BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA: 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.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out363_en.pdf

(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

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

-------- 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

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.

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

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

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

Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

From: Karin.Irgens@DYREHELSETILSYNET.NO

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.

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

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

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

> > 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.

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

> > 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

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

> > TSS

> >

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

https://lists.aegee.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306&L=BSE-L&P=R21551&X=1ABE7910CF6C11F2D0&Y=flounder9%40verizon.net&m=10864

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 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 :

"...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/

(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.)

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.)

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

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

https://lists.aegee.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306&L=BSE-L&F=&S=&X=46995873C7A76ACDD7&Y=flounder9%40verizon.net&P=11693

https://lists.aegee.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306&L=BSE-L&F=&S=&X=46995873C7A76ACDD7&Y=flounder9%40verizon.net&P=17066

https://lists.aegee.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306&L=BSE-L&F=&S=&X=46995873C7A76ACDD7&Y=flounder9%40verizon.net&P=15580

######## 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

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

> 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...

https://lists.aegee.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306&L=BSE-L&F=&S=&X=46995873C7A76ACDD7&Y=flounder9%40verizon.net&P=937

######## 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

BSE-L@UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE

> #########

> > 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

> >(http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/debatee

> .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."

> >http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/06/01/101175-cp.html

> > 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

https://lists.aegee.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306&L=BSE-L&F=&S=&X=46995873C7A76ACDD7&Y=flounder9%40verizon.net&P=2457

https://lists.aegee.org/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0306&L=BSE-L&X=46995873C7A76ACDD7&Y=flounder9%40verizon.net#126

http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2012/10/canadian-veterinarian-fined-after.html

http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

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

http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/04/mbm-greaves-meat-offal-live-cattle.html

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

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/docket-no-03-080-1-usda-issues-proposed.html

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

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/importation-of-whole-cuts-of-boneless.html

BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA

http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/

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;

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jvms/66/5/515/_pdf

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

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2010/11/bse-atypical-lesion-distribution-rbse.html

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

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2012/05/bse_update_050212.shtml;

BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, January 17, 2013

CANADA MBM LIVE CATTLE BSE TSE PRION TO USA

No comments: