SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: R-CALF TO JOHANNS ON USA BSe VS CANADA BSE July 26, 2007 $$$
Date: July 28, 2007 at 10:09 am PST

In Reply to: R-CALF TO JOHANNS ON USA BSe VS CANADA BSE July 26, 2007 $$$ posted by TSS on July 28, 2007 at 9:06 am:

Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:30
68.238.98.6


Subject: Re: Birth cohort of CANADIAN BSE-positive animal was exported to
the United States
Date: April 10, 2007 at 10:33 am PST

"It most likely" entered the food supply "given that it was slaughtered,"
said Karen Eggert, a spokeswoman with USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.


"But it wouldn't have gone to slaughter if it was showing any clinical signs
for BSE. We're not looking at this as a possibility that a BSE infected cow
got into the United States," she said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1040765520070410


Attachment 1: Estimation of BSE Prevalence in Canada

snip...

Table 5 summarizes the results of the estimation of BSE prevalence in the
standing Canadian adult cattle population as of August 15, 2006. Based on
the expected prevalence value under the BBC model and the estimated adult
herd size (Table 1), the expected number of BSE-infected animals in the
standing Canadian adult cattle population is 4.1. By comparison, the
expected value obtained under BSurvE Prevalence B is 3.9 per million, which
corresponds to an estimated 23.2 BSE-infected animals in the standing
Canadian adult cattle population.

snip...


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSE_Prevalence.pdf

full text ;


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&P=15653

TEXAS MAD COW


THEY DID FINALLY TEST AFTER SITTING 7+ MONTHS ON A SHELF WHILE GW BORE THE
BSE MRR POLICY, i.e. legal trading of all strains of TSE. now understand, i
confirmed this case 7 months earlier to the TAHC, and then, only after i
contacted the Honorable Phyllis Fong and after an act of Congress, this
animal was finally confirmed ;

During the course of the investigation, USDA removed and tested a total of
67 animals of interest from the farm where the index animal's herd
originated. All of these animals tested negative for BSE. 200 adult animals
of interest were determined to have left the index farm. Of these 200, APHIS
officials determined that 143 had gone to slaughter, two were found alive
(one was determined not to be of interest because of its age and the other
tested negative), 34 are presumed dead, one is known dead and 20 have been
classified as untraceable. In addition to the adult animals, APHIS was
looking for two calves born to the index animal. Due to record keeping and
identification issues, APHIS had to trace 213 calves. Of these 213 calves,
208 entered feeding and slaughter channels, four are presumed to have
entered feeding and slaughter channels and one calf was untraceable.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/08/0336.xml

Executive Summary
In June 2005, an inconclusive bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) sample
from
November 2004, that had originally been classified as negative on the
immunohistochemistry test, was confirmed positive on SAF immunoblot (Western
blot).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified the herd of origin for
the index cow
in Texas; that identification was confirmed by DNA analysis. USDA, in close
cooperation
with the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), established an incident
command post
(ICP) and began response activities according to USDA’s BSE Response Plan of
September 2004. Response personnel removed at-risk cattle and cattle of
interest (COI)
from the index herd, euthanized them, and tested them for BSE; all were
negative. USDA
and the State extensively traced all at-risk cattle and COI that left the
index herd. The
majority of these animals entered rendering and/or slaughter channels well
before the
investigation began. USDA’s response to the Texas finding was thorough and
effective.

snip...


Trace Herd 3
The owner of Trace Herd 3 was identified as possibly having received an
animal of
interest. The herd was placed under hold order on 7/27/05. The herd
inventory was
conducted on 7/28/05. The animal of interest was not present within the
herd, and the hold
order was released on 7/28/05. The person who thought he sold the animal to
the owner of
Trace Herd 3 had no records and could not remember who else he might have
sold the cow
to. Additionally, a search of GDB for all cattle sold through the markets by
that individual
did not result in a match to the animal of interest. The animal of interest
traced to this herd
was classified as untraceable because all leads were exhausted.


Trace Herd 4
The owner of Trace Herd 4 was identified as having received one of the COI
through an
order buyer. Trace Herd 4 was placed under hold order on 7/29/05. A complete
herd
inventory was conducted on 8/22/05 and 8/23/05. There were 233 head of
cattle that were
examined individually by both State and Federal personnel for all man-made
identification
and brands. The animal of interest was not present within the herd. Several
animals were
reported to have died in the herd sometime after they arrived on the
premises in April 2005.
A final search of GDB records yielded no further results on the eartag of
interest at either
subsequent market sale or slaughter. With all leads having been exhausted,
this animal of
interest has been classified as untraceable. The hold order on Trace Herd 4
was released on
8/23/05.


Trace Herd 5
The owner of Trace Herd 5 was identified as having received two COI and was
placed
under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 5 is made up of 67 head of cattle in
multiple
pastures. During the course of the herd inventory, the owner located records
that indicated
that one of the COI, a known birth cohort, had been sold to Trace Herd 8
where she was
subsequently found alive. Upon completion of the herd inventory, the other
animal of
interest was not found within the herd. A GDB search of all recorded herd
tests conducted
on Trace Herd 5 and all market sales by the owner failed to locate the
identification tag of
the animal of interest and she was subsequently classified as untraceable
due to all leads
having been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd 5 was released on
8/8/05.

Trace Herd 6
The owner of Trace Herd 6 was identified as possibly having received an
animal of interest
and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. This herd is made up of 58 head
of cattle on
two pastures. A herd inventory was conducted and the animal of interest was
not present
within the herd. The owner of Trace Herd 6 had very limited records and was
unable to
provide further information on where the cow might have gone after he
purchased her from
the livestock market. A search of GDB for all cattle sold through the
markets by that
individual did not result in a match to the animal of interest.
Additionally, many of the
animals presented for sale by the owner of the herd had been re-tagged at
the market
effectually losing the traceability of the history of that animal prior to
re-tagging. The
animal of interest traced to this herd was classified as untraceable due to
all leads having
been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd 6 was released on 8/3/05.


Trace Herd 7
The owner of Trace Herd 7 was identified as having received an animal of
interest and was
placed under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 7 contains 487 head of cattle
on multiple
pastures in multiple parts of the State, including a unit kept on an island.
The island
location is a particularly rough place to keep cattle and the owner claimed
to have lost 22
head on the island in 2004 due to liver flukes. Upon completion of the herd
inventory, the
animal of interest was not found present within Trace Herd 7. A GDB search
of all
recorded herd tests conducted on Trace Herd 7 and all market sales by the
owner failed to
locate the identification tag of the animal of interest. The cow was
subsequently classified
as untraceable. It is quite possible though that she may have died within
the herd,
especially if she belonged to the island unit. The hold order on Trace Herd
7 was released
on 8/8/05.


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf


TERRY CONFIRMS TEXAS MAD COW 7 MONTHS EARLIER


-------- Original Message --------
Director,
Public Information Carla Everett ceverett@tahc.state.tx.us

Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from
TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask] us>


Greetings Carla,still hear a rumor;

Texas single beef cow not born in Canada no beef entered the food chain?

and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up forsomething,
but they forgot a url for update?I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET...can you
confirm???terry

==============================
==============================


-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from
TEXAS ???
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:21 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <[log in to unmask]>


The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all callers to the USDA
web site. We have no informationabout the animal being in Texas. CarlaAt
09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:>Greetings Carla,>>i am getting
unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from>TEXAS. can you
comment on this either way please?>>thank you,>Terry S. Singeltary Sr.>>

===================
===================


-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from
TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:20 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask] us>
<[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
us> <[log in to unmask]>


our computer department was working on a place holder we could postUSDA's
announcement of any results. There are no results to be announced tonightby
NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA
announcementwhen we hear something.At 06:05 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote:>why
was the announcement on your TAHC site removed?>>Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy:>November 22: Press Release title here >>star image More BSE
information>>>>terry>>Carla Everett wrote:>>>no confirmation on the U.S.'
inconclusive test...>>no confirmation on location of
animal.>>>>>>==========================
==========================

THEN, 7+ MONTHS OF COVER-UP BY JOHANN ET AL! no doubt about it now $$$


NO, it's not pretty, hell, im not pretty, but these are the facts, take em
or leave em, however, you cannot change them.

with kindest regards,

I am still sincerely disgusted and tired in sunny Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
===============
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&P=16195


THE OTHER TEXAS MAD COW THEY DID SUCCEED IN COVERING UP ;


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
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, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began
an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators
inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the
animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the
slaughterhouse.

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.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as
"mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way
now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule
would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals
(e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing
the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed
only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs
have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the
material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way
through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the
feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein
out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established
its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that
the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action
specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will
not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed
rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only
one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed
rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####


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


ALABAMA MAD COW

Summary:
Despite a thorough investigation of two farms that were known to contain the
index cow,
and 35 other farms that might have supplied the index cow to the farms where
the index
case was known to have resided, the investigators were unable to locate the
herd of
origin. The index case did not have unique or permanent identification,
plus, the size and
color of the cow being traced is very common in the Southern United States.
Due to the
unremarkable appearance of solid red cows, it is not easy for owners to
remember
individual animals. In the Southern United States, it is common business
practice to buy
breeding age cows and keep them for several years while they produce calves.
Most
calves produced are sold the year they are born, whereas breeding cows are
sold when
there is a lapse in breeding, which can occur multiple times in cows’ lives.
For all of
these reasons, USDA was unable to locate the herd of origin.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/content/printable_version/EPI_Final.pdf


WASHINGTON MAD COW


Fifty-seven (57) animals were born into the birth herd from April 1996 to
April 1998. Twenty-seven (27) of these animals were traced and confirmed
dead, 25 animals (including the index case) were exported to the US, two
animals were untraceable, ..........


The 48 animals were determined to be among 86 head sold to numerous buyers.
Eighty (80) of these were traced and confirmed slaughtered, 2 were
untraceable .......

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/americ/amerinveste.shtml


WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU BUY MAD COW TAINTED PRODUCTS, is there a need to know


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, March 31, 2004

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Elisa Odabashian – 415-431-6747


BILL WOULD PREVENT CALIFORNIA FROM KEEPING INFORMATION ABOUT HAZARDOUS FOOD
RECALLS SECRET

Legislation Targets State’s Secrecy Agreement With USDA That Kept Consumers
In the Dark About Mad Cow Disease Infected Beef

(SACRAMENTO, CA) – Earlier this year, news accounts indicated that
California was one of seven states that received a shipment of beef products
subject to a USDA recall because it included meat and bones from a cow that
tested positive for mad cow disease. But California consumers had no way of
knowing whether their local grocery store or restaurant received any of
these tainted products because the state had agreed to keep that information
secret. To prevent this from happening in the future, two state lawmakers
have introduced legislation that would ensure consumers are notified of any
retail outlets in their community that have received recalled beef or
poultry.

“Consumers have a right to know whether the food they are buying could be
hazardous to their health,” said Elisa Odabashian, Senior Policy Analyst
with Consumers Union’s West Coast Regional Office. “The state’s secrecy
agreement with the USDA protects the beef and poultry industry while putting
California consumers at risk.”

In 2002, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the USDA agreeing to keep secret the names
of the retail outlets selling food subject to beef and poultry recalls. The
USDA shares information about retailers that have received tainted beef and
poultry only with states that sign such agreements. The agency maintains
that secrecy is necessary in order to protect the proprietary interests of
the beef and poultry industries. But this policy leaves consumers in the
dark about which retail outlets may be selling these hazardous products.
The Memorandum of Understanding requiring secrecy covers all recalls of
unsafe beef and poultry – not just the recent recall of beef that tested
positive for mad cow disease. Recalls of beef and poultry products tainted
with other hazards, such as E.coli, Listeria, and Salmonella, also would be
covered by the secrecy agreement.

SB 1585, introduced by Senators Jackie Speier and Mike Machado, would
require all beef and poultry product suppliers, distributors and processors
who sell meat in California subject to a USDA recall to immediately identify
to the state the names and locations of retailers that received these
contaminated products. The bill requires the California Department of Health
Services to provide this information within 24 hours to local health
officials so that they can alert the public. The bill also requires the
agency to submit copies of all Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to
food and food-related products to the Legislature for review by January 1,
2005.

“The USDA should not be coercing states to abide by secrecy agreements about
tainted beef and poultry and California officials should not be withholding
information about these hazards from consumers,” said Odabashian. “This bill
will ensure that the state receives the information it needs to respond to
such food recalls and that consumers are properly alerted so they can take
steps to protect their health.”

Last week, Senators Machado and Speier introduced another bill that would
make California the first state in the nation to require all cattle
slaughtered or sold to be certified as testing negative for mad cow disease.
SB 1425 requires licensed slaughterers in California to test all cattle
carcasses for the deadly brain wasting disease. Under the bill, these
carcasses must be embargoed for sale until the slaughterhouse receives test
results certifying that the cow was negative for Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE). The slaughterhouse would be required to report every
positive test result to the State Veterinarian and the USDA. In addition,
the bill requires all importers of beef into the state for re-sale to be
able to certify that the beef is BSE-negative.

Consumers Union has urged the federal government to vastly expand its
testing program, fully ban the feeding of any animal remains to cows, and
immediately disclose to states and the public, all retail outlets and
restaurants from which meat was recalled because it came from an infected
cow.


http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/000954.html


NOW, only if you were a dog or cat would you get this much attention, and
only if you get sick and or drop dead immediately, where they can trace the
route and source, like this dog food, cat food recall, that has now turned
to human food i.e. pigs and chickens, all the big news now, screw the fact
you have been exposed to the mad cow agent as well, for years. but it takes
so long to go clinical, they cannot trace the route an source, so they
ignore it and say the exact same thing they are saying about this recent
melamine poisoning, everything is o.k., there are no risk to human health.
what did borat say ......pause..............NOT !!!
this is what happens when you let big industry make the laws and regulate
our food, just food for thought.................tss

a quick note there steve, COOL, it was the right thing, but big industry and
again GW, failed us, they know what they will find and they do NOT want to
be able to track or trace ;


C.O.O.L.

On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, more commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill. One of
its many initiatives requires country of origin labeling for beef, lamb,
pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts. On January 27,
2004, President Bush signed Public Law 108-199 which delays the
implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and
farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006. On November 10,
2005, President Bush signed Public Law 109-97, which delays the
implementation for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised and
shellfish until September 30, 2008. As described in the legislation, program
implementation is the responsibility of USDA's Agricultural Marketing
Service.


http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/

and steve, if your still with me, it will be very interesting to see what
becomes of the birth, feed, prodigy, cohorts and the tracking of them of
which came into the USA, and the feed that fed them over the years of the
latest mad cow just announced in Canada feed goes and comes across that
border like people. ...tss

Subject: BSE CASE CONFIRMED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Date: May 2, 2007 at 2:25 pm PST

BSE CASE CONFIRMED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
OTTAWA, May 2, 2007 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has
confirmed the diagnosis of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a
mature dairy cow from British Columbia. The animal's carcass is under CFIA
control, and no part of it entered the human food or animal feed systems.

Preliminary information indicates that the age of the animal (66 months)
falls well within the age range of previous cases detected in Canada and is
consistent with the recognized average incubation period of the disease.
This signifies that the animal was exposed to a very small amount of
infective material, most likely during its first year of life.

An epidemiological investigation directed by international guidelines is
underway to identify the animal’s herdmates at the time of birth and the
pathways by which it might have become infected. All findings will be
publicly released once the investigation concludes.

Canada has a suite of robust BSE control measures which exceeds the
recommended international standards. Assessment of Canada’s programs by the
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has resulted in a recommendation
for recognition as a controlled risk country. The OIE categorization process
is based on an evaluation of the comprehensive set of risk mitigation
measures implemented by a given country.

Canada has taken all necessary measures to achieve the eventual elimination
of BSE from the national cattle herd. The enhanced feed ban, which comes
into effect on July 12, 2007, will prevent more than 99 percent of potential
BSE infectivity from entering the Canadian feed system. The CFIA expects to
detect a small number of cases over the next 10 years as Canada progresses
towards its goal of eliminating the disease from the national cattle heard.

The British Columbia animal was identified at the farm level by the national
surveillance program, which has detected all cases found in Canada. The
program targets cattle most at risk and has tested about 160,000 animals
since 2003. The surveillance results reflect an extremely low incidence of
BSE in Canada.

It is not unexpected to find BSE-infected animals born after the feed ban.
This has proven to be the case in most other countries with targeted
surveillance programs, similar to that in Canada.

-30-

For information:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Media relations: 613-228-6682

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2007/20070502e.shtml


Amazing what you will find when you look. a far cry from the USA;

[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf

[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf


Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt


Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in

Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed

Comment Number: EC -10

Accepted - Volume 2


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html


PART 2


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html


THE USDA JUNE 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WAS TERRIBLY FLAWED ;


CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006


The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier
this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to
them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest
case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at
least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

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 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 ;


Audit Report

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase II

and

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat
Recovery Products - Phase III

Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006

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


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

FINALLY,

not that anybody cares, they care more for there dog and cat food, but those
cows and that mad cow feed ban of 8/4/97 ???

nothing but ink on paper................

10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007

Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling’s 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contam
inated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured
on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI

___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


WE know now, and we knew decades ago, that 5.5 grams of suspect feed in
TEXAS was enough to kill 100 cows.


look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused
7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;


Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in
primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog,
Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie
Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe
Deslys
Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
(vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral
infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to
transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to
non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate
from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological
disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease
at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we
made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which
provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can
prevent transmission of BSE to man.


snip...


BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%)
1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum
used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a
similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals
positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of
disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic
ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected
orally with similar BSE brain inocula


Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa


It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: