SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Raymond defends USDA recall policies at hearing
Date: November 8, 2007 at 12:49 pm PST

Raymond defends USDA recall policies at hearing


By Ann Bagel Storck on 11/8/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Despite acknowledging that "we cannot be satisfied with the progress we have made," USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety Richard Raymond defended FSIS policies and procedures regarding product recalls during a congressional hearing Wednesday.

Speaking before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, Raymond acknowledged the rise in recalls related to E. coli O157:H7 in beef. This year, there have already been 19 such recalls, compared with just eight in all of 2006 and five in 2005.

Raymond summarized many of the agency's current actions and future plans designed to enhance E. coli prevention. (See USDA outlines actions to combat E. coli O157:H7 on Meatingplace.com, Oct. 24, 2007.)

In the wake of the recent Topps Meat recall, FSIS decided to take into account a broader range of evidence when issuing recalls, a change which Raymond said has already led to the recall of more than a million pounds of ground beef. "In two recent cases, FSIS acted upon epidemiological evidence that linked illness to opened, FSIS-inspected product found in consumers' freezers, where previously, we believed the agency needed a test result from an intact or unopened package because of the possibility of cross-contamination," he said.

Ties to risk-based inspection?

Raymond also clarified that in the case of the Topps recall, he does not believe risk-based inspection would have prevented the incident. "I believe that we need to take additional time to strengthen our system and our data collection capabilities before moving forward with RBI in processing," he said.

By year's end, the Office of the Inspector General is expected to issue a report about the data used to develop and design risk-based inspection in processing, which Raymond said FSIS will use to "further focus our efforts."


http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=19221

say what?


TRY telling that to those 500 or so consumers that recieved potentially BSE contaminated beef that had to file a lawsuit.


* GAO-05-51 October 2004 FOOD SAFETY (over 500 customers receiving
potentially BSE contaminated beef) - TSS 10/20/04


October 2004 FOOD SAFETY
USDA and FDA Need
to Better Ensure
Prompt and Complete
Recalls of Potentially
Unsafe Food

snip...

Page 38 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
To examine the voluntary recall of beef products associated with the
December 2003 discovery of an animal infected with BSE, we analyzed the
distribution lists USDA collected from companies and the verification
checks it conducted to develop a diagram illustrating the location and
volume of recalled beef that reached different levels of the distribution
chain. We compared the distribution lists and verification checks to
identify how many customers listed on the distribution lists did not
receive
the recalled beef and the number of customers not listed on distribution
lists that received the recalled beef. We interviewed USDA and FDA staff
involved with the recall to understand the timing of recall actions and the
challenges encountered during the recall.
To develop information on the 2002 recall of ground beef by a ConAgra
plant in Greeley, Colorado, we reviewed USDA s recall file and other
documents on the recall. We also met with the department s Office of
Inspector General and reviewed the Inspector General s September 2003
report.1
We conducted our review from May 2003 through August 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Great
Plains Region Audit
Report: Food Safety and Inspection Service: Oversight of Production
Process and Recall at
ConAgra Plant (Establishment 969), Report No. 24601-2-KC (September 2003).
Page 39 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE Appendix II
On December 23, 2003, USDA announced that a cow in the state of
Washington had tested positive for BSE commonly referred to as mad
cow disease. This appendix describes the actions USDA took to recall the
meat and the actions FDA took with respect to FDA-regulated products,
such as animal feed and cosmetics, made from rendered parts of the
animal.
Beef Recall Was
Triggered by a BSEPositive
Sample from
One Cow
On December 9, 2003, the recalling company slaughtered 23 cows. USDA,
in accordance with its BSE surveillance policy at the time, took a
sample of
1 cow that was unable to walk, although the condition of the tested cow is
now disputed. USDA did not process the sample in its Ames, Iowa National
Veterinary Services Laboratory in an expedited manner because the cow
did not show symptoms of neurological disorder. USDA test results
indicated a presumptive positive for BSE on December 23, 2003.
Recall Begun in
December 2003 Was
Completed in March
2004
On December 23, 2003, after learning about the positive BSE test, USDA
headquarters notified the Boulder District Office, which is the field
office
with jurisdiction over the recalling firm. The Boulder District began
gathering information about the recalling company s product distribution.
Field staff telephoned the recalling company and were on-site at 7:00 p.m.
The Boulder District initially thought 3 days of the recalling company s
production would have to be recalled, but further examination of facility
cleanup and shipping records revealed that it was only necessary to
recall 1
day of production. USDA recall staff convened at 9:15 p.m. and discussed
the science related to BSE and whether the recalling company s cleanup
practices were sufficient to limit the recall to 1 day of production.
Following USDA s determination to conduct a Class II recall that is, the
beef posed a remote possibility of adverse health consequences USDA
contacted the recalling company to discuss recall details and the press
release. The press release and Recall Notification Report were released
that evening.
On December 24, 2003, USDA s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
sent inspectors to the recalling company s primary customers to obtain
secondary customer distribution lists and product shipping records. USDA
conducted 100 percent verification checks for this recall it contacted
every customer that received the recalled meat. This level of verification
checks is well above the percentage of checks conducted by USDA district
offices for the Class I recalls we reviewed.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 40 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
On December 26, 2003, USDA began checking the primary and secondary
customers of the recalling company that it was aware of, although the
entire product distribution chain was unknown. During the checks, USDA
tried to determine if the product was further distributed, and it used
verification checks to acquire distribution lists for secondary and
tertiary
customers of the recalling company.
Verification checks continued until February 25, 2004. Three USDA
districts conducted these verification checks. The Boulder District
coordinated the checks and assigned checks to the Minneapolis District
Office for customers in Montana and to the Alameda District Office for
customers in California. USDA required that 100 percent of the primary
checks, 50 percent of the secondary checks, and 20 percent of the tertiary
checks be conducted on-site. According to USDA, more than 50 percent of
the secondary checks were actually conducted on-site. FDA officials
helped conduct verification checks. According to USDA, the recall took a
long time to complete because USDA contacted each customer at least
twice. USDA first contacted each customer to conduct the check and again
to verify product disposition.
On February 25, 2004, the Boulder District concluded that the recall was
conducted in an effective manner. On March 1, 2004, USDA s Recall
Management Division recommended that the agency terminate the recall,
and USDA sent a letter to the recalling company to document that USDA
considered the recall to be complete.
Recall Was
Complicated by
Inaccurate Distribution
Lists and Mixing of
Potentially
Contaminated and
Noncontaminated Beef
USDA used distribution lists and shipping records to piece together where
the recalled product was distributed. According to USDA, one of the
recalling company s three primary customers was slow in providing its
customer list. USDA could not begin verification activities for that
primary
customer without this list. Furthermore, some customers of the recalling
company provided USDA with imprecise lists that did not specify which
customers received the recalled product. As a consequence, USDA could
not quickly determine the scope of product distribution and had to take
time conducting extra research using shipping invoices to determine which
specific customers received the product.
Even when USDA determined the amount and location of beef, the agency
still had trouble tracking the beef in certain types of establishments,
such
as grocery store distributors. USDA could not easily track the individual
stores where those distributors sent the beef because of product mixing
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 41 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
and the distributors record-keeping practices. Generally, distributors
purchase beef from multiple sources, mix it in their inventory, and lose
track of the source of the beef they send to the stores that they
supply. To
deal with this problem, USDA first identified the dates when recalled beef
was shipped to the distributors and then asked for a list of the stores
that
were shipped any beef after those dates. Consequently, some stores were
included in the recall that may never have received recalled beef.
The recall was also complicated by repeated mixing of recalled beef with
nonrecalled beef, thereby increasing the amount of meat involved in the
recall. The recalling company slaughtered 23 cows on December 9, 2003,
and shipped those and 20 other carcasses to a primary customer on
December 10, 2003. The recalling company s carcasses were tagged to
identify the slaughter date and the individual cow. The primary customer
removed the identification tags and mixed the 23 recalled carcasses with
the 20 nonrecalled carcasses. Because the carcasses could not be
distinguished, the recall included all 43 carcasses at the primary
customer.
After one round of processing at the primary customer, the meat from the
carcasses was shipped to two other processing facilities. Both
establishments further mixed the recalled meat from the 43 carcasses with
meat from other sources. In all, the mixing of beef from 1 BSE-positive cow
resulted in over 500 customers receiving potentially contaminated beef.
Imprecise distribution lists and the mixing of recalled beef combined to
complicate USDA s identification of where the product went. Specifically,
on December 23, 2003, USDA s initial press release stated that the
recalling
company was located in Washington State. Three days later, on December
26, 2003, USDA announced that the recalled beef was distributed within
Washington and Oregon. On December 27, 2003, USDA determined that one
of the primary customers of the recalling firm distributed beef to
facilities
in California and Nevada, in addition to Washington and Oregon, for a total
of four states. On December 28, 2003, USDA announced that some of the
secondary customers of the recalling company may also have distributed
the product to Alaska, Montana, Hawaii, Idaho, and Guam, for a total of
eight states and one territory.
On January 6, 2004, over 2 weeks from recall initiation, USDA determined
that the beef went to only six states Washington, Oregon, California,
Nevada, Idaho, and Montana and that no beef went to Alaska, Hawaii, or
Guam. To reach that conclusion, USDA used the distribution lists, shipping
records, and sales invoices that it received from companies to piece
together exactly where the recalled beef may have been sent. The lists
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 42 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
showed that 713 customers may have received the recalled beef; 6 of those
may have received beef from more than one source. USDA determined that
176 customers on the lists did not actually receive recalled beef,
including
the customers in Guam and Hawaii. USDA s review also indicated that
recalled beef was probably not shipped to Alaska or Utah, and USDA
checked 2 retailers in Alaska and 3 retailers in Utah to confirm that
was the
case. In total, USDA conducted verification checks on 537 of the 713
customers on the lists. USDA s initial checks identified an additional 45
customers that may have received the recalled beef that were not included
on the distribution lists, for a total of 582 verification checks. Figure 4
summarizes USDA s verification efforts during the recall.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 43 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Figure 4: USDA s Recall Verification Checks by Location and Customer
Type for Meat Associated with the Animal Infected with
BSE
Note: USDA checked 15 primary, 40 secondary, and 526 tertiary customers
plus the recalling
company, for a total of 582 verification checks.
USDA s press release stated that the recall involved 10,410 pounds of beef
products, and the USDA recall coordinator for this recall told us that
downstream processors mixed the recalled beef with nonrecalled beef, for
a total of more than 38,000 pounds of beef that was distributed at the
secondary customer level. According to USDA officials involved with the
D = Distributor
R = Retailer
SF = Storage facility
P = Processor
Primary customers
(15 total)
Recalling
slaughterhouse
(WA) 1 R
(OR)
1 P
(WA) 1 P
(OR)
1 P
(OR)
11 R
(WA)
Secondary customers
(40 total)
Tertiary customers
(526 total)
1 R
(OR)
1 SF
(OR)
3 D
(OR)
3 D
(WA)
2 dual D
(OR)
59 R
(OR)
79 R
(WA)
5 R
(ID)
3 R
(UT)
4 R
(MT)
161 R
(WA)
8 R
(ID)
15 R
(OR)
2 R
(AK)
31 R
(OR) 8 R
(WA)
10 R
(NV)
5 R
(ID)
10 R
(CA)
2 R
(CA)
17 R
(OR)
5 R
(WA)
1 D
(NV)
11 R
(CA)
85 R
(NV)
3 D
(OR) 11 R
(OR)
2 D
(CA) 26 R
(CA)
2 R
(WA)
( ) Acronyms in parentheses are postal abbreviations for each state.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA verification check documents.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 44 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
recall, the precise amount of meat that was sold at the retail level is
unknown because retailers at the tertiary level further mixed nonrecalled
meat with potentially contaminated meat. USDA told us that more than
64,000 pounds of beef was ultimately returned or destroyed by customers,
and that, because of the mixing, it was not able to determine how much of
the original 10,410 pounds of recalled beef was contained in the 64,000
pounds that were recovered.
FDA s Role in USDA s
Recall
Parts of the BSE-infected animal slaughtered on December 9, 2003, were
not used for food, but they were sent to renderers to be separated into raw
materials, such as proteins and blood. Rendered materials are used for
many purposes, including cosmetics and vaccines. FDA has jurisdiction
over renderers.
When USDA learned of the BSE-infected cow on December 23, 2003, the
agency immediately notified FDA. On December 24, 2003, FDA sent an
inspection team to a renderer that handled materials from the BSE cow.
Inspectors confirmed that the parts of the slaughtered BSE positive cow
were on the premises. FDA later identified a second company that
potentially rendered material from the slaughtered BSE cow. Both
renderers agreed to voluntarily hold all product processed from the
diseased cow and dispose of the product as directed by FDA and local
authorities.
On January 7, 2004, 15 containers of potentially contaminated, rendered
material (meat and bone meal) were inadvertently loaded on a ship, and on
January 8, 2004, the ship left Seattle, Washington, for Asia. The renderer
initiated steps to recover the shipped material, so it could be disposed
of as
directed by FDA and local authorities. The ship carrying the material
returned to the United States on February 24, 2004, and the material was
disposed of in a landfill on March 2, 2004.
On January 12, 2004, FDA asked both renderers to expand their voluntary
holds to rendered materials processed from December 23, 2003, through
January 9, 2004, because they may have rendered some recalled meat or
trim that was recovered from retail establishments. Both renderers agreed
to the expanded product hold. In total, FDA requested that renderers
voluntarily hold approximately 2,000 tons of rendered material. FDA
confirmed that none of the potentially contaminated, rendered material
entered commerce, because FDA accounted for all rendered material. FDA
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 45 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
reported that no recall was necessary because no product was distributed
commercially by the rendering companies.
USDA and FDA
Worked Together on
the Recall
USDA and FDA worked together in two ways. First, both agencies notified
each other if their investigations yielded any information about products
within the jurisdiction of the other agency. For instance, when conducting
the second round of verification checks, USDA tracked the disposition of
the product to renderers and landfills and notified FDA when the product
went to renderers. Second, FDA officials helped conduct verification
checks. FDA conducted 32 of the 582 verification checks (approximately 5
percent) for the USDA recall. Officials from both agencies indicated they
regularly interacted and shared information. Table 3 outlines the agencies
actions.
Table 3: Detailed Timeline of USDA, FDA, and Company Actions Related to
the Discovery of an Animal Infected with BSE
Date USDA recall actions FDA actions Company actions
12/9/03 " USDA samples cow for BSE. " BSE cow is slaughtered.
12/11/03 " Sample is sent to Ames, Iowa, for BSE
testing.
" Recalling company sends
carcasses to primary customer for
processing.
12/12/03 " Primary customer sends meat
products to two other primary
customers for further processing.
12/12 -
12/23/03
" Other primary customers distribute
recalled product to secondary
customers.
" Secondary customers distribute
recalled product to tertiary
customers.
12/23/03 " BSE test results are presumptively
positive.
" Recall meeting.
" Initiation of voluntary recall.
" Press release.
" FDA notified of BSE test results.
" FDA dispatches investigation teams.
12/24/03 " FDA inspects Renderer 1.
" FDA determines some rendered
material from Renderer 1 is intended
for Indonesia.
" FDA discovers some material may
have been sent to Renderer 2.
" Renderer 1 agrees to hold remaining
rendered material.
" Recalling company contacts
primary customers.
" Primary customers contact their
customers.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 46 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
12/25/03 " USDA receives confirmation from
reference lab in England that cow in
question is BSE positive.
12/26/03 " Verification checks begin
" USDA announces recalled product in
Washington State and Oregon.
" FDA begins process of comparing
records to ensure all products from
Renderers 1 and 2 are accounted for.
" Renderer 2 agrees to hold all material
that may have been derived from
BSE cow. None of the rendered
material has been distributed.
12/27/03 " USDA announces recalled product was
distributed in Washington State,
Oregon, California, and Nevada.
" FDA issues statement confirming that
the rendering plants that processed
all of the nonedible material from the
BSE cow have placed a voluntary
hold on all of the potentially infectious
product, none of which had left the
control of the companies and entered
commercial distribution.
12/28/03 " USDA announces recalled product was
distributed in Washington State,
Oregon, California, Nevada, Montana,
Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam.
12/29/03 " Food Safety and Inspection Service
determines that the recalled meat
products were distributed to 42
locations, with 80 percent of the
products distributed to stores in
Oregon and Washington State.
12/31/03 " FDA offers assistance to USDA to
complete recall verification checks.
1/6/04 " USDA determines recalled product
was only distributed in Washington
State, Oregon, California, Nevada,
Montana, and Idaho.
1/8/04 " FDA is notified by the renderer that
some of the rendered material on
hold from Renderer 1 was
inadvertently shipped to Asia.
Renderer 1 commits to isolate and
return the rendered material.
" Rendering company notifies FDA of
shipment of product on hold.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date USDA recall actions FDA actions Company actions
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 47 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Source: GAO analysis of USDA and FDA information.
1/12/04 " FDA advises Renderers 1 and 2 that
they may have rendered meat or trim
subject to recall from retail stores.
" FDA requests Renderers 1 and 2 to
place all rendered material from
December 23 to January 9 on hold.
" FDA determines neither renderer had
shipped rendered material
manufactured after December 23,
2003.
2/9/04 " All rendered material was disposed of
in landfill, except material shipped to
Asia.
2/24/04 " Ship carrying rendered material
returns to U.S. port.
2/25/04 " Verification checks complete.
" USDA Boulder District Office
concludes recall is effective.
3/1/04 " Recall is closed.
3/2/04 " FDA observes disposal in landfill of
remaining rendered material...

snip...

REPORTS

1. Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and Complete
Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food. GAO-05-51, October 7.tss
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-51
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0551high.pdf


Appendix C. Agents that require specific government approval for scientific investigations within the USA.a


Select agents, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services onlyb
High consequence pathogens and agents, U.S. Department of Agriculture onlyc
HIgh consequence livestock pathogens and toxins, overlap agents and toxinsd


(NO HUMAN TSE LISTED ???...tss) BSE agent


http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/disease_emergence/AppendixC.pdf


QFC sued over mad cow case

Grocer negligently exposed them to beef, family claims

Friday, March 5, 2004

By LEWIS KAMB
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

An Eastside family who says they ate beef linked to the nation's only
known case of mad cow disease yesterday filed a class-action lawsuit
against QFC, claiming the grocery store chain negligently exposed them
and others to "highly hazardous" meat and did not properly notify them
that they had bought it.

Attorneys for Jill Crowson, a 52-year-old interior designer from Clyde
Hill, filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court on behalf of her
family and possibly hundreds of other customers who unwittingly bought
and consumed beef potentially exposed to mad cow disease.

"I was pretty upset about it," Crowson said. "I've spent all of my kids'
lives trying to be a responsible parent for them to keep them safe. I
felt badly that the food I served could be harmful to their health."

The lawsuit is believed to be the first stemming from this country's
only confirmed case of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, which was detected in a slaughtered Holstein from a
Yakima Valley ranch on Dec. 23.

Neither officials at Quality Food Centers' Bellevue headquarters, or
Kroger -- the company's Ohio-based corporate parent -- could be reached
for comment about the lawsuit yesterday.

The suit contends the family bought and later ate ground beef from their
local QFC that was part of a batch processed at Vern's Moses Lake Meats
on Dec. 9 and included meat from the diseased Holstein.

The beef was later shipped to wholesalers and retailers in Washington,
Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.

On Dec. 23 -- after government scientists confirmed the Holstein was
infected with BSE -- businesses began pulling potentially affected beef
from store shelves under a voluntary recall.

But the family's suit claims that, although QFC was aware of the recall
on Dec. 23, the store did not begin pulling the recalled beef from about
40 of its stores that carried it until Dec. 24.

The company also did not try to warn customers about the recalled beef
until Dec. 27 -- and only then with small, inconspicuous signs inside
the stores, the suit claims.

Steve Berman, the family's attorney, said the company had "a duty to
warn" consumers who bought the beef under terms of the Washington
Product Liability Act.

QFC could've easily notified customers by taking out TV, radio or
newspaper ads, or by tracking and notifying those who bought the beef
through customers' QFC Advantage Cards, Berman said.

At Berman's downtown Seattle firm yesterday, Crowson described how on
Dec. 22 and Dec. 23 -- the day of the recall -- she bought single
packages of "9 percent leanest ground beef" from her local QFC store at
Bellevue Village.

Crowson took the beef home, cooked it and made tacos one night and
spaghetti the next -- serving the dinners to herself; her daughter,
Laura, 22; son, Nicholas, 19; and her niece, Claire De Winter, 23.
Members of the family also ate leftovers from those meals for the next
several days, Crowson said.

"When the news about mad cow came out, I instantly became concerned,"
Crowson said. "But the initial stories didn't mention anything about
QFC, so I thought we were OK."

While shopping at the grocery store a few days later, Crowson said she
asked a store butcher whether QFC stores had sold any of the recalled
beef. The butcher assured her they had not, she said.

The family only learned QFC had sold any of the beef in question after
reading a news story Jan. 10 about a Mercer Island man who discovered
his family had eaten affected beef that he bought at a local QFC store,
Crowson said.

Crowson later called QFC and faxed the company a signed letter asking
that it track purchases made on her QFC Advantage Card -- a store
discount card issued to customers. On Jan. 12, the company notified
Crowson that the beef she bought and served to her family was, in fact,
part of the recalled batch, she said.

Scientists believe people who eat beef from infected cows can contract a
fatal form of the disease.

The family is "now burdened with the possibility that they presently
carry (the disease) that may have an incubation period of up to 30
years," the lawsuit says.

Lawyers for the family say they believe hundreds, if not thousands, of
QFC customers, and those of other stores, likely ate beef from the
recalled batch -- the reason why Berman filed their legal claim as a
class-action lawsuit. A USDA official this week said that up to 17,000
pounds of meat affected by the recall likely was eaten or thrown out by
customers.

Berman added that an investigator from his firm learned that QFC buys
beef for its "9 percent leanest ground beef" products in large tubs that
can weigh several hundred pounds, and then regrinds and packages the
meat for sale.

Because QFC stores regrind the beef before selling it, Berman contends
that makes the store a manufacturer responsible under the Washington
Product Liability Act for not selling any unsafe product.

Scientists believe people who eat beef from cows infected with BSE can
contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob, a fatal brain-wasting disease that
has been detected in about 150 people worldwide.

However, officials with the U.S. Agriculture Department have repeatedly
said the risk from eating muscle cuts from an infected cow -- the likely
cut of meat processed and sold for hamburger in the recalled batch -- is
extremely low.

Although Crowson said she tries not to "obsess over it," she is fearful
that her family could one day become sick.

"It's pretty scary," she said.

Because no medical test is available to determine whether a living
person is infected with the disease, the couple's "stress and fear
cannot be allayed," the lawsuit said.

The family seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress and medical
monitoring costs.

Crowson said her reason for bringing the lawsuit isn't about money. "The
more I've thought about this, the angrier I've gotten," she said.


snip...

http://home.hetnet.nl/~mad.cow/archief/2004/mar04/sued.htm

and what about the FDA and mad cow feed in commerce ???

literally millions and millions of pounds in COMMERCE. i wonder how much they got recalled, compared to that which was fed out $


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-contaminated 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

USA MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE 2006

Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL,
TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST

PRODUCT
a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6;
b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6;
c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6;
d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6.
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone
on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006. Firm initiated recall is
complete.
REASON
Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Dairy feed, custom, Recall # V-134-6;
b) Custom Dairy Feed with Monensin, Recall # V-135-6.
CODE
None. Bulk product
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Burkmann Feed, Greeneville, TN, by Telephone beginning on
June 28, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL. Firm initiated
recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,484 tons
DISTRIBUTION
TN and WV


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html

Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA,
MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-115-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Hiseville Feed & Seed Co., Hiseville, KY, by telephone and letter on or
about July 14, 2006. FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approximately 2,223 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-116-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rips Farm Center, Tollesboro, KY, by telephone and letter on July 14, 2006.
FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,220 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-117-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Kentwood Co-op, Kentwood, LA, by telephone on June 27, 2006. FDA initiated
recall is completed.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
40 tons
DISTRIBUTION
LA and MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk Dairy Feed, Recall V-118-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Cal Maine Foods, Inc., Edwards, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. FDA
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,150 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-119-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Walthall County Co-op, Tylertown, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
87 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-120-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Ware Milling Inc., Houston, MS, by telephone on June 23, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
350 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Tucker Milling, LLC Tm 32% Sinking Fish Grower, #2680-Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-121-6;
b) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-122-6;
c) Tucker Milling, LLC #31232 Game Bird Grower,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-123-6;
d) Tucker Milling, LLC 31227-Crumble, Game Bird Starter, BMD
Medicated, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-124-6;
e) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-125-6;
f) Tucker Milling, LLC #30230, 30 % Turkey Starter, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-126-6;
g) Tucker Milling, LLC #30116, TM Broiler Finisher,
50 lb bags, Recall # V-127-6
CODE
All products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/20/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Tucker Milling LLC, Guntersville, AL, by telephone and visit
on June 20, 2006, and by letter on June 23, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker and Brothers Inc., Stamford, CT. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Poultry and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein were not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,541-50 lb bags
DISTRIBUTION
AL, GA, MS, and TN

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2006/ENF00964.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL MI MAMMALIAN PROTEIN VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN
COMMERCE 27,694,240 lbs
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:14 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy feds manufactured from concentrates, Recall # V-113-6
CODE
All dairy feeds produced between 2/1/05 and 6/16/06 and containing H. J.
Baker recalled feed products.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Vita Plus Corp., Gagetown, MI, by visit beginning on June 21, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The feed was manufactured from materials that may have been contaminated
with mammalian protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
27,694,240 lbs
DISTRIBUTION
MI


END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


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


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL AL AND FL VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125
TONS Products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm PST
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated,
net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6;
d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated,
Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend,
Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted,
Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020,
Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete
Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated,
Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying
Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED,
net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and
visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
125 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and FL


END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


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


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL KY VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:19 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
?????tss

DISTRIBUTION

ND OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


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


CJD WATCH MESSAGE BOARD
TSS
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE
Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22
71.248.128.67


RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals,
Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg),
Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL
FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE
a) Bulk
b) None
c) Bulk
d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and
by press release on June 16, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00960.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

New Orleans District
297 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37217

Telephone: 615-781-5380
Fax: 615-781-5391

May 17, 2006

WARNING LETTER NO. 2006-NOL-06

FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner
Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products
2621 State Street
Dallas, Texas 75204

Dear Mr. Shirley:

On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson
Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant
deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in
Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to
follow the requirements of this regulation; products being manufactured and
distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section
403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the Act).

Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient
written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to
maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:

You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent
carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or
feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the
same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use
only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each
species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after
processing mammalian tissues.

You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out
procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from
mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.

As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived
from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR
589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived
from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other
ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein
derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the
poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the
Act.

This letter is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your
facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you
are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you
manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take
prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system
whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these
violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or
injunction, without further notice.

You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving
this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm
into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of
each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If
corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the
reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be
completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating
corrections have been made.

Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie,
Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter,
please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.

Sincerely,

/S

Carol S. Sanchez
Acting District Director
New Orleans District


http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5883d.htm

Subject: USDA FSIS SRM TSE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT UPDATE
Date: February 17, 2007 at 7:03 pm PST
Greetings,


I thought I might update you on the USDA FSIS QUARTERLY REPORTS ON THE TOPIC OF SRMs and MAD COW DISEASE I.E. BSE/BASE ETC.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT July 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006


snip...


Table 5. Administrative Actions: Large HACCP Plants (7/01/06 to 9/30/06)

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Large HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]


CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS 00086K M DODGE CITY, KS

On 6/15/06, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.


snip...

EXCEL CORP 00086R M FORT MORGAN, CO

On 8/11/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8. On 12/22/04, plant appealed the withholding action. Appeal was denied on 1/25/05.


snip...

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 09268 M PASCO, WA
X
X
On 7/28/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 00245D M EMPORIA, KS
X
X
On 12/23/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 00245L M LEXINGTON, NE
X
X
On 3/10/05, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.


snip...


Table 6. Administrative Actions: Small HACCP Plants (7/01/06 to 9/30/06)

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]


SSOP
HACCP
SPS
INH
INT
Other
LOI
LOW

BOOKER PACKING COMPANY 07162 M BOOKER, TX
6/2/06
6/5/06
X
X
9/19/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

SSOP
HACCP
SPS
INH
INT
Other
LOI
LOW

GULF PACKING COMPANY 00696 M00696 P SAN BENITO, TX
2/25/06
2/26/06
X
X
8/31/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

HI COUNTRY BEEF JERKY 01248 M01248 P LINCOLN, MT
3/24/06
4/14/06
X
X
X
X
8/31/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

NORTHERN PACKING COMPANY INC. 00571 M BRIAR HILL, NY
12/9/05
12/23/05
X
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

WEST MISSOURI BEEF 05821 M ROCKVILLE, MO
3/2/06
3/16/06
4/13/06
4/17/06
X
X
X
8/15/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]


GIBSON PACKING COMPANY 05843 M05843 P SEYMOUR, MO
9/21/06
X
X
X
X
Plant failed to meet regulatory requirements for Escherichia coli Biotype 1 (E. coli). The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

SSOP
HACCP
SPS
INH
INT
Other
LOI
LOW

HORMANN MEAT COMPANY 05544 M05544 P FAIR GROVE, MO
6/15/06
6/22/06
X
X
X
9/26/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

ROCK CREEK SLAUGHTER CO. 09150 M09150 P LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, GA
3/16/06
4/14/06
6/30/06
7/5/06
X
X
X
X
8/11/06
On 3/16/06, an enforcement action concerning failure to meet regulatory requirements for Escherichia coli Biotype 1 (E.coli) was issued. The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

THEURER'S QUALITY MEATS, INC. 31647 M31647 P LEWISTON, UT
7/25/05
7/29/05
X
X
7/25/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q4_FY2006.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT April 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006


Table 5. Administrative Actions: Large HACCP Plants (4/01/06 to 6/30/06)


CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS 00086K M DODGE CITY, KS
X
X
On 6/15/06, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.


snip...

EXCEL CORP 00086R M FORT MORGAN, CO
2/22/05
X
X
On 8/11/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8. On

12/22/04, plant appealed the withholding action. Appeal was denied on 1/25/05.


snip...

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC 00245L M LEXINGTON, NE
X
X
On 3/10/05, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.


snip...

SSOP
HACCP
SPS
INH
INT
Other
LOI
LOW

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 09268 M PASCO, WA
X
X
On 7/28/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 00245D M EMPORIA, KS
X
X
On 12/23/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]


BOOKER PACKING COMPANY 07162 M BOOKER, TX
4/13/06
4/19/06
X
X
Plant failed to meet regulatory requirements for Escherichia coli Biotype 1 (E. coli).

6/2/06
6/5/06
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.

snip...

GULF PACKING COMPANY 00696 M00696 P SAN BENITO, TX
2/25/06
2/26/06
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...


???

3/24/06
4/14/06

X
X
X

The enforcement action included, as basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

NORTHERN PACKING COMPANY INC. 00571 M BRIAR HILL, NY
12/9/05
12/23/05
X
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

WEST MISSOURI BEEF 05821 M ROCKVILLE, MO
3/2/06
3/16/06
4/13/06
4/17/06
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...


C & C MEAT SALES, INC., 18494 M18494 P, DURHAM, NC ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL.


snip...

FRESH FARMS BEEF 18579 M RUTLAND, VT
12/16/05
12/28/05
X
X
X
4/13/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.

FRONTIER FOODS & COLD STORAGE, INC 20741 M20741 P EL PASO, TX
5/31/06
X
X
On 6/8/06, DM closed case by firm’s requested voluntary withdrawal. The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

HORMANN MEAT COMPANY 05544 M05544 P FAIR GROVE, MO
6/15/06
6/22/06
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

RANDALL MEAT COMPANY 10669 M HOT SPRINGS, AR
7/1/05
7/28/05
10/12/05
10/24/05
X
X
X
5/19/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.

ROCK CREEK SLAUGHTER CO. 09150 M09150 P LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, GA
3/16/06
4/14/06
6/30/06
X
X
X
X
On 3/16/06, an enforcement action concerning failure to meet regulatory requirements for Escherichia coli Biotype 1 (E.coli) was issued. The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...


SAVORY CONNECTION, INC., 31764 M31764 P, SELINGSGROVE, PA. ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL.


snip...


STEAK MASTER, 21159 M21159 P, ELWOOD, NE. ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL.


snip...


THE MEAT SHOP 31561 M BENSON, VT
8/18/05
9/6/05
9/9/05
X
X
X
X
X
4/4/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.

THEURER'S QUALITY MEATS, INC. 31647 M31647 P LEWISTON, UT
7/25/05
7/29/05
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

WALNUT VALLEY PACKING L.L.C. 32007 M32007 P EL DORADO, KS
12/15/05
12/30/05
X
X
X
5/4/06
The enforcement action included, as basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q3_FY2006.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2006


Table 5. Administrative Actions: Large HACCP Plants (1/01/06 to 3/31/06)

CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS 00086K M DODGE CITY, KS
X
X
3/13/06
On 10/11/05, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

snip...

EXCEL CORP. 00086R M FORT MORGAN, CO
8/11/04
2/22/05
X
X
On 8/11/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

On 12/22/04, plant appealed the withholding action. Appeal was denied on 1/25/05.


snip...

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 00245L M
3/12/04
3/18/04
X

LEXINGTON, NE

X
X
On 3/10/05, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.


snip...

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 09268 M PASCO, WA
X
X
On 7/28/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 00245D M EMPORIA, KS
X
X
On 12/23/04, a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.


snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

GULF PACKING COMPANY, 00696 M00696 P, SAN BENITO, TX, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...


HI COUNTRY BEEF JERKY, 01248 M01248 P, LINCOLN, MT, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...


HITCHIN POST STEAK COMPANY, 20773 M20773 P, KANSAS CITY, KS, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...

NORTHERN PACKING COMPANY INC. 00571 M BRIAR HILL, NY
12/9/05
12/23/05
X
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

ROCK CREEK SLAUGHTER CO., 09150 M09150 P, FAIRBURY, NE, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...

WEST MISSOURI BEEF 05821 M ROCKVILLE, MO
3/2/06
3/16/06
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

Table 7. Administrative Actions: Very Small HACCP Plants (1/01/06 to 3/31/06)


A.J. CEKAK'S MEAT MARKET 21562 M ORD. NE, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL

snip...

ALTA VISTA LOCKER 31931 M ALTA VISTA, KS, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...

C&C MEAT SALES, INC. 18494 M18494 P UPPER MARLBORO, MD
2/27/06
3/16/06
X
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

FRESH FARMS BEEF 18579 M RUTLAND, VT
12/16/05
12/28/05
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

H AND P MEATS 21352 M SOUTH PITTSBURG, TN
7/28/05
8/8/05
8/17/05
8/19/05
X
X
3/6/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

PARADISE LOCKER MEATS 31865 M31865 P TRIMBLE, MO
9/21/05
10/7/05
X
X
1/13/06
The enforcement action included, as basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.

PARAGON SPRAY DRYING, L.L.C. 31762 M31762 P WAUKON, IA
9/6/05
9/12/05
X
X
X
2/9/06
The enforcement action included, as basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

RANDALL MEAT COMPANY 10669 M HOT SPRINGS, AR
7/1/05
7/28/05
10/12/05
10/24/05
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

SAVORY CONNECTION, INC. 31764 M31764 P SELINGSGROVE, PA
3/14/06
3/31/06
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...


STEAK MASTER, 21159 M21159 P, ELWOOD, NW, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...


TEARS MARKET, 04535 M04535 P, PENN YAN, NY, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...


THE MEAT SHOP, 31561 M BENSON, VT, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...


THEURER'S QUALITY MEATS, INC. 31647 M31647 P, LEWISTON, UT, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...


TOOELE VALLEY MEATS 20594 M20594 P, GRANTSVILLE, UT, ... FAILURE TO COMPLY CONCERNING SRM MATERIAL


snip...

WALNUT VALLEY PACKING L.L.C. 32007 M32007 P EL DORADO, KS
12/15/05
12/30/05
X
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


snip...

WILLIAM. G. MEST PACKING CO. 04431 M STRYKERSVILLE, NY
2/2/06
2/23/06
X
X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material. On 3/21/06, NOIE was modified and

reissued. On 6/29/06, NOIE was

rescinded.

YODER BROTHERS MEAT PROCESSING 17301 M PARIS, TN
10/3/05
10/12/05
X
X
2/23/06
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.

snip...

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q1_FY2006.pdf


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT October 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005

SRM REMOVAL USA


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT October 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005


snip....


CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS 00086K M DODGE CITY, KS X X On 10/11/05, a
withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System
product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.


EXCEL CORP 00086R M FORT MORGAN, CO 2/22/05 X X On 8/11/04, a withholding
action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken
in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8. On 12/22/04, plant appealed the
withholding action. Appeal was denied on 1/25/05.


00245L M LEXINGTON, NE 3/12/04 3/18/04 X 5/4/05 X X On 3/10/05, a
withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System
product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

9/16/05 9/29/05 X X TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. 09268 M PASCO, WA X X On 7/28/04,
a withholding action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System
product was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.

TYSON FRESH MEATS INC. X X 00245D M EMPORIA, KS On 12/23/04, a withholding
action concerning labels for Advanced Meat Recovery System product was taken
in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.8.


DESERET MEAT 04852 M SPANISH FORK, UT 7/20/05 8/1/05 X X 12/29/05 The
enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


NORTHERN PACKING COMPANY INC. 00571 M BRIAR HILL, NY 12/9/05 12/23/05 X X X
X The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment
to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


A.J. CEKAK'S MEAT MARKET 9/1/05 9/20/05 X X X On 9/1/05, an enforcement
action
21562 M
concerning failure to meet regulatory ORD, NE requirements for Escherichia
coli Biotype 1 (E. coli) was taken. The enforcement action included, as a
basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency requirements
concerning specified risk material.


ALTA VISTA LOCKER
10/5/05 10/26/05 X X The enforcement action included, as a 31931 M basis,
failure of the establishment toALTA VISTA, KS comply with Agency
requirements
concerning specified risk material.


BROWN'S PROCESSING 13100 M13100 P ELSBERRY, MO 8/8/05 8/16/05 X X X 11/16/05
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


CHAMPLAIN BEEF INC 2/28/05 3/4/05 3/8/05 X X X
08547 M
WHITEHALL, NY
10/17/05 X X X The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the
establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk
material.


FIVE STAR PACK INC. 9/1/05 9/9/05 X X 12/29/05 On 9/1/05, an enforcement
action
08725 M08725 P
concerning failure to meet regulatory GOLDEN CITY, MO requirements for
Escherichia coli Biotype 1 (E. coli) was taken. The enforcement action
included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to comply with Agency
requirements concerning specified risk material. FRESH FARMS BEEF 12/16/05
12/28/05 X X X The enforcement action included, as a 18579 M basis, failure
of the establishment toRUTLAND, VT comply with Agency requirements
concerning specified risk material.


GOETZ AND SONS WESTERN 11/15/05 11/23/05 12/1/05 X X
MEATS INC
06245 M06245 P
EVERETT, WA
12/17/05 12/28/05 X X X On 12/17/05, firm violated a regulatory control
action by selling U.S.D.A retained product.


H AND P MEATS 21352 M SOUTH PITTSBURG, TN 7/28/05 8/8/05 8/17/05 8/19/05 X X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


HOPKINS PACKING COMPANY 11069 M BLACKFOOT, ID 7/28/05 8/1/05 X X The
enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


NORTHWEST PREMIUM MEATS LLC 11032 M11032 P NAMPA, ID 7/26/05 7/29/05 X X
11/15/05 The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the
establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk
material.


PARADISE LOCKER MEATS 31865 M31865 P TRIMBLE, MO 9/21/05 10/7/05 X X The
enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material. PARAGON
SPRAY DRYING, LLC 31762 M31762 P WAUKON, IA 9/6/05 9/12/05 X X X The
enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


RANDALL MEAT COMPANY 10669 M HOT SPRINGS, AR 7/1/05 7/28/05 10/12/05
10/24/05 X X X The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the
establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk
material.


S & S MEAT COMPANY 01046 M01046 P KANSAS CITY, MO 8/4/05 8/19/05 X X
11/16/05 The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the
establishment to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk
material.


STEAK MASTER 21159 M21159 P ELWOOD, NE 11/4/05 11/17/05 X X X The
enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


THE MEAT SHOP 31561 M BENSON, VT 8/18/05 9/6/05 9/9/05 X X X X X The
enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


THEURER'S QUALITY MEATS, INC 31647 M31647 P LEWISTON, UT 7/27/05 7/29/05 X X
The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


TOOELE VALLEY MEATS 20594 M20594 P GRANTSVILLE, UT 7/25/05 8/1/05 X X The
enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


WALNUT VALLEY PACKING LLC 32007 M32007 P EL DORADO, KS 12/15/05 12/30/05 X X
X The enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment
to comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


YODER BROTHERS MEAT PROCESSING 17301 M PARIS, TN 10/3/05 10/12/05 X X The
enforcement action included, as a basis, failure of the establishment to
comply with Agency requirements concerning specified risk material.


full text 54 pages ;


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q1_FY2006.pdf


Subject: USDA FSIS QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT (BSE) July 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005
Date: March 20, 2006 at 12:58 pm PST


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT July 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005


snip...


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...


DESERET MEAT 04852 M SPANISH FORK, UT
07/27/05
08/01/05
X
X
On 7/27/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...


MONTEBELLO MEAT PROCESSING, INC 19075 M19075 P MANATI, PR
08/01/05
08/18/05
X
X
X
09/26/05
On 8/1/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...

Table 7. Administrative Actions: Very Small HACCP Plants (7/01/05 to 9/30/05)


snip...


A.J. CEKAK'S MEAT MARKET 09/01/05 09/20/05 On 9/1/05, an enforcement action

21562 M

concerning failure to meet regulatory ORD, NE requirements for Escherichia coli X X X Biotype 1 (E. coli) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy/Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.


snip...


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...


BROWN'S PROCESSING 13100 M13100 P ELSBERRY, MO
08/08/05
08/16/05
X
X
X
On 8/8/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...


FIVE STAR PACK INC. 08725 M08725 P GOLDEN CITY, MO 09/01/05 09/09/05 X X On 9/1/05, an enforcement action concerning failure to meet regulatory requirements for Escherichia coli Biotype 1 (E. coli) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy/Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.


snip...


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...


H AND P MEATS 21352 M SOUTH PITTSBURG, TN 07/28/05 08/08/05 08/17/05 08/19/05 X X On 8/17/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.


snip...


HOPKINS PACKING COMPANY 11069 M BLACKFOOT, ID
07/28/05
08/01/05
X
X
On 7/28/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...


NORTHWEST PREMIUM MEATS LLC 11032 M11032 P NAMPA, ID 07/26/05 07/29/05 X X On 7/26/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.


snip...


PARADISE LOCKER MEATS 31865 M31865 P TRIMBLE, MO
09/21/05
X
X
On 9/21/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

PARAGON SPRAY DRYING, LLC 31792 M31792 P WAUKON, IA
09/06/05
09/12/05
X
X
X
On 9/6/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...


RANDALL MEAT COMPANY 10669 M HOT SPRINGS, AR
07/01/05
07/28/05
X
X
X
On 7/1/05, an enforcement action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.

snip...


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]


snip...


08/04/05

08/19/05

On 8/4/05,

an enforcement action 01046 M01046 P concerning Bovine SpongiformKANSAS CITY, MO X X Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.4.


Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Very Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]


snip...


THE MEAT SHOP 08/18/05 09/06/05

09/09/05

On 9/6/05, a suspension action 31561 M concerning Bovine SpongiformBENSON, VT Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3. XX X X X


THEURER'S QUALITY MEATS, 07/27/05 07/29/05

On 7/27/05, a suspension action INC concerning Bovine Spongiform31647 M31647 P Encephalopathy and Specified Risk X X

LEWISTON, UT Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.


TOOELE VALLEY MEATS 07/25/05 08/01/05

On 7/25/05, a suspension action 20594 M20594 Pconcerning Bovine Spongiform

GRANTSVILLE, UT X X Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.


snip...


52 pages

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q4_FY2005.pdf


PREVIOUS


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q3_FY2005.pdf


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q2_FY2005.pdf


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q1_FY2005.pdf

IF i remember correctly, the infamous PURINA FEED MILL incident in Gonzales TEXAS,
where at one feeding, those cows could not have consumed more than......or no more than 5.5 grams...etc. so, how many feedings does a feeder and or dairy calf have in there lifespan ? wouldn't you multiply that by those figures by that ??? be a lot of potential mad cow protein IN COMMERCE, and still is in 2006......tss


FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.

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

http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2001/ch5/default.htm

1: J Infect Dis 1980 Aug;142(2):205-8

Oral transmission of kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and scrapie to nonhuman primates.

Gibbs CJ Jr, Amyx HL, Bacote A, Masters CL, Gajdusek DC.

Kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease of humans and scrapie disease of sheep and goats were transmitted to squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) that were exposed to the infectious agents only by their nonforced consumption of known infectious tissues. The asymptomatic incubation period in the one monkey exposed to the virus of kuru was 36 months; that in the two monkeys exposed to the virus of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was 23 and 27 months, respectively; and that in the two monkeys exposed to the virus of scrapie was 25 and 32 months, respectively. Careful physical examination of the buccal cavities of all of the monkeys failed to reveal signs or oral lesions. One additional monkey similarly exposed to kuru has remained asymptomatic during the 39 months that it has been under observation.

PMID: 6997404 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6997404&dopt=Abstract

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


FC5.5.1

BASE Transmitted to Primates and MV2 sCJD Subtype Share PrP27-30 and PrPSc

C-terminal Truncated Fragments Zanusso, G1; Commoy, E2; Fasoli, E3; Fiorini, M3; Lescoutra, N4; Ruchoux,
MM4; Casalone, C5; Caramelli, M5; Ferrari, S3; Lasmezas, C6; Deslys, J-P4; Monaco, S3
1University of Verona, of Neurological and Visual Sciences, Italy; 2CEA, IMETI/SEPIA,
France; 3University of Verona, Neurological and Visual Sciences, Italy; 4IMETI/SEPIA,
France; 5IZSPLVA, Italy; 6The Scripps Research Insitute, USA


The etiology of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD), the most frequent human
prion disease, remains still unknown. The marked disease phenotype heterogeneity
observed in sCJD is thought to be influenced by the type of proteinase K-resistant
prion protein, or PrPSc (type 1 or type 2 according to the electrophoretic mobility of
the unglycosylated backbone), and by the host polymorphic Methionine/Valine (M/V)
codon 129 of the PRNP. By using a two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE)
and imunoblotting we previously showed that in sCJD, in addition to the PrPSc type,
distinct PrPSc C-terminal truncated fragments (CTFs) correlated with different sCJD
subtypes. Based on the combination of CTFs and PrPSc type, we distinguished three
PrPSc patterns: (i) the first was observed in sCJD with PrPSc type 1 of all genotypes,;
(ii) the second was found in M/M-2 (cortical form); (iii) the third in amyloidogenic M/V-
2 and V/V-2 subtypes (Zanusso et al., JBC 2004) . Recently, we showed that sCJD
subtype M/V-2 shared molecular and pathological features with an atypical form of
BSE, named BASE, thus suggesting a potential link between the two conditions. This
connection was further confirmed after 2D-PAGE analysis, which showed an identical
PrPSc signature, including the biochemical pattern of CTFs. To pursue this issue, we
obtained brain homogenates from Cynomolgus macaques intracerebrally inoculated
with brain homogenates from BASE. Samples were separated by using a two
dimensional electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) followed by immunoblotting. We here show
that the PrPSc pattern obtained in infected primates is identical to BASE and sCJD
MV-2 subtype. These data strongly support the link, or at least a common ancestry,
between a sCJD subtype and BASE.

This work was supported by Neuroprion (FOOD-CT-2004-506579)

FC5.5.2

Transmission of Italian BSE and BASE Isolates in Cattle Results into a Typical
BSE Phenotype and a Muscle Wasting Disease


Zanusso, G1; Lombardi, G2; Casalone, C3; D’Angelo, A4; Gelmetti, D2; Torcoli, G2;
Barbieri, I2; Corona, C3; Fasoli, E1; Farinazzo, A1; Fiorini, M1; Gelati, M1; Iulini, B3;
Tagliavini, F5; Ferrari, S1; Monaco, S1; Caramelli, M3; Capucci, L2
1University of Verona, Neurological and Visual Sciences, Italy; 2IZSLER, Italy; 3IZSPLVA,
Italy; 4University of Turin, Animal Pathology, Italy; 5Isituto Carlo Besta, Italy


The clinical phenotype of bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been extensively
reported in early accounts of the disorder. Following the introduction of statutory active
surveillance, almost all BSE cases have been diagnosed on a pathological/molecular
basis, in a pre-symptomatic clinical stage. In recent years, the active surveillance
system has uncovered atypical BSE cases, which are characterized by distinct
conformers of the PrPSc, named high-type (BSE-H) and low-type (BSE-L), whose
clinicopathological phenotypes remain unknown. We recently reported two Italian
atypical cases with a PrPSc type similar to BSE-L, pathologically characterized by PrP
amyloid plaques. Experimental transmission to TgBov mice has recently disclosed that
BASE is caused by a distinct prion strain which is extremely virulent. A major limitation
of transmission studies to mice is the lack of reliable information on clinical phenotype
of BASE in its natural host. In the present study, we experimentally infected
Fresian/Holstein and Alpine/Brown cattle with Italian BSE and BASE isolates by i.c.
route. BASE infected cattle showed survival times significantly shorter than BSE, a
finding more readily evident in Fresian/Holstein, and in keeping with previous
observations in TgBov mice. Clinically, BSE-infected cattle developed a disease
phenotype highly comparable with that described in field BSE cases and in
experimentally challenged cattle. On the contrary, BASE-inoculated cattle developed
an amyotrophic disorder accompanied by mental dullness.
The molecular and neuropathological profiles, including PrP deposition pattern, closely
matched those observed in the original cases. This study further confirms that BASE
is caused by a distinct prion isolate and discloses a novel disease phenotype in cattle,
closely resembling the phenotype previous reported in scrapie-inoculated cattle and in
some subtypes of inherited and sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

http://www.prion2007.com/pdf/Prion%20Book%20of%20Abstracts.pdf

TSS






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: