Reveal Three Additional Positives From Index Herd. Learn More.

4/5/2005: Chronic Wasting Disease Update. Learn More.

4/2/2005: Second Case of CWD Found in Oneida County Deer. Learn More.

3/31/2005: Positive Case of CWD Found in Oneida County Deer. Learn More.

Transcript from March 31 Press Conference Regarding First Case of CWD in NewYork State

If you have difficulty opening the PDF files, please contact the Department of Agriculture & Markets.


http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AI/cwd.html


THEN YOU HAVE JUNK JOURNALISTS LIKE THIS, that would rather protect her party, than protect
human health from something she knows absolutely nothing about. this is not, or should not be a
republican or democrat agenda. this is a global problem that politics should not be involved with. however,
politics are the very reason we are in this BSE/TSE nightmare here and abroad, and with journalist like this
Froma Harrop, the disease will only continue to spread, expose and kill;


July 15, 2005, 8:01PM

Note to Dems: Give the mad cow rhetoric a rest
By FROMA HARROP


For one who would like to see more Democrats in Washington, I spend a disturbing amount of time trying to save the party from itself. Polls show Democrats on the popular side of many big issues: health care, Social Security, the environment. But then they go out and lose it on the small stuff. Case in point is their recent tango with the mad cow "threat."


Mad cow disease is a nonissue in the United States. As far as we know, not one person has ever died from eating an American cow infected with mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy). And it's not like Americans haven't been testing beef safety. How many millions of burgers go down every day?

The mad cow discovered in Texas last month was only the second ever found in the United States — and the first one came from Canada. The Texas cow never entered the food supply, but even if it had, no one would have been the wiser for it. That's because the only part of a mad cow that makes humans sick is the brain and spinal cord. Americans almost exclusively eat the muscle meat.

To allay any new fears, the U.S. Department of Agriculture moved to tighten the already stringent rules preventing and monitoring mad cow disease. So as the Fourth of July weekend approached, Americans rightly shrugged off any concern over the steak supply and fired up their grills.

But some Democrats could not relax. They went zealously to work, trying to get the mad cow death toll down from zero.

Rep. Henry Waxman of California called the administration's response "more public relations than public health" and demanded a congressional investigation into "what went wrong." Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro said that discovery of mad cow disease in a native-born animal required "a major overhaul of coordination between HHS (Health and Human Services) and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture)."

At this point, I'd like to ask Waxman and DeLauro what they are doing about the bee menace. Bee stings kill at least 40 Americans a year.

Why are Democrats flogging a phony food scare? I have no idea. True, cattle farmers are hardly a core constituency. Probably more people in Waxman's Los Angeles district think that they have mad cow disease than there are ranchers who voted for John Kerry.

But the mad cow dance does hurt the Democrats. First off, it mars their growing reputation as the party of sound science. Republicans are the ones attacking 21st-century research on stem cells and global warming. Some even have trouble with the 19th century — witness the fight over evolution. Democrats risk an advantage when they push junk science.

Finally, thoughtless attacks on agriculture harm the Democrats' prospects in the heartland. America's center is not raw Republican red, as some coastal types think, but medium-rare pink. The conservatism in plains and mountain states tends to be more libertarian than Bible Belt. Democrats can get elected in these places if they strike the proper tone.

For example, Democrat Ken Salazar became U.S. senator from Colorado by promoting his humble farm origins. When the second mad cow was found, he jumped to the cattle industry's defense.

Salazar dismissed the discovery as insignificant. He noted that 400,000 cows were tested last year, and only one was found sick. That means things were going right, not wrong.

"Like millions of others, I will be eating beef for dinner tonight," he announced.

"We like to say that Colorado is a Republican state, but Democrats can win here," says Bob Loevy, professor of political science at Colorado College. He notes that while 80 percent of Coloradans now live in metropolitan areas, ranching remains a beloved part of the culture.

In Nebraska, Sen. Ben Nelson, also a Democrat, was working to reopen key Asian markets to U.S. beef. Their doors shut in 2003, when the first mad cow was found.

Without people like Nelson and Salazar, Democrats are never going see real power again on Capitol Hill. And, in any case, who do Waxman and DeLauro think they're pleasing with their mad cow nonsense? The radical vegetarian vote is already in the bag. They should be out helping their colleagues in the heartland.

This is a big country, Democrats.

Harrop is a syndicated columnist based in Providence, R.I.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3268316

EMAIL FROMA HARROP HERE

http://www.creators.com/opinion_writetheauthor.cfm?pg=write&columnsname=fha

AND HERE;

info@creators.com


Gerald Wells: Report of the Visit to USA, April-May 1989

snip...

The general opinion of those present was that BSE, as an
overt disease phenomenon, _could exist in the USA, but if it did,
it was very rare. The need for improved and specific surveillance
methods to detect it as recognised...

snip...

It is clear that USDA have little information and _no_ regulatory
responsibility for rendering plants in the US...

snip...

3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach
was to accord it a _very low profile indeed_. Dr. A Thiermann showed
the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought
this was a fanatical incident to be _avoided_ in the US _at all costs_...

snip...

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf

To be published in the Proceedings of the
Fourth International Scientific Congress in
Fur Animal Production. Toronto, Canada,
August 21-28, 1988

Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy
Results from Feeding Infected Cattle

R.F. Marsh* and G.R. Hartsough

•Department of Veterinary Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
Wisconsin 53706; and ^Emba/Creat Lakes Ranch Service, Thiensville, Wisconsin 53092

ABSTRACT
Epidemiologic investigation of a new incidence of
transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) in Stetsonville, Wisconsin
suggests that the disease may have resulted from feeding infected
cattle to mink. This observation is supported by the transmission of
a TME-like disease to experimentally inoculated cattle, and by the
recent report of a new bovine spongiform encephalopathy in
England.

INTRODUCTION

Transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) was first reported in 1965 by Hartsough
and Burger who demonstrated that the disease was transmissible with a long incubation
period, and that affected mink had a spongiform encephalopathy similar to that found in
scrapie-affecied sheep (Hartsough and Burger, 1965; Burger and Hartsough, 1965).
Because of the similarity between TME and scrapie, and the subsequent finding that the
two transmissible agents were indistinguishable (Marsh and Hanson, 1969), it was
concluded that TME most likely resulted from feeding mink scrapie-infecied sheep.
The experimental transmission of sheep scrapie to mink (Hanson et al., 1971)
confirmed the close association of TME and scrapie, but at the same time provided
evidence that they may be different. Epidemiologic studies on previous incidences of
TME indicated that the incubation periods in field cases were between six months and
one year in length (Harxsough and Burger, 1965). Experimentally, scrapie could not be
transmitted to mink in less than one year.
To investigate the possibility that TME may be caused by a (particular strain of
scrapie which might be highly pathogenic for mink, 21 different strains of the scrapie
agent, including their sheep or goat sources, were inoculated into a total of 61 mink.
Only one mink developed a progressive neurologic disease after an incubation period of
22 mon..s (Marsh and Hanson, 1979). These results indicated that TME was either caused
by a strain of sheep scrapie not yet tested, or was due to exposure to a scrapie-like agent
from an unidentified source.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

A New Incidence of TME. In April of 1985, a mink rancher in Stetsonville, Wisconsin
reported that many of his mink were "acting funny", and some had died. At this time, we
visited the farm and found that approximately 10% of all adult mink were showing
typical signs of TME: insidious onset characterized by subtle behavioral changes, loss of
normal habits of cleanliness, deposition of droppings throughout the pen rather than in a
single area, hyperexcitability, difficulty in chewing and swallowing, and tails arched over
their _backs like squirrels. These signs were followed by progressive deterioration of
neurologic function beginning with locomoior incoordination, long periods of somnolence
in which the affected mink would stand motionless with its head in the corner of the
cage, complete debilitation, and death. Over the next 8-10 weeks, approximately 40% of
all the adult mink on the farm died from TME.
Since previous incidences of TME were associated with common or shared feeding
practices, we obtained a careful history of feed ingredients used over the past 12-18
months. The rancher was a "dead stock" feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy
cattle and a few horses. Sheep had never been fed.

Experimental Transmission. The clinical diagnosis of TME was confirmed by
histopaihologic examination and by experimental transmission to mink after incubation
periods of four months. To investigate the possible involvement of cattle in this disease
cycle, two six-week old castrated Holstein bull calves were inoculated intracerebrally
with a brain suspension from affected mink. Each developed a fatal spongiform
encephalopathy after incubation periods of 18 and 19 months.

DISCUSSION
These findings suggest that TME may result from feeding mink infected cattle and
we have alerted bovine practitioners that there may exist an as yet unrecognized
scrapie-like disease of cattle in the United States (Marsh and Hartsough, 1986). A new
bovine spongiform encephalopathy has recently been reported in England (Wells et al.,
1987), and investigators are presently studying its transmissibility and possible
relationship to scrapie. Because this new bovine disease in England is characterized by
behavioral changes, hyperexcitability, and agressiveness, it is very likely it would be
confused with rabies in the United Stales and not be diagnosed. Presently, brains from
cattle in the United States which are suspected of rabies infection are only tested with
anti-rabies virus antibody and are not examined histopathologically for lesions of
spongiform encephalopathy.
We are presently pursuing additional studies to further examine the possible
involvement of cattle in the epidemiology of TME. One of these is the backpassage of
our experimental bovine encephalopathy to mink. Because (here are as yet no agent-
specific proteins or nucleic acids identified for these transmissible neuropathogens, one
means of distinguishing them is by animal passage and selection of the biotype which
grows best in a particular host. This procedure has been used to separate hamster-
adapted and mink-udapted TME agents (Marsh and Hanson, 1979). The intracerebral
backpassage of the experimental bovine agent resulted in incubations of only four months
indicating no de-adaptation of the Stetsonville agent for mink after bovine passage.
Mink fed infected bovine brain remain normal after six months. It will be essential to
demonstrate oral transmission fiom bovine to mink it this proposed epidemiologic
association is to be confirmed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
These studies were supported by the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-Madison and by a grant (85-CRCR-1-1812) from the United
States Department of Agriculture. The authors also wish to acknowledge the help and
encouragement of Robert Hanson who died during the course of these investigations.

REFERENCES
Burger, D. and Hartsough, G.R. 1965. Encephalopathy of mink. II. Experimental and
natural transmission. J. Infec. Dis. 115:393-399.
Hanson, R.P., Eckroade, R.3., Marsh, R.F., ZuRhein, C.M., Kanitz, C.L. and Gustatson,
D.P. 1971. Susceptibility of mink to sheep scrapie. Science 172:859-861.
Hansough, G.R. and Burger, D. 1965. Encephalopathy of mink. I. Epizoociologic and
clinical observations. 3. Infec. Dis. 115:387-392.
Marsh, R.F. and Hanson, R.P. 1969. Physical and chemical properties of the
transmissible mink encephalopathy agent. 3. ViroL 3:176-180.
Marsh, R.F. and Hanson, R.P. 1979. On the origin of transmissible mink
encephalopathy. In Hadlow, W.J. and Prusiner, S.P. (eds.) Slow transmissible
diseases of the nervous system. Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, pp 451-460.
Marsh, R.F. and Hartsough, G.R. 1986. Is there a scrapie-like disease in cattle?
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Western Conference for Food Animal Veterinary
Medicine. University of Arizona, pp 20.
Wells, G.A.H., Scott, A.C., Johnson, C.T., Cunning, R.F., Hancock, R.D., Jeffrey, M.,
Dawson, M. and Bradley, R. 1987. A novel progressive spongiform encephalopathy
in cattle. Vet. Rec. 121:419-420.

MARSH

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf

SCRAPIE IN SHEEP AND GOATS TRANSMITS TO PRIMATES BY THERE NATURAL NON-FORCED CONSUMPTION
OF SCRAPIE TAINTED PRODUCT, there has never been transmission studies done on humans. the myth that some or all
scrapie strains will not transmit to humans is a false myth, one that has not been proven. another dream of this administration;


12/10/76
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE ON SCRAPIE
Office Note
CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR PETER WILDY

snip...

A The Present Position with respect to Scrapie
A] The Problem

Scrapie is a natural disease of sheep and goats. It is a slow
and inexorably progressive degenerative disorder of the nervous system
and it ia fatal. It is enzootic in the United Kingdom but not in all
countries.

The field problem has been reviewed by a MAFF working group
(ARC 35/77). It is difficult to assess the incidence in Britain for
a variety of reasons but the disease causes serious financial loss;
it is estimated that it cost Swaledale breeders alone $l.7 M during
the five years 1971-1975. A further inestimable loss arises from the
closure of certain export markets, in particular those of the United
States, to British sheep.

It is clear that scrapie in sheep is important commercially and
for that reason alone effective measures to control it should be
devised as quickly as possible.

Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether
scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the
disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid
speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie,
kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of
mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of
Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit
scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed
for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)"
The problem is emphasised by the finding that some strains of scrapie
produce lesions identical to the once which characterise the human
dementias"

Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be
transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety
of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action
such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the
acrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer
grievously.

snip...

76/10.12/4.6

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12004001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12002001.pdf

CJD CASE 1977 ? (notes)

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1977/00/00002001.pdf


CJD YOUNG PEOPLE

in the USA, a 16 year old in 1978;


ALSO IN USA;

(20 year old died from sCJD in USA in 1980 and a 16 year
old in 1981. see second url below)

in France, a 19 year old in 1982;

in Canada, a 14 year old of UK origin in 1988;

in Poland, cases in people aged 19, 23, and 27 were identified in
a retrospective study (published 1991), having been originally
misdiagnosed with a viral encephalitis;


Creutzfeldt's first patient in 1923 was aged 23.


ALSO;


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/10/27013001.pdf


20 year old died from sCJD in USA in 1980 and a 16 year
old in 1981. A 19 year old died from sCJD in
France in 1985. There is no evidence of an iatrogenic
cause for those cases....


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/10/20006001.pdf

Greetings,

The U.S. Department of
Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit
scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed
for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)"

SO, who was the genius that changed these rules that were set some 30
years ago?

TO bad they did not adhere to them, considering the mad cow feed ban warning
letters still coming through in August of 2004... we are still feeding ruminants
to ruminants.

CONSIDERING that the feeding of animal protein started some 3-4 decades ago
(or longer), I only ponder when the TSE agent in the bovine and bovine/ovine/
derived CJD in humans, actually 1st occured;

The Disease of Animal Order 1973 (Waste Food)

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1974/02/21001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1974/02/25001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1974/03/01001001.pdf

March 1, 1974

The Raw Fat & Bone Processors Ass. Ltd

I should at the same time remind you that as we discussed with you some
time ago we do intend, at a later date, to bring an Order aimed at reducing
animal health risks associated with animal protein processing...

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1974/03/01001001.pdf

DANGER IN CHEAP FEED

LIVESTOCK producers, hit hard over the past year by the
rising price of feeding-stuffs, now have a wider choice of alternatives.
AMOUNG these is DRIED ANIMAL MANURE sold seperately
in compound feeds.

snip...

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1974/04/16001001.pdf

manure drying plants?

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1975/04/08001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1975/01/20001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1975/12/10001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1975/12/18001001.pdf


still disgusted in sunny Bacliff, TEXAS USA

MOM DOD 12-14-97 HEIDENHAIN VARIANT CREUTZFELDT JAKOB DISEASE

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: