|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: TSS ()
Latest Information FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C. This finding does not affect the safety of Canadian beef. Tissues in which BSE is known to concentrate in infected animals are removed from all cattle slaughtered in Canada for domestic and international human consumption. No part of this animal entered the human food or animal feed systems. Preliminary investigations conducted prior to receiving final results identified the animal’s exact date of birth and birth farm — two critical elements required to trace other animals of interest, as defined by the World Organization for Animal Health. With the confirmed positive results and this information already in hand, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has immediately undertaken the animal component of its investigation on a priority basis. The CFIA is also conducting a thorough examination of potential sources of infection. Investigators will pay particular attention to the feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life, when cattle are most susceptible to BSE. The CFIA is collecting records of feed purchased by and used on the animal’s birth farm. As in previous investigations, the CFIA will also fully consider all other scientific pathways in an attempt to definitively determine how the animal became infected. This animal, a six-year-old dairy cow, developed BSE after the implementation of Canada’s feed ban. Similar situations are common to almost all BSE-affected countries that have introduced feed controls. Although the design, implementation and compliance of Canada’s feed ban have been rigorously assessed by a number of countries over the past several years, and have been described as robust and effectively enforced, the Government is committed to continuously making improvements where possible. An enhanced feed ban would accelerate the eradication of BSE in Canada. Accordingly, the CFIA has published proposed regulatory amendments, and following extensive consultations, is now in the process of finalizing their content. The feed ban and national surveillance program which identified this animal, contribute to Canada's interlocking BSE controls. While the feed ban continues to limit the spread of BSE, Canada's national surveillance program effectively monitors the health of the Canadian cattle herd. The national surveillance program, which targets cattle most at risk of having BSE, has tested more than 100,000 such animals since 2003. The detection of only five animals within this high-risk population over the past three years and the age of the animals detected supports the conclusion that the level of BSE in Canada is very low and declining. The strong participation of producers to facilitate the detection of any suspect cases at the farm level, as demonstrated once again by this most recent finding, and the close collaboration between the Provinces and Federal Government in the surveillance effort demonstrates the shared commitment which exists to protect animal and human health in Canada. In keeping with its ongoing practice, the CFIA will post to its website updated information as it becomes available. - 30 - For information: Canadian Food Inspection Agency http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2006/20060416e.shtml C A N A D I A N F O O D I N S P E C T I O N A G E N C Y F E E D B A N R E V I E W March 2, 2005 snip... Mammalian-to-ruminant Feed Ban: Refers to the 1997 Health of Animals Regulations that prohibits feeding protein derived from mammals to ruminant animals such as cows, sheep, deer, etc., with the exception of porcine- or equine-derived protein. snip... Canada’s feed ban prohibits feeding most mammalian proteins to ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep and goats. The ban requires rendering facilities, feed manufacturers, feed retailers and livestock producers to follow and document production and feeding procedures to prevent the inclusion of prohibited materials in feed and feed ingredients intended for ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep and goats. snip... 1.3 Canada’s feed industry The feed ban regulations apply to Canada’s feed and livestock industry, which consists of rendering plants, commercial feed mills (that manufacture half of Canada’s production), and feed retailers. The regulations also apply to on-farm feed mills and farms that feed cattle and other ruminants. The feed sector is Canada’s 16th largest manufacturing industry, with annual production of 15 million metric tonnes. It employs about 9,000 people. The value of production from this sector is $3.5 billion annually. In addition to the feed sold in Canada, feed is exported (primarily to the US), and feed from the US is also distributed and sold in Canada. Swine, dairy and poultry feed accounts for 85% of all feed produced and sold by Canadian feed manufacturers. The chart below depicts a typical feed cycle showing the feed inputs from farms, abattoirs and dead stock that enter the feed manufacturing cycle. The product enters through the rendering process and is passed through to the feed mills and distributors. snip... Canada’s rendering industry It is important to note that only six of the 29 rendering facilities have a permit from the CFIA that authorizes them to handle both prohibited and non-prohibited material. Two thirds of the 29 rendering facilities in Canada are owned and operated by large corporations. These corporations include international vertically integrated food companies. Seven rendering facilities are attached to federally registered slaughter plants, which helps to ensure that these companies have very tight control over the rendering and disposition of raw material from their operations. In 2003, Canadian renderers processed approximately 2.2 million tonnes of inedible animal by-products. More than 50% (556,000 tonnes) of the products manufactured by rendering were protein meals (including blood meal). The remaining products were animal fats and fatty acids. In 2003, Canada produced approximately 478,000 tonnes of MBM (including cattle, pork, poultry and fish protein meals). In 2003, approximately 535,000 tonnes of animal fats, fatty acids and oils, and 77,600 tonnes of blood and feather protein meals were also produced. All of Canada’s rendering plants are members of the Animal Protein Producers Industry Association (APPI), and this association has sponsored the adoption of HACCP-based Quality Assurance Programs. A number of large rendering facilities representing 74 % of the production have implemented these process controls which include an audit by a third party to ensure compliance. snip... As a precautionary measure, Canada imposed a partial mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban on August 4, 1997. snip... The United States introduced similar regulations at the same time in an effort to institute a North American strategy to prevent BSE from gaining a foothold in the US and Canada. The Canadian and US regulations were harmonized. The provisions were similar in content and the timing of their application in order to maximize the integration of the North American feed system. A notable difference in Canadian regulation was the exclusion of poultry litter and plate waste from feeds. When the ban was introduced, a decision was reached not to recall the feed that was currently in the system, given the perceived low risk. All retailers were given a grace period until September 3, 1997 to use or distribute feed already produced. Feed manufactuerers received a grace period until October 3, 1997 to comply with labelling requirements. Livestock producers were given a grace period until October 3, 1997 to use the feed manufactured prior to the feed ban. The US also adopted these measures, given the similar risk profiles of the two countries. snip... Canada followed a responsive and precautionary approach with respect to developing the 1997 feed ban regulations Canada, along with international partners, had devoted considerable effort to controlling BSE over the decade leading up to the 1997 feed ban. The following is a chronology of events relating to BSE and the control measures Canada put in place to mitigate the spread of the disease: 1978 – Canada banned meat and bone meal (MBM) for livestock feed imported from the United Kingdom (as well as other countries) due to Foot and Mouth Disease. 1982 (to 1990) – Canada imported cattle from the UK. 1986 – BSE was first documented in the UK. 1988 – Importation of meat meal, bone meal, and blood meal were officially banned from all countries except the US 1990 – BSE was designated a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Act. 1990 – Canada prohibited further importation of cattle from the UK (a total of 191 animals had been imported from the U.K. during the period1982 - 1990). 1990 – Canada places UK origin cattle under an animal health monitoring program. 1992 – The National BSE surveillance program was implemented. 1993 – A cow imported from the U.K. that was in the monitoring program initiated in 1990 was confirmed infected with BSE. 1994 – All remaining UK cattle imports were either returned to the UK, or were euthanized. All tested negative for BSE. 1996 – World Health Organization recommended that all countries implement feed bans. 1997 – Canada and the United States implemented their respective mammalian protein feed bans (with some exceptions) as a precautionary measure in response to WHO recommendations. CFIA amended its National Feed Inspection Program to include the mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban regulations, which targeted renderers, feed manufactures, feed retailers and farms in order to verify compliance with the regulations. 2000 – CFIA suspended the importation of all rendered animal protein products, of any species, from any country that Canada did not recognize as free of BSE. 2001 – The creation of a Canadian Cattle Identification Program was instituted for cattle and bison, enhancing our ability to trace individual animals from the herd of origin to slaughter. 2003 – In May, Canada detected the first case of BSE in a cow born and reared in this country. 2003 – In July, Canada amended the Health of Animals Regulations and the Food and Drug Regulations to remove Specified Risk Material (SRM) from the human food supply. 2003 – In December, BSE was confirmed in a cow in Washington State that was imported from Canada. 2004 – In December, Canada proposed strengthening BSE precautionary measures by requiring all Specified Risk Material (SRM) to be removed from all animal feed. 2005 – On January 2 and 11, respectively, two additional cases of BSE were confirmed in indigenous Canadian cattle. snip... Figure 1 shows that industry compliance, on a plant-by-plant basis, has been in the 92-97% range for feed mills and 90-97% range for renderers over the last three fiscal years. Figure 1 also shows major non-compliance items and indicates the low rate of such non-compliance. (Minor items have not been included.) The breakdown between major and minor non-compliance items is presented in Appendix 3. Figure 3 in Appendix 3 indicates how including “minor” non-compliance items affects overall compliance rates for feed mills and renderers. As noted above, major items can potentially result in cross-contamination whereas minor non-compliance items relate to administrative items (i.e. paperwork). Figure 2 illustrates the compliance trends at feed mills and rendering plants for this period for all BSE-related tasks. Overall compliance has been high and it has been improving during the period examined. snip...see full text 33 pages ; http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/revexa/revexae.pdf Questions and Answers The CFIA took significant steps to increase awareness of the ban and to help industry integrate the ban’s requirements into standard feed production practices. Annual feed ban inspections require feed mills and rendering facilities to obtain a satisfactory rating on numerous BSE-related tasks. These tasks can be categorized as high-risk and low-risk.Low risk tasks are primarily administrative in nature. High-risk tasks, such as flushing procedures, relate to those activities that are most important to prevent the potential cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited material. The review determined that compliance with the feed ban’s requirements at rendering facilities and feed mills is high. On average, 95% of feed mills and 93% of rendering facilities have been fully compliant with all high-risk tasks over the past three years. The CFIA requires industry to take immediate corrective action in all cases of non-compliance with high-risk tasks. Non-compliance with low-risk tasks must also be rectified. In addition, not all cattle are equally susceptible to developing BSE. Moreover, the USDA report concluded that Canada’s feed ban, which is similar to that of the United States, is effectively limiting the transmission of BSE through feed. CANADIAN FEED POLICY AND BSE Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION USE OF ANIMAL PROTEIN IN FEED REGULATIONS COVERING BSE-RELATED FEED CONTROL A. The 1997 Feed Ban FEED IMPORTS A. Import Policy CONCLUSION: BANNING “CANNIBALISM” IN THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY? APPENDIX 1 – CURRENT AND PREVIOUS BSE IMPORT POLICIES APPENDIX 2 – DATA ON SELECTED CANADIAN IMPORTS, 1995-2003 In 1997, rendered protein products derived from almost all mammals were Canadian producers may feed their ruminants only approved animal protein http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0506-f.htm Prepared by: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0412-e.htm http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0412-f.htm Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT BSE BSE IN CANADA BEFORE 2003 MAY 2003: A NEW CASE OF MAD COW DISEASE BSE: THE NORTH AMERICAN ISSUE CONSEQUENCES FOR CANADA’S CATTLE INDUSTRY CONCLUSION CHRONOLOGY APPENDIX: BEEF PRODUCT EXPORTS see full text; EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_v2_en1.pdf http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf USA AND MEXICO EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical Marie A. Vodicka, PhD Assistant Vice President Biologics & Blotechnology Scientlflc & Regulatory Affairs SCIENCE & REG AFFAIRS Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, rrn . 1061 Rackville, MD 20862 Re: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed Rule, No. 2002N-0273 February 14, 2006 Dear Sir or Madam : The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is comment to the proposed rules issued. ...... snip... http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000534-01-vol45.pdf Subject: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances 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 decades, we are deeply concerned by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to snip... Given that BSE can be transmitted to cattle via an oral route with just .OO1 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: The McDonald’s Corporation buys more beef than any other restaurant in the essential for our customers and our company that the beef has the highest Concerning BSE, ........... snip....... http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273_emc-000134-02.pdf THE SEVEN 1/2 SCIENTIST REPORT ON BSE/TSE *** http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed Comment Number: EC -10 Accepted - Volume 2 PART 2 Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD; http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm
|
