SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST

Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty
to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program


An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled
guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government
funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his
company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when
they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and
then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services.
In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle
that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors
for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be
submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy
USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently
received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled
for May 2007.


snip...


Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1 include:

soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),


implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System
enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and
improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),


snip...


The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and
investigations are completed.


4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf

-MORE
Office of the United States Attorney
District of Arizona
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Information Contact Public Affairs
February 16, 2007 WYN HORNBUCKLE
Telephone: (602) 514-7625
Cell: (602) 525-2681

CORPORATION AND ITS PRESIDENT PLEAD GUILTY
TO DEFRAUDING GOVERNMENT’S MAD COW DISEASE
SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

PHOENIX -- Farm Fresh Meats, Inc. and Roland Emerson Farabee, 55, of
Maricopa, Arizona, pleaded guilty to stealing $390,000 in government funds, mail fraud and wire
fraud, in federal district court in Phoenix. U.S. Attorney Daniel Knauss stated, “The integrity of the system that tests
for mad cow disease relies upon the honest cooperation of enterprises like Farm Fresh Meats. Without that honest
cooperation, consumers both in the U.S. and internationally are at risk. We
want to thank the USDA’s Office of Inspector General for their continuing efforts to safeguard the
public health and enforce the law.” Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee were charged by Information with theft of
government funds, mail fraud and wire fraud. According to the Information, on June 7, 2004,
Farabee, on behalf of Farm Fresh Meats, signed a contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the
“USDA Agreement”) to collect obex samples from cattle at high risk of mad cow disease (the
“Targeted Cattle Population”). The Targeted Cattle Population consisted of the following cattle: cattle
over thirty months of age; nonambulatory cattle; cattle exhibiting signs of central nervous system disorders; cattle
exhibiting signs of mad cow disease; and dead cattle. Pursuant to the USDA Agreement, the USDA
agreed to pay Farm Fresh Meats $150 per obex sample for collecting obex samples from cattle
within the Targeted Cattle Population, and submitting the obex samples to a USDA laboratory for mad cow
disease testing. Farm Fresh Meats further agreed to maintain in cold storage the sampled cattle
carcasses and heads until the test results were received by Farm Fresh Meats.

Evidence uncovered during the government’s investigation established that Farm Fresh Meats
and Farabee submitted samples from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population. Specifically, Farm
Fresh Meats and Farabee submitted, or caused to be submitted, obex samples from healthy, USDA
inspected cattle, in order to steal government moneys.

Evidence collected also demonstrated that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee failed to maintain cattle carcasses and heads
pending test results and falsified corporate books and records to conceal their malfeasance. Such actions, to
the extent an obex sample tested positive (fortunately, none did), could have jeopardized the USDA’s
ability to identify the diseased animal and pinpoint its place of origin.
On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee pleaded guilty
to stealing government funds and using the mails and wires to effect the scheme.
According to their guilty pleas:

(a) Farm Fresh Meats collected, and Farabee directed others to collect, obex samples from cattle outside
the Targeted Cattle Population, which were not subject to payment by the USDA;

(b) Farm Fresh Meats 2 and Farabee caused to be submitted payment requests to the USDA knowing that
the requests were based on obex samples that were not subject to payment under the USDA
Agreement;

(c) Farm Fresh Meats completed and submitted, and Farabee directed others to complete and
submit, BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms to the USDA’s testing laboratory that were false and
misleading;

(d) Farm Fresh Meats completed and submitted, and Farabee directed others to complete and
submit, BSE Surveillance Submission Forms filed with the USDA that were false and misleading;

(e) Farm Fresh Meats falsified, and Farabee directed others to falsify, internal Farm Fresh Meats documents
to conceal the fact that Farm Fresh Meats was seeking and obtaining payment from the USDA for obex
samples obtained from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population; and

(f) Farm Fresh Meats failed to comply with, and Farabee directed others to fail to comply with, the USDA Agreement by
discarding cattle carcasses and heads prior to receiving BSE test results. A conviction for theft of government funds carries
a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Mail fraud and wire fraud convictions carry a maximum penalty
of 20 years imprisonment. Convictions for the above referenced violations also carry a maximum fine of $250,000
for individuals and $500,000 for organizations. In determining an actual sentence, Judge Earl H. Carroll
will consult the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide appropriate sentencing ranges. The judge,
however, is not bound by those guidelines in determining a sentence.

Sentencing is set before Judge Earl H. Carroll on May 14, 2007. The investigation in this case was conducted by Assistant
Special Agent in Charge Alejandro Quintero, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. The prosecution
is being handled by Robert Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona, Phoenix.
CASE NUMBER: CR-07-00160-PHX-EHC RELEASE NUMBER: 2007-051(Farabee)
# # #


http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2007/2007-051(Farabee).pdf

WE can only hope that this is a single incident. BUT i have my doubts. I remember when the infamous TOKEN Purina Feed Mill in Texas was feeding up to 5.5 grams of potentially and probably tainted BANNED RUMINANT feed to cattle, and the FDA was bragging at the time that the amount of potentially BANNED product was so little and the cattle were so big ;


"It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated."

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html


On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed. ... FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html


WE now know all that was a lie. WE know that literally Thousands of TONS of BANNED and most likely tainted product is still going out to commerce. WE know now and we knew then that .005 to a gram was lethal. WE know that CWD infected deer and elk, scrapie infected sheep, BSE and BASE infected cattle have all been rendered and fed back to livestock (including cattle) for human and animal consumption.


Paul Brown, known and respected TSE scientist, former TSE
expert for the CDC said he had ''absolutely no confidence in USDA tests
before one year ago'', and this was on March 15, 2006 ;

"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 USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end

http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r


CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ... Dr. Paul
Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous
System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05,
...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm


PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM

"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow
issue for some years, and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy
detailed critiques and recommendations to both the USDA and the Canadian
Food Agency."


OR, what the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG found ;


Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle
Still Remain

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf

Table 1. Animal feed ingredients that are legally used in U.S. animal feeds

Animal


Rendered animal protein from Meat meal, meat meal tankage, meat and bone
meal, poultry meal, animal the slaughter of food by-product meal, dried
animal blood, blood meal, feather meal, egg-shell production animals and
other meal, hydrolyzed whole poultry, hydrolyzed hair, bone marrow, and
animal animals digest from dead, dying, diseased, or disabled animals
including deer and elk Animal waste Dried ruminant waste, dried swine waste,
dried poultry litter, and undried processed animal waste products


snip...


Conclusions


Food-animal production in the United States has changed markedly in the past
century, and these changes have paralleled major changes in animal feed
formulations. While this industrialized system of food-animal production may
result in increased production efficiencies, some of the changes in animal
feeding practices may result in unintended adverse health consequences for
consumers of animal-based food products. Currently, the use of animal feed
ingredients,
including rendered animal products, animal waste, antibiotics, metals, and
fats, could result in higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant
bacteria, prions, arsenic, and dioxinlike compounds in animals and resulting
animal-based food products intended for human consumption. Subsequent human
health effects among consumers could include increases in bacterial
infections (antibioticresistant and nonresistant) and increases in the risk
of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases
such as vCJD. Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of potential human
health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there are
little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts
of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed.
In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on
complete U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed on retail meat
products; and human health effects data are not appropriately linked to this
information. These surveillance inadequacies make it difficult to conduct
rigorous epidemiologic studies and risk assessments
that could identify the extent to which specific human health risks are
ultimately associated with animal feeding practices. For example, as noted
above, there are insufficient data to determine whether other human
foodborne bacterial illnesses besides those caused by S. enterica serotype
Agona are associated with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there are
insufficient data to determine the percentage of antibiotic-resistant human
bacterial infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic use of
antibiotics in animal feed. Moreover, little research has been conducted to
determine whether the use of organoarsenicals in animal feed, which can lead
to elevated levels of arsenic in meat products (Lasky et al. 2004),
contributes to increases in cancer risk. In order to address these research
gaps, the following principal actions are necessary within the United
States: a) implementation of a nationwide reporting system of the specific
amounts and types of feed ingredients of concern to public health that are
incorporated into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals, rendered
animal products, fats, and animal waste; b) funding and development of
robust surveillance systems that monitor biological, chemical, and other
etiologic agents throughout the animal-based food-production chain “from
farm to fork” to human health outcomes; and c) increased communication and
collaboration among feed professionals, food-animal producers, and
veterinary and public health officials.


REFERENCES...snip...end


Sapkota et al.
668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf


NOW, what about the product that is not reported ?

HOW many more Farm Fresh Meats, Inc. and Roland Emerson Farabee's are out there that submitted bogus samples for the infamous June 2004 ENHANCED BSE MAD COW COVER-UP, but did not get caught ?

IT was not bad enough to have the USDA et al bungle there own BSE Testing Protocols up so bad, it took Weybridge and a year of hounding by s o m e, and finally an act of Congress to finally get that cow confirmed, but once caught there, i guess the next best thing would be to have bogus BSE testing samples submitted for testing from healthy USDA cattle, what next ? not to forget about the other stumbling and staggering Tejas mad cow they rendered without any test at all, and the other Tejas mad cow that took 7+ months and an act of Congress to finally get confirmed from Weybridge. my God, even the three stooges, laural and hardy put all together could have thought up all this. $$$


The beef import forecast for the second quarter was unchanged from last month’s,
despite pressure from higher-than-expected domestic cow slaughter that has
remained high through most of this period. Beef imports into the United States
from Australia, New Zealand, and Uruguay provide additional processing beef that,
along with domestic cow and bull beef, is mixed with 50-percent trim from fed
cattle to make ground beef. Forecast beef exports were raised slightly, mainly on
continued (though gradual) improvements in sales to major Asian markets. In late
May the World Animal Health Organization – known by its French acronym, OIE –
designated the United States as having “controlled risk status” for bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. This designation reflects the OIE’s view that
beef produced in the United States is safe for export, since BSE control measures
such as feed bans and removal of specified risk materials result in negligible risk to
consumers. However, the OIE standards are only guidelines. Individual countries
may adopt differing standards, and those countries that do accept OIE standards
must still undertake the bureaucratic processes to revise their rules and procedures.


http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/2007/06Jun/ldpm156.pdf

(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006)

11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate
declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries.
The OIE is not responsible for inaccurate publication of country disease
status based on inaccurate information or changes in epidemiological status or other
significant events that were not promptly reported to then Central Bureau............

http://www.oie.int/eng/Session2007/RF2006.pdf


daaa. ...


P.S. Thank You Honorable Phyllis Fong for trying to keep them straight anyway. ...TSS



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: