|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: TSS ()
Jan. 10, 2006, 6:36AM WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, U.S. food safety officials warned that Canadian meat and poultry inspections were lacking, yet the Agriculture Department refused to stop the flow of imports from Canada, a department investigation found. Since then, 4.4 billion pounds of processed meat made its way to U.S. supermarkets and restaurants, according to a report from the department's inspector general. Meanwhile, Canada has altered its system in an attempt to comply with U.S. rules. As the leading foreign supplier of fresh and frozen red meat to the U.S., Canada shipped more than $2 billion worth in 2004, according to department reports. In a November 2003 memo to then-Secretary Ann Veneman, the department's Food Safety and Inspection Service warned that public health could be compromised if the agency didn't respond immediately to deficiencies in Canada's system. Yet food safety officials postponed a review of Canada's system the following year. According to an internal e-mail, Veneman directed FSIS to work with Canadian inspection officials to resolve the differences. "When FSIS officials returned to Canada in May 2005, they continued to find the same types of deficiencies they found in 2003," the report said. The department halted shipments of beef and live cattle after the discovery of mad cow disease in Canada in 2003; those restrictions have since been lifted. The report was obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The inspector general identified three big concerns with Canadian inspections: —Inspections were not done daily at Canadian food processing plants. —Canada lacked adequate sanitation controls. —Inspectors didn't sample ready-to-eat products for listeria, which can cause deadly food poisoning. Daily inspections are required at U.S. processing plants, and the law requires foreign countries to have equivalent inspections. U.S. officials halted imports from Australia in June 2004 and Belgium in 2003 because those countries didn't have daily inspections, the report noted. A critic said the Agriculture Department seems to have a "make it up as we go" attitude in deciding which country's standards match U.S. standards. "This undermines the integrity of American food safety standards and consumer confidence in our meat supply," said Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, senior Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Raymond noted that U.S. inspectors have doubled their testing for listeria at Canadian ports in the past two years. Canada has made changes since last year, a Canadian Food Inspection Agency official said. Daily inspections have been done at processing plants since late summer, said Bill Anderson, CFIA director of food of animal origin. Canada is still trying to get the Agriculture Department to accept its previous random inspection system, he said. Canada's tests for listeria are internationally recognized, but inspectors there have switched to the U.S. approach of testing finished products, Anderson said. And all processing plants have been ordered to comply with sanitation controls similar to those in the U.S., he said. The Agriculture Department said it will take until 2007 to make a final decision on whether Canada's system is equivalent to the U.S. system. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/3576944.html Also Friday, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said the USDA is R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, a U.S. cattle industry group, The beef products have been banned in the United States as a safety Reuters News Service contributed to this report. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2557679 Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed GAIN Report Number: CA4063 CA4063 Canada Livestock and Products Annual 2004 http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200409/146107419.pdf BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENT CANADA snip... Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of Canada - 10 - • However, SRM are rendered together with other slaughter waste and fallen stock. However, according to the CD, MBM with SRM is not permitted to be fed to ruminants. Conclusion on the ability to avoid recycling • Between 1980 and 1997 the Canadian system would not have been able to avoid recycling of the BSE-agent to any measurable extent. If the BSE-agent was introduced into the feed chain, it could have reached cattle. • Since 1997 this ability gradually improved with the introduction of the ruminant MBM ban and its implementation. • Since cross-contamination cannot be excluded, and as SRM is still rendered by processes unable to significantly reduce BSE-infectivity, the system is still unable to avoid recycling of BSE-infectivity already present in the system or incoming. 3.2 Overall appreciation of the ability to identify BSE-cases and to eliminate animals at risk of being infected before they are processed Cattle population structure • Cattle population: 12.15 Million in 1988 increasing to 14.6 Million in 2001; • Of the total cattle population, 2.2 million are dairy cattle and 12.4 million are beef. • The cattle population above 24 months of age: approx. 6.0 Million. • Of the approximately 2.2 Million dairy cattle 2 Million are located in the two eastern provinces Ontario and Quebec. • Mixed farming (cattle and mono-gastric species) is usually not practiced; the country expert estimated the proportion of mixed farming to be less than 1%. • Individual regions traditionally have ID systems under provincial authorities. Brand inspectors are present when cattle are assembled. It is estimated by the Canadians that the level of a national, uniform ID for cattle is less than 10%; most of those individual pedigree animals. Mandatory ID for the milk-fed veal sector was implemented in Quebec in 1996, but does not contain information on the herd of origin. An agreement of the relevant industries to develop a national cattle ID and trace back strategy was reached on 1 May 1998 (starting in 2001).Since 2002, a national identification program is existing. Al cattle leaving any farm premises must be uniquely identified by ear tag. BSE surveillance • BSE was made notifiable in 1990. • Every cow over one year of age exhibiting central nervous system signs suggestive of BSE submitted to a laboratory or presented at an abattoir is subjected to a BSE laboratory diagnostic test (histology and over the past years also PrPSc-based laboratory tests). • In addition, cattle submitted for rabies examination and found rabies negative are examined for BSE. Samples are prepared immediately upon arrival to the federal laboratory responsible for the rabies diagnostic for possible later BSE examination, i.e. formalin fixation. • Since the 1940’s, a rabies control program has been in place, where farmers, veterinarians and the general public are well educated about this neurological Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of Canada - 11 - disease. In 1990, when BSE was made notifiable, this awareness was extended to suspicions of BSE. • Since 1993 the number of brains examined per year did exceed the number recommended by OIE (300 - 336 for countries with a cattle population over 24 months of age of 5.0 to 7.0 Million) in all years, except in 1995 (table 4). year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 samples 225 645 426 269 454 759 940 895 1´020 1´581 3´377 3´361 Table 4: Number of bovine brains annually examined for CNS diseases, including BSE. • According to the CD approx. 98% of the examined cattle were older than 24 months and approx. 90% exhibited neurological symptoms. Although the identification system of Canada does not document the birth date or age of the animals, according to the CD, examination of the dentition is used to ascertain the maturity of the animals. • The list of neurological differential diagnoses for the 754 brains examined in 1997 included encephalitis (70 cases), encephalomalacia (19), hemophilus (7), hemorrhage (2), listeriosis (38), meningoencephalitis (36), rabies (22), tumors (2), other conditions (135) and no significant findings (423). • Compensation is paid for suspect BSE cases as well as for animals ordered to be destroyed (90-95% of market value with a maximum of 2,500 Can$ per cow). • Diagnostic criteria developed in the United Kingdom are followed at ADRI, Nepean. According to the very detailed protocol for the collection, fixation and submission of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) specimens at abattoirs under inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the specimen shall be shipped to National Center for Foreign Animal Disease, Winnipeg, Manitoba. • In 2003, around 3000 animals from risk populations have been tested. • According to the CD, it is aimed to test a minimum of 8000 risk animals (animals with clinical signs consistent with BSE, downer cows, animals died on farm animals diseased or euthanized because of serious illness) in 2004 and then continue to progressively increase the level of testing to 30,000. • In May 2003, Canada reported its first case of domestic BSE. A second case was detected in the US on 23 December 2003 and traced back to Canadian origin. Both were born before the feed ban and originated from Western Canada. 3.3 Overall assessment of the stability For the overall assessment of the stability, the impact of the three main stability factors (i.e. feeding, rendering and SRM-removal) and of the additional stability factor, surveillance, has to be estimated. Again, the guidance provided by the SSC in its opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as updated January 2002) is applied. Feeding Until 1997, it was legally possible to feed ruminant MBM to cattle and a certain fraction of cattle feed (for calves and dairy cattle) is assumed to have contained MBM. Therefore feeding was "Not OK". In August 1997 a ruminant MBM ban was introduced but feeding of non-ruminant MBM to cattle remained legal as well as feeding of ruminant MBM to non-ruminant animals. This makes control of the feed ban very difficult because laboratory differentiation between ruminant and non ruminant MBM is difficult if not impossible. Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of Canada Due to the highly specialised production system in Canada, various mammalian MBM streams can be separated. Such a feed ban would therefore be assessed as "reasonably OK", for all regions where this highly specialised system exists. However, several areas in Canada do have mixed farming and mixed feed mills, and in such regions, an RMBM ban would not suffice. Additionally, official controls for cattle feeds to control for the compliance with the ban were not started until the end of 2003. Thus, for the whole country, the assessment of the feeding after 1997 remains "Not OK". Rendering The rendering industry is operating with processes that are not known to reduce infectivity. It is therefore concluded that the rendering was and is "Not OK". SRM-removal SRM and fallen stock were and are rendered for feed. Therefore SRM-removal is assessed as "Not OK" snip... 4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries. 4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated A risk that BSE-infectivity was recycled and propagated exists since a processing risk first appeared; i.e. in the early 90s. Until today this risk persists and increases fast because of the extremely unstable BSE/cattle system in Canada. 5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE-RISK 5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge The current geographical BSE-risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because at that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk. snip... full text; -------- Original Message -------- Release No. 0166.03 Statement by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman "USDA is placing Canada under its BSE restriction guidelines and will not accept any ruminants or ruminant products from Canada pending further investigation. We are dispatching a technical team to Canada to assist in the investigation and will provide more detailed information as it becomes available." "The United States remains diligent in its BSE surveillance and prevention efforts. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration prohibited the use of most mammalian protein in the manufacture of animal feed intended for cows and other ruminants to stop the way the disease is thought to spread. "Since 1989, the U.S. government has taken a series of preventive actions to protect against this animal disease. This includes USDA prohibitions on the import of live ruminants, such as cattle, sheep, goats and most ruminant products from countries that have or are considered to be at risk for having BSE. USDA News ########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############ FDA Greetings BSE-L, i believe i sent this through before, but thought under the circumstances, i would pass through again. i did not read over all of it, maybe be more? TSS 1994 UK EXPORTS BEEF VEAL USA , MEXICO $ CANADA ONLY other Countries list in PDF file) USA -------- TOTALS ''8'' TONS CANADA -- TOTALS ''29'' TONS 1995 UK EXPORT BEEF AND VEAL TO USA AND CANADA USA ------- TOTALS ''358'' TONS CANADA --TOTALS ''24'' TONS BONE-IN BEEF AND VEAL USA-------- TOTALS ''10'' TONS (i think this is part of the 358 tons above?) UK EXPORT OF LIKE CATTLE TO USA AND CANADA 1986 TO 1996 USA TOTAL = 1297 1986 TO 1996 CAN TOTAL = 299 http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab10.pdf UK EXPORT MEAT OR OFFAL OF BOVINE ANIMALS DEC 1987 CANADA -- 64,526 KG UK EXPORT OFFALS OF BOVINE ANIMALS FRESH CHILLED OR FROZEN OTHER THAN LIVER DEC 1987 YTD USA -- 45,943 KG UK EXPORT MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMAL WITH BONE IN 1988 CANADA -- 4,163 KG PREP OR PRES MEAT OR OFFAL OF BOVINE ANIMALS CUMULATIVE TO DEC 1988 USA -------- 28,609 KG CANADA -- 22,044 KG MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS WITH BONE IN CUMULATIVE TO ANUAL 1989 USA -------- 17,880 KG MEXICO---- 33,444 KG BONELESS MEAT OF BOVINE 1989 USA --------111,953 KG CANADA---1,800 KG MEXICO --- 1,143,387 KG EDIBLE OFFAL OF BOVINE ANIMALS 1989 USA -------- 19,980 KG MEXICO--- 31,244 KG MORE........ MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS BONELESS 1990 USA 146,443 http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab05.pdf Other US BSE risks: the imported products picture http://www.mad-cow.org/00/jul00_dont_eat_sheep.html#hhh GLOBAL EXPORTS OF UK SHEEP/GOATS (BSE?)...TSS http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madco...es/9912070.html 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 ----- snip...end...no url...TSS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WASHINGTON, DC - The Bush Administration announced today that 41,000 Officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a recall notice "I am troubled that additional Canadian ground beef has been allowed "The Bush Administration should take this opportunity to announce they "Many of my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee have joined ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HARKIN SEEKS ANSWERS ABOUT USDA’S BSE TESTING APPROACH WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2004 “USDA is still stumbling to pull together a coherent strategy and Specifically, Harkin cited questions as to the downer status of the Last week, USDA’s Office of Inspector General issued a scathing report Has USDA identified the most scientifically valid sub-populations and Has USDA made provisions to obtain all the samples necessary to Has USDA implemented effective procedures to assure that all parties Is the voluntary sample submission protocol effective for obtaining a Has USDA identified proper incentives to assure suspect cattle on farms Has USDA made provisions to assure the federal and state actions in the Are there effective procedures and policies in place to ensure effective MAD COW MARKET TIMING Semiannual Report to Congress FY - 2005 - First Half snip... Strengthen Controls Over Canadian Beef Imports Following the detection of a Canadian cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”) in May 2003, we examined the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) oversight of the importation of beef products from Canada. Following requests from four U.S. Senators, we began several reviews in June 2004 to explore whether USDA did not follow appropriate safety measures, beginning sometime in the fall of 2003, in allowing expanded Canadian beef imports into the United States. After the initial halt of imports, in August 2003 the Secretary announced a list of low-risk products that would be allowed from Canada. APHIS also allowed an expansion in the type of Canadian facilities that could produce items for export to the United States. The gradual expansion occurred because agency employees included products similar to those on the published lowrisk list, but APHIS did not communicate this broadly. As a result, from August 2003 to April 2004, APHIS issued permits for products with questionable eligibility. Contrary to publicly stated policy, the agency allowed the import of products from Canadian facilities that produced both eligible and ineligible products, increasing the possibility that higher-risk product could be inadvertently imported. APHIS also issued permits to allow the import of more than 63,000 pounds of beef cheek meat with questionable eligibility because the agency did not establish a clear definition for “boneless beef.” Further, we found that FSIS did not always communicate effectively about the eligibility status of beef cheek meat, specifically to import inspectors. In addition, APHIS issued 1,155 permits for the importation of ruminant (e.g., cow, goat) products from Canada without ensuring that the agency had an appropriate system of internal controls to manage the process for a suddenly overwhelming volume of requests. From May through September 2004, we identified more than 42,000 pounds of product with questionable eligibility. APHIS generally agreed to institute procedures for communicating changes in policy and monitoring the consistency between agency practice and publicly stated policy, as well as to strengthen controls and finalize procedures to issue and monitor permits. FSIS generally agreed to implement controls to communicate the specific eligibility of product when its eligibility status changes and to implement an edit check in its import information system to identify ineligible product. (Audit Report No. 33601-1-Hy, APHIS Oversight of the Importation of Beef Products from Canada) from Japan, Importation of Which Is Prohibited Due to Disease Concerns In January 2005, a Los Angeles restaurant owner was placed on probation for 60 months, to include 800 hours of community service, after he pled guilty to smuggling beef from Japan. Under 9 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 94, beef from Japan is a prohibited product for United States importation due to disease. On two occasions in 2001 and 2002, inspectors in Anchorage, Alaska, intercepted shipments sent from Japan that were manifested as “book,” but upon inspection by USDA and the United States Customs Service, were found to contain approximately 25 kilograms of beef inside a Styrofoam ice chest. Both shipments were addressed to the restaurant owner. Shipping records showed that the restaurant owner had received 13 shipments manifested as “book” from the same sender in Japan in 2001 and 2002. All but one of the shipments were in the same weight range as the two intercepted shipments. The shipper and the restaurant owner were subsequently indicted for various charges including conspiracy and smuggling. An arrest warrant was issued for the shipper, who is still in Japan. http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/SarcFirstHalf05.pdf MAD COW MARKET TIMING, if waiting 7+ months to confirm a case of mad cow July 27, 2005, 12:11AM Releasing mad-cow test results debated AP file ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- News of mad cow disease alone can move markets, stall trade negotiations and Although beef markets reacted mildly in late June to the confirmation of the The bottom line, industry observers say: The type and timing of the But trying to find consensus among state and federal agencies can be In December 2004, a month after a U.S. animal tested inconclusive for the Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs suggested federal regulators wait "While markets may bounce back, enormous amounts of money can be lost in the "Experience has shown it is impossible to prevent rumors from any number of Ideally, Hillman said in an interview, the government wouldn't release any "If you can't protect the data, put it out there," he said. USDA spokeswoman Amy Spillman said the department makes announcements after Both state agencies did agree, however, on keeping a lid on information that Both said the USDA should work with market regulators, the Commodity Futures The USDA already has safeguards in place because an internal watchdog that But the suggestion by state officials smacks of the Texas food-disparagement He questioned if state officials are too concerned about protecting the Humans who eat infected meat can contract a variant of the brain-wasting The Texas Animal Health Commission, much like the USDA, is split between its "It seems as though they're more concerned about trade and economic interest Hillman declined to comment on Hansen's remarks. Initial screening last year on the 12-year-old Texas Brahman crossbreed that Last month, the agency's internal watchdog ordered a third type of test that "If the inconclusive wasn't announced, we may have never known if it was Cattle ranchers also want to shield the markets, and some say releasing the Shane Sklar, director of the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, "As a rancher, the only reason I would like to know is to put an end to the If they knew which ranch the animal came from, ranchers could determine if "If we don't know where an infected cow comes from, we will always view purva.patel@chron.com "While markets may bounce back, enormous amounts of money can be lost in the IF, that positive, positive, positive, inconclusive, negative, and then 8 ----- Original Message ----- Commissioner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- no cover-up of mad cow disease in Texas ??? if not, then maybe you can explain the 7+ month delay in the announcement of OR maybe you can explain to me the mad cow that got away. the one MAD COW please explain these things to me if there is no cover up of TEXAS MAD COW thank you, I am sincerely, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. FDA Statement FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely #### .1 gram is lethal; FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html MOST people have known that less than one gram is lethal. THIS has been known for a decade or more. Evidendly the FDA did not know. ... TSS
|
