Thursday, January 17, 2013

FSA notified of two breaches of BSE testing regulations 14 January 2013

14 January 2013
 
 
 
 
FSA notified of two breaches of BSE testing regulations


 
There have been two separate incidents in which cattle aged over 72 months entered the food chain without being tested for BSE. The incidents involved a total of three animals.


 
The risk to human health is very low as it is very unlikely that any of the cattle would have been infected. The specified risk material (SRM), parts of the cattle most likely to carry BSE infection, had been removed in each case.
 
 
 
 
Bridport
 
 
 
 
On 20 August 2012, two cattle over 72 months of age were slaughtered at S J Norman and Sons abattoir in Bridport and were not tested for BSE before leaving the premises. One animal was 332 days over the 72 month age limit; the other by 1,383 days. The error was discovered on 22 October during routine cross-checks of slaughter and BSE data.
 
 
 
 
It is mandatory for all cattle slaughtered for human consumption and aged over 72 months to have a negative BSE test result. According to regulations any cattle that has not been tested, along with the animal slaughtered immediately before it and the two immediately after, should not enter the food supply.
 
 
 
 
In total, seven carcasses had to be traced in this instance, because of the sequence of the two kills. Meat from these animals was mixed up with other consignments. Most of the meat had been processed or sold on to the end consumer and was no longer in the food supply chain. Of the remaining meat, 1,720 kg was traced to a cold storage facility in Essex. It was disposed of and did not enter the food supply. A further 233 kg had been exported to Malta and the Maltese authorities were informed.


 
Nantwich
 
 
 
 
Separately, on 2 March 2012 a bovine that was 89 months and 27 days of age was slaughtered at High Peak Meat Exports abattoir in Nantwich. Again it was not tested before leaving the premises. The error was discovered during routine data checks on 25 May.
 
 
 
 
The investigation found that only three animals were slaughtered on 2 March. The carcasses, along with six others slaughtered later that month, were dispatched to the Netherlands on 6 March. The Dutch authorities were notified of the breach. No edible meat or offal from the animals slaughtered on 2 March was sold as food in the UK.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wednesday, December 21, 2011


 
Potential mad cows that entered food supply without being tested for BSE 2011: UK END OF YEAR REVIEW
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thursday, September 6, 2012


 
UK Breaches of BSE controls in consignments of beef 2011 communications missing four reports
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Friday, December 21, 2012
 
 
 
 
Four BSE cases with an L-BSE molecular profile in cattle from Great Britain Veterinary Record doi:10.1136/vr.101158 Paper
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Friday, November 30, 2012
 
 
 
 
PROPOSED DECISION TO STOP BSE TESTING OF HEALTHY CATTLE SLAUGHTERED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION FSA 12/12/04 Open Board – 11 December 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EURO QUALITY RECALLS ITS LAMBS' BRAINS


 
Euro Quality Lambs Ltd is recalling its lambs’ brains, which have entered the food chain without being inspected properly. The Food Standards Agency is asking all local authority enforcement officers to ensure that the product is withdrawn from sale and destroyed. The Agency has issued a Food Alert for Action.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
 
 
 
 
IN CONFIDENCE
 
 
 
 
SCRAPIE TRANSMISSION TO CHIMPANZEES
 
 
 
 
IN CONFIDENCE


 
 
 
 
 
why do we not want to do TSE transmission studies on chimpanzees $
 
 
 
 
snip...
 
 
 
 
5. A positive result from a chimpanzee challenged severly would likely create alarm in some circles even if the result could not be interpreted for man. I have a view that all these agents could be transmitted provided a large enough dose by appropriate routes was given and the animals kept long enough. Until the mechanisms of the species barrier are more clearly understood it might be best to retain that hypothesis.


 
snip...


 
R. BRADLEY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Friday, February 11, 2011
 
 
 
 
Atypical/Nor98 Scrapie Infectivity in Sheep Peripheral Tissues


 
 
 
 
 
Monday, April 25, 2011
 
 
 
 
Experimental Oral Transmission of Atypical Scrapie to Sheep


 
Volume 17, Number 5-May 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sunday, April 18, 2010
 
 
 
 
SCRAPIE AND ATYPICAL SCRAPIE TRANSMISSION STUDIES A REVIEW 2010
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thursday, November 18, 2010
 
 
 
 
Increased susceptibility of human-PrP transgenic mice to bovine spongiform encephalopathy following passage in sheep
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
 
 
 
 
EFSA and ECDC review scientific evidence on possible links between TSEs in animals and humans Webnachricht 19 Januar 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monday, June 27, 2011
 
 
 
 
Comparison of Sheep Nor98 with Human Variably Protease-Sensitive Prionopathy and Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker Disease
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Friday, December 14, 2012
 
 
 
 
DEFRA U.K. What is the risk of Chronic Wasting Disease CWD being introduced into Great Britain? A Qualitative Risk Assessment October 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANY RELAXING OF ANY BSE TESTING RULES WOULD NOT BE BASED ON SOUND SCIENCE, BUT BASED ON INDUSTRY LED SCIENCE AND MONEY $$$
 
 
 
 
we now know that indeed atypical BSE is transmissible to cattle and other species, and atypical BSE have been documented in older cattle to date. so relaxing any BSE testing on older cattle would be a huge step backwards, and could risk everything that has been done over the past 27 years to try and eradicate BSE. ...
 
 
 
 
on a lighter note, seems anything goes now $$$
 
 
 
 
16 January 2013
 
 
 
 
FSA investigation into horse DNA found in some burgers
 
 
 
 
The Food Standards Agency is investigating urgently how a number of beef products on sale in the UK and Republic of Ireland came to contain some traces of horse and pig DNA.
 
 
 
 
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland reported yesterday (Tuesday, 15 January) that an analysis they carried out into the authenticity, or labelling accuracy, of a number of burger products revealed that some contained horse and pig DNA.
 
 
 
 
In particular, 27 beefburger products were analysed, with 10 of the 27 products (37%) testing positive for horse DNA and 23 (85%) testing positive for pig DNA. In nine of the ten beefburger samples, horse DNA was found at very low levels. In one sample from Tesco, the level of horse DNA indicated that horse meat was present and accounted for approximately 29% of the total meat content of the burger.


 
All of the retailers involved so far have removed potentially affected products from their shelves.
 
 
 
 
The FSA has been in contact overnight with the retailers and producers named in the FSAI survey and has called a meeting this afternoon with a wider range of food industry representatives to discover the extent of the potential problem and to investigate how this contamination might have occurred.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thursday, January 5, 2012
 
 
 
 
Horse Meat, slaughter for consumption USA
 
 
 
 
snip...
 
 
 
 
Greetings,
 
 
 
 
for what it’s worth.
 
 
 
 
I am against horse slaughter for consumption or any other purpose i.e. fertilizer, plastic, fuel, etc.
 
 
 
 
I am against the use of primates in scientific studies. because arguments will always persist on proof of human relation from any given study. However, I am for Human use in place of Primates in these studies. I said it long ago. Death Row inmates. compensate the families and do the studies on these death row inmates. it could be the last good thing they ever do. just my opinion.
 
 
 
 
For horses, they should use the same policy they use in the USA for old diseased mad cows, i.e. SSS policy. shoot, shovel, and shut up. either bury them or incinerate them. again, just my opinion.
 
 
 
 
there is no humanity anymore $$$


 
It brings me to the old movie. how many times do old movies come true? strange...
 
 
 
 
'soyent green'.
 
 
 
 
see ;
 
 
 
 
Soylent Green is a 1973 dystopian science fiction movie depicting a future in which overpopulation lead to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables, and meat are rare, commodities are expensive, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers.
 
 
 
 
The film overlays the science fiction and police procedural genres as it depicts the efforts of New York City police detective Robert Thorn (Charlton Heston) and elderly police researcher Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson) to investigate the brutal murder of a wealthy businessman named William R. Simonson (Joseph Cotten). Thorn and Roth uncover clues which suggest that it is more than simply a bungled burglary.


 
snip...
 
 
 
 
After Roth dies, Thorn sneaks into the basement of the government-assisted suicide facility, where he sees corpses being loaded onto waste disposal trucks. He secretly hitches a ride on one of the trucks, which is driven to a heavily guarded waste disposal plant. Once inside the plant, Thorn sees how the corpses are processed into Soylent Green wafers. After Thorn escapes from the plant and heads for the supreme exchange with the information, he is ambushed by Fielding and several other gunmen. In the shootout, Thorn kills some of the gunmen, but is himself wounded. He retreats into a cathedral filled with homeless people. After a desperate fight, Thorn stabs and kills Fielding.
 
 
 
 
When police backup arrives, the seriously wounded and nearly hysterical Thorn confides to Hatcher the horrible secret behind Soylent Green and urges him to spread the word: "Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them somehow!"


don’t believe me, were almost there ;
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN CONFIDENCE
 
 
 
 
SUSPECT BSE IN A HORSE
 
 
 
 
CYO BSE 1 9
 
 
 
 
IN CONFIDENCE


 
SUSPECT BSE IN A HORSE
 
 
 
 
The Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Maclean) will wish to be aware that, in making his differential diagnosis, a veterinary surgeon in the Reading area has included the possibility of BSE in a horse under his care. Although it is unlikely to be BSE, because of the symptoms exhibited the veterinarian believes that he cannot exclude the possibility. The case was brought to the notice of one of the veterinary staff at the CVL by the owner's veterinary surgeon and liaison is being maintained.
 
 
 
 
The horse in question is a five-year old eventing gelding which was purchased by the present owner about four months ago. Approximately two months after purchase the animal became a little apprehensive, developed mild nervous symptoms and became over-sensitive to noise. The nervous symptoms have increased and the horse is now practically impossible to ride. Investigations by the owner's private veterinary surgeon are continuing but it is likely that the animal will have to be destroyed.
 
 
 
 
If the horse should die or be destroyed, a full post-mortem examination will be required for insurance purposes and will probably be carried out at a non-Ministry laboratory. However, Mr Bradley of the Pathology Department, CVL, has informed the private veterinary surgeon that he is willing to provide a second opinion on the brain histology if requested.


 
I will keep the Parliamentary Secretary informed of any further developments in the case.
 
 
 
 
I CRAWFORD
 
 
 
 
14 May 1990


 
Mr M P H Hill, PS/Parliamentary secretary (Mr Maclean) - by FAX
 
 
 
 
cc:
 
 
 
 
Private Offices
 
 
 
 
Mr K C Meldrum
 
 
 
 
Mrs E A J Attridge D J Evans Mr K C Taylor Mr R Lawson Mr R Bradley. CVL
 
 
 
 
(hand written notes i cannot read all (cut short) as follows...tss)
 
 
 
 
The Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Maclean was grateful for this. He said that we must keep very close to ...on it, and when the horse dies, or is put down we must be told immediately. He also feels it is very important that our veterinary staff be involved in the brain examination. .........(cannot read the rest .............TSS)
 
 
 
 
90/05.14/10.1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr A Huws Principal WOAD2A CP2
 
 
 
 
SUSPECT BSE IN A HORSE


 
You will wish to be aware that on Thursday afternoon 25 June the T/DVO Powys received a phone call from a veterinary Surgeon reporting his suspicion that a horse had ___contracted BSE after having been fed cattle cake___.
 
 
 
 
The clinical symptoms described were similar to those shown by cattle there ___being a similar case some months ago on the same premises___.
 
 
 
 
The owner' s name and address is:
 
 
 
 
Irene Thomas J Thomas & Company Riding Stables Penybryn Llangorse Brecon
 
 
 
 
The horse is a 12 year old gelding used for pony trekking.
 
 
 
 
By yesterday evening the horse was in a comatose state and on humane grounds was destroyed by the veterinary Surgeon. At his request a full post mortem and laboratory investigation will be carried out at the Carmarthen Veterinary Investigation Centre this morning to ascertain the exact cause; I have been told this will take at least two weeks. Charges to the veterinary Surgeon have been waived in this instance.


 
I will inform you immediately I receive a diagnosis.
 
 
 
 
26 June 1990
 
 
 
 
D SUMMERS DRVO
 
 
 
 
cc
 
 
 
 
Mr D R Williams, RVO


 
Mr A R Hunter, SVIO
 
 
 
 
90/06.26/10.1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr A Huws Principal WOAD2A CP2
 
 
 
 
SUSPECT BSE IN A HORSE
 
 
 
 
You will wish to be aware that on Thursday afternoon 25 June the T/DVO Powys received a phone call from a veterinary Surgeon reporting his suspicion that a horse had contracted BSE after having been fed cattle cake. The clinical symptoms described were similar to those shown by cattle there being a similar case some months ago on the same premises.
 
 
 
 
The owner' s name and address is:
 
 
 
 
Irene Thomas J Thomas & Company Riding Stables Penybryn Llangorse Brecon
 
 
 
 
The horse is a 12 year old gelding used for pony trekking.
 
 
 
 
By yesterday evening the horse was in a comatose state and on humane grounds was destroyed by the veterinary Surgeon. At his request a full post mortem and laboratory investigation will be carried out at the Carmarthen Veterinary Investigation Centre this morning to ascertain the exact cause; I have been told this will take at least two weeks. Charges to the veterinary Surgeon have been waived in this instance.
 
 
 
 
I will inform you immediately I receive a diagnosis.
 
 
 
 
26 June 1990
 
 
 
 
D SUMMERS DRVO
 
 
 
 
cc


 
Mr D R Williams, RVO
 
 
 
 
Mr A R Hunter, SVIO
 
 
 
 
90/06.26/10.1


 
 
 
 
 
full text ;
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
we know that horses, especially quarter horses and show horses are fed feed with high animal protein content, and it’s perfectly legal.
 
 
 
 
see ;


 
Nonprohibited Materials:


 
These feed materials CAN be fed to ruminants.


 
A. The following protein products derived from mammals, including ruminants, are exempt from the Ruminant Feed Ban rule and CAN be fed to ruminants:
 
 
 
 
Blood and blood products


 
Milk products (milk and milk protein)
 
 
 
 
Pure porcine (pork) protein
 
 
 
 
Pure equine (horse) protein
 
 
 
 
Gelatin Inspected meat products, such as plate waste, which have been cooked and offered for human food and further heat processed for animal feed.


snip... see full text ;
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: TSS
 
 
 
 
Subject: MAD COW/HORSE FEED BAN VIOLATIONS WARNING LETTER July 20, 2001 USA
 
 
 
 
Date: August 14, 2001 at 11:36 am PST
 
 
 
 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE


 
July 20, 2001
 
 
 
 
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
 
 
 
 
WARNING LETTER Ref. KAN 2001-028
 
 
 
 
Mr. Eric N. Blomkuist, CEO Farnam Companies, Inc. 301 W. Osborn P.O. Box 34820 Phoenix, AZ 85013
 
 
 
 
Dear Mr. Blomkuist:
 
 
 
 
An inspection of your Council Bluffs, Iowa facility that serves as a manufacturing/repackaging site for animal feed and as a distribution operation for animal drugs and feeds conducted on June 13-20, 2001 by an Investigator representing this office found significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalophathy (BSE) within the borders of the United States. Such deviations cause products being manufactured and/or distributed by your facility to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(4) and misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(F) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
 
 
 
 
The inspection revealed the following:
 
 
 
 
There are no written procedures demonstrating the clean-out process used to prevent the cross- contamination of product. Your firm uses common equipment for product manufactured with prohibited material and for feed and/or drugs that are not.
 
 
 
 
Your firm distributes products that may contain prohibited material, specifically Flex Free, Equinyl, Generation and Max Flex, that are not labeled with the required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants"


 
The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations. As a manufacturer of products intended for animal feed use you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. At the conclusion of the inspection Form FDA483, List of Inspectional Observations was issued to Ronald G. Adler, Plant Manager identifying these and other deviations. A copy is enclosed for your information.
 
 
 
 
Our Investigator reported a telephone discussion with Mr. Barry G. Harrison who identified himself as the Corporate Counsel of the Farnam Companies, Inc. During this discussion Mr. Harrison, reportedly, claimed the products in question are exempt from the cautionary statement requirement. This claimed exemption is based on the fact the products are intended only for the equine market and your firm defines horses as pets. We cannot accept this claimed exemption because while some horses may be held as pets, horses are also working animals and in some parts of North America, food animals.
 
 
 
 
Based on our knowledge of working ranches, horse feed is often stored in the same general area as ruminant feed making a conspicuous cautionary statenmit vital on feeds and supplements, containing prohibited materials.
 
 
 
 
You should take prompt action to correct the above violations and to establish procedures whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to make immediate and lasting corrections may result in regulatory actions without further notice including but not limiting to product seizure and/or injunction.


You should respond, in writing, Within 15 working days of the steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Please include all the steps you plan to take, the timeframe for completing these actions and any documentation demonstrating the action's completion.
 
 
 
 
Your response should be directed to Ralph J. Gray, Compliance Officer at the above address.
 
 
 
 
Sincerely, Charles W. Sedgwick District Director Kansas City District Office
 
 
 
 
Cc: Mr. John C. Williams CEO, Manufacturing and Distribution Farnam Companies, Inc, 1302 Law Ross Road Council Bluffs, IA 51501
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Subject: Re: MAD COW/HORSE FEED BAN VIOLATIONS WARNING LETTER July 20, 2001
 
 
 
 
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:43:26 –0400
 
 
 
 
From: "Robert A. LaBudde"
 
 
 
 
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
 
 
 
 
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
 
 
 
 
At 01:41 PM 8/14/01 -0700,
 
 
 
 
Terry wrote:


 
>DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE


 
> >July 20, 2001
 
 
 
 
> >Our Investigator reported a telephone discussion with Mr. Barry G.


>Harrison who identified himself as the Corporate Counsel of the Farnam


>Companies, Inc. During this discussion Mr. Harrison, reportedly, claimed


 
>the products in question are exempt from the cautionary statement


>requirement. This claimed exemption is based on the fact the products
 
 
 
 
>are intended only for the equine market and your firm defines horses as
 
 
 
 
>pets. We cannot accept this claimed exemption because while some horses
 
 
 
 
>may be held as pets, horses are also working animals and in some parts


>of North America, food animals.


 
> >Based on our knowledge of working ranches, horse feed is often stored in
 
 
 
 
>the same general area as ruminant feed making a conspicuous cautionary
 
 
 
 
>statenmit vital on feeds and supplements,


 
>containing prohibited materials.
 
 
 
 
Terry:
 
 
 
 
Perhaps you should pester FDA about this "loophole". Apparently, "pet food" does not have to bear the warning labels specified for food animals.
 
 
 
 
I can't see any serious objection to expanding the label requirement to ALL animal food, not just food animals.


 
Also, horses are "ruminants", so it's disturbing that they might escape the feed ban by being classified as "pets". Another good reason to extend the warning labels and regulation to all animal foods.
 
 
 
 
Perhaps you could submit a request for ruling to the FDA on this issue to propose amending the regulation to include all animal foods, including pet foods.


 
================================================================
 
 
 
 
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS e-mail: ral@lcfltd.com Least Cost Formulations, Ltd. URL: http://lcfltd.com/ 824 Timberlake Drive Tel: 757-467-0954 Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239 Fax: 757-467-2947
 
 
 
 
"Vere scire est per causas scire"
 
 
 
 
================================================================
 
 
 
 
Subject: Re: Horses & ruminants
 
 
 
 
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:41:29 +0200
 
 
 
 
From: Roland Heynkes
 
 
 
 
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
 
 
 
 
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
 
 
 
 
Dear Robert and Oz,


 
>> Also, horses are "ruminants", so it's disturbing that they


 
>> might escape the feed ban by being classified as "pets".


 
>> Another good reason to >extend the warning labels and


 
>> regulation to all animal foods.
 
 
 
 
> > Just a note that horses are NOT ruminants, as I am sure


 
> robert knows from the quotes.
 
 
 
 
> They are however herbivores.


 
> It's also worth noting problems with x-infection found


 
> in the EU.
 
 
 
 
> although horses are not ruminants, it is of course a very poor idea to exclude them from a feed ban. Unfortunately exactly this is the case even in Germany, where horses are still excluded from the ban, if they are not intended to become human food. As Oz mentioned, this opens an absolutely unnecessary possibility for cross contaminations. Of course I repeatedly informed the involved German politicians and authorities about this problem, but they are not interested.


 
This perfectly fits to the fact, that most German authorities are still not prepared to inform the public about the German BSE cases. If you are interested in some information about this cases, you have to visit private Internet sites. Instead most German authorities provide the public with down playing statements and links to meat industry and marketing agencies. Links to sites with scientific information about TSE safety problems are not allowed on this official sites. Official sites with useful information comparable with those that we all know from the UK, are not wanted in Germany.
 
 
 
 
This also perfectly fits to the fact, that it is at least in Germany well known since 5 days for those who are interested in such information, that Dr. Margit Herbst won the Whistleblower-Prize. You may be not surprised to learn, that this prize is from a scientific association, not from politics. She gets it, because she lost her job, just because she informed the public about the fact that her superiors were not prepared to run the necessary pathological examinations with more than 20 cattle, that she had found to show BSE symptoms between 1990 and 1994 in just one German abattoir. At that time this was the political signal for all German vets not to find any German BSE cases. And as you know, the Bavarian vets were not prepared to let my speak about German BSE risks even in May 2001.
 
 
 
 
I was interested to see, if any of the German members of this list would forward this good news about Dr. Margrit Herbst. In my opinion it is absolutely typical that this was not the case and that again I had to do this.


 
By the way, studying the British BSE statistics I found that the risk to become infected, was sharply declining from birth to the age of about 6 months and that for a given period of time the risk of infection was about 5-times as high for a calf in comparison to adult animals. It is therefore clear, that many cattle became infected only as adults. The detailed analysis will be on my site until the end of this week.
 
 
 
 
kind regards
 
 
 
 
Roland



 
 
 
 
 
 
Subject: Re: MAD COW/HORSE FEED BAN VIOLATIONS WARNING LETTER
 
 
 
 
July 20, 200 1 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:52:58 –0400
 
 
 
 
From: "Cook, Nancy" Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


 
 
 
 
 
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
 
 
 
 
Robert, just wanted to comment on your request that the "Do not feed to Cattle or other Ruminants" statement be placed on all animal feeds. In 1997, we undertook a broad, five city survey to determine what effect that statement might have in the marketplace if it occurred on pet food labels.
 
 
 
 
Overwhelmingly, and in all locations, an immediate and severe effect was projected, not only into pet food, but into the Meat Counter as well, as people struggled with the idea that "if it's not good for ruminants (whatever they are?), why should I feed it to my pets, and oh, by the way, why should I eat beef at all if it's a problem?"


 
The Office of Management and Budget agreed with our findings and advised FDA that the labeling was not needed on pet food for retail sale or for laboratory animal feed. However, salvage products are required to bear the statement, since those products are often used for swine feed.
 
 
 
 
In most states, pets are classified as dogs and cats. Specialty pets are other caged and "aquariumed" critters. Horses and rabbits are classified as livestock.
 
 
 
 
Hope this is helpful.
 
 
 
 
Nancy K. Cook Pet Food Institute 2025 M Street, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 202-367-1120 202-367-2120 (fax)
 
 
 
 
Subject: Re: MAD COW/HORSE FEED BAN VIOLATIONS WARNING LETTER July 20, 2001
 
 
 
 
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:37:50 –0700
 
 
 
 
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
 
 
 
 
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
 
 
 
 
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de References: 1
 
 
 
 
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
 
 
 
 
 
Greetings again List Members,
 
 
 
 
here is a bit of what was thought of pet foods and TSEs in the early days of the BSE Inquiry;
 
 
 
 
 
What is meat and other material from scrapie-infected sheep used for - does it include pet food and material for biological products?
 
 
 
 
 
Pet Food
 
 
 
 
 
As initial preclinical multiplication of the agent takes place in the spleen and other parts of the lympho-reticular system (LRS) there is obviously the possibility that scrapie infected material is used for pet food in addition to material from clinically affected sheep. Sheep spleens are used exclusively for pet foods and processed sheep heads are undoubtedly included.



 
Commercial canned pet food is subject to heat treatment. The following treatments are employed by . . .
 
 
 
 
 
[A table has been deleted here for commercial-in-confidence reasons.]
 
 
 
 
 
snip...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18. As it will probably be some months before the answer to No. 17 is known, what steps if any would it be prudent to take in the meantime in clinically affected animals covering a) meat, offal and meat products for human consumption, b) milk, c) material used in the preparation of biologicals and d) pet food?



 
snip...
 
 
 
 
 
Given the difficulties in abattoirs of identifying parts of a given carcass it may be prudent to condemn, for any use, the whole carcass of affected animals. This would seem to be politic given the possible fears from the public of the risk of consuming products from affected animals and therefore unfairly bring all animal products into disrepute.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. Might there be a human risk from other animals, eg domestic pets?


 
If scrapie-infected sheep offal is the source of infection for cows, and similar material has gone into pet food, what is the chance of dogs/cats also being infected? Even if they do not show symptoms of disease (say because the incubation period is longer than the natural life span) might they still be infectious? Would there be any chance of transmission to humans through scratches or bites?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
snip...see more here;
 
 
 
 
Thursday, January 5, 2012
 
 
 
 
Horse Meat, slaughter for consumption USA


 
 
 
 
 
Saturday, January 05, 2013
 
 
 
 
Immunohistochemical Detection of Disease- Associated Prion Protein in the Peripheral Nervous System in Experimental H-Type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Saturday, December 15, 2012
 
 
 
 
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: the effect of oral exposure dose on attack rate and incubation period in cattle -- an update 5 December 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012 atypical L-type BSE BASE California reports
 
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT CALIFORNIA BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY CASE INVESTIGATION JULY 2012
 
 
 
 
Summary Report BSE 2012


 
Executive Summary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Saturday, August 4, 2012
 
 
 
 
Update from APHIS Regarding Release of the Final Report on the BSE Epidemiological Investigation


 
 
 
 
 
Saturday, August 4, 2012


 
*** Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012
 
 
 
 
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/08/final-feed-investigation-summary.html








HISTORY F.O.I.A. PET FOOD






Saturday, August 29, 2009





FOIA REQUEST FEED RECALL 2009 Product may have contained prohibited materials Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009





http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/08/foia-request-feed-recall-2009-product.html









Thursday, September 3, 2009




429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009




http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/09/429128-lbs-feed-for-ruminant-animals.html








Friday, September 4, 2009





FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT 429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009





http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html







Tuesday, November 3, 2009




re-FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009 and Recall # V-256-2009




http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/11/re-foia-request-on-feed-recall-product.html







From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.



To: CVMHomeP@cvm.fda.gov



Cc: FOIASTAFF@oig.usda.gov ; paffairs@oig.hhs.gov ; HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov ; phyllis.fong@oig.usda.gov





FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT 429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009




September 4, 2009




TO:




Food and Drug Administration
Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35)
Office of Shared Services
Office of Public Information and Library Services
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857




Or requests may be sent via fax to: fax number 301-443-1726 or 301-443-1719. If experience difficulty sending a fax, please call (301) 443-2414.




FROM:

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

P.O. Box 42

Bacliff, Texas USA 77518






Greetings FDA FOIE, and the Honorable Phyllis Fong et al @ OIG FOIA,




ANOTHER FOIA REQUEST PLEASE !





PLEASE SEE FULL TEXT ;




Canine Spongiform Encephalopathy CSE TSE





>>> Is anybody even looking at the dogs..especially with CWD now so widespread? <<<





NA, na, na........they know what they will find, Canine Spongiform Encephalopathy, and it was documented, but then they decided not to push the issue anymore, they had enough mad cow disease in different species to deal with. so they screwed the brains up with dogs and deer in the UK. then we took a page or two from the UKs testing protocols and USDA screwed the brains up with cattle, again, and again, and again. then played the stupid card. ya can't fix stupid. ... TSS








Monday, March 8, 2010





Canine Spongiform Encephalopathy aka MAD DOG DISEASE





Greetings,





Another Big Myth about Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy, is that TSE will not transmit to dogs. This is simply NOT TRUE. IT is perfectly legal to feed dogs and cats here in the USA bovine meat and bone meal. Canine dementia is real. how many dogs and cats here in the USA are tested for mad cow disease ? I just received this F.O.I.A. request, and thought I would post it here with a follow up on MAD DOG DISEASE. This is a follow up with additional data I just received on a FOIA request in 2009 ;






see full text, and be sure to read the BSE Inquiry documents toward the bottom ;





http://caninespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2010/03/canine-spongiform-encephalopathy-aka.html







Monday, March 8, 2010





UPDATE 429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009





http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2010/03/update-429128-lbs-feed-for-ruminant.html







Monday, March 1, 2010




ANIMAL PROTEIN I.E. MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE A REVIEW 2010




http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2010/03/animal-protien-ie-mad-cow-feed-in.html


 
 
 
 
Friday, November 23, 2012
 
 
 
 
 
sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease update As at 5th November 2012 UK, USA, AND CANADA


 
 
 
 
 
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
 
 
 
 
Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Human TSE report update North America, Canada, Mexico, and USDA PRION UNIT as of May 18, 2012
 
 
 
 
type determination pending Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (tdpCJD), is on the rise in Canada and the USA
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monday, December 31, 2012
 
 
 
 
Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease and Human TSE Prion Disease in Washington State, 2006–2011-2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monday, January 14, 2013
 
 
 
 
Gambetti et al USA Prion Unit change another highly suspect USA mad cow victim to another fake name i.e. sporadic FFI at age 16 CJD Foundation goes along with this BSe
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TSS

Canada, U.S. agree on animal-disease measures to protect trade, while reducing human and animal health protection

Canada, U.S. agree on animal-disease measures to protect trade, while reducing human and animal health protection



tell us something we don’t already know $$$





Canada, U.S. agree on animal-disease measures to protect trade Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:40am EST By Rod Nickel



WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - Canada and the United States have agreed to maintain livestock and meat trade during animal disease outbreaks using a new system that targets trade bans more precisely by region, Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said on Wednesday.



In 2003, the United States and many other countries halted beef imports from Canada after the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, on a Western Canada farm. The trade bans caused prices for Canadian cattle to collapse, resulting in severe financial losses for ranchers.



Under the new system, which won't take effect until after consultation with industry groups and details are worked out, each country would only restrict trade within designated disease-control zones where the animal disease breaks out. If it had been in place in 2003, the U.S. would likely only have restricted imports of beef from Western Canada, not the entire country, Ritz said at a press conference in Winnipeg.



"The new agreement will help prevent or limit the introduction of highly contagious foreign animal diseases from one country to the other," he said. "At the same time, this agreement will help avoid unnecessary trade disruptions.



"This is a sensible approach."



Along with BSE, other animal diseases with potential to disrupt trade include foot-and-mouth disease, H1N1 flu and avian influenza.



The United States is the biggest market by far for Canadian exports of cattle, pigs, beef and pork.



The system comes out of a U.S.-Canada agreement in December 2011 to align regulatory systems in order to increase efficiency, reduce manufacturing and retail costs, and boost North American trade.



(Reporting by Rod Nickel in Winnipeg, Manitoba; Editing by David Gregorio)











when i thought it could not get any worse, it does.




In my opinion, Canada and the USA have done nothing BUT protect trade, instead of strict BSE TSE prion disease protocols, and some protocols were put into place, they were all bent and broken. the did it with the BSE MRR, when they replaced the BSE GBRs with it. this has gone on since 1997, and before really. so this announcement surprises no one. just more BSeee. you folks in the industry just continue to keep kidding yourselves, because the consumer is getting smarter every day, and you can't fool all of us, all of the time. test, test, test, and they will come...or not.






Monday, January 14, 2013



Gambetti et al USA Prion Unit change another highly suspect USA mad cow victim to another fake name i.e. sporadic FFI at age 16 CJD Foundation goes along with this BSe









Monday, December 31, 2012



Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease and Human TSE Prion Disease in Washington State, 2006–2011-2012










Saturday, December 29, 2012



MAD COW USA HUMAN TSE PRION DISEASE DECEMBER 29 2012 CJD CASE LAB REPORT










Saturday, December 15, 2012



Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: the effect of oral exposure dose on attack rate and incubation period in cattle -- an update 5 December 2012










Friday, November 23, 2012



sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease update As at 5th November 2012 UK, USA, AND CANADA











Tuesday, June 26, 2012



Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Human TSE report update North America, Canada, Mexico, and USDA PRION UNIT as of May 18, 2012



type determination pending Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (tdpCJD), is on the rise in Canada and the USA











2012 atypical L-type BSE BASE California reports



Saturday, August 4, 2012



*** Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012










SUMMARY REPORT CALIFORNIA BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY CASE INVESTIGATION JULY 2012



Summary Report BSE 2012



Executive Summary











Saturday, August 4, 2012



Update from APHIS Regarding Release of the Final Report on the BSE Epidemiological Investigation










CENSORSHIP IS A TERRIBLE THING $$$





Canada has had a COVER-UP policy of mad cow disease since about the 17th case OR 18th case of mad cow disease. AFTER THAT, all FOIA request were ignored $$$


THIS proves there is indeed an epidemic of mad cow disease in North America, and it has been covered up for years and years, if not for decades, and it’s getting worse $$$






Thursday, February 10, 2011



TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY REPORT UPDATE CANADA FEBRUARY 2011 and how to hide mad cow disease in Canada Current as of: 2011-01-31










Wednesday, August 11, 2010



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










Thursday, August 19, 2010



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










Friday, March 4, 2011



Alberta dairy cow found with mad cow disease










2005





GREETINGS AGAIN APHIS ET AL,




FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE FAILED TO EVEN STOP THE SRMs FROM WHOLE CUTS OF BONELESS BEEF IMPORTED FROM CANADA IN THE VERY ONSET OF THE NEW BSE MRR (MINIMAL RISK REGION). THIS IS THE VERY REASON I HAVE SAID TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT BY THIS ADMINISTRATION ABANDONING THE BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LIKE THE ASSESSMENT OF BSE GBR III, AND ADHERING TO A NEW BSE MRR POLICY THAT WAS DESIGNED NOT FOR HUMAN HEALTH, BUT ONLY FOR COMMODITIES AND FUTURES, WILL FURTHER EXPOSE NEEDLESSLY MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF HUMANS AND ANIMALS VIA THE FREE TRADING OF ALL STRAINS OF TSE GLOBALLY. references as follow ;





Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Products



Recall Release CLASS II RECALL



FSIS-RC-032-2005 HEALTH RISK: LOW



Congressional and Public Affairs



(202) 720-9113



Steven Cohen





WASHINGTON, Aug. 19, 2005 - Green Bay Dressed Beef, a Green Bay, Wis., establishment, is voluntarily recalling approximately 1,856 pounds of beef products that may contain portions of the backbone from a cow just over 30 months old, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today. The product was from a cow imported directly for slaughter from Canada.





Based on information provided by Canada, the products subject to this Class II recall are from a cow that is approximately one month older than the 30-month age limit. Both ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection were done on the cow in question. FSIS inspection program personnel determined the cow to be healthy and fit for human food. FSIS' designation of this recall as Class II is because it is a situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.





FSIS learned about this as a result of a Canadian audit of their health certificate that accompanied the imported cow. Prior to slaughter, the health certificate accompanying the cow was presented to the establishment, and it appeared complete and accurate. However, a subsequent audit of information related to the health certificate by Canadian officials found that it was not accurate. Action has been taken by Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials in response to findings from the audit. The products subject to recall are:





Five boxes of 243 lb. vacuum pouched packages of "American Foods Group, NECKBONE UNTRIM'D, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER" with the case code of 77333; One box of 50 lb. vacuum pouched package of "American Foods Group, SHORTLOIN 2X2, USDA SELECT OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75231; One box of 60 lb. vacuum pouched package of "American Foods Group, SHORTLOIN 2X2, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75060; Five boxes of 258 lb. vacuum pouched packages of "Dakota Supreme Beef, SHORTLOIN 0X11/4, USDA SELECT OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75442; Sixteen boxes of 811 lb. vacuum pouched packages of "American Foods Group, BLADE BI N/O CHUCK, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75955; Nine boxes of 435 lb. vacuum pouched packages of "American Foods Group, BLADE BI N/O CHUCK, USDA SELECT OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75952. Each box bears the establishment number "410" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The products were produced on August 4, and were distributed to wholesale distributors in Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Wisconsin.





Under the interim final rules FSIS implemented on January 12, 2004, certain specified risk materials must be removed from all cattle depending on the age of the animal. On this animal all specified risk materials for cattle 30 months and over were removed, with the exception of the vertebral column. At the time of slaughter, the animal was certified to be under 30 months of age and removal of the vertebral column was not required. A subsequent audit determined the animal was just over 30 months of age; therefore, the vertebral column is required to be removed. This is the reason for the recall of the selected products.





Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Sally VandeHei, Executive Assistant at 1-877-894-3927. National media with questions may contact Jim Mulhern at (202) 496-2468. Local media with questions may contact Susan Finco at (920) 965-7750 ext.158.





Consumers with other food safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.





Sample Product Labels: These are similar to, but not identical to, labels on the recalled product.





#





USDA Recall Classifications



Class I This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.



Class II This is a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.



Class III This is a situation where the use of the product will not cause adverse health consequences.

















Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA [TSS SUBMISSION 11/03/2003 01:19 PM To: regulations@aphis.usda.gov ]












OIG REPORT ON IMPORTS FROM CANADA












Tuesday, October 2, 2012




Canadian veterinarian fined after approving banned BSE high risk cattle for export to U.S.A.












Saturday, January 21, 2012




Quick facts about mad cow disease












CANADA MBM LIVE CATTLE BSE TSE PRION TO USA





Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:23:12 +0200















layperson



mom dod 12/14/97 confirmed hvCJD



TSS







CANADA MBM LIVE CATTLE BSE TSE PRION TO USA

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:23:12 +0200


Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


From: Karin.Irgens@DYREHELSETILSYNET.NO


Subject: BSE Canada USA


######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########


Hello all


Terry Singletary has provided the official US import and export statistics for the USA in 2002 and the first 3 months of 2003, for live cattle and MBM (meat and bone meal)


I have tried to figure out how many 'risk units' (external challenge) the USA has imported from Canada during 2002-2003.


The GBR (geographical BSE risk) assessment-method and criteria of the EU SSC are described in detail in the latest GBR opinion of the EU Scientific Sterring Committee.







(See table 5, page 14, for the lists of countries _already_ assessed in category 3 by the EU-SSC.


For each country, the SSC defines the first years of periods 'R1' and 'R2'. R2 is the period when BSE risk is _likely_ in a given risk-country. R1 is the period where BSE infection in a risk-country is considered only as "possible".


Risks from exports from a risk-country (country assessed in category 3) are considered as 10 times higher in R2-years than in R1-years.)


This latest GBR opinion will have to be revised to include Canada among the "BSE source countries" and determine R1 and R2-years for Canada.


Risks from exports of cattle and MBM in R2-years (from BSE affected countries in category 3) are, according to SSC's methodology: - 0,01 risk unit for each live bovine, (at least for cattle imported "for breeding"). - 0,1 risk unit per ton MBM (meat/bone meal).


"External challenges" from risk imports are classified on a scale from negligible risk, very low, low, moderate, high, very high, extremely high risk. To hope for a category 2-classification, the external challenge from a country's risky imports must not exceed a "moderate" risk (100 risk units) in the whole potential risk period 1980 to 2001.


For the USA, there is no point in trying to determine the first "R1 or R2-years" in Canada, since imports from Canada to the USA _only in 2002_ are more than sufficient to assess the external challenge to the USA as _very_ high. The resulting classification of the USA in category 3 now seems absolutely unavoidable.


1. US imports of MBM from Canada:


In 2002 the USA imported 43.671 tons MBM from Canada. In 2003 (january-march) the USA imported 13.138 tons MBM from Canada. Total for 15 months: 56.809 tons (5.680 risk units).


Average > 45.000 tons/year = average 4.500 risk units/year


If we _assume_ similar quantities of MBM imported from Canada in previous years, this would add up to 6 X 4.500 = 27.000 risk units for the years 1996-2001 (1996 was probably the year of birth of the Albertan BSE-cow).


Total 27.000 + 5.600 = 32.600 risk units for the period 1996 to March 2003 (if this assumption on 'similar' quantities in 1996-2001 holds true)


2. US imports of live cattle from Canada.


According to the media, the USA has imported approx. 9 million live cattle from Canada in the years 1996-2002.


According to a 'worst case scenario', if all these 9 million cattle had been imported _for breeding purposes_, this would represent 90.000 risk units. However, this is certainly not the case. Most of these 9.000.000 cattle were probably imported for immediate slaughter, or for a fattening period of a few months before slaughter.


The SSC does not precisely quantify the corresponding risk reduction, but they say (page 15):


"... imported animals slaughtered young (e.g. < 24 months of age) can only carry a fraction of the infectivity found in a clinical case, even if infected prior to export. Imported calves that are immediately slaughtered before 2 years of age therefore represent _no or only a very small_ external challenge".


Again, we have detailed statistics for cattle imports to USA only from year 2002, provided by Terry. Maybe Terry later can provide statistics for earlier years, either directly or by means of the "Freedom of informations Act".


For live cattle, the US import statistics (2002) are more complicated, because the USA uses lots of different codes for live cattle. For some code numbers, it is clearly indicated "for breeding" and other code numbers clearly indicate "for immediate slaughter". Some other code numbers indicate the weights of imported cattle, which does not allow to draw any conclusions as to the future fate of the animals (immediate slaughter or survival 1-2-3 or more years in the US before slaughter.)


The USA imported in 2002 from Canada:


- 166 bovine animals, purebred breeding, dairy, male - 6.237 purebred breeding, dairy, female - 217 purebred breeding, 'except dairy', male (= beef breeds) - 576 purebred breeding, 'except dairy', female - 2.409 males for breeding, unspecified - 7.695 females for breeding, unspecified


Total 17.300 cattle 'for breeding' in 2002 (= 173 risk units)


Also in 2002, 61.628 live young cattle were imported "specially for dairy purposes". I would think that this means that they would be used as dairy cows and have maybe 3 calves or even more. The first calf might be born when these heifers were around 22 months old. Add _at least_ 2 X 9 months for the next two pregnancies, then they would be at least 22 + 18 = 40 months old at slaughter...( probably older).


_If_ these assumptions are correct, this would represent 616 additional risk units imported in 2002.


Then there are many other cattle imports from Canada on several other code numbers specifying only the animals' weights, not their final use or destination : From Canada, 162 + 7812 + 93.678 + 34.536 + 114.662 + 107.120 + 143.151 + 81.901


Total 583.022 live cattle from Canada in 2002, for which age at slaughter in the USA is unknown. Maybe most were slaughtered very young, but we dont know.


A great number of cattle imported to the USA from Canada in 2002 were registered on code numbers specifying "for immediate slaughter": 346.237 + 57.448 + 372.294 + 248.399 = 1.024.378 cattle that should be considered as very low or negligible risk _if we were sure_ that they were all very young at the date of import. The risk would mainly be from rendered intestines if all these cattle were very young. But we dont really know how many % were very young. We know only that they weighed 320 kg _or more_ at the time of import (according to code definitions).


If 320 kg at the date of import, it means they might be around 5-6 months at the time of import (negligible risk if slaughtered immediately or soon). If much heavier than 320 kg at the time of import, they might be of various 'adult' ages.


The total, counting _all_ "cattle customs tariff codes" amounts to 1, 686 million cattle from Canada to USA in 2002, a figure in good agreement with figures presented in Canadian newspapers (1, 7 million cattle exported to the USA in 2002)


3. Total US risk from 'risk imports' from Canada _only in 2002_:


I prefer not to speculate on unknown ages at slaughter of _most_ imported cattle from Canada in 2002.


If we add all quantitatively "real and known" external challenges from Canada to the USA in 2002, we can consider _at least_:


- 4.500 risk units from Canadian MBM. - 173 risk units from live cattle imported for breeding purposes - 616 additional risk units from cattle imported "specially for dairy purposes" in 2002


Total 5.289 risk units for _one_ year (2002), if we ignore any potential risk from most of the other Canadian cattle.


4. If we assume similar yearly risks in previous years, at least the period 1996-2001, we could add 5.298 X 6 = 31.788 risk units.


If this is a correct assumption, total risk (from 1996 to 2002 included ) would be:


5.298 + 31.788 = approx 37.000 risk units.


Of course, Canada might have been already in the R2 period long before 1996, I would guess at R1= 1991 = 5 years (one mean incubation) before the assumed birth of the BSE-Alberta-cow. If so, the risk for the USA is even higher.


The risk of _amplification_ of BSE or other TSE's in North America has, to my knowledge, not been notably reduced since July 2000 (date of first SSC reports on USA and Canada). As far as I know, fallen stock and SRM may still be legally incorporated in US and Canadian MBM. As far as I know, there have been no real improvements in heat treatment parameters for US or Canadian ruminant slaughter waste since 2000. As far as I know, the problem was (and still is) that slaughter waste was heat-treated without pressure, or far below 3 bar pressure, and if so, without (or almost without) any inactivating effects on TSE agents.


The risk of _propagation_ to cattle by cross contaminated feeds would have been _reduced_ in North America by the end of 1997 (incomplete feed ban), but this propagation risk _did certainly not cease_ in 1997. I would have believed in the effectivity of the feed ban if this ban had been total/complete (all animal proteins/all species) _or_ if this North-American ruminant feed ban had required _totally separate_ production plants for ruminant feeds. However, this is not the case in Canada or USA.


Experience from Europe, especially from the UK (44.000 BAB-cases born after the first UK ruminant feed ban in 1988), has clearly shown that cross contaminations must be _completely_ avoided to stop propagation of BSE in any BSE infected country. Recommendations of "flushing" feed-mix production lines with a few batches of "pure vegetable feed"-productions will give no guarantee at all.


We all know that many US feed manufacturers have been found guilty of non-compliance to "the rules". But even if they had been totally compliant, they would still be at risk of cross-contaminating ruminant feeds, as long as feed mills production lines + storage facilities + delivery/transport for ruminant feeds are not _totally_ separate.


As far as I can see from the US import statistics 2002-2003 provided by Terry, the Canadian external challenge to the USA is very or extremely high, _even considering only the challenge from year 2002_. BSE-classification depends on external challenge from all years since 1980. Probably, the external challenge to North America before 1990 was very low, low, or moderate. But it would have been amplified by very poor 'stability'. Maybe/probably some additional external challenge occurred later, from Japan or East European countries.


Will we ever knowfrom which country, from which import(s), how, when, where in North America the first BSE propagation/amplification was started ? In my opinion, the first 'indigenous north american' cattle infection might have been either in the USA or Canada, and we will never know where/when/how. The USA/Canada-trade in MBM and cattle has gone both ways for so many years.


Today it seems irrelevant to try to determine whether North American BSE started in Canada or USA. Both countries should be considered at comparable or equivalent BSE-risk. Both countries should introduce regulations to protect North American consumers... and to protect North American cattle and other ruminants.


In my opinion, the US ban on Canadian beef should cease immediately and totally, and this ban is in my opinion an unjustified obstacle to trade between two countries at very similar risk.


70 to 80 % of Canadian beef exports went to the USA before May 20th. Without the unjustified US ban, Canadian producers would have lost "only" 25% of their exports, not 100%.


USDA's import restrictions on EU-beef should also cease immediately, especially for beef from young bovines born after 1.1.2001 when all feeding of all kinds of animal proteins to all food-producing species was prohibited in all EU countries. Or at least from 1.7.2001 (allowing for a 6 months period to ensure full compliance). Very few feed samples were found positive for traces of mammalian MBM in Norway in the first semester 2001, none later. Those "guilty" feed mills were temporarily shut down until their problems were resolved.


"Non-compliant" feed mills in the USA receive one, two or more "warning letters", but are not shut down.


Today, beef from young EU-bovines (< 24-30 months), even from countries officially affected with BSE, would provide far better guarantees of non-BSE-infection than North American beef, since North America has not even started to control or avoid the cross-contamination problem.


I would however agree that any country should be allowed to prohibit imports of live cattle for breeding, of any age. It is well known that risks are almost zero from semen and embryos, compared to live cattle imports, not only for BSE but for other cattle diseases such as paratuberculosis.


But when I look at the US official export statistics, there are worse problems. North America, especially the USA, may have spread BSE to several other countries, mainly Mexico and several Asian countries, by enormous quantities of exported US- MBM, which will be the subject of my next posting.


Best regards


Karin Irgens









-------- Original Message --------


Subject: risk from US exports of cattle and MBM


Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:10:28 +0200


From: Karin.Irgens@DYREHELSETILSYNET.NO


Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de


######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########




Hello all


Terry has now provided US export figures for 'breeding cattle' for 1999, in addition to export statistics for 2002 that he had already provided. On the basis of US export statistics for 1999 and 2002 for live cattle for breeding, and US export statistics for 2002 and 2003 for meat and bone meal (code 23.01.1000), we could try to calculate external challenge from the USA to importing countries.


However, _we dont really know_ the situations in most of these importing countries (at least I dont know...).


If live cattle from a BSE-infected country are imported to a country that does not have a rendering system for slaughter waste, there would be no resulting BSE-risk to the importing country. If an importing country decides to exclude waste from imported cattle from rendering, or to BSE-test all imported cattle slaughtered at > 30 months age, the risk will be considerably reduced.


Canadian and US cattle exported for breeding in recent years may still be alive in the importing countries, and may now be excluded from rendering.


We dont know if all US exports of meat and bone meal "code 23.01.1000" were "mammalian" MBM or if some of it was poultry meal or MBM derived only from pigs. The same code 23.01.1000 can be used for registrations of exports/imports of mammalian MBM and poultry meal.


The EU SSC does not consider poultry meal as a BSE-risk, but each country must prove how much of the imports really were poultry meal. It is possible that some countries, for religious reasons, would accept only MBM not derived from pig waste. If such countries imported only poultry meal, the risk would be very low.


We dont know if all registered US exports were correctly coded. It is possible and probable that some exports were in fact other products that shoud not have been coded as 23.01.1000.


And of course we dont know the final destination of "23.01.1000"-products exported by the US, whether or not the MBM reached cattle through feeding in the importing country.


It is therefore not possible to make any real risk estimate, not knowing what happened in each importing country. For countries already assessed by the SSC, such knowledge may be found in the already publisehd GBR assessments.


Here I can only add up exports from US to each country, and only for years 1999 and 2002 (+ january-march 2003), and roughly calculate the numbers of risk units _if_ these imports really represented a risk to cattle in the importing countries. (see list country list below).


It appears that the countries most at risk from US imports, especially MBM would be Bangladesh, Egypt, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Venezuela, Vietnam.


Some other countries have imported much lower amounts of US cattle + MBM in 1999 and 2002/2003, but I dont know if these countries have imported similar (or higher) amounts from the USA in previous years.


According to Rev Sci Tech. 2003 Apr;22(1):237-49. Risk management of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in Asia - Ozawa Y :


" ...significant quantities of feedstuffs of ruminant origin have been imported into Asia, which may mean that the BSE agent could have reached domestic cattle in most countries... Recycling of BSE through rendering plants is unlikely but cannot be totally excluded in some countries such as the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, Pakistan and Taipei China... "


"...The external challenge has been considerably reduced in recent years as most countries in Asia banned the importation of feedstuffs from _countries with BSE _ ..."


(my comments: but they did not ban MBM from the USA... I think China has the world's largest cattle population...)


quoted from a series of articles on CWD, in 2002 :








" ...the FDA has not imposed the same restrictions on exported MBM. In fact, since the American ban went into effect, annual U.S. exports of MBM have jumped from 291,000 tons to 467,000 tons, a 60 percent increase. American renderers aren't required to warn their foreign customers about feeding ruminant protein -- that rendered from sheep or cattle -- to cattle. However, three large renderers contacted by the News say they label their products that way regardless of the lack of regulations.


Denver's National By-Products said it ships its MBM to China and Indonesia in large shipping containers, not in individually marked bags. But it stamps on its bills of lading a warning against feeding the product to ruminants. The stamp is in English. Once American meat and bone meal arrives in the purchasing country, the manufacturer has no further control over how it is labeled, said National By-Products district manager Ken Kage. A spokesman for the USDA and officials with the National Renderers Association say that foreign trade in U.S. MBM is not a problem because there have been no cases of mad cow disease in this country.


Some countries importing MBM have had few if any rules concerning its use as cattle feed. Mexico, for example, implemented labeling rules only this year (2002), according to Alberto Celis, the National Renderers Association regional director for Latin America.


That was news to many agricultural business people attending an animal feed trade show in Guadalajara in March. Representatives from three animal feed bag manufacturers said they had heard of no such regulations and that their bags remain warning free. Mexico exports over a million live cattle a year to the United States. Mexican cattlemen said these "feeder" cows are not typically fed animal protein, though there is little evidence that the government has an adequate inspection program to make certain. Mexican government officials responded that MBM rules were promulgated last summer, and that they will be vigorously enforced. They said Mexico stopped importing MBM from countries with a BSE problem in 1991 and that there are no known cases of BSE in the country.


The World Health Organization says Mexico's experience with American MBM is reflected throughout the world. The United Nations agency was "concerned that some countries which received (MBM) materials do not have surveillance systems to detect the disease in animals or the human population," said WHO's Dr. Maura Ricketts at a news conference in December 2000. She said once the MBM leaves one country, it begins a "murky movement" that is almost impossible to track. Taking heed of such warnings, the European Union (EU) decided that the risk to public health was too great even if an importing country insisted that it would use MBM only as poultry feed -- which, along with pet food, is its major use in the U.S.


The EU adopted the ban of all exports of MBM in 2000. Instead of adopting a similar policy, the USDA saw the ban as a golden opportunity. "Importing countries of EU MBM may be forced to seek alternative suppliers of animal protein meals, such as the United States," said a December 2000 report by the USDA. "The United States should be well positioned to take advantage of that situation to increase its own exports of MBM."


And it has. Render, the magazine of the National Renderers Association, noted in its April issue that exports of many products were under competitive pressure from vegetable oils. But it noted "a bright spot is meat and bone meal exports that continue to increase." The chief foreign markets for American MBM, in order of sales amounts, were Indonesia, Mexico, Egypt, China, Canada, Thailand, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Venezuela. In 1998, Egypt imported 96,000 metric tons of MBM from the EU, and only 3,100 metric tons from the U.S. By 2001, the U.S dominated the Egyptian market, selling over 73,000 metric tons..."


(r.u = risk unit) (2003 = US exports of "23.01.1000"-products in the period January through March 2003)


Argentina 1999: 9 cattle for breeding (0,09 r.u.)


Australia 1999: 81 breeding cattle from USA (0,8 risk units) 2003: 5 tons MBM from USA (0,5 r.u.)


Bangladesh 2003: 2.217 tons MBM 2002: 12.630 tons MBM (1.484 r.u)


Belize: 2002: 27 cattle for breeding (0,27 r.u.)


Brazil 1999: 440 breeding cattle 2002: 134 breeding cattle (5,7 r.u.) 2002: 12 tons MBM 2003: 12 tons MBM (2,4 r.u.)


China 1999: 84 breeding cattle 2002: 40 + 190 + 26 breeding cattle (2,8 r.u.) 2002: 104.784 tons MBM 2003: 19.552 tons MBM (12.433 r.u)


Colombia 1999: 251 cattle for breeding 2002: 2.363 cattle for breeding (26 r.u.) 2002: 882 tons MBM 2003: 80 tons MBM (96 r.u.)


Colombia has > 100 r.u. from recent imports from the USA. Colombia was previously assessed in category II and might now be re-assessed in category III, unless there is proof that the additional external challenge from USA did not reach Colombian cattle.


Costa Rica 2002: 19 cattle for breeding (0,19 r.u.)


Dominican Republic: 1999: 45 cattle for breeding 2002: 220 cattle for breeding (2, 65 r.u.) 2003: 77 tons MBM (7,7 r.u.)


Ecuador 1999: 120 cattle for breeding (1,2 r.u.) 2002: 14 tons MBM (1,4 r.u.)


Egypt: 2002: 104.408 tons MBM 2003: 15.796 tons MBM (12.019 r.u.) Egypt would already have a high external challenge from previous imports from Europe.


Ghana: 2003: 41 tons MBM (4,1 r.u.)


Guatemala 1999: 23 cattle for breeding 2002: 26 cattle for breeding (0,49 r.u.)


Honduras 2002: 51 cattle for breeding (0,51 r.u.)


Hong Kong: 2002: 41 tons MBM 2003: 61 tons MBM (10 r.u.)


Indonesia 2002: 148.558 tons MBM 2003: 36.999 tons MBM (18.555 r.u.) (according to various figures from newspapers, Indonesia would prevously have been a major importer of British MBM)


Korea, South 1999: 248 cattle for breeding (2, 48 r.u.) 2002: 262 tons MBM (26 r.u.)


Lebanon 1999: 2.228 cattle for breeding (22, 3 r.u.)


Malaysia 2002: 7 cattle for breeding (0,07 r.u.) 2002: 12.646 tons MBM 2003: 2.209 tons MBM (1485 r.u.)


Mexico 1999: 8.780 cattle for breeding 2002: 10.888 cattle for breeding (196 r.u.) 2002: 93.685 other cattle ?? 2002: 62.204 tons MBM 2003: 14.756 tons MBM (7.696 r.u.)


New Zealand 2002: 21 tons MBM (2,1 r.u.)


Niger 2002: 57 tons MBM (5,7 r.u.)


Panama 1999: 17 cattle for breeding 2002: 59 cattle for breeding (0,76 r.u.) 2002: 172 tons MBM 2003: 57 tons MBM (23 r.u.) Panama, previously assessed in category I, might have 23 additonal risk units from recent US imports, and might be re-assessed in category II if this could have reached cattle.


Pakistan 1999: 11 cattle for breeding (0,11 r.u.)


Philippines 2002: 5.585 tons MBM 2003: 1.215 tons MBM (680 r.u.)


Russia: 2002: 390 tons MBM 2003: 1.520 tons MBM (191 r.u.) Russia would probably already be at risk from imports from EU and/or east-European countries.


Saudi Arabia 1999: 884 cattle for breeding (8, 84 r.u.)


Singapore 2003: 4 tons MBM (0, 4 r.u.)


South Africa: 2002: 40 tons MBM (4 r.u.)


Sri Lanka 2002: 351 tons MBM (35 r.u.)


Suriname 2002: 45 cattle for breeding (0,45 r.u.)


Taiwan 2002: 12.421 tons MBM 2003: 1.719 tons MBM (1.414 r.u.)


Thailand 2002: 36.476 tons MBM 2003: 7.314 tons MBM (4.379 r.u.)


United Arab Emirates 2003: 39 tons MBM (3,9 r.u.)


Uruguay: 1999: 7 cattle for breeding (0,07 r.u.)


Venezuela 1999: 473 cattle for breeding 2002: 169 cattle for breeding (6, 4 r.u.) 2002: 1.998 tons MBM (199 r.u.)


Vietnam 2002: 7.618 tons MBM 2003: 2.229 tons MBM (1.048 r.u.)




Best regards Karin Irgens










Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:35:49 +0200


Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy




Subject: SV: BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY IN CANADA Follow-up report No. 3 (final report OIE)


######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########


Hello


I just found today the Canadian risk assessment for BSE, a 150 pages text from December 2002.






All details on Canadian risk imports from UK and other countries should be found there.


Best regards


Karin Irgens





> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >


Fra: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [SMTP:flounder@WT.NET] >


Sendt: 15. august 2003 16:57 >


Til: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de >


Emne: Re: BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY IN CANADA Follow-up report No. > 3 (final report OIE) > >



######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy > ######### > >



greetings list members,


> > > The most likely source of contamination of the feed was asymptomatic


> > animals imported into North America from the United Kingdom between


> > 1982 and 1989 that entered the food chain through natural attrition.


> > N America imported MBM/Greaves by the boatloads, but now


> are they admitting that the _live_ cattle imported to N America


> is the cause? how can they be sure it was the live cattle and not


> some of the tons and tons of MBM from the UK that caused


> the only mad cow case in N America? and why is it so far fetched


> to believe that more than just one got infected? and how many more


> were rendered into 'food for consumption' for any species?



> > my records show Canada imported 83 METRIC TONS of MBM from the



> UK in the years 1993, 1994, and 1995






> > HOWEVER, the Times reports 125 metric tons;



> --------------------------------------------------------------------



> Exports of Meat and Bone > Meal in tons (1000 kg) from


> UK


> > Source - Sunday Times



> > Country 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996


> > Canada 30 22 31 42 > > U.S.A. 20 0


> ================


> look at the live cattle they imported from UK from 86 on.


> 399 of i counted correctly. .1 gram lethal, amplification etc.







> > MY RECORDS SHOW USA IMPORTED 44 TONS AND CANADA IMPORTED 83 TONS



> OF UK MBM;



> > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:03:16 +0000 > X400-Originator: S.J.Pearsall@ESG.maff.gsi.gov.uk



> X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;



> X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=MAFF400/ADMD=ATTmail/C=GB/; m1570208140657aa]



> X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)



> Content-Identifier: m1570208140657aa



> Alternate-Recipient: Allowed



> Message-ID:



> To: flounder@wt.net (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt



> Notification > Requested)



> In-Reply-To:



> Subject: Re: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???



> X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000




> > Terry



> > Meat and bonemeal is not specifically classified for overseas trade



> purposes. The nearest equivalent is listed as "flours and meals of meat



> or offals (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves". UK



> exports of this to the US are listed below:




> > Country Tonnes



> 1980



> 1981 12



> 1982



> 1983



> 1984 10



> 1985 2



> 1986



> 1987



> 1988



> 1989 20



> 1990





> > Data for exports between 1975 and 1979 are not readily available. These




> can be obtained (at a charge) from data retailers appointed by HM




> Customs and Excise: BTSL (Tel: 01372 463121) or Abacus (01245 252222).




> > Best wishes



> Simon Pearsall



> Overseas trade statistics Stats (C&F)C



> > Simon



> as discussed



> thanks



> Julie



> --- > Forwarded message:



> Sent: Fri Feb 04 21:47:01 2000



> Received: Fri Feb 04 21:45:15 2000



> > To: > helpline ou=inf o=maff p=maff400 a=attmail c=gb



> From:



> d=flounder@wt.net ou=smtp o=maff p=maff400 a=attmail c=gb




> > Subject: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???



> > Hello,



> where could I locate data, on the exportation of the U.K.'s meat and



> bone



> meal, to the U.S., between the years 1975 to 1990?




> Thank You > Terry




> > =======================================




> > USA AND CANADA IMPORTS OF UK CATTLE BETWEEN 1986-1996




> > USA = 697



> > CANADA = 293








> > TSS




> >
















Subject: risk from US exports of cattle and MBM



From: Karin.Irgens@DYREHELSETILSYNET.NO



Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy



Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:10:28 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain Parts/Attachments: text/plain (307 lines)



######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########






Hello all





Terry has now provided US export figures for 'breeding cattle' for 1999, in addition to export statistics for 2002 that he had already provided. On the basis of US export statistics for 1999 and 2002 for live cattle for breeding, and US export statistics for 2002 and 2003 for meat and bone meal (code 23.01.1000), we could try to calculate external challenge from the USA to importing countries. However, _we dont really know_ the situations in most of these importing countries (at least I dont know...). If live cattle from a BSE-infected country are imported to a country that does not have a rendering system for slaughter waste, there would be no resulting BSE-risk to the importing country. If an importing country decides to exclude waste from imported cattle from rendering, or to BSE-test all imported cattle slaughtered at > 30 months age, the risk will be considerably reduced. Canadian and US cattle exported for breeding in recent years may still be alive in the importing countries, and may now be excluded from rendering.





We dont know if all US exports of meat and bone meal "code 23.01.1000" were "mammalian" MBM or if some of it was poultry meal or MBM derived only from pigs. The same code 23.01.1000 can be used for registrations of exports/imports of mammalian MBM and poultry meal. The EU SSC does not consider poultry meal as a BSE-risk, but each country must prove how much of the imports really were poultry meal. It is possible that some countries, for religious reasons, would accept only MBM not derived from pig waste. If such countries imported only poultry meal, the risk would be very low.





We dont know if all registered US exports were correctly coded. It is possible and probable that some exports were in fact other products that shoud not have been coded as 23.01.1000.





And of course we dont know the final destination of "23.01.1000"-products exported by the US, whether or not the MBM reached cattle through feeding in the importing country.





It is therefore not possible to make any real risk estimate, not knowing what happened in each importing country. For countries already assessed by the SSC, such knowledge may be found in the already publisehd GBR assessments.





Here I can only add up exports from US to each country, and only for years 1999 and 2002 (+ january-march 2003), and roughly calculate the numbers of risk units _if_ these imports really represented a risk to cattle in the importing countries. (see list country list below).





It appears that the countries most at risk from US imports, especially MBM would be Bangladesh, Egypt, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Venezuela, Vietnam. Some other countries have imported much lower amounts of US cattle + MBM in 1999 and 2002/2003, but I dont know if these countries have imported similar (or higher) amounts from the USA in previous years.





According to Rev Sci Tech. 2003 Apr;22(1):237-49. Risk management of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in Asia - Ozawa Y :





" ...significant quantities of feedstuffs of ruminant origin have been imported into Asia, which may mean that the BSE agent could have reached domestic cattle in most countries... Recycling of BSE through rendering plants is unlikely but cannot be totally excluded in some countries such as the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, Pakistan and Taipei China... "





"...The external challenge has been considerably reduced in recent years as most countries in Asia banned the importation of feedstuffs from _countries with BSE _ ..."





(my comments: but they did not ban MBM from the USA... I think China has the world's largest cattle population...)






quoted from a series of articles on CWD, in 2002 : http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/cwd/killer/









" ...the FDA has not imposed the same restrictions on exported MBM. In fact, since the American ban went into effect, annual U.S. exports of MBM have jumped from 291,000 tons to 467,000 tons, a 60 percent increase. American renderers aren't required to warn their foreign customers about feeding ruminant protein -- that rendered from sheep or cattle -- to cattle. However, three large renderers contacted by the News say they label their products that way regardless of the lack of regulations.





Denver's National By-Products said it ships its MBM to China and Indonesia in large shipping containers, not in individually marked bags. But it stamps on its bills of lading a warning against feeding the product to ruminants. The stamp is in English. Once American meat and bone meal arrives in the purchasing country, the manufacturer has no further control over how it is labeled, said National By-Products district manager Ken Kage. A spokesman for the USDA and officials with the National Renderers Association say that foreign trade in U.S. MBM is not a problem because there have been no cases of mad cow disease in this country.





Some countries importing MBM have had few if any rules concerning its use as cattle feed. Mexico, for example, implemented labeling rules only this year (2002), according to Alberto Celis, the National Renderers Association regional director for Latin America.





That was news to many agricultural business people attending an animal feed trade show in Guadalajara in March. Representatives from three animal feed bag manufacturers said they had heard of no such regulations and that their bags remain warning free. Mexico exports over a million live cattle a year to the United States. Mexican cattlemen said these "feeder" cows are not typically fed animal protein, though there is little evidence that the government has an adequate inspection program to make certain. Mexican government officials responded that MBM rules were promulgated last summer, and that they will be vigorously enforced. They said Mexico stopped importing MBM from countries with a BSE problem in 1991 and that there are no known cases of BSE in the country.





The World Health Organization says Mexico's experience with American MBM is reflected throughout the world. The United Nations agency was "concerned that some countries which received (MBM) materials do not have surveillance systems to detect the disease in animals or the human population," said WHO's Dr. Maura Ricketts at a news conference in December 2000. She said once the MBM leaves one country, it begins a "murky movement" that is almost impossible to track. Taking heed of such warnings, the European Union (EU) decided that the risk to public health was too great even if an importing country insisted that it would use MBM only as poultry feed -- which, along with pet food, is its major use in the U.S.





The EU adopted the ban of all exports of MBM in 2000. Instead of adopting a similar policy, the USDA saw the ban as a golden opportunity. "Importing countries of EU MBM may be forced to seek alternative suppliers of animal protein meals, such as the United States," said a December 2000 report by the USDA. "The United States should be well positioned to take advantage of that situation to increase its own exports of MBM."





And it has. Render, the magazine of the National Renderers Association, noted in its April issue that exports of many products were under competitive pressure from vegetable oils. But it noted "a bright spot is meat and bone meal exports that continue to increase." The chief foreign markets for American MBM, in order of sales amounts, were Indonesia, Mexico, Egypt, China, Canada, Thailand, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Venezuela. In 1998, Egypt imported 96,000 metric tons of MBM from the EU, and only 3,100 metric tons from the U.S. By 2001, the U.S dominated the Egyptian market, selling over 73,000 metric tons..."






(r.u = risk unit) (2003 = US exports of "23.01.1000"-products in the period January through March 2003)





Argentina 1999: 9 cattle for breeding (0,09 r.u.)





Australia 1999: 81 breeding cattle from USA (0,8 risk units) 2003: 5 tons MBM from USA (0,5 r.u.)





Bangladesh 2003: 2.217 tons MBM 2002: 12.630 tons MBM (1.484 r.u)





Belize: 2002: 27 cattle for breeding (0,27 r.u.)





Brazil 1999: 440 breeding cattle 2002: 134 breeding cattle (5,7 r.u.) 2002: 12 tons MBM 2003: 12 tons MBM (2,4 r.u.)





China 1999: 84 breeding cattle 2002: 40 + 190 + 26 breeding cattle (2,8 r.u.) 2002: 104.784 tons MBM 2003: 19.552 tons MBM (12.433 r.u)





Colombia 1999: 251 cattle for breeding 2002: 2.363 cattle for breeding (26 r.u.) 2002: 882 tons MBM 2003: 80 tons MBM (96 r.u.)





Colombia has > 100 r.u. from recent imports from the USA. Colombia was previously assessed in category II and might now be re-assessed in category III, unless there is proof that the additional external challenge from USA did not reach Colombian cattle.





Costa Rica 2002: 19 cattle for breeding (0,19 r.u.)





Dominican Republic: 1999: 45 cattle for breeding 2002: 220 cattle for breeding (2, 65 r.u.) 2003: 77 tons MBM (7,7 r.u.)





Ecuador 1999: 120 cattle for breeding (1,2 r.u.) 2002: 14 tons MBM (1,4 r.u.)





Egypt: 2002: 104.408 tons MBM 2003: 15.796 tons MBM (12.019 r.u.) Egypt would already have a high external challenge from previous imports from Europe.





Ghana: 2003: 41 tons MBM (4,1 r.u.)





Guatemala 1999: 23 cattle for breeding 2002: 26 cattle for breeding (0,49 r.u.)





Honduras 2002: 51 cattle for breeding (0,51 r.u.)





Hong Kong: 2002: 41 tons MBM 2003: 61 tons MBM (10 r.u.)





Indonesia 2002: 148.558 tons MBM 2003: 36.999 tons MBM (18.555 r.u.) (according to various figures from newspapers, Indonesia would prevously have been a major importer of British MBM)





Korea, South 1999: 248 cattle for breeding (2, 48 r.u.) 2002: 262 tons MBM (26 r.u.)





Lebanon 1999: 2.228 cattle for breeding (22, 3 r.u.)





Malaysia 2002: 7 cattle for breeding (0,07 r.u.) 2002: 12.646 tons MBM 2003: 2.209 tons MBM (1485 r.u.)





Mexico 1999: 8.780 cattle for breeding 2002: 10.888 cattle for breeding (196 r.u.) 2002: 93.685 other cattle ?? 2002: 62.204 tons MBM 2003: 14.756 tons MBM (7.696 r.u.)





New Zealand 2002: 21 tons MBM (2,1 r.u.)





Niger 2002: 57 tons MBM (5,7 r.u.)





Panama 1999: 17 cattle for breeding 2002: 59 cattle for breeding (0,76 r.u.) 2002: 172 tons MBM 2003: 57 tons MBM (23 r.u.) Panama, previously assessed in category I, might have 23 additonal risk units from recent US imports, and might be re-assessed in category II if this could have reached cattle.





Pakistan 1999: 11 cattle for breeding (0,11 r.u.)





Philippines 2002: 5.585 tons MBM 2003: 1.215 tons MBM (680 r.u.)





Russia: 2002: 390 tons MBM 2003: 1.520 tons MBM (191 r.u.) Russia would probably already be at risk from imports from EU and/or east-European countries.





Saudi Arabia 1999: 884 cattle for breeding (8, 84 r.u.)





Singapore 2003: 4 tons MBM (0, 4 r.u.)





South Africa: 2002: 40 tons MBM (4 r.u.)





Sri Lanka 2002: 351 tons MBM (35 r.u.)





Suriname 2002: 45 cattle for breeding (0,45 r.u.)





Taiwan 2002: 12.421 tons MBM 2003: 1.719 tons MBM (1.414 r.u.)





Thailand 2002: 36.476 tons MBM 2003: 7.314 tons MBM (4.379 r.u.)





United Arab Emirates 2003: 39 tons MBM (3,9 r.u.)





Uruguay: 1999: 7 cattle for breeding (0,07 r.u.)





Venezuela 1999: 473 cattle for breeding 2002: 169 cattle for breeding (6, 4 r.u.) 2002: 1.998 tons MBM (199 r.u.)





Vietnam 2002: 7.618 tons MBM 2003: 2.229 tons MBM (1.048 r.u.)





Best regards Karin Irgens






























######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########







Hello all





Concerning the introduction of testing of all fallen stock in Canada, Robert wrote:






"...What is the scientific basis for the movement? So far, vastly more cases of BSE have been found by clinical referral than by any other testing program."





This is not quite true, at least not since 2001. Of course, historically, most BSE-cases (1986-2003) have been found by clinical referral, in the UK. But before the second semester 2001, there was almost no active surveillance in the UK, and before 1999, there was no EU-validated rapid test method available.





Active surveillance with the Prionics test startet in 1999 in Switzerland, then in France in the summer of 2000, then started in _all_ EU countries in January 2001. Three validated methods are used in the EU: Prionics, Biorad and Enfer.





In 2001, when active suveillance started late in the UK, only 375 BSE-positive cattle were found in the UK by rapid tests, while 781 cases were found among clincal suspects.





In 2002, when UK active surveillance started in January, 613 BSE-positive were found by active surveillance in the UK - and "only" 467 cases were confirmed among clinical suspects.




In 2001, 2.126 BSE-positive cattle were found in the EU, of which 1.086 were clinical cases. Most clinical cases (781) were found in the UK.





In 2002, 2.081 BSE-positive cattle were found in the EU, of which 673 were clinical cases (467 of which were UK cases) - and 1.408 were found by active surveillance.





As the numbers of clinical cases continue to decrease, the relative % of detection by active surveillance increases.





In 2002, 51 % of cases (total all EU countries) were detected by active surveillance of 'risk cattle', and 13 % by active surveillance of clinically normal cattle.





see Monthly reports of Member States on BSE and Scrapie (updated) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/bse_results_en.html





The % of confirmed positive among clinical suspects is very different among EU countries. It is highest in the UK (60%) much lower in Spain, Ireland, France (around 20%) and even lower in Germany, Netherlands, Belgium (around 2-5%)





In some countries, the vast majority of BSE-positive cattle are detected by active surveillance.





Some examples:





- Denmark had no clinical case in 2002, but detected 2 BSE-positive among 33.116 risk cattle and one positive among 239.900 clinically normal cattle.





- the Netherlands found one clinical case in 2002, and 23 positive by active surveillance.





- Belgium had 5 clinical cases in 2002, and 33 BSE-positive detected by active surveillance (16 among 37.929 risk cattle and 17 among 408.934 clinically normal)





- Germany found 11 clinical cases and 92 BSE-positive by active surveillance (50 among 257.940 risk cattle, and 42 among 2.758.351 clinically normal)





Passive surveillance seems to give the best results in countries where BSE prevalence is highest and in countries whith the earliest detections of BSE (UK 1986, Ireland 1989, France 1991). If Canada and the USA have a low or very low BSE-prevalence, I would expect active surveillance to be the most efficient.





- Austria and Finland found no BSE in 2002. Their first and only BSE cases were discovered in 2001 by active surveillance. Had Finland not tested risk animals, they would have found nothing. Had Austria not tested clinically normal cattle, they would not have detected the first and only Austrian case. The level of active surveillance has notably increased since 2001, but no more positive cattle have been detected either in Austria or Finland.





One might wonder how many sub-clinical positive cases would have been detected in the UK before 2001, if rapid tests for active surveillance had been available in the early BSE-years. The last estimations by Donnelly et al. indicate that the total number of infected UK cattle could have been closer to 2 million than to ½ or one million in previous estimates. Most of approx 180.000 detected cases were found by passive clinical surveillance, and of course most UK-cases occurred long before active surveillance started.





In 2002, over 10 million cattle were tested for BSE in all EU countries. Over 9 million of these were clinically normal cattle > 30 months (or, in some countries, > 24 months ... France, Germany).





The following "risk cattle"populations (> 24 months) were tested in 2002 (all EU contries):





- 981.910 "fallen stock" (dead on farm)





- 182.873 "emergency slaughter" (comparable to "downer cattle")





- 70.557 "selected at ante-morten control", for various states of disease or general condition disorders





- 57.601 age cohort cattle and offspring, from farms where BSE had been detected.





(the total EU adult cattle population (>24 months) is approx 40 million, comparable to the total adult cattle population in the US. )





- Only 2.558 defined as 'clinically suspect' cattle were tested, but in fact clinical suspects cannot always be clearly differentiated from fallen stock and other risk cattle. Investigations in France have shown that many "fallen" or emergency slaughtered cattle had presented symptoms compatible with BSE before death or slaughter.





The results in different risk groups (all EU countries) in 2002 are:





- 510 positive among 182.873 emergency slaghtered (ratio 27, 89 + per 10.000 tested)





- 607 positive among 981.910 "fallen stock" (6, 18 + per 10.000 tested)





- 25 positive among 70.557 "selected at ante-mortem control" (3, 54 + per 10.000 tested)





- 17 positive among 57.601 cohort animals/offspring from BSE-farms (2, 95 + per 10,000).





- 287 positive among 9.087.901 healthy cattle (0,32 per 10.000 tested)





Clearly, testing of healthy cattle is the least efficient per number tested. However, it should be noted that Germany and France test all cattle older than 24 months at slaughter, and there are many cattle slaughtered at 24-29 months. Efficiency would increase if the age limit for testing of "healthy" cattle was set higher (> 3 or 4 years). It should be noted that the group "selected at ante-mortem control" is _not_ selected because of neurological symptoms but for 'any reason' of loss of condition (loss of weight, diarrhea, reduced milk production ... etc...) Even so, this group has a higher positivity ratio than age cohort animals culled in BSE-eradications schemes.





When Canada has tested a few hundred cattle from the Alberta cow's _last_ herd of residence with negative results, this is not at all surprising, especially if the cow had lived there only 1 or 3 (?) years !) If Canada culls and tests a few thousand cattle from several quarantined farms, with negative results, the negative results will prove nothing:





Belgium, Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands found no positive among total 12.829 tested culled cohort/offspring cattle in 2002. Germany found 3 positive among 2.629 - Spain found 6 positive among 5.473 - France found 3 positive among 15.881, Ireland 4+ out of 18.659 and Portugal 1 + out of 1.163.





The % positive among clinically healthy cattle tested in 2002 was highest in Portugal (5,7 per 10.000) - and lowest in Denmark (0, 04 per 10.000) (the UK tests very few cattle in this group, because cattle > 30 months are not allowed into the British food chain. If the UK decides to allow consumption of cattle > 30 months, they will have to test this group.)





The % positive among fallen stock was highest in Portugal (57, 5 per 10.000) and Ireland (24 per 10,000) and lowest in Denmark (0,48 per 10.000)





The % positive among emergency slaughtered was highest in the UK (35,5 per 10,000) and Ireland (20,9 per 10.000).





The % positive among "cattle selected at ante-mortem control" was highest in Spain (71 per 10.000) and the UK (38 per 10.000).





I would recommend that both Canada _and the USA_ start testing all emergency slaughtered (downer) adult cattle immediately, and require testing of "as many as possible" of fallen stock as soon as possible (sampling of fallen stock would take some time to organise). I would also recommend testing as many as possible of adult cattle selected at ante-mortem control and healthy cattle > 3-4 years, starting with cattle > 4 years.





Considering the extensive trade of live cattle and MBM beteween Canada and the USA, it does not seem credible today that only Canada would be BSE-infected and not the USA. The USA have imported around 10 million Canadian cattle during the last 13 years. These 10 million would have been rendered in the USA, and would represent 100.000 risk units (according to the latest GBR opinion of the EU SSC of january 11th 2002).





10.000 risk units is a very high external challenge. What makes it even worse is that the systems in North America are very unstable, with few precautionary measures in place to avoid amplification and propagation of TSE/BSE. US and Canadian MBM still contain SRM, and heat treatment is below standard, with low efficiency for TSE-inactivation (unless rendering parameters have been notably increased since 2000 ?).





The RMBM ban introduced in Canada and the USA in 1997 was an incomplete ban and as long as there is no requirement for complete separation of plants producing feeds for ruminants, cross contaminations are unavoidable. Cross contaminations were a big problem in EU-countries before January 2001 when the total ban on all animal proteins to all foood producing species was decided. At least 44.000 'BAB-cases' (born after the ban) were born in the UK after July 1988, the first (incomplete) feed ban. Hundreds of BSE-cases were born in other EU countries after their first (incomplete) feed bans.





The idea of a "one case-one herd" also seems very unrealistic at the present time in Canada/USA. It might have been more credible had the USA/Canada had > 2 years of high level active surveillance like Austria and Finland, and an optimally stable rendering-feeding system. Today, North America lacks both.







Best regards





Karin Irgens




> -----Opprinnelig melding-----



> Fra: Robert A. LaBudde [SMTP:ral@LCFLTD.COM]



> Sendt: 1. juni 2003 20:31






> Emne: Re: BSE-CWD-canada




> > >There is a strong movement here to encourage the Canadian Food Inspection



> >Agency (CFIA) to introduce testing on all fallen stock using EU-style



> >pre-clinical test. So far the rate is similar to the USA- a sample of



> >fallen cases are taken. And none as far as I am aware from animals



> >destined for human food.



> > What is the scientific basis for the movement? So far, vastly more c...










######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########





Hello Robert




> What about the breeding sows and boars?




I dont know the situation in other countries, but in Norway we slaughter about 1,3 million young pigs/year (around 6 months) and very few breeder pigs. There are approx. 55.000 breeder pigs in Norway and most of these are not very old (around 2 ½ years old) when slaughtered. However, a few may live much longer, there was one example of an 8 years old Norwegian breeding sow.




I suppose the intestines would be discarded, since Norway does not produce casings.




Best regards


Karin Irgens







> -----Opprinnelig melding-----



> Fra: Robert A. LaBudde [SMTP:ral@LCFLTD.COM]



> Sendt: 3. juni 2003 02:44 > Til: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de



> Emne: Re: SV: BSE-CWD-canada



> > ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy






> #########



> > At 10:20 PM 6/2/03 +0200, Karin wrote:



> >In my posting yesterday I wrote: > >







> >Robert wrote:




> >Canada has a 3.5 M cattle population




> > > >According to Lyle Vanclief







> .sh



> >tml





> >Statement by The Honourable Lyle Vanclief to the House of Commons - May > 26, > >2003)




> > > >"...there are over 13 million cattle in Canada and 3.6 million that are



> >slaughtered each year in Canada"



> >I would assume that the Canadian 'adult' cattle population is somewhere



> >around 40% of 13 million. >



> Thanking for pointing out this error. I have been using the slaughter > number instead of the total population in these posts. You are, of course, > correct.




> > >




> >Robert: > >"...By the way, all of your arguments could equally be applied to swine > >production: Are you advocating that EU countries start massive sample and > >test programs for swine? How do we know BSE is not present in these > >animals, which were not protected until a complete feed ban was put into > >place? ..."





> > > >comment:





> >Most pigs are slaughtered around the age of 6 months. If BSE infectivity > was > >present in pigs (from feeding), it would be in the intestine at that > age, > >and presumably at concentrations far too low for detection by any of the > >validated rapid tests - although pig intestines used as casings might > >represent a risk. > >However, pigs slaughtered in the EU today are born long after the total > feed > >ban in January 2001. >





> What about the breeding sows and boars? >





> >I would be more worried about feeding of North American cattle with



> 'poultry



> >offal meal' and MBM produced from pigs, with intestines and intestinal



> >contents from pigs and poultry that have been fed ruminant-derived MBM.



> Not



> >to mention 'poultry litter', still used in the USA in cattle feed (but > not > >in Canada, they say) :



> >"... Manure is not on the list of approved ingredients for animal feed in



> >Canada, but U.S. regulations permit the use of poultry litter."







> > Yes, the feed ban is not yet complete here. It should be.




> > PS. Thank you for a professional, informative and cogent response. Very > refreshing on BSE-L!




> > ================================================================






> Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS e-mail: ral@lcfltd.com > Least Cost Formulations, Ltd. URL: http://lcfltd.co

























Wednesday, April 16, 2008



MBM, greaves, meat offal, live cattle, imports from UK to USA vs Canada









Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA










Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION Date: August 24, 2005 at 2:47 pm PST










BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA











SNIP...





Another problem in testing fallen stock for BSE may arise from unequal distribution of PrPSc in BSE-affected brains. Spongiform changes and accumulation of PrPSc are most frequently observed in the obex region [15,18], but, it could be quite difficult to collect the obex region precisely from extensively deteriorated and liquefied brain tissue. Furthermore, in such cases it would be difficult to perform IHC as a confirmation test.





It has been shown that sample autolysis does not affect detection of PrPScby means of WB [3, 5, 13]. Our WB results also demonstrated no reduction inthe PrPSc signal as a result of deterioration at 30*C or 37*C for up to 4days, as so far examined (Figs. 2A and 3A). In this study, we showed that several problems undermine the utility of the ELISA with deteriorated samples, whereas WB remains very dependable. Therefore, WB might be the only reliable procedure to detect PrPSc in severely damaged samples from fallen stock...






FULL TEXT 6 PAGES;









Karin writes;




> I would be more worried about the latest USA suspect where no WB can be done, due to formalin fixation of the sample. I don’t know if the“reference” laboratory in Weybridge has ever missed any BSE-positive cattle (or atypical bovine TSEs), but they have certainly failed to confirm several cases of atypical scrapie, because they insisted on using the so-called validated methods recommended by the OIE before 2003. I hope they now have solved this problem.>







Tuesday, November 02, 2010




BSE - ATYPICAL LESION DISTRIBUTION (RBSE 92-21367) statutory (obex only) diagnostic criteria CVL 1992










R-CALF 2012




2. There have been numerous examples where parts of Canadian cattle banned from importation by the OTM Rule were intercepted at the U.S. border, or where parts of U.S. cattle prohibited in exports to Asian countries were intercepted during importation into those countries, further supporting Plaintiffs’ assertion that USDA must consider the risk that the mitigation measures it relied on in the OTM Rule to protect U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd from potential BSE infection in Canadian cattle may not be complied with uniformly in practice. (For example, in February 2012 a Canadian veterinarian and the owners of several Canadian livestock operations were charged with illegally exporting possibly hundreds of cattle to the U.S. that were banned under the OTM Rule because they were born before March 1, 1999.) There also have been numerous events at U.S. slaughterhouses that call into question USDA’s assumption in support of the OTM Rule that specified risk materials (SRMs) potentially harboring BSE infectivity will be removed when Canadian cattle are slaughtered in the United States. (For example, in October 2009 there were recalls of 33,000 pounds of beef tongues from an Omaha meatpacker and 5,522 pounds of beef tongues from a Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation plant in Wisconsin, in both cases because tonsils—an SRM required to be removed under the OTM Rule because of their potential for containing infectious BSE prions—may not have been completely removed, and in 2008 USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service issued four recall notices covering almost 1.4 million pounds of cattle heads from which the SRMs had not been removed.)






government on February 26, 2008 and was reported in the Feb. 29, 2008 Post-hearing Comments of Amicus Curiae the Government of Canada (Doc. # 112), and one was reported by the Canadian government on June 27, 2008 and was identified to the Court in Plaintiffs’ July 1, 2008 Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. # 131).






3. A new case of BSE was discovered in the United States (the first since March 2006), in a California dairy cow that died on the farm in April 2012. That case is still being investigated by USDA and others, and its significance for U.S. BSE risk mitigation measures is not yet known. Although USDA announced the cow was infected with a different strain of BSE than was previously identified in the United States, among other things, USDA has not yet determined, or at least has not released to the public, where the cow was born, when and how she became infected, and whether she bore any markings or was accompanied by any records suggesting she was imported.






See










see also











4. There have been additional scientific studies showing the potential for BSE prions in a wider range of bovine organs. For example, a 2010 study of the particular strain of BSE that USDA stated had infected the California cow detected in April 2012 (see













(“index cow was positive for atypical (L-type) BSE”) discovered infectivity in a variety of peripheral nerves, including the nerves of the forelimbs of cattle, albeit at very low levels. See












Results from a 2008 study suggest that in humans, this new strain of BSE is a more virulent strain.




See











SNIP...




SEE FULL TEXT R-CALF 2012 ON MAD COW DISEASE











Sunday, August 29, 2010




Prion Disease Round Table Conducted Wednesday December 11, 2003 at Denver, Colorado R-CALF-USA Sponsored (REVISITED AUGUST 2010)












Friday, November 23, 2012


sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease update As at 5th November 2012 UK, USA, AND CANADA









Tuesday, June 26, 2012


Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Human TSE report update North America, Canada, Mexico, and USDA PRION UNIT as of May 18, 2012


type determination pending Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (tdpCJD), is on the rise in Canada and the USA









2012 atypical L-type BSE BASE California reports


Saturday, August 4, 2012


Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012









SUMMARY REPORT CALIFORNIA BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY CASE INVESTIGATION JULY 2012


Summary Report BSE 2012


Executive Summary









Saturday, August 4, 2012


Update from APHIS Regarding Release of the Final Report on the BSE Epidemiological Investigation









CENSORSHIP IS A TERRIBLE THING $$$







Canada has had a COVER-UP policy of mad cow disease since about the 17th case OR 18th case of mad cow disease. AFTER THAT, all FOIA request were ignored $$$


THIS proves there is indeed an epidemic of mad cow disease in North America, and it has been covered up for years and years, if not for decades, and it’s getting worse $$$







Thursday, February 10, 2011


TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY REPORT UPDATE CANADA FEBRUARY 2011 and how to hide mad cow disease in Canada Current as of: 2011-01-31









Wednesday, August 11, 2010


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










Thursday, August 19, 2010


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









Friday, March 4, 2011


Alberta dairy cow found with mad cow disease









2005





GREETINGS AGAIN APHIS ET AL,





FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE FAILED TO EVEN STOP THE SRMs FROM WHOLE CUTS OF BONELESS BEEF IMPORTED FROM CANADA IN THE VERY ONSET OF THE NEW BSE MRR (MINIMAL RISK REGION). THIS IS THE VERY REASON I HAVE SAID TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT BY THIS ADMINISTRATION ABANDONING THE BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LIKE THE ASSESSMENT OF BSE GBR III, AND ADHERING TO A NEW BSE MRR POLICY THAT WAS DESIGNED NOT FOR HUMAN HEALTH, BUT ONLY FOR COMMODITIES AND FUTURES, WILL FURTHER EXPOSE NEEDLESSLY MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF HUMANS AND ANIMALS VIA THE FREE TRADING OF ALL STRAINS OF TSE GLOBALLY. references as follow ;






Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Products


Recall Release CLASS II RECALL


FSIS-RC-032-2005 HEALTH RISK: LOW


Congressional and Public Affairs


(202) 720-9113


Steven Cohen




WASHINGTON, Aug. 19, 2005 - Green Bay Dressed Beef, a Green Bay, Wis., establishment, is voluntarily recalling approximately 1,856 pounds of beef products that may contain portions of the backbone from a cow just over 30 months old, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today. The product was from a cow imported directly for slaughter from Canada.




Based on information provided by Canada, the products subject to this Class II recall are from a cow that is approximately one month older than the 30-month age limit. Both ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection were done on the cow in question. FSIS inspection program personnel determined the cow to be healthy and fit for human food. FSIS' designation of this recall as Class II is because it is a situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.




FSIS learned about this as a result of a Canadian audit of their health certificate that accompanied the imported cow. Prior to slaughter, the health certificate accompanying the cow was presented to the establishment, and it appeared complete and accurate. However, a subsequent audit of information related to the health certificate by Canadian officials found that it was not accurate. Action has been taken by Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials in response to findings from the audit. The products subject to recall are:




Five boxes of 243 lb. vacuum pouched packages of "American Foods Group, NECKBONE UNTRIM'D, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER" with the case code of 77333; One box of 50 lb. vacuum pouched package of "American Foods Group, SHORTLOIN 2X2, USDA SELECT OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75231; One box of 60 lb. vacuum pouched package of "American Foods Group, SHORTLOIN 2X2, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75060; Five boxes of 258 lb. vacuum pouched packages of "Dakota Supreme Beef, SHORTLOIN 0X11/4, USDA SELECT OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75442; Sixteen boxes of 811 lb. vacuum pouched packages of "American Foods Group, BLADE BI N/O CHUCK, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75955; Nine boxes of 435 lb. vacuum pouched packages of "American Foods Group, BLADE BI N/O CHUCK, USDA SELECT OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75952. Each box bears the establishment number "410" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The products were produced on August 4, and were distributed to wholesale distributors in Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Wisconsin.




Under the interim final rules FSIS implemented on January 12, 2004, certain specified risk materials must be removed from all cattle depending on the age of the animal. On this animal all specified risk materials for cattle 30 months and over were removed, with the exception of the vertebral column. At the time of slaughter, the animal was certified to be under 30 months of age and removal of the vertebral column was not required. A subsequent audit determined the animal was just over 30 months of age; therefore, the vertebral column is required to be removed. This is the reason for the recall of the selected products.




Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Sally VandeHei, Executive Assistant at 1-877-894-3927. National media with questions may contact Jim Mulhern at (202) 496-2468. Local media with questions may contact Susan Finco at (920) 965-7750 ext.158.




Consumers with other food safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.




Sample Product Labels: These are similar to, but not identical to, labels on the recalled product.




#




USDA Recall Classifications




Class I This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.




Class II This is a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.




Class III This is a situation where the use of the product will not cause adverse health consequences.















Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA [TSS SUBMISSION 11/03/2003 01:19 PM To: regulations@aphis.usda.gov ]








OIG REPORT ON IMPORTS FROM CANADA








Tuesday, October 2, 2012


Canadian veterinarian fined after approving banned BSE high risk cattle for export to U.S.A.








Saturday, January 21, 2012


Quick facts about mad cow disease







tss