SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  




From: TSS ()
Subject: DO NOT Support H.R. 4341 to Exempt Manure from Superfund Regulation
Date: April 2, 2006 at 9:51 am PST


----- Original Message -----
From: "National Cattlemen's Beef Association"
To: "National Cattlemen's Beef Association"
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Support H.R. 4341 to Exempt Manure from Superfund Regulation


> Thank you for using National Cattlemen's Beef Association Mail System
>
> Message sent to the following recipients:
> Representative Paul
> Message text follows:
>
> Terry Singeltary
> P.O. Box 42
> Bacliff, TX 77518-0042
>
>
> April 2, 2006
>
> [recipient address was inserted here]
>
>
> Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
>
> As a cattle producer from your district I am not, I am writing to ask you
> to not co-sponsor H.R. 4341, to not amend the Comprehensive Environmental
> Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the
> Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986,
> introduced by Rep. Ralph Hall and 29 other members of the House on
> November 17, 2005. This legislation does not seek to protect America's
> livestock producers from the misuse of CERCLA and EPCRA by prohibiting the
> regulation of manure as a hazardous substance under these Acts.
>
> Over the past couple of years, some state and local authorities have
> sought to extend CERCLA and EPCRA liability to our nation's livestock
> operations for emissions or discharges from manure produced in those
> operations, thank God!
>
> I believe that this legal interpretation is FULLY supported by science or
> statutory history, and now is the time for you and your colleagues in
> Congress to confirm that manure was never intended to be used on pastures
> for human food. Without immediate action in Congress, my very livelihood
> and family health could be jeopardized. Without clarification, every
> cattle producer who spreads manure on a pasture as a natural fertilizer
> could come under the same Superfund regulations as our nation's worst
> toxic chemical spills, and rightfully so.
>
> The animal agriculture industry has NOT been regulated appropriately for
> years under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and various state laws to
> protect the environment. Livestock operators do not operate Superfund
> sites, manure is not a Superfund material, and fields on which manure is
> spread are not Superfund sites, either, but in my opinion very well should
> be.
>
> On behalf of some of America's cattle producers, and consumers, I urge you
> to BAN all use of animal Tissue, blood and MANURE from being spread on
> fields for plants for human consumption, and to regulate manure under
> Superfund by NEVER co-sponsoring H.R. 4341, specifically excluding manure
> from ever being used on fields for plants to grow for human consumption,
> as 'sound science' mandates today, not the junk science the cattle
> industry insists on using time and time again.
>
>
> >>>Johanns said he shares NCBA's desire to achieve participation
> voluntarily, rather than by government mandate. "Our hope, which I think
> is the same as yours, is to bring the system along and hit the benchmarks
> on a voluntary basis," Johanns said. <<<
>
>
>
>
>
> never will work on a voluntary basis. ...tss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>- Superfund: H.R. 4341 is moooving along in the House of
> Representatives as cattlemen continue to urge support for legislation that
> will clarify that manure is not considered a hazardous substance,
> pollutant or contaminant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response
> Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA/Superfund regulations). This bill
> now has 95 co-sponsors with 14 new cosponsors signed on since last week!
>
>
>
> They are: Reps. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Charles Boustany (R-La.), Gil
> Gutknect (R-Minn.), Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), Henry
> Cuellar (D-Texas), Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), Ken Calvert (R-Cal.), Bennie
> Thompson (D-Miss.), Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Mary Bono
> (R-Cal.), Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), and William Jenkins (R-Tenn.).
>
>
>
> Visit http://capwiz.com/beefusa to see a full list of cosponsors. If your
> Representative is not yet listed, send a message to them asking them to
> sign on!<<<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTHING like being bought off with manure. but what is in that manure,
> maybe PrP and or mad cow ??? lets see, cow eats tainted feed, tainted feed
> not only uptakes the long road via cns to brain, but what have we here,
> the abnormal prion protein (PrP) associated with the infectious agent
> crosses the intact intestinal barrier at the level of the enterocytes and
> then passes rapidly into lymph. These steps are identical in susceptible
> and resistant sheep. Thereafter, replication takes place in lymphoid
> structures. ...tss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Commentary
> What can we learn from the oral intake of prions by sheep?
> N Sales, PhD *
> Department of Infectology, The Scripps Research Institute, 5353 Parkside
> Drive, Jupiter, Florida, USA
>
> email: N Sales (nsales@scripps.edu)
>
> *Correspondence to N Sales, Department of Infectology, The Scripps
> Research Institute, 5353 Parkside Drive, Jupiter, Florida, USA.
>
> Keywords
> prion . scrapie . sheep . ingestion . vCJD . BSE . TSE
>
>
> Abstract
> The central nervous system is the ultimate target of prions, the agents
> responsible for fatal neurodegenerative diseases known as transmissible
> spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). The neuro-invasive phase and its
> related clinical signs take place after a long incubation period. During
> this asymptomatic phase, however, active transport and replication of the
> infectious agent take place in peripheral sites. The oral infection route
> has been extensively studied because of its implication in the recent
> epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle and of the
> resulting human cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). Rodent
> models have been useful in studying some aspects of this pathogenesis.
> Now, new data on the initial steps of oral infection have been obtained in
> sheep. This species is naturally infected with scrapie by horizontal
> transmission and there is strong evidence implicating the oral route.
> Furthermore, the existence of resistant and susceptible genotypes offers
> the possibility of comparative studies. The data were obtained using
> surgical and biochemical procedures to modulate the efficiency of oral
> infection and show that, in sheep, the abnormal prion protein (PrP)
> associated with the infectious agent crosses the intact intestinal barrier
> at the level of the enterocytes and then passes rapidly into lymph. These
> steps are identical in susceptible and resistant sheep. Thereafter,
> replication takes place in lymphoid structures. Other results in the same
> study indicate that alimentary fluids almost completely degrade the PrP of
> the inoculum. Though not directly transposable to human diseases, in which
> it is not possible to study these early stages, these data allow the
> elaboration of a simplified concept for the pathogenesis of TSEs. They
> also suggest that human contamination at the level of the oral cavity
> might be more important than previously suspected. Copyright © 2006
> Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley
> & Sons, Ltd.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Received: 27 January 2006; Accepted: 27 January 2006
>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112568524/ABSTRACT
>
>
> Original Paper
> Transportation of prion protein across the intestinal mucosa of
> scrapie-susceptible and scrapie-resistant sheep
> M Jeffrey 1 *, L González 1, A Espenes 2, CMcL Press 2, S Martin 1, M
> Chaplin 3, L Davis 3, T Landsverk 2, C MacAldowie 4, S Eaton 4, G McGovern
> 1
> 1Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)-Lasswade, Pentlands Science Park,
> Bush Loan, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PZ, UK
> 2Department of Basic Sciences and Aquatic Medicine, Norwegian School of
> Veterinary Science, N-0033 Oslo, Norway
> 3VLA-Weybridge, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB, UK
> 4Moredun Research Institute, Pentlands Science Park, Bush Loan,
> Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PZ, UK
>
> email: M Jeffrey (m.jeffrey@vla.defra.gsi.gov.uk)
>
> *Correspondence to M Jeffrey, Veterinary Laboratories Agency
> (VLA)-Lasswade, Pentlands Science Park, Bush Loan, Penicuik, Midlothian
> EH26 0PZ, UK.
>
> Funded by:
> UK DEFRA; Grant Number: SE1951, SE1955
> EU; Grant Number: QLK5-CT-2001-02332
>
> Keywords
> intestine . alimentary . pathogenesis . scrapie . prion
>
>
> Abstract
> To determine the mechanisms of intestinal transport of infection, and
> early pathogenesis, of sheep scrapie, isolated gut-loops were inoculated
> to ensure that significant concentrations of scrapie agent would come into
> direct contact with the relevant ileal structures (epithelial,
> lymphoreticular, and nervous). Gut loops were inoculated with a scrapie
> brain pool homogenate or normal brain or sucrose solution. After surgery,
> animals were necropsied at time points ranging from 15 min to 1 month and
> at clinical end point. Inoculum-associated prion protein (PrP) was
> detected by immunohistochemistry in villous lacteals and in sub-mucosal
> lymphatics from 15 min to 3.5 h post-challenge. It was also detected in
> association with dendritic-like cells in the draining lymph nodes at up to
> 24 h post-challenge. Replication of infection, as demonstrated by the
> accumulation of disease-associated forms of PrP in Peyer's patches, was
> detected at 30 days and sheep developed clinical signs of scrapie at 18-22
> months post-challenge. These results indicate discrepancies between the
> routes of transportation of PrP from the inoculum and sites of de
> novo-generated disease-associated PrP subsequent to scrapie agent
> replication. When samples of homogenized inoculum were incubated with
> alimentary tract fluids in vitro, only trace amounts of protease-resistant
> PrP could be detected by western blotting, suggesting that the majority of
> both normal and abnormal PrP within the inoculum is readily digested by
> alimentary fluids. Copyright © 2006 Pathological Society of Great Britain
> and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Received: 12 October 2005; Revised: 13 December 2005; Accepted: 23
> December 2005
> Digital Object Identifier (DO
>
>
>
>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112568745/ABSTRACT
>
>
>
>
> now, beyond this, what's left, comes out the other end, and as we all
> know, nothing is wasted of the carcass or the cow, so the manure and blood
> is spread all over fields, therefore industry does not have to pay for
> disposal. but, was is the risk of the PrP and manure and blood being
> spread all over fields ;
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
>
> Draft minutes of the open session of the 91st meeting held on 24th
>
> February 2006
>
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>
> ITEM 8 - USE OF LIVESTOCK AND CROPS FROM DRAYTON FARM
>
> (SEAC 91/5)
>
> 48. The Chair explained that Defra and FSA had asked SEAC to
>
> review the arrangements for disposal of manure, crops and
>
> livestock from an experimental farm on which BSE research had
>
> been conducted.
>
> 49. Dr Danny Matthews (VLA) outlined the geography and usage of
>
> areas of the farm and the arrangements made for treatment and
>
> disposal of animal excreta and milk. It was noted that SEAC had
>
> previously advised that manure from orally-challenged animals
>
> should be incinerated for the first 28 days. Thereafter the excreta
>
> should be composted for a year and then could be used to fertilise
>
> arable lands. No new scientific information was available to refine
>
> this assessment and the effect of such measures had not been
>
> experimentally tested. As prion protein concentrations in excreta
>
> are low, it would be difficult to analyse infectivity levels
>
> experimentally. The 28 day period was derived from the time
>
> taken for materials to pass through the digestive tract of ruminants.
>
> 50. Members asked whether composting would help to reduce the
>
> concentration of abnormal prion protein. Dr Matthews replied that
>
> there is evidence that some bacterial enzymes are capable of
>
> digesting prion protein although this may not completely remove
>
> TSE infectivity.
>
> 51. A member asked about the type of material transported to Drayton
>
> Farm from VLA Weybridge. Dr Matthews explained that manure
>
> from around 80 cattle orally challenged with BSE, 30 challenged
>
> intracerebrally with BSE and 40 BSE-infected sheep contributed to
>
> the waste at Drayton Farm. Most of this material had been
>
> composted for periods of 1 to 16 years at Weybridge.
>
> 52. A member asked whether mouse bioassays had been conducted
>
> on faeces from clinical BSE cases. Dr Matthews explained that
>
> mouse bioassays on faeces from animals at 32 months post-BSE
>
> inoculation (3 months before the onset of clinical signs) were
>
> negative. Additionally, gut tissue from naturally infected animals
>
> with clinical BSE was negative by mouse bioassay with very low
>
> levels of PrPSc detectable by immunohistochemistry.
>
> 53. A member asked about the possible persistence of TSE agents in
>
> the environment, following the failure of a scrapie control
>
> programme in Iceland being attributed to the persistence of scrapie
>
> agent in the environment. Dr Matthews responded that the
>
> interpretation of the Iceland study was controversial. However,
>
> VLA studies showed that scrapie infectivity could persist in pasture
>
> for at least 2 months following contamination with excreta from
>
> infected animals.
>
> 54. Members noted that the buildings that had housed experimentally
>
> infected animals had been cleaned and treated with 20 000 ppm
>
> sodium hypochlorite. Members agreed that there is a negligible
>
> risk of BSE transmission to healthy animals housed in these
>
> buildings and that these animals could be used for commercial
>
> slaughter or other purposes. It was noted that the present animal
>
> tracing system would identify the origin of all animals from the site.
>
> 55. Members noted that there is no evidence to suggest that crops
>
> grown on land which had received manure from healthy control
>
>
>
> animals would present a TSE risk. Operating procedures prevent
>
> cross-contamination of manure from experimentally challenged
>
> and control animals.
>
> 56. Members considered that there is no evidence that crops grown on
>
> the land which received composted excreta from BSE-challenged
>
> animals pose a TSE risk to humans or animals. One member
>
> suggested that, as some of these animals are orally challenged
>
> with high doses of BSE-infected materials, and the distribution of
>
> infectivity in the digestive system is not completely understood, it
>
> might be premature to conclude that there is no infective agent in
>
> the manure.
>
>
>
> ===========================================
>
> Furthermore, an unpublished study had indicated low
>
> level absorption of PrP from soil by tomato plants although it
>
> should be noted that this study had not been repeated. Details of
>
> this work would be sent to the SEAC Secretary.
>
> ========================
>
>
>
> Dr Matthews
>
> explained that most of the manure from animals challenged with
>
> high doses of BSE had already been composted and used for
>
> coppicing. Members agreed that the risks from disposal of residual
>
> manure from experimental animals would be much less than
>
> historic risks of on farm contamination from naturally infected
>
> animals at the height of the BSE epidemic.
>
> 57. Members agreed that there is there is no evidence to suggest that
>
> there is a TSE risk to humans or animals from the unrestricted
>
> movement of healthy sheep grazed on the grassland to which
>
> manure from non-BSE cattle was applied. In addition, there is no
>
> evidence to suggest there is a TSE risk from moving wood chips,
>
> harvested from the willow coppices planted at Drayton, grown on
>
> land that received manure from BSE challenged animals that had
>
> been composted for 12 months.
>
> snip...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/draft91.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
>
>
>
> WE all know how terribly flawed the June 2004 Enhanced BSE surveillance
> was, the first 500,000 test should not even have been counted, and this
> was even confirmed by one of the top prion gods, Dr. Paul Brown, where he
> stated ;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
> picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is
> thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they
> consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,
> incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated
> with the mad cow pathogen.
>
> "The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
> other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
> National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
> Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
> International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer
> that."
>
> Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
> cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
> United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
> one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
> that initially tested positive.
>
> USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected
> seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector
> general.
>
> "Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything they did before
> 2005 suspect," Brown said.
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-128
> 4r
>
>
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>
>
>
> December 20,2005
>
> Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
>
> Food and Drug Administration
>
> 5630 Fishers Lane
>
> Room 1061
>
> Rockville, MD 20852
>
> Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)
>
> Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed
>
> Dear Sir or Madame:
>
> As scientists and Irecognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs
> for
>
> decades, we are deeply concerned by the recent discoveries of indigenous
> BSE infected
>
> cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments
> to this very
>
> important proposed rule We strongly supported the measures that USDA and
> FDA
>
> implemented to protect public health after the discovery of the case of
> bovine spongiform
>
> encephalopathy (BSE) found in Washington State in 2003. We know of no
> event or
>
> discovery since then that could justify relaxing the existing specified
> risk material
>
> (SRM) and non-ambulatory bans and surveillance that were implemented at
> that time.
>
> Further, we strongly supported the codification of those changes, as well
> as additional
>
> measures to strengthen the entire feed and food system. The discovery of
> additional
>
> cases of indigenous BSE in North America since that time has validated our
> position and
>
> strengthened OUT convictions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a
> justification to relax or
>
> impede further actions. While this surveillance has not uncovered an
> epidemic, it does
>
> not clear the US cattle herd from infection. While it is highly likely
> that US and
>
> Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE prior to the 1997 feed ban, we do not
> know how
>
> many cattle were infected or how widely the infection was dispersed. BSE
> cases are
>
> most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced surveillance
> provides an 18
>
> month snapshot, it does uot negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle
> were exposed to
>
> BSE. We also do not know in any quantitative or controlled way how
> effective the feed
>
> ban has been, especially at the farm level. At this point we cannot even
> make a thorough
>
> assessment of the USDA surveillance as details such as age, risk category
> and regional
>
> distribution have not been released.
>
> A number of countries initially attempted to take partial steps in regard
> to feed controls
>
> only to face repeated disappointments in predicted downturns of the
> epidemic course.
>
> We in North America could do this experiment all over again, waiting for
> each new
>
> warning before adding more stringency to our control measures, or we can
> benefit from
>
> the experience of others and take decisive measures now to arrest any
> further
>
> development of underlying cases that is implicit in those already
> discovered to date.
>
> The discovery of 5 indigenous North American cases, including one born
> after the
>
> implementation of the current feed ban, should provide the necessary
> incentive to
>
> implement, monitor and enforce a comprehensive and protective feed ban
> that is more
>
> congruent with the measures that have been proven to be effective
> throughout the world.
>
> In particular, we urge the FDA to act without f&ther delay to strengthen
> the animal feed
>
> regulations by implementing the program proposed by the Canadian Food
> Inspection
>
> Agency (CFIA) in the December 11, 2004 Gazette. This includes removing all
> specified
>
> risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock from all animal feed. We also urge
> that the FDA
>
> discontinues the legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed
> back to
>
> ruminants (with the excelption of milk). Many of these exemptions do not
> exist in other
>
> countries.
>
> Bovine products and byproducts are used for both food and pharmaceuticals.
> These
>
> human uses require the highest level of safety. Because of the hardy
> nature of the BSE ............
>
> snip...FULL TEXT Dr. Paul Brown et al ;
>
>
>
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Infectivity surviving ashing to 600*C is (in my opinion) degradable but
> infective. based on Bown & Gajdusek, (1991), landfill and burial may be
> assumed to have a reduction factor of 98% (i.e. a factor of 50) over 3
> years. CJD-infected brain-tissue remained infectious after storing at
> room-temperature for 22 months (Tateishi et al, 1988). Scrapie agent is
> known to remain viable after at least 30 months of desiccation (Wilson et
> al, 1950). and pastures that had been grazed by scrapie-infected sheep
> still appeared to be contaminated with scrapie agent three years after
> they were last occupied by sheep (Palsson, 1979).
>
>
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out58_en.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PAUL BROWN SCRAPIE SOIL TEST
>
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/sc/seac07/tab03.pdf
>
>
>
> Disposal of meat and bone meal (MBM) derived from specified risk material
> (SRM) and over thirty month scheme carcasses by landfill
> The Committee was asked to consider a quantitative risk assessment of the
> disposal of meat and bone meal derived from specified risk material and
> over thirty month scheme carcasses by landfill, prepared in response to a
> request from the Committee at its June 1999 meeting.
>
> The Committee was asked whether, in the light of the results of the risk
> assessment, it held to its earlier published (June 1999) view that landfill
> was an acceptable outlet for MBM of any origin, although it retained a
> preference for incineration. The Committee reiterated that it had a strong
> preference for incineration as the favoured route for the disposal of MBM
> and were uneasy about the use of landfill for the disposal of this
> material. If there were cases where incineration was not practical the
> Committee felt it would be preferable for any material going to landfill
> to be pressure-cooked first or possibly stored above ground prior to
> incineration.
>
> http://www.seac.gov.uk/summaries/summ_0700.htm
>
>
> Disposal of BSE suspect carcases
> It is the Department's policy to dispose of BSE suspects by incineration
> wherever feasible. No BSE suspect carcases have been landfilled since 1991.
>
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/publichealth/notification.html#disp
>
>
> OPINION ON
>
> THE USE OF BURIAL FOR DEALING WITH ANIMAL
>
> CARCASSES AND OTHER ANIMAL MATERIALS THAT
>
> MIGHT CONTAIN BSE/TSE
>
> ADOPTED BY THE
>
> SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE
>
> MEETING OF 16-17 JANUARY 2003
>
> The details of the SSC's evaluation are provided in the attached report.
> The SSC
>
> concludes as follows:
>
> (1) The term "burial" includes a diversity of disposal conditions. Although
> burial is
>
> widely used for disposal of waste the degradation process essential for
> BSE/TSE
>
> infectivity reduction is very difficult to control. The extent to which
> such an
>
> infectivity reduction can occur as a consequence of burial is poorly
> characterised.
>
> It would appear to be a slow process in various circumstances.
>
> (2) A number of concerns have been identified including potential for
> groundwater
>
> contamination, dispersal/transmission by birds/animals/insects, accidental
>
> uncovering by man.
>
> (3) In the absence of any new data the SSC confirms its previous opinion
> that animal
>
> material which could possibly be contaminated with BSE/TSEs, burial poses a
>
> risk except under highly controlled conditions (e.g., controlled landfill).
>
> SNIP...
>
> 4. CONCLUSION
>
> In the absence of new evidence the opinion of the SSC "Opinion on Fallen
> Stock"
>
> (SSC 25th June 1999) must be endorsed strongly that land burial of all
> animals and
>
> material derived from them for which there is a possibility that they could
>
> incorporate BSE/TSEs poses a significant risk. Only in exceptional
> circumstances
>
> where there could be a considerable delay in implementing a safe means of
> disposal
>
> should burial of such materials be considered. Guidelines should be made
> available
>
> to aid on burial site selection.
>
> 4 PAGES;
>
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out309_en.pdf
>
>
>
> During the 2001 outbreak of FMD in the UK, the
>
> Department of Health prepared a rapid qualitative
>
> assessment of the potential risks to human health
>
> associated with various methods of carcass disposal
>
> (UK Department of Health, 2001c). The most
>
> relevant hazards to human health resulting from
>
> burial were identified as bacteria pathogenic to
>
> humans, water-borne protozoa, and BSE. The main
>
> potential route identified was contaminated water
>
> supplies, and the report generally concluded that an
>
> engineered licensed landfill would always be
>
> preferable to unlined burial. In general terms, the
>
> findings of the qualitative assessment relative to
>
> biological agents are summarized in Table 13.
>
> TABLE 13. Potential health hazards and associated pathways of exposure
> resulting from landfill or burial of
>
> animal carcasses (adapted from UK Department of Health, 2001c).
>
> PLEASE SEE TABLE AT;
>
>
> http://www.k-state.edu/projects/fss/research/books/carcassdispfiles/PDF%20F
> iles/CH%201%20-%20Burial.pdf
>
>
>
> PART 2
>
> Rendering and fixed-facility incineration were
>
> preferred, but the necessary resources were not
>
> immediately available and UK officials soon learned
>
> that the capacity would only cover a portion of the
>
> disposal needs. Disposal in commercial landfills was
>
> seen as the next best environmental solution, but
>
> legal, commercial, and local community problems
>
> limited landfill use. With these limitations in mind,
>
> pyre burning was the actual initial method used but
>
> was subsequently discontinued following increasing
>
> public, scientific, and political concerns. Mass burial
>
> and on-farm burial were last on the preferred
>
> method list due to the complicating matter of bovine
>
> spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the risk posed
>
> to groundwater (Hickman & Hughes, 2002).
>
>
> http://www.k-state.edu/projects/fss/research/books/carcassdispfiles/PDF%20F
> iles/Introduction%20to%20Part%202%20-%20Cross-Cutting%20&%20Policy%20Issues
> .pdf
>
>
>
> Carcase disposal:
>
> A Major Problem of the
>
> 2001 FMD Outbreak
>
> Gordon Hickman and Neil Hughes, Disposal Cell,
>
> FMD Joint Co-ordination Centre, Page Street
>
> snip...
>
>
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/svj/fmd/pages27-40.pdf
>
>
> 3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach
> was to accord it a _very low profile indeed_. Dr. A Thiermann showed
> the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and
> thought this was a fanatical incident to be _avoided_ in the US _at all
> costs_...
>
> snip...
>
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf
>
>
>
>
> Some unofficial information from a source on the inside looking out -
>
> Confidential!!!!
>
> As early as 1992-3 there had been long studies conducted on small
> pastures containing scrapie infected sheep at the sheep research station
> associated with the Neuropathogenesis Unit in Edinburgh, Scotland.
> Whether these are documented...I don't know. But personal recounts both
> heard and recorded in a daily journal indicate that leaving the pastures
> free and replacing the topsoil completely at least 2 feet of thickness
> each year for SEVEN years....and then when very clean (proven scrapie
> free) sheep were placed on these small pastures.... the new sheep also
> broke out with scrapie and passed it to offspring. I am not sure that TSE
> contaminated ground could ever be free of the agent!!
> A very frightening revelation!!!
>
> ----------
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
>
>
>
> THE TRIPLE SSS policy of shoot, shovel, and shut the hell up is a common
> practice not only in Texas, and this admitted a common practice by the
> TAHC, it is also practice used across America and Canada. ALL these
> suspect cattle that were not tested properly were put somewhere? either we
> consumed them, or they were rendered and fed to pets, and or spread on
> your tomato plants. i bet them tomato plants would still grow if that
> manure and blood was not spread in the soil they grow in. vegheads be
> warned. ...TSS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> INDEED, for the ones that lost there loved ones to a human TSE, why don't
> you write them too ;
>
>
>
>
>
> Contact Your Representatives about EPA Superfund Regulations
> Support H.R. 4341 to Exempt Manure from CERCLA/EPCRA Regulations
>
>
>
> On November 17, 2005, Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX) and 29 of his
> colleagues in the House introduced H.R. 4341, a bill that would amend
> CERCLA/EPCRA to prevent the possibility for manure to be considered a
> hazardous substance under these Acts. This issue truly does have the
> potential to impact each and every cattle producer in America.
>
> It is critical for all cattle producers to understand the scope of this
> potential regulation. If opponents of animal agriculture are successful
> in their efforts to bring manure under Superfund regulations, any cattle
> producer that spreads manure on a pasture or provides it for use as a
> fertilizer by someone else is subject to EPA's Superfund laws, originally
> intended to address hazardous and toxic industrial chemical spills.
>
> It is important for all cattle producers and livestock operators to
> clearly communicate to their members of Congress that livestock manure is
> NOT a Superfund material and cattle operations are NOT Superfund sites.
> Furthermore, we must stress that now is the time for Congress to clarify
> its original intent for the CERCLA/EPCRA statues.
>
> Please contact your member of Congress to urge him or her to support H.R.
> 4341. Below, you will find a complete list of co-sponsors of H.R. 4341 as
> of March 17, 2006. If your Representative has not co-sponsored this
> important legislation, please contact him or her today. For your
> convenience, follow the instructions to send the customizable message
> below to urge your member of Congress to support H.R. 4341.
>
> If you have any questions, feel free to contact Jenni Beck at
> jbeck@beef.org or (202) 347-0228.
>
> Co-Sponsors of H.R. 4341 Introduced by Ralph Hall (R-4th, TX)
>
> Ralph Hall (R-TX)
> Roy Blunt (R-MO)
> Collin Peterson (D-MN)
> Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
> Henry Bonilla (R-TX)
> Butch Otter (R-ID)
> Mike Conaway (R-TX)
> Nathan Deal (R-GA)
> Tim Holden (D-PA)
> Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
> Heather Wilson (R-NM)
> John Carter (R-TX)
> Charles Norwood (R-TX)
> William Thornberry (R-TX)
> Pete Sessions (R-TX)
> Jim Costa (D-CA)
> Lamar Smith (R-TX)
> Tom Osborne (R-NE)
> Mike Simpson (R-ID)
> Charles Pickering (R-MS)
> Mike Ross (D-AR)
> Robin Hayes (R-NC)
> Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
> Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
> Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
> Ron Paul (R-TX)
> Kevin Brady (R-TX)
> Richard Pombo (R-CA)
> John Salazar (D-CO)
> John Shadegg (R-AZ)
> Jack Kingston (R-GA)
> Marion Berry (D-AR)
> George Radanovich (R-CA)
> Stephanie Herseth (D-SD)
> Don Sherwood (R-PA)
> David Scott (D-GA)
> Sue Myrick (R-NC)
> Sam Graves (R-MO)
> Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
> Bob Beauprez (R-CO)
> Walter B Jones, Jr. (R-NC)
> Jerry Moran (R-KS)
> Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
> Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
> Dan Burton (R-IN)
> Fred Upton (R-MI)
> Mike Pence (R-IN)
> Dennis Rehberg (R-MT)
> Charles Dent (R-PA)
> Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
> Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
> Michael McCaul (R-TX)
> Richard Baker (R-LA)
> Michael Sodrel (R-IN)
> Jeff Miller (R-FL)
> Virgil Goode (R-VA)
> Barbara Cubin, Barbara (R-WY)
> John Boozman (R-AR)
> Melissa Hart (R-PA)
> Phil English (R-PA)
> Nick Rahall (D-WV)
> Steve King (R-IA)
> G.K. Butterfiel (D-NC)
> Jo Bonne (R-AL)
> Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
> Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)
> Kenny Hulshof (R-MO)
> Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
> Artur Davis (D-AL)
> John Murtha (D-PA)
> Bill Shuster (R-PA)
> Tim Murphy (R-PA)
> Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
> Terry Everett (R-AL)
> Frank Lucas (R-OK)
> John Doolittle (R-CA)
> Randy Kuhl (R-NY)
> Todd Platts (R-PA)
> Bud Cramer (D-AL)
> Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
> Tom Latham (R-IA)
> Greg Walden (R-OR)
>
>
>
> http://capwiz.com/beefusa/issues/alert/?alertid=8255626&type=CO
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk
> (GBR) of the United States of America (USA) Last updated: 19 July 2005
> Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)
>
> Report
> Summary
> Summary of the Scientific Report
>
> The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group
> on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an
> up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America,
> i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected
> with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific
> report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering
> the period 1980-2003.
>
> The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached
> domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in
> the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and
> therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is
> possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached
> domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.
>
> A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports
> from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed
> (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued
> to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle,
> infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of
> the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of
> cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
>
> EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely
> but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically)
> infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes
> in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable.
> Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically)
> infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Publication date: 20 August 2004
>
>
> http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_bio
> haz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf
>
>
>
> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
>
>
>
> TSS
>
>
>
> Thank you for considering this request.
>
> I am Sincerely,
>
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "National Cattlemen's Beef Association"
To: "National Cattlemen's Beef Association"
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Thank You for Supporting NCBA in Washington,D.C.


> Thank you for taking the time to contact your Representative regarding the regulation of manure as a Superfund waste. This issue truly has the potential to impact every cattle producer in America, and to preserve our businesses and way of life, we must make our voices heard! Please encourage all of your friends, neighbors and fellow cattlemen to do the same.
>
> NCBA's efforts in Washington, D.C. would not be possible without the support of devoted producers like you. Please re-visit http://capwiz.com/beefusa regularly to view all of the latest issues that need your support.
>
> Thank you, again. If you have any questions or need help with anything, feel free to contact Jenni Beck in NCBA's Washington, D.C. office at jbeck@beef.org or (202) 347-0228.
>
>
> TSS



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: