MEXICO blocks Alberta cattle following the discovery of Canada's 14th case of mad cow disease

MEXICO blocks Alberta cattle

21.aug.08 Calgary Herald Gina Teel

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=8776e072-8f40-46b9-bd8a-b6581f5389bd


Mexico has banned imports of live cattle from Alberta, following the discovery of Canada's 14th case of mad cow disease in the province last week. Mexico is banning imports of beef and dairy breeding cattle -- but not stopping the flow of beef into the country -- in a move Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said has no legitimacy from a scientific perspective. Canada and Mexico are both considered as controlled-risk status for BSE, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, as recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health, or OIE. "They're (Mexico is) very concerned that if they're bringing in an older breeding animal, that they may be importing BSE; that's the genesis of this," Ritz said in a telephone interview Wednesday. Rob McNabb, general manager of operations at the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said Mexico has given written notice of the ban to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Mexican authorities are describing the move as a temporary prohibition of live cattle from Alberta, he said, while they undertake their own risk assessment "and assure themselves that what Canada's doing to ensure safety is sound." No further details about a timeline were available.

Mexico blocks live cattle from Alberta // 21 aug 2008

http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/id102-61630/mexico_blocks_live_cattle_from_alberta.html


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA) Numero domanda: EFSA-Q-2003-083 Data di adozione: 01/07/2004 Sintesi (0.1Mb)

Documento (0.2Mb)

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.

Scarica il file (0.3Mb)

http://www.efsa.eu.int/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753820_1178620779461.htm


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of CANADA Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083 Adopted July 2004 Summary The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC), to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Canada, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Canada. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Canada as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003. The BSE agent was probably imported into the country middle of the eighties and could have reached domestic cattle in the early nineties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Canada reached domestic cattle and led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries. EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of Canada is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the system remains unstable, it is expected that the GBR continues to grow, even if no additional external challenges occur.

http://www.mvo.nl/wetgeving-dierlijk-vet/onderzoek/download/EFSA%20on%20BSE%20risk%20Canada%20jul%202004.pdf


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of MEXICO Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083 Adopted July 2004 Summary The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Mexico, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Mexico. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Mexico as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003. The BSE agent was probably imported into Mexico and could have reached domestic cattle. These cattle imported could have been rendered and therefore led to an internal challenge in the mid to late 1990's. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Mexico reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge around 1993. It is likely that BSE infectivity entered processing at the time of imported 'at - risk' MBM (1993) and at the time of slaughter of imported live 'at - risk' cattle (mid to late 1990s). The high level of external challenge is maintained throughout the reference period, and the system has not been made stable. Thus it is likely that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated from approximately 1993. The risk has since grown consistently due to a maintained internal and external challenge and lack of a stable system. EFSA concludes that the current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSEagent. The GBR is likely to increase due to continued internal and external challenge, coupled with a very unstable system.

http://www.mvo.nl/wetgeving-dierlijk-vet/onderzoek/download/EFSA%20on%20BSE%20risk%20Mexico%20jul%202004.pdf


Wednesday, June 11, 2008

OIE Recognition of the BSE Status of Members RESOLUTION No. XXI (Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 27 May 2008)

http://usdavskorea.blogspot.com/2008/06/oie-recognition-of-bse-status-of.html


http://organicconsumers.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=1566


Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0006 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary Sr Views Add Comments How To Comment

snip...

MY personal belief, since you ask, is that not only the Canadian border, but the USA border, and the Mexican border should be sealed up tighter than a drum for exporting there TSE tainted products, until a validated, 100% sensitive test is available, and all animals for human and animal consumption are tested. all we are doing is the exact same thing the UK did with there mad cow poisoning when they exported it all over the globe, all the while knowing what they were doing. this BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to do just exactly what the UK did, thanks to the OIE and GW, it's legal now. and they executed Saddam for poisoning ???

go figure....

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

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0041-0006


Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0028 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary

Comment 2006-2007 USA AND OIE POISONING GLOBE WITH BSE MRR POLICY

THE USA is in a most unique situation, one of unknown circumstances with human and animal TSE. THE USA has the most documented TSE in different species to date, with substrains growing in those species (BSE/BASE in cattle and CWD in deer and elk, there is evidence here with different strains), and we know that sheep scrapie has over 20 strains of the typical scrapie with atypical scrapie documented and also BSE is very likely to have passed to sheep. all of which have been rendered and fed back to animals for human and animal consumption, a frightening scenario. WE do not know the outcome, and to play with human life around the globe with the very likely TSE tainted products from the USA, in my opinion is like playing Russian roulette, of long duration, with potential long and enduring consequences, of which once done, cannot be undone. These are the facts as I have come to know through daily and extensive research of TSE over 9 years, since 12/14/97. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but i do know to continue to believe in the ukbsenvcjd only theory of transmission to humans of only this one strain from only this one TSE from only this one part of the globe, will only lead to further failures, and needless exposure to humans from all strains of TSE, and possibly many more needless deaths from TSE via a multitude of proven routes and sources via many studies with primates and rodents and other species.

MY personal belief, since you ask, is that not only the Canadian border, but the USA border, and the Mexican border should be sealed up tighter than a drum for exporting there TSE tainted products, until a validated, 100% sensitive test is available, and all animals for human and animal consumption are tested. all we are doing is the exact same thing the UK did with there mad cow poisoning when they exported it all over the globe, all the while knowing what they were doing. this BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to do just exactly what the UK did, thanks to the OIE and GW, it's legal now. and they executed Saddam for poisoning ???

go figure. ...

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f8151


Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0028.1 Public Submission Title Attachment to Singletary comment

January 28, 2007

Greetings APHIS,

I would kindly like to submit the following to ;

BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801f8152&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw8


Food and Veterinary Office - Inspection reports MX Mexico - Control of residues and contaminants in live animals and animal products, including controls on veterinary medicinal products

snip...

5.4.3.2. In feed mills (medicated pre-mixes and medicated feedingstuffs)

Feed mills and on-farm mixers manufacturing medicated feed must be authorised by SAGARPA Central level. The authorisation is unlimited in time, but must be updated when changes occur. The CA informed the mission team that there are currently 365 such establishments authorised. All establishments are required to have a SAGARPA approved veterinarian employed and the approval of the veterinarian is renewed every 2 years. The supervision of feed mills for medicated feedingstuffs, and farms with on-farm mixing of medicated feed is delegated to the SAGARPA State Offices. The SAGARPA Verification Programme will include random checks on feed mills. The mission team noted that:

in the feed mill visited, growth promoting additives, medicated premixes and coccidiostats were used routinely. Feed was produced for cattle, pigs, poultry, shrimps and pets in two lines. No checks for homogeneity, stability, recovery/content or cross contamination of feedingstuffs were carried out. There is no system in place to prevent finishing feed to be manufactured directly after a batch containing additives or medicated premixes;

in the feed mill visited, several medicated feedingstuffs were marketed in sacks with the concentration and types of added antibiotics listed on a separate label stitched to the sack. However, several of the antibiotic combinations marketed were not listed in the SAGARPA registration document and none of the labels comprised SAGARPA registration numbers;

the pig farm visited regularly produced feed with growth promoters and therapeutic doses of VMPs (carbadox, ractopamine, tyiosin, florfenicol) for the finishing period. Flushing was used between batches but no checks were made for cross contamination or recovery;

s> the feed mill visited by the mission team had been inspected by the State Office once during the last five years while the pig farm with on-farm mixing facility for medicated feed visited had never been inspected;

NOM-012-ZOO-1993 requires quality control, including quantitative analysis of active substances in feedingstuffs. Such analyses were performed by the feed mill delivering medicated feedingstuffs to the pig farm visited. However, the feed mill visited only analysed the nutritional components in produced feedingstuffs. In the inspection protocol from 2003 this fact had been noted as an observation. The CCA informed the mission team on the spot that additional analyses were not compulsory for feed mills.

5.4.3.3. On veterinary practitioners and farms

The SAGARPA State Offices are responsible for the controls of veterinary practitioners and farms and no federal legislation or guidelines have been issued. Veterinary practices for food producing animals are usually combined with a pharmacy and thus inspected as pharmacies. The SAGARPA Verification Programme will include random checks on veterinary practitioners. All poultry and pig farms are required to have a SAGARPA approved veterinarian employed. This approved veterinarian signs the animal movement certificates when animals are sent to slaughter. Movement certificates for other species, e.g. horses, are signed by a veterinarian of the State Committee (comprising farmers, food producers, federal state and state government). Animal health inspections for export are conducted by SAGARPA staff, while health inspections for control programs are conducted by

15

the approved veterinarians on the farms (pigs and poultry) or the Committee veterinarians (other species). These inspections are coordinated by SENASICA and include a description of disease problems and medicines used on farm. The mission team noted that:

there is no legal requirement for inspections of VMP usage in veterinary practices or farms;

there is no legal requirement for farmers to keep treatment records, thus inspection of VMP usage on farm is based on verbal information from the fanner or on voluntary farm records 7;

health certificates for slaughter in TIF slaughterhouses are not required to contain information or guarantees by the farmer or the approved veterinarian regarding banned substances or the respect of withdrawal times for VMP;

in two States visited apiaries were regularly inspected and comprehensive check lists, including VMP usage, were used.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1. LEGISLATION

(1) Hormonal substances and beta-agonists for growth promotion (except diethylstilbestrol and clenbuterol) are not legally prohibited for use as growth promoters in food producing animals. In the absence of a split production system the CCA does not meet Community requirements for the export of fresh meat (currently only horse meat) to the EU.

(2) Whilst there is a legal basis for the control of residues and contaminants in tissues of cattle, equidae, pigs and sheep, the absence of national legislation for residues control of other commodities (e.g. milk, shrimps, eggs and honey) and the absence of corresponding MRLs militates against effective implementation of the NRCP, in particular the assessment of analysis results and execution of follow-up actions.

(3) Several national MRLs and MLs for meat and animal tissues exceed those fixed in EU legislation; this could result in situations where export consignments would not meet Community requirements.

6.2. NATIONAL RESIDUE CONTROL PLAN

(1) The general layout of the NRCP and the range of commodities tested are in line with Community requirements. However, many relevant substances including EU-banned VMPs are not tested for and a limited number of substances are tested within certain therapeutic categories. Given the number of VMPs authorised, the current structure of the plan reduces the possibility of detecting the potential misuse of numerous VMPs and to guarantee that export consignments meet Community requirements.

(2) The random selection and number of samples taken in accordance with the guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius can allow the estimated prevalence rate

7 In their response to the draft report the Mexican CA stilted that in the specific case of aquaculture, farms must keep a register of the use and application of antibiotics, which will be checked during the inspections by CONAPESCA.

16

snip...

(2) A prescription system laid down in national legislation in 2004 is still not implemented. Together with the lack of a requirement for medicinal records on farms, these factors undermine effective controls on VMPs at retail and farm level.

(3) The authorisation and use of VMPs containing pharmacologically active substances which are either banned or are not authorised for use in food producing animals in the EL) is of concern, considering the absence of some national MRLs, restricted analytical capabilities and lack of an effective VMP control system. Cumulatively these factors may result in the presence of undesirable residues in exported commodities and weaken CA guarantees on the residue status of exported consignments. It is doubtful that the relevant requirements of Community food law9 can be met.

6.5. OVERALL CONCLUSION

This first ever residues mission to Mexico revealed serious shortcomings in the application of residues and veterinary medicines controls, in respect of commodities currently exported to the EU or which are planned to be exported. In particular, the authorisation and use of hormones and beta-agonists for growth promotion in the absence of any 'split system' for EU exports means that Mexico does not comply with Community requirements concerning the export of meat from potentially treated animals. In addition, the fact that many veterinary medicines which are banned for use in food producing animals in the EU are authorised and are freely available in Mexico, raises concerns on the residue status of several commodities exported to the EU. This is exacerbated by weak controls on the use of veterinary medicines, failure to implement the nationally legally required prescription system, the absence of any obligation to maintain medicinal treatment records on farm and the fact that there is no laboratory capability at present to test for residues of most of these substances. Given this situation and shortcomings in the current structure and implementation of the national residue control plan, the residue control system in Mexico can not be judged to offer equivalent guarantees to those required under Community legislation.

7. CLOSING MEETING

A closing meeting was held on 15 September 2005 with representatives of the CA. At this meeting, the inspection team presented the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the mission. The CCA did not express major disagreement.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

The competent authorities were invited to provide details of the actions taken and planned, including deadlines for their completion ('action plan'), aimed at addressing the recommendations set out below, within 25 working days of receipt of a draft of this mission report.

(1) Ensure that consignments of meat and meat products exported to the EU are not derived from animals which have been treated with hormonal growth promoters or beta-agonists for growth promotion.

9 Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.

18

snip...

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fvo/act_getPDF.cfm?PDF_ID=5018


Mexico Livestock and Products Mexico BSE Update (Third Edition) 2004

http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=30418


TSS