REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE FIFTEENTH CASE OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN CANADA

REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE FIFTEENTH CASE OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN CANADA

BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2008, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) sampled a Holstein cow under Canada's National BSE Surveillance Program. Brain samples were received by the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL) Laboratory, where they were screened for BSE using a Prionics rapid test. The result of this preliminary test did not rule out BSE. In accordance with the prescribed testing protocol, the test was repeated and produced a reaction a second time. Brain samples were then sent to the National BSE Reference Laboratory in Lethbridge, Alberta. Additional testing for BSE (Prionics-Check PrioStrip, BioRad TeSeE ELISA, Prionics-Check Western and Hybrid Western Blot) was conducted at the National BSE Reference Laboratory to validate the result of the screening test and was positive on Nov 6, 2008. The Scrapie Associated Fibril Immunoblot procedure was positive on Nov 7, 2008 and the immunohistochemistry procedure was positive on Nov 14, 2008. The carcass was secured at the sampling site and will subsequently be transferred to CFIA’s Lethbridge laboratory for incineration. No part of the carcass entered the human food supply or animal feed chain.

The CFIA immediately initiated an epidemiological investigation based on the recommended BSE guidelines (Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2008) of the World Organisation for Animal Health, referred to as the OIE. Specifically, the CFIA followed the recommended BSE guidelines for a country with controlled risk status and investigated:

the feed cohort, comprising all cattle which, during their first year of life, were reared with the BSE case during its first year of life, and which investigation showed consumed the same potentially contaminated feed during that period, or the birth cohort, comprising all cattle born in the same herd as, and within 12 months of the birth of the BSE case, if the above cannot be identified and feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life. ANIMAL INVESTIGATION The positive animal was a registered Holstein dairy cow born on January 1, 2001, and it was 94 months of age at the time of death. The animal was born, raised and had spent its entire life on the same farm. The producer reported the duration of illness as less than 2 days with the animal exhibiting an abnormal gait (locomotion, change in movement), which was worse on the hind end. The animal had a short stunted gait and exhibited signs of ataxia (uncoordinated movements). The producer elected to have the animal humanely destroyed. Since the inclusion criteria of Canada’s National BSE Surveillance Program were met, arrangements were made to forward appropriate samples for laboratory evaluation.

The birth farm was a dairy operation located in the Fraser Valley area of British Columbia. The feed cohort was determined to comprise 187 animals, which along with the case animal, were raised on the farm. This cohort consisted of female Holsteins. Males sold at less than two weeks of age for fattening and subsequent slaughter without having access to any commercially prepared feeds were excluded from the investigation because they were not exposed to the same potentially contaminated feed as the case animal. No males were retained or raised on the farm. The trace-out investigation of the feed cohort located 22 live animals on the case farm. These animals are quarantined and will be humanely destroyed; their carcasses disposed of by incineration in accordance with the OIE recommendations. The following is the disposition of the remaining animals in the feed cohort:

122 animals were traced and confirmed to have died or been slaughtered; 24 animals were traced and presumed to have died or been slaughtered; 5 animals were traced and confirmed to have been exported for slaughter and the importing country has been notified; and 14 animals were determined to be untraceable because of records limitations. FEED INVESTIGATION The feed investigation focused on feeds to which the case animal may have had access during its first year of life and on the manufacturing practices used to produce these feeds.

All feed products to which the BSE case animal had access were intended for feeding to ruminants. These consisted of farm-grown and purchased forages and silages and mixed feed products provided to the farm from one commercial supplier. On-farm mixing equipment consisted of a mixer wagon used to combine forages with commercial products for calves, heifers and lactating cows. Several cats on the farm were fed in the barn and one dog was fed in the house away from the dairy operation. It is reasonable to presume that the cat and dog food did contain prohibited material; however, review of farm feeding practices confirmed that ruminants did not have access to these feeds.

For the first three weeks of life, the case animal was housed individually in a calf pen and fed milk and a commercially prepared calf ration. From 3 to 9 weeks the animal was housed in a series of group pens with animals of similar age and continued to be fed calf ration and milk as well as hay and had access to two kinds of mineral blocks. From 9 weeks to 12 months the animal continued to cycle through several group pens with animals of similar age and continued to be fed calf ration, hay and farm grown corn and grass silages as well as having access to two kinds of mineral blocks. Additionally, a dry cow mineral was added to the animal’s diet at the 3 month stage.

The only other commercial feed products used on the farm included a complete ration for the lactating cows and a dry cow ration. On-farm investigation confirmed that the lactation ration was not fed to the case animal prior to twelve months of age, however, the same on-farm mixer wagon was used to mix rations for both the case animal and the lactating cows. It was also determined that the case animal could not have access to the dry cow ration which was received, stored and fed directly from bags and away from animals less than one year of age.

Investigation at the commercial feed manufacturer, which was the sole supplier of calf ration and lactation ration, identified that this facility handled prohibited material. Components of this facility were dedicated to the manufacture of feeds not containing prohibited material in the formula. However, bulk ingredient receiving and finished feed conveyances were cross-utilized. Written procedures and production records were insufficient to rule out possible contamination with prohibited material at these points affecting both ration types delivered to the case farm.

Investigation at the commercial feed supplier identified that the two kinds of mineral blocks were manufactured by a separate facility, independent of the main commercial feed manufacturer. Investigation at the manufacturer of these blocks determined that this facility did handle prohibited material during the period of interest; however, no written procedures or production records were available. As the period of interest occurs after the introduction of the 1997 Mammalian Feed Ban, it is unlikely that ruminant meat and bone meal was intentionally used in the formulation of either of these mineral blocks. However, as production records are not available for review, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that contamination during production could have taken place.

The dry cow mineral used on farm was obtained from a specialized facility not handling prohibited material and was packaged in bags. This product was ruled out as a possible source of contamination.

Considering the farm’s feeding regime and specific production records reviewed, a likely source of exposure to BSE infectivity appears to be potentially contaminated heifer ration. However, the risk associated with possible ingestion of small amounts of the lactation ration and either of the mineral blocks exists, and potential contamination of these products cannot be ruled out.

INVESTIGATION OVERVIEW The detection of this case does not change any of Canada’s BSE risk parameters. The location and age of the animal are consistent with previous cases. Surveillance results to date, including this case, reflect an extremely low level of BSE in Canada.

Since the confirmation of BSE in a native-born animal in May 2003, Canada has significantly increased its targeted testing of cattle in high-risk categories advocated by the OIE (including non-ambulatory animals). This effort is directed at determining the level of BSE in Canada, while monitoring the effectiveness of the risk-mitigating measures in place. Canada’s National BSE Surveillance Program continues to demonstrate an extremely low level of BSE in Canada, with 15 positive animals detected.

With respect to BSE, the safety of beef produced in Canada is assured by public health measures enacted in 2003. The removal of specific risk material (SRM) - the tissues that have been demonstrated to have the potential to harbour BSE infectivity - from all animals slaughtered for human consumption is the most effective single measure to protect consumers in Canada and importing countries from exposure to BSE infectivity in meat products.

As demonstrated by the surveillance system, the feed ban implemented in 1997 is effectively preventing the amplification of BSE in Canada's feed system. Additional regulations to enhance Canada's feed ban were enacted in 2007. The most important change is the removal of SRM from all animal feeds, pet food and fertilizer. The enhancement will accelerate progress toward eradicating BSE from the national cattle herd by preventing more than 99 per cent of potential BSE infectivity from entering the Canadian feed system. These measures are effectively minimizing the risk of BSE transmission.

Canada is officially categorized under the OIE's science-based system as a controlled BSE risk country. This status clearly recognizes the effectiveness of Canada's surveillance, mitigation and eradication measures, and acknowledges the work done by all levels of government, the cattle industry, veterinarians and ranchers to effectively manage and eventually eradicate BSE in Canada.



http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bccb2008/15investe.shtml


REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE FOURTEENTH CASE OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN CANADA BACKGROUND


On July 25, 2008 a commercial beef cow in Northern Alberta was sampled by a private practitioner under Canada's National BSE Surveillance Program. Brain samples from this animal were sent to the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) laboratory where they were screened for BSE using a Bio-Rad rapid test on August 6, 2008. The result of this preliminary test did not rule out BSE. In accordance with the prescribed testing protocol, the test was repeated and produced a reaction a second time. Brain samples were then sent to the National BSE Reference Laboratory in Lethbridge, Alberta. Additional rapid tests for BSE (Prionics-Check PrioStrip and BioRad TeSeE ELISA) were conducted at the National BSE Reference Laboratory to validate the result of the screening test and were positive on August 12, 2008. The Prionics-Check Western and the Hybrid Western Blot was positive on August 14, 2008. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy was confirmed on August 14, 2008 using the Scrapie Associated Fibril Immunoblot procedure. The carcass was secured at the sampling site. No part of the carcass entered the human food supply or animal feed chain.

The CFIA immediately initiated an epidemiological investigation based on the recommended BSE guidelines (Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2008) of the World Organisation for Animal Health, referred to as the OIE. Specifically, the CFIA followed the recommended BSE guidelines for a country with controlled risk status and investigated:

the feed cohort, comprising all cattle which, during their first year of life, were reared with the BSE case during its first year of life, and which investigation showed consumed the same potentially contaminated feed during that period, or the birth cohort, comprising all cattle born in the same herd as, and within 12 months of the birth of the BSE case, if the above cannot be identified and feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life. ANIMAL INVESTIGATION The positive animal was a commercial beef cow, Gelbvieh cross, born on March 20, 2002 and it was 76 months of age at the time of death. The animal was born, raised and had spent its entire life on the same farm. The producer reported the duration of illness as approximately 6 months with the animal exhibiting gradual deterioration culminating in the animal becoming non-ambulatory (downer). During this period, the animal showed a change in behaviour resulting in the animal becoming apprehensive/nervous. When examined by a private practitioner on July 25, 2008, the animal was recumbent. Physical examination by the practitioner revealed opisthotonus (muscle spasms). The practitioner and producer determined that the animal should be euthanized . A post-mortem examination was conducted, and the kidneys were observed to be smaller than normal with a thickened adherent capsule. A presumptive diagnosis of chronic renal disease was made by the submitting practitioner. Since the inclusion criteria of Canada’s National BSE Surveillance Program were met, arrangements were made to forward appropriate samples for laboratory evaluation.

The birth farm was a commercial beef cow-calf operation. The birth cohort was determined to comprise 72 animals, which along with the case animal, were raised on the farm. Due to the practice of animals being sold in lots from the case premises, 106 animals (including the 72 birth cohorts) were traced. The trace-out investigation of the birth cohort located 6 live animals on the case farm and 3 live animals on a subsequent premises. All of these animals have since been humanely destroyed; their carcasses disposed of by incineration in accordance with the OIE recommendations. The following is the disposition of the remaining animals in the 97 animals:

80 animals were traced and confirmed to have died or been slaughtered, 14 animals were traced and presumed to have died or been slaughtered, 3 animals were determined to be untraceable because of records limitations. FEED INVESTIGATION The feed investigation yielded limited records specific to the animal’s first year of life. All feed products to which the BSE case animal had access were intended for feeding to ruminants.

Routine feeding practices were to provide animals with pasture during the summer months and to provide additional hay and grain during the winter. It was not farm practice to supplement the diets with commercially prepared rations, however due to drought conditions during the animal’s first year of life, three commercially prepared rations were provided in addition to the commonly fed forages, grains, salt and minerals.

For the first seven months of life, the case animal was housed in a cow-calf pen and had pasture access. During this period, the animal received cow’s milk and calf starter and had access to loose mineral, salt blocks and pasture. Beyond seven months to the end of the first year of life, the animal was housed in a calf pen where it received a creep feed, feedlot starter and possibly grain and straw and had access to salt blocks.

The three commercial rations made available to the BSE case animal consisted of a calf starter, a creep feed and a feedlot starter which were manufactured by two different commercial feed manufacturers.

Two forms of salt were used on farm: salt blocks and loose mineral salt. The salt blocks were manufactured by a company which does not handle any prohibited material. The loose mineral salt was manufactured by one of the same facilities which manufactured two of the commercially prepared rations received by the farm.

Neither of the two commercial feed manufacturers has production records dating back to the period of interest. As a result, trace back inspections at the manufacturers of commercial feeds distributed to the birth farm did not yield mixing formulas for the period of interest. As this was subsequent to the implementation of the 1997 Mammalian Feed Ban, it is very unlikely that ruminant meat and bone meal was intentionally used in the formulation of any of the three commercially prepared rations or loose mineral salt distributed to the birth farm.

However, as production records are not available for review, it is not possible to rule out that contamination during production could have taken place. One of the two commercial feed manufacturers did handle ruminant meat and bone meal (prohibited material/PM), however they did have procedures in place to prevent the contamination of ruminant feed with PM. The other commercial feed manufacturer did not handle PM directly, though they did receive a premix used in the manufacture of one of the feeds received by the case farm, from another facility which did handle PM.

INVESTIGATION OVERVIEW The detection of this case does not change any of Canada’s BSE risk parameters. The location and age of the animal are consistent with previous cases. Surveillance results to date, including this case, reflect an extremely low level of BSE in Canada.

Since the confirmation of BSE in a native-born animal in May 2003, Canada has significantly increased its targeted testing of cattle in high-risk categories advocated by the OIE (including non-ambulatory animals). This effort is directed at determining the level of BSE in Canada, while monitoring the effectiveness of the risk-mitigating measures in place. Canada’s National BSE Surveillance Program continues to demonstrate an extremely low level of BSE in Canada, with 14 positive animals detected.

With respect to BSE, the safety of beef produced in Canada is assured by public health measures enacted in 2003. The removal of specific risk material (SRM) - the tissues that have been demonstrated to have the potential to harbour BSE infectivity - from all animals slaughtered for human consumption is the most effective single measure to protect consumers in Canada and importing countries from exposure to BSE infectivity in meat products.

As demonstrated by the surveillance system, the feed ban implemented in 1997 is effectively preventing the amplification of BSE in Canada's feed system. Additional regulations to enhance Canada's feed ban were enacted in 2007. The most important change is the removal of SRM from all animal feeds, pet food and fertilizer. The enhancement will accelerate progress toward eradicating BSE from the national cattle herd by preventing more than 99 per cent of potential BSE infectivity from entering the Canadian feed system. These measures are effectively minimizing the risk of BSE transmission.

Canada is officially categorized under the OIE's science-based system as a controlled BSE risk country. This status clearly recognizes the effectiveness of Canada's surveillance, mitigation and eradication measures, and acknowledges the work done by all levels of government, the cattle industry, veterinarians and ranchers to effectively manage and eventually eradicate BSE in Canada.





http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2008/14investe.shtml




P26

TRANSMISSION OF ATYPICAL BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN HUMANIZED MOUSE MODELS

Liuting Qing1, Fusong Chen1, Michael Payne1, Wenquan Zou1, Cristina Casalone2, Martin Groschup3, Miroslaw Polak4, Maria Caramelli2, Pierluigi Gambetti1, Juergen Richt5*, and Qingzhong Kong1 1Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA; 2CEA, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale, Italy; 3Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Germany; 4National Veterinary Research Institute, Poland; 5Kansas State University, Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology Department, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA. *Previous address: USDA National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA 50010, USA

Classical BSE is a world-wide prion disease in cattle, and the classical BSE strain (BSE-C) has led to over 200 cases of clinical human infection (variant CJD). Two atypical BSE strains, BSE-L (also named BASE) and BSE-H, have been discovered in three continents since 2004. The first case of naturally occurring BSE with mutated bovine PrP gene (termed BSE-M) was also found in 2006 in the USA. The transmissibility and phenotypes of these atypical BSE strains/isolates in humans were unknown. We have inoculated humanized transgenic mice with classical and atypical BSE strains (BSE-C, BSE-L, BSE-H) and the BSE-M isolate. We have found that the atypical BSE-L strain is much more virulent than the classical BSE-C. The atypical BSE-H strain is also transmissible in the humanized transgenic mice with distinct phenotype, but no transmission has been observed for the BSE-M isolate so far.

III International Symposium on THE NEW PRION BIOLOGY: BASIC SCIENCE, DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY 2 - 4 APRIL 2009, VENEZIA (ITALY)



http://www.istitutoveneto.it/prion_09/Abstracts_09.pdf



Research Project: GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY Location: Animal Health Systems Research

Title: Association of a bovine prion gene haplotype with atypical BSE

Author

Clawson, Michael

Submitted to: Meeting Abstract Publication Type: Abstract Publication Acceptance Date: December 2, 2008 Publication Date: January 1, 2009 Citation: Clawson, M.L. 2009. Association of a bovine prion gene haplotype with atypical BSE [abstract]. Plant and Animal Genomes XVII Conference. Abstract No. W091. Available: http://www.intl-pag.org/17/abstracts/

Technical Abstract: Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), also known as prion diseases, are a class of fatal neurodegenerative disorders that occur in humans, ruminants, cats, and mink. Three distinct TSEs afflict cattle: classical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), atypical H-type BSE, and atypical L-type BSE. Classical BSE was identified in the 1980s and is acquired by cattle through the consumption of feed contaminated with the infectious prion agent. Atypical BSEs have only recently been recognized as distinct cattle prion diseases and are extremely rare. The full extent of genetic susceptibilities to atypical BSEs is unknown; however, one atypical H-type case identified in the United States (2006) was most likely caused by a genetic mutation in the prion gene, E211K. We have identified an association of a bovine prion DNA haplotype with atypical BSE that is independent of E211K. The haplotype spans a portion of the prion gene that includes part of intron 2, the entire coding region of exon 3, and part of the three prime untranslated region of exon 3 (13 kb). Despite the low frequency of this haplotype among general cattle populations, it was present in a majority of H- and L-type atypical BSE cases from Canada, France, and the United States. This result indicates that there is a genetic component to atypical BSE susceptibility in addition to E211K.



http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=234699



I ask Professor Kong ;

Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:37 PM Subject: RE: re--Chronic Wating Disease (CWD) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathies (BSE): Public Health Risk Assessment

''IS the h-BSE more virulent than typical BSE as well, or the same as cBSE, or less virulent than cBSE? just curious.....''

Professor Kong reply ;

.....snip

''As to the H-BSE, we do not have sufficient data to say one way or another, but we have found that H-BSE can infect humans. I hope we could publish these data once the study is complete. Thanks for your interest.''

Best regards, Qingzhong Kong, PhD Associate Professor Department of Pathology Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106 USA

END...TSS

I look forward to further transmission studies, and a true ENHANCED BSE/atypical BSE surveillance program put forth testing all cattle for human and animal consumption for 5 years. a surveillance program that uses the most sensitive TSE testing, and has the personnel that knows how to use them, and can be trusted. I look forward to a stringent mad cow feed ban being put forth, and then strictly enforced. we need a forced, not voluntary feed ban, an enhanced feed ban at that, especially excluding blood. we need some sort of animal traceability. no more excuses about privacy. if somebody is putting out a product that is killing folks and or has the potential to kill you, then everybody needs to know who they are, and where that product came from. same with hospitals, i think medical incidents in all states should be recorded, and made public, when it comes to something like a potential accidental transmission exposure event. so if someone is out there looking at a place to go have surgery done, if you have several hospitals having these type 'accidental exposure events', than you can go some place else. it only makes sense. somewhere along the road, the consumer lost control, and just had to take whatever they were given, and then charged these astronomical prices. some where along the line the consumer just lost interest, especially on a long incubating disease such as mad cow disease i.e. Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy. like i said before, there is much more to the mad cow story than bovines and eating a hamburger, we must start focusing on all TSE in all species. ...TSS

Month Number of Tests

Feb 2009 -- 1,891

Jan 2009 -- 4,620



http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/surveillance/ongoing_surv_results.shtml



P02.35

Molecular Features of the Protease-resistant Prion Protein (PrPres) in H-type BSE

Biacabe, A-G1; Jacobs, JG2; Gavier-Widén, D3; Vulin, J1; Langeveld, JPM2; Baron, TGM1 1AFSSA, France; 2CIDC-Lelystad, Netherlands; 3SVA, Sweden

Western blot analyses of PrPres accumulating in the brain of BSE-infected cattle have demonstrated 3 different molecular phenotypes regarding to the apparent molecular masses and glycoform ratios of PrPres bands. We initially described isolates (H-type BSE) essentially characterized by higher PrPres molecular mass and decreased levels of the diglycosylated PrPres band, in contrast to the classical type of BSE. This type is also distinct from another BSE phenotype named L-type BSE, or also BASE (for Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy), mainly characterized by a low representation of the diglycosylated PrPres band as well as a lower PrPres molecular mass. Retrospective molecular studies in France of all available BSE cases older than 8 years old and of part of the other cases identified since the beginning of the exhaustive surveillance of the disease in 20001 allowed to identify 7 H-type BSE cases, among 594 BSE cases that could be classified as classical, L- or H-type BSE. By Western blot analysis of H-type PrPres, we described a remarkable specific feature with antibodies raised against the C-terminal region of PrP that demonstrated the existence of a more C-terminal cleaved form of PrPres (named PrPres#2 ), in addition to the usual PrPres form (PrPres #1). In the unglycosylated form, PrPres #2 migrates at about 14 kDa, compared to 20 kDa for PrPres #1. The proportion of the PrPres#2 in cattle seems to by higher compared to the PrPres#1. Furthermore another PK-resistant fragment at about 7 kDa was detected by some more N-terminal antibodies and presumed to be the result of cleavages of both N- and C-terminal parts of PrP. These singular features were maintained after transmission of the disease to C57Bl/6 mice. The identification of these two additional PrPres fragments (PrPres #2 and 7kDa band) reminds features reported respectively in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and in Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker (GSS) syndrome in humans.



http://www.neuroprion.com/pdf_docs/conferences/prion2007/abstract_book.pdf



Research Project: Study of Atypical Bse Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock

Project Number: 3625-32000-086-05 Project Type: Specific Cooperative Agreement

Start Date: Sep 15, 2004 End Date: Sep 14, 2009

Objective: The objective of this cooperative research project with Dr. Maria Caramelli from the Italian BSE Reference Laboratory in Turin, Italy, is to conduct comparative studies with the U.S. bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) isolate and the atypical BSE isolates identified in Italy. The studies will cover the following areas: 1. Evaluation of present diagnostics tools used in the U.S. for the detection of atypical BSE cases. 2. Molecular comparison of the U.S. BSE isolate and other typical BSE isolates with atypical BSE cases. 3. Studies on transmissibility and tissue distribution of atypical BSE isolates in cattle and other species.

Approach: This project will be done as a Specific Cooperative Agreement with the Italian BSE Reference Laboratory, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, in Turin, Italy. It is essential for the U.S. BSE surveillance program to analyze the effectiveness of the U.S diagnostic tools for detection of atypical cases of BSE. Molecular comparisons of the U.S. BSE isolate with atypical BSE isolates will provide further characterization of the U.S. BSE isolate. Transmission studies are already underway using brain homogenates from atypical BSE cases into mice, cattle and sheep. It will be critical to see whether the atypical BSE isolates behave similarly to typical BSE isolates in terms of transmissibility and disease pathogenesis. If transmission occurs, tissue distribution comparisons will be made between cattle infected with the atypical BSE isolate and the U.S. BSE isolate. Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations regarding specific risk material (SRM) removal.



http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=408490



Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Atypical BSE North America Update February 2009

Both of the BSE cases ascertained in the US native-born cattle were atypical cases (H-type), which contributed to the initial ambiguity of the diagnosis. 174, 185 In Canada, there have been 2 atypical BSE cases in addition to the 14 cases of the classic UK strain of BSE2: one was the H-type, and the other was of the L-type.198

snip...end

source :

Enhanced Abstract Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association January 1, 2009, Vol. 234, No. 1, Pages 59-72

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

Jane L. Harman, DVM, PhD; Christopher J. Silva, PhD



http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/ref/10.2460/javma.234.1.59



Atypical BSE North America Update February 2009



http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/02/atypical-bse-north-america-update.html



Thursday, April 9, 2009

Docket No. FDA2002N0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N0273) RIN 0910AF46 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Final Rule: Proposed



http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/04/docket-no-fda2002n0031-formerly-docket.html



please see ;



http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/04/docket-no-fda2002n0031-formerly-docket.html#comments



TSS COMMENT SUBMISSION # 5

Docket ID FDA-2002-N-0031 Docket Title Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed Document ID FDA-2002-N-0031-0132 Document Title Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Final Rule: Proposed Delay of Effective Date

Completely Edited Version

PRION ROUNDTABLE

2003

page 29

Dr. Linda Detwiler

The UK imports into the US.

There were 496 total, and 173 of the UK imports could have entered the US feed system. People don't like to hear this, but it's possible that one of the UK imports in the US entered the animal feed system and was exported to Canada. That's a possibility, because they import 50% of their feed from the US.

From 1994, we imported 11 million head of cattle from Canada. Most of these were feedlot animals for slaughter, but there were about 500,000 breeding animals. A number of Canada's cull cows were slaughtered here and could have introduced infectivity into our system. Even today we have Canadian imports in the country, breeding animals that were brought in prior to the ban and reside here.

We have feed ban exemptions: plate waste, poultry litter. We still allow that if it comes off a human plate, or if it's trimmings, it can be palletized and fed to ruminants. That might be a small amount, but it could allow spinal cord in certain cuts to be fed back to ruminants. Poultry litter or feather meal could be significant. Poultry is getting quite a bit of ruminant material in the US because it cannot go back to ruminants. Poultry and pigs are getting a substantial amount. Poultry litter is not only what passes through the chicken, but think about how chickens eat. They spill a lot on the floor. That stuff is still allowed to be fed back to cattle. That's a direct break in the ban, except that it's legal. Ruminants are getting ruminant material.

Unfiltered tallow: tallow is a lipid material. However, if it's not filtered, there are protein residues. That's meat and bone meal. That's allowed to be fed, so that's another legal exception where you can feed ruminant meat and bone meal through unfiltered tallow. We don't have an SRM ban and the 40 animals are the ones that if you have the agent, they introduce the most infectivity back into the animal food chain when they're rendered.

What's our on-farm compliance? We really don't know. ...snip...end...Dr. Linda Detwiler

UK EXPORTS OF MBM TO WORLD



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab05.pdf



OTHERS



BEEF AND VEAL



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab08.pdf



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab09.pdf



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab10.pdf



LIVE CATTLE



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf



FATS



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab01.pdf



EMBRYOS



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab03.pdf



GELATIN ETC



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab02.pdf



SEMEN



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab04.pdf



MEAT



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab05.pdf




USA BSE GBR



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620779461.htm



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_annex_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_summary_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true



CANADA BSE GBR



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



MEXICO BSE GBR



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








Wednesday, April 16, 2008 MBM, greaves, meat offal, live cattle, imports from UK to USA vs Canada "Three of four possible manufacturers supplying a protein supplement likely fed to the animal could have included meat and bone meal (MBM) as an ingredient in its formulation. One of these manufacturers was able to confirm usage of meat and bone meal in supplements and confirm a source of MBM to be one common to previous BSE investigations."

USA AND CANADA IMPORTS OF UK CATTLE BETWEEN 1981 - 1989

USA = 496

CANADA = 198

*add 14 to 198 as last UK import to Canada, 14 in 1990



http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/ahra/bseris/bserise.pdf



HERE is another look at all the imports for both the USA and Canada of UK live cattle and greaves exports ;

UK Exports of Live Cattle by Value 1986-96

USA 697 LIVE CATTLE

CANADA 299 LIVE CATTLE



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf



UK TABLE of Exports of meal of meat and meat offal; greaves 1979 - 1995

USA 24 TONS

CANADA 83 TONS



http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m12/tab12.pdf



HOWEVER, my files show 44 tons of greaves for USA. ...TSS



Subject: Re: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.??? From: mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000199/!x-usc:mailto:S.J.Pearsall@esg.maff.gsi.gov.uk Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:03:16 +0000 To: mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000199/!x-usc:mailto: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

============ END...TSS...2008============

P04.27

Experimental BSE Infection of Non-human Primates: Efficacy of the Oral Route

snip...full text ;



http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/r-calf-and-usa-mad-cow-problem-dont.html#comments



Sunday, April 12, 2009 r-calf and the USA mad cow problem, don't look, don't find, and then blame Canada



http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/r-calf-and-usa-mad-cow-problem-dont.html



http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html#comments



FDA2002N0031

r-calf



http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480952081&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf



CJD FOUNDATION



http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648094d9f9



greetings,

i don't think i interpreted anything about USA mad cow problem, and or USA mad cow feed problem, of which is what this docket was for. in 2007, in one fda warning letter week, two warning letters, where 10,000,000 pounds of suspect banned mad cow feed went into commerce to be fed out. and 2006 was a banner year as well for USA MAD COW FEED that was banned, that went into commerce to be fed out. why does r-calf not mention this $$$ or the failed, flawed, and corrupt 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, that was nothing more of another mad cow cover-up. we all know it. OIG said it, in it's own way, and Paul Brown of CDC said it in plain terms. hmmm, no mention there either by r-calf$ that's what the r-calf is all about. they are playing some like a deck of cards.

nothing more of the same, big, big, denial, and that' s what anyone that signed that letter with r-calf ET AL supported, a big denial. ...TSS

Month Number of Tests

Feb 2009 -- 1,891

Jan 2009 -- 4,620



http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/surveillance/ongoing_surv_results.shtml



unday, April 12, 2009

BSE MAD COW TESTING USA 2009 FIGURES



http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/04/bse-mad-cow-testing-usa-2009-figures.html



Saturday, January 24, 2009

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy h-BSE ATYPICAL USA 2008 Annual Report Research Project: Study of Atypical Bse

Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock

2008 Annual Report



http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/01/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-h-bse.html



Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:37 PM

"we have found that H-BSE can infect humans."

personal communication with Professor Kong. ...TSS

see full text ;



http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/02/atypical-bse-north-america-update.html



MAD COW DISEASE USA DECEMBER 28, 2008 an 8 year review of a failed and flawed policy



http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/12/mad-cow-disease-usa-december-28-2008-8.html



Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease presenting as severe depression: a case report



http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/02/creutzfeldt-jacob-disease-presenting-as.html



CJD QUESTIONNAIRE USA CWRU AND CJD FOUNDATION



http://cjdquestionnaire.blogspot.com/

BSE MAD COW TESTING USA 2009 FIGURES

Month Number of Tests

Feb 2009 -- 1,891

Jan 2009 -- 4,620




http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/surveillance/ongoing_surv_results.shtml




2009

ACTIVE TSE SURVEILLANCE IN GREAT BRITAIN

Current Surveys

NB, these figures do not reflect those samples unsuitable for testing.

YEAR BSE SURVEYS NUMBER OF ANIMALS TESTED NUMBER OF ANIMALS TESTED WITH OUTCOME PENDING NUMBER OF ANIMALS TESTED IN WHICH BSE NOT CONFIRMED NUMBER OF ANIMALS TESTED IN WHICH BSE CONFIRMED

2009 Fallen Stock 39433 0 39431 2

2009 Emergency Slaughter > 48 months 2 0 2 0

2009 Ante-Mortem Inspection > 48 months 2 0 2 0

2009 Emergency Slaughter Casualties at Fresh Meat Plants 358 0 358 0

2009 Ante-Mortem Inspection Casualties at Fresh Meat Plants 139 0 139 0

2009 Healthy slaughtered animals aged over 48 months, born before August 1996 474 0 474 0

2009 Healthy slaughtered fresh meat animals aged over 48 months, born after July 1996 100452 0 100452 0

2009 BSE culling 5 0 5 0

Total for animals born in 96/97 Cohort (including fallen stock, casualties etc) 7757 0 7757 0

Total for other test categories as at 3 April 2009 133108 0 133106 2

Total for all Cattle tested between 1 January 2009 - 3 April 2009 140865 0 140863 2

2001-09 All cattle tested 3993513 0 3991667 1846




http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/science/docs/sci_tse_stats_active.pdf





USDA: In 9,200 cases only one type of test could be used

WASHINGTON (AP)--The U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged Aug. 17 that its testing options for bovine spongiform encephalopathy were limited in 9,200 cases despite its effort to expand surveillance throughout the U.S. herd.

In those cases, only one type of test was used--one that failed to detect the disease in an infected Texas cow.

The department posted the information on its website because of an inquiry from The Associated Press.

Conducted over the past 14 months, the tests have not been included in the department's running tally of BSE tests since last summer. That total reached 439,126 on Aug. 17.

"There's no secret program," the department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, said in an interview. "There has been no hiding, I can assure you of that."

Officials intended to report the tests later in an annual report, Clifford said.

These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC.

In the Texas case, officials had declared the cow free of disease in November after an IHC test came back negative. The department's inspector general ordered an additional kind of test, which confirmed the animal was infected.

Veterinarians in remote locations have used the preservative on tissue to keep it from degrading on its way to the department's laboratory in Ames, Iowa. Officials this year asked veterinarians to stop using preservative and send fresh or chilled samples within 48 hours.

The department recently investigated a possible case of BSE that turned up in a preserved sample. Further testing ruled out the disease two weeks ago.

Scientists used two additional tests--rapid screening and Western blot--to help detect BSE in the country's second confirmed case, in a Texas cow in June. They used IHC and Western blot to confirm the first case, in a Washington state cow in December 2003.

"The IHC test is still an excellent test," Clifford said. "These are not simple tests, either."

Clifford pointed out that scientists reran the IHC several times and got conflicting results. That happened, too, with the Western blot test. Both tests are accepted by international animal health officials.

Date: 8/25/05




http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug29/BSEtestoptionswerelimited.cfm




""These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC."

THIS WAS DONE FOR A REASON!



THE IHC test has been proven to be the LEAST LIKELY to detect BSE/TSE in the bovine, and these were probably from the most high risk cattle pool, the ones the USDA et al, SHOULD have been testing. ...TSS



USDA 2003

We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA, we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got away from it. They've recently gone back. Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine ourselves to one area.

snip.............

Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it. Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important. If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test. There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA, we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got away from it. They've recently gone back.

Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS .

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine ourselves to one area.

snip...

FULL TEXT;

Completely Edited Version PRION ROUNDTABLE

Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado

2005

=============================

CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006

The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005 suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end

http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r

CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ... Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05, ...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm

In this context, a word is in order about the US testing program. After the discovery of the first (imported) cow in 2003, the magnitude of testing was much increased, reaching a level of >400,000 tests in 2005 (Figure 4). Neither of the 2 more recently indigenously infected older animals with nonspecific clinical features would have been detected without such testing, and neither would have been identified as atypical without confirmatory Western blots. Despite these facts, surveillance has now been decimated to 40,000 annual tests (USDA news release no. 0255.06, July 20, 2006) and invites the accusation that the United States will never know the true status of its involvement with BSE.

In short, a great deal of further work will need to be done before the phenotypic features and prevalence of atypical BSE are understood. More than a single strain may have been present from the beginning of the epidemic, but this possibility has been overlooked by virtue of the absence of widespread Western blot confirmatory testing of positive screening test results; or these new phenotypes may be found, at least in part, to result from infections at an older age by a typical BSE agent, rather than neonatal infections with new "strains" of BSE. Neither alternative has yet been investigated.




http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0965.htm




http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/02/report-on-testing-ruminants-for-tses-in.html




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




USDA: In 9,200 cases only one type of test could be used

WASHINGTON (AP)--The U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged Aug. 17 that its testing options for bovine spongiform encephalopathy were limited in 9,200 cases despite its effort to expand surveillance throughout the U.S. herd.

In those cases, only one type of test was used--one that failed to detect the disease in an infected Texas cow.

The department posted the information on its website because of an inquiry from The Associated Press.

Conducted over the past 14 months, the tests have not been included in the department's running tally of BSE tests since last summer. That total reached 439,126 on Aug. 17.

"There's no secret program," the department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, said in an interview. "There has been no hiding, I can assure you of that."

Officials intended to report the tests later in an annual report, Clifford said.

These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC.

In the Texas case, officials had declared the cow free of disease in November after an IHC test came back negative. The department's inspector general ordered an additional kind of test, which confirmed the animal was infected.

Veterinarians in remote locations have used the preservative on tissue to keep it from degrading on its way to the department's laboratory in Ames, Iowa. Officials this year asked veterinarians to stop using preservative and send fresh or chilled samples within 48 hours.

The department recently investigated a possible case of BSE that turned up in a preserved sample. Further testing ruled out the disease two weeks ago.

Scientists used two additional tests--rapid screening and Western blot--to help detect BSE in the country's second confirmed case, in a Texas cow in June. They used IHC and Western blot to confirm the first case, in a Washington state cow in December 2003.

"The IHC test is still an excellent test," Clifford said. "These are not simple tests, either."

Clifford pointed out that scientists reran the IHC several times and got conflicting results. That happened, too, with the Western blot test. Both tests are accepted by international animal health officials.

Date: 8/25/05




http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug29/BSEtestoptionswerelimited.cfm




""These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC."

THIS WAS DONE FOR A REASON!

As for lowering standards, R-CALF has referenced the OIE (World Organization for Animal Health) as the authority on animal health issues. That's fine, as far as it goes. Trouble is, the OIE does not set standards, as R-CALF has claimed. Further, the OIE does not recommend countries ban meat imported - with SRMs removed - from countries with low or high BSE risk, contrary to R-CALF's implication.

In addition, there are no standards recognized for importing meat from minimal- or low-risk BSE countries. The U.S. is trying to set standards as precedent for trade, based on nearly 20 years of science. R-CALF wants trade only with countries who have never had a BSE case. They have not explained how many years they want the rest of the world to sit around and wait until it's okay to trust science and begin trading. Or how they would justify keeping imports out if ever a BSE case was discovered in the U.S. or export again ever.




http://www.mad-cow-facts.com/News-Commentary/r-calf-bullard-4-4-05.htm




JUST ABOUT EVERY COUNTRY THAT WENT BY THOSE FAILED OIE BSE GUIDELINES WENT DOWN WITH BSE. ...TSS

OH, NOT TO FOGET ;

Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program

An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services. In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2007.

snip...

4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half



http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf





In 2007, in one weekly enforcement report, the fda recalled 10,000,000+ pounds of BANNED MAD COW FEED, 'in commerce', and i can tell you that most of it was fed out ;


10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007

Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST REASON Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 42,090 lbs. DISTRIBUTION WI

REASON Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 9,997,976 lbs. DISTRIBUTION ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007




http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html




Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL, TN, AND WV Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST

snip...

see listings and references of enormous amounts of banned mad cow protein 'in commerce' in 2006 and 2005 ;

see full text ;

Friday, April 25, 2008 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed [Docket No. 2002N-0273] (Formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) RIN 0910-AF46




http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/04/substances-prohibited-from-use-in.html





SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS




http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html




SRM MAD COW RECALL 406 THOUSAND POUNDS CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS KANSAS




http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/srm-mad-cow-recall-406-thousand-pounds.html




Thursday, April 9, 2009

Docket No. FDA2002N0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N0273) RIN 0910AF46 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Final Rule: Proposed




http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/04/docket-no-fda2002n0031-formerly-docket.html




Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:37 PM


"we have found that H-BSE can infect humans."


personal communication with Professor Kong. ...TSS

see full text ;




http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/02/atypical-bse-north-america-update.html




Saturday, January 24, 2009

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy h-BSE ATYPICAL USA 2008 Annual Report Research Project: Study of Atypical Bse

Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock

2008 Annual Report




http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/01/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-h-bse.html




SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FROM DOWNER CATTLE UPDATE

IS THERE A SCRAPIE-LIKE DISEASE IN CATTLE ?

In April of 1985, a mink rancher in Wisconsin reported a debilitating neurologic disease in his herd which we diagnosed as TME by histopathologic findings confirmed by experimental transmission to mink and squirrel monkeys. The rancher was a ''dead stock'' feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy cattle and a few horses. She had never been fed.

We believe that these findings may indicate the presence of a previously unrecognized scrapie-like disease in cattle and wish to alert dairy practitioners to this possibility.

snip...

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH ANNUAL WESTERN CONFERENCE FOR FOOD ANIMAL VETERINARY MEDICINE, University of Arizona, March 17-19, 1986




http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09a/tab01.pdf




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




IS THERE A SCRAPIE-LIKE DISEASE IN CATTLE ?

YOU BET THERE IS, AND HAS BEEN, AND WE BEEN FEEDING THE MOST HIGH RISK I.E. DEAD STOCK DOWNER COWS TO OUR CHILDREN FOR DECADES, who will follow these children for human TSE from mad cow disease here in the USA in the years, decades to come, and how many will they expose from the 'pass it forward' friendly fire modes ???



http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2008/12/evaluation-of-fsis-management-controls.html




http://downercattle.blogspot.com/




Saturday, March 14, 2009 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Announces Final Rule for Handling of Non-Ambulatory Cattle

Release No. 0060.09 Contact: Amanda Eamich (202) 720-9113




http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2009/03/agriculture-secretary-tom-vilsack.html




http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/04/docket-no-fda2002n0031-formerly-docket.html




TSS