USDA Statement BSE Surveillance Information Center Update 2026
BSE Surveillance Information Center
SHARE: Facebook Twitter Linkedin
Animal Science BSE Surveillance Information Center BSE Frequently Asked Questions USDA conducts surveillance for Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), referred to as "mad cow disease", in cattle to determine if, and at what level, the disease is present in the U.S. cattle population. Our surveillance program allows us to assess any change in the BSE disease status of U.S. cattle, and identify any rise in BSE prevalence in this country. Identifying any changes in the prevalence of disease allows us to match our preventive measures - feed ban for animal health, and specified risk material removal for public health - to the level of disease in U.S. cattle.
It is the longstanding system of interlocking safeguards, including the removal of specified risk materials - or the parts of an animal that would contain BSE - at slaughter and the FDA's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban that protect public and animal health from BSE.
Why did USDA decrease the number of samples per year in 2006?
After the first confirmation of BSE in an animal in Washington State in December 2003, USDA evaluated its BSE surveillance efforts in light of that finding. We determined that we needed to immediately conduct a major surveillance effort to help determine the prevalence of BSE in the United States. Our goal over a 12-18 month period was to obtain as many samples as possible from the segments of the cattle population where we were most likely to find BSE if it was present. This population of cattle was exhibiting some signs of disease. We conducted this enhanced surveillance effort from June 2004 - August 2006. In that time, we collected a total of 787,711 samples and estimated the prevalence of BSE in the United States to be between 4-7 infected animals in a population of 42 million adult cattle. We consequently modified our surveillance efforts based on this prevalence estimate to a level we can monitor for any potential changes, should they occur. Our statistical analysis indicated that collecting approximately 40,000 samples per year from the targeted cattle population would enable us to conduct this monitoring.
Why is USDA "only" testing 25,000 samples a year?
USDA's surveillance strategy is to focus on the targeted populations where we are most likely to find disease if it is present. This is the most effective way to meet both OIE and our domestic surveillance standards. After completing our enhanced surveillance in 2006 and confirming that our BSE prevalence was very low, an evaluation of the program showed that reducing the number of samples collected to 40,000 samples per year from these targeted, high risk populations would allow us to continue to exceed these standards. In fact, the sampling was ten times greater than OIE standards. A subsequent evaluation of the program in 2016 using data collected over the past 10 years showed that the surveillance standards could still be met with a further reduction in the number of samples collected by renderers and 3D/4D establishments which have a very low OIE point value because the medical history of these animals is usually unknown. Therefore, in 2016, the number of samples to be tested was reduced to 25,000 where it remains today.
How can USDA find every case of BSE in the United States when you are only testing 25,000 animals?
The goal of our BSE surveillance program, even under the enhanced program, has never been to detect every case of BSE. Our goal is determine whether the disease exists at very low levels in the U.S. cattle population, and we do this by testing those animals most likely to have BSE. It is the longstanding system of interlocking safeguards, including the removal of specified risk materials - or the parts of an animal that would contain BSE - at slaughter and the FDA's ruminant-to- ruminant feed ban that protect public and animal health from BSE.
Why didn’t USDA continue to test animals at the enhanced surveillance level?
USDA's 2004-2006 enhanced surveillance program was initiated in response to the first detection of BSE in the United States and was designed to detect the overall prevalence of the disease in this country. This required a very intensive effort and it allowed us to estimate extremely low prevalence levels of disease. Once that prevalence level was determined, USDA modified its testing levels to monitor any changes in the level of disease. Our current testing of approximately 25,000 targeted animals a year allows USDA to detect BSE at the very low level of less than 1 case per million adult cattle, assess any change in the BSE status of U.S. cattle, and identify any rise in BSE prevalence in this country.
Is USDA's surveillance program a food safety or public health measure?
The primary, and most effective, food safety or public health measure is the removal of specified risk materials (SRMs) - or the parts of an animal that would contain BSE - from every animal at slaughter. USDA's BSE surveillance program is not a food safety measure; it is an animal health monitoring measure. However, it does support existing public health and food safety measures. By allowing us to monitor the level of disease in the US cattle population, we can help determine the appropriate level of public health and animal health measures required, and whether they should be increased or decreased.
Why doesn't USDA test every animal at slaughter?
There is currently no test to detect the disease in a live animal. BSE is confirmed by taking samples from the brain of an animal and testing to see if the infectious agent - the abnormal form of the prion protein - is present. The earliest point at which current tests can accurately detect BSE is 2 to 3 months before the animal begins to show symptoms, and the time between initial infection and the appearance of symptoms is about 5 years. Therefore, there is a long period of time during which current tests would not be able to detect the disease in an infected animal.
Since most cattle are slaughtered in the United States at a young age, they are in that period where tests would not be able to detect the disease if present. Testing all slaughter cattle for BSE could produce an exceedingly high rate of false negative test results and offer misleading assurances of the presence or absence of disease.
Simply put, the most effective way to detect BSE is not to test all animals, which could lead to false security, but to test those animals most likely to have the disease, which is the basis of USDA's current program.
What animals are USDA testing in the surveillance program?
These are random samples at slaughter, aren't they? No. USDA's BSE surveillance program is specifically targeted to the population most likely to have the disease, if it is present. This population is NOT clinically healthy animals that would be presented for slaughter. Rather, it includes animals that have some type of abnormality, such as central nervous system signs; non-ambulatory, or a "downer"; emaciated; or died for unknown reasons. Because these animals would not pass the required ante-mortem inspection requirements at slaughter for human consumption, we collect the majority of our samples at facilities other than slaughter facilities - at rendering or salvage facilities, on-farm, at veterinary clinics or veterinary diagnostic laboratories. With this targeted approach, we can monitor the presence of disease in the US cattle population in a much more efficient and meaningful way. The key to surveillance is to look where the disease is going to occur.
Key Points: BSE Ongoing Surveillance Plan Note: This Fact Sheet is based on the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Ongoing Surveillance Plan, July 20, 2006. To learn more, read the complete BSE Ongoing Surveillance Plan (PDF, 187 KB).
Key Points In addition to a stringent feed ban imposed by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997 as well as the removal of all specified risk material which could harbor BSE, USDA has a strong surveillance program in place to detect signs of BSE in cattle in the United States. In fact, we test for BSE at levels greater than World Animal Health Organization standards. The program samples approximately 25,000 animals each year and targets cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found. The targeted population for ongoing surveillance focuses on cattle exhibiting signs of central nervous disorders or any other signs that may be associated with BSE, including emaciation or injury, and dead cattle, as well as non-ambulatory animals. Samples from the targeted population are taken at farms, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, public health laboratories, slaughter facilities, veterinary clinics, and livestock markets.
USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, IA, along with contracted veterinary diagnostic laboratories, use rapid screening tests as the initial screening method on all samples. Any inconclusive samples undergo further testing and analysis at NVSL.
Not a Food Safety Test BSE tests are not conducted on cuts of meat, but involve taking samples from the brain of a dead animal to see if the infectious agent is present. We know that the earliest point at which current tests can accurately detect BSE is 2-to-3 months before the animal begins to show symptoms. The time between initial infection and the appearance of symptoms is about 5 years. Since most cattle that go to slaughter in the United States are both young and clinically normal, testing all slaughter cattle for BSE might offer misleading assurances of safety to the public.
The BSE surveillance program is not for the purposes of determining food safety. Rather, it is an animal health surveillance program. USDA's BSE surveillance program allows USDA to detect the disease if it exists at very low levels in the U.S. cattle population and provides assurances to consumers and our international trading partners that the interlocking system of safeguards in place to prevent BSE are working.
The safety of the U.S. food supply from BSE is assured by the removal of specified risk materials - those tissues known to be infective in an affected animal - from all human food. These requirements have been in place since 2004.
Ongoing BSE Surveillance Program Summary USDA's BSE surveillance program samples approximately 25,000 animals each year and targets cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found. The statistically valid surveillance level of 25,000 is consistent with science-based internationally accepted standards. This level allows USDA to detect BSE at the very low level of less than 1 case per million adult cattle, assess any change in the BSE status of U.S. cattle, and identify any rise in BSE prevalence in this country.
The targeted population for ongoing surveillance focuses on cattle exhibiting signs of central nervous disorders or any other signs that may be associated with BSE, including emaciation or injury, and dead cattle, as well as nonambulatory animals. Samples from the targeted population are taken at farms, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, public health laboratories, slaughter facilities, veterinary clinics, and livestock markets.
USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, IA, along with contracted veterinary diagnostic laboratories, will continue to use rapid screening tests as the initial screening method on all samples. Any inconclusive samples will be sent to NVSL for further testing and analysis. USDA's surveillance program uses OIE's weighted surveillance points system, which was adopted in May 2005 and reflects international scientific consensus that the best BSE surveillance programs focus on obtaining quality samples from targeted subpopulations rather than looking at the entire adult cattle population.
The number of points a sample receives correlates directly to an animal's clinical presentation at the time of sampling. The highest point values are assigned to those samples from animals with classic clinical signs of the disease. The lowest point values correspond to clinically normal animals tested at routine slaughter.
The goal of this weighted approach is to ensure that countries sample those cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found. This system is not different from USDA's previous BSE surveillance approach, it is simply a different method for evaluating surveillance programs. Both approaches target those cattle populations where BSE is most likely to be found. The OIE is simply assigning point values to different categories of animals.
USDA has been targeting these subpopulations since BSE surveillance was initiated in 1990, and will continue to do so under the OIE weighted approach. Under the OIE guidelines, points compiled over a period of 7 consecutive years are used as evidence of adequate surveillance. At the current ongoing level of surveillance, the United States will far exceed OIE guidelines under the point system.
https://www.usda.gov/farming-and-ranching/animal-science/bse-surveillance-information-center
Bbbut, what happened to this $$$
Sample Size Estimate for BSE Ongoing Surveillance
July 20, 2006
snip...
In addition, we aim to meet the objective of conducting ongoing surveillance at a level that meets or exceeds OIE surveillance recommendations. We believe this objective is reached by the following sampling strategy, which is sufficient to detect BSE at 1 infected animal per 1,000,000 adult cattle in the population with a high degree of confidence.
Sample Size to Meet OIE Surveillance Recommendations
APHIS is committed to maintaining BSE surveillance that at least meets OIE guidelines. The OIE surveillance guidelines for BSE recommend a target number of surveillance points for Type A surveillance based on the size of a country’s cattle population. These points are accrued over 7 consecutive years, and are weighted according to the surveillance stream and age of the animal sampled. For a large cattle population, using the design prevalence of 1 case per 100,000 adult cattle and 95 percent confidence, 300,000 total points over 7 years, or 42,857 points per year, are required for Type A surveillance (OIE 2005).
http://web.archive.org/web/20090109193041/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/peer_review/downloads/BSE_sample_size_ongoing_surv_after.pdf
my comments***>
MY BullShit Meter pegged out on this USDA BSE Madcow Update, please let me address this, and show you why. i was part of the infamous US BSE Enhanced Surveillance efforts, and the only enhanced thing about it was attempted cover up of BSE in Texas. then, once the atypical BSE cases started showing up, it was shut down. i can assure you, if proper BSE testing were done here in US, more cases would be found. but that is the way the USDA BSE program is now set up, to not find BSE, imho. your just not going to find many cases of mad cow BSE testing less than 25k a year, yet they did confirm a mad cow case in 2023, so, it’s got to be bad, by confirming a BSE case with so few BSE tests, imo. but you can make your own mind up, here’s the data. let’s look at that history, shall we. i will dissect this one section at at time, but first, lets look at the latest BSE science and transmission studies, to date, on the typical and atypical BSE, then at the bottom i will post history on the infamous enhanced BSE program and the famous negative BSE, negative BSE, then sit on the shelf for 7 months, then an act of Congress intervention, and then Finally Positive BSE case in Texas, and afterwards, the 7 1/2 Scientists Report on BSE (1/2=TSS) lol…
***> atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE, atypical Scrapie TSE Prion 2026 <***
“In contrast, atypical BSE has been delisted by WOAH as a notifiable disease since 2023, due to its rare and sporadic nature and the finding that it has no significant impact on animal or public health. Detection of an atypical BSE case does not require emergency reporting or trade disruptions.”
“According to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), Terrestrial Manual 2021, atypical BSE, caused by H- and L-type BSE agents, is rare and is believed to occur spontaneously in all bovine populations at a very low rate and has only been identified in older cattle.”
***> “Why is USDA "only" testing 25,000 samples a year?”
Bottom line, USDA does not want to find any cases of BSE aka MadCow Disease, that’s why the infamous enhanced BSE surveillance and testing was shut down. tried to cover up a Texas BSE MadCow for 7 months. until literally an act of Congress got that cow retested and proven positive.
My Concerns with atypical BSE as Follows;
spontaneous?
***Moreover, sporadic disease has never been observed in breeding colonies or primate research laboratories, most notably among hundreds of animals over several decades of study at the National Institutes of Health25, and in nearly twenty older animals continuously housed in our own facility.***
Even if the prevailing view is that sporadic CJD is due to the spontaneous formation of CJD prions, it remains possible that its apparent sporadic nature may, at least in part, result from our limited capacity to identify an environmental origin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11573
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=361032
***> atypical BSE and atypical Scrapie <***
Atypical BSE in cattle
THE recent diagnosis of two atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases in Great Britain (March 2023 in Cornwall and December 2024 in Dumfries and Galloway) and one in the Republic of Ireland (in November 2023) warrants a reminder about this notifiable disease.
Since 2005, a total of 17 cases have been detected in Great Britain.1 Unlike classical BSE, which resulted in over 180,000 cases in Great Britain and was predominantly associated with the consumption of feed contaminated with the BSE agent, and where the last case was confirmed in Ayrshire in May 2024, atypical BSE is believed to be a spontaneous disease in cattle found in approximately one in 1,000,000 tested cattle based on French data,2 similar to the sporadic Creutzfeldt- Jakob disease in people. There is currently no evidence that atypical BSE causes a disease in people, although it can be transmitted experimentally to other species by intracerebral inoculation, including primates.3–5 The World Organisation for Animal Health does not include atypical BSE in its geographical BSE risk status assessment.
Despite differences in terms of epidemiological, molecular and biological phenotype compared with classical BSE, atypical BSE is currently treated as if it were classical BSE in accordance with EU and UK legislation: once a case is identified, all cohort animals born and reared with the affected animal during the first 12 months of its life, and all offspring born within 24 months of its clinical onset, are culled and tested for BSE, which does seem to be at odds with the hypothesis that it is a spontaneous disease. This is more a precautionary measure to maintain confidence in the beef trade and protect consumers while more knowledge about this disease is obtained.
Almost all current knowledge on atypical BSE is based on experimental infection because this spontaneous
VET RECORD | 29 March–12 April 2025
disease has generally only been found in aged downer cows, which is difficult to replicate experimentally in the host species. Intracerebral inoculation of brain tissue from an affected cow causes disease in cattle in less than two years, unlike the natural disease that usually occurs in animals over eight years of age.
The vast majority of cases have been identified by active monitoring of fallen stock or emergency slaughter of cattle, where only the brain sample of various stages of autolysis is generally available. Little is known of where the atypical BSE agent can be found in natural disease, other than in the brain, because all the cases confirmed have been identified after death through active surveillance, by which time most peripheral tissue has been disposed of. Limited material from a single case of a naturally affected cow was tested in Italy by mouse bioassay, which found infectivity in muscle.6 In experimental disease generated by intracerebral inoculation of cattle, infectivity can be detected in the brain and spinal cord, ganglia, peripheral nerves and skeletal muscles, similar to classical BSE, but not in peripheral lymphoid tissue.6–8
Early reporting of clinical suspects is needed so that the live animal or the whole carcase can be delivered to an APHA regional laboratory for tissue sampling. This is made more difficult due to the subtlety of clinical signs based on experimental disease. Clinical cases may not be as over- reactive or nervous as classical BSE cases; some may, in fact, be dull, but what most cases have in common is that they have difficulty getting up and eventually end up as downer cows, and only the clinical history may reveal some prior behavioural or locomotor changes. High creatinine kinase serum levels and nibbling in response to scratching the tail head or back were some features in experimental disease,8, 9 but it is not known whether this is also seen in natural disease.
In general, BSE should be considered as a differential diagnosis in all downer cows that do not respond to treatment, where the blood results do not support the presence of a metabolic disease and where the cause cannot be determined with confidence.
Since BSE is a notifiable disease, suspected cases of BSE in Great Britain must be reported to the local APHA office.
Changes are imminent in the reporting of fallen stock cattle, which will require the owner to state whether the animal displayed signs of changes in behaviour, sensation or locomotion before death, in addition to the likely cause of death or disease. This is to obtain a better profile of the clinical history, if cattle are retrospectively diagnosed as BSE cases, which has happened in all BSE cases confirmed since 2010: none has been reported as a clinical suspect.
“BSE should be considered as a differential diagnosis in all downer cows that do not respond to treatment”
Timm Konold, TSE lead scientist
Brenda Rajanayagam, workgroup leader for the data systems group
APHA Weybridge, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB email: timm.konold@apha.gov.uk
Keith Meldrum, former chief veterinary officer The Orchard, Swaynes Lane, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2XX
References
1 APHA. Cattle: TSE surveillance statistics. Overview of Great Britain statistics. 2025. https://bit.ly/4ho5Nds (accessed 19 March 2025)
Atypical BSE In Cattle
https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/vetr.5400?campaign=woletoc
see latest on BSE TSE Prion EU;
https://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2026/04/ireland-central-veterinary-research.html
Title: Transmission of atypical BSE: a possible origin of Classical BSE in cattle
Authors: Sandor Dudas1, Samuel James Sharpe1, Kristina Santiago-Mateo1, Stefanie Czub1, Waqas Tahir1,2, *
Affiliation: 1National and WOAH reference Laboratory for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Canadian Food inspection Agency, Lethbridge Laboratory, Lethbridge, Canada. 2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
*Corresponding and Presenting Author: waqas.tahir@inspection.gc.ca
Background: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease of cattle and is categorized into classical and atypical forms. Classical BSE (CBSE) is linked to the consumption of BSE contaminated feed whereas atypical BSE is considered to be spontaneous in origin. The potential for oral transmission of atypical BSE is yet to be clearly defined.
Aims: To assess the oral transmissibility of atypical BSE (H and L type) in cattle. Should transmission be successful, determine the biochemical characteristics and distribution of PrPSc in the challenge cattle.
Material and Methods: For oral transmission, calves were fed with 100 g of either H (n=3) or L BSE (n=3) positive brain material. Two years post challenge, 1 calf from each of the H and L BSE challenge groups exhibited behavioural signs and were euthanized. Various brain regions of both animals were tested by traditional and novel prion detection methods with inconclusive results. To detect infectivity, brain homogenates from these oral challenge animals (P1) were injected intra-cranially (IC) into steer calves. Upon clinical signs of BSE, 3/4 of IC challenged steer calves were euthanized and tested for PrPSc with ELISA, immunohistochemistry and immunoblot.
Results: After 6 years of incubation, 3/4 animals (2/2 steers IC challenged with brain from P1 L-BSE oral challenge and 1/2 steer IC challenged with brain from P1 H-BSE oral challenge) developed clinical disease. Analysis of these animals revealed high levels of PrPSc in their brains, having biochemical properties similar to that of PrPSc in C-BSE.
Conclusion: These results demonstrate the oral transmission potential of atypical BSE in cattle. Surprisingly, regardless of which atypical type of BSE was used for P1 oral challenge, PrPSc in the P2 animals acquired biochemical characteristics similar to that of PrPSc in C-BSE, suggesting atypical BSE as a possible origin of C-BSE in UK.
Presentation Type: Oral Presentation
Funded by: CFIA, Health Canada, Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency, Alberta Prion Research Institute
Grant Number: ALMA/APRI: 201400006, HC 414250
https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20250828201533/https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Syed-Zahid-Shah/publication/378314391_Meeting-book-final-version_prion_2023/links/65d44dad28b7720cecdca95f/Meeting-book-final-version-prion-2023.pdf
The naturally occurring lysine to glutamic acid substitution (E211K in the bovine prion protein) results in short incubation periods for H-type bovine spongioform encephalopathy (BSE)
Component 6: Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs)
Problem Statement 6A: Determine pathobiology of prion strains.
The naturally occurring lysine to glutamic acid substitution (E211K in the bovine prion protein) results in short incubation periods for H-type bovine spongioform encephalopathy (BSE).
Virus and Prion Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa
Classical BSE (C-BSE) is a prion disease of cattle that was responsible for the "mad cow disease" epizootic in Europe in the 1980s. C-BSE was determined to cause the human prion disease vCJD. Since then, atypical spontaneous strains of BSE were identified. H-BSE is one of those strains. Much research has explored the origins of C-BSE, and strain emergence from atypical H-BSE is one hypothesis. An H-BSE case was determined to have a germline mutation, an E211K substitution in the prion protein gene, which is analogous to a hereditary human prion disease. ARS scientists in Ames, Iowa reported the transmission of H-BSE from cattle, with and without the germline prion protein amino acid substitution, to cattle with various prion genotypes: EE211 (wild-type), EK211, and KK211. Results indicated a significantly shorter incubation period in K containing cattle compared to prion wild-type cattle. The scientists also explored the possibility that the C-BSE strain might have occurred after serial passages of EK211 and KK211 containing H-BSE in cattle, but results did not support this concept. This information is important to prion researchers, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, and those involved with establishing regulatory guidelines.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/np103/AnnualReports/Final%20NP103%20FY2024%20Annual%20Report.updated%205.30.25.pdf
Research Project: Elucidating the Pathobiology and Transmission of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: Cattle with the EK211 PRNP polymorphism are susceptible to the H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent from either E211K or wild type donors after oronasal inoculation
Author item Greenlee, Justin item Cassmann, Eric item MOORE, SARA JO - Oak Ridge Institute For Science And Education (ORISE) item WEST GREENLEE, HEATHER - Iowa State University
Submitted to: Meeting Abstract Publication Type: Abstract Only Publication Acceptance Date: 6/24/2022 Publication Date: 9/16/2022 Citation: Greenlee, J.J., Cassmann, E.D., Moore, S., West Greenlee, H.M. 2022.
Cattle with the EK211 PRNP polymorphism are susceptible to the H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent from either E211K or wild type donors after oronasal inoculation.
Prion 2022 Conference abstracts: pushing the boundaries. 16(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1080/19336896.2022.2091286.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19336896.2022.2091286
Interpretive Summary:
Technical Abstract: In 2006, a case of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy (H-BSE) was reported in a cow with a previously unreported prion protein polymorphism (E211K). The E211K polymorphism is heritable and homologous to the E200K mutation in humans that is the most frequent PRNP mutation associated with familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Although the prevalence of the E211K polymorphism is low, cattle carrying the K211 allele develop H-type BSE with a rapid onset after experimental inoculation by the intracranial route. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the agents of H-type BSE or H-type BSE associated with the E211K polymorphism transmit to wild type cattle or cattle with the K211 allele after oronasal exposure. Wild type (EE211) or heterozygous (EK211) cattle were oronasally inoculated with the H-BSE agent from either the US 2004 case (wild type donor; n=3) or from the US 2006 case with the E211K polymorphism (n=4). Cattle were observed daily throughout the course of the experiment for the development of clinical signs. When signs were noted, animals were euthanized and necropsied. Cattle were confirmed positive for abnormal BSE prions by enzyme immunoassay (EIA; Idexx HerdChek BSE Ag Test), anti-PrP immunohistochemistry (IHC) on brainstem, and microscopic examination for vacuolation. Three-out-of-four (75%) calves with the EK211 genotype developed clinical signs of H-BSE including inattentiveness, loss of body condition, weakness, ataxia, and muscle fasciculations and were euthanized. Two of the positive EK211 steers received H-BSE US 2004 inoculum (Incubation Period (IP): 59.3 and 72.3 months) while the other positive steer received the E211K H-BSE inoculum (IP: 49.7 months). EIA confirmed that abundant misfolded protein (O.D. 2.57-4.0) in the brainstem, and IHC demonstrated PrPSc throughout the brain. All cattle in the EE211 recipient group remain asymptomatic for the duration of the experiment (approximately 7 years post-inoculation).
This study demonstrates that the H-type BSE agent is transmissible by the oronasal route. Cattle with the EK211 genotype are oronasally susceptible to small doses of the H-BSE agent from either EK211 or EE211 (wild type) donors. Wild-type EE211 cattle remained asymptomatic for the duration of the experiment with this small dose (0.1g) of inoculum. These results reinforce the need for ongoing surveillance for classical and atypical BSE to minimize the risk of potentially infectious tissues entering the animal or human food chains.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=395351
Highlights
This study demonstrates that the H-type BSE agent is transmissible by the oronasal route. Cattle with the EK211 genotype are oronasally susceptible to small doses of the H-BSE agent from either EK211 or EE211 (wild type) donors. Wild-type EE211 cattle remained asymptomatic for the duration of the experiment with this small dose (0.1g) of inoculum. These results reinforce the need for ongoing surveillance for classical and atypical BSE to minimize the risk of potentially infectious tissues entering the animal or human food chains.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=395351
Title: A comparison of classical and H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy associated with E211K prion protein polymorphism in wild type and EK211cattle following intracranial inoculation
Author item MOORE, S - Orise Fellow item WEST GREENLEE, M - Iowa State University item Smith, Jodi item Vrentas, Catherine item Nicholson, Eric item Greenlee, Justin
Submitted to: Frontiers in Veterinary Science Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal Publication Acceptance Date: 8/30/2016 Publication Date: 9/15/2016 Citation: Moore, S.J., West Greenlee, M.H., Smith, J.D., Vrentas, C.E., Nicholson, E.M., Greenlee, J.J. 2016.
A comparison of classical and H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy associated with E211K prion protein polymorphism in wild type and EK211cattle following intracranial inoculation.
Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 3:78. Interpretive
Summary: Cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease can be subclassified into at least 3 distinct disease forms with the predominate form known as classical BSE and the others collectively referred to as atypical BSE. Atypical BSE can be further subdivided into H-type and L-type cases that are distinct from classical BSE and from each other. Both of the atypical BSE subtypes are believed to occur spontaneously, whereas classical BSE is spread through feeding contaminated meat and bone meal to cattle. Work by other research groups suggests that the stability of the distinguishing features of atypical BSE cases (phenotypical stability) can change to closely resemble classical BSE after experimental passage implicating atypical BSE as a possible origin of classical BSE. Interestingly, one case of H-type BSE in the US was associated with an inherited mutation in the prion protein gene referred to as E211K. The purpose of this work was to compare wild type and cattle with the E211K mutation after experimental inoculation with either classical BSE or H-BSE from the original E211K case. This study demonstrates that the disease features of E211K BSE-H remain stable when transmitted to cattle without the K211 polymorphism. In addition, passage of classical BSE to cattle with the K211 polymorphism results in disease with features consistent with classical BSE and not a switch to atypical BSE-H as a result of the K211 polymorphism. As the origin of classical, feedborne BSE remains unknown and low numbers of atypical BSE are diagnosed each year, parties with interest in the cattle and beef industries and regulatory officials responsible for safe feeding practices of cattle will be interested in this work.
Technical Abstract: In 2006, a case of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE-H) was diagnosed in a cow that was associated with a heritable polymorphism in the bovine prion protein gene (PRNP) resulting in a lysine for glutamine amino acid substitution at codon 211 (called E211K) of the prion protein. Although the prevalence of this polymorphism is low, cattle carrying the K211 allele may be predisposed to rapid onset of BSE-H when exposed or to the potential development of a genetic BSE. This study was conducted to better understand the relationship between the K211 polymorphism and its effect on BSE phenotype. BSE-H from the US 2006 case was inoculated intracranially (IC) in one PRNP wild type (EE211) calf and one EK211 calf. In addition, one wild type calf and one EK211 calf were inoculated IC with brain homogenate from a US 2003 classical BSE case. All cattle developed clinical disease. The survival times of the E211K BSE-H inoculated EK211 calf (10 months) was shorter than the wild type calf (18 months). This genotype effect was not observed in classical BSE inoculated cattle (both 26 months). Significant changes in retinal function were observed in H-type BSE challenged cattle only. Cattle challenged with the same inoculum showed similar severity and neuroanatomical distribution of vacuolation and disease-associated prion protein deposition in the brain, though differences in neuropathology were observed between E211K BSE-H and classical BSE inoculated animals. Western blot results for brain tissue from challenged animals were consistent with the inoculum strains. This study demonstrates that the phenotype of E211K BSE-H remains stable when transmitted to cattle without the K211 polymorphism, and exhibits a number of features that differ from classical BSE in both wild type and heterozygous EK211 animals.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=326785
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025
World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) downgrades UK’s BSE risk rating to negligible, what could go wrong?
https://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2025/06/world-organisation-for-animal-health.html
OIE Conclusions on transmissibility of atypical BSE among cattle
Given that cattle have been successfully infected by the oral route, at least for L-BSE, it is reasonable to conclude that atypical BSE is potentially capable of being recycled in a cattle population if cattle are exposed to contaminated feed. In addition, based on reports of atypical BSE from several countries that have not had C-BSE, it appears likely that atypical BSE would arise as a spontaneous disease in any country, albeit at a very low incidence in old cattle. In the presence of livestock industry practices that would allow it to be recycled in the cattle feed chain, it is likely that some level of exposure and transmission may occur. As a result, since atypical BSE can be reasonably considered to pose a potential background level of risk for any country with cattle, the recycling of both classical and atypical strains in the cattle and broader ruminant populations should be avoided.
https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/SST/adhocreports/Bovine%20spongiform%20encephalopathy/AN/A_AhG_BSEsurv_RiskAss_Mar2019.pdf
Annex 7 (contd) AHG on BSE risk assessment and surveillance/March 2019
34 Scientific Commission/September 2019
3. Atypical BSE
The Group discussed and endorsed with minor revisions an overview of relevant literature on the risk of atypical BSE being recycled in a cattle population and its zoonotic potential that had been prepared ahead of the meeting by one expert from the Group. This overview is provided as Appendix IV and its main conclusions are outlined below. With regard to the risk of recycling of atypical BSE, recently published research confirmed that the L-type BSE prion (a type of atypical BSE prion) may be orally transmitted to calves1 . In light of this evidence, and the likelihood that atypical BSE could arise as a spontaneous disease in any country, albeit at a very low incidence, the Group was of the opinion that it would be reasonable to conclude that atypical BSE is potentially capable of being recycled in a cattle population if cattle were to be exposed to contaminated feed. Therefore, the recycling of atypical strains in cattle and broader ruminant populations should be avoided.
4. Definitions of meat-and-bone meal (MBM) and greaves
http://web.oie.int/downld/PROC2020/A_SCAD_Sept2019.pdf
The L-type BSE prion is much more virulent in primates and in humanized mice than is the classical BSE prion, which suggests the possibility of zoonotic risk associated with the L-type BSE prion
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/16/7/09-1882_article
Consumption of L-BSE–contaminated feed may pose a risk for oral transmission of the disease agent to cattle.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324790/
Thus, it is imperative to maintain measures that prevent the entry of tissues from cattle possibly infected with the agent of L-BSE into the food chain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310119/
Atypical L-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy (L-BSE) transmission to cynomolgus macaques, a non-human primate
Fumiko Ono 1, Naomi Tase, Asuka Kurosawa, Akio Hiyaoka, Atsushi Ohyama, Yukio Tezuka, Naomi Wada, Yuko Sato, Minoru Tobiume, Ken'ichi Hagiwara, Yoshio Yamakawa, Keiji Terao, Tetsutaro Sata
Affiliations expand
PMID: 21266763
Abstract
A low molecular weight type of atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (L-BSE) was transmitted to two cynomolgus macaques by intracerebral inoculation of a brain homogenate of cattle with atypical BSE detected in Japan. They developed neurological signs and symptoms at 19 or 20 months post-inoculation and were euthanized 6 months after the onset of total paralysis. Both the incubation period and duration of the disease were shorter than those for experimental transmission of classical BSE (C-BSE) into macaques. Although the clinical manifestations, such as tremor, myoclonic jerking, and paralysis, were similar to those induced upon C-BSE transmission, no premonitory symptoms, such as hyperekplexia and depression, were evident. Most of the abnormal prion protein (PrP(Sc)) was confined to the tissues of the central nervous system, as determined by immunohistochemistry and Western blotting. The PrP(Sc) glycoform that accumulated in the monkey brain showed a similar profile to that of L-BSE and consistent with that in the cattle brain used as the inoculant. PrP(Sc) staining in the cerebral cortex showed a diffuse synaptic pattern by immunohistochemistry, whereas it accumulated as fine and coarse granules and/or small plaques in the cerebellar cortex and brain stem. Severe spongiosis spread widely in the cerebral cortex, whereas florid plaques, a hallmark of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans, were observed in macaques inoculated with C-BSE but not in those inoculated with L-BSE.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21266763/
see full text;
https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/images/JJID/64/81.pdf
''H-TYPE BSE AGENT IS TRANSMISSIBLE BY THE ORONASAL ROUTE''
This study demonstrates that the H-type BSE agent is transmissible by the oronasal route. These results reinforce the need for ongoing surveillance for classical and atypical BSE to minimize the risk of potentially infectious tissues entering the animal or human food chains.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=353094
'Spontaneous mutation'
***Moreover, sporadic disease has never been observed in breeding colonies or primate research laboratories, most notably among hundreds of animals over several decades of study at the National Institutes of Health25, and in nearly twenty older animals continuously housed in our own facility.***
Even if the prevailing view is that sporadic CJD is due to the spontaneous formation of CJD prions, it remains possible that its apparent sporadic nature may, at least in part, result from our limited capacity to identify an environmental origin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11573
***> US Report, Scrapie, CWD, Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Cervid, Humans, Zoonotic, 2026 <***
*** Grant Agreement number: 222887 ***
*** Project acronym: PRIORITY ***
*** Project title: Protecting the food chain from prions: shaping European priorities through basic and applied research Funding ***
Scheme: Large-scale integrating project Period covered: from Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2014
Name of the scientific representative of the project's co-ordinator1, Title and Organisation: Jesús R. Requena, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spàin. Tel: 34-881815464 Fax: 34-881815403 E-mail: jesus.requena@usc.es
Project website¡ Error! Marcador no definido. address: www.prionpriority.eu
PRIORITY, PROJECT FINAL REPORT
*** 14) Concluding that atypical scrapie can transmit to Humans and that its strain properties change as it transmits between species ***
snip...
http://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/222/222887/final1-priority-final-report.pdf
see;
https://nor-98.blogspot.com/2016/09/goat-k222-prpc-polymorphic-variant-does.html
Block D: Prion epidemiology
Studies on atypical scrapie were identified as a key element of this block, given the potential risk associated to this agent. We studied the permeability of Human, bovine and porcine species barriers to atypical scrapie agent transmission. Experiments in transgenic mice expressing bovine, porcine or human PrPC suggest that this TSE agent has the intrinsic ability to propagate across these species barriers including the Human one. Upon species barrier passage the biological properties and phenotype of atypical scrapie seem to be altered. Further experiments are currently ongoing (in the framework of this project but also in other projects) in order to: (i) characterize the properties of the prion that emerged from the propagation of atypical scrapie in tg Hu; (ii) to confirm that the phenomena we observed are also true for atypical scrapie isolates other than the ones we have studied.
In parallel, studies in sheep have concluded that:
*** Atypical scrapie can be transmitted by both oral and intracerebral route in sheep with various PRP genotypes
*** Low but consistent amount of infectivity accumulates in peripheral tissue (mammary gland, lymph nodes, placenta, skeletal muscles, nerves) of sheep incubating atypical scrapie.
*** The combination of data from all our studies leads us to conclude that:
*** Atypical scrapie passage through species barriers can lead to the emergence of various prions including classical BSE (following propagation in porcine PRP transgenic mice).
*** Atypical scrapie can propagate, with a low efficacy, in human PrP expressing mice. This suggests the existence of a zoonotic potential for this TSE agent.
snip...
We advance our main conclusions and recommendations, in particular as they might affect public policy, including a detailed elaboration of the evidence that led to them. Our main recommendations are:
a. The issue of re-introducing ruminant protein into the food-chain The opinion of the members of Priority is that sustaining an absolute feed ban for ruminant protein to ruminants is the essential requirement, especially since the impact of non-classical forms of scrapie in sheep and goats is not fully understood and cannot be fully estimated. Therefore, the consortium strongly recommends prohibiting re-introduction of processed ruminant protein into the food-chain. Arguments in support of this opinion are:
• the large (and still uncharacterized) diversity of prion agents that circulate in animal populations;
• the uncertainties related to prion epidemiology in animal populations;
• the unknown efficacy of industrial processes applied to reduce microbiological risk during processed animal protein (PAP) production on most prion agents; • the intrinsic capacity of prions to cross interspecies transmission barriers; • the lack of sensitive methodology for identifying cross contamination in food.
• the evolution of natural food chains in nature (i.e. who eats whom or what) has generated an efficient barrier preventing, to some extent, novel prion epidemies and that this naturally evolved ecology should be respected.
The consortium is also hesitant to introduce processed ruminant proteins into fish food considering the paucity of data on prion infections in fishes and sea animals including those of mammalian origin, and the risk of establishing an environmental contamination of the oceans that cannot be controlled.
b. Atypical prion agents and surveillance
Atypical prion agents (see below) will probably continue to represent the dominant form of prion diseases in the near future, particularly in Europe.
*** Atypical L-type BSE has clear zoonotic potential, as demonstrated in experimental models.
*** Similarly, there are now some data that seem to indicate that the atypical scrapie agent can cross various species barriers.
*** Moreover, the current EU policy for eradicating scrapie (genetic selection in affected flocks) is ineffective for preventing atypical scrapie.
*** The recent identification of cell-to-cell propagation and the protein-encoded strain properties of human neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, suggest that they bear the potential to be transmissible even if not with the same efficiency as CJD. More epidemiological data from large cohorts are necessary to reach any conclusion on the impact of their transmissibility on public health. Re-evaluations of safety precautions may become necessary depending on the outcome of these studies. In that context it would appear valuable
• to develop knowledge related to the pathogenesis and inter-individual transmission of atypical prion agents in ruminants (both intra- and inter-species)
• to improve the sensitivity of detection assays that are applied in the field towards this type of agent
• to maintain a robust surveillance of both animal and human populations
c. The need for extended research on prions
Intensified searching for a molecular determinants of the species barrier is recommended, since this barrier is a key for many important policy areas - risk assessment, proportional policies, the need for screening of human products and food. In this respect, prion strain structural language also remains an important issue for public health for the foreseeable future. Understanding the structural basis for strains and the basis for adaptation of a strain to a new host will require continued fundamental research. Prions maintain a complex two-way relationship with the host cell and fundamental research is needed on mechanisms for their transmission, replication and cause of nervous system dysfunction and death.
Early detection of prion infection, ideally at preclinical stage, also remains crucial for development of effective treatment strategies in humans affected by the disease.
Position of the Priority consortium
Nearly 30 years ago, the appearance in the UK of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) quickly brought the previously obscure “prion diseases” to the spotlight. The ensuing health and food crises that spread throughout Europe had devastating consequences. In the UK alone, there were more than 36,000 farms directly affected by BSE and the transmission of BSE prions to humans via the food chain has caused over 200 people in Europe to die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) (http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk
Origins of prion epidemies
Classical BSE now appears to be under control, with 18 EU Member States having achieved the World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International Epizooties) „negligible risk‟ status (May 2014; http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-status/bse/list-of-bse-risk-status/), and the remaining MS assessed as „controlled‟ risk. Of note, research, including EU-funded research, has played a key role in this success: while the origin of the infection was never defined, the principle driver of the epidemic was identified as prions in Meat and Bone Meal (MBM). Tests based on prion protein-specific antibodies were developed, allowing detection of infected animals, and a better understanding of disease pathogenesis and the distribution of infectivity in edible tissues; experimental investigation of transmission barriers between different species allowed a rational estimation of risks, etc. All of this led to the implementation of rational and effective policies, such as the MBM ban to protect the animal feed chain, and the Specified Risk Material (SRM) regulations to protect the human food chain.
In spite of this progress, prions are still a threat. Epidemiological re-assessment indicates that the ∼10 year incubation period separating the peaks of the BSE and the vCJD epidemics is probably too short. In addition, results from a large number of human tonsil and appendix analyses in the UK suggest that there may be a high number of asymptomatic individuals who are positive for the disease-associated conformer prion protein PrPSc. While vCJD is the only form of human prion disease that has been consistently demonstrated to have lymphoreticular involvement, there has been no systematic investigation of lymphoid tissue in cases with other prion diseases.
The human prion problem
The clinical cases of vCJD identified to date have all shared a common PrP genotype (M129M), although one pre-clinical case was confirmed as an M129V heterozygote, and it has been mooted that perhaps only the M129M proportion of the population is susceptible. However, in the UK appendix study, PrP accumulation was described in samples representing every codon 129 genotype, raising the possibility that genotype does not confer resistance but instead modulates incubation period. Apart from the two UK studies, the lymphoid tissues of non-CJD patients have not been examined for the presence of PrPSc, so, these cases may not solely represent pre-clinical vCJD, but also other forms of prion disease.
Recent experiments in highly susceptible mouse models indicate the presence of infectivity in blood or blood components at late disease stages in sporadic CJD. The significance of this experimental finding for humans has to be explored in more detail and, at the present time, there is no evidence for the transmission of prions via blood in sporadic CJD. However a likely scenario is that all those with signs of infection or abnormal PrP accumulation in peripheral tissue could have infective blood, posing the risk for transmission via blood products, which has been clearly demonstrated in experimental models, and confirmed in several cases of vCJD in man. Altogether, these data clearly demonstrate the potential risk of a second wave of vCJD, particularly when the number people identified with lymphoid accumulation of PrPSc (16/32,411) gives a prevalence estimate in the UK of 493 per million, much higher than the number of clinical cases seen to date.
The animal prion problem
An increasing number of reports on cases of “atypical” BSE in cattle throughout the EU and beyond may lead to a new epidemic, particularly since we still do not understand all factors determining the species barrier. Ovine scrapie is another concern, because it could mask ovine BSE, presumably transmissible to humans. Scrapie is endemic and not likely to be eradicated soon, although current control measures are effective at greatly reducing disease incidence. Atypical forms, which may be spontaneous, are not affected by these control measures and these forms of disease will persist in the global animal population. The low prevalence of these disease forms makes effective surveillance very challenging. However, there is a clear risk attendant on ignoring these cases without an understanding of their possible zoonotic potential, particularly when most forms of human disease have no established aetiology. In summary, atypical cases of BSE and scrapie presently clearly outnumber classical cases in cattle and sheep in all member states.
We will highlight the state-of-the-art knowledge and point out scientific challenges and the major questions for research. Strategic objectives and priorities in Europe in the future for research that aims to control, eliminate or eradicate the threat posed by prions to our food and health are also indicated.
The Priority project has focused on 4 themes, namely the structure, function, conversion and toxicity of prions; detection of prions; mechanisms of prion transmission and spreading and epidemiology of prion diseases. This paper summarizes the opinions/positions reached within these themes at the end of the project.
http://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/222/222887/final1-priority-final-report.pdf
see;
https://nor-98.blogspot.com/2016/09/goat-k222-prpc-polymorphic-variant-does.html
Transmission of scrapie prions to primate after an extended silent incubation period
*** In complement to the recent demonstration that humanized mice are susceptible to scrapie, we report here the first observation of direct transmission of a natural classical scrapie isolate to a macaque after a 10-year incubation period. Neuropathologic examination revealed all of the features of a prion disease: spongiform change, neuronal loss, and accumulation of PrPres throughout the CNS.
*** This observation strengthens the questioning of the harmlessness of scrapie to humans, at a time when protective measures for human and animal health are being dismantled and reduced as c-BSE is considered controlled and being eradicated.
*** Our results underscore the importance of precautionary and protective measures and the necessity for long-term experimental transmission studies to assess the zoonotic potential of other animal prion strains.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=313160
O.05: Transmission of prions to primates after extended silent incubation periods: Implications for BSE and scrapie risk assessment in human populations
*** We recently observed the direct transmission of a natural classical scrapie isolate to macaque after a 10-year silent incubation period,
***with features similar to some reported for human cases of sporadic CJD, albeit requiring fourfold long incubation than BSE. Scrapie, as recently evoked in humanized mice (Cassard, 2014),
***is the third potentially zoonotic PD (with BSE and L-type BSE),
***thus questioning the origin of human sporadic cases.
==============
PRION 2015 CONFERENCE
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5019500/
PRION 2016 TOKYO
Saturday, April 23, 2016
SCRAPIE WS-01: Prion diseases in animals and zoonotic potential 2016
Prion. 10:S15-S21. 2016 ISSN: 1933-68961933-690X
WS-01: Prion diseases in animals and zoonotic potential
***Transmission data also revealed that several scrapie prions propagate in HuPrP-Tg mice with efficiency comparable to that of cattle BSE. While the efficiency of transmission at primary passage was low, subsequent passages resulted in a highly virulent prion disease in both Met129 and Val129 mice.
***Transmission of the different scrapie isolates in these mice leads to the emergence of prion strain phenotypes that showed similar characteristics to those displayed by MM1 or VV2 sCJD prion.
***These results demonstrate that scrapie prions have a zoonotic potential and raise new questions about the possible link between animal and human prions.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19336896.2016.1163048?journalCode=kprn20
Title: Transmission of scrapie prions to primate after an extended silent incubation period)
*** In complement to the recent demonstration that humanized mice are susceptible to scrapie, we report here the first observation of direct transmission of a natural classical scrapie isolate to a macaque after a 10-year incubation period. Neuropathologic examination revealed all of the features of a prion disease: spongiform change, neuronal loss, and accumulation of PrPres throughout the CNS.
*** This observation strengthens the questioning of the harmlessness of scrapie to humans, at a time when protective measures for human and animal health are being dismantled and reduced as c-BSE is considered controlled and being eradicated.
*** Our results underscore the importance of precautionary and protective measures and the necessity for long-term experimental transmission studies to assess the zoonotic potential of other animal prion strains.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=313160
Comparing the Distribution of Ovine Classical Scrapie and Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in Italy: Spatial and Temporal Associations (2002-2014)
Ru G1 ., Pocchiari M2 ., Bertolini S. 1, Pite L.1 , Puopolo M.2 , Ladogana A.2 , Perrotta M.G.3 , Meloni D 1 . (1) National reference center for the study and research on animal encephalopathies and comparative neuropathologies (CEA). Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute of Piemonte, Liguria and Valle d'Aosta, Torino, Italy.
(2) Department of Cellular Biology and Neuroscience, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Roma, Italy. (3) Office 3 National center for the fight and emergency against animal diseases. Ministry of Health, Roma, Italy.
Aim: This study aims to investigate potential spatial and temporal associations between Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in humans (2010-2014) and ovine classical scrapie (CS) (2002- 2006) in Italy, serving as a proxy for exposure.
Materials and Methods: National data from prion disease surveillance in humans (sporadic CJD) and small ruminants (CS) in Italy were utilized. A descriptive geographic analysis was conducted for each disease individually. Subsequently, an ecological study was performed to compare the occurrence of both diseases at the district and regional levels. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR), adjusted for confounders, were calculated for CJD and CS by district and region, respectively, representing the outcome and proxy of exposure. Considering a possible long incubation period of CJD, two study periods were analysed: 2010-2014 for CJD and 2002-2006 for CS. Eight alternative linear regression models were developed using SIR in humans as the dependent variable and SIR in sheep as the independent variable. These models varied in the scale of SIR data (continuous vs. categorical), geographical level (district vs. region), and the potential past exposure of sheep in specific areas to a known source of infection (via a contaminated vaccine).
Results: The analysis of data at the district level revealed no significant association. However, when considering aggregated regional data, all four models consistently indicated a statistically significant positive association, suggesting a higher incidence of the disease in humans as the regional incidence of sheep scrapie increased.
Conclusions: While the results are intriguing, it is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of ecological studies. Nevertheless, these findings provide valuable evidence to formulate a hypothesis regarding the zoonotic potential of classical scrapie. Further investigations are necessary, employing specific designs such as analytical epidemiology studies, to test this hypothesis effectively.
Funded by: Italian Ministry of Health Grant number: Realizzazione del programma epidemiologico finalizzato a dare evidenza del potenziale zoonotico delle TSE animali diverse dalla BSE. Prot. N. 0018730-17/07/2015-DGSAFCOD_UO-P
''Nevertheless, these findings provide valuable evidence to formulate a hypothesis regarding the zoonotic potential of classical scrapie. Further investigations are necessary, employing specific designs such as analytical epidemiology studies, to test this hypothesis effectively.''
Meeting-book-final-version prion 2023 Prion 2023 Congress Organizing Committee and the NeuroPrion Association, we invite you to join us for the International Conference Prion2023 from 16-20 October 2023 in Faro, Portugal.
https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20250828201533/https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Syed-Zahid-Shah/publication/378314391_Meeting-book-final-version_prion_2023/links/65d44dad28b7720cecdca95f/Meeting-book-final-version-prion-2023.pdf
Canadian 2021 H-type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy case associated with a novel E211K polymorphism in prion protein gene novel E211K polymorphism in prion protein gene
Waqas Tahir , Sandor Dudas , Renee Anderson , Jianmin Yang , Sarah Bogart , Kristina Santiago-Mateo, Yuanmu Fang & Roberta Quaghebeur
Pages 36-49 | Received 20 Feb 2025, Accepted 22 May 2025, Published online: 04 Aug 2025 Cite this article https://doi.org/10.1080/19336896.2025.2511933
ABSTRACT
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease in cattle which can be either classical BSE (C-BSE) or atypical BSE (including H-BSE and L-BSE). Here, we report the results of our analyses of an H-BSE case found in Canada in 2021, indicating restriction of the pathological agent (PrPSc) mainly to the central nervous system with no or occasional weak involvement of peripheral tissues. Importantly, a non-synonymous mutation at codon 211 of the PRNP gene was detected and confirmed to be present as a germline mutation. This is the first case of BSE in Canada with a predisposing E211K mutation.
Snip…
Based on the results of this study, and the 2006 H-BSE case in the USA, there is an expanded spectrum of aetiologies for bovine prion diseases similar to what is observed in humans, including sporadic, genetic and acquired versions.
Supplemental material Canadian 2021 H-type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy case associated with a novel E211K polymorphism in prion protein gene
KEYWORDS:
Atypical BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathycentral nervous systemE211K mutationprion diseasesprion protein genesynonymous mutation
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19336896.2025.2511933#d1e1606
“Based on the results of this study, and the 2006 H-BSE case in the USA, there is an expanded spectrum of aetiologies for bovine prion diseases similar to what is observed in humans, including sporadic, genetic and acquired versions.”
MONDAY, JUNE 09, 2025
The naturally occurring lysine to glutamic acid substitution (E211K in the bovine prion protein) results in short incubation periods for H-type bovine spongioform encephalopathy (BSE) The naturally occurring lysine to glutamic acid substitution (E211K in the bovine prion protein) results in short incubation periods for H-type bovine spongioform encephalopathy (BSE)
Component 6: Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs)
Problem Statement 6A: Determine pathobiology of prion strains.
The naturally occurring lysine to glutamic acid substitution (E211K in the bovine prion protein) results in short incubation periods for H-type bovine spongioform encephalopathy (BSE).
Virus and Prion Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa
Classical BSE (C-BSE) is a prion disease of cattle that was responsible for the "mad cow disease" epizootic in Europe in the 1980s. C-BSE was determined to cause the human prion disease vCJD. Since then, atypical spontaneous strains of BSE were identified. H-BSE is one of those strains. Much research has explored the origins of C-BSE, and strain emergence from atypical H-BSE is one hypothesis. An H-BSE case was determined to have a germline mutation, an E211K substitution in the prion protein gene, which is analogous to a hereditary human prion disease. ARS scientists in Ames, Iowa reported the transmission of H-BSE from cattle, with and without the germline prion protein amino acid substitution, to cattle with various prion genotypes: EE211 (wild-type), EK211, and KK211. Results indicated a significantly shorter incubation period in K containing cattle compared to prion wild-type cattle. The scientists also explored the possibility that the C-BSE strain might have occurred after serial passages of EK211 and KK211 containing H-BSE in cattle, but results did not support this concept. This information is important to prion researchers, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, and those involved with establishing regulatory guidelines.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/np103/AnnualReports/Final%20NP103%20FY2024%20Annual%20Report.updated%205.30.25.pdf
Research Project: Elucidating the Pathobiology and Transmission of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: Cattle with the EK211 PRNP polymorphism are susceptible to the H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent from either E211K or wild type donors after oronasal inoculation
Author item Greenlee, Justin item Cassmann, Eric item MOORE, SARA JO - Oak Ridge Institute For Science And Education (ORISE) item WEST GREENLEE, HEATHER - Iowa State University
Submitted to: Meeting Abstract Publication Type: Abstract Only Publication Acceptance Date: 6/24/2022 Publication Date: 9/16/2022 Citation: Greenlee, J.J., Cassmann, E.D., Moore, S., West Greenlee, H.M. 2022.
Cattle with the EK211 PRNP polymorphism are susceptible to the H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent from either E211K or wild type donors after oronasal inoculation.
Prion 2022 Conference abstracts: pushing the boundaries. 16(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1080/19336896.2022.2091286.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19336896.2022.2091286
Interpretive Summary:
Technical Abstract: In 2006, a case of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy (H-BSE) was reported in a cow with a previously unreported prion protein polymorphism (E211K). The E211K polymorphism is heritable and homologous to the E200K mutation in humans that is the most frequent PRNP mutation associated with familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Although the prevalence of the E211K polymorphism is low, cattle carrying the K211 allele develop H-type BSE with a rapid onset after experimental inoculation by the intracranial route. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the agents of H-type BSE or H-type BSE associated with the E211K polymorphism transmit to wild type cattle or cattle with the K211 allele after oronasal exposure. Wild type (EE211) or heterozygous (EK211) cattle were oronasally inoculated with the H-BSE agent from either the US 2004 case (wild type donor; n=3) or from the US 2006 case with the E211K polymorphism (n=4). Cattle were observed daily throughout the course of the experiment for the development of clinical signs. When signs were noted, animals were euthanized and necropsied. Cattle were confirmed positive for abnormal BSE prions by enzyme immunoassay (EIA; Idexx HerdChek BSE Ag Test), anti-PrP immunohistochemistry (IHC) on brainstem, and microscopic examination for vacuolation. Three-out-of-four (75%) calves with the EK211 genotype developed clinical signs of H-BSE including inattentiveness, loss of body condition, weakness, ataxia, and muscle fasciculations and were euthanized. Two of the positive EK211 steers received H-BSE US 2004 inoculum (Incubation Period (IP): 59.3 and 72.3 months) while the other positive steer received the E211K H-BSE inoculum (IP: 49.7 months). EIA confirmed that abundant misfolded protein (O.D. 2.57-4.0) in the brainstem, and IHC demonstrated PrPSc throughout the brain. All cattle in the EE211 recipient group remain asymptomatic for the duration of the experiment (approximately 7 years post-inoculation).
This study demonstrates that the H-type BSE agent is transmissible by the oronasal route. Cattle with the EK211 genotype are oronasally susceptible to small doses of the H-BSE agent from either EK211 or EE211 (wild type) donors. Wild-type EE211 cattle remained asymptomatic for the duration of the experiment with this small dose (0.1g) of inoculum. These results reinforce the need for ongoing surveillance for classical and atypical BSE to minimize the risk of potentially infectious tissues entering the animal or human food chains.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=395351
Highlights
This study demonstrates that the H-type BSE agent is transmissible by the oronasal route. Cattle with the EK211 genotype are oronasally susceptible to small doses of the H-BSE agent from either EK211 or EE211 (wild type) donors. Wild-type EE211 cattle remained asymptomatic for the duration of the experiment with this small dose (0.1g) of inoculum. These results reinforce the need for ongoing surveillance for classical and atypical BSE to minimize the risk of potentially infectious tissues entering the animal or human food chains.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=395351
Title: A comparison of classical and H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy associated with E211K prion protein polymorphism in wild type and EK211cattle following intracranial inoculation
Author item MOORE, S - Orise Fellow item WEST GREENLEE, M - Iowa State University item Smith, Jodi item Vrentas, Catherine item Nicholson, Eric item Greenlee, Justin
Submitted to: Frontiers in Veterinary Science Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal Publication Acceptance Date: 8/30/2016 Publication Date: 9/15/2016 Citation: Moore, S.J., West Greenlee, M.H., Smith, J.D., Vrentas, C.E., Nicholson, E.M., Greenlee, J.J. 2016.
A comparison of classical and H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy associated with E211K prion protein polymorphism in wild type and EK211cattle following intracranial inoculation.
Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 3:78. Interpretive
Summary: Cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease can be subclassified into at least 3 distinct disease forms with the predominate form known as classical BSE and the others collectively referred to as atypical BSE. Atypical BSE can be further subdivided into H-type and L-type cases that are distinct from classical BSE and from each other. Both of the atypical BSE subtypes are believed to occur spontaneously, whereas classical BSE is spread through feeding contaminated meat and bone meal to cattle. Work by other research groups suggests that the stability of the distinguishing features of atypical BSE cases (phenotypical stability) can change to closely resemble classical BSE after experimental passage implicating atypical BSE as a possible origin of classical BSE. Interestingly, one case of H-type BSE in the US was associated with an inherited mutation in the prion protein gene referred to as E211K. The purpose of this work was to compare wild type and cattle with the E211K mutation after experimental inoculation with either classical BSE or H-BSE from the original E211K case. This study demonstrates that the disease features of E211K BSE-H remain stable when transmitted to cattle without the K211 polymorphism. In addition, passage of classical BSE to cattle with the K211 polymorphism results in disease with features consistent with classical BSE and not a switch to atypical BSE-H as a result of the K211 polymorphism. As the origin of classical, feedborne BSE remains unknown and low numbers of atypical BSE are diagnosed each year, parties with interest in the cattle and beef industries and regulatory officials responsible for safe feeding practices of cattle will be interested in this work.
Technical Abstract: In 2006, a case of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE-H) was diagnosed in a cow that was associated with a heritable polymorphism in the bovine prion protein gene (PRNP) resulting in a lysine for glutamine amino acid substitution at codon 211 (called E211K) of the prion protein. Although the prevalence of this polymorphism is low, cattle carrying the K211 allele may be predisposed to rapid onset of BSE-H when exposed or to the potential development of a genetic BSE. This study was conducted to better understand the relationship between the K211 polymorphism and its effect on BSE phenotype. BSE-H from the US 2006 case was inoculated intracranially (IC) in one PRNP wild type (EE211) calf and one EK211 calf. In addition, one wild type calf and one EK211 calf were inoculated IC with brain homogenate from a US 2003 classical BSE case. All cattle developed clinical disease. The survival times of the E211K BSE-H inoculated EK211 calf (10 months) was shorter than the wild type calf (18 months). This genotype effect was not observed in classical BSE inoculated cattle (both 26 months). Significant changes in retinal function were observed in H-type BSE challenged cattle only. Cattle challenged with the same inoculum showed similar severity and neuroanatomical distribution of vacuolation and disease-associated prion protein deposition in the brain, though differences in neuropathology were observed between E211K BSE-H and classical BSE inoculated animals. Western blot results for brain tissue from challenged animals were consistent with the inoculum strains. This study demonstrates that the phenotype of E211K BSE-H remains stable when transmitted to cattle without the K211 polymorphism, and exhibits a number of features that differ from classical BSE in both wild type and heterozygous EK211 animals.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=326785
Title: Transmission of atypical BSE: a possible origin of Classical BSE in cattle
Authors: Sandor Dudas1, Samuel James Sharpe1, Kristina Santiago-Mateo1, Stefanie Czub1, Waqas Tahir1,2, * Affiliation: 1National and WOAH reference Laboratory for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Canadian Food inspection Agency, Lethbridge Laboratory, Lethbridge, Canada. 2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. *Corresponding and Presenting Author: waqas.tahir@inspection.gc.ca
Background: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease of cattle and is categorized into classical and atypical forms. Classical BSE (CBSE) is linked to the consumption of BSE contaminated feed whereas atypical BSE is considered to be spontaneous in origin. The potential for oral transmission of atypical BSE is yet to be clearly defined.
Aims: To assess the oral transmissibility of atypical BSE (H and L type) in cattle. Should transmission be successful, determine the biochemical characteristics and distribution of PrPSc in the challenge cattle.
Material and Methods: For oral transmission, calves were fed with 100 g of either H (n=3) or L BSE (n=3) positive brain material. Two years post challenge, 1 calf from each of the H and L BSE challenge groups exhibited behavioural signs and were euthanized. Various brain regions of both animals were tested by traditional and novel prion detection methods with inconclusive results. To detect infectivity, brain homogenates from these oral challenge animals (P1) were injected intra-cranially (IC) into steer calves. Upon clinical signs of BSE, 3/4 of IC challenged steer calves were euthanized and tested for PrPSc with ELISA, immunohistochemistry and immunoblot.
Results: After 6 years of incubation, 3/4 animals (2/2 steers IC challenged with brain from P1 L-BSE oral challenge and 1/2 steer IC challenged with brain from P1 H-BSE oral challenge) developed clinical disease. Analysis of these animals revealed high levels of PrPSc in their brains, having biochemical properties similar to that of PrPSc in C-BSE.
Conclusion: These results demonstrate the oral transmission potential of atypical BSE in cattle. Surprisingly, regardless of which atypical type of BSE was used for P1 oral challenge, PrPSc in the P2 animals acquired biochemical characteristics similar to that of PrPSc in C-BSE, suggesting atypical BSE as a possible origin of C-BSE in UK.
Presentation Type: Oral Presentation Funded by: CFIA, Health Canada, Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency, Alberta Prion Research Institute
Grant Number: ALMA/APRI: 201400006, HC 414250
Acknowledgement: TSE unit NCAD, Lethbridge (Jianmin Yang, Sarah Bogart, Rachana Muley, Yuanmu Fang, Keri Colwell, Renee Anderson, John Gray, Rakhi Katoch) (CFIA, Canada), Dr. Catherine Graham (NSDA, Canada), Dr. Michel Levy (UCVM, Canada), Dr. Martin Groschup (FLI, Germany), Dr. Christine Fast (FLI, Germany), Dr. Bob Hills (Health Canada, Canada) Theme: Animal prion diseases
"After 6 years of incubation, 3/4 animals (2/2 steers IC challenged with brain from P1 L-BSE oral challenge and 1/2 steer IC challenged with brain from P1 H-BSE oral challenge) developed clinical disease. Analysis of these animals revealed high levels of PrPSc in their brains, having biochemical properties similar to that of PrPSc in C-BSE. "
=====end
PRION 2023 CONTINUED;
https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20250828201533/https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Syed-Zahid-Shah/publication/378314391_Meeting-book-final-version_prion_2023/links/65d44dad28b7720cecdca95f/Meeting-book-final-version-prion-2023.pdf
PLEASE NOTE, USDA ET AL ONLY TESTING <25k CATTLE FOR MAD COW DISEASE, woefully inadequate, yet USDA just documented a case Atypical L-Type BSE, the most virulent strain to date...
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
***> WAHIS, WOAH, OIE, United States of America Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Immediate notification
https://wahis.woah.org/#/in-review/5067
https://woahoie.blogspot.com/2023/05/wahis-woah-oie-united-states-of-america.html
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/125/wahis-woah-oie-immediate-notification
SATURDAY, MAY 20, 2023
***> Tennessee State Veterinarian Alerts Cattle Owners to Disease Detection Mad Cow atypical L-Type BSE
https://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2023/05/tennessee-state-veterinarian-alerts.html
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/123/tennessee-veterinarian-alerts-cattle-confirmed
MAY 19, 2023
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/stakeholder-info/sa_by_date/sa-2023/bse
ATYPICAL CASE OF BSE DETECTED IN SOUTH CAROLINA
May 19, 2023 By Meghan Grebner Filed Under: Beef, Human Interest, Livestock, News
BeefPacker.jpg The U.S. has reported an atypical case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in a beef cow approximately five years old or older at a slaughter plant in South Carolina. The animal never entered slaughter channels and at no time presented a risk to the food supply or to human health in the U.S. The radio frequency identification tag present on the animal is associated with a herd in Tennessee. APHIS and veterinary officials in South Carolina and Tennessee are gathering more information during this ongoing investigation.
This is the nation’s 7th detection of BSE, of the six previous U.S. cases, the first, in 2003 was the only case of classical BSE, which was from a cow imported from Canada. The rest of the cases have been atypical BSE. The animal was tested as part of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s routine surveillance of cattle that are deemed unsuitable for slaughter.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association chief veterinarian Dr. Kathy Simmons says USDA’s ongoing BSE surveillance program has tested more than one million cattle since the program began, ensuring that the agency’s interlocking supply chain safety products are working. She says the incidence of BSE in the U.S. is extremely low and will remain so.
U.S. Cattlemen’s Association president Justin Tupper says the swift detection of this case proves that the systems and protocols put in place are working. He says the organization is grateful to the nationwide team of veterinarians, animal health officials, meat inspectors, and others who ensure the well-being of the U.S. cattle herd.
Atypical BSE generally occurs in older cattle and seems to arise rarely and spontaneously in all cattle populations.
The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes the U.S. as negligible risk for BSE, the lowest possible risk in the world. Per WOAH guidelines in determining this status, atypical BSE cases do not impact official BSE risk status and this finding of an atypical case will not change the negligible risk status of the U.S., and should not lead to any trade issues.
https://www.brownfieldagnews.com/news/atypical-case-of-bse-detected-in-south-carolina/
https://usbiotechnologyregulation.mrp.usda.gov/wcm/connect/aphis_content_library/sa_newsroom/sa_stakeholders/sa_by_date/sa-2023/bse
2 weeks before the announcement of this recent mad cow case in the USA, i submitted this to the APHIS et al;
***> APPRX. 2 weeks before the recent mad cow case was confirmed in the USA, in Tennessee, atypical L-Type BSE, I submitted this to the APHIS et al;
Document APHIS-2023-0027-0001 BSE Singeltary Comment Submission May 2, 2023
''said 'burden' cost, will be a heavy burden to bear, if we fail with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion disease, that is why this information collection is so critical''...
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2023-0027-0002
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2023-0027-0002/attachment_1.pdf
Transmission of atypical BSE: a possible origin of Classical BSE in cattle
Results: After 6 years of incubation, 3/4 animals (2/2 steers IC challenged with brain from P1 L-BSE oral challenge and 1/2 steer IC challenged with brain from P1 H-BSE oral challenge) developed clinical disease. Analysis of these animals revealed high levels of PrPSc in their brains, having biochemical properties similar to that of PrPSc in C-BSE.
https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20250828201533/https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Syed-Zahid-Shah/publication/378314391_Meeting-book-final-version_prion_2023/links/65d44dad28b7720cecdca95f/Meeting-book-final-version-prion-2023.pdf
Conclusion: These results demonstrate the oral transmission potential of atypical BSE in cattle. Surprisingly, regardless of which atypical type of BSE was used for P1 oral challenge, PrPSc in the P2 animals acquired biochemical characteristics similar to that of PrPSc in C-BSE, suggesting atypical BSE as a possible origin of C-BSE in UK.
https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20250828201533/https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Syed-Zahid-Shah/publication/378314391_Meeting-book-final-version_prion_2023/links/65d44dad28b7720cecdca95f/Meeting-book-final-version-prion-2023.pdf
Ireland Central Veterinary Research Laboratory confirmed a case of atypical BSE on April 9, 2026
https://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2026/04/ireland-central-veterinary-research.html
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025
World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) downgrades UK’s BSE risk rating to negligible, what could go wrong?
https://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2025/06/world-organisation-for-animal-health.html
1985
Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy Results from Feeding Infected Cattle Over the next 8-10 weeks, approximately 40% of all the adult mink on the farm died from TME.
snip...
The rancher was a ''dead stock'' feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy cattle...
https://web.archive.org/web/20090506002258/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20090506001031/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09a/tab01.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20090506024922/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/06/10004001.pdf
***> Chronic Wasting Disease CWD TSE Prion Cervid <***
cwd transmits by oral routes to, cattle, pigs, sheep, primates
cwd to cattle
Prion Conference 2023
Transmission of the chronic wasting disease agent from elk to cattle after oronasal exposure
Conclusions: Cattle with the E211K polymorphism are susceptible to the CWD agent after oronasal exposure of 0.2 g of infectious material.
Strain characterization of chronic wasting disease in bovine-PrP transgenic mice
Conclusions: Altogether, these results exhibit the diversity of CWD strains present in the panel of CWD isolates and the ability of at least some CWD isolates to infect bovine species. Cattle being one of the most important farming species, this ability represents a potential threat to both animal and human health, and consequently deserves further study.
Prion 2023 Congress Organizing Committee and the NeuroPrion Association, we invite you to join us for the International Conference Prion2023 from 16-20 October 2023 in Faro, Portugal.
https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20250828201533/https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Syed-Zahid-Shah/publication/378314391_Meeting-book-final-version_prion_2023/links/65d44dad28b7720cecdca95f/Meeting-book-final-version-prion-2023.pdf
cwd to pigs
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2026
Chronic wasting disease prions in cervids and wild pigs in North America Preliminary Outbreak
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.01800-25
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/31/1/24-0401_article
https://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2026/01/chronic-wasting-disease-prions-in.html
cwd to sheep
Chronic Wasting Disease CWD vs Scrapie TSE Prion
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=410511
Detection of infectivity in orally inoculated pigs using mouse bioassay raises the possibility that naturally exposed pigs could act as a reservoir of CWD infectivity. Currently, swine rations in the U.S. could contain animal derived components including materials from deer or elk. In addition, feral swine could be exposed to infected carcasses in areas where CWD is present in wildlife populations. The current feed ban in the U.S. is based exclusively on keeping tissues from TSE infected cattle from entering animal feeds. These results indicating the susceptibility of pigs to CWD, coupled with the limitations of the current feed ban, indicates that a revision of the feed ban may be necessary to protect swine production and potentially human health.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=353091
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/project/?accnNo=432011&fy=2017
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=337105
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=326166
Research Project: Elucidating the Pathobiology and Transmission of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: Differentiation of scrapie from chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer
Accomplishments
1. 01 Determined that white-tailed deer (WTD) infected with scrapie from sheep can transmit the disease to other deer under conditions mimicking natural exposure. It has long been suggested that prion disease in deer (chronic wasting disease (CWD)) was caused by the prion agent from sheep. The prion disease that affects sheep, scrapie, has been recognized for hundreds of years. However, chronic wasting disease, a similar disease found in WTD, has only been recognized since the 1960s. ARS researchers in Ames, Iowa, showed that white-tailed deer sick with scrapie from sheep can infect other deer under conditions mimicking natural exposure. Furthermore, this work shows that CWD is difficult to differentiate from WTD infected with scrapie. WTD scrapie prions accumulate in the lymphoreticular system in a manner similar to CWD, meaning that environmental contamination may occur through feces, saliva, and other body fluids of scrapie affected WTD as has been shown for CWD. The presence of WTD infected with scrapie could confound mitigation efforts for chronic wasting disease. This information informs regulatory officials, the farmed cervid industry, and officials tasked with protecting animal health such as state Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, or Parks and Wildlife with regard to a disease similar to CWD but arising from sheep scrapie that could be present in WTD that have contact with scrapie affected sheep and/or goats.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/project/?accnNo=440677&fy=202
Chronic Wasting Disease CWD vs Scrapie TSE Prion
Volume 30, Number 8—August 2024
Research
Scrapie Versus Chronic Wasting Disease in White-Tailed Deer
Zoe J. Lambert1, Jifeng Bian, Eric D. Cassmann, M. Heather West Greenlee, and Justin J. Greenlee
Author affiliations: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA (Z.J. Lambert); US Department of Agriculture, Ames, Iowa, USA (Z.J. Lambert, J. Bian, E.D. Cassmann, J.J. Greenlee); Iowa State University, Ames (Z.J. Lambert, M.H. West Greenlee) Suggested citation for this article
Abstract
White-tailed deer are susceptible to scrapie (WTD scrapie) after oronasal inoculation with the classical scrapie agent from sheep. Deer affected by WTD scrapie are difficult to differentiate from deer infected with chronic wasting disease (CWD). To assess the transmissibility of the WTD scrapie agent and tissue phenotypes when further passaged in white-tailed deer, we oronasally inoculated wild-type white-tailed deer with WTD scrapie agent. We found that WTD scrapie and CWD agents were generally similar, although some differences were noted. The greatest differences were seen in bioassays of cervidized mice that exhibited significantly longer survival periods when inoculated with WTD scrapie agent than those inoculated with CWD agent. Our findings establish that white-tailed deer are susceptible to WTD scrapie and that the presence of WTD scrapie agent in the lymphoreticular system suggests the handling of suspected cases should be consistent with current CWD guidelines because environmental shedding may occur.
snip…
The potential for zoonoses of cervid-derived PrPSc is still not well understood (6,18,45–47); however, interspecies transmission can increase host range and zoonotic potential (48–50). Therefore, to protect herds and the food supply, suspected cases of WTD scrapie should be handled the same as cases of CWD.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/30/8/24-0007_article
Western blots done on samples from the brainstem, cerebellum, and lymph nodes of scrapie-infected WTD have a molecular profile similar to CWD and distinct from western blots of samples from the cerebral cortex, retina, or the original sheep scrapie inoculum. WTD are susceptible to the agent of scrapie from sheep and differentiation from CWD may be difficult.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=336834
It has long been hypothesized that CWD arose through transmission of sheep scrapie to deer. ARS researchers in Ames, Iowa, conducted research to determine if scrapie derived from sheep could be transmitted to white-tailed deer. The deer inoculated with sheep scrapie developed clinical signs and the abnormal prion protein could be detected in a wide range of tissues. These results indicate that deer may be susceptible to sheep scrapie if exposed to the disease in natural or agricultural settings. In addition, several strong similarities between CWD in white-tailed deer and the experimental cases of scrapie in white-tailed deer suggests that it would be difficult to distinguish scrapie from CWD in deer or identify scrapie if a case occurs. This information should be considered by deer farmers for keeping their herds free from prion diseases.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/np103/AnnualReports/NP103%20FY2023%20Annual%20Report_Final.pdf
Additional studies in WTD established a minimum oral CWD infectious dose equivalent to 100–300 ng CWD-positive brain tissue (10)…
We report that oral exposure to as little as 300 nanograms (ng) of CWD-positive brain or to saliva containing seeding activity equivalent to 300 ng of CWD-positive brain, were sufficient to transmit CWD disease.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237410
ORIGIN OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE TSE PRION?
COLORADO THE ORIGIN OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE CWD TSE PRION?
*** Spraker suggested an interesting explanation for the occurrence of CWD. The deer pens at the Foot Hills Campus were built some 30-40 years ago by a Dr. Bob Davis. At or abut that time, allegedly, some scrapie work was conducted at this site. When deer were introduced to the pens they occupied ground that had previously been occupied by sheep.
IN CONFIDENCE, REPORT OF AN UNCONVENTIONAL SLOW VIRUS DISEASE IN ANIMALS IN THE USA 1989
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080102193705/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf
The occurrence of CWD must be viewed against the contest of the locations in which it occurred. It was an incidental and unwelcome complication of the respective wildlife research programmes. Despite its subsequent recognition as a new disease of cervids, therefore justifying direct investigation, no specific research funding was forthcoming. The USDA viewed it as a wildlife problem and consequently not their province!” page 26.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060307063531/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf
The chronic wasting disease agent from white-tailed deer is highly infectious to humanized mice after passage through raccoons
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=400777
USA Report, Scrapie, CWD, BSE, TSE, Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Cervid, Humans, Zoonotic, 2026
April 2026
https://fdabse589.blogspot.com/2026/04/usa-report-scrapie-cwd-bse-tse-cattle.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403956772_USA_Report_Scrapie_CWD_BSE_TSE_Cattle_Sheep_Pigs_Cervid_Humans_Zoonotic_2026
USA FDA PART 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED, CWD, Scrapie, BSE, Oh My, 2026
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/202/usa-fda-589-feed-broken
https://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2026/01/usa-fda-part-589-substances-prohibited.html
SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 2026
Chronic Wasting Disease CWD TSE PrP, Cervid, Genetic Manipulation, Unforeseen Circumstances
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/04/chronic-wasting-disease-cwd-tse-prp.html
TUESDAY, APRIL 07, 2026
APHIS USDA Captive CWD Herds Update by State March 2026
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/04/aphis-usda-captive-cwd-herds-update-by.html
Scrapie, CWD, BSE, CJD, TSE, PrP Update 2026
***> CWD Action Plan National Program 103 Animal Health 2022-2027 UPDATE JANUARY 2026
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/189/action-national-program-animal-health
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/01/cwd-action-plan-national-program-103.html
***> SCRAPIE TSE Prion USA RAPID RESPONSE URGENT UPDATES DECEMBER 25, 2025
***> CWD vs Scrapie Urgent Update
https://scrapie-usa.blogspot.com/2025/12/scrapie-tse-prion-usa-rapid-response.html
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/186/scrapie-prion-response-urgent-updates
***> 2026 USDA EXPLANATORY NOTES, APHIS, CWD, BSE, Scrapie, TSE, Prion
https://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2025/12/2026-usda-explanatory-notes-aphis-cwd.html
USDA National Scrapie Program History and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Update 2025 and history there from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396084947_USDA_National_Scrapie_Program_History_and_Bovine_Spongiform_Encephalopathy_BSE_TSE0AUpdate_2
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2026
Pathogenesis, Transmission and Detection of Zoonotic Prion Diseases Project Number 5P01AI077774-14 2025
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/01/pathogenesis-transmission-and-detection.html
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
USDA National Scrapie Program History and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Update 2025
https://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2025/09/usda-national-scrapie-program-history.html
https://scrapie-usa.blogspot.com/2025/09/usda-national-scrapie-program-history.html
Cattle with the E211K polymorphism, and gCJD linked to a glutamic acid to lysine substitution at codon 200 (E200K) of PRNP, what if?
https://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2026/01/cattle-with-e211k-polymorphism-and-gcjd.html
Cattle with the E211K vs Humans E200K of PRNP, what if?
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/195/cattle-e211k-humans-e200k-prnp
US Report, Scrapie, CWD, Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Cervid, Humans, Zoonotic, 2026
https://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2026/04/us-report-scrapie-cwd-cattle-sheep-pigs.html
SUNDAY, APRIL 12, 2026
Chronic Wasting Disease in Farmed Cervids, South Korea, 2001–2024
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/04/chronic-wasting-disease-in-farmed.html
Wednesday, April 1, 2026
First identification of camel prion disease in Tataouine, Tunisia: an emerging animal prion disease in North Africa
https://camelusprp.blogspot.com/2026/04/first-identification-of-camel-prion.html
***> Infamous Enhanced BSE Surveillance Program 2004-2006 <***
*** Spraker suggested an interesting explanation for the occurrence of CWD. The deer pens at the Foot Hills Campus were built some 30-40 years ago by a Dr. Bob Davis. At or abut that time, allegedly, some scrapie work was conducted at this site. When deer were introduced to the pens they occupied ground that had previously been occupied by sheep.
IN CONFIDENCE, REPORT OF AN UNCONVENTIONAL SLOW VIRUS DISEASE IN ANIMALS IN THE USA 1989
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080102193705/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf
The occurrence of CWD must be viewed against the contest of the locations in which it occurred. It was an incidental and unwelcome complication of the respective wildlife research programmes. Despite its subsequent recognition as a new disease of cervids, therefore justifying direct investigation, no specific research funding was forthcoming. The USDA viewed it as a wildlife problem and consequently not their province!” page 26.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060307063531/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf
The chronic wasting disease agent from white-tailed deer is highly infectious to humanized mice after passage through raccoons
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=400777
USA Report, Scrapie, CWD, BSE, TSE, Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Cervid, Humans, Zoonotic, 2026
April 2026
https://fdabse589.blogspot.com/2026/04/usa-report-scrapie-cwd-bse-tse-cattle.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403956772_USA_Report_Scrapie_CWD_BSE_TSE_Cattle_Sheep_Pigs_Cervid_Humans_Zoonotic_2026
USA FDA PART 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED, CWD, Scrapie, BSE, Oh My, 2026
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/202/usa-fda-589-feed-broken
https://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2026/01/usa-fda-part-589-substances-prohibited.html
SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 2026
Chronic Wasting Disease CWD TSE PrP, Cervid, Genetic Manipulation, Unforeseen Circumstances
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/04/chronic-wasting-disease-cwd-tse-prp.html
TUESDAY, APRIL 07, 2026
APHIS USDA Captive CWD Herds Update by State March 2026
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/04/aphis-usda-captive-cwd-herds-update-by.html
Scrapie, CWD, BSE, CJD, TSE, PrP Update 2026
***> CWD Action Plan National Program 103 Animal Health 2022-2027 UPDATE JANUARY 2026
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/189/action-national-program-animal-health
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/01/cwd-action-plan-national-program-103.html
***> SCRAPIE TSE Prion USA RAPID RESPONSE URGENT UPDATES DECEMBER 25, 2025
***> CWD vs Scrapie Urgent Update
https://scrapie-usa.blogspot.com/2025/12/scrapie-tse-prion-usa-rapid-response.html
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/186/scrapie-prion-response-urgent-updates
***> 2026 USDA EXPLANATORY NOTES, APHIS, CWD, BSE, Scrapie, TSE, Prion
https://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2025/12/2026-usda-explanatory-notes-aphis-cwd.html
USDA National Scrapie Program History and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Update 2025 and history there from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396084947_USDA_National_Scrapie_Program_History_and_Bovine_Spongiform_Encephalopathy_BSE_TSE0AUpdate_2
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2026
Pathogenesis, Transmission and Detection of Zoonotic Prion Diseases Project Number 5P01AI077774-14 2025
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/01/pathogenesis-transmission-and-detection.html
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
USDA National Scrapie Program History and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Update 2025
https://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2025/09/usda-national-scrapie-program-history.html
https://scrapie-usa.blogspot.com/2025/09/usda-national-scrapie-program-history.html
Cattle with the E211K polymorphism, and gCJD linked to a glutamic acid to lysine substitution at codon 200 (E200K) of PRNP, what if?
https://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2026/01/cattle-with-e211k-polymorphism-and-gcjd.html
Cattle with the E211K vs Humans E200K of PRNP, what if?
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/195/cattle-e211k-humans-e200k-prnp
US Report, Scrapie, CWD, Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Cervid, Humans, Zoonotic, 2026
https://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2026/04/us-report-scrapie-cwd-cattle-sheep-pigs.html
SUNDAY, APRIL 12, 2026
Chronic Wasting Disease in Farmed Cervids, South Korea, 2001–2024
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2026/04/chronic-wasting-disease-in-farmed.html
Wednesday, April 1, 2026
First identification of camel prion disease in Tataouine, Tunisia: an emerging animal prion disease in North Africa
https://camelusprp.blogspot.com/2026/04/first-identification-of-camel-prion.html
***> Infamous Enhanced BSE Surveillance Program 2004-2006 <***
***< or Enhanced BSE MadCow Coverup 2004-2006 <***
“The goal of our BSE surveillance program, even under the enhanced program, has never been to detect every case of BSE. Our goal is determine whether the disease exists at very low levels in the U.S. cattle population, and we do this by testing those animals most likely to have BSE. It is the longstanding system of interlocking safeguards, including the removal of specified risk materials - or the parts of an animal that would contain BSE - at slaughter and the FDA's ruminant-to- ruminant feed ban that protect public and animal health from BSE.”
“Why didn’t USDA continue to test animals at the enhanced surveillance level? “
“USDA's 2004-2006 enhanced surveillance program was initiated in response to the first detection of BSE in the United States and was designed to detect the overall prevalence of the disease in this country. This required a very intensive effort and it allowed us to estimate extremely low prevalence levels of disease. Once that prevalence level was determined, USDA modified its testing levels to monitor any changes in the level of disease. Our current testing of approximately 25,000 targeted animals a year allows USDA to detect BSE at the very low level of less than 1 case per million adult cattle, assess any change in the BSE status of U.S. cattle, and identify any rise in BSE prevalence in this country.”
***> Singeltary reply USDA Enhanced BSE Surveillance <***
***> TEXAS BSE MADCOW, The Coverup <***
Subject: THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS FONG AND HER Rocky Mountain oysters should be given a medal
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <flounder9@VERIZON.NET>
Reply To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:01:36 -0500
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
From: TSS
Subject: THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS FONG AND HER Rocky Mountain oysters should be given a medal
Date: June 29, 2005 at 5:55 am PST
Today 6/27/2005 8:19:00 AM
Jolley Cattle: Phyllis Fong Is My Hero
Seven months after the USDA lost critical test results under a bushel of obfuscation and suspicious mismanagement, Phyllis Fong had enough guts and Rocky Mountain oysters to recognize an infraction on the neutral zone. She called a foul and tossed a flag in the face of blitzing beef industry linebackers. Their “no B.S.E. here” defense, led by a gold standard test that has proven to be considerably less, fell apart.
Referring to a mysterious second test that was lost in a bureaucratic time warp, the Sunday, June 26 issue of the New York Times (registration required) reported, “Phyllis K. Fong, the Agriculture Department's inspector general, arranged for further tests on specimens of the same cow. A test known as the Western blot, which is widely used in England and Japan but not in the United States, came up positive.”
“The sequence of events started in November, when an Agriculture Department laboratory in Ames, Iowa, performed two tests on the animal in question. After the gold standard test came up negative, the agency announced that the animal had not had mad cow disease. But at the same time, the same lab also conducted the experimental test, with different (positive) results.”
Ed Loyd, attempting to clarify the situation on behalf of the USDA, explained it this way, "The laboratory folks just never mentioned it to anyone higher up. They didn't know if it was valid or not, so they didn't report it."
It sounds like a lame attempt at a cover up to me. But let’s be generous for a moment. Suppose Ed is right. How many people knew about the second test and when did they know it? Considering the importance of such a finding, the lot of them should be lined up and bused to the nearest unemployment office for not immediately and loudly reporting it.
Reacting in shock to the Fong-ordered retest, the NCBA’s Jim McAdams led a group of irate industry association officials who registered a strong complaint with Ag Secretary Mike Johanns, stating that unexpected testing creates "great anxiety within our industry," and leads to "significant losses."
To be fair, those anxieties and losses – we’ll call it the Fong effect - weren’t caused by the unexpected test last week but by the unexpected and unreported test last November. If the results had been revealed at the time, the situation would be history by now. An embarrassed Taiwanese government wouldn’t be reinstating an import ban that had been lifted just a few weeks ago and touted with a massive P.R. campaign organized by a justifiably proud Phil Seng, President and C.E.O of the United States Meat Export Federation. There was some encouraging news, however. Taiwanese newspapers reported a run on remaining U.S. beef still in supermarket meat cases after the ban was reinstated.
Reports that the USDA’s J.B. Penn, exasperated over the painfully slow progress of diplomatic negotiations, took a threatening posture with a Japanese delegation over the beef issue wouldn’t be making headlines, either.
Here is the bottom line: We can no longer use science to defend our practices. The Question we must now face is how do we repair worldwide confidence in our beef supply and our ability to reliably monitor it? The answer requires absolute transparency along with a strong international public relations offensive.
We should immediately take government intervention out of the equation and open the field to free market forces. Testing of any kind by any part of the beef industry supply chain should be allowed immediately. The choice should be a business decision: Care about international trade? Test every animal if you so desire using any test regimen a trading partner requests. Interested only in U.S. consumption? Follow the current governmental edict as prescribed by “sound science.”
Hand-in-hand with open testing, of course, is the rapid implementation of a National Animal Identification System. Without reliable and quick traceability in the event of a food or animal health problem, there can be no repair to our international standing. We will cede $3 billion export market to Australia, Argentina and Canada.
Ed Loyd still adamantly maintains, "There is no scientific basis for doing what Japan and many critics want: testing all animals or all those more than 20 months old.”
I agree, but let me add one important point. The basis for testing animals is no longer one of science but of satisfying the often politically-driven requirements of our long-missing international trading partners. The hard facts of science and the soft facts of public opinion often differ. Hanging onto the former in the face of pressure created by the latter is a fool’s formula for corporate suicide.
For the USDA to insist on using the “gold standard” test as the final check, in the face of a better and more reliable test, is absolutely wrong. Even before the current debacle, Dr. Linda Detwiler, who led the USDA mad cow testing program until 2002 and now serves as Adjunct Professor, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, said the department should be using the Western blot test.
"You need to put as many tools in your tool kit as possible," she said.
Detwiler also attacked other financially sensible but short-sighted practices such as recycling poultry litter with spilled cattle meal back to cattle, giving calves "milk replacements" made from cattle blood, and letting cows eat dried restaurant "plate waste." She also called for brains and spines of all cattle to be destroyed, not made into feed even for pigs or chickens.
"That's how you keep infectivity out of the food chain," she said. "If a farmer makes a mistake and gives pig feed to cattle by mistake, the feed is safe."
That’s also how you repair a badly damaged international image and prevent it from spilling over into the U.S. marketplace, becoming a killing influence on U.S. consumption. Forget science for now. If it doesn’t pass the “yuck” test, don’t do it. Science sometimes loses; public opinion always wins.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=5514
TSS
#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################
“The goal of our BSE surveillance program, even under the enhanced program, has never been to detect every case of BSE. Our goal is determine whether the disease exists at very low levels in the U.S. cattle population, and we do this by testing those animals most likely to have BSE. It is the longstanding system of interlocking safeguards, including the removal of specified risk materials - or the parts of an animal that would contain BSE - at slaughter and the FDA's ruminant-to- ruminant feed ban that protect public and animal health from BSE.”
“Why didn’t USDA continue to test animals at the enhanced surveillance level? “
“USDA's 2004-2006 enhanced surveillance program was initiated in response to the first detection of BSE in the United States and was designed to detect the overall prevalence of the disease in this country. This required a very intensive effort and it allowed us to estimate extremely low prevalence levels of disease. Once that prevalence level was determined, USDA modified its testing levels to monitor any changes in the level of disease. Our current testing of approximately 25,000 targeted animals a year allows USDA to detect BSE at the very low level of less than 1 case per million adult cattle, assess any change in the BSE status of U.S. cattle, and identify any rise in BSE prevalence in this country.”
***> Singeltary reply USDA Enhanced BSE Surveillance <***
***> TEXAS BSE MADCOW, The Coverup <***
Subject: THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS FONG AND HER Rocky Mountain oysters should be given a medal
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <flounder9@VERIZON.NET>
Reply To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:01:36 -0500
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
From: TSS
Subject: THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS FONG AND HER Rocky Mountain oysters should be given a medal
Date: June 29, 2005 at 5:55 am PST
Today 6/27/2005 8:19:00 AM
Jolley Cattle: Phyllis Fong Is My Hero
Seven months after the USDA lost critical test results under a bushel of obfuscation and suspicious mismanagement, Phyllis Fong had enough guts and Rocky Mountain oysters to recognize an infraction on the neutral zone. She called a foul and tossed a flag in the face of blitzing beef industry linebackers. Their “no B.S.E. here” defense, led by a gold standard test that has proven to be considerably less, fell apart.
Referring to a mysterious second test that was lost in a bureaucratic time warp, the Sunday, June 26 issue of the New York Times (registration required) reported, “Phyllis K. Fong, the Agriculture Department's inspector general, arranged for further tests on specimens of the same cow. A test known as the Western blot, which is widely used in England and Japan but not in the United States, came up positive.”
“The sequence of events started in November, when an Agriculture Department laboratory in Ames, Iowa, performed two tests on the animal in question. After the gold standard test came up negative, the agency announced that the animal had not had mad cow disease. But at the same time, the same lab also conducted the experimental test, with different (positive) results.”
Ed Loyd, attempting to clarify the situation on behalf of the USDA, explained it this way, "The laboratory folks just never mentioned it to anyone higher up. They didn't know if it was valid or not, so they didn't report it."
It sounds like a lame attempt at a cover up to me. But let’s be generous for a moment. Suppose Ed is right. How many people knew about the second test and when did they know it? Considering the importance of such a finding, the lot of them should be lined up and bused to the nearest unemployment office for not immediately and loudly reporting it.
Reacting in shock to the Fong-ordered retest, the NCBA’s Jim McAdams led a group of irate industry association officials who registered a strong complaint with Ag Secretary Mike Johanns, stating that unexpected testing creates "great anxiety within our industry," and leads to "significant losses."
To be fair, those anxieties and losses – we’ll call it the Fong effect - weren’t caused by the unexpected test last week but by the unexpected and unreported test last November. If the results had been revealed at the time, the situation would be history by now. An embarrassed Taiwanese government wouldn’t be reinstating an import ban that had been lifted just a few weeks ago and touted with a massive P.R. campaign organized by a justifiably proud Phil Seng, President and C.E.O of the United States Meat Export Federation. There was some encouraging news, however. Taiwanese newspapers reported a run on remaining U.S. beef still in supermarket meat cases after the ban was reinstated.
Reports that the USDA’s J.B. Penn, exasperated over the painfully slow progress of diplomatic negotiations, took a threatening posture with a Japanese delegation over the beef issue wouldn’t be making headlines, either.
Here is the bottom line: We can no longer use science to defend our practices. The Question we must now face is how do we repair worldwide confidence in our beef supply and our ability to reliably monitor it? The answer requires absolute transparency along with a strong international public relations offensive.
We should immediately take government intervention out of the equation and open the field to free market forces. Testing of any kind by any part of the beef industry supply chain should be allowed immediately. The choice should be a business decision: Care about international trade? Test every animal if you so desire using any test regimen a trading partner requests. Interested only in U.S. consumption? Follow the current governmental edict as prescribed by “sound science.”
Hand-in-hand with open testing, of course, is the rapid implementation of a National Animal Identification System. Without reliable and quick traceability in the event of a food or animal health problem, there can be no repair to our international standing. We will cede $3 billion export market to Australia, Argentina and Canada.
Ed Loyd still adamantly maintains, "There is no scientific basis for doing what Japan and many critics want: testing all animals or all those more than 20 months old.”
I agree, but let me add one important point. The basis for testing animals is no longer one of science but of satisfying the often politically-driven requirements of our long-missing international trading partners. The hard facts of science and the soft facts of public opinion often differ. Hanging onto the former in the face of pressure created by the latter is a fool’s formula for corporate suicide.
For the USDA to insist on using the “gold standard” test as the final check, in the face of a better and more reliable test, is absolutely wrong. Even before the current debacle, Dr. Linda Detwiler, who led the USDA mad cow testing program until 2002 and now serves as Adjunct Professor, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, said the department should be using the Western blot test.
"You need to put as many tools in your tool kit as possible," she said.
Detwiler also attacked other financially sensible but short-sighted practices such as recycling poultry litter with spilled cattle meal back to cattle, giving calves "milk replacements" made from cattle blood, and letting cows eat dried restaurant "plate waste." She also called for brains and spines of all cattle to be destroyed, not made into feed even for pigs or chickens.
"That's how you keep infectivity out of the food chain," she said. "If a farmer makes a mistake and gives pig feed to cattle by mistake, the feed is safe."
That’s also how you repair a badly damaged international image and prevent it from spilling over into the U.S. marketplace, becoming a killing influence on U.S. consumption. Forget science for now. If it doesn’t pass the “yuck” test, don’t do it. Science sometimes loses; public opinion always wins.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=5514
TSS
#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################
speaking of rocky mountain oysters, swinging tendergroin, or swinging sirloin
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
Rocky Mountain oysters, mountain oysters, prairie oysters, Montana tendergroin or swinging sirloin and madcowboys
Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:51:19 -0500
Calls on Agencies to Coordinate “Mad Cow” Readiness Letters to HHS, USDA Outline Specific Actions to Increase Oversight
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:29:46 -0500
Re: Statement by USDA Chief Veterinarian John Clifford Regarding the Epidemiological Investigation Into the Recently Confirmed BSE Case
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:01:06 -0500
Gov Perry and Ag Comm Susan Combs comment on ''Texas second mad cow'' (what about Texas/USA mad cow feed 2000-2005?)
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:06:07 -0500
Release No. 0235.05 TRANSCRIPT OF USDA/APHIS ET AL CONFIRMING WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW FOR 7+ MONTHS, TEXAS MAD COW CONFIRMED
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:05:35 -0500
Statement by USDA Chief Veterinarian John Clifford Regarding the Epidemiological Investigation Into the Recently Confirmed BSE Case
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:49:55 -0500
WEBCAST:
U.S. Agriculture Officials To Provide Update On BSE Epidemiological Investigation 6:00PM EDT
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:55:33 -0500
Re: TOP PRION GOD TESTIFIES IN BEHALF OF R-CALF ABOUT BSE AKA MAD COW DISEASE
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:50:43 -0500
Re: FDA Statement on USDA BSE Positive Test Results
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:51:27 -0500
TOP PRION GOD TESTIFIES IN BEHALF OF R-CALF ABOUT BSE AKA MAD COW DISEASE
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:49:50 -0500
Re: June 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE and TSE surveillance update in the USA
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:43:36 -0500
Bio-Rad Comments on Positive Confirmation of BSE Test Result
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:30:33 -0500
THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS FONG AND HER Rocky Mountain oysters should be given a medal
BSE FEED FDA 7 Scientists Report Comment
DAMNING TESTIMONY FROM STANLEY PRUSINER THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER ON PRIONS SPEAKING ABOUT ANN VENEMAN
''nobody has ever ask'' ''they dont want our comment'' ''they don't want to know, the don't care'' ''i have tried repeatedly'' ''level of absolute ignorance'' ''Entire policy was driven...heard from mr. laycraft, so now, after time has passed, it's ok for Canada, cattle under 30 month, to the USA, THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERED! PRUSINER ASKED : IF FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, A DEMONSTRATED THREAT TO PUBLIC HEATH ? ''yes, i think prions are bad to eat, and you can die from them''
http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/prusinerclip.html
April 8, 2004
John O'Connell
Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA 112 Annex, 300 12 Street, SW Washington, DC 20250
03-025IF 03-025IF-589
Julie Spittel CC: Desk Officer for Agriculture
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, DC 20253 Re: Docket No. 03-02SIF; Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Dear Mr. O'Connell et al:
In a Federal Register notice dated January 12, 2004 (Volume 68, Number 7), the Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA published an interim final rule and requested comment on the prohibition of use of certain materials for human food and requirements for disposal of disabled cattle. This action and amendment to the Federal meat inspection regulations undoubtedly stemmed from the recent increased perception of risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the U.S. cattle industry. We believe this amendment to Federal regulations is entirely necessary and valid; however, certain significant issues surrounding this amendment were not addressed by the FSIS in this rule, In the following document, we offer comment on the issues of animal consumption, accidental or indirect human consumption, and disposal of Specified Risk Materials.
The exclusion of SRMs from human food in this interim final rule appears to be dangerously inadequate because it does not include their use for animal fed in the ban. This exclusion does not ensure that cattle will not ultimately consume SRMs through other farm animal feed and therefore does not sufficiently protect both the animal and human population from BSE infection. There appear to be two issues that are problematic and are not addressed by this ruling. The first is the possibility of cross contamination of animal feed in feed mills. Currently in the US, animal protein derived from non- ruminant animals is allowed in feed to be consumed by cattle, while feed intended for non-ruminants, such as chickens and pigs, may contain SRMs. This type of feed regulation existed in the UK until 1994 when ruminant to ruminant fceding was banned. This ban was widened in 1996 when the use of mammailan MBM (meat and bone meal) was banned in all feed for farmed animals. The EU took this step because it was determined that the possibility for cross contamination of ruminant and non- ruminant feed within the different lines of feed mills existed. In fact, according to Malcoln Ferguson- Smith, a Cambridge University scientist, "It was calculated that over 44,000 animals were infected with BSE through this contamination".
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-589.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20041107011750/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-589.pdf
Terry S. Singeltary SR. P.O. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
***> Singeltary investigation of Texas BSE MadCow Coverup NOVEMBER 2004 <***
***> Texas BSE Investigation Final Epidemiological Report August 2006 <***
State-Federal Team Responds to Texas BSE Case JUNE 30, 2005
(please note 7+ month delay in final confirmation so the BSE MRR policy could be set in stone first. $$$...tss)
News Release
Texas Animal Health Commission
Box 12966 * Austin, Texas 78711 * (800) 550-8242 * FAX (512) 719-0719
Bob Hillman, DVM * Executive Director
For info, contact Carla Everett, information officer, at 1-800-550-8242, ext. 710, or ceverett@tahc.state.tx.us
For immediate release---
State-Federal Team Responds to Texas BSE Case
The US Department of Agriculture announced June 29 that genetic testing has verified that an aged cow that tested positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE originated from a Texas beef cattle herd. Tissues for laboratory testing were initially collected from the animal in November 2004, and the carcass was incinerated and did not enter the human food, animal feed or fertilizer supply system. While tests in November indicated the animal did not have BSE, retesting in England in June confirmed the animal had the disease. The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), the state's livestock and poultry health regulatory agency, and USDA have jointly assigned a state-federal team to conduct the epidemiological investigation and response.
"The TAHC and US Department of Agriculture's Veterinary Services are working with a complement of experts from federal and state animal health, food safety, public health and feed regulatory agencies to ensure the continued safety and wholesomeness of our meat supply," said Dr. Bob Hillman, Texas state veterinarian and executive director of the TAHC, the state's livestock and poultry health regulatory agency. "Epidemiological investigations are thorough and focus on verifying the herd of origin, and when, where and how the animal and potentially, any herd mates, were exposed to the abnormal prion, or disease agent, that causes BSE. Additionally, epidemiology investigations trace the infected animal's movement and herd mates. Animals potentially exposed to the disease will be depopulated, with proper disposal. The animals will not be introduced into the human or animal food chain.”
The USDA's BSE testing protocol requires testing of emaciated or injured cattle, cattle that exhibit central nervous system disorder, cattle unable to rise or to walk normally, and cattle that die of unknown causes. Since June 1, 2004, brain tissue samples from more than 394,000 cattle have been tested in the U.S. and were negative for BSE. Of those, 38,320 were tested in Texas, Dr. Hillman noted. BSE surveillance has been conducted in the U.S. since 1990.
The U.S. has taken preventive measures against the introduction of BSE since 1989, when prohibitions were placed on cattle and other ruminants from BSE-affected countries, noted Dr. Hillman. In 1997, the importation ban was extended to all of Europe.
Dr. Hillman said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1997 banned the use of ruminant-derived BE spreads from live ach as totemal shthe herd, ed featat cabe eposed by as fe is at covidins rendered protein from infected animals. "These measures taken by the USDA and the FDA are safeguards that work to protect livestock, and ultimately, our meat supply," he said.
--30--
http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2005/2005Jun30_BSE_Positive_Results.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20050917061409/http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2005/2005Jun30_BSE_Positive_Results.pdf
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/other/bse/news/june3005bse.html
Texas BSE Investigation Final Epidemiological Report August 2006
BSE Surveillance USDA
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
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20050908183632/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf
Texas BSE Investigation Final Epidemiology Report August 2005
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/bse_final_epi_report8-05.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20080920134731/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/bse_final_epi_report8-05.pdf
Saturday, August 14, 2010
BSE Case Associated with Prion Protein Gene Mutation (g-h-BSEalabama) and VPSPr PRIONPATHY (see COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF mad cow feed in COMMERCE IN ALABAMA...TSS)
http://prionpathy.blogspot.com/2010/08/bse-case-associated-with-prion-protein.html
***> SEE ATTEMPTED COVER-UP BEFORE THE END AROUND BY FONG ET AL OF THE O.I.G <***
The U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed June 29 that genetic testing had verified bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in a 12-year-old cow that was born and raised in a Texas beef cattle herd.
Subsequent epidemiological investigations resulted in the culling and testing of 67 adult animals from the index herd.
Bio-Rad tests for BSE were conducted on all 67 animals by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa.
All tests were negative. On July 12, Texas officials lifted the quarantine on the source herd.
At press time, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was tracing animals of the same age that had left the ranch.
Timeline The BSE-positive animal was a Brahman-cross cow born and raised in a single Texas herd. The location of the ranch was not disclosed.
On Nov. 11, 2004, the 12-year-old cow was taken to a Texas auction market.
Because of its condition, the cow was sent to Champion Pet Foods in Waco, Texas.
The company produces several blends of dog food, primarily for the greyhound industry.
On Nov. 15, the animal arrived dead at Champion. Under procedures established by USDA's intensive surveillance program, a sample was sent to the USDA-approved Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Testing Laboratory (TVMDL) at Texas A&M University.
Between June 1, 2004, and June 1, 2005, TVMDL tested nearly 34,000 samples from Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas and Louisiana.
They tested the sample from Champion on Nov. 19 using a Bio-Rad ELISA rapid test for BSE.
Initial results were inconclusive.
Because of the inconclusive results, a representative from USDA took the entire carcass to TVMDL where it was incinerated.
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) began tracing the animal and herd.
The sample was then sent to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory for further testing.
Two Immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests were conducted and both were negative for BSE.
At that point APHIS stopped their trace.
USDA scientists also ran an additional, experimental IHC "rapid" tissue fixation test for academic purposes.
This test has not been approved internationally.
Some abnormalities were noted in the experimental test, but because the two approved tests came back negative, the results were not reported beyond the laboratory.
Monitoring by OIG USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has been monitoring implementation of the BSE expanded surveillance program and evaluating the following:
* Effectiveness of the surveillance program;
* Performance of BSE laboratories in complying with policies and procedures for conducting tests and reporting results;
* Enforcement of the ban on specified risk materials in meat products;
* Controls to prevent central nervous system tissue in advanced meat recovery products;
* Ante mortem condemnation procedures; and
* Procedures for obtaining brain tissue samples from condemned cattle.
While reviewing voluminous records, OIG auditors noticed conflicting test results on one sample-rapid inconclusive, IHC negative, experimental reactive.
Sample retested At the recommendation of the Inspector General, the sample was retested during the week of June 5 with a second confirmatory test, the Western Blot.
The results were reactive.
USDA scientists then conducted an additional IHC confirmatory test, using different antibodies from the November 2004 test.
On Friday, June 10, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns publicly announced the results as a "weak positive."
On June 16 an official with USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratory hand-carried samples for further testing to the Veterinary Laboratory Agency (VLA) in Weybridge, England.
Since 1991, the VLA has been a BSE reference laboratory for the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).
Experts from the Weybridge lab confirmed the accuracy of the results of USDA's November confirmatory IHC test, concurring that the case could not have been confirmed on the basis of this sample.
They also examined the November experimental IHC test and interpreted the results to be positive. Weybridge also conducted additional tests, including IHC, OIE-prescribed Western Blot, NaTTA Western Blot and Prionics Western Blot tests.
To better understand the conflicting results, USDA also conducted Bio-Rad and IDEXX rapid screening tests, IHC and OIE-prescribed Western Blot.
USDA also used DNA sequencing to determine the prion protein gene sequence of the animal.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5420/is_200508/ai_n21377094
Texas even had a 'secret' test that showed that mad cow positive; experimental IHC test results, because the test was not a validated procedure, and because the two approved IHC tests came back negative, the results were not considered to be of regulatory significance and therefore were not reported beyond the laboratory. . A Western blot test conducted the week of June 5, 2005, returned positive for BSE.
http://www.usda.gov/documents/vs_bse_ihctestvar.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20050625074835/http://www.usda.gov/documents/vs_bse_ihctestvar.pdf
***> BSE confirmation turnaround took 7+ months to confirm this case, so the BSE MRR policy could be put into place. ...TSS <***
***> Singeltary to Fong OIG et al on Texas BSE Coverup <***
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: re-USDA's surveillance plan for BSE aka mad cow disease
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:59:07 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: paffairs@oig.hhs.gov, HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov, contactOIG@hhsc.state.tx.us
Greetings Honorable Paul Feeney, Keith Arnold, and William Busbyet al at OIG, .....
snip...
There will be several more emails of my research to follow. I respectfully request a full inquiry into the cover-up of TSEs in the United States of America over the past 30 years. I would be happy to testify... Thank you, I am sincerely,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O.
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 xxx xxx xxxx
Date: June 14, 2005 at 1:46 pm PST
In Reply to: Re: Transcript Ag. Secretary Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test Results posted by TSS on June 13, 2005 at 7:33 pm:
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman resigns Nov 15 2004, three days later inclusive Mad Cow is announced. June 7th 2005 Bill Hawks Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs resigns. Three days later same mad cow found in November turns out to be positive. Both resignation are unexpected. just pondering...
***> TSS MAD COW IN TEXAS NOVEMBER 2004. Singeltary to TAHC...TSS <***
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla EverettReferences: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask] ;
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 for something, 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 information about the animal being in Texas. Carla
***> BSE confirmation turnaround took 7+ months to confirm this case, so the BSE MRR policy could be put into place. ...TSS <***
***> Singeltary to Fong OIG et al on Texas BSE Coverup <***
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: re-USDA's surveillance plan for BSE aka mad cow disease
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:59:07 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: paffairs@oig.hhs.gov, HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov, contactOIG@hhsc.state.tx.us
Greetings Honorable Paul Feeney, Keith Arnold, and William Busbyet al at OIG, .....
snip...
There will be several more emails of my research to follow. I respectfully request a full inquiry into the cover-up of TSEs in the United States of America over the past 30 years. I would be happy to testify... Thank you, I am sincerely,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O.
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 xxx xxx xxxx
Date: June 14, 2005 at 1:46 pm PST
In Reply to: Re: Transcript Ag. Secretary Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test Results posted by TSS on June 13, 2005 at 7:33 pm:
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman resigns Nov 15 2004, three days later inclusive Mad Cow is announced. June 7th 2005 Bill Hawks Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs resigns. Three days later same mad cow found in November turns out to be positive. Both resignation are unexpected. just pondering...
***> TSS MAD COW IN TEXAS NOVEMBER 2004. Singeltary to TAHC...TSS <***
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla EverettReferences: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask] ;
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 for something, 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 information about the animal being in Texas. Carla
At 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]
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. ;
Greetings list members,
IF you remember correctly, i posted this ;
Subject: Re: USDA/APHIS JUNE 2004 'ENHANCED' BSE/TSE COVER UP UPDATE DECEMBER 19, 2004 USA
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:27:06 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
BSE-L
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 post USDA's announcement of any results. There are no results to be announced tonight by NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA announcement when 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. ;
Greetings list members,
IF you remember correctly, i posted this ;
Subject: Re: USDA/APHIS JUNE 2004 'ENHANCED' BSE/TSE COVER UP UPDATE DECEMBER 19, 2004 USA
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:27:06 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
BSE-L
snip...
OH, i did ask Bio-Rad about this with NO reply to date;
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: USA BIO-RADs INCONCLUSIVEs
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: [log in to unmask] > > > >
Hello Susan and Bio-Rad,
Happy Holidays!
I wish to ask a question about Bio-Rad and USDA BSE/TSE testing > and there inconclusive. IS the Bio-Rad test for BSE/TSE that complicated, > or is there most likely some human error we are seeing here?
HOW can Japan have 2 positive cows with > No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP- , > BUT in the USA, these cows are considered 'negative'?
IS there more politics working here than science in the USA?
What am I missing? > > > >
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: USDA: More mad cow testing will demonstrate beef's safety
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:26:19 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
snip...end
Experts doubt USDA's mad cow results
snip...END
WELL, someone did call me from Bio-Rad about this, however it was not Susan Berg. but i had to just about take a blood oath not to reveal there name. IN fact they did not want me to even mention this, but i feel it is much much to important. I have omitted any I.D. of this person, but thought I must document this ;
Bio-Rad, TSS phone conversation 12/28/04
Finally spoke with ;
Bio-Rad Laboratories 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive Hercules, CA 94547 Ph: 510-741-6720 Fax: 510-741-5630 Email: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
at approx. 14:00 hours 12/28/04, I had a very pleasant phone conversation with XXXX XXXXX about the USDA and the inconclusive BSE testing problems they seem to keep having. X was very very cautious as to speak directly about USDA and it's policy of not using WB. X was very concerned as a Bio-Rad official of retaliation of some sort. X would only speak of what other countries do, and that i should take that as an answer. I told X I understood that it was a very loaded question and X agreed several times over and even said a political one.
my question;
Does Bio-Rad believe USDA's final determination of False positive, without WB, and considering the new atypical TSEs not showing positive with -IHC and -HP ???
ask if i was a reporter. i said no, i was with CJD Watch and that i had lost my mother to hvCJD. X did not want any of this recorded or repeated.
again, very nervous, will not answer directly about USDA for fear of retaliation, but again said X tell me what other countries are doing and finding, and that i should take it from there. "very difficult to answer"
"very political"
"very loaded question"
outside USA and Canada, they use many different confirmatory tech. in house WB, SAF, along with IHC, HP, several times etc. you should see at several talks meetings (TSE) of late Paris Dec 2, that IHC- DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NEGATIVE. again, look what the rest of the world is doing. said something about Dr. Houston stating; any screening assay, always a chance for human error. but with so many errors (i am assuming X meant inconclusive), why are there no investigations, just false positives? said something about ''just look at the sheep that tested IHC- but were positive''. ...
TSS
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your questions Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800
From: To: [log in to unmask]
Hi Terry:
............................................snip
Let me know your phone number so I can talk to you about the Bio-Rad BSE test. Thank you
Regards
Bio-Rad Laboratories 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive Hercules, CA 94547 Ph: 510-741-6720 Fax: 510-741-5630 Email:
=================================
END...TSS
######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########
***> FROM HERE, IT TOOK 7 MONTHS TO CONFIRM THIS MAD COW, while the BSE MRR policy was being bought and sold...(in my opinion...tss) <***
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/08/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-mad.html
Bio-Rad, TSS phone conversation 12/28/04
Finally spoke with ;
Bio-Rad Laboratories 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive Hercules, CA 94547 Ph: 510-741-6720 Fax: 510-741-5630 Email: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
at approx. 14:00 hours 12/28/04, I had a very pleasant phone conversation with XXXX XXXXX about the USDA and the inconclusive BSE testing problems they seem to keep having. X was very very cautious as to speak directly about USDA and it's policy of not using WB. X was very concerned as a Bio-Rad official of retaliation of some sort. X would only speak of what other countries do, and that i should take that as an answer. I told X I understood that it was a very loaded question and X agreed several times over and even said a political one.
my question;
Does Bio-Rad believe USDA's final determination of False positive, without WB, and considering the new atypical TSEs not showing positive with -IHC and -HP ???
ask if i was a reporter. i said no, i was with CJD Watch and that i had lost my mother to hvCJD. X did not want any of this recorded or repeated.
again, very nervous, will not answer directly about USDA for fear of retaliation, but again said X tell me what other countries are doing and finding, and that i should take it from there. "very difficult to answer"
"very political"
"very loaded question"
outside USA and Canada, they use many different confirmatory tech. in house WB, SAF, along with IHC, HP, several times etc. you should see at several talks meetings (TSE) of late Paris Dec 2, that IHC- DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NEGATIVE. again, look what the rest of the world is doing. said something about Dr. Houston stating; any screening assay, always a chance for human error. but with so many errors (i am assuming X meant inconclusive), why are there no investigations, just false positives? said something about ''just look at the sheep that tested IHC- but were positive''. ...
TSS
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your questions Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800
From: To: [log in to unmask]
Hi Terry:
............................................snip
Let me know your phone number so I can talk to you about the Bio-Rad BSE test. Thank you
Regards
Bio-Rad Laboratories 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive Hercules, CA 94547 Ph: 510-741-6720 Fax: 510-741-5630 Email:
=================================
END...TSS
######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########
***> FROM HERE, IT TOOK 7 MONTHS TO CONFIRM THIS MAD COW, while the BSE MRR policy was being bought and sold...(in my opinion...tss) <***
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/08/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-mad.html
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Qualitative Analysis of BSE Risk Factors in the United States
February 13, 2000 at 3:37 pm PST
(BSE red book)
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2008/08/qualitative-analysis-of-bse-risk.html
Texas MadCow BSE Coverup, and My Email to the Honorable Phyllis Fong about Texas BSE MadCow Cover-up;
WHAT about those 9,200 suspect BSE secret test???
"These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC."
THIS WAS DONE FOR A REASON!
THE IHC test has been proven to be the LEAST LIKELY to detect BSE/TSE in the bovine, and these were probably from the most high risk cattle pool, the ones the USDA et al, SHOULD have been testing. ...TSS
SCIENCE NEWS JULY 13, 2004 / 5:02 PM
USDA advised against mad cow test in 2002
By STEVE MITCHELL, United Press International
"Why are we using Bio-Rad instead of Prionics if they are as bad as the (USDA) would have us believe with all these 'inconclusives?' asked Terry Singletary, coordinator of CJD Watch, an advocacy group for patients and family members. His mother died of a rare form of CJD called Heidenhain Variant, which has not been linked with mad cow disease.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2004/07/13/USDA-advised-against-mad-cow-test-in-2002/32331089752576/
SCIENCE NEWS MAY 11, 2004 / 10:15 PM
USDA orders silence on mad cow in Texas
By STEVE MITCHELL, United Press International
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2004/05/11/USDA-orders-silence-on-mad-cow-in-Texas/49171084328148/
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
http://web.archive.org/web/20060210024116/http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
Consumer Health
Inspector to file charges against USDA
By Steve Mitchell Sep 6, 2005, 22:46 GMT
http://web.archive.org/web/20050912185453/http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050906-050340-6793r.htm
PAST US MAD COW CASES AND TRACEABILITY PROBLEMS, WHAT'S IT GOING TO TAKE?
AUG. 11, 2017
***>Assuming no other factors influenced the levels of correct diagnosis and that the numbers estimated for 1997 to 1999 were a true representation of the potential under-diagnosis of the entire epidemic up until 1999, then the total number of missed cases positive for BSE could have been in the region of 5,500.
***>As a result, using more sensitive diagnostic assays, we were able to diagnose BSE positive cattle from the years 1997-1999 inclusive that were originally negative by vacuolation. From these data we have estimated that approximately 3% of the total suspect cases submitted up until the year 1999 were mis-diagnosed.
YOU know, Confucius is confused again LOL, i seem to have remembered something in line with this here in the USA...
USDA did not test possible mad cows
By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 6/8/2004 9:30 PM
WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims ittested 500 cows with signs of a brain disorder for mad cow disease last year, but agency documents obtained by United Press International show the agency tested only half that number.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2004/06/08/USDA-did-not-test-possible-mad-cows/38651086744622/
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2007/10/bse-base-mad-cow-testing-texas-usa-and.html
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060503205529/http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
TEXAS 2ND MAD COW THAT WAS COVERED UP, AFTER AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AND CALLS FROM TSE PRION SCIENTIST AROUND THE GLOBE, THIS 2ND MAD COW IN TEXAS WAS CONFIRMED
THE USDA MAD COW FOLLIES POSITIVE TEST COVER UP
JOHANNS SECRET POSTIVE MAD COW TEST THAT WERE IGNORED
OIG AND THE HONORABLE FONG CONFIRMS TEXAS MAD AFTER AN ACT OF CONGRESS 7 MONTHS LATER
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
TEXAS 2ND MAD COW THAT WAS COVERED UP, AFTER AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AND CALLS FROM TSE PRION SCIENTIST AROUND THE GLOBE, THIS 2ND MAD COW IN TEXAS WAS CONFIRMED
THE USDA MAD COW FOLLIES POSITIVE TEST COVER UP
JOHANNS SECRET POSTIVE MAD COW TEST THAT WERE IGNORED
OIG AND THE HONORABLE FONG CONFIRMS TEXAS MAD AFTER AN ACT OF CONGRESS 7 MONTHS LATER
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
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20090424121101/http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/08/0336.xml
NOT to forget ;
It should be noted that since the enhanced surveillance program began, USDA has also conducted approximately 9,200 routine IHC tests on samples that did not first undergo rapid testing. This was done to ensure that samples inappropriate for the rapid screen test were still tested, and also to monitor and improve upon IHC testing protocols. Of those 9,200 routine tests, one test returned a non-definitive result on July 27, 2005. That sample underwent additional testing at NVSL, as well as at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, England, and results were negative. ......
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse_testing/test_results.html
https://www.fsc.go.jp/fsciis/attachedFile/download?retrievalId=kai20050824pr1&fileId=142
r i g h t ............
By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 2/9/2004 7:06 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- The federal laboratory in Ames, Iowa, that conducts all of the nation's tests for mad cow disease has a history of producing ambiguous and conflicting results -- to the point where many federal meat inspectors have lost confidence in it, Department of Agriculture veterinarians and a deer rancher told United Press International.
The veterinarians also claim the facility -- part of the USDA and known as the National Veterinary Services Laboratories -- has refused to release testing results to them and has been so secretive some suspect it is covering up additional mad cow cases. ...
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040209-061848-3665r
snip...see full transmission;
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2007/10/bse-base-mad-cow-testing-texas-usa-and.html
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS K. FONG INSPECTOR GENERAL Before the HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES March 1, 2006
snip...
For release only by the House Committee on Appropriations Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for inviting me to testify before you today to discuss the activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and to provide information about our oversight of the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) programs and operations. I would like to introduce the members of the OIG senior management team who are here with me today: Kathy Tighe, our new Deputy Inspector General; Robert Young, Assistant Inspector General for Audit; Mark Woods, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations; and Suzanne Murrin, Assistant Inspector General for Policy Development and Resources Management. I welcome this opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with an overview of the highlights of our audit and investigative activity over the past year. Fiscal Year 2005 presented many difficult challenges for the USDA and our country’s agricultural producers and consumers. In addition to administering programs relied upon by farmers and rural communities and managing the $128 billion in public resources entrusted to the Department, USDA assumed significant responsibilities responding to the hurricanes that ravaged the Gulf Coast in 2005 and addressing the threat of plant and animal disease. To best serve the Department, our Congressional oversight committees, and the general public, OIG has formally prioritized, organized, and planned our work according to three
2
central objectives. I will present my testimony to the Subcommittee according to the framework of these three objectives: supporting Safety, Security, and Public Health in USDA programs and operations; protecting Program Integrity as USDA provides assistance to individuals and entities; and improving the Department’s Management of Public Resources. I. Safety, Security, and Public Health The BSE Surveillance Program and SRM Controls We recently issued our second report focusing on the Department’s efforts to establish and enforce effective, interlocking safeguards to protect producers and consumers from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly referred to as “mad cow disease.” Our February 2006 report reviewed the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) implementation of its expanded BSE surveillance program and the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s (FSIS) controls to prevent banned specified risk materials (SRM) from entering our Nation’s food supply. We found that USDA made significant efforts to implement and improve the expanded surveillance program. The Department faced many challenges in a short period of time to establish the necessary processes, controls, and infrastructure needed for this massive effort. In our recent report, we discuss specific areas where we believe corrective actions were not fully effective in addressing our prior findings and recommendations on issues such as obtaining representative samples of the U.S. herd, identifying and obtaining samples from high-risk surveillance streams, and ensuring the completeness/accuracy of data. The Department
3
has responded to our report with immediate actions. For example, at the Secretary’s direction, APHIS revised its testing protocols to provide for additional confirmatory procedures when inconclusive test results occur. Also, both APHIS and FSIS agreed with all OIG recommendations, and they have corrected, or have developed action plans to correct, the program weaknesses identified. APHIS’ Implementation of the Expanded Surveillance Plan APHIS obtained significantly more samples for testing than it originally anticipated would be needed to achieve its stated level of confidence in estimating the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd. The voluntary nature of the surveillance program, however, makes it difficult to determine how successful USDA was in obtaining a representative proportion of high-risk cattle for testing. OIG found that APHIS’ various statistical approaches to determining the prevalence of BSE mitigate some, but not all, of the limitations associated with its data and the agency’s underlying assumptions in the design and implementation of its surveillance program. The accuracy of the underlying data is critical to the development of a future maintenance surveillance program. We recommended that APHIS disclose the limitations in its surveillance program and underlying data when it makes its final assessment of the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. We also found that USDA needed to strengthen its processes to ensure the quality and capability of its BSE testing program, especially when inconclusive test results occur. We recommended that USDA re-evaluate and adjust its testing protocols based on its
4
evaluation of emerging science and strengthen its proficiency testing and quality assurance reviews at participating laboratories. Evaluation of FSIS Processes Regarding SRMs To examine FSIS’ inspection procedures to enforce regulations to prevent risk materials in meat products, OIG reviewed the SRM plans of several meat processing facilities, observed FSIS inspections, and evaluated the effectiveness of controls during the slaughter process. FSIS technical experts assisted us in these reviews. We did not identify SRMs entering the food supply during our plant visits. However, we could not determine whether required SRM procedures were followed or were adequate due to the lack of specificity in the plans. We found that the plants lacked documentation of compliance with SRM control procedures and FSIS actions to validate such compliance. In addition to the control issues we identified regarding SRM procedures at slaughter and processing establishments, we found that FSIS’ information system could not readily provide FSIS with the data it needed to identify trends in SRM violations. The expanded stage of USDA’s BSE surveillance program is now nearing its end. Accordingly, it is important that the issues we have raised be considered as USDA completes its BSE surveillance program and reports on the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd. The Department has responded to our report with immediate action and agreed to address all of our findings and recommendations.
5 Assessing USDA Controls for Beef Exported to Japan On January 20, 2006, Japanese officials announced that they had banned any further imports of beef products from the United States, based on the discovery that a U.S. plant had shipped a veal product containing vertebral column material that was prohibited by the terms of an agreement with Japan. On the same date, in response to Japan’s decision, the Secretary announced 12 actions USDA would undertake to facilitate resuming trade. These actions include delisting and investigating the plant that exported the ineligible product, requiring a second signature on export certificates, providing training to inspection personnel on export certification, and holding meetings with inspection officials and industry representatives to reaffirm program requirements. Shortly thereafter, the Secretary requested OIG to audit the adequacy of USDA’s coordination and control processes for the Beef Export Verification (BEV) program for Japan. OIG’s report, issued on February 16, 2006, concluded that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and FSIS could strengthen their controls over the BEV program by improving processes used to communicate BEV program requirements, clearly defining roles and responsibilities, and implementing additional oversight of FSIS inspection personnel. In response to our recommendations, the agencies agreed to an array of actions. AMS agreed to maintain a list of specific, export-eligible products for each facility with an approved BEV program; to systematically notify FSIS when any establishment is approved/delisted from a BEV program; and to review all establishments in the BEV program to ensure that they adhere to program requirements. FSIS agreed to
6
clarify the roles and responsibilities of FSIS personnel involved at each stage of the export verification process; expedite the development of export certification training; and increase supervisory oversight of the export certification process. OIG believes that the full implementation of these measures will strengthen and improve the Department’s compliance with BEV program requirements. Assessment of the Equivalence of the Canadian Beef Inspection System Last year, my testimony discussed OIG’s findings from our audit of APHIS’ oversight of the importation of beef products from Canada. Our work on that audit led us to conduct an evaluation of FSIS’ assessment of the equivalence of the Canadian food safety inspection system, which we issued in December 2005. The then FSIS Administrator and the Under Secretary for Food Safety had identified concerns with the Canadian inspection system in late 2003. Our audit determined that FSIS did not fully address the issues raised by USDA officials in a timely manner. For example, in July 2003 FSIS found that Canadian inspection officials were not enforcing certain pathogen reduction and HACCP system regulations. These same types of concerns were identified again in June 2005. At the time of our audit, FSIS did not have protocols for evaluating deficiencies in a foreign country’s inspection system which could be used to question the system’s equivalence to U.S. standards. In addition, FSIS had not instituted compensating controls (such as increased port-of-entry testing) to strengthen public health protections while
7
deficiencies were present. During the period of January 2003–May 2005, 4.4 billion pounds of Canadian processed product entered the U.S., even though FSIS officials questioned the equivalence of the Canadian inspection system. FSIS agreed with OIG’s five recommendations, which included implementing protocols to determine which deficiencies would lead FSIS to question whether a foreign country’s inspection system is equivalent to the U.S. system. In response to the report, FSIS committed to develop these protocols by March 2006 and to implement them immediately thereafter. Oversight of FSIS Recalls For the past several years we have testified about our continuing work regarding adulterated beef product recalls. In July 2004, a Pennsylvania firm initiated a recall of approximately 170,000 pounds of ground beef patties because of mislabeling. Approximately one-fourth of this product was made, in part, from beef trim from Canada which was not eligible for import to the U.S., following the detection of a Canadian cow with BSE. In May 2005, we reported on the adequacy of FSIS’ effectiveness checks and the agency’s oversight of the recall. Overall, we concluded that FSIS had strengthened its procedures regarding the agency’s oversight of recalls. However, we noted that FSIS personnel did not determine the amount of product purchased by firms on 26 of the 58 completed effectiveness checks. This resulted in reduced assurance that mislabeled product was completely retrieved from distribution. Agency officials concurred with the firms’ assertions that the product had been removed from the marketplace. In response to
8
our recommendations, FSIS agreed to provide more specific direction to its personnel on identifying and evaluating the amount of product purchased. The Subcommittee has been interested in OIG’s investigation of a Pennsylvania company’s recall of meat products. This remains an ongoing civil fraud investigation and we will be pleased to provide information on its resolution to the Subcommittee upon its conclusion.
snip. ...9 of 34 pages. ...tss
http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/FongTestimony.pdf
see archived url;
http://web.archive.org/web/20060330031103/http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/FongTestimony.pdf
TEXAS OFFICIALS DEAD WRONG ON AMOUNT OF INFECTIVITY TO CAUSE A TSE PRION DISEASE ;
"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."
5.5 GRAMS OF INFECTIOUS PROHIBITED MAD COW FEED FOR EACH OF THE 1,222 ANIMALS (5.5 GRAMS X 1,222 ANIMALS) IS ENOUGH INFECTIOUS MAD COW FEED TO KILL A SMALL HERD OF COWS...TSS
U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA News | Today the Food and Drug Administ…
U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA News Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle — a violation of FDA’s 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants.
Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle. 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. It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once.
The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated. According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA’s Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, “The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States.
One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals.
Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE.”
Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material.
Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply.
FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.
FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.
This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.
FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.
http://www.usmef.org/news-statistics/press-releases/us-food-and-drug-administration-fda-news-today-the-food-and-drug-administ-13375/
archive url;
"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."
5.5 GRAMS OF INFECTIOUS PROHIBITED MAD COW FEED FOR EACH OF THE 1,222 ANIMALS (5.5 GRAMS X 1,222 ANIMALS) IS ENOUGH INFECTIOUS MAD COW FEED TO KILL A SMALL HERD OF COWS...TSS
U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA News | Today the Food and Drug Administ…
U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA News Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle — a violation of FDA’s 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants.
Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle. 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. It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once.
The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated. According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA’s Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, “The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States.
One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals.
Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE.”
Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material.
Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply.
FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.
FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.
This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.
FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.
http://www.usmef.org/news-statistics/press-releases/us-food-and-drug-administration-fda-news-today-the-food-and-drug-administ-13375/
archive url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20160117030013/http://www.usmef.org/news-statistics/press-releases/us-food-and-drug-administration-fda-news-today-the-food-and-drug-administ-13375/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE P01-05 January 30, 2001
Print Media: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT
Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants.
Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.
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.
It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once.
The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated. According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States.
One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals.
Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."
Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material.
Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply.
FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.
FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.
This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.
FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2001/new00752.html
see archived url;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE P01-05 January 30, 2001
Print Media: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT
Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants.
Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.
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.
It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once.
The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated. According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States.
One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals.
Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."
Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material.
Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply.
FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.
FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.
This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.
FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2001/new00752.html
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20010202153000/http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2001/new00752.html
WE know now, and we knew decades ago, that 5.5 grams of suspect feed in TEXAS was enough to kill 100 cows.
2023
"Cattle with the E211K polymorphism are susceptible to the CWD agent after oronasal exposure of 0.2 g of infectious material."
also see;
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://web.archive.org/web/20040523230128/www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf
it is clear that the designing scientists must have also shared Mr Bradleyâs surprise at the results because all the dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030526212610/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf
http://www.neuroprion.org/resources/pdf_docs/conferences/prion2009/prion2009_bookofabstracts.pdf
WE know now, and we knew decades ago, that 5.5 grams of suspect feed in TEXAS was enough to kill 100 cows.
2023
"Cattle with the E211K polymorphism are susceptible to the CWD agent after oronasal exposure of 0.2 g of infectious material."
also see;
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://web.archive.org/web/20040523230128/www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf
it is clear that the designing scientists must have also shared Mr Bradleyâs surprise at the results because all the dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030526212610/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf
http://www.neuroprion.org/resources/pdf_docs/conferences/prion2009/prion2009_bookofabstracts.pdf
the amount of mad cow feed that could kill a cow i.e. perry's officials claim that 5.5 grams of mad cow feed could kill a cow. fact is, that's enough to kill many cows, a small herd (purina, Gonzales, Tx.). sporadic CJD has now been linked with atypical BSE in North America a decade later, and other TSE prion disease in other species here in the USA and North America. my mother died from an exceedingly rare strain of the sporadic CJD's in Texas. sporadic, just a name that means they don't know, or they did not want to know $$$ Texas has mad cow disease.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE P01-05 January 30, 2001 Print Media: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: On Dec. 23, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a cow in Washington state had tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease). As a result, information on this Web page stating that no BSE cases had been found in the United States is now incorrect. However, because other information on this page continues to have value, the page will remain available for viewing.
FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT
Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.
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.
It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated.
According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."
Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.
FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.
This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.
FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html
archived url;
NEWS RELEASE
Texas Animal Health Commission
Box l2966 •Austin, Texas 78711 •(800) 550-8242• FAX (512) 719-0719
Linda Logan, DVM, PhD• Executive Director
For info, contact Carla Everett, information officer, at 1-800-550-8242, ext. 710,
or ceverett@tahc.state.tx.us
For Immediate Release--
Feed Contamination Issue Resolved by FDA
Although many of you may have heard the latest regarding the resolution of the cattle feed contamination situation in Texas, I wanted to ensure that you received this statement issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency in charge of regulating feed components. The FDA has said the cattle involved are to be rendered and the material will not enter ruminant or human food channels. The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) will provided assistance to the FDA as requested and needed.
FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT
Today (Tuesday, Jan. the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.
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.
It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated.
According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."
Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.
FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities. This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.
FDA will continue working with USDA as well as state and local officials to ensure that
companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S.
food supply.
---30--
http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/News/pr/2001/101FEED_ISSUE_RESOLVED.pdf
archived url;
TEXAS also renders it's suspect mad cows, instead of testing for BSE/TSE ;
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
archived url;
"Cattle with the E211K polymorphism are susceptible to the CWD agent after oronasal exposure of 0.2 g of infectious material."
Transmission of the chronic wasting disease agent from elk to cattle after oronasal exposure
Justin Greenlee, Jifeng Bian, Zoe Lambert, Alexis Frese, and Eric Cassmann Virus and Prion Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, USDA-ARS, Ames, IA, USA
Aims: The purpose of this study was to determine the susceptibility of cattle to chronic wasting disease agent from elk.
Materials and Methods: Initial studies were conducted in bovinized mice using inoculum derived from elk with various genotypes at codon 132 (MM, LM, LL). Based upon attack rates, inoculum (10% w/v brain homogenate) from an LM132 elk was selected for transmission studies in cattle. At approximately 2 weeks of age, one wild type steer (EE211) and one steer with the E211K polymorphism (EK211) were fed 1 mL of brain homogenate in a quart of milk replacer while another 1 mL was instilled intranasally. The cattle were examined daily for clinical signs for the duration of the experiment. One steer is still under observation at 71 months post-inoculation (mpi).
Results: Inoculum derived from MM132 elk resulted in similar attack rates and incubation periods in mice expressing wild type or K211 bovine PRNP, 35% at 531 days post inoculation (dpi) and 27% at 448 dpi, respectively. Inoculum from LM132 elk had a slightly higher attack rates in mice: 45% (693 dpi) in wild type cattle PRNP and 33% (468) in K211 mice. Inoculum from LL132 elk resulted in the highest attack rate in wild type bovinized mice (53% at 625 dpi), but no K211 mice were affected at >700 days. At approximately 70 mpi, the EK211 genotype steer developed clinical signs suggestive of prion disease, depression, low head carriage, hypersalivation, and ataxia, and was necropsied. Enzyme immunoassay (IDEXX) was positive in brainstem (OD=4.00, but non-detect in retropharyngeal lymph nodes and palatine tonsil. Immunoreactivity was largely limited to the brainstem, midbrain, and cervical spinal cord with a pattern that was primarily glia-associated.
Conclusions: Cattle with the E211K polymorphism are susceptible to the CWD agent after oronasal exposure of 0.2 g of infectious material.
Prion 2023 Congress Organizing Committee and the NeuroPrion Association, we invite you to join us for the International Conference Prion2023 from 16-20 October 2023 in Faro, Portugal.
https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20250828201533/https://prion2023.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Meeting-book-final-version2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Syed-Zahid-Shah/publication/378314391_Meeting-book-final-version_prion_2023/links/65d44dad28b7720cecdca95f/Meeting-book-final-version-prion-2023.pdf
Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services. In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2007.
snip...
4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20080922232504/http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
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
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Washington, D.C. 20250 January 25, 2006 REPLY TO ATTN OF: 50601-10-KC
TO: W. Ron DeHaven Administrator Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Barbara Masters Administrator Food Safety and Inspection Service ATTN: William J. Hudnall Deputy Administrator Marketing Regulatory Program Business Services William C. Smith Assistant Administrator Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement, and Review
FROM: Robert W. Young /s/ Assistant Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: 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
This report presents the results of our audit of the enhanced BSE surveillance program and controls over specified risk materials and advanced meat recovery products. Your written response to the official draft report, dated January 20, 2006, is included as exhibit G with excerpts of the response and the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) position incorporated into the Findings and Recommendations section of the report, where applicable. We accept the management decisions for all recommendations. Please follow your agency’s internal procedures in forwarding documentation for final action to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). We are providing a separate memorandum to the agencies and OCFO that provides specific information on the actions to be completed to achieve final action. We appreciate your timely response and the cooperation and assistance provided to our staff during the audit USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC/ Page i
Executive Summary
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
Results in Brief This report evaluates elements of the interlocking safeguards in place to protect United States (U.S.) beef from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, widely known as BSE or "mad cow disease." Since 1990, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), has led a multi-agency effort to monitor and prevent BSE from entering the food supply. After discovering a BSE-positive cow in December 2003, APHIS expanded its BSE surveillance program. To further protect the food supply, USDA banned materials identified as being at risk of carrying BSE (specified risk materials (SRM)), such as central nervous system tissue. As part of this effort, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) required beef slaughter and processing facilities to incorporate controls for handling such materials into their operational plans. Onsite FSIS inspectors also inspect cattle for clinical signs in order to prevent diseased animals from being slaughtered for human consumption. To evaluate the effectiveness of the safeguards, we assessed APHIS’ implementation of the expanded surveillance program, as well as FSIS’ controls to prevent banned SRMs from entering the food supply.
In June 2004, APHIS implemented its expanded surveillance program; participation by industry in this surveillance program is voluntary. As of May 2005, over 350,000 animals were sampled and tested for BSE. To date, two animals tested positive for BSE; one tested positive after implementation of the expanded surveillance program.
USDA made significant efforts to implement the expanded BSE surveillance program. Much needed to be done in a short period of time to establish the necessary processes, controls, infrastructure, and networks to assist in this effort. In addition, extensive outreach and coordination was undertaken with other Federal, State, and local entities, private industry, and laboratory and veterinary networks. This report provides an assessment as to the progress USDA made in expanding its surveillance effort and the effectiveness of its controls and processes. This report also discusses the limitations of its program and data in assessing the prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd.
snip...
40 ELISA test procedures require two additional (duplicate) tests if the initial test is reactive, before final interpretation. If either of the duplicate tests is reactive, the test is deemed inconclusive.
41 Protocol for BSE Contract Laboratories to Receive and Test Bovine Brain Samples and Report Results for BSE Surveillance Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), dated October 26, 2004.
42 The NVSL conducted an ELISA test on the original material tested at the contract laboratory and on two new cuts from the sample tissue.
43 A visual examination of brain tissue by a microscope.
44 A localized pathological change in a bodily organ or tissue.
SNIP...
PLEASE SEE FLAMING EVIDENCE THAT THE USDA ET AL COVERED UP MAD COW DISEASE IN TEXAS ;
PAGE 43;
Section 2. Testing Protocols and Quality Assurance Controls
snip...
FULL TEXT 130 PAGES
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20080920075242/http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST
Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services. In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2007.
snip...
Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1 include:
soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),
implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System enhancements for specified risk material (SRM) violations and improved inspection controls over SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),
snip...
The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and investigations are completed.
4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20071204091203/http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
Thursday, November 18, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS GALEN J. NIEHUES FAKED MAD COW FEED TEST ON 92 BSE INSPECTION REPORTS FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 CATTLE OPERATIONS
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2010/11/united-states-of-america-vs-galen-j.html
Panel questions Homeland Security inspection of food By Jerry Hagstrom, CongressDailyPM
Agriculture Department Inspector General Phyllis Fong and several members of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee expressed concern Wednesday about whether the Homeland Security Department is properly inspecting food and other agricultural items when they arrive in the United States. Neither Fong nor the committee members provided any hard evidence of problems, but Fong said she and the Homeland Security Department's inspector general were conducting a joint review of inspection functions. Once the province of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, they were transferred to Homeland Security when that department was created.
"We are still very concerned about whether that broader inspection is being carried out," Fong said in testimony.
Fong said the joint inquiry was only in the stage of field investigation and had reached no conclusions.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, suggested the inspector general focus on the impact of the inspections on plants from other countries. House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, said he had asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the food inspection process. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, who noted he also sits on the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, said, "Apparently there are still some unresolved issues about what the heck [the department] is doing."
Under questioning from Agriculture Appropriations ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Fong acknowledged it was APHIS Administrator Ron DeHaven who made the decision not to conduct further tests on a Texas cow whose initial test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, was inconclusive. Further tests ordered by the inspector general several months later showed that the cow had the disease.
DeLauro noted that when Japan stopped importing U.S. beef in December, USDA moved faster to deal with that issue than it had when the Texas cow was tested, a sign, she said, that USDA was more concerned about trade than human health.
"We are taking years to deal with public health," DeLauro said. "If APHIS is in charge of avian influenza and we have the kinds of problems existing here, it doesn't bode well for public safety."
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0306/030106cdpm2.htm
see archived url;
http://web.archive.org/web/20060311070356/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0306/030106cdpm2.htm
Comments on technical aspects of the risk assessment were then submitted to FSIS.
Comments were received from Food and Water Watch, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), Farm Sanctuary, R-CALF USA, Linda A Detwiler, and Terry S. Singeltary.
This document provides itemized replies to the public comments received on the 2005 updated Harvard BSE risk assessment. Please bear the following points in mind:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/BSE_Risk_Assess_Response_Public_Comments.pdf
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20090626021608/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/BSE_Risk_Assess_Response_Public_Comments.pdf
Owens, Julie From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder9@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:09 PM To: FSIS RegulationsComments
Subject: [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Page 1 of 98 8/3/2006
Greetings FSIS, I would kindly like to comment on the following ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20080921202102/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
Subject: SEAC Draft minutes of the open session of the 93rd meeting held on 6th July 2006 (atypical BSE USA)
Date: August 22, 2006 at 3:03 pm PST
SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Draft minutes of the open session of the 93rd meeting held on 6th July 2006
snip...
The Chair noted that recent reports described two cases of BSE in cattle in the United States of America (USA) as being similar to atypical cases of BSE found in a number of European countries. The Chair suggested that the term "atypical BSE", used in the USA report, is potentially confusing and that this would be discussed under any other business. Dr Danny Matthews (Veterinary Laboratories Agency [VLA]) explained that data from western blots of the USA cases resembled that of a small number of atypical cases of BSE in France. A study of the French cases had shown the condition to be transmissible to mice by intracerebral (ic) inoculation with the neuropathological phenotype maintained on transmission3. Claims have been made about the existence of atypical cases of BSE in other countries but these have yet to be confirmed. No study has yet examined the tissue distribution of abnormal prion protein (PrPSc) or infectivity in such atypical cases of BSE.
3 Baron et al. (2006) Transmission of new bovine prion to mice. Emerging. Infect. Diseases. 12, 1125-1128.
snip...
http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/draft93.pdf
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=bovine+spongiform+encephalopathy+seac
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20070308092252/http://www.seac.gov.uk/agenda/agen060706.htm
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20070308092252/http://www.seac.gov.uk/papers/papers.htm
Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002.
October 31, 2002 Review of the Evaluation of the Potential for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in the United States Conducted by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health and Center for Computational Epidemiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Tuskegee University Final Report Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Office of Public Health and Science Prepared by RTI Health, Social, and Economics Research Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 RTI Project Number 07182.024
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308184249/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf
Sunday, February 14, 2010
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Singeltary Comment Submission
https://web.archive.org/web/20060925205531/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/docket-no-fsis-2006-0011-fsis-harvard.html
snip...SEE FULL TEXT;
BSE research project final report 2005 to 2008 SE1796 SID5
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2020/12/
BSE REDBOOK
Preliminary Notification
The director of NVSL is responsible for immediately notifying the APHIS, Veterinary Services (VS) deputy administrator when tests suggest a presumptive diagnosis of BSE. Once NVSL has made a presumptive diagnosis of BSE, APHIS and FSIS field activities will also be initiated. APHIS will receive notification (either confirming or not confirming NVSL's diagnosis) from the United Kingdom anywhere between 24 and 96 hours. (The international animal health community has recognized the United Kingdom's Central Veterinary Laboratory {CVL} as the world's reference laboratory for diagnosing BSE. Other countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland, have all sent samples to this lab to confirm their first case of BSE).
snip...
BSE Response Team
The BSE Response Team will complete the informational memorandum for the Secretary. The Team will prepare the letter to the Office of International Epizootics (OIE), the international animal health organization, for signature by the APHIS, VS Deputy Administrator. OIE requires that all countries submit official notification within 24 hours of confirming a diagnosis of BSE. The BSE Response Team and the office of the APHIS, VS Deputy Administrator would coordinate a teleconference to inform all APHIS regional directors and AVIC'S. The BSE Response Team and the office of the FSIS, OPHS Deputy Administrator would coordinate a teleconference to inform all regional and field FSIS offices. The BSE Response Team would coordinate a teleconference to notify other Federal agencies. The BSE Response Team would coordinate a teleconference to notify key industry/consumer representatives. The BSE Response Team and APHIS International Services would notify foreign embassies. The BSE Response Team would establish a toll-free 800 telephone line for industry representatives, reporters, and the public. The BSE Response Team would coordinate with APHIS Legislative and Public Affairs and USDA office of Communications to issue a press release the day the diagnosis is confirmed. The press release would announce a press conference to be held the morning after the diagnosis is confirmed......
THE END
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. (216-119-138-126.ipset18.wt.net)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS GALEN J. NIEHUES FAKED MAD COW FEED TEST ON 92 BSE INSPECTION REPORTS FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 CATTLE OPERATIONS
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2010/11/united-states-of-america-vs-galen-j.html
Panel questions Homeland Security inspection of food By Jerry Hagstrom, CongressDailyPM
Agriculture Department Inspector General Phyllis Fong and several members of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee expressed concern Wednesday about whether the Homeland Security Department is properly inspecting food and other agricultural items when they arrive in the United States. Neither Fong nor the committee members provided any hard evidence of problems, but Fong said she and the Homeland Security Department's inspector general were conducting a joint review of inspection functions. Once the province of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, they were transferred to Homeland Security when that department was created.
"We are still very concerned about whether that broader inspection is being carried out," Fong said in testimony.
Fong said the joint inquiry was only in the stage of field investigation and had reached no conclusions.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, suggested the inspector general focus on the impact of the inspections on plants from other countries. House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, said he had asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the food inspection process. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, who noted he also sits on the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, said, "Apparently there are still some unresolved issues about what the heck [the department] is doing."
Under questioning from Agriculture Appropriations ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Fong acknowledged it was APHIS Administrator Ron DeHaven who made the decision not to conduct further tests on a Texas cow whose initial test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, was inconclusive. Further tests ordered by the inspector general several months later showed that the cow had the disease.
DeLauro noted that when Japan stopped importing U.S. beef in December, USDA moved faster to deal with that issue than it had when the Texas cow was tested, a sign, she said, that USDA was more concerned about trade than human health.
"We are taking years to deal with public health," DeLauro said. "If APHIS is in charge of avian influenza and we have the kinds of problems existing here, it doesn't bode well for public safety."
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0306/030106cdpm2.htm
see archived url;
http://web.archive.org/web/20060311070356/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0306/030106cdpm2.htm
Comments on technical aspects of the risk assessment were then submitted to FSIS.
Comments were received from Food and Water Watch, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), Farm Sanctuary, R-CALF USA, Linda A Detwiler, and Terry S. Singeltary.
This document provides itemized replies to the public comments received on the 2005 updated Harvard BSE risk assessment. Please bear the following points in mind:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/BSE_Risk_Assess_Response_Public_Comments.pdf
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20090626021608/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/BSE_Risk_Assess_Response_Public_Comments.pdf
Owens, Julie From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder9@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:09 PM To: FSIS RegulationsComments
Subject: [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Page 1 of 98 8/3/2006
Greetings FSIS, I would kindly like to comment on the following ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20080921202102/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
Subject: SEAC Draft minutes of the open session of the 93rd meeting held on 6th July 2006 (atypical BSE USA)
Date: August 22, 2006 at 3:03 pm PST
SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Draft minutes of the open session of the 93rd meeting held on 6th July 2006
snip...
The Chair noted that recent reports described two cases of BSE in cattle in the United States of America (USA) as being similar to atypical cases of BSE found in a number of European countries. The Chair suggested that the term "atypical BSE", used in the USA report, is potentially confusing and that this would be discussed under any other business. Dr Danny Matthews (Veterinary Laboratories Agency [VLA]) explained that data from western blots of the USA cases resembled that of a small number of atypical cases of BSE in France. A study of the French cases had shown the condition to be transmissible to mice by intracerebral (ic) inoculation with the neuropathological phenotype maintained on transmission3. Claims have been made about the existence of atypical cases of BSE in other countries but these have yet to be confirmed. No study has yet examined the tissue distribution of abnormal prion protein (PrPSc) or infectivity in such atypical cases of BSE.
3 Baron et al. (2006) Transmission of new bovine prion to mice. Emerging. Infect. Diseases. 12, 1125-1128.
snip...
http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/draft93.pdf
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=bovine+spongiform+encephalopathy+seac
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20070308092252/http://www.seac.gov.uk/agenda/agen060706.htm
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20070308092252/http://www.seac.gov.uk/papers/papers.htm
Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002.
October 31, 2002 Review of the Evaluation of the Potential for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in the United States Conducted by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health and Center for Computational Epidemiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Tuskegee University Final Report Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Office of Public Health and Science Prepared by RTI Health, Social, and Economics Research Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 RTI Project Number 07182.024
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf
NEW URL LINK;
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308184249/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf
Sunday, February 14, 2010
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Singeltary Comment Submission
https://web.archive.org/web/20060925205531/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/docket-no-fsis-2006-0011-fsis-harvard.html
snip...SEE FULL TEXT;
BSE research project final report 2005 to 2008 SE1796 SID5
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2020/12/
BSE REDBOOK
Preliminary Notification
The director of NVSL is responsible for immediately notifying the APHIS, Veterinary Services (VS) deputy administrator when tests suggest a presumptive diagnosis of BSE. Once NVSL has made a presumptive diagnosis of BSE, APHIS and FSIS field activities will also be initiated. APHIS will receive notification (either confirming or not confirming NVSL's diagnosis) from the United Kingdom anywhere between 24 and 96 hours. (The international animal health community has recognized the United Kingdom's Central Veterinary Laboratory {CVL} as the world's reference laboratory for diagnosing BSE. Other countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland, have all sent samples to this lab to confirm their first case of BSE).
snip...
BSE Response Team
The BSE Response Team will complete the informational memorandum for the Secretary. The Team will prepare the letter to the Office of International Epizootics (OIE), the international animal health organization, for signature by the APHIS, VS Deputy Administrator. OIE requires that all countries submit official notification within 24 hours of confirming a diagnosis of BSE. The BSE Response Team and the office of the APHIS, VS Deputy Administrator would coordinate a teleconference to inform all APHIS regional directors and AVIC'S. The BSE Response Team and the office of the FSIS, OPHS Deputy Administrator would coordinate a teleconference to inform all regional and field FSIS offices. The BSE Response Team would coordinate a teleconference to notify other Federal agencies. The BSE Response Team would coordinate a teleconference to notify key industry/consumer representatives. The BSE Response Team and APHIS International Services would notify foreign embassies. The BSE Response Team would establish a toll-free 800 telephone line for industry representatives, reporters, and the public. The BSE Response Team would coordinate with APHIS Legislative and Public Affairs and USDA office of Communications to issue a press release the day the diagnosis is confirmed. The press release would announce a press conference to be held the morning after the diagnosis is confirmed......
THE END
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. (216-119-138-126.ipset18.wt.net)
Subject: Hunkering down in the APHIS BSE Situation Room...
Date: February 14, 2000 at 9:04 am PST
Subject: hunkering down in the APHIS BSE Situation Room Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 01:55:54 -0800 From: tom Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
i am looking now a bizarre Oct 98 internal USDA publication describing a james bond-type US effort to control media should the long-anticipated first case of BSE in the US be admitted.
'Players' on the 27 member BSE Response Team are to be flown in from all over the country to a BSE Headquarters 'situation room' apparently an underground bunker in Riverdale, Maryland under the command of the Assistant Secretary of Marketing.
Authentic press releases are already prepared and ready to go out after a few specifics have been filled in. They are spelled out in a separate document, the BSE Red Book, aka BSE Emergency Disease Guidelines.
Aphis' National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) activates team assembly. From the time a bovine brain sample is submitted, it takes 14-18 days to confirm a diagnosis of BSE. In the first 10-13 days, NVSL have enough information to determine the need for additional tests. If a provisional BSE diagnosis is made, the sample is 'hand-carried' (are they going to tell the airline and customs?) to the Central Veterinary Laboratory in England for confirmation, where they are expecting a 24 to 96 hour turn-around.
I guess that means we can get the white tiger brain analyzed by Friday despite the 22 year delay to date. Maybe we could throw in a few cougar brains from NE Colorado too.
A Team Member is designated to silently monitor this listserve and www.mad-cow.org (among others) -- for what, it doesn't say. The Freedom of Information Act request from the East Coast consumer group turned up numerous top-secret USDA downloads from that site and Dealler's.
After 24 hours of secret briefings for 'select industry and trading partners' (to allow them to take positions on the commodities markets opposite the 'non-select' industry and trading partners?), a press conference will be held the next day.
There are plans to trace the cow, its lineage, its herdmates, the renderer, traceout of product, buyout of herd, farm of origin, to get the state involved to quarantine the herd (pre-arranged for all 50 states), expectations for trade bans, notification of OIE within 24 hours, media 800 numbers, spokespersons and backups, notify CDC, FDA, NIH, and many other commendable activities. The Flow Chart is a sight to behold, I will try to scan it in tomorrow.
In short, that cow is going to be toast by the time the public first hears about it.
The Plan does not speak to the scenario in which the CVL says, yes, this is bovine spongiform encephalopathy all right but it is one of your strains, not ours. Invoking their Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence principle, there may be no perceived need for public disclosure in this case.
USDA is caught completely unprepared if BSE first turns up in a US zoo animal. These animals could easily be diagnosed outside the "system" and be the subject of a publicity-seeking lab press release. I think this is a more likely scenario because the US has likely imported many thousands of zoo animals with advanced infections from Britain and France and there has been zero monitoring. Unlike with downer cows, anyone with the right colleagues can get ahold of a fallen zoo animal. Zoo animals enter the food chain in some cases after being rendered.
Another scenario would be some stock market speculator obtaining the Red Book and issuing a flurry of bogus but authentic-looking press releases that included bogus 800 and hacked USDA web links. The press here is so lazy and so accustomed to putting out public relation handouts as news that the objectives would be accomplished for a few hour (or days, depending on the Response Team's paralysis vis-a-vis off-flow chart events). Some people think a practise run for this happened in the Indiana case a year or two back.
The first case of nvCJD in an American will also be a public relations fiasco. In the dim bulb of the public mind, any American with mad cow disease would have gotten it from eating meat here. USDA has no way to prove that the victim acquired it on a three week trip to England in 1987. This will sound lame even to the press. All CJD is synonymous with mad cow disease in the public perception; the more often the different kinds are explained, the more their suspicions are aroused. The first case of nvCJD in an American will simply validate what they already know and just be viewed as an overdue admission from the government.
tom
_________________________________________
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. (216-119-130-102.ipset10.wt.net)
Subject: When a case of B.S.E. is found in the U.S/Response to Disease outbreak...'redbook'
Date: March 13, 2000 at 10:13 am PST
BSE Red Book 2.1-26
5.0 Response to Disease Outbreak
snip...see full report of From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. (216-119-130-102.ipset10.wt.net) Subject: When a case of B.S.E. is found in the U.S/Response to Disease outbreak...'redbook' Date: March 13, 2000 at 10:13 am PST
https://bseusa.blogspot.com/2008/08/qualitative-analysis-of-bse-risk.html
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 U.S.
*** Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary and BSE Red Book
Date: February 14, 2000 at 8:56 am PST
WHERE did we go wrong $$$
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/07/us-emergency-bovine-spongiform.html
Thursday, April 6, 2023
WOAH OIE CHAPTER 11.4 . BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY Article 11.4.1.
https://woahoie.blogspot.com/2023/04/woah-oie-chapter-114-bovine-spongiform.html
BSE TESTING ONLY 25K ANNUALLY WILL NOT FIND BSE CIRCULATING IN THE USA CATTLE HERDS, UNLESS IT'S REAL BAD...THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE PROBLEMS, AND YOUR JUST TRYING TO HOLD THE NUMBERS DOWN...IMO...terry
Sample Size Estimate for BSE Ongoing Surveillance
July 20, 2006
snip...
In addition, we aim to meet the objective of conducting ongoing surveillance at a level that meets or exceeds OIE surveillance recommendations. We believe this objective is reached by the following sampling strategy, which is sufficient to detect BSE at 1 infected animal per 1,000,000 adult cattle in the population with a high degree of confidence.
Sample Size to Meet OIE Surveillance Recommendations
APHIS is committed to maintaining BSE surveillance that at least meets OIE guidelines. The OIE surveillance guidelines for BSE recommend a target number of surveillance points for Type A surveillance based on the size of a country’s cattle population. These points are accrued over 7 consecutive years, and are weighted according to the surveillance stream and age of the animal sampled. For a large cattle population, using the design prevalence of 1 case per 100,000 adult cattle and 95 percent confidence, 300,000 total points over 7 years, or 42,857 points per year, are required for Type A surveillance (OIE 2005).
http://web.archive.org/web/20090109193041/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/peer_review/downloads/BSE_sample_size_ongoing_surv_after.pdf
KEY POINTS
In addition to a stringent feed ban imposed by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997 as well as the removal of all specified risk material which could harbor BSE, USDA has a strong surveillance program in place to detect signs of BSE in cattle in the United States. In fact, we test for BSE at levels greater than World Animal Health Organization standards. The program samples approximately 25,000 animals each year and targets cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found. The targeted population for ongoing surveillance focuses on cattle exhibiting signs of central nervous disorders or any other signs that may be associated with BSE, including emaciation or injury, and dead cattle, as well as non-ambulatory animals. Samples from the targeted population are taken at farms, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, public health laboratories, slaughter facilities, veterinary clinics, and livestock markets.
https://www.usda.gov/topics/animals/bse-surveillance-information-center
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2020
Why is USDA "only" BSE TSE Prion testing 25,000 samples a year?
https://animalhealthreportpriontse.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-is-usda-only-bse-tse-prion-testing.html
see my full report here;
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
WAHIS, WOAH, OIE, United States of America Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
Immediate notification
https://woahoie.blogspot.com/2023/05/wahis-woah-oie-united-states-of-america.html
***> SPECIFIED RISK MATERIAL SRM and Animal Protein FEED <***
*** > Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed <***
USDA BSE 2026
“It is the longstanding system of interlocking safeguards, including the removal of specified risk materials - or the parts of an animal that would contain BSE - at slaughter and the FDA's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban that protect public and animal health from BSE.”
you can’t even get this information anymore on ruminant feed ban BSE violations and Failures from the FDA…terry
"Cattle with the E211K polymorphism are susceptible to the CWD agent after oronasal exposure of 0.2 g of infectious material."
***> MAD COW FEED BAN <***
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
###
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Tfx9dduMyQEJ:https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/ucm120446.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
ALABAMA MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend, Recall # V-104-6;
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
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
______________________________
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 ?????
DISTRIBUTION KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://web.archive.org/web/20060821195949/http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT Express 10# Starter X200, Medicated, Beef Cattle-Feedlot Supplement, containing 200 g/ton oxytertracycline, packaged in 50- lb, Recal # V-099-6
CODE 49MH286 and 49MY246
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Hubbard Feeds Inc., Beloit, KS, by telephone on June 7, 2006. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON The oxytetracycline used to manufacture the feed was expired.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 279/50-lb. bags
DISTRIBUTION KS
______________________________
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
______________________________
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
______________________________
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 ?????
DISTRIBUTION KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
https://web.archive.org/web/20100120023832/http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/2006/ucm120413.htm
FDA PART BSE 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report Official Action Indicated OAI and VAI November 2021
Inspection conclusions are reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified as OAI will be promptly re‐ inspected following the regulatory sanctions, in order to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified as VAI usually occur as a result of more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. Examples could include things such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions involving non‐ruminant feeds.
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report Official Action Indicated OAI
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = AF; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = DR; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 3 of 3 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = NL; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 2 of 2 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = OT; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = RE; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = TH; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 2 of 2 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
VOLUNTARY ACTION INDICATED VAI
there are to many BSE VAI to list, from my count, there were 359 VAI, so for anyone interested, go to excel;
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/bseinspections.csv
ALABAMA MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE 2006
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
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
______________________________
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
______________________________
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
?????
DISTRIBUTION
KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://data.nber.org/fda/enforcement-report/2006/ucm120413.htm
=====
PRODUCT
Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009
CODE
No code or lot number.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Mars Petcare US, Clinton, OK, by telephone on May 21, 2009. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Product may have contained prohibited materials without cautionary statement on the label.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
208,820 pounds
DISTRIBUTION
TX
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 26, 2009
###
https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/ucm180348.htm
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
snip...
______________________________
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
archived uri;
https://web.archive.org/web/20061008072122/http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2006/ENF00964.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 ?????
DISTRIBUTION KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
archived arl;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060821195949/http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
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
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060810102943/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
PLEASE NOTE, THE FDA URLS FOR OLD WARNING LETTERS ARE OBSOLETE AND DO NOT WORK IN MOST CASES.. I LOOKED UP THE OLD ONE ABOVE AND FOUND IT, BUT HAVE NOT DONE THAT FOR THE OTHERS TO FOLLOW. THE DATA IS VALID THOUGH!
Subject: MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE USA 2006 RECALL UPDATE
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: SAFETY <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:10:37 -0500
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
______________________________
snip...
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html
Subject: hunkering down in the APHIS BSE Situation Room Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 01:55:54 -0800 From: tom Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
i am looking now a bizarre Oct 98 internal USDA publication describing a james bond-type US effort to control media should the long-anticipated first case of BSE in the US be admitted.
'Players' on the 27 member BSE Response Team are to be flown in from all over the country to a BSE Headquarters 'situation room' apparently an underground bunker in Riverdale, Maryland under the command of the Assistant Secretary of Marketing.
Authentic press releases are already prepared and ready to go out after a few specifics have been filled in. They are spelled out in a separate document, the BSE Red Book, aka BSE Emergency Disease Guidelines.
Aphis' National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) activates team assembly. From the time a bovine brain sample is submitted, it takes 14-18 days to confirm a diagnosis of BSE. In the first 10-13 days, NVSL have enough information to determine the need for additional tests. If a provisional BSE diagnosis is made, the sample is 'hand-carried' (are they going to tell the airline and customs?) to the Central Veterinary Laboratory in England for confirmation, where they are expecting a 24 to 96 hour turn-around.
I guess that means we can get the white tiger brain analyzed by Friday despite the 22 year delay to date. Maybe we could throw in a few cougar brains from NE Colorado too.
A Team Member is designated to silently monitor this listserve and www.mad-cow.org (among others) -- for what, it doesn't say. The Freedom of Information Act request from the East Coast consumer group turned up numerous top-secret USDA downloads from that site and Dealler's.
After 24 hours of secret briefings for 'select industry and trading partners' (to allow them to take positions on the commodities markets opposite the 'non-select' industry and trading partners?), a press conference will be held the next day.
There are plans to trace the cow, its lineage, its herdmates, the renderer, traceout of product, buyout of herd, farm of origin, to get the state involved to quarantine the herd (pre-arranged for all 50 states), expectations for trade bans, notification of OIE within 24 hours, media 800 numbers, spokespersons and backups, notify CDC, FDA, NIH, and many other commendable activities. The Flow Chart is a sight to behold, I will try to scan it in tomorrow.
In short, that cow is going to be toast by the time the public first hears about it.
The Plan does not speak to the scenario in which the CVL says, yes, this is bovine spongiform encephalopathy all right but it is one of your strains, not ours. Invoking their Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence principle, there may be no perceived need for public disclosure in this case.
USDA is caught completely unprepared if BSE first turns up in a US zoo animal. These animals could easily be diagnosed outside the "system" and be the subject of a publicity-seeking lab press release. I think this is a more likely scenario because the US has likely imported many thousands of zoo animals with advanced infections from Britain and France and there has been zero monitoring. Unlike with downer cows, anyone with the right colleagues can get ahold of a fallen zoo animal. Zoo animals enter the food chain in some cases after being rendered.
Another scenario would be some stock market speculator obtaining the Red Book and issuing a flurry of bogus but authentic-looking press releases that included bogus 800 and hacked USDA web links. The press here is so lazy and so accustomed to putting out public relation handouts as news that the objectives would be accomplished for a few hour (or days, depending on the Response Team's paralysis vis-a-vis off-flow chart events). Some people think a practise run for this happened in the Indiana case a year or two back.
The first case of nvCJD in an American will also be a public relations fiasco. In the dim bulb of the public mind, any American with mad cow disease would have gotten it from eating meat here. USDA has no way to prove that the victim acquired it on a three week trip to England in 1987. This will sound lame even to the press. All CJD is synonymous with mad cow disease in the public perception; the more often the different kinds are explained, the more their suspicions are aroused. The first case of nvCJD in an American will simply validate what they already know and just be viewed as an overdue admission from the government.
tom
_________________________________________
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. (216-119-130-102.ipset10.wt.net)
Subject: When a case of B.S.E. is found in the U.S/Response to Disease outbreak...'redbook'
Date: March 13, 2000 at 10:13 am PST
BSE Red Book 2.1-26
5.0 Response to Disease Outbreak
snip...see full report of From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. (216-119-130-102.ipset10.wt.net) Subject: When a case of B.S.E. is found in the U.S/Response to Disease outbreak...'redbook' Date: March 13, 2000 at 10:13 am PST
https://bseusa.blogspot.com/2008/08/qualitative-analysis-of-bse-risk.html
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 U.S.
*** Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary and BSE Red Book
Date: February 14, 2000 at 8:56 am PST
WHERE did we go wrong $$$
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/07/us-emergency-bovine-spongiform.html
Thursday, April 6, 2023
WOAH OIE CHAPTER 11.4 . BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY Article 11.4.1.
https://woahoie.blogspot.com/2023/04/woah-oie-chapter-114-bovine-spongiform.html
BSE TESTING ONLY 25K ANNUALLY WILL NOT FIND BSE CIRCULATING IN THE USA CATTLE HERDS, UNLESS IT'S REAL BAD...THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE PROBLEMS, AND YOUR JUST TRYING TO HOLD THE NUMBERS DOWN...IMO...terry
Sample Size Estimate for BSE Ongoing Surveillance
July 20, 2006
snip...
In addition, we aim to meet the objective of conducting ongoing surveillance at a level that meets or exceeds OIE surveillance recommendations. We believe this objective is reached by the following sampling strategy, which is sufficient to detect BSE at 1 infected animal per 1,000,000 adult cattle in the population with a high degree of confidence.
Sample Size to Meet OIE Surveillance Recommendations
APHIS is committed to maintaining BSE surveillance that at least meets OIE guidelines. The OIE surveillance guidelines for BSE recommend a target number of surveillance points for Type A surveillance based on the size of a country’s cattle population. These points are accrued over 7 consecutive years, and are weighted according to the surveillance stream and age of the animal sampled. For a large cattle population, using the design prevalence of 1 case per 100,000 adult cattle and 95 percent confidence, 300,000 total points over 7 years, or 42,857 points per year, are required for Type A surveillance (OIE 2005).
http://web.archive.org/web/20090109193041/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/peer_review/downloads/BSE_sample_size_ongoing_surv_after.pdf
KEY POINTS
In addition to a stringent feed ban imposed by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997 as well as the removal of all specified risk material which could harbor BSE, USDA has a strong surveillance program in place to detect signs of BSE in cattle in the United States. In fact, we test for BSE at levels greater than World Animal Health Organization standards. The program samples approximately 25,000 animals each year and targets cattle populations where the disease is most likely to be found. The targeted population for ongoing surveillance focuses on cattle exhibiting signs of central nervous disorders or any other signs that may be associated with BSE, including emaciation or injury, and dead cattle, as well as non-ambulatory animals. Samples from the targeted population are taken at farms, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, public health laboratories, slaughter facilities, veterinary clinics, and livestock markets.
https://www.usda.gov/topics/animals/bse-surveillance-information-center
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2020
Why is USDA "only" BSE TSE Prion testing 25,000 samples a year?
https://animalhealthreportpriontse.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-is-usda-only-bse-tse-prion-testing.html
see my full report here;
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
WAHIS, WOAH, OIE, United States of America Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
Immediate notification
https://woahoie.blogspot.com/2023/05/wahis-woah-oie-united-states-of-america.html
***> SPECIFIED RISK MATERIAL SRM and Animal Protein FEED <***
*** > Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed <***
USDA BSE 2026
“It is the longstanding system of interlocking safeguards, including the removal of specified risk materials - or the parts of an animal that would contain BSE - at slaughter and the FDA's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban that protect public and animal health from BSE.”
you can’t even get this information anymore on ruminant feed ban BSE violations and Failures from the FDA…terry
"Cattle with the E211K polymorphism are susceptible to the CWD agent after oronasal exposure of 0.2 g of infectious material."
***> MAD COW FEED BAN <***
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
###
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Tfx9dduMyQEJ:https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/ucm120446.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
ALABAMA MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend, Recall # V-104-6;
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
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
______________________________
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 ?????
DISTRIBUTION KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://web.archive.org/web/20060821195949/http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT Express 10# Starter X200, Medicated, Beef Cattle-Feedlot Supplement, containing 200 g/ton oxytertracycline, packaged in 50- lb, Recal # V-099-6
CODE 49MH286 and 49MY246
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Hubbard Feeds Inc., Beloit, KS, by telephone on June 7, 2006. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON The oxytetracycline used to manufacture the feed was expired.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 279/50-lb. bags
DISTRIBUTION KS
______________________________
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
______________________________
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
______________________________
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 ?????
DISTRIBUTION KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
https://web.archive.org/web/20100120023832/http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/2006/ucm120413.htm
FDA PART BSE 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report Official Action Indicated OAI and VAI November 2021
Inspection conclusions are reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified as OAI will be promptly re‐ inspected following the regulatory sanctions, in order to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified as VAI usually occur as a result of more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. Examples could include things such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions involving non‐ruminant feeds.
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report Official Action Indicated OAI
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = AF; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = DR; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 3 of 3 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = NL; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 2 of 2 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = OT; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = RE; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = TH; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 2 of 2 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
VOLUNTARY ACTION INDICATED VAI
there are to many BSE VAI to list, from my count, there were 359 VAI, so for anyone interested, go to excel;
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/bseinspections.csv
ALABAMA MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE 2006
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
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
______________________________
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
______________________________
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
?????
DISTRIBUTION
KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://data.nber.org/fda/enforcement-report/2006/ucm120413.htm
=====
PRODUCT
Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009
CODE
No code or lot number.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Mars Petcare US, Clinton, OK, by telephone on May 21, 2009. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Product may have contained prohibited materials without cautionary statement on the label.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
208,820 pounds
DISTRIBUTION
TX
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 26, 2009
###
https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/ucm180348.htm
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
snip...
______________________________
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
archived uri;
https://web.archive.org/web/20061008072122/http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2006/ENF00964.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 ?????
DISTRIBUTION KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
archived arl;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060821195949/http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html
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
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060810102943/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
PLEASE NOTE, THE FDA URLS FOR OLD WARNING LETTERS ARE OBSOLETE AND DO NOT WORK IN MOST CASES.. I LOOKED UP THE OLD ONE ABOVE AND FOUND IT, BUT HAVE NOT DONE THAT FOR THE OTHERS TO FOLLOW. THE DATA IS VALID THOUGH!
Subject: MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE USA 2006 RECALL UPDATE
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: SAFETY <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:10:37 -0500
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
______________________________
snip...
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20061008072115/http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html
Product Details
Product Description:
CalDensity Black Label, CalDensity White Label with HA, packaged in white plastic 5, 15, 25, 40, 60 lb pails with plastic liner and white plastic lid. Reason for Recall:
During an FDA inspection it was found that the CalDensity Black label and CalDensity White Label with HA product containers did not include the precautionary statement DO NOT FEED TO CATTLE OR OTHER RUMINANTS
Product Quantity: 50,935 lbs
Recall Number: V-209-2012
Code Information: 042009, 051009, 061209, 071509, 091009, 011510, 030310, 031610, 052610, 092410, 120110, 011211, 020111, 030911, 050111, 071111 & 090111. Classification: Class II Event Details
Event ID: 61880
Voluntary / Mandated:
Voluntary: Firm Initiated
Product Type:
Veterinary
Initial Firm Notification of Consignee or Public:
E-Mail
Status:
Terminated
Distribution Pattern:
Nationwide distribution: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA & WV. No shipments were made to foreign countries including Canada.
Recalling Firm:
Process Managers LLC
485 Gawthrope Dr
Winchester, KY 40391-8910
United States
Recall Initiation Date:
1/6/2012
Center Classification Date:
9/7/2012
Date Terminated:
1/24/2014
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm#tabNav_advancedSearch
Product Details
Product Description:
CalDensity Black Label, CalDensity White Label with HA, packaged in white plastic 5, 15, 25, 40, 60 lb pails with plastic liner and white plastic lid. Reason for Recall:
During an FDA inspection it was found that the CalDensity Black label and CalDensity White Label with HA product containers did not include the precautionary statement DO NOT FEED TO CATTLE OR OTHER RUMINANTS
Product Quantity: 50,935 lbs
Recall Number: V-209-2012
Code Information: 042009, 051009, 061209, 071509, 091009, 011510, 030310, 031610, 052610, 092410, 120110, 011211, 020111, 030911, 050111, 071111 & 090111. Classification: Class II Event Details
Event ID: 61880
Voluntary / Mandated:
Voluntary: Firm Initiated
Product Type:
Veterinary
Initial Firm Notification of Consignee or Public:
Status:
Terminated
Distribution Pattern:
Nationwide distribution: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA & WV. No shipments were made to foreign countries including Canada.
Recalling Firm:
Process Managers LLC
485 Gawthrope Dr
Winchester, KY 40391-8910
United States
Recall Initiation Date:
1/6/2012
Center Classification Date:
9/7/2012
Date Terminated:
1/24/2014
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm#tabNav_advancedSearch
https://web.archive.org/web/20160319014533/https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm#tabNav_advancedSearch
Product Details
Product Description:
Regular Chicken 50# Ingredients: Corn, Wheat, Oats, Oyster shells, Medium Grit, CCC, ADS, Plant Protein Products, Animal Protein Products, Processed Grain By-Products, Roughage Products, Animal Fat procession with DHA, etc
Reason for Recall:
During an FDA sample collection, the firms 50# Regular Chicken Feed was found to contain mammalian protein. The label does not contain the warning statement.
Product Quantity:
5400lbs (50lb bags)
Recall Number:
V-137-2013
Code Information:
8/6/2012
Classification:
Class III
Event Details
Event ID:
63743
Voluntary / Mandated:
Voluntary: Firm Initiated
Product Type:
Veterinary
Initial Firm Notification of Consignee or Public:
Other
Status:
Terminated
Distribution Pattern:
Midland MI area only.
Recalling Firm:
Cohoons Elevator Inc.
802 Townsend St
Midland, MI 48640-5362
United States
Recall Initiation Date:
11/21/2012
Center Classification Date:
2/8/2013
Date Terminated:
2/12/2013
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm#tabNav_advancedSearch
Product Details
Product Description:
Regular Chicken 50# Ingredients: Corn, Wheat, Oats, Oyster shells, Medium Grit, CCC, ADS, Plant Protein Products, Animal Protein Products, Processed Grain By-Products, Roughage Products, Animal Fat procession with DHA, etc
Reason for Recall:
During an FDA sample collection, the firms 50# Regular Chicken Feed was found to contain mammalian protein. The label does not contain the warning statement.
Product Quantity:
5400lbs (50lb bags)
Recall Number:
V-137-2013
Code Information:
8/6/2012
Classification:
Class III
Event Details
Event ID:
63743
Voluntary / Mandated:
Voluntary: Firm Initiated
Product Type:
Veterinary
Initial Firm Notification of Consignee or Public:
Other
Status:
Terminated
Distribution Pattern:
Midland MI area only.
Recalling Firm:
Cohoons Elevator Inc.
802 Townsend St
Midland, MI 48640-5362
United States
Recall Initiation Date:
11/21/2012
Center Classification Date:
2/8/2013
Date Terminated:
2/12/2013
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm#tabNav_advancedSearch
https://web.archive.org/web/20160319014533/https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm#tabNav_advancedSearch
V. Use in animal feed of material from deer and elk NOT considered at high risk for CWD
FDA continues to consider materials from deer and elk NOT considered at high risk for CWD to be acceptable for use in NON-RUMINANT animal feeds in accordance with current agency regulations, 21 CFR 589.2000.
Deer and elk not considered at high risk include:
(1) deer and elk from areas not declared by State officials to be endemic for CWD and/or to be CWD eradication zones; and
(2) deer and elk that were not at some time during the 60-month period immediately before the time of slaughter in a captive herd that contained a CWD-positive animal.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/animalveterinary/guidancecomplianceenforcement/guidanceforindustry/ucm052506.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090709162434/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/animalveterinary/guidancecomplianceenforcement/guidanceforindustry/ucm052506.pdf
2017 Section 21 C.F.R. 589.2000, Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
Subject: MICHIGAN FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE BREACH APRIL 4, 2017
MICHIGAN FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE BREACH APRIL 4, 2017
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory
11998 DET-DO MI 48846-847 OPR 4/4/2017 OAI
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/bseinspections.csv
NAI = NO ACTION INDICATED
OAI = OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED
VAI = VOLUNTARY ACTION INDICATED
RTS = REFERRED TO STATE
OAI (Official Action Indicated) when inspectors find significant objectionable conditions or practices and believe that regulatory sanctions are warranted to address the establishment’s lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspectors will promptly re-inspect facilities classified OAI after regulatory sanctions have been applied to determine whether the corrective actions are adequate to address the objectionable conditions...end...TSS
TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2017
*** EXTREME USA FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED LOOP HOLE STILL EXIST, AND PRICE OF POKER GOES UP ***
http://usdameatexport.blogspot.com/2017/04/extreme-usa-fda-part-589-tse-prion-feed.html
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2017
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE 2016 to 2017 BSE TSE PRION
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2017/01/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html
#Veterinary Medicine
FY 2016 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 2
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/ucm531890.htm
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20170113013612/https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/ucm531890.htm
#Veterinary Medicine
FY 2015 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 2
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm481432.ht
V. Use in animal feed of material from deer and elk NOT considered at high risk for CWD
FDA continues to consider materials from deer and elk NOT considered at high risk for CWD to be acceptable for use in NON-RUMINANT animal feeds in accordance with current agency regulations, 21 CFR 589.2000.
Deer and elk not considered at high risk include:
(1) deer and elk from areas not declared by State officials to be endemic for CWD and/or to be CWD eradication zones; and
(2) deer and elk that were not at some time during the 60-month period immediately before the time of slaughter in a captive herd that contained a CWD-positive animal.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/animalveterinary/guidancecomplianceenforcement/guidanceforindustry/ucm052506.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090709162434/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/animalveterinary/guidancecomplianceenforcement/guidanceforindustry/ucm052506.pdf
2017 Section 21 C.F.R. 589.2000, Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
Subject: MICHIGAN FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE BREACH APRIL 4, 2017
MICHIGAN FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE BREACH APRIL 4, 2017
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory
11998 DET-DO MI 48846-847 OPR 4/4/2017 OAI
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/bseinspections.csv
NAI = NO ACTION INDICATED
OAI = OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED
VAI = VOLUNTARY ACTION INDICATED
RTS = REFERRED TO STATE
OAI (Official Action Indicated) when inspectors find significant objectionable conditions or practices and believe that regulatory sanctions are warranted to address the establishment’s lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspectors will promptly re-inspect facilities classified OAI after regulatory sanctions have been applied to determine whether the corrective actions are adequate to address the objectionable conditions...end...TSS
TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2017
*** EXTREME USA FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED LOOP HOLE STILL EXIST, AND PRICE OF POKER GOES UP ***
http://usdameatexport.blogspot.com/2017/04/extreme-usa-fda-part-589-tse-prion-feed.html
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2017
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE 2016 to 2017 BSE TSE PRION
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2017/01/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html
#Veterinary Medicine
FY 2016 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 2
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/ucm531890.htm
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20170113013612/https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/ucm531890.htm
#Veterinary Medicine
FY 2015 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 2
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm481432.ht
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20160204205005/https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm481432.htm
#Veterinary Medicine
FY 2014 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 2
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 1
https://www.fda.gov/iceci/inspections/ucm424098.htm
#Veterinary Medicine
FY 2014 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 2
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 1
https://www.fda.gov/iceci/inspections/ucm424098.htm
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20141229012526/https://www.fda.gov/iceci/inspections/ucm424098.htm
#Veterinary Medicine
FY 2013 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 5 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 5 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
FY 2012 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 5 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 4 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm326984.htm
FY 2011 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 5 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 4 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm327135.htm#vet
FY 2010 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 3 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 3 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255532.htm
FY 2009 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 10 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 4 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 3 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255534.htm
FY 2008 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 7 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255535.htm
FY 2007 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 3 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 3 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 2 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255536.htm
FY 2006 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 6 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 5 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 4 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 2 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255537.htm
*** PLEASE SEE THIS URGENT UPDATE ON CWD AND FEED ANIMAL PROTEIN ***
#Veterinary Medicine
FY 2013 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 5 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 5 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
FY 2012 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 5 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 4 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm326984.htm
FY 2011 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 5 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 4 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm327135.htm#vet
FY 2010 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 3 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 3 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255532.htm
FY 2009 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 10 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 4 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 3 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255534.htm
FY 2008 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 7 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255535.htm
FY 2007 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 3 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 3 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 2 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255536.htm
FY 2006 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 6 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 5 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 4 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 2 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm255537.htm
*** PLEASE SEE THIS URGENT UPDATE ON CWD AND FEED ANIMAL PROTEIN ***
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2019
USDA Announces Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Detection Aug 29, 2018 A Review of Science 2019
https://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2019/04/usda-announces-atypical-bovine.html
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Docket No. FDA-2003-D-0432 (formerly 03D-0186) Use of Material from Deer and Elk in Animal Feed ***UPDATED MARCH 2016*** Singeltary Submission
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM052506.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
SEE MAD COW FEED VIOLATIONS AFER MAD COW FEED VIOLATIONS ;
http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2016/03/docket-no-fda-2003-d-0432-formerly-03d.html
Saturday, July 23, 2016
BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY BSE TSE PRION SURVEILLANCE, TESTING, AND SRM REMOVAL UNITED STATE OF AMERICA UPDATE JULY 2016
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2016/07/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-bse.html
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion UPDATE JULY 2016
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2016/07/atypical-bovine-spongiform.html
Monday, June 20, 2016
Specified Risk Materials SRMs BSE TSE Prion Program
http://specifiedriskmaterial.blogspot.com/2016/06/specified-risk-materials-srms-bse-tse.html
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0764 for Animal Feed Regulatory Program Standards Singeltary Comment Submission
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2003-D-0432-0011
17 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997
Monday, October 26, 2015
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE October 2015
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2015/10/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE DECEMBER 2014 BSE TSE PRION
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2014/12/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html
16 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE DECEMBER 2013 UPDATE
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/12/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html
Saturday, August 29, 2009
FOIA REQUEST FEED RECALL 2009 Product may have contained prohibited materials Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/08/foia-request-feed-recall-2009-product.html
Friday, September 4, 2009
FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT 429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/09/foia-request-on-feed-recall-product.html
Thursday, March 19, 2009
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA WITH ONGOING 12 YEARS OF DENIAL NOW, WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE $$$
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2009/10/cvm-annual-report-fiscal-year-2008.html
However, based on analysis of molecular features of prion
diseases in cattle, this situation is similar to that in humans
(5), in which different subtypes of sporadic Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease agents are found.
DISPATCHES
1126 Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 12, No. 7, July 2006
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no07/pdfs/vol12no07.pdf
Medical Sciences Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy: Molecular similarities with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
Snip...end
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2006/08/bse-atypical-texas-and-alabama-update.html
DAMNING TESTIMONY FROM STANLEY PRUSINER THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER ON PRIONS SPEAKING ABOUT ANN VENEMAN
''nobody has ever ask'' ''they dont want our comment'' ''they don't want to know, the don't care'' ''i have tried repeatedly'' ''level of absolute ignorance'' ''Entire policy was driven...heard from mr. laycraft, so now, after time has passed, it's ok for Canada, cattle under 30 month, to the USA, THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERED! PRUSINER ASKED : IF FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, A DEMONSTRATED THREAT TO PUBLIC HEATH ? ''yes, i think prions are bad to eat, and you can die from them''
http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/prusinerclip.html
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20040327225841/http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/prusinerclip.html
Recall Authority and Mad Cow Disease: Is the Current System Good for Californians?
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
JOINT HEARING
AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT - MACHADO, ORTIZ, and SPEIER, Chairs
Selected excerpts: Opening Statement by Senator Michael Machado RealPlayer - QuickTime Elisa Odibashian - Consumers Union RealPlayer - QuickTime
Anthony Iton - Alemeda County Health RealPlayer - QuickTime
USDA's "memorandum of understanding" RealPlayer - QuickTime
Dave Louthan - Killed the Mad Cow RealPlayer - QuickTime
Dennis Laycraft - Canadian Cattlemen's Association RealPlayer - QuickTime
Stanley Prusiner - Discoverer of Prions RealPlayer - QuickTime - 3 min. snip Realplayer - Quicktime
Steven DeArmond - Professor of Neuropathology RealPlayer - QuickTime
Entire 5 hour hearing - The California Channel (scroll down to "022404 Senate Info-Hearing")
https://web.archive.org/web/20040327225841/http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/prusinerclip.html
***> 7 1/2 Scientists BSE Comments to FDA <***
Subject: SV: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
From: Karin Irgens <Karin.Irgens@MATTILSYNET.NO>
Reply To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:54:12 +0100
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Hello Terry
Do you have the link for this text from 7 scientists ?
Best regards, Karin
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [mailto:BSE-L@aegee.org] På vegne av Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Sendt: 11. januar 2006 19:31
Til: BSE-L@aegee.org
Emne: Re: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Subject: Re: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
Date: January 11, 2006 at 9:27 am PST
December 19, 2005
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852
Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)
Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed
Dear Sir or Madame:
The McDonalds Corporation buys more beef than any other restaurant in the United States. It is essential for our customers and our company that the beef has the highest level of safety. Concerning BSE, the most effective way to insure this is to create a system that processes cattle that are not exposed to the disease. As a company we take numerous precautions via our strict specifications to help and assure this, however we feel that the force of federal regulation is important to ensure that the risk of exposure in the entire production system is reduced to as close to zero as possible. The exemptions in the current ban as well as in the newly proposed rule make this difficult if not impossible, as there are still legal avenues for ruminants to consume potentially contaminated ruminant protein. In addition, the USDA still has not implemented a system of identification and traceability. It is our opinion that the government can take further action to reduce this risk and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very important proposed rule.
After the identification of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in indigenous North American cattle, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responded rapidly to implement measures to protect public health in regard to food. Our company recognizes and supports the importance of the current feed ban which went into effect in August 1997. However, given what is known about the epidemiology and characteristically long incubation period of BSE, we urge the FDA to act without further delay and implement additional measures which will reduce the risk of BSE recycling in the US cattle herd. We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a justification to relax or impede further actions. While this surveillance indicates an epidemic is not underway, it does not clear the US cattle herd from infection. The positive cases indicate probable exposure prior to the 1997 feed ban, a time when BSE appears to have been circulating in animal feed. BSE cases are most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced surveillance provides an 18 month snapshot, it does not negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE and that the current feed controls contain “leaks”.
We feel that for the FDA to provide a more comprehensive and protective feed ban, specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock must be removed from all animal feed and that legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk) should be discontinued.
SRMs, as defined by the USDA, are tissues which, in a BSE infected animal, are known to either harbor BSE infectivity or to be closely associated with infectivity. If SRMs are not removed, they may introduce BSE infectivity and continue to provide a source of animal feed contamination. Rendering will reduce infectivity but it will not totally eliminate it. This is significant, as research in the United Kingdom has shown that a calf may be infected with BSE by the ingestion of as little as .001 gram of untreated brain.
The current proposed rule falls short of this and would still leave a potential source of infectivity in the system. In fact by the FDA’s own statement the exempted tissues which are known to have infectivity (such as distal ileum, DRGs, etc) would cumulatively amount to approximately 10% of the infectivity in an infected animal. Leaving approximately 10% of the infectious tissues in the system is not good enough. The proposed rule still allows the possibility for cattle to be exposed to BSE through:
Feeding of materials currently subject to legal exemptions from the ban (e.g., poultry litter, plate waste) Cross feeding (the feeding of non-ruminant rations to ruminants) on farms; and Cross contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant feed
We are most concerned that the FDA has chosen to include a provision that would allow tissues from deadstock into the feed chain. We do not support the provision to allow the removal of brain and spinal cord from down and deadstock over 30 months of age for several reasons. These are the animals with the highest level of infectivity in tissues which include more than brain and spinal cord. Firstly, there are two issues regarding the complex logistics of this option. We do not feel that it is possible to have adequate removal especially during the warmer months. In addition, we do not feel that there are adequate means to enforce complete removal. Unlike slaughterhouses, there are no government inspectors at rendering plants or deadstock collection points.
Most importantly, there is emerging information that at end stage disease (a natural BSE case); infectivity may also be included in additional tissues such as peripheral nerves (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005 – see attached). This published work supports publicly reported studies in Japan where by western blot testing, prions have been found in the peripheral nerves of a naturally infected 94-month-old cow. If this is the case, the amount of infectivity left in the system from an infected bovine would surpass 10% and the full extent is still unknown.
McDonalds has convened it own International Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) as well as co-sponsored a symposium of TSE scientists on the issue of tissue distribution. The consensus of both groups was that the pathogenesis of BSE might not be entirely different from TSEs in other species at the point where the animal is showing signs of the disease. These scientists feel that the studies as reported above have merit. The current studies not only re-enforce the risk of down and deadstock but also appear to provide additional information that these animals may be a potential source of greater levels of infectivity into the feed system. Hence, we suggest that the FDA consult with TSE scientists as well.
Leaving the tissues from the highest risk category of cattle in the animal feed chain will effectively nullify the intent of this regulation. This point is illustrated by the 2001 Harvard risk assessment model that demonstrated that eliminating dead and downer, 4D cattle, from the feed stream was a disproportionately effective means of reducing the risk of re-infection.
“The disposition of cattle that die on the farm would also have a substantial influence on the spread of BSE if the disease were introduced.” The base case scenario showed that the mean total number of ID50s (i.e., dosage sufficient to infect 50 percent of exposed cattle) from healthy animals at slaughter presented to the food/feed system was 1500. The mean total number of ID50s from adult cattle deadstock presented to the feed system was 37,000. This illustrates the risk of “4D cattle” (i.e., deadstock).
From the Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001, Appendix 3A Base Case and Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001 Executive Summary
McDonalds also urges agencies of the US government to work with academia and industry on research in the following areas:
· Methods to inactivate TSEs agents which then may allow a product to be used and even fed to animals without risk
· Alternative uses for animal byproducts which would maintain some value
In July 2004, McDonalds in cooperation with others sponsored a meeting at Penn State. The purpose of the meeting was to review work conducted by Dr. Bruce Miller looking at the feasibility of using carcasses and animal byproducts as renewable alternatives to fossil fuels in large energy generating boilers. A number of government representatives were also invited to this meeting. We are aware that Dr. Miller continues this work which shows great promise. We suggest that the FDA explore the possibility of this alternative use that may also have a positive impact on the environment.
The McDonalds Corporation will continue to work with the FDA and other government agencies to implement a strong BSE risk control program. We would like to reiterate our opinion that for the FDA to provide a more comprehensive and protective feed ban, specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock must be removed from all animal feed and that legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk) should be discontinued. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments to the public record.
Respectfully,
Dick Crawford
Corporate Vice President, Government Relations
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
dick.crawford@mcd.com
=============================================
December 20, 2005
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)
Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed
Dear Sir or Madame:
As scientists and recognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs for decades, we are deeply concerned by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE infected cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very important proposed rule We strongly supported the measures that USDA and FDA implemented to protect public health after the discovery of the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) found in Washington State in 2003. We know of no event or discovery since then that could justify relaxing the existing specified risk material (SRM) and non-ambulatory bans and surveillance that were implemented at that time. Further, we strongly supported the codification of those changes, as well as additional measures to strengthen the entire feed and food system. The discovery of additional cases of indigenous BSE in North America since that time has validated our position and strengthened our convictions.
We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a justification to relax or impede further actions. While this surveillance has not uncovered an epidemic, it does not clear the US cattle herd from infection. While it is highly likely that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE prior to the 1997 feed ban, we do not know how many cattle were infected or how widely the infection was dispersed. BSE cases are most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced surveillance provides an 18 month snapshot, it does not negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE. We also do not know in any quantitative or controlled way how effective the feed ban has been, especially at the farm level. At this point we cannot even make a thorough assessment of the USDA surveillance as details such as age, risk category and regional distribution have not been released.
A number of countries initially attempted to take partial steps in regard to feed controls only to face repeated disappointments in predicted downturns of the epidemic course. We in North America could do this experiment all over again, waiting for each new warning before adding more stringency to our control measures, or we can benefit from the experience of others and take decisive measures now to arrest any further development of underlying cases that is implicit in those already discovered to date.
The discovery of 5 indigenous North American cases, including one born after the implementation of the current feed ban, should provide the necessary incentive to implement, monitor and enforce a comprehensive and protective feed ban that is more congruent with the measures that have been proven to be effective throughout the world. In particular, we urge the FDA to act without further delay to strengthen the animal feed regulations by implementing the program proposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in the December 11, 2004 Gazette. This includes removing all specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock from all animal feed. We also urge that the FDA discontinues the legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk). Many of these exemptions do not exist in other countries.
Bovine products and byproducts are used for both food and pharmaceuticals. These human uses require the highest level of safety. Because of the hardy nature of the BSE agent and its high potential for cross contamination, the most effective way to protect bovine products and bovine derived materials from contamination by BSE is to ensure that infected animals or carcasses never enter processing plants. The goal would be to discover and remove infected animals from production as early as possible in the infection and long before they would be sent to slaughter. Until we have diagnostic tools powerful enough to allow us to discover the disease early in its prolonged pre-clinical incubation, we have to rely on the next best strategy which is to prevent any exposure through feed. The exemptions in the current ban as well as in the newly proposed rule make this difficult if not impossible, as they still provide legal avenues for ruminants to consume potentially contaminated ruminant protein.
It is our opinion that the proposed rule falls woefully short in effective measures to minimize the potential for further transmissions of the disease. By the FDA’s own analysis, exempted tissues (such as distal ileum, DRGs, etc) contain approximately 10% of the infectivity in affected animals. Thus the proposed rule still allows the possibility for cattle to be exposed to BSE through:
1. Feeding of materials currently subject to legal exemptions from the ban (e.g., poultry litter, plate waste)
2. Cross feeding (the feeding of non-ruminant rations to ruminants) on farms; and
3. Cross contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant feed
We are most concerned that the FDA has chosen to include a provision that would allow tissues from deadstock into the feed chain. We do not believe that down or dead stock should be allowed into the food or feed chain whatever the age of the animal and whether or not the CNS tissues are removed. We do not support the provision to allow removal of brain and spinal cord from deadstock over 30 months for a number of reasons. [RR1] This category of animals contains the highest level of infectivity and that infectivity is in other tissues besides just brain and spinal cord. Recent improvements in the BSE bioassay, have now made it possible to detect BSE infectivity 1000 time more efficiently than before. This assay has revealed the presence of BSE infectivity in some but not all peripheral nerves and in one muscle. (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005) This published and peer reviewed work is consistent with other publicly reported studies in Japan where, by western blot testing, prions were found in the peripheral nerves of a naturally infected 94-month-old cow. We feel that the studies as reported above have merit. The current studies not only re-enforce the risk of down and deadstock but also appear to provide additional information that these animals may be a potential source of greater levels of infectivity into the feed system. We also doubt that brain and spinal cord can be completely removed especially during warmer weather. Given the biological composition of these tissues, they are predisposed to rapid autolysis.
As world wide surveillance for BSE increases, several atypical cases of bovine TSE have been discovered. These cases either show no clinical signs, or present as ‘downers’, and have an atypical neuropathology with respect to lesion morphology and distribution, causing problems in both clinical and post-mortem diagnosis. The origin of the cases are unclear but they suggest that even should typical BSE be eliminated, there may be other TSE diseases of cattle that could result by “mutation” and selection. Refeeding of contaminated protein could potentially perpetuate transmission much like typical BSE. An effective feed ban could prevent the expansion of such strains. We also note that there are other species which are susceptible to BSE and the current regulations allow for SRMs to be included in feed for these animals.
For BSE to be perpetuated, the animal production system must have a source of agent and a means by which cattle or other susceptible species are exposed to this agent. We feel that in North America, the source and routes of exposure still exist, hence allowing for the continued recycling of BSE. We have detailed the scientific justifications for our position below.
Source of the agent: SRMs (Specified Risk Materials)
SRMs, as defined by the USDA, are tissues which, in a BSE infected animal, are known to either harbor BSE infectivity or to be closely associated with infectivity. If SRMs are not removed, they may introduce BSE infectivity and continue to provide a source of animal feed contamination. For example, the skull and vertebral column which encase the brain and spinal cord, respectively, can be assumed to have gross contamination. Rendering will reduce infectivity but it will not totally eliminate it. This is significant as research in the United Kingdom has shown that a calf may be infected with BSE by the ingestion of as little as .001 gram of untreated brain.
The tissue distribution of infectivity in BSE infected cattle has primarily been determined by 3 studies conducted in the United Kingdom all of which had limitations.
In two of the studies, bioassays were done in mice which are at least 1000 fold less sensitive to BSE infection than cattle themselves. Only higher titers of infectivity can be detected by this method. These investigations found infectivity in the brain, spinal cord, retina, trigeminal ganglia, dorsal root ganglia, distal ileum and bone marrow (the bone marrow finding was from one animal). Infectivity was found in distal ileum of experimentally infected calves beginning six months after challenge and continuing at other intervals throughout life. (Wells et. al., 1994; 1998). The bioassay study in calves has produced similar results and in addition infectivity has been found in tonsil. The study is still in progress. Another project has found infectivity in the lymphoid tissue of third eyelid from naturally infected animals. (Dr. Danny Matthews, UK DEFRA, personal communication).
While bioassay in cattle is far preferable to mice in terms of sensitivity, cattle nevertheless present their own limitations in terms of the long incubation time and the limited number of animals that can be used for assay compared to rodents. As a consequence the significance of the negative finding for many tissues is questionable. In fact, by the end of 2004 there was increasing evidence in species other than cattle that peripheral nerves and muscle have infectivity. (Bosque et al., 2002; Glatzel et al., 2003;Bartz et al., 2002; Androletti et al., 2004; Mulcahy et al., 2004; Thomzig et al., 2003; Thomzig et al., 2004)
In some of these species, studies indicate that the agent migrates to the brain and spinal cord, replicates to high levels in the CNS and then spreads centrifugally from the spinal cord back down through the spinal neurons to the junction of the nerves and muscle into the muscle cells themselves. A recent German study (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005) examined nerves and muscle from a cow naturally infected with BSE and found that infectivity was present in several peripheral nerves and one muscle. The method of detection was bioassay in bovinized transgenic mice that show the same or greater sensitivity to transmission of BSE as cattle. This research concurs with findings by Japanese scientists that BSE infectivity is present in peripheral nerves at least in the clinical stage of disease.
It is our opinion that there is increasing evidence that the pathogenesis of BSE might not be entirely different from TSEs in other species at the point of clinical disease in that there is peripheral involvement. We feel that the studies as reported above have merit. The current studies not only re-enforce the risk of down and deadstock but also appear to provide additional information that these animals may be a potential source of greater levels of infectivity into the feed system.
In the event that FDA may confer with USDA about the risks associated with peripheral nerves we want to point out one issue. In the recent publication of the final rule on the importation of whole cuts of boneless beef from Japan, 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. 05-004-2] RIN 0579-AB93, we disagree with the interpretation provided by USDA, APHIS.
APHIS seems to discount the studies conducted by Groschup et al. 2005. on the basis that the transgenic mouse bioassay that they used may be too sensitive. In taking this position they have failed to realize that the point of an assay is to reveal in which tissues the infectivity resides and its relative concentration to brain or spinal cord. For this purpose, no assay can be too sensitive. Of course, the probability of an actual infection will be affected by the efficiency of infection which will be a function of dose, route of exposure and any host barrier effects that are present.
We would also like to point out a factual error in the conclusion. APHIS states, “Given these factors, APHIS has determined that the finding of BSE infectivity in facial and sciatic nerves of the transgenic mice is not directly applicable to cattle naturally infected with BSE. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to make any adjustments to the risk analysis for this rulemaking or to extend the comment period to solicit additional public comment on this issue.” It is incorrect that the infectivity was found in the peripheral nerves of transgenic mice. The peripheral nerves were harvested from a cow naturally infected with BSE. Transgenic mice were used as a bioassay model.
From [Docket No. 05-004-2] RIN 0579-AB93[RR2] :
“Peripheral Nerves
Issue: Two commenters stated that the underlying assumption of the proposed rule, that whole cuts of boneless beef from Japan will not contain tissues that may carry the BSE agent, is no longer valid because researchers have found peripheral nervous system tissues, including facial and sciatic nerves, that contain BSE infectivity.\2\ One of these commenters requested APHIS to explain whether and what additional mitigation measures are needed to reduce the risks that these tissues may be present in Japanese beef. This commenter further requested an additional comment period to obtain public comments to treat this new scientific finding.
-------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bushmann, A., and Groschup, M.; Highly Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy-Sensitive Transgenic Mice Confirm the Essential Restriction of Infectivity to the Nervous System in Clinically Diseased Cattle. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 192: 934-42, September 1, 2005.
--------------------------------------------------
Response: APHIS is familiar with the results of the study mentioned by the commenters in which mice, genetically engineered to be highly susceptible to BSE and to overexpress the bovine prion protein, were inoculated with tissues from a BSE-infected cow. This study demonstrated low levels of infectivity in the mouse assay in the facial and sciatic nerves of the peripheral nervous system. APHIS has evaluated these findings in the context of the potential occurrence of infectivity in the peripheral nerves of cattle and the corresponding risks of the presence of infectivity in such tissues resulting in cattle or human exposure to the BSE agent. The results from these experiments in genetically engineered mice should be interpreted with caution, as the findings may be influenced by the overexpression of prion proteins and may not accurately predict the natural distribution of BSE infectivity in cattle. Further, the overexpression of prion proteins in transgenic mice may not accurately mimic the natural disease process because the transgenic overexpressing mice have been shown to develop spontaneous lethal neurological disease involving spongiform changes in the brain and muscle degeneration.\3\ In addition, the route of administration to the mice was both intraperitoneal and intracerebral, which are two very efficient routes of infection as compared to oral consumption. Given these factors, APHIS has determined that the finding of BSE infectivity in facial and sciatic nerves of the transgenic mice is not directly applicable to cattle naturally infected with BSE. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to make any adjustments to the risk analysis for this rulemaking or to extend the comment period to solicit additional public comment on this issue.”
Source of the agent: Deadstock
The total amount of TSE infectivity in a TSE infected animal increases steadily throughout the infection and exponentially once the infectivity reaches the brain. Infected individuals only exhibit recognizable clinical signs once infectivity titers have reached high levels in the brain. Surveillance data collected throughout Europe indicates there is a much greater likelihood for BSE to be detected in dead or down cattle than from healthy normal animals. This has so far also been borne out by the experience in North America. Animals that die of BSE harbor the greatest amount of agent that can be produced by the disease. Leaving the tissues from the highest risk category of cattle in the animal feed chain will effectively nullify the purported intent of this regulation. This point is supported by the 2001 Harvard risk assessment model that demonstrated that eliminating dead and downer, 4D cattle, from the feed stream was a disproportionately effective means of reducing the risk of re-infection.
“The disposition of cattle that die on the farm would also have a substantial influence on the spread of BSE if the disease were introduced.” The base case scenario showed that the mean total number of ID50s (i.e., dosage sufficient to infect 50 percent of exposed cattle) from healthy animals at slaughter presented to the food/feed system was 1500. The mean total number of ID50s from adult cattle deadstock presented to the feed system was 37,000. This illustrates the risk of “4D cattle” (i.e., deadstock).
From the Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001, Appendix 3A Base Case and Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001 Executive Summary
It is likely that these numbers would have to be adjusted upwards, if the UK attack rate and Groschup data were considered.
Inflammation and TSEs
There have been 3 recent peer reviewed publications which indicate that chronic inflammatory conditions in a host with a TSE may induce prion replication in, or distribution to organs previously thought to be low or no risk. They are as follows:
Chronic Lymphocytic Inflammation Specifies the Organ Tropism of Prions (Heikenwalder et. al. 2005 www.sciencexpress.org/20 January 2005/ Page 1/ 10.1126/science.1106460)
2. Coincident Scrapie Infection and Nephritis Lead to Urinary Prion Excretion (Seeger et al., Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 324 – 326 DOI: 10.1126/science.1118829)
3. PrPsc in mammary glands of sheep affected by scrapie and mastitis (Ligios C., et al. Nature Medicine, 11. 1137 – 1138, 2005)
These studies from the Aguzzi laboratory warn that concurrent chronic inflammatory disease could dramatically alter the distribution of BSE infectivity in infected cattle. Down and dead stock are at higher risk for both BSE and other systemic conditions. If the results reported above are also applicable to cattle, the carcasses of dead and down stock affected by BSE might contain even higher levels of infectivity, or contribute infectivity via tissues that are not ordinarily at risk in normal animals.
Exposure: Industry Practices or Exemptions which may pose a risk
Poultry Litter
In the United States poultry litter can be fed to cattle. There are two potential sources of risk from poultry litter. Poultry litter not only consists of digested feed but also of feed which spills from the cages. As a consequence, the practice of feeding litter back to cattle is by its nature non-compliant with the current feed ban if the poultry themselves are being fed ruminant protein. Given that ruminant protein can no longer be fed to ruminants in the United States and that most, if not all, countries will no longer import North American ruminant MBM, an even larger part of poultry diets is now ruminant MBM. Spillage provides a direct link to back to cattle but feces are also likely to contain infectivity.
There is no reason to expect that TSE infectivity would be inactivated by passage through the poultry gut, and only a slim possibility that composting would reduce infectivity at all. Thus poultry feces are another potential route of transmission back to cattle. Evidence for this comes from rodent experiments where infectivity was demonstrated in the feces after being fed: “Laboratory experiments show that mice orally challenged with scrapie have detectable infectivity that passes through the gut. Gut contents and fecal matter may therefore contain infectivity, and it is noted that in experimental oral challenges in cattle conducted in the UK, feces must be treated as medical waste for one month following the challenge. It is concluded that digestive contents and fecal material from livestock or poultry currently being fed with MBM potentially contaminated with BSE should not be used as a feed ingredient for animal feed.” [Proceedings: Joint WHO/FAO/OIE/ Technical Consultation on BSE: public health, animal health and trade. Paris, 10-14 June 2001; and Alan Dickinson, personal communication].
It may be possible to remove the risk from poultry litter by sterilization. However, unless or until a method can be developed and validated, poultry litter should be banned from ruminant feed.
Ruminant Blood
In contrast with humans, sheep, monkeys, mice and hamsters, including sheep and mice infected with BSE and humans infected with vCJD considered identical to BSE, no infectivity has so far been demonstrated in the blood of BSE infected cattle. However, we consider it unlikely that cattle are the sole outlier to what has been a consistent finding in all other TSE diseases where the measurement has been made with sufficient sensitivity to detect the low levels of infectivity that are present in blood. Rather, this failure is more likely the result of the very small volumes of blood that were used for the inoculations (less than 1 ml), whereas whole transfusions were administered to assay animals in the published sheep scrapie/BSE experiments. If blood is infected then all vascularized tissues can be expected to contain some infectivity in proportion to the content of residual blood.
Micro emboli are a possible source of blood-borne agent that could be at much higher titer than blood itself, in slaughtered cattle carrying BSE infection. Stunning can release micro emboli of brain tissue into the circulatory system from where they can be distributed to other tissues in the few moments before the exsanguination and death. (Anil, et al, 2001a & b; Anil et al, 2002; Love, et al, 2000). This source of infection could extend a higher infectivity risk to tissues that would otherwise be at low risk, thereby allowing exposure of cattle through any of the legal exemptions and potentially producing a feed and food risk. Blood-borne contamination may be a special problem where spray-dried blood is being used as a milk replacer for calves, as it is thought that young animals are especially susceptible to infection.
Certainly, blood and blood proteins should not be used as feed without conclusive evidence that they are safe.
Unfiltered Tallow
Ruminant tallow is exempted from the current feed ban. Tallow contains protein impurities (i.e. MBM) that could be a source of TSE infectivity. There are no impurity level requirements for this tallow. It has been reported that it is standard practice to produce tallow which has an impurity level of .15% or below, but it is not clear that this is fully adequate to remove the risk of transmission and there is no requirement to meet even this standard. We urge that protein contaminants be excluded from tallow and that SRMs also be removed.
Plate Waste
Plate waste is not limited to meat (muscle tissue). For example, cuts that include a portion of the spinal cord or that are contaminated by cord or ganglia during preparation could contain high levels of infectivity if derived from a TSE infected animal late in the preclinical stage of infection. At best this material would only be exposed to normal cooking temperatures. USDA, APHIS experience with the Swine Health Protection Act has revealed that plate waste also includes uncooked trimmings and bones. Although the current FDA regulation requires the plate waste be treated again, there are no specifications which would render a TSE agent inactive. Of greatest risk would be any bovine source of infectivity but also sheep scrapie, although not known to be a risk for human consumption, is one of the possible origins of BSE. The sheep scrapie agent is known to be widely dispersed including relatively high titers in lymphoid as well as nervous tissue. We support the USDA’s opposition to the exemption of “plate waste” as stated in written comments since 1997.
Exposure: Cross Feeding and Cross Contamination
The UK epidemiology has clearly shown that BSE contaminated feed is the primary if not sole vehicle for the transmission of BSE between cattle. Moreover, results from the United Kingdom’s attack rate study indicate that it does not take much exposure to transmit BSE to cattle. Recent results from the attack rate study which is still in progress have found that .1 g of brain transmitted BSE by the oral route to 3 cows out of 15 thus far, and .01 and .001gr of brain have transmitted BSE (1 cow out of 15). (Danny Matthews, DEFRA presentation at TAFS meeting, Washington, DC April 2004).
Rendering may reduce infectivity but it does not eliminate it. (Taylor et al, 1995; Taylor et al, 1997; Schreuder et al, 1998). Given that BSE can be transmitted to cattle via an oral route with just .001 gram of infected tissue, it may not take much infectivity to contaminate feed and keep the disease recycling. This is especially true in countries like the US and Canada which do not have dedicated lines and equipment to manufacture and process feed for ruminants and non-ruminants.
In addition, epidemiological investigations in European countries have shown that cross feeding and cross contamination on farm can be a significant vehicle for continued BSE transmission even after feed bans are well established. Cross feeding is the practice of feeding meal for poultry or pigs or pet food (which can legally contain ruminant MBM) to cattle on the same farm. This is usually due to simple human error or negligence. (Hoinville, 1994; Hoinville et al, 1995; Doherr et al, 2002a; Stevenson et al, 2000)
FDA, CVM reports that compliance with the existing feed ban is high. For the most part this does not include the compliance level on the farm. There are hundreds of thousands of farms in the US. Many of these have multiple species. That is, they raise cattle, pigs, chickens etc., on the same premises. The sheer numbers of farms make it very difficult to assure compliance on farm and to adequately cover all farms by inspection. Even if the rendering industry and feed industry can maintain 100% compliance at their facilities, if a producer inadvertently feeds chicken feed containing bovine MBM to their cattle, they negate a perfect compliance rate higher in the chain. Recent data from the Harvard BSE risk assessment suggest that the level of misfeeding on farms plays a significant role in the ability of the agent to recycle. In fact George Gray, principal investigator for the study, stated that if, in the United States, misfeeding were to occur at a level of 15%, the R0 would be over 1, indicating that the BSE level would not be declining. (George Gray presentation at the Meeting on BSE Prevention in North America: An Analysis of the Science and Risk; January 27, 2005, Washington, DC.)
The May 2003 Canadian BSE case illustrates the difficulty of on farm enforcement and its serious ramifications. The BSE positive cow was rendered and the MBM distributed to various locations. Two of these locations were poultry farms which mixed their own feed. The farms also had cattle. The subsequent investigation could not eliminate the possibility that the cattle had been fed the same feed as the poultry. The cattle on these farms were completely depopulated.
Human error is extremely difficult to prevent, and managing the risk through enforcement is problematical when confronted with the extreme logistical challenges of on farm monitoring. By eliminating the highest risk materials (SRMs and deadstock) which could introduce infectivity into the feed stream, the MBM resulting from processing becomes inherently safer. If mistakes are then made on farm, they no longer contribute to the recycling of BSE.
Exposure: Susceptibility of other Species
Felines
A transmissible spongiform encephalopathy has been diagnosed in eight species of captive wild ruminants as well as exotic felines (cheetahs, pumas, a tiger and an ocelot) and domestic cats (Wyatt 1991). There have been over 80 domestic cat cases of Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy (FSE) in Great Britain, and cats in Norway, Northern Ireland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. The agent isolated from several of these cases is indistinguishable from BSE in cattle using strain typing in mice, suggesting that FSE is actually BSE in exotic and domestic cats. Epidemiological evidence suggests BSE contaminated feed to be the probable source of infection in these species. (MAFF Progress Report, June 1997), thus providing additional supporting evidence for the dangers of BSE contaminated feed and reinforcing the necessity of removing all sources of potential contamination from the feed stream.
Other species
Studies conducted at the National Institutes of Health Rocky Mountain Laboratory caution against assuming that animals which do not become clinically ill are not infected. It is unknown if certain animals may become carriers, i.e., become infected, shed agent but do not progress to clinical disease. Infection of certain rodent species with different TSE strains suggests the possibility of a carrier state (Race and Chesebro, 1998; Race et. al, 2001, Race et al., 2002). In the more recent studies, mice were inoculated with 263K hamster scrapie. There was a prolonged period (approximately one year) where there was no evidence of replication of infectivity. Furthermore, there was no evidence of PrPres during this phase of inactive persistence, which was followed by a period of active replication of infectivity and agent adaptation. In most cases, PrPres was not detected in the active phase as well. It is important to determine if this persistence and adaptation occurs in other species exposed to TSEs as it may have significance in feeding programs which continually expose other species to BSE infectivity. For example, if BSE infected brain and spinal cord are continually fed to certain species, it may be possible for the agent to persist and adapt in these new species. Over time, the ‘resistant’ species may become a source of agent. The results of Race and colleagues, warns that an inactive persistent phase might not produce detectable PrPres, yet there would be infectivity (Race et. al., 2001).
Pigs displayed evidence of TSE infection after exposure to BSE by 3 distinct parenteral routes. Evidence of infectivity was found in the CNS, stomach, intestine and pancreas (Dawson et. al., 1990). Oral transmission has also been attempted in swine, but after an observation period of 84 months there was neither clinical nor pathological evidence of infection (Dawson et. al., 1990). Parenteral and oral transmission has also been attempted in chickens with no evidence of disease. Tissues from the BSE-challenged pigs and chickens were inoculated into susceptible mice to look for residual infectivity, but to date none has been found. In both instances the detection sensitivity was limited by the use of mice for bioassay instead of same species transmissions into cattle (or pigs and chickens).
If any of these scenarios played out and inapparent infections became established in commercial species, those species could become reservoirs for reinfection of cattle and perpetuation or reintroduction of the epidemic. We also do not know if atypical cases of BSE are more pathogenic for other species and if chronic inflammation may influence the susceptibility of other species. We offer these possibilities to reinforce the need to eliminate all possible sources of infectivity from the feed stream.
In January 2005, the European Union announced that BSE had been confirmed in a goat in France illustrating that the disease can be naturally transmitted to one of the small ruminants. The potential ramifications of this and the logistical challenges associated with controlling BSE in sheep or goats also provides a justification for removing SRMs from all animal feed. Although these species are covered under the current regulations the cross contamination and cross feeding aspects stated for cattle are applicable.
The need to remove high risk material from all animal feed is also supported by other bodies with expertise in the field of TSEs:
Recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO)
The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued the following recommendations for countries with BSE or those where a known exposure exists:
· No part or product of any animal which has shown signs of a TSE should enter any food chain (human or animal). In particular:
o All countries must ensure the killing and safe disposal of all parts or products of such animals so that TSE infectivity cannot enter any food chain.
o Countries should not permit tissues that are likely to contain the BSE agent to enter any food chain (human or animal).
From the report of a WHO Consultation on Public Health Issues related to Human and Animal Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies WHO/EMC/DIS 96.147, Geneva, 2-3 April 1996.
Office of International Epizooties (OIE)
The OIE is recommending that a list of SRMs which include brain, spinal cord, eyes, skull and vertebral column be removed from preparations used for food, feed, fertilizer, etc. If these tissues should not be traded we feel that they should not be used in domestic products either.
BSE Code Article 2.3.13.18
“From cattle, originating from a country or zone with a minimal BSE risk, that were at the time of slaughter over 30 months of age, the following commodities, and any commodity contaminated by them, should not be traded for the preparation of food, feed, fertilizers, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals including biologicals, or medical devices: brains, eyes and spinal cord, skull, vertebral column and derived protein products. Food, feed, fertilizers, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals or medical devices prepared using these commodities should also not be traded.”
Conclusion
In conclusion we urge the FDA to implement, monitor and enforce a comprehensive and protective feed ban that is more congruent with the measures that have been proven to be effective in other countries that have experienced BSE. We do not feel that we can overstate the dangers from the insidious threat from these diseases and the need to control and arrest them to prevent any possibility of spread.
We also wish to emphasize that as scientists who have dedicated substantive portions of our careers to defining the risks from TSEs as well as developing strategies for managing those risks, we are confident that technical solutions will be found for many of the challenges posed by these diseases. Thus, we urge the FDA to frame its regulations in terms that allow for the future use of any banned material if it can be proven safe for a given application.
Signatories:
Paul W. Brown, M.D.
Medical Director, USPHS, and Senior Investigator, NIH (retired)
Consultant, TSE Risk Management
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Email: paulwbrown@comcast.net
Neil R. Cashman MD Professor, Department of Medicine (Neurology) Diener Chair of Neurodegenerative Diseases Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases 6 Queen's Park Crescent West Toronto Ontario M5S3H2xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
e-mail: neil.cashman@utoronto.ca
Linda A. Detwiler, DVM Consultant, TSE Risk Management
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Email: LAVet22@aol.com
Laura Manuelidis, MD
Professor and Head of Neuropathology, Department of Surgery and Faculty of Neurosciences Yale Medical School
email: laura.manuelidis@yale.edu
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jason C. Bartz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology Creighton University 2500 California Plaza Omaha, NE 68178
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jbartz@creighton.edu
Robert B. Petersen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pathology and Neuroscience
Case Western Reserve University
5-123 Wolstein Building
2103 Cornell Road
Cleveland, OH 44106-2622
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Email rbp@cwru.edu
Robert G. Rohwer, Ph.D. Director, Molecular Neurovirology Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center Medical Research Service 151 Assoc. Professor of Neurology School of Medicine University of Maryland at Baltimore 10 N. Greene St. Baltimore, MD 21201 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
email: rrohwer@umaryland.edu
REFERENCES
Andreoletti O, Simon S, Lacroux C, Morel N, Tabouret G, Chabert A, Lugan S, Corbiere F, Ferre P, Foucras G, Laude H, Eychenne F, Grassi J, Schelcher F. PrPSc accumulation in myocytes from sheep incubating natural scrapie. Nat Med. 2004 Jun;10(6):591-3. Epub 2004 May 23.
Anil,M.H.; Love,S.; Helps,C.R.; McKinstry,J.L.; Brown,S.N.; Philips,A.; Williams,S.; Shand,A.; Bakirel,T.; Harbour,D.A. - Jugular venous emboli of brain tissue induced in sheep by the use of captive bolt guns - Veterinary Record 2001 May 19; 148: 619-20
Anil,M.H.; Harbour,D.A. - Current stunning and slaughter methods in cattle and sheep. Potential for carcass contamination with central nervous tissue and microorganisms - Fleischwirtschaft 2001; 11: 123
Anil,M.H.; Love,S.; Helps,C.R.; Harbour,D. - Potential for carcass contamination with brain tissue following stunning and slaughter in cattle and sheep - Food Control 2002; 13: 431-6
Bartz JC, Kincaid AE, Bessen RA. Retrograde transport of transmissible mink encephalopathy within descending motor tracts. J Virol. 2002 Jun;76(11):5759-68.
Bosque PJ, Ryou C, Telling G, Peretz D, Legname G, DeArmond SJ, Prusiner SB. Prions in skeletal muscle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Mar 19;99(6):3812-7.
Bushmann, A., and Groschup, M.; Highly Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy-Sensitive Transgenic Mice Confirm the Essential Restriction of Infectivity to the Nervous System in Clinically Diseased Cattle. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 192: 934-42, September 1, 2005.
Dawson,M.; Wells,G.A.H.; Parker,B.N.; Scott,A.C. - Primary parenteral transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to the pig - Veterinary Record 1990 Sep 29; 127(13): 338
Doherr,M.G.; Hett,A.R.; Rufenacht,J.; Zurbriggen,A.; Heim,D. - Geographical clustering of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) born in Switzerland after the feed ban - Veterinary Record 2002 Oct 19; 151(16): 467-72
Glatzel M, Abela E, Maissen M, Aguzzi A. Extraneural pathologic prion protein in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. N Engl J Med. 2003 Nov 6;349(19):1812-20.
Hadlow W. J., Kennedy R. C. & Race R. E. (1982) Natural infection of Suffolk sheep with Scrapie virus. J. Infect. Dis., 146, 657-664
Hoinville,L.J. - Decline in the incidence of BSE in cattle born after the introduction of the 'feed ban' - Veterinary Record 1994 Mar 12; 134(11): 274-5
Hoinville,L.J.; Wilesmith,J.W.; Richards,M.S. - An investigation of risk factors for cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy born after the introduction of the 'feed ban' - Veterinary Record 1995 Apr 1; 136(13): 312-8
Houston,E.F.; Foster,J.D.; Chong,A.; Hunter,N.; Bostock,C.J. – Transmission of BSE by blood transfusion in sheep – Lancet 2000 Sep 16; 356(9234); 999-1000
Hunter,N.; Foster,J; Chong,A.; McCutcheon,S.; Parnham,D.; Eaton,S.; MacKenzie,C.; Houston,E.F. – Transmission of prion diseases by blood transfusion – Journal of General Virology 2002 Nov, 83(Pt 11); 2897-905.
Love,S.; Helps,C.R.; Williams,S.; Shand,A.; McKinstry,J.L.; Brown,S.N.; Harbour,D.A.; Anil,M.H. - Methods for detection of haematogenous dissemination of brain tissue after stunning of cattle with captive bolt guns - Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2000 Jun 30; 99(1-2): 53-8
Mulcahy ER, Bartz JC, Kincaid AE, Bessen RA. Prion infection of skeletal muscle cells and papillae in the tongue. J Virol. 2004 Jul;78(13):6792-8.
Race, R.; Chesebro, B. – Scrapie infectivity found in resistant species. Nature -1998 Apr 23;392(6678):770.
Aguzzi,A.; Weissmann,C. - Spongiform encephalopathies. The prion's perplexing persistence. - Nature. 1998 Apr 23;392(6678):763-4
Race,R.E.; Raines,A.; Raymond,G.J.; Caughey,B.W.; Chesebro,B. - Long-term subclinical carrier state precedes scrapie replication and adaptation in a resistant species: analogies to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. - Journal of Virology 2001 Nov; 75(21): 10106-12
Race,R.E.; Meade-White,K.; Raines,A.; Raymond,G.J.; Caughey,B.W.; Chesebro,B. - Subclinical Scrapie Infection in a Resistant Species: Persistence, Replication, and Adaptation of Infectivity during Four Passages. - Journal of Infectious Diseases 2002 Dec 1; 186 Suppl 2: S166-70
Schreuder, B.E.C., Geertsma, R.E., van Keulen, L.J.M., van Asten, J.A.A.M., Enthoven, P., Oberthür, R.C., de Koeijer, A.A., Osterhaus, A.D.M.E., 1998. Studies on the efficacy of hyperbaric rendering procedures in inactivating bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie agents. Veterinary Record 142, 474-480
Stevenson, M. A., Wilesmith, J. W., Ryan, J. B. M., Morris, R.S., Lockhart, J. W., Lin, D. & Jackson, R. (2000) Temporal aspects of bovine spongiform encepalopathy in Great Britain: individual animal-associated risk factors for the disease. Vet. Rec. 147, 349-354.
Stevenson, M. A., Wilesmith, J. W., Ryan, J. B. M., Morris, R. S., Lawson, A.B., Pfeiffer, D. U. & Lin, D. (2000) Descriptive spatial analysis of the epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Great Britain to June 1997. Vet. Rec. 147, 379-384.
Taylor, D.M., Woodgate, S.L., Atkinson, M.J., 1995. Inactivation of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent by rendering procedures. Veterinary Record, Vol.137: pp.605-610.
Taylor, D.M., Woodgate, S.L., Fleetwood, A.J., Cawthorne, R.J.G., 1997. The effect of rendering procedures on scrapie agent. Veterinary Record, Vol.141, pp 643-649.
Thomzig A, Schulz-Schaeffer W, Kratzel C, Mai J, Beekes M. Preclinical deposition of pathological prion protein PrPSc in muscles of hamsters orally exposed to scrapie. J Clin Invest. 2004 May;113(10):1465-72.
Thomzig A, Kratzel C, Lenz G, Kruger D, Beekes M. Widespread PrPSc accumulation in muscles of hamsters orally infected with scrapie. EMBO Rep. 2003 May;4(5):530-3.
Wilesmith, J.W., Ryan, J. B. M., Hueston, W. D., & Hoinville, L. J. (1992) Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: epidemiological features 1985 to 1990. Vet. Rec., 130, 90-94.
Wilesmith, J. W., Wells, G. A. H., Ryan, J. B. M., Gavier-Widen, D., & Simmons, M. M. (1997) A cohort study to examine maternally associated risk factors for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Vet. Rec., 141, 239-243.
Wells G.A.H., Dawson M., Hawkins, S.A.C., Green R. B., Dexter I., Francis M. E., Simmons M. M., Austin A. R., & Horigan M. W. (1994) Infectivity in the ileum of cattle challenged orally with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Vet. Rec., 135, 40-41.
Wells G.A.H., Hawkins, S.A.C., Green R. B., Austin A. R., Dexter I., Spencer, Y. I., Chaplin, M. J., Stack, M. J., & Dawson, M. (1998) Preliminary observations on the pathogenesis of experimental bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): an update. Vet. Rec., 142, 103-106.
Wyatt. J. M. et al. 1991. Naturally occurring scrapie-like spongiform encephalopathy in five domestic cats. Veterinary Record. 129. 233.
----------------------------------------------------
[RR1] I am not sure of the point here. If they are going to use dead stock then certainly they should at a minimum remove the CNS tissue but rather I would think the point should be that we don’t want them using dead stock with or without the CNS included.
[RR2]I am not sure that the actual text of the CFR is still required to make the point. However, I am glad I had it to verify the original argument.
=======================================end
Subject: SV: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
From: Karin Irgens <Karin.Irgens@MATTILSYNET.NO>
Reply To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:54:12 +0100
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Hello Terry
Do you have the link for this text from 7 scientists ?
Best regards, Karin
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [mailto:BSE-L@aegee.org] På vegne av Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Sendt: 11. januar 2006 19:31
Til: BSE-L@aegee.org
Emne: Re: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
[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
03-025IFA 03-025IFA-2 Terry S. Singeltary
Page 1 of 17
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder9@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM
To: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov
Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements
for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Greetings FSIS,
I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;
snip...FULL TEXT ;
http://web.archive.org/web/20060316114732/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
BSE FEED FDA 7 Scientists Report Comment
https://web.archive.org/web/20120121152959/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
9 December 2005 Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION James J. Kramer, Ph.D. Vice President, Corporate Operations
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20120128115225/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
Embassy of Japan
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110827211303/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
9 December 2005 Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION James J. Kramer, Ph.D. Vice President, Corporate Operations
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090829041034/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
Embassy of Japan
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090829072230/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
December 20, 2005 Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lanc Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852
Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed
Dear Sir or Madame: As scientists and recognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs for decades, we are deeply concemed by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE infected cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very important proposed rule We strongly supported the measures that USDA and FDA implemented to protect public health after the discovery of the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) found in Washington State in 2003. We know of no event or liscovery since then that could justify relaxing the existing specified risk material (SRM) and non-ambulatory bans and surveillance that were implemented at that time. Further, we strongly supported the codification of those changes, as well as additional measures to strengthen the entire feed and food system.
The discovery of additional cases of indigenous BSE in North America since that time has validated our position and strengthened our convictions. We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a justification to relax or impede further actions.
While this surveillance has not uncovered an epidemic, it does not clear the US cattle herd from infection. While it is highly likely that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE prior to the 1997 feed ban, we do not know how many cattle were infected or how widely the infection was dispersed.
BSE cases are most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced survillance provides an 18 month snapshot, it does not negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to We also do not know in any quantitative or controlled way how effective the feed ban has been, especially at the farm level. At this point we cannot even make a thorough assessment of the USDA surveillance as details such as age, risk category and regional distribution have not been released.
PAUL BROWN M.D.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090711221125/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.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 Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
archived link;
https://web.archive.org/web/20050917122633/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060925205531/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
***THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090710231223/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
9 December 2005 Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION James J. Kramer, Ph.D. Vice President, Corporate Operations
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20090711224705/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
Embassy of Japan
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
USDA Announces Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Detection Aug 29, 2018 A Review of Science 2019
https://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2019/04/usda-announces-atypical-bovine.html
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Docket No. FDA-2003-D-0432 (formerly 03D-0186) Use of Material from Deer and Elk in Animal Feed ***UPDATED MARCH 2016*** Singeltary Submission
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM052506.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
SEE MAD COW FEED VIOLATIONS AFER MAD COW FEED VIOLATIONS ;
http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2016/03/docket-no-fda-2003-d-0432-formerly-03d.html
Saturday, July 23, 2016
BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY BSE TSE PRION SURVEILLANCE, TESTING, AND SRM REMOVAL UNITED STATE OF AMERICA UPDATE JULY 2016
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2016/07/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-bse.html
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion UPDATE JULY 2016
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2016/07/atypical-bovine-spongiform.html
Monday, June 20, 2016
Specified Risk Materials SRMs BSE TSE Prion Program
http://specifiedriskmaterial.blogspot.com/2016/06/specified-risk-materials-srms-bse-tse.html
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0764 for Animal Feed Regulatory Program Standards Singeltary Comment Submission
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2003-D-0432-0011
17 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997
Monday, October 26, 2015
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE October 2015
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2015/10/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE DECEMBER 2014 BSE TSE PRION
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2014/12/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html
16 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE DECEMBER 2013 UPDATE
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/12/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html
Saturday, August 29, 2009
FOIA REQUEST FEED RECALL 2009 Product may have contained prohibited materials Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/08/foia-request-feed-recall-2009-product.html
Friday, September 4, 2009
FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT 429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/09/foia-request-on-feed-recall-product.html
Thursday, March 19, 2009
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA WITH ONGOING 12 YEARS OF DENIAL NOW, WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE $$$
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2009/10/cvm-annual-report-fiscal-year-2008.html
However, based on analysis of molecular features of prion
diseases in cattle, this situation is similar to that in humans
(5), in which different subtypes of sporadic Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease agents are found.
DISPATCHES
1126 Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 12, No. 7, July 2006
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no07/pdfs/vol12no07.pdf
Medical Sciences Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy: Molecular similarities with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
Snip...end
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2006/08/bse-atypical-texas-and-alabama-update.html
DAMNING TESTIMONY FROM STANLEY PRUSINER THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER ON PRIONS SPEAKING ABOUT ANN VENEMAN
''nobody has ever ask'' ''they dont want our comment'' ''they don't want to know, the don't care'' ''i have tried repeatedly'' ''level of absolute ignorance'' ''Entire policy was driven...heard from mr. laycraft, so now, after time has passed, it's ok for Canada, cattle under 30 month, to the USA, THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERED! PRUSINER ASKED : IF FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, A DEMONSTRATED THREAT TO PUBLIC HEATH ? ''yes, i think prions are bad to eat, and you can die from them''
http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/prusinerclip.html
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20040327225841/http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/prusinerclip.html
Recall Authority and Mad Cow Disease: Is the Current System Good for Californians?
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
JOINT HEARING
AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT - MACHADO, ORTIZ, and SPEIER, Chairs
Selected excerpts: Opening Statement by Senator Michael Machado RealPlayer - QuickTime Elisa Odibashian - Consumers Union RealPlayer - QuickTime
Anthony Iton - Alemeda County Health RealPlayer - QuickTime
USDA's "memorandum of understanding" RealPlayer - QuickTime
Dave Louthan - Killed the Mad Cow RealPlayer - QuickTime
Dennis Laycraft - Canadian Cattlemen's Association RealPlayer - QuickTime
Stanley Prusiner - Discoverer of Prions RealPlayer - QuickTime - 3 min. snip Realplayer - Quicktime
Steven DeArmond - Professor of Neuropathology RealPlayer - QuickTime
Entire 5 hour hearing - The California Channel (scroll down to "022404 Senate Info-Hearing")
https://web.archive.org/web/20040327225841/http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/prusinerclip.html
***> 7 1/2 Scientists BSE Comments to FDA <***
Subject: SV: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
From: Karin Irgens <Karin.Irgens@MATTILSYNET.NO>
Reply To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:54:12 +0100
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Hello Terry
Do you have the link for this text from 7 scientists ?
Best regards, Karin
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [mailto:BSE-L@aegee.org] På vegne av Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Sendt: 11. januar 2006 19:31
Til: BSE-L@aegee.org
Emne: Re: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Subject: Re: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
Date: January 11, 2006 at 9:27 am PST
December 19, 2005
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852
Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)
Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed
Dear Sir or Madame:
The McDonalds Corporation buys more beef than any other restaurant in the United States. It is essential for our customers and our company that the beef has the highest level of safety. Concerning BSE, the most effective way to insure this is to create a system that processes cattle that are not exposed to the disease. As a company we take numerous precautions via our strict specifications to help and assure this, however we feel that the force of federal regulation is important to ensure that the risk of exposure in the entire production system is reduced to as close to zero as possible. The exemptions in the current ban as well as in the newly proposed rule make this difficult if not impossible, as there are still legal avenues for ruminants to consume potentially contaminated ruminant protein. In addition, the USDA still has not implemented a system of identification and traceability. It is our opinion that the government can take further action to reduce this risk and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very important proposed rule.
After the identification of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in indigenous North American cattle, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responded rapidly to implement measures to protect public health in regard to food. Our company recognizes and supports the importance of the current feed ban which went into effect in August 1997. However, given what is known about the epidemiology and characteristically long incubation period of BSE, we urge the FDA to act without further delay and implement additional measures which will reduce the risk of BSE recycling in the US cattle herd. We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a justification to relax or impede further actions. While this surveillance indicates an epidemic is not underway, it does not clear the US cattle herd from infection. The positive cases indicate probable exposure prior to the 1997 feed ban, a time when BSE appears to have been circulating in animal feed. BSE cases are most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced surveillance provides an 18 month snapshot, it does not negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE and that the current feed controls contain “leaks”.
We feel that for the FDA to provide a more comprehensive and protective feed ban, specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock must be removed from all animal feed and that legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk) should be discontinued.
SRMs, as defined by the USDA, are tissues which, in a BSE infected animal, are known to either harbor BSE infectivity or to be closely associated with infectivity. If SRMs are not removed, they may introduce BSE infectivity and continue to provide a source of animal feed contamination. Rendering will reduce infectivity but it will not totally eliminate it. This is significant, as research in the United Kingdom has shown that a calf may be infected with BSE by the ingestion of as little as .001 gram of untreated brain.
The current proposed rule falls short of this and would still leave a potential source of infectivity in the system. In fact by the FDA’s own statement the exempted tissues which are known to have infectivity (such as distal ileum, DRGs, etc) would cumulatively amount to approximately 10% of the infectivity in an infected animal. Leaving approximately 10% of the infectious tissues in the system is not good enough. The proposed rule still allows the possibility for cattle to be exposed to BSE through:
Feeding of materials currently subject to legal exemptions from the ban (e.g., poultry litter, plate waste) Cross feeding (the feeding of non-ruminant rations to ruminants) on farms; and Cross contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant feed
We are most concerned that the FDA has chosen to include a provision that would allow tissues from deadstock into the feed chain. We do not support the provision to allow the removal of brain and spinal cord from down and deadstock over 30 months of age for several reasons. These are the animals with the highest level of infectivity in tissues which include more than brain and spinal cord. Firstly, there are two issues regarding the complex logistics of this option. We do not feel that it is possible to have adequate removal especially during the warmer months. In addition, we do not feel that there are adequate means to enforce complete removal. Unlike slaughterhouses, there are no government inspectors at rendering plants or deadstock collection points.
Most importantly, there is emerging information that at end stage disease (a natural BSE case); infectivity may also be included in additional tissues such as peripheral nerves (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005 – see attached). This published work supports publicly reported studies in Japan where by western blot testing, prions have been found in the peripheral nerves of a naturally infected 94-month-old cow. If this is the case, the amount of infectivity left in the system from an infected bovine would surpass 10% and the full extent is still unknown.
McDonalds has convened it own International Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) as well as co-sponsored a symposium of TSE scientists on the issue of tissue distribution. The consensus of both groups was that the pathogenesis of BSE might not be entirely different from TSEs in other species at the point where the animal is showing signs of the disease. These scientists feel that the studies as reported above have merit. The current studies not only re-enforce the risk of down and deadstock but also appear to provide additional information that these animals may be a potential source of greater levels of infectivity into the feed system. Hence, we suggest that the FDA consult with TSE scientists as well.
Leaving the tissues from the highest risk category of cattle in the animal feed chain will effectively nullify the intent of this regulation. This point is illustrated by the 2001 Harvard risk assessment model that demonstrated that eliminating dead and downer, 4D cattle, from the feed stream was a disproportionately effective means of reducing the risk of re-infection.
“The disposition of cattle that die on the farm would also have a substantial influence on the spread of BSE if the disease were introduced.” The base case scenario showed that the mean total number of ID50s (i.e., dosage sufficient to infect 50 percent of exposed cattle) from healthy animals at slaughter presented to the food/feed system was 1500. The mean total number of ID50s from adult cattle deadstock presented to the feed system was 37,000. This illustrates the risk of “4D cattle” (i.e., deadstock).
From the Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001, Appendix 3A Base Case and Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001 Executive Summary
McDonalds also urges agencies of the US government to work with academia and industry on research in the following areas:
· Methods to inactivate TSEs agents which then may allow a product to be used and even fed to animals without risk
· Alternative uses for animal byproducts which would maintain some value
In July 2004, McDonalds in cooperation with others sponsored a meeting at Penn State. The purpose of the meeting was to review work conducted by Dr. Bruce Miller looking at the feasibility of using carcasses and animal byproducts as renewable alternatives to fossil fuels in large energy generating boilers. A number of government representatives were also invited to this meeting. We are aware that Dr. Miller continues this work which shows great promise. We suggest that the FDA explore the possibility of this alternative use that may also have a positive impact on the environment.
The McDonalds Corporation will continue to work with the FDA and other government agencies to implement a strong BSE risk control program. We would like to reiterate our opinion that for the FDA to provide a more comprehensive and protective feed ban, specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock must be removed from all animal feed and that legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk) should be discontinued. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments to the public record.
Respectfully,
Dick Crawford
Corporate Vice President, Government Relations
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
dick.crawford@mcd.com
=============================================
December 20, 2005
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)
Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed
Dear Sir or Madame:
As scientists and recognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs for decades, we are deeply concerned by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE infected cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very important proposed rule We strongly supported the measures that USDA and FDA implemented to protect public health after the discovery of the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) found in Washington State in 2003. We know of no event or discovery since then that could justify relaxing the existing specified risk material (SRM) and non-ambulatory bans and surveillance that were implemented at that time. Further, we strongly supported the codification of those changes, as well as additional measures to strengthen the entire feed and food system. The discovery of additional cases of indigenous BSE in North America since that time has validated our position and strengthened our convictions.
We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a justification to relax or impede further actions. While this surveillance has not uncovered an epidemic, it does not clear the US cattle herd from infection. While it is highly likely that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE prior to the 1997 feed ban, we do not know how many cattle were infected or how widely the infection was dispersed. BSE cases are most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced surveillance provides an 18 month snapshot, it does not negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE. We also do not know in any quantitative or controlled way how effective the feed ban has been, especially at the farm level. At this point we cannot even make a thorough assessment of the USDA surveillance as details such as age, risk category and regional distribution have not been released.
A number of countries initially attempted to take partial steps in regard to feed controls only to face repeated disappointments in predicted downturns of the epidemic course. We in North America could do this experiment all over again, waiting for each new warning before adding more stringency to our control measures, or we can benefit from the experience of others and take decisive measures now to arrest any further development of underlying cases that is implicit in those already discovered to date.
The discovery of 5 indigenous North American cases, including one born after the implementation of the current feed ban, should provide the necessary incentive to implement, monitor and enforce a comprehensive and protective feed ban that is more congruent with the measures that have been proven to be effective throughout the world. In particular, we urge the FDA to act without further delay to strengthen the animal feed regulations by implementing the program proposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in the December 11, 2004 Gazette. This includes removing all specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock from all animal feed. We also urge that the FDA discontinues the legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk). Many of these exemptions do not exist in other countries.
Bovine products and byproducts are used for both food and pharmaceuticals. These human uses require the highest level of safety. Because of the hardy nature of the BSE agent and its high potential for cross contamination, the most effective way to protect bovine products and bovine derived materials from contamination by BSE is to ensure that infected animals or carcasses never enter processing plants. The goal would be to discover and remove infected animals from production as early as possible in the infection and long before they would be sent to slaughter. Until we have diagnostic tools powerful enough to allow us to discover the disease early in its prolonged pre-clinical incubation, we have to rely on the next best strategy which is to prevent any exposure through feed. The exemptions in the current ban as well as in the newly proposed rule make this difficult if not impossible, as they still provide legal avenues for ruminants to consume potentially contaminated ruminant protein.
It is our opinion that the proposed rule falls woefully short in effective measures to minimize the potential for further transmissions of the disease. By the FDA’s own analysis, exempted tissues (such as distal ileum, DRGs, etc) contain approximately 10% of the infectivity in affected animals. Thus the proposed rule still allows the possibility for cattle to be exposed to BSE through:
1. Feeding of materials currently subject to legal exemptions from the ban (e.g., poultry litter, plate waste)
2. Cross feeding (the feeding of non-ruminant rations to ruminants) on farms; and
3. Cross contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant feed
We are most concerned that the FDA has chosen to include a provision that would allow tissues from deadstock into the feed chain. We do not believe that down or dead stock should be allowed into the food or feed chain whatever the age of the animal and whether or not the CNS tissues are removed. We do not support the provision to allow removal of brain and spinal cord from deadstock over 30 months for a number of reasons. [RR1] This category of animals contains the highest level of infectivity and that infectivity is in other tissues besides just brain and spinal cord. Recent improvements in the BSE bioassay, have now made it possible to detect BSE infectivity 1000 time more efficiently than before. This assay has revealed the presence of BSE infectivity in some but not all peripheral nerves and in one muscle. (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005) This published and peer reviewed work is consistent with other publicly reported studies in Japan where, by western blot testing, prions were found in the peripheral nerves of a naturally infected 94-month-old cow. We feel that the studies as reported above have merit. The current studies not only re-enforce the risk of down and deadstock but also appear to provide additional information that these animals may be a potential source of greater levels of infectivity into the feed system. We also doubt that brain and spinal cord can be completely removed especially during warmer weather. Given the biological composition of these tissues, they are predisposed to rapid autolysis.
As world wide surveillance for BSE increases, several atypical cases of bovine TSE have been discovered. These cases either show no clinical signs, or present as ‘downers’, and have an atypical neuropathology with respect to lesion morphology and distribution, causing problems in both clinical and post-mortem diagnosis. The origin of the cases are unclear but they suggest that even should typical BSE be eliminated, there may be other TSE diseases of cattle that could result by “mutation” and selection. Refeeding of contaminated protein could potentially perpetuate transmission much like typical BSE. An effective feed ban could prevent the expansion of such strains. We also note that there are other species which are susceptible to BSE and the current regulations allow for SRMs to be included in feed for these animals.
For BSE to be perpetuated, the animal production system must have a source of agent and a means by which cattle or other susceptible species are exposed to this agent. We feel that in North America, the source and routes of exposure still exist, hence allowing for the continued recycling of BSE. We have detailed the scientific justifications for our position below.
Source of the agent: SRMs (Specified Risk Materials)
SRMs, as defined by the USDA, are tissues which, in a BSE infected animal, are known to either harbor BSE infectivity or to be closely associated with infectivity. If SRMs are not removed, they may introduce BSE infectivity and continue to provide a source of animal feed contamination. For example, the skull and vertebral column which encase the brain and spinal cord, respectively, can be assumed to have gross contamination. Rendering will reduce infectivity but it will not totally eliminate it. This is significant as research in the United Kingdom has shown that a calf may be infected with BSE by the ingestion of as little as .001 gram of untreated brain.
The tissue distribution of infectivity in BSE infected cattle has primarily been determined by 3 studies conducted in the United Kingdom all of which had limitations.
In two of the studies, bioassays were done in mice which are at least 1000 fold less sensitive to BSE infection than cattle themselves. Only higher titers of infectivity can be detected by this method. These investigations found infectivity in the brain, spinal cord, retina, trigeminal ganglia, dorsal root ganglia, distal ileum and bone marrow (the bone marrow finding was from one animal). Infectivity was found in distal ileum of experimentally infected calves beginning six months after challenge and continuing at other intervals throughout life. (Wells et. al., 1994; 1998). The bioassay study in calves has produced similar results and in addition infectivity has been found in tonsil. The study is still in progress. Another project has found infectivity in the lymphoid tissue of third eyelid from naturally infected animals. (Dr. Danny Matthews, UK DEFRA, personal communication).
While bioassay in cattle is far preferable to mice in terms of sensitivity, cattle nevertheless present their own limitations in terms of the long incubation time and the limited number of animals that can be used for assay compared to rodents. As a consequence the significance of the negative finding for many tissues is questionable. In fact, by the end of 2004 there was increasing evidence in species other than cattle that peripheral nerves and muscle have infectivity. (Bosque et al., 2002; Glatzel et al., 2003;Bartz et al., 2002; Androletti et al., 2004; Mulcahy et al., 2004; Thomzig et al., 2003; Thomzig et al., 2004)
In some of these species, studies indicate that the agent migrates to the brain and spinal cord, replicates to high levels in the CNS and then spreads centrifugally from the spinal cord back down through the spinal neurons to the junction of the nerves and muscle into the muscle cells themselves. A recent German study (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005) examined nerves and muscle from a cow naturally infected with BSE and found that infectivity was present in several peripheral nerves and one muscle. The method of detection was bioassay in bovinized transgenic mice that show the same or greater sensitivity to transmission of BSE as cattle. This research concurs with findings by Japanese scientists that BSE infectivity is present in peripheral nerves at least in the clinical stage of disease.
It is our opinion that there is increasing evidence that the pathogenesis of BSE might not be entirely different from TSEs in other species at the point of clinical disease in that there is peripheral involvement. We feel that the studies as reported above have merit. The current studies not only re-enforce the risk of down and deadstock but also appear to provide additional information that these animals may be a potential source of greater levels of infectivity into the feed system.
In the event that FDA may confer with USDA about the risks associated with peripheral nerves we want to point out one issue. In the recent publication of the final rule on the importation of whole cuts of boneless beef from Japan, 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. 05-004-2] RIN 0579-AB93, we disagree with the interpretation provided by USDA, APHIS.
APHIS seems to discount the studies conducted by Groschup et al. 2005. on the basis that the transgenic mouse bioassay that they used may be too sensitive. In taking this position they have failed to realize that the point of an assay is to reveal in which tissues the infectivity resides and its relative concentration to brain or spinal cord. For this purpose, no assay can be too sensitive. Of course, the probability of an actual infection will be affected by the efficiency of infection which will be a function of dose, route of exposure and any host barrier effects that are present.
We would also like to point out a factual error in the conclusion. APHIS states, “Given these factors, APHIS has determined that the finding of BSE infectivity in facial and sciatic nerves of the transgenic mice is not directly applicable to cattle naturally infected with BSE. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to make any adjustments to the risk analysis for this rulemaking or to extend the comment period to solicit additional public comment on this issue.” It is incorrect that the infectivity was found in the peripheral nerves of transgenic mice. The peripheral nerves were harvested from a cow naturally infected with BSE. Transgenic mice were used as a bioassay model.
From [Docket No. 05-004-2] RIN 0579-AB93[RR2] :
“Peripheral Nerves
Issue: Two commenters stated that the underlying assumption of the proposed rule, that whole cuts of boneless beef from Japan will not contain tissues that may carry the BSE agent, is no longer valid because researchers have found peripheral nervous system tissues, including facial and sciatic nerves, that contain BSE infectivity.\2\ One of these commenters requested APHIS to explain whether and what additional mitigation measures are needed to reduce the risks that these tissues may be present in Japanese beef. This commenter further requested an additional comment period to obtain public comments to treat this new scientific finding.
-------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bushmann, A., and Groschup, M.; Highly Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy-Sensitive Transgenic Mice Confirm the Essential Restriction of Infectivity to the Nervous System in Clinically Diseased Cattle. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 192: 934-42, September 1, 2005.
--------------------------------------------------
Response: APHIS is familiar with the results of the study mentioned by the commenters in which mice, genetically engineered to be highly susceptible to BSE and to overexpress the bovine prion protein, were inoculated with tissues from a BSE-infected cow. This study demonstrated low levels of infectivity in the mouse assay in the facial and sciatic nerves of the peripheral nervous system. APHIS has evaluated these findings in the context of the potential occurrence of infectivity in the peripheral nerves of cattle and the corresponding risks of the presence of infectivity in such tissues resulting in cattle or human exposure to the BSE agent. The results from these experiments in genetically engineered mice should be interpreted with caution, as the findings may be influenced by the overexpression of prion proteins and may not accurately predict the natural distribution of BSE infectivity in cattle. Further, the overexpression of prion proteins in transgenic mice may not accurately mimic the natural disease process because the transgenic overexpressing mice have been shown to develop spontaneous lethal neurological disease involving spongiform changes in the brain and muscle degeneration.\3\ In addition, the route of administration to the mice was both intraperitoneal and intracerebral, which are two very efficient routes of infection as compared to oral consumption. Given these factors, APHIS has determined that the finding of BSE infectivity in facial and sciatic nerves of the transgenic mice is not directly applicable to cattle naturally infected with BSE. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to make any adjustments to the risk analysis for this rulemaking or to extend the comment period to solicit additional public comment on this issue.”
Source of the agent: Deadstock
The total amount of TSE infectivity in a TSE infected animal increases steadily throughout the infection and exponentially once the infectivity reaches the brain. Infected individuals only exhibit recognizable clinical signs once infectivity titers have reached high levels in the brain. Surveillance data collected throughout Europe indicates there is a much greater likelihood for BSE to be detected in dead or down cattle than from healthy normal animals. This has so far also been borne out by the experience in North America. Animals that die of BSE harbor the greatest amount of agent that can be produced by the disease. Leaving the tissues from the highest risk category of cattle in the animal feed chain will effectively nullify the purported intent of this regulation. This point is supported by the 2001 Harvard risk assessment model that demonstrated that eliminating dead and downer, 4D cattle, from the feed stream was a disproportionately effective means of reducing the risk of re-infection.
“The disposition of cattle that die on the farm would also have a substantial influence on the spread of BSE if the disease were introduced.” The base case scenario showed that the mean total number of ID50s (i.e., dosage sufficient to infect 50 percent of exposed cattle) from healthy animals at slaughter presented to the food/feed system was 1500. The mean total number of ID50s from adult cattle deadstock presented to the feed system was 37,000. This illustrates the risk of “4D cattle” (i.e., deadstock).
From the Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001, Appendix 3A Base Case and Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001 Executive Summary
It is likely that these numbers would have to be adjusted upwards, if the UK attack rate and Groschup data were considered.
Inflammation and TSEs
There have been 3 recent peer reviewed publications which indicate that chronic inflammatory conditions in a host with a TSE may induce prion replication in, or distribution to organs previously thought to be low or no risk. They are as follows:
Chronic Lymphocytic Inflammation Specifies the Organ Tropism of Prions (Heikenwalder et. al. 2005 www.sciencexpress.org/20 January 2005/ Page 1/ 10.1126/science.1106460)
2. Coincident Scrapie Infection and Nephritis Lead to Urinary Prion Excretion (Seeger et al., Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 324 – 326 DOI: 10.1126/science.1118829)
3. PrPsc in mammary glands of sheep affected by scrapie and mastitis (Ligios C., et al. Nature Medicine, 11. 1137 – 1138, 2005)
These studies from the Aguzzi laboratory warn that concurrent chronic inflammatory disease could dramatically alter the distribution of BSE infectivity in infected cattle. Down and dead stock are at higher risk for both BSE and other systemic conditions. If the results reported above are also applicable to cattle, the carcasses of dead and down stock affected by BSE might contain even higher levels of infectivity, or contribute infectivity via tissues that are not ordinarily at risk in normal animals.
Exposure: Industry Practices or Exemptions which may pose a risk
Poultry Litter
In the United States poultry litter can be fed to cattle. There are two potential sources of risk from poultry litter. Poultry litter not only consists of digested feed but also of feed which spills from the cages. As a consequence, the practice of feeding litter back to cattle is by its nature non-compliant with the current feed ban if the poultry themselves are being fed ruminant protein. Given that ruminant protein can no longer be fed to ruminants in the United States and that most, if not all, countries will no longer import North American ruminant MBM, an even larger part of poultry diets is now ruminant MBM. Spillage provides a direct link to back to cattle but feces are also likely to contain infectivity.
There is no reason to expect that TSE infectivity would be inactivated by passage through the poultry gut, and only a slim possibility that composting would reduce infectivity at all. Thus poultry feces are another potential route of transmission back to cattle. Evidence for this comes from rodent experiments where infectivity was demonstrated in the feces after being fed: “Laboratory experiments show that mice orally challenged with scrapie have detectable infectivity that passes through the gut. Gut contents and fecal matter may therefore contain infectivity, and it is noted that in experimental oral challenges in cattle conducted in the UK, feces must be treated as medical waste for one month following the challenge. It is concluded that digestive contents and fecal material from livestock or poultry currently being fed with MBM potentially contaminated with BSE should not be used as a feed ingredient for animal feed.” [Proceedings: Joint WHO/FAO/OIE/ Technical Consultation on BSE: public health, animal health and trade. Paris, 10-14 June 2001; and Alan Dickinson, personal communication].
It may be possible to remove the risk from poultry litter by sterilization. However, unless or until a method can be developed and validated, poultry litter should be banned from ruminant feed.
Ruminant Blood
In contrast with humans, sheep, monkeys, mice and hamsters, including sheep and mice infected with BSE and humans infected with vCJD considered identical to BSE, no infectivity has so far been demonstrated in the blood of BSE infected cattle. However, we consider it unlikely that cattle are the sole outlier to what has been a consistent finding in all other TSE diseases where the measurement has been made with sufficient sensitivity to detect the low levels of infectivity that are present in blood. Rather, this failure is more likely the result of the very small volumes of blood that were used for the inoculations (less than 1 ml), whereas whole transfusions were administered to assay animals in the published sheep scrapie/BSE experiments. If blood is infected then all vascularized tissues can be expected to contain some infectivity in proportion to the content of residual blood.
Micro emboli are a possible source of blood-borne agent that could be at much higher titer than blood itself, in slaughtered cattle carrying BSE infection. Stunning can release micro emboli of brain tissue into the circulatory system from where they can be distributed to other tissues in the few moments before the exsanguination and death. (Anil, et al, 2001a & b; Anil et al, 2002; Love, et al, 2000). This source of infection could extend a higher infectivity risk to tissues that would otherwise be at low risk, thereby allowing exposure of cattle through any of the legal exemptions and potentially producing a feed and food risk. Blood-borne contamination may be a special problem where spray-dried blood is being used as a milk replacer for calves, as it is thought that young animals are especially susceptible to infection.
Certainly, blood and blood proteins should not be used as feed without conclusive evidence that they are safe.
Unfiltered Tallow
Ruminant tallow is exempted from the current feed ban. Tallow contains protein impurities (i.e. MBM) that could be a source of TSE infectivity. There are no impurity level requirements for this tallow. It has been reported that it is standard practice to produce tallow which has an impurity level of .15% or below, but it is not clear that this is fully adequate to remove the risk of transmission and there is no requirement to meet even this standard. We urge that protein contaminants be excluded from tallow and that SRMs also be removed.
Plate Waste
Plate waste is not limited to meat (muscle tissue). For example, cuts that include a portion of the spinal cord or that are contaminated by cord or ganglia during preparation could contain high levels of infectivity if derived from a TSE infected animal late in the preclinical stage of infection. At best this material would only be exposed to normal cooking temperatures. USDA, APHIS experience with the Swine Health Protection Act has revealed that plate waste also includes uncooked trimmings and bones. Although the current FDA regulation requires the plate waste be treated again, there are no specifications which would render a TSE agent inactive. Of greatest risk would be any bovine source of infectivity but also sheep scrapie, although not known to be a risk for human consumption, is one of the possible origins of BSE. The sheep scrapie agent is known to be widely dispersed including relatively high titers in lymphoid as well as nervous tissue. We support the USDA’s opposition to the exemption of “plate waste” as stated in written comments since 1997.
Exposure: Cross Feeding and Cross Contamination
The UK epidemiology has clearly shown that BSE contaminated feed is the primary if not sole vehicle for the transmission of BSE between cattle. Moreover, results from the United Kingdom’s attack rate study indicate that it does not take much exposure to transmit BSE to cattle. Recent results from the attack rate study which is still in progress have found that .1 g of brain transmitted BSE by the oral route to 3 cows out of 15 thus far, and .01 and .001gr of brain have transmitted BSE (1 cow out of 15). (Danny Matthews, DEFRA presentation at TAFS meeting, Washington, DC April 2004).
Rendering may reduce infectivity but it does not eliminate it. (Taylor et al, 1995; Taylor et al, 1997; Schreuder et al, 1998). Given that BSE can be transmitted to cattle via an oral route with just .001 gram of infected tissue, it may not take much infectivity to contaminate feed and keep the disease recycling. This is especially true in countries like the US and Canada which do not have dedicated lines and equipment to manufacture and process feed for ruminants and non-ruminants.
In addition, epidemiological investigations in European countries have shown that cross feeding and cross contamination on farm can be a significant vehicle for continued BSE transmission even after feed bans are well established. Cross feeding is the practice of feeding meal for poultry or pigs or pet food (which can legally contain ruminant MBM) to cattle on the same farm. This is usually due to simple human error or negligence. (Hoinville, 1994; Hoinville et al, 1995; Doherr et al, 2002a; Stevenson et al, 2000)
FDA, CVM reports that compliance with the existing feed ban is high. For the most part this does not include the compliance level on the farm. There are hundreds of thousands of farms in the US. Many of these have multiple species. That is, they raise cattle, pigs, chickens etc., on the same premises. The sheer numbers of farms make it very difficult to assure compliance on farm and to adequately cover all farms by inspection. Even if the rendering industry and feed industry can maintain 100% compliance at their facilities, if a producer inadvertently feeds chicken feed containing bovine MBM to their cattle, they negate a perfect compliance rate higher in the chain. Recent data from the Harvard BSE risk assessment suggest that the level of misfeeding on farms plays a significant role in the ability of the agent to recycle. In fact George Gray, principal investigator for the study, stated that if, in the United States, misfeeding were to occur at a level of 15%, the R0 would be over 1, indicating that the BSE level would not be declining. (George Gray presentation at the Meeting on BSE Prevention in North America: An Analysis of the Science and Risk; January 27, 2005, Washington, DC.)
The May 2003 Canadian BSE case illustrates the difficulty of on farm enforcement and its serious ramifications. The BSE positive cow was rendered and the MBM distributed to various locations. Two of these locations were poultry farms which mixed their own feed. The farms also had cattle. The subsequent investigation could not eliminate the possibility that the cattle had been fed the same feed as the poultry. The cattle on these farms were completely depopulated.
Human error is extremely difficult to prevent, and managing the risk through enforcement is problematical when confronted with the extreme logistical challenges of on farm monitoring. By eliminating the highest risk materials (SRMs and deadstock) which could introduce infectivity into the feed stream, the MBM resulting from processing becomes inherently safer. If mistakes are then made on farm, they no longer contribute to the recycling of BSE.
Exposure: Susceptibility of other Species
Felines
A transmissible spongiform encephalopathy has been diagnosed in eight species of captive wild ruminants as well as exotic felines (cheetahs, pumas, a tiger and an ocelot) and domestic cats (Wyatt 1991). There have been over 80 domestic cat cases of Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy (FSE) in Great Britain, and cats in Norway, Northern Ireland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. The agent isolated from several of these cases is indistinguishable from BSE in cattle using strain typing in mice, suggesting that FSE is actually BSE in exotic and domestic cats. Epidemiological evidence suggests BSE contaminated feed to be the probable source of infection in these species. (MAFF Progress Report, June 1997), thus providing additional supporting evidence for the dangers of BSE contaminated feed and reinforcing the necessity of removing all sources of potential contamination from the feed stream.
Other species
Studies conducted at the National Institutes of Health Rocky Mountain Laboratory caution against assuming that animals which do not become clinically ill are not infected. It is unknown if certain animals may become carriers, i.e., become infected, shed agent but do not progress to clinical disease. Infection of certain rodent species with different TSE strains suggests the possibility of a carrier state (Race and Chesebro, 1998; Race et. al, 2001, Race et al., 2002). In the more recent studies, mice were inoculated with 263K hamster scrapie. There was a prolonged period (approximately one year) where there was no evidence of replication of infectivity. Furthermore, there was no evidence of PrPres during this phase of inactive persistence, which was followed by a period of active replication of infectivity and agent adaptation. In most cases, PrPres was not detected in the active phase as well. It is important to determine if this persistence and adaptation occurs in other species exposed to TSEs as it may have significance in feeding programs which continually expose other species to BSE infectivity. For example, if BSE infected brain and spinal cord are continually fed to certain species, it may be possible for the agent to persist and adapt in these new species. Over time, the ‘resistant’ species may become a source of agent. The results of Race and colleagues, warns that an inactive persistent phase might not produce detectable PrPres, yet there would be infectivity (Race et. al., 2001).
Pigs displayed evidence of TSE infection after exposure to BSE by 3 distinct parenteral routes. Evidence of infectivity was found in the CNS, stomach, intestine and pancreas (Dawson et. al., 1990). Oral transmission has also been attempted in swine, but after an observation period of 84 months there was neither clinical nor pathological evidence of infection (Dawson et. al., 1990). Parenteral and oral transmission has also been attempted in chickens with no evidence of disease. Tissues from the BSE-challenged pigs and chickens were inoculated into susceptible mice to look for residual infectivity, but to date none has been found. In both instances the detection sensitivity was limited by the use of mice for bioassay instead of same species transmissions into cattle (or pigs and chickens).
If any of these scenarios played out and inapparent infections became established in commercial species, those species could become reservoirs for reinfection of cattle and perpetuation or reintroduction of the epidemic. We also do not know if atypical cases of BSE are more pathogenic for other species and if chronic inflammation may influence the susceptibility of other species. We offer these possibilities to reinforce the need to eliminate all possible sources of infectivity from the feed stream.
In January 2005, the European Union announced that BSE had been confirmed in a goat in France illustrating that the disease can be naturally transmitted to one of the small ruminants. The potential ramifications of this and the logistical challenges associated with controlling BSE in sheep or goats also provides a justification for removing SRMs from all animal feed. Although these species are covered under the current regulations the cross contamination and cross feeding aspects stated for cattle are applicable.
The need to remove high risk material from all animal feed is also supported by other bodies with expertise in the field of TSEs:
Recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO)
The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued the following recommendations for countries with BSE or those where a known exposure exists:
· No part or product of any animal which has shown signs of a TSE should enter any food chain (human or animal). In particular:
o All countries must ensure the killing and safe disposal of all parts or products of such animals so that TSE infectivity cannot enter any food chain.
o Countries should not permit tissues that are likely to contain the BSE agent to enter any food chain (human or animal).
From the report of a WHO Consultation on Public Health Issues related to Human and Animal Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies WHO/EMC/DIS 96.147, Geneva, 2-3 April 1996.
Office of International Epizooties (OIE)
The OIE is recommending that a list of SRMs which include brain, spinal cord, eyes, skull and vertebral column be removed from preparations used for food, feed, fertilizer, etc. If these tissues should not be traded we feel that they should not be used in domestic products either.
BSE Code Article 2.3.13.18
“From cattle, originating from a country or zone with a minimal BSE risk, that were at the time of slaughter over 30 months of age, the following commodities, and any commodity contaminated by them, should not be traded for the preparation of food, feed, fertilizers, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals including biologicals, or medical devices: brains, eyes and spinal cord, skull, vertebral column and derived protein products. Food, feed, fertilizers, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals or medical devices prepared using these commodities should also not be traded.”
Conclusion
In conclusion we urge the FDA to implement, monitor and enforce a comprehensive and protective feed ban that is more congruent with the measures that have been proven to be effective in other countries that have experienced BSE. We do not feel that we can overstate the dangers from the insidious threat from these diseases and the need to control and arrest them to prevent any possibility of spread.
We also wish to emphasize that as scientists who have dedicated substantive portions of our careers to defining the risks from TSEs as well as developing strategies for managing those risks, we are confident that technical solutions will be found for many of the challenges posed by these diseases. Thus, we urge the FDA to frame its regulations in terms that allow for the future use of any banned material if it can be proven safe for a given application.
Signatories:
Paul W. Brown, M.D.
Medical Director, USPHS, and Senior Investigator, NIH (retired)
Consultant, TSE Risk Management
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Email: paulwbrown@comcast.net
Neil R. Cashman MD Professor, Department of Medicine (Neurology) Diener Chair of Neurodegenerative Diseases Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases 6 Queen's Park Crescent West Toronto Ontario M5S3H2xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
e-mail: neil.cashman@utoronto.ca
Linda A. Detwiler, DVM Consultant, TSE Risk Management
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Email: LAVet22@aol.com
Laura Manuelidis, MD
Professor and Head of Neuropathology, Department of Surgery and Faculty of Neurosciences Yale Medical School
email: laura.manuelidis@yale.edu
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jason C. Bartz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology Creighton University 2500 California Plaza Omaha, NE 68178
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jbartz@creighton.edu
Robert B. Petersen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pathology and Neuroscience
Case Western Reserve University
5-123 Wolstein Building
2103 Cornell Road
Cleveland, OH 44106-2622
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Email rbp@cwru.edu
Robert G. Rohwer, Ph.D. Director, Molecular Neurovirology Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center Medical Research Service 151 Assoc. Professor of Neurology School of Medicine University of Maryland at Baltimore 10 N. Greene St. Baltimore, MD 21201 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
email: rrohwer@umaryland.edu
REFERENCES
Andreoletti O, Simon S, Lacroux C, Morel N, Tabouret G, Chabert A, Lugan S, Corbiere F, Ferre P, Foucras G, Laude H, Eychenne F, Grassi J, Schelcher F. PrPSc accumulation in myocytes from sheep incubating natural scrapie. Nat Med. 2004 Jun;10(6):591-3. Epub 2004 May 23.
Anil,M.H.; Love,S.; Helps,C.R.; McKinstry,J.L.; Brown,S.N.; Philips,A.; Williams,S.; Shand,A.; Bakirel,T.; Harbour,D.A. - Jugular venous emboli of brain tissue induced in sheep by the use of captive bolt guns - Veterinary Record 2001 May 19; 148: 619-20
Anil,M.H.; Harbour,D.A. - Current stunning and slaughter methods in cattle and sheep. Potential for carcass contamination with central nervous tissue and microorganisms - Fleischwirtschaft 2001; 11: 123
Anil,M.H.; Love,S.; Helps,C.R.; Harbour,D. - Potential for carcass contamination with brain tissue following stunning and slaughter in cattle and sheep - Food Control 2002; 13: 431-6
Bartz JC, Kincaid AE, Bessen RA. Retrograde transport of transmissible mink encephalopathy within descending motor tracts. J Virol. 2002 Jun;76(11):5759-68.
Bosque PJ, Ryou C, Telling G, Peretz D, Legname G, DeArmond SJ, Prusiner SB. Prions in skeletal muscle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Mar 19;99(6):3812-7.
Bushmann, A., and Groschup, M.; Highly Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy-Sensitive Transgenic Mice Confirm the Essential Restriction of Infectivity to the Nervous System in Clinically Diseased Cattle. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 192: 934-42, September 1, 2005.
Dawson,M.; Wells,G.A.H.; Parker,B.N.; Scott,A.C. - Primary parenteral transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to the pig - Veterinary Record 1990 Sep 29; 127(13): 338
Doherr,M.G.; Hett,A.R.; Rufenacht,J.; Zurbriggen,A.; Heim,D. - Geographical clustering of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) born in Switzerland after the feed ban - Veterinary Record 2002 Oct 19; 151(16): 467-72
Glatzel M, Abela E, Maissen M, Aguzzi A. Extraneural pathologic prion protein in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. N Engl J Med. 2003 Nov 6;349(19):1812-20.
Hadlow W. J., Kennedy R. C. & Race R. E. (1982) Natural infection of Suffolk sheep with Scrapie virus. J. Infect. Dis., 146, 657-664
Hoinville,L.J. - Decline in the incidence of BSE in cattle born after the introduction of the 'feed ban' - Veterinary Record 1994 Mar 12; 134(11): 274-5
Hoinville,L.J.; Wilesmith,J.W.; Richards,M.S. - An investigation of risk factors for cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy born after the introduction of the 'feed ban' - Veterinary Record 1995 Apr 1; 136(13): 312-8
Houston,E.F.; Foster,J.D.; Chong,A.; Hunter,N.; Bostock,C.J. – Transmission of BSE by blood transfusion in sheep – Lancet 2000 Sep 16; 356(9234); 999-1000
Hunter,N.; Foster,J; Chong,A.; McCutcheon,S.; Parnham,D.; Eaton,S.; MacKenzie,C.; Houston,E.F. – Transmission of prion diseases by blood transfusion – Journal of General Virology 2002 Nov, 83(Pt 11); 2897-905.
Love,S.; Helps,C.R.; Williams,S.; Shand,A.; McKinstry,J.L.; Brown,S.N.; Harbour,D.A.; Anil,M.H. - Methods for detection of haematogenous dissemination of brain tissue after stunning of cattle with captive bolt guns - Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2000 Jun 30; 99(1-2): 53-8
Mulcahy ER, Bartz JC, Kincaid AE, Bessen RA. Prion infection of skeletal muscle cells and papillae in the tongue. J Virol. 2004 Jul;78(13):6792-8.
Race, R.; Chesebro, B. – Scrapie infectivity found in resistant species. Nature -1998 Apr 23;392(6678):770.
Aguzzi,A.; Weissmann,C. - Spongiform encephalopathies. The prion's perplexing persistence. - Nature. 1998 Apr 23;392(6678):763-4
Race,R.E.; Raines,A.; Raymond,G.J.; Caughey,B.W.; Chesebro,B. - Long-term subclinical carrier state precedes scrapie replication and adaptation in a resistant species: analogies to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. - Journal of Virology 2001 Nov; 75(21): 10106-12
Race,R.E.; Meade-White,K.; Raines,A.; Raymond,G.J.; Caughey,B.W.; Chesebro,B. - Subclinical Scrapie Infection in a Resistant Species: Persistence, Replication, and Adaptation of Infectivity during Four Passages. - Journal of Infectious Diseases 2002 Dec 1; 186 Suppl 2: S166-70
Schreuder, B.E.C., Geertsma, R.E., van Keulen, L.J.M., van Asten, J.A.A.M., Enthoven, P., Oberthür, R.C., de Koeijer, A.A., Osterhaus, A.D.M.E., 1998. Studies on the efficacy of hyperbaric rendering procedures in inactivating bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie agents. Veterinary Record 142, 474-480
Stevenson, M. A., Wilesmith, J. W., Ryan, J. B. M., Morris, R.S., Lockhart, J. W., Lin, D. & Jackson, R. (2000) Temporal aspects of bovine spongiform encepalopathy in Great Britain: individual animal-associated risk factors for the disease. Vet. Rec. 147, 349-354.
Stevenson, M. A., Wilesmith, J. W., Ryan, J. B. M., Morris, R. S., Lawson, A.B., Pfeiffer, D. U. & Lin, D. (2000) Descriptive spatial analysis of the epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Great Britain to June 1997. Vet. Rec. 147, 379-384.
Taylor, D.M., Woodgate, S.L., Atkinson, M.J., 1995. Inactivation of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent by rendering procedures. Veterinary Record, Vol.137: pp.605-610.
Taylor, D.M., Woodgate, S.L., Fleetwood, A.J., Cawthorne, R.J.G., 1997. The effect of rendering procedures on scrapie agent. Veterinary Record, Vol.141, pp 643-649.
Thomzig A, Schulz-Schaeffer W, Kratzel C, Mai J, Beekes M. Preclinical deposition of pathological prion protein PrPSc in muscles of hamsters orally exposed to scrapie. J Clin Invest. 2004 May;113(10):1465-72.
Thomzig A, Kratzel C, Lenz G, Kruger D, Beekes M. Widespread PrPSc accumulation in muscles of hamsters orally infected with scrapie. EMBO Rep. 2003 May;4(5):530-3.
Wilesmith, J.W., Ryan, J. B. M., Hueston, W. D., & Hoinville, L. J. (1992) Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: epidemiological features 1985 to 1990. Vet. Rec., 130, 90-94.
Wilesmith, J. W., Wells, G. A. H., Ryan, J. B. M., Gavier-Widen, D., & Simmons, M. M. (1997) A cohort study to examine maternally associated risk factors for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Vet. Rec., 141, 239-243.
Wells G.A.H., Dawson M., Hawkins, S.A.C., Green R. B., Dexter I., Francis M. E., Simmons M. M., Austin A. R., & Horigan M. W. (1994) Infectivity in the ileum of cattle challenged orally with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Vet. Rec., 135, 40-41.
Wells G.A.H., Hawkins, S.A.C., Green R. B., Austin A. R., Dexter I., Spencer, Y. I., Chaplin, M. J., Stack, M. J., & Dawson, M. (1998) Preliminary observations on the pathogenesis of experimental bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): an update. Vet. Rec., 142, 103-106.
Wyatt. J. M. et al. 1991. Naturally occurring scrapie-like spongiform encephalopathy in five domestic cats. Veterinary Record. 129. 233.
----------------------------------------------------
[RR1] I am not sure of the point here. If they are going to use dead stock then certainly they should at a minimum remove the CNS tissue but rather I would think the point should be that we don’t want them using dead stock with or without the CNS included.
[RR2]I am not sure that the actual text of the CFR is still required to make the point. However, I am glad I had it to verify the original argument.
=======================================end
Subject: SV: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
From: Karin Irgens <Karin.Irgens@MATTILSYNET.NO>
Reply To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:54:12 +0100
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Hello Terry
Do you have the link for this text from 7 scientists ?
Best regards, Karin
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [mailto:BSE-L@aegee.org] På vegne av Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Sendt: 11. januar 2006 19:31
Til: BSE-L@aegee.org
Emne: Re: McDonald's Corp. seven scientists and experts and a pharmaceutical supplier Seriologicals Corp. U.S. NOT PROTECTED AGAINST MAD COW DISEASE
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
[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
03-025IFA 03-025IFA-2 Terry S. Singeltary
Page 1 of 17
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder9@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM
To: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov
Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements
for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Greetings FSIS,
I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;
snip...FULL TEXT ;
http://web.archive.org/web/20060316114732/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
BSE FEED FDA 7 Scientists Report Comment
https://web.archive.org/web/20120121152959/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
9 December 2005 Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION James J. Kramer, Ph.D. Vice President, Corporate Operations
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20120128115225/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
Embassy of Japan
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110827211303/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
9 December 2005 Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION James J. Kramer, Ph.D. Vice President, Corporate Operations
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090829041034/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
Embassy of Japan
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090829072230/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
December 20, 2005 Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lanc Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852
Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed
Dear Sir or Madame: As scientists and recognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs for decades, we are deeply concemed by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE infected cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very important proposed rule We strongly supported the measures that USDA and FDA implemented to protect public health after the discovery of the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) found in Washington State in 2003. We know of no event or liscovery since then that could justify relaxing the existing specified risk material (SRM) and non-ambulatory bans and surveillance that were implemented at that time. Further, we strongly supported the codification of those changes, as well as additional measures to strengthen the entire feed and food system.
The discovery of additional cases of indigenous BSE in North America since that time has validated our position and strengthened our convictions. We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a justification to relax or impede further actions.
While this surveillance has not uncovered an epidemic, it does not clear the US cattle herd from infection. While it is highly likely that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE prior to the 1997 feed ban, we do not know how many cattle were infected or how widely the infection was dispersed.
BSE cases are most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced survillance provides an 18 month snapshot, it does not negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to We also do not know in any quantitative or controlled way how effective the feed ban has been, especially at the farm level. At this point we cannot even make a thorough assessment of the USDA surveillance as details such as age, risk category and regional distribution have not been released.
PAUL BROWN M.D.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090711221125/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.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 Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
archived link;
https://web.archive.org/web/20050917122633/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060925205531/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
***THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20090710231223/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
9 December 2005 Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION James J. Kramer, Ph.D. Vice President, Corporate Operations
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20090711224705/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
Embassy of Japan
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20090710231139/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
Dockets Entered on December 22, 2005 2005D-0330, Guidance for Industry and FDA Review Staff on Collection of Platelets by Automated ... EC 203, McDonald's Restaurants Corporation, Vol #:, 34
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/05/Dec05/122205/122205.htm
Dockets Entered on December 22, 2005 2005D-0330, Guidance for Industry and FDA Review Staff on Collection of Platelets by Automated ... EC 203, McDonald's Restaurants Corporation, Vol #:, 34
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/05/Dec05/122205/122205.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20061013232254/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC205.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20061013231556/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC203.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20061013231556/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC203.htm
03-025IF 03-025IF-631 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF] Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-631 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8. Page 9. Page 10. Page 11. Page 12.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-631.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20050908052458/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-631.pdf
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2009
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Texas Data for Reporting Years 2000-2008
http://cjdtexas.blogspot.com/2009/10/creutzfeldt-jakob-disease-surveillance.html
http://cjdtexas.blogspot.com/2010/03/cjd-texas-38-year-old-female-worked.html
03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF] Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-634.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20041117225244/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-634.pdf
Page 1 of 17 9/13/2005 [PDF] ... 2005 6:17 PM To: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food ... Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20050917122633/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
03-025IFA 03-025IFA-6 Jason Frost [PDF] ... Zealand Embassy COMMENTS ON FEDERAL REGISTER 9 CFR Parts 309 et al [Docket No. 03- 025IF] Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and ...
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-6.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060925190344/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-6.pdf
***> atyoical BSE TSE Prion <***
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2022
Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy TME, Atypical L-Type BSE PrP, and typical C-Type BSE, which came first, the cart or the horse?
https://transmissible-mink-encephalopathy.blogspot.com/2022/02/transmissible-mink-encephalopathy-tme.html
I ask Professor Kong ;
Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: re--Chronic Wating Disease (CWD) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathies (BSE): Public Health Risk Assessment
IS the h-BSE more virulent than typical BSE as well, or the same as cBSE, or less virulent than cBSE? just curious.....
Professor Kong reply ;
.....snip
As to the H-BSE, we do not have sufficient data to say one way or another, but we have found that H-BSE can infect humans. I hope we could publish these data once the study is complete. Thanks for your interest.
Best regards, Qingzhong Kong, PhD Associate Professor Department of Pathology Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
P.4.23 Transmission of atypical BSE in humanized mouse models
Liuting Qing1, Wenquan Zou1, Cristina Casalone2, Martin Groschup3, Miroslaw Polak4, Maria Caramelli2, Pierluigi Gambetti1, Juergen Richt5, Qingzhong Kong1 1Case Western Reserve University, USA; 2Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale, Italy; 3Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Germany; 4National Veterinary Research Institute, Poland; 5Kansas State University (Previously at USDA National Animal Disease Center), USA
Background: Classical BSE is a world-wide prion disease in cattle, and the classical BSE strain (BSE-C) has led to over 200 cases of clinical human infection (variant CJD). Atypical BSE cases have been discovered in three continents since 2004; they include the L-type (also named BASE), the H-type, and the first reported case of naturally occurring BSE with mutated bovine PRNP (termed BSE-M). The public health risks posed by atypical BSE were argely undefined.
Objectives: To investigate these atypical BSE types in terms of their transmissibility and phenotypes in humanized mice.
Methods: Transgenic mice expressing human PrP were inoculated with several classical (C-type) and atypical (L-, H-, or Mtype) BSE isolates, and the transmission rate, incubation time, characteristics and distribution of PrPSc, symptoms, and histopathology were or will be examined and compared.
Results: Sixty percent of BASE-inoculated humanized mice became infected with minimal spongiosis and an average incubation time of 20-22 months, whereas only one of the C-type BSE-inoculated mice developed prion disease after more than 2 years. Protease-resistant PrPSc in BASE-infected humanized Tg mouse brains was biochemically different from bovine BASE or sCJD. PrPSc was also detected in the spleen of 22% of BASE-infected humanized mice, but not in those infected with sCJD. Secondary transmission of BASE in the humanized mice led to a small reduction in incubation time. The atypical BSE-H strain is also transmissible with distinct phenotypes in the humanized mice, but no BSE-M transmission has been observed so far.
Discussion: Our results demonstrate that BASE is more virulent than classical BSE, has a lymphotropic phenotype, and displays a modest transmission barrier in our humanized mice. BSE-H is also transmissible in our humanized Tg mice. The possibility of more than two atypical BSE strains will be discussed.
Supported by NINDS NS052319, NIA AG14359, and NIH AI 77774.
http://www.neuroprion.org/resources/pdf_docs/conferences/prion2009/prion2009_bookofabstracts.pdf
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2009
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Texas Data for Reporting Years 2000-2008
http://cjdtexas.blogspot.com/2009/10/creutzfeldt-jakob-disease-surveillance.html
http://cjdtexas.blogspot.com/2010/03/cjd-texas-38-year-old-female-worked.html
03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF] Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-634.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20041117225244/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-634.pdf
Page 1 of 17 9/13/2005 [PDF] ... 2005 6:17 PM To: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food ... Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20050917122633/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
03-025IFA 03-025IFA-6 Jason Frost [PDF] ... Zealand Embassy COMMENTS ON FEDERAL REGISTER 9 CFR Parts 309 et al [Docket No. 03- 025IF] Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and ...
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-6.pdf
archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20060925190344/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-6.pdf
***> atyoical BSE TSE Prion <***
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2022
Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy TME, Atypical L-Type BSE PrP, and typical C-Type BSE, which came first, the cart or the horse?
https://transmissible-mink-encephalopathy.blogspot.com/2022/02/transmissible-mink-encephalopathy-tme.html
I ask Professor Kong ;
Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: re--Chronic Wating Disease (CWD) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathies (BSE): Public Health Risk Assessment
IS the h-BSE more virulent than typical BSE as well, or the same as cBSE, or less virulent than cBSE? just curious.....
Professor Kong reply ;
.....snip
As to the H-BSE, we do not have sufficient data to say one way or another, but we have found that H-BSE can infect humans. I hope we could publish these data once the study is complete. Thanks for your interest.
Best regards, Qingzhong Kong, PhD Associate Professor Department of Pathology Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
P.4.23 Transmission of atypical BSE in humanized mouse models
Liuting Qing1, Wenquan Zou1, Cristina Casalone2, Martin Groschup3, Miroslaw Polak4, Maria Caramelli2, Pierluigi Gambetti1, Juergen Richt5, Qingzhong Kong1 1Case Western Reserve University, USA; 2Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale, Italy; 3Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Germany; 4National Veterinary Research Institute, Poland; 5Kansas State University (Previously at USDA National Animal Disease Center), USA
Background: Classical BSE is a world-wide prion disease in cattle, and the classical BSE strain (BSE-C) has led to over 200 cases of clinical human infection (variant CJD). Atypical BSE cases have been discovered in three continents since 2004; they include the L-type (also named BASE), the H-type, and the first reported case of naturally occurring BSE with mutated bovine PRNP (termed BSE-M). The public health risks posed by atypical BSE were argely undefined.
Objectives: To investigate these atypical BSE types in terms of their transmissibility and phenotypes in humanized mice.
Methods: Transgenic mice expressing human PrP were inoculated with several classical (C-type) and atypical (L-, H-, or Mtype) BSE isolates, and the transmission rate, incubation time, characteristics and distribution of PrPSc, symptoms, and histopathology were or will be examined and compared.
Results: Sixty percent of BASE-inoculated humanized mice became infected with minimal spongiosis and an average incubation time of 20-22 months, whereas only one of the C-type BSE-inoculated mice developed prion disease after more than 2 years. Protease-resistant PrPSc in BASE-infected humanized Tg mouse brains was biochemically different from bovine BASE or sCJD. PrPSc was also detected in the spleen of 22% of BASE-infected humanized mice, but not in those infected with sCJD. Secondary transmission of BASE in the humanized mice led to a small reduction in incubation time. The atypical BSE-H strain is also transmissible with distinct phenotypes in the humanized mice, but no BSE-M transmission has been observed so far.
Discussion: Our results demonstrate that BASE is more virulent than classical BSE, has a lymphotropic phenotype, and displays a modest transmission barrier in our humanized mice. BSE-H is also transmissible in our humanized Tg mice. The possibility of more than two atypical BSE strains will be discussed.
Supported by NINDS NS052319, NIA AG14359, and NIH AI 77774.
http://www.neuroprion.org/resources/pdf_docs/conferences/prion2009/prion2009_bookofabstracts.pdf
see archived url;
https://web.archive.org/web/20131013032307/http://www.neuroprion.org/resources/pdf_docs/conferences/prion2009/prion2009_bookofabstracts.pdf
see full text ;
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/10/atypical-bse-bse-and-other-human-and.html
P98 The agent of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy associated with E211K prion protein polymorphism transmits after oronasal challenge
Greenlee JJ (1), Moore SJ (1), and West Greenlee MH (2) (1) United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Animal Disease Center, Virus and Prion Research Unit, Ames, IA, United States (2) Department of Biomedical Sciences, Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Ames, IA, United States.
In 2006, a case of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was reported in a cow with a previously unreported prion protein polymorphism (E211K).
The E211K polymorphism is heritable and homologous to the E200K mutation in humans that is the most frequent PRNP mutation associated with familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
Although the prevalence of the E211K polymorphism is low, cattle carrying the K211 allele develop H-type BSE with a rapid onset after experimental inoculation by the intracranial route.
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the agents of H-type BSE or H-type BSE associated with the E211K polymorphism transmit to wild type cattle or cattle with the K211 allele after oronasal exposure.
Wild type (EE211) or heterozygous (EK211) cattle were oronasally inoculated with either H-type BSE from the 2004 US Htype BSE case (n=3) or from the 2006 US H-type case associated with the E211K polymorphism (n=4) using 10% w/v brain homogenates.
Cattle were observed daily throughout the course of the experiment for the development of clinical signs.
At approximately 50 months post-inoculation, one steer (EK211 inoculated with E211K associated H-BSE) developed clinical signs including inattentiveness, loss of body condition, weakness, ataxia, and muscle fasciculations and was euthanized.
Enzyme immunoassay confirmed that abundant misfolded protein was present in the brainstem, and immunohistochemistry demonstrated PrPSc throughout the brain.
Western blot analysis of brain tissue from the clinically affected steer was consistent with the E211K H-type BSE inoculum.
With the experiment currently at 55 months post-inoculation, no other cattle in this study have developed clinical signs suggestive of prion disease. This study demonstrates that the H-type BSE agent is transmissible by the oronasal route.
These results reinforce the need for ongoing surveillance for classical and atypical BSE to minimize the risk of potentially infectious tissues entering the animal or human food chains.
PRION 2018 CONFERENCE ABSTRACT
Prion Conference 2018
see full text ;
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/10/atypical-bse-bse-and-other-human-and.html
P98 The agent of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy associated with E211K prion protein polymorphism transmits after oronasal challenge
Greenlee JJ (1), Moore SJ (1), and West Greenlee MH (2) (1) United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Animal Disease Center, Virus and Prion Research Unit, Ames, IA, United States (2) Department of Biomedical Sciences, Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Ames, IA, United States.
In 2006, a case of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was reported in a cow with a previously unreported prion protein polymorphism (E211K).
The E211K polymorphism is heritable and homologous to the E200K mutation in humans that is the most frequent PRNP mutation associated with familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
Although the prevalence of the E211K polymorphism is low, cattle carrying the K211 allele develop H-type BSE with a rapid onset after experimental inoculation by the intracranial route.
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the agents of H-type BSE or H-type BSE associated with the E211K polymorphism transmit to wild type cattle or cattle with the K211 allele after oronasal exposure.
Wild type (EE211) or heterozygous (EK211) cattle were oronasally inoculated with either H-type BSE from the 2004 US Htype BSE case (n=3) or from the 2006 US H-type case associated with the E211K polymorphism (n=4) using 10% w/v brain homogenates.
Cattle were observed daily throughout the course of the experiment for the development of clinical signs.
At approximately 50 months post-inoculation, one steer (EK211 inoculated with E211K associated H-BSE) developed clinical signs including inattentiveness, loss of body condition, weakness, ataxia, and muscle fasciculations and was euthanized.
Enzyme immunoassay confirmed that abundant misfolded protein was present in the brainstem, and immunohistochemistry demonstrated PrPSc throughout the brain.
Western blot analysis of brain tissue from the clinically affected steer was consistent with the E211K H-type BSE inoculum.
With the experiment currently at 55 months post-inoculation, no other cattle in this study have developed clinical signs suggestive of prion disease. This study demonstrates that the H-type BSE agent is transmissible by the oronasal route.
These results reinforce the need for ongoing surveillance for classical and atypical BSE to minimize the risk of potentially infectious tissues entering the animal or human food chains.
PRION 2018 CONFERENCE ABSTRACT
Prion Conference 2018
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2018
***> The agent of H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy associated with E211K prion protein polymorphism transmits after oronasal challenge
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-agent-of-h-type-bovine-spongiform.html
Sunday, January 10, 2021
APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087] Singeltary Submission June 17, 2019
APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087] Singeltary Submission
Greetings APHIS et al,
I would kindly like to comment on APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087], and my comments are as follows, with the latest peer review and transmission studies as references of evidence.
THE OIE/USDA BSE Minimal Risk Region MRR is nothing more than free pass to import and export the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy TSE Prion disease. December 2003, when the USDA et al lost it's supposedly 'GOLD CARD' ie BSE FREE STATUS (that was based on nothing more than not looking and not finding BSE), once the USA lost it's gold card BSE Free status, the USDA OIE et al worked hard and fast to change the BSE Geographical Risk Statuses i.e. the BSE GBR's, and replaced it with the BSE MRR policy, the legal tool to trade mad cow type disease TSE Prion Globally. The USA is doing just what the UK did, when they shipped mad cow disease around the world, except with the BSE MRR policy, it's now legal.
Also, the whole concept of the BSE MRR policy is based on a false pretense, that atypical BSE is not transmissible, and that only typical c-BSE is transmissible via feed. This notion that atypical BSE TSE Prion is an old age cow disease that is not infectious is absolutely false, there is NO science to show this, and on the contrary, we now know that atypical BSE will transmit by ORAL ROUTES, but even much more concerning now, recent science has shown that Chronic Wasting Disease CWD TSE Prion in deer and elk which is rampant with no stopping is sight in the USA, and Scrapie TSE Prion in sheep and goat, will transmit to PIGS by oral routes, this is our worst nightmare, showing even more risk factors for the USA FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban.
The FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban has failed terribly bad, and is still failing, since August 1997. there is tonnage and tonnage of banned potential mad cow feed that went into commerce, and still is, with one decade, 10 YEARS, post August 1997 FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban, 2007, with 10,000,000 POUNDS, with 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. you can see all these feed ban warning letters and tonnage of mad cow feed in commerce, year after year, that is not accessible on the internet anymore like it use to be, you can see history of the FDA failure August 1997 FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban here, but remember this, we have a new outbreak of TSE Prion disease in a new livestock species, the camel, and this too is very worrisome.
WITH the OIE and the USDA et al weakening the global TSE prion surveillance, by not classifying the atypical Scrapie as TSE Prion disease, and the notion that they want to do the same thing with typical scrapie and atypical BSE, it's just not scientific.
WE MUST abolish the BSE MRR policy, go back to the BSE GBR risk assessments by country, and enhance them to include all strains of TSE Prion disease in all species. With Chronic Wasting CWD TSE Prion disease spreading in Europe, now including, Norway, Finland, Sweden, also in Korea, Canada and the USA, and the TSE Prion in Camels, the fact the the USA is feeding potentially CWD, Scrapie, BSE, typical and atypical, to other animals, and shipping both this feed and or live animals or even grains around the globe, potentially exposed or infected with the TSE Prion. this APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087], under it's present definition, does NOT show the true risk of the TSE Prion in any country. as i said, it's nothing more than a legal tool to trade the TSE Prion around the globe, nothing but ink on paper.
AS long as the BSE MRR policy stays in effect, TSE Prion disease will continued to be bought and sold as food for both humans and animals around the globe, and the future ramifications from friendly fire there from, i.e. iatrogenic exposure and transmission there from from all of the above, should not be underestimated. ...
https://beta.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2018-0087-0002
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2018-0087-0002/attachment_1.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.230.8886&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2020/12/bse-research-project-final-report-2005.html
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2020/12/
***> IMPORTS AND EXPORTS <***
***SEE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF BANNED ANIMAL PROTEIN AKA MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA DECADES AFTER POST BAN ***
http://camelusprp.blogspot.com/2018/04/dromedary-camels-algeria-prion-mad.html
USA MAD COW CASE 2018 FLORIDA
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
JAVMA In Short Update USDA announces detection of atypical BSE
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2018/09/javma-in-short-update-usda-announces.html
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2018
USDA Announces Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Detection USDA 08/29/2018 10:00 AM EDT
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2018/08/usda-announces-atypical-bovine.html
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2018
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy TSE Prion Atypical BSE Confirmed Florida Update USA August 28, 2018
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2018/08/transmissible-spongiform-encephalopathy.html
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2018
OIE Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, United States of America Information received on 29/08/2018 from Dr John Clifford, Official Delegate, Chief Trade Advisor, APHIS USDA
''The event is resolved. No more reports will be submitted.''
well, so much for those herd mates exposed to this atypical BSE cow, and all those trace in and trace outs.
The OIE, USDA, and the BSE MRR policy is a joke, a sad, very sad joke...
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2018/08/oie-bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy.html
THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2018
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services announced it is working closely with U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding an atypical case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2018/08/florida-department-of-agriculture-and.html
THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2018
TRACKING HERD MATES USDA MAD COW DISEASE, TRACE FORWARD, TRACE BACK RECORDS, WHO CARES, NOT THE OIE
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2018/08/tracking-herd-mates-usda-mad-cow.html
USDA ONLY TESTING 20k HEAD OF CATTLE A YEAR FOR MAD COW DISEASE ...LOL!
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2018
USDA Announces Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Detection USDA 08/29/2018 10:00 AM EDT
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2018/08/usda-announces-atypical-bovine.html
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2018/08/tracking-herd-mates-usda-mad-cow.html
http://animalhealthreportpriontse.blogspot.com/2018/08/usda-finds-bse-infection-in-florida-cow.html
http://usdavskorea.blogspot.com/2018/08/south-korea-plans-to-strengthen.html
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2018
***> USDA DROPS MAD COW TESTING FROM 40K A YEAR TO JUST 20K A YEAR, IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND BSE, BUT THEY DID, IN FLORIDA!
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2018/08/usda-drops-mad-cow-testing-from-40k.html
Saturday, July 23, 2016
BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY BSE TSE PRION SURVEILLANCE, TESTING, AND SRM REMOVAL UNITED STATE OF AMERICA UPDATE JULY 2016
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2016/07/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-bse.html
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion UPDATE JULY 2016
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2016/07/atypical-bovine-spongiform.html
Monday, June 20, 2016
Specified Risk Materials SRMs BSE TSE Prion Program
http://specifiedriskmaterial.blogspot.com/2016/06/specified-risk-materials-srms-bse-tse.html
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Additional BSE TSE prion testing detects pathologic lesion in unusual brain location and PrPsc by PMCA only, how many cases have we missed?
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2015/07/additional-bse-tse-prion-testing.html
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
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2015/08/fda-us-measures-to-protect-against-bse.html
Monday, October 7, 2013
BARBACOA BLUES AND SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS SRMs BSE TSE PRION aka MAD COW DISEASE
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/10/barbacoa-blues-and-specified-risk.html
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics; Reopening of the Comment Period FDA-2004-N-0188-0051 (TSS SUBMISSION)
FDA believes current regulation protects the public from BSE but reopens comment period due to new studies
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2013/03/use-of-materials-derived-from-cattle-in_6452.html
Minnesota Firm Recalls Bone-In Ribeye That May Contain Specified Risk Materials
Recall Release
CLASS II RECALL
FSIS-RC-024-2013 HEALTH RISK: LOW
Congressional and Public Affairs Atiya Khan (202) 720-9113
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 – Triple J Family Farms, a Buffalo Lake, Minn. establishment, is recalling approximately 15,270 pounds of bone-in ribeye products because the vertebral column may not have been completely removed, which is not compliant with regulations that require the removal of vertebral column in cattle 30 months of age or older, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.
The products subject to recall are: [View Labels (PDF Only)]
Approx. 40-lb boxes of "BEEF B/I RIB," bearing any of the following case codes: "91-R109H-C," "91-R109H-S," "91-R109H-C-SB," or "91-R109H-S-SB."
The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.17466" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced and packaged on various dates between Feb. 8, 2013, and March 21, 2013, and were distributed to an FSIS-inspected establishment in New York for further processing and distribution.
The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine specified risk material (SRM) verification and may have occurred as a result of a recent change in the company's carcass separation practices. Vertebral column is considered a SRM and must be removed from cattle of 30 months of age or older in accordance with FSIS regulations. SRMs are tissues that may contain the infective agent in cattle infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as well as materials that are closely associated with these potentially infective tissues. Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the BSE agent. There is no indication that any of the cattle slaughtered displayed any signs of BSE.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.
Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the company's HR and Office Manager, Kendra Williams, at (320) 833-2001. Media with questions about the recall should contact the company's QA Manager, Russell Harris, at (320) 833-0107.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/ Problems_With_Food_Products/index.asp
#
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_024_2013_Release/index.asp
see labels ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/024_2013.pdf
Monday, March 25, 2013
Minnesota Firm Recalls Bone-In Ribeye That May Contain Specified Risk Materials Recall Release CLASS II RECALL FSIS-RC-024-2013
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/03/minnesota-firm-recalls-bone-in-ribeye.html
Specified Risk Materials SRMs BSE TSE Prion Program
http://specifiedriskmaterial.blogspot.com/2016/06/specified-risk-materials-srms-bse-tse.html
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Additional BSE TSE prion testing detects pathologic lesion in unusual brain location and PrPsc by PMCA only, how many cases have we missed?
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2015/07/additional-bse-tse-prion-testing.html
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
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2015/08/fda-us-measures-to-protect-against-bse.html
Monday, October 7, 2013
BARBACOA BLUES AND SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS SRMs BSE TSE PRION aka MAD COW DISEASE
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/10/barbacoa-blues-and-specified-risk.html
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics; Reopening of the Comment Period FDA-2004-N-0188-0051 (TSS SUBMISSION)
FDA believes current regulation protects the public from BSE but reopens comment period due to new studies
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2013/03/use-of-materials-derived-from-cattle-in_6452.html
Minnesota Firm Recalls Bone-In Ribeye That May Contain Specified Risk Materials
Recall Release
CLASS II RECALL
FSIS-RC-024-2013 HEALTH RISK: LOW
Congressional and Public Affairs Atiya Khan (202) 720-9113
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 – Triple J Family Farms, a Buffalo Lake, Minn. establishment, is recalling approximately 15,270 pounds of bone-in ribeye products because the vertebral column may not have been completely removed, which is not compliant with regulations that require the removal of vertebral column in cattle 30 months of age or older, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.
The products subject to recall are: [View Labels (PDF Only)]
Approx. 40-lb boxes of "BEEF B/I RIB," bearing any of the following case codes: "91-R109H-C," "91-R109H-S," "91-R109H-C-SB," or "91-R109H-S-SB."
The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.17466" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced and packaged on various dates between Feb. 8, 2013, and March 21, 2013, and were distributed to an FSIS-inspected establishment in New York for further processing and distribution.
The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine specified risk material (SRM) verification and may have occurred as a result of a recent change in the company's carcass separation practices. Vertebral column is considered a SRM and must be removed from cattle of 30 months of age or older in accordance with FSIS regulations. SRMs are tissues that may contain the infective agent in cattle infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as well as materials that are closely associated with these potentially infective tissues. Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the BSE agent. There is no indication that any of the cattle slaughtered displayed any signs of BSE.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.
Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the company's HR and Office Manager, Kendra Williams, at (320) 833-2001. Media with questions about the recall should contact the company's QA Manager, Russell Harris, at (320) 833-0107.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/ Problems_With_Food_Products/index.asp
#
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_024_2013_Release/index.asp
see labels ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/024_2013.pdf
Monday, March 25, 2013
Minnesota Firm Recalls Bone-In Ribeye That May Contain Specified Risk Materials Recall Release CLASS II RECALL FSIS-RC-024-2013
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/03/minnesota-firm-recalls-bone-in-ribeye.html
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Scientists develop new test for BSE risk materials i.e. SRM's
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/04/scientists-develop-new-test-for-bse.html
Scientists develop new test for BSE risk materials i.e. SRM's
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/04/scientists-develop-new-test-for-bse.html
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIAL (SRM) CONTROL VERIFICATION TASK FSIS NOTICE 70-13 10/30/13
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/10/specified-risk-material-srm-control.html
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIAL (SRM) CONTROL VERIFICATION TASK FSIS NOTICE 70-13 10/30/13
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/10/specified-risk-material-srm-control.html
Saturday, December 15, 2012
*** Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: the effect of oral exposure dose on attack rate and incubation period in cattle -- an update 5 December 2012
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2012/12/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-effect.html
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That May Contain Specified Risk Materials Nov 9, 2012 WI Firm Recalls Beef Tongues
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2012/11/wisconsin-firm-recalls-beef-tongues.html
*** Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: the effect of oral exposure dose on attack rate and incubation period in cattle -- an update 5 December 2012
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2012/12/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-effect.html
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That May Contain Specified Risk Materials Nov 9, 2012 WI Firm Recalls Beef Tongues
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2012/11/wisconsin-firm-recalls-beef-tongues.html
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/08/final-feed-investigation-summary.html
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Update from APHIS Regarding Release of the Final Report on the BSE Epidemiological Investigation
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/08/update-from-aphis-regarding-release-of.html
Saturday, July 23, 2011
CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS, BEEF TONGUES, SPINAL CORD, SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS (SRM's) AND PRIONS, AKA MAD COW DISEASE
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/07/cattle-heads-with-tonsils-beef-tongues.html
Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/08/final-feed-investigation-summary.html
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Update from APHIS Regarding Release of the Final Report on the BSE Epidemiological Investigation
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/08/update-from-aphis-regarding-release-of.html
Saturday, July 23, 2011
CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS, BEEF TONGUES, SPINAL CORD, SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS (SRM's) AND PRIONS, AKA MAD COW DISEASE
http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/07/cattle-heads-with-tonsils-beef-tongues.html
Friday, October 15, 2010
BSE infectivity in the absence of detectable PrPSc accumulation in the tongue and nasal mucosa of terminally diseased cattle
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2010/10/bse-infectivity-in-absence-of.html
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That Contain Prohibited Materials SRM WASHINGTON, October 17, 2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/10/wisconsin-firm-recalls-beef-tongues.html
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Nebraska Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That Contain Prohibited Materials SRM WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/10/nebraska-firm-recalls-beef-tongues-that.html
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/06/texas-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Missouri Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials SRMs
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/missouri-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html
Friday, August 8, 2008
Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials SRMs 941,271 pounds with tonsils not completely removed
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/08/texas-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html
Saturday, April 5, 2008
SRM MAD COW RECALL 406 THOUSAND POUNDS CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS KANSAS
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/srm-mad-cow-recall-406-thousand-pounds.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Consumption of beef tongue: Human BSE risk associated with exposure to lymphoid tissue in bovine tongue in consideration of new research findings
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/consumption-of-beef-tongue-human-bse.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Consumption of beef tongue: Human BSE risk associated with exposure to lymphoid tissue in bovine tongue in consideration of new research findings
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/consumption-of-beef-tongue-human-bse.html
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS SRMs
http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html
BSE infectivity in the absence of detectable PrPSc accumulation in the tongue and nasal mucosa of terminally diseased cattle
http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2010/10/bse-infectivity-in-absence-of.html
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That Contain Prohibited Materials SRM WASHINGTON, October 17, 2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/10/wisconsin-firm-recalls-beef-tongues.html
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Nebraska Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That Contain Prohibited Materials SRM WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/10/nebraska-firm-recalls-beef-tongues-that.html
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/06/texas-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Missouri Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials SRMs
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/missouri-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html
Friday, August 8, 2008
Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials SRMs 941,271 pounds with tonsils not completely removed
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/08/texas-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html
Saturday, April 5, 2008
SRM MAD COW RECALL 406 THOUSAND POUNDS CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS KANSAS
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/srm-mad-cow-recall-406-thousand-pounds.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Consumption of beef tongue: Human BSE risk associated with exposure to lymphoid tissue in bovine tongue in consideration of new research findings
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/consumption-of-beef-tongue-human-bse.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Consumption of beef tongue: Human BSE risk associated with exposure to lymphoid tissue in bovine tongue in consideration of new research findings
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/consumption-of-beef-tongue-human-bse.html
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS SRMs
http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html
Sunday, January 10, 2021
APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087] Singeltary Submission June 17, 2019
APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087] Singeltary Submission
Greetings APHIS et al,
I would kindly like to comment on APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087], and my comments are as follows, with the latest peer review and transmission studies as references of evidence.
THE OIE/USDA BSE Minimal Risk Region MRR is nothing more than free pass to import and export the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy TSE Prion disease. December 2003, when the USDA et al lost it's supposedly 'GOLD CARD' ie BSE FREE STATUS (that was based on nothing more than not looking and not finding BSE), once the USA lost it's gold card BSE Free status, the USDA OIE et al worked hard and fast to change the BSE Geographical Risk Statuses i.e. the BSE GBR's, and replaced it with the BSE MRR policy, the legal tool to trade mad cow type disease TSE Prion Globally. The USA is doing just what the UK did, when they shipped mad cow disease around the world, except with the BSE MRR policy, it's now legal.
Also, the whole concept of the BSE MRR policy is based on a false pretense, that atypical BSE is not transmissible, and that only typical c-BSE is transmissible via feed. This notion that atypical BSE TSE Prion is an old age cow disease that is not infectious is absolutely false, there is NO science to show this, and on the contrary, we now know that atypical BSE will transmit by ORAL ROUTES, but even much more concerning now, recent science has shown that Chronic Wasting Disease CWD TSE Prion in deer and elk which is rampant with no stopping is sight in the USA, and Scrapie TSE Prion in sheep and goat, will transmit to PIGS by oral routes, this is our worst nightmare, showing even more risk factors for the USA FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban.
The FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban has failed terribly bad, and is still failing, since August 1997. there is tonnage and tonnage of banned potential mad cow feed that went into commerce, and still is, with one decade, 10 YEARS, post August 1997 FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban, 2007, with 10,000,000 POUNDS, with 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. you can see all these feed ban warning letters and tonnage of mad cow feed in commerce, year after year, that is not accessible on the internet anymore like it use to be, you can see history of the FDA failure August 1997 FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban here, but remember this, we have a new outbreak of TSE Prion disease in a new livestock species, the camel, and this too is very worrisome.
WITH the OIE and the USDA et al weakening the global TSE prion surveillance, by not classifying the atypical Scrapie as TSE Prion disease, and the notion that they want to do the same thing with typical scrapie and atypical BSE, it's just not scientific.
WE MUST abolish the BSE MRR policy, go back to the BSE GBR risk assessments by country, and enhance them to include all strains of TSE Prion disease in all species. With Chronic Wasting CWD TSE Prion disease spreading in Europe, now including, Norway, Finland, Sweden, also in Korea, Canada and the USA, and the TSE Prion in Camels, the fact the the USA is feeding potentially CWD, Scrapie, BSE, typical and atypical, to other animals, and shipping both this feed and or live animals or even grains around the globe, potentially exposed or infected with the TSE Prion. this APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087], under it's present definition, does NOT show the true risk of the TSE Prion in any country. as i said, it's nothing more than a legal tool to trade the TSE Prion around the globe, nothing but ink on paper.
AS long as the BSE MRR policy stays in effect, TSE Prion disease will continued to be bought and sold as food for both humans and animals around the globe, and the future ramifications from friendly fire there from, i.e. iatrogenic exposure and transmission there from from all of the above, should not be underestimated. ...
https://beta.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2018-0087-0002
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2018-0087-0002/attachment_1.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.230.8886&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2020/12/bse-research-project-final-report-2005.html
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2020/12/
Control of Chronic Wasting Disease OMB Control Number: 0579-0189 APHIS-2021-0004 Singeltary Submission
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2021-0004-0002
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2021-0004-0002/attachment_1.pdf
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0011 Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification
https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2018-0011-0003
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2018-0011-0003/attachment_1.pdf
Control of Chronic Wasting Disease OMB Control Number: 0579-0189 APHIS-2021-0004 Singeltary Submission
APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087] Singeltary Submission June 17, 2019
APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087] Singeltary Submission
Greetings APHIS et al,
I would kindly like to comment on APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087], and my comments are as follows, with the latest peer review and transmission studies as references of evidence.
THE OIE/USDA BSE Minimal Risk Region MRR is nothing more than free pass to import and export the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy TSE Prion disease. December 2003, when the USDA et al lost it's supposedly 'GOLD CARD' ie BSE FREE STATUS (that was based on nothing more than not looking and not finding BSE), once the USA lost it's gold card BSE Free status, the USDA OIE et al worked hard and fast to change the BSE Geographical Risk Statuses i.e. the BSE GBR's, and replaced it with the BSE MRR policy, the legal tool to trade mad cow type disease TSE Prion Globally. The USA is doing just what the UK did, when they shipped mad cow disease around the world, except with the BSE MRR policy, it's now legal.
Also, the whole concept of the BSE MRR policy is based on a false pretense, that atypical BSE is not transmissible, and that only typical c-BSE is transmissible via feed. This notion that atypical BSE TSE Prion is an old age cow disease that is not infectious is absolutely false, there is NO science to show this, and on the contrary, we now know that atypical BSE will transmit by ORAL ROUTES, but even much more concerning now, recent science has shown that Chronic Wasting Disease CWD TSE Prion in deer and elk which is rampant with no stopping is sight in the USA, and Scrapie TSE Prion in sheep and goat, will transmit to PIGS by oral routes, this is our worst nightmare, showing even more risk factors for the USA FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban.
The FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban has failed terribly bad, and is still failing, since August 1997. there is tonnage and tonnage of banned potential mad cow feed that went into commerce, and still is, with one decade, 10 YEARS, post August 1997 FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban, 2007, with 10,000,000 POUNDS, with 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. you can see all these feed ban warning letters and tonnage of mad cow feed in commerce, year after year, that is not accessible on the internet anymore like it use to be, you can see history of the FDA failure August 1997 FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban here, but remember this, we have a new outbreak of TSE Prion disease in a new livestock species, the camel, and this too is very worrisome.
WITH the OIE and the USDA et al weakening the global TSE prion surveillance, by not classifying the atypical Scrapie as TSE Prion disease, and the notion that they want to do the same thing with typical scrapie and atypical BSE, it's just not scientific.
WE MUST abolish the BSE MRR policy, go back to the BSE GBR risk assessments by country, and enhance them to include all strains of TSE Prion disease in all species. With Chronic Wasting CWD TSE Prion disease spreading in Europe, now including, Norway, Finland, Sweden, also in Korea, Canada and the USA, and the TSE Prion in Camels, the fact the the USA is feeding potentially CWD, Scrapie, BSE, typical and atypical, to other animals, and shipping both this feed and or live animals or even grains around the globe, potentially exposed or infected with the TSE Prion. this APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087], under it's present definition, does NOT show the true risk of the TSE Prion in any country. as i said, it's nothing more than a legal tool to trade the TSE Prion around the globe, nothing but ink on paper.
AS long as the BSE MRR policy stays in effect, TSE Prion disease will continued to be bought and sold as food for both humans and animals around the globe, and the future ramifications from friendly fire there from, i.e. iatrogenic exposure and transmission there from from all of the above, should not be underestimated. ...
https://beta.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2018-0087-0002
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2018-0087-0002/attachment_1.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.230.8886&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2020/12/bse-research-project-final-report-2005.html
http://bovineprp.blogspot.com/2020/12/
Control of Chronic Wasting Disease OMB Control Number: 0579-0189 APHIS-2021-0004 Singeltary Submission
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2021-0004-0002
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2021-0004-0002/attachment_1.pdf
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0011 Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification
https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2018-0011-0003
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2018-0011-0003/attachment_1.pdf
Control of Chronic Wasting Disease OMB Control Number: 0579-0189 APHIS-2021-0004 Singeltary Submission
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2021-0004-0002
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2021-0004-0002/attachment_1.pdf
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0011 Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification
https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2018-0011-0003
https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2018-0011-0003/attachment_1.pdf
Specified Risk Materials SRM BSE TSE Prion & FDA PART 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED
***> USA FDA PART 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED, CWD, Scrapie, BSE, PIGS, Oh My, 2026 <***
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED
***> FIX THE DAMN MAD COW FEED BAN!!! <***
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED
we all know the system is still broken…still very vulnerable to the TSE PrP…terry
“The current feed ban in the U.S. is based exclusively on keeping tissues from TSE infected cattle from entering animal feeds. These results indicating the susceptibility of pigs to CWD, coupled with the limitations of the current feed ban, indicates that a revision of the feed ban may be necessary to protect swine production and potentially human health.”
***> Chronic wasting disease prions in cervids and wild pigs in North America Preliminary Outbreak Assessment DEFRA 26 January 2026 <***
DEFRA 26 January 2026 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Preliminary Outbreak Assessment
Chronic wasting disease prions in cervids and wild pigs in North America
26 January 2026
Disease report
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease of cervids, such as deer, elk, moose and reindeer. It is caused by prions – infectious proteins that cause normal cellular prion proteins to misfold (CIDRAP, 2025). The disease is widespread in captive and free-ranging cervids in North America (Figure 1). For the first time, CWD prions have also been detected in the tissues of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) caught in CWD-affected areas of the USA (Soto et al. 2025). This discovery emerged from a study designed to investigate potential interactions between wild pigs and CWD prions, as wild pigs often coexist with cervids, which can shed prions into the environment. The following assessment discusses the epidemiology of CWD in North America and the detection of CWD prions in wild pigs. It also considers the potential implications for Great Britain.
USA FDA PART 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED, CWD, Scrapie, BSE, Oh My, 2026
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/202/usa-fda-589-feed-broken
https://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2026/01/usa-fda-part-589-substances-prohibited.html
***> USA FDA PART 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED, CWD, Scrapie, BSE, PIGS, Oh My, 2026 <***
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED
***> FIX THE DAMN MAD COW FEED BAN!!! <***
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED
we all know the system is still broken…still very vulnerable to the TSE PrP…terry
“The current feed ban in the U.S. is based exclusively on keeping tissues from TSE infected cattle from entering animal feeds. These results indicating the susceptibility of pigs to CWD, coupled with the limitations of the current feed ban, indicates that a revision of the feed ban may be necessary to protect swine production and potentially human health.”
***> Chronic wasting disease prions in cervids and wild pigs in North America Preliminary Outbreak Assessment DEFRA 26 January 2026 <***
DEFRA 26 January 2026 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Preliminary Outbreak Assessment
Chronic wasting disease prions in cervids and wild pigs in North America
26 January 2026
Disease report
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease of cervids, such as deer, elk, moose and reindeer. It is caused by prions – infectious proteins that cause normal cellular prion proteins to misfold (CIDRAP, 2025). The disease is widespread in captive and free-ranging cervids in North America (Figure 1). For the first time, CWD prions have also been detected in the tissues of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) caught in CWD-affected areas of the USA (Soto et al. 2025). This discovery emerged from a study designed to investigate potential interactions between wild pigs and CWD prions, as wild pigs often coexist with cervids, which can shed prions into the environment. The following assessment discusses the epidemiology of CWD in North America and the detection of CWD prions in wild pigs. It also considers the potential implications for Great Britain.
USA FDA PART 589 SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED, CWD, Scrapie, BSE, Oh My, 2026
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/202/usa-fda-589-feed-broken
https://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2026/01/usa-fda-part-589-substances-prohibited.html
SUNDAY, MARCH 8, 2026
Texas Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Deaths and Death Rates per Year (2013-2022) More Than Tripled, and case reporting has ceased since then
https://cjdtexas.blogspot.com/2026/03/texas-creutzfeldt-jakob-disease-deaths.html
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/209/texas-cases-more-triples-2013
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2025
US NATIONAL PRION DISEASE PATHOLOGY SURVEILLANCE CENTER CJD TSE REPORT 2025
https://prionunitusaupdate.blogspot.com/2025/10/us-national-prion-disease-pathology.html
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2025
While no one was watching: Tenuous status of CDC prion unit, risk of CWD to people worry scientists
https://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2025/11/while-no-one-was-watching-tenuous.html
SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 2026
Neuropsychiatric symptoms in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a review
https://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2026/01/neuropsychiatric-symptoms-in-sporadic.html
https://prpsc.proboards.com/thread/191/neuropsychiatric-symptoms-sporadic-cjd-review
SUNDAY, MARCH 23, 2025
Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease TSE Prion Increasing 2025 Update
https://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2025/03/creutzfeldt-jakob-disease-tse-prion.html
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2024
Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease CJD, BSE, CWD, TSE Prion, December 14, 2024 Annual Update
https://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2024/12/creutzfeldt-jacob-disease-cjd-bse-cwd.html
Friendly Fire, unforeseen circumstances, iatrogenic Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
The Eyes are the windows to Our Souls, and a Potential Pathway for the TSE Prion disease, what if?
https://itseprion.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-eyes-are-windows-to-our-souls-and.html
https://itseprion.blogspot.com/
USDA NSLP SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FROM DOWNER CATTLE
DID YOUR CHILD CONSUME SOME OF THESE DEAD STOCK DOWNER COWS, THE MOST HIGH RISK FOR MAD COW DISEASE ???
you can check and see here ;
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/safety/pdf/Hallmark-Westland_byState.pdf
see archived url;
or
Hallmark - Westland SFA Report by State 3-24-2008 Page 1 of 226
USA Report, Scrapie, CWD, BSE, TSE, Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Cervid, Humans, Zoonotic, 2026
April 2026
2001 Singeltary on CJD, Journal of American Medical Association
February 14, 2001
Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Terry S. Singeltary, Sr
Author Affiliations
JAMA. 2001;285(6):733-734. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-285-6-jlt0214
To the Editor: In their Research Letter, Dr Gibbons and colleagues1 reported that the annual US death rate due to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) has been stable since 1985. These estimates, however, are based only on reported cases, and do not include misdiagnosed or preclinical cases. It seems to me that misdiagnosis alone would drastically change these figures. An unknown number of persons with a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease in fact may have CJD, although only a small number of these patients receive the postmortem examination necessary to make this diagnosis. Furthermore, only a few states have made CJD reportable. Human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies should be reportable nationwide and internationally.
February 14, 2001
Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Terry S. Singeltary, Sr
Author Affiliations
JAMA. 2001;285(6):733-734. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-285-6-jlt0214
2023
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
