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

From: TSS ()
Date: July 12, 2007 at 10:52 am PST


CALGARY, Alberta, July 12, 2007 - The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), announced that effective today, certain cattle tissues that are capable of transmitting BSE, known as specified risk material (SRM), are banned from all animal feed, pet food and fertilizer.

"Canada's New Government, in partnership with provincial governments and the industry, has taken a significant step towards accelerating the elimination of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from Canadian cattle," said Minister Strahl. "These new measures will help increase access to foreign markets, and support Canada's status as a controlled risk country for BSE from the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)."

Under the enhanced feed ban, producers can no longer feed any animal products containing SRM to livestock and abattoirs must properly identify SRM to ensure that it is removed from the feed system. In addition, a permit from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is required to handle, transport or dispose of cattle carcasses and certain cattle tissues. This system enables continuous control over SRM, so that it does not enter the animal feed system.

The enhanced feed ban was first announced on June 26, 2006. Provincial governments, stakeholder industry groups, including the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Meat Council, and rendering operations have provided invaluable leadership during the implementation period to achieve the highest levels of readiness.

The effective implementation of Canada's enhanced feed ban will ensure the protection of animal health, and strengthen the cattle and beef industry's markets in Canada and abroad. Canada's New Government is committed to a future where BSE is eliminated from Canada's cattle herds. Earlier, in May 2007, the World Organization for Animal Health gave the official designation to Canada as a BSE Controlled Risk country.

In order to assist the industry to put in place the infrastructure for effective SRM disposal, the federal government is investing $80 million in provincial SRM disposal programs. Provincial SRM disposal programs are supported through 60:40 federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements, which are now in place with most provinces.

Anyone who has questions about the enhanced feed ban or the permit application process is urged to contact the CFIA at 1-800-442-2342 or visit


What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health

Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA


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


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



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
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.


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


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: