Wednesday, November 18, 2009

R-CALF: 40 Groups Disagree With USDA's Latest BSE Court Submission

R-CALF: 40 Groups Disagree With USDA's Latest BSE Court Submission

11/18/2009 03:50PM

Yes, the ball is still in play – although a distant memory for some – with regard to the litigation filed in 2007 by R-CALF USA and 10 other plaintiffs against the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) decision to allow into the U.S. older Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, and beef from Canadian cattle of all ages. Canada continually has had a significant problem with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, and the agency’s latest legal notice suggests that ‘the people’s agency’ is about to kowtow to global interests instead of honoring its congressional mandate to protect U.S. citizens.

On July 3, 2008, a South Dakota federal judge essentially ordered USDA to go back to the drawing board on its over-30-month rule (OTM Rule) and instructed the agency to open a new public comment period on the matter. He then required USDA to report the developments to him on a quarterly basis.

USDA, in its Oct. 5, 2009, status submission to the court, reported that more than 4,800 pages of comments were received and that those comments are currently in “intra-departmental clearance,” and afterward will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The agency estimates OMB will finish its review no later than Jan. 5, 2010, the date USDA’s next status report to the court is due.

On Nov. 17, 2009, R-CALF USA and 39 other groups sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to express their serious concerns about the agency’s status submission.

One such concern is that USDA says it is preparing a docket to initiate rulemaking that would comprehensively amend the BSE regulations, and the criteria it will propose “would be closely aligned with those of the World Organization for Animal Health” (OIE). This new proposed rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register for comment late this year or early in 2010, according to USDA. The 40-member coalition states that such alignment with weaker OIE standards would not achieve the agency’s congressional mandate to protect against the introduction and spread of animal diseases, “particularly from such a pernicious animal disease as BSE that is invariably fatal and that also afflict humans.”

In its letter to Vilsack, the group points out that he has inherited the weakest, most ineffective and liberal BSE import policies when compared to every other major beef-consuming market in the world, and that as past Senators, President Obama and Vice President Biden – as parties to a Senate Resolution of Disapproval declaring that USDA’s OTM Rule shall have no force or effect – had objected to the very rules that exist now.

In fact, at the time when the Resolution of Disapproval passed, only four cases of BSE had been detected in Canadian-born cattle, and no post-feed ban BSE cases had been detected. Since then, 17 cases of BSE have been discovered in Canadian-born cattle. Eleven of these 17 BSE-infected cattle were born after Canada’s 1997 feed ban, and 10 of these 11 infected post-feed ban cattle were eligible, under USDA’s current rules, for export to the United States because they were born after March 1, 1999.

The letter states in part: “We respectfully request that you promulgate BSE rules that restore for U.S. livestock, livestock producers, and the people of the United States the highest possible level of protection against the introduction and spread of animal diseases. Valid science, consumer confidence, and sound economics require the BSE import rules to be tightened according to pre-outbreak norms. This departure from the past Administration’s destructive policies will improve consumer confidence in the beef supply, balance trade flows, remedy the severe financial destruction of the U.S. cattle industry, and substantially decrease the risk of livestock and human disease exposure.

Additionally, the group points out that: “The proper policy is to bring United States’ BSE regulations in line with past standards, which were more closely aligned to the current standards of our trading partners. Animal health, as well as food and product safety, should be held in higher regard by your Administration than trade facilitation. Public support for such a change is clear. The industry need is clear. Consumer confidence would increase. The United States’ current trade imbalances would become more balanced. Risks to animal and human health would be drastically reduced.”

“Current trade policy is losing support, in large part, because food and product safety standards are negated by government efforts to facilitate cross-border trade at all costs, and this trade-trumping-safety policy problem includes, but also goes beyond, cattle and beef,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “Because of USDA’s past and current persistence in adopting unproven and inapt international standards – rather than continuing pre-BSE disease standards proven to protect consumers of U.S. beef and U.S. citizens, including U.S. cattle producers and their livestock – the U.S. cattle industry is unnecessarily burdened by a flood of unsafe imports. The result is a large trade deficit in cattle and beef that is forcing thousands upon thousands of independent cattle producers out of business each year.”

National organizations that signed on to the letter include: American Grassfed Association; Coalition for a Prosperous America; Consumer Federation of America; CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease) Foundation; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Food & Water Watch; Freedom21, Inc.; International Texas Longhorn Association; National Association of Farm Animal Welfare; National Farmers Union; Organic Consumers Association; Organization for Competitive Markets; R-CALF USA; Sovereignty International, Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Western Organization of Resource Councils.

State, regional and county organizations that signed on to the letter include: Buckeye Quality Beef Association (Ohio); Cattle Producers of Washington; Citizens for Private Property Rights, Missouri; Colorado Independent CattleGrower's Association; Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Beef Association of North Dakota; Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming; Kansas Cattlemen’s Association; Kansas Farmers Union; Mississippi Livestock Markets Association; Missouri Farmers Union; Nebraska Farmers Union; Nevada Live Stock Association; New England Farmers Union; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Ohio Farmers Union; Oregon Livestock Producers Association; Ozarks Property Rights Congress, Missouri; PCC Natural Markets (Puget Consumers Co-Op); SmallHolders of Massachusetts; South Dakota Farmers Union; South Dakota Stockgrowers Association; Spokane County Cattlemen, Washington; and, the Stevens County Cattlemen, Washington.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/R-CALF--40-Groups-Disagree-With-USDA-s-Latest-BSE-Court-Submission/2009-11-18/Article.aspx?oid=941864&fid=CN-LATEST_NEWS_



November 17, 2009

The Honorable Tom Vilsack Secretary of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250

Re: Serious Concerns Regarding APHIS’ October 5, 2009 Status Report in R-CALF USA, et al. vs. USDA, et al.

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

On Oct. 5, 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provided notice to the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Northern Division, that states the agency is preparing a docket to initiate rulemaking to amend its bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) regulations regarding the importation of bovines and bovine products. The notice specifically states, “The proposed criteria for country classification and commodity import would be closely aligned with those of the World Organization for Animal Health.”1

We, the undersigned organizations, are deeply concerned with this proposed action and believe USDA is exhibiting a serious lack of judgment by attempting to align U.S. safety measures with the incessantly weak and demonstrably ineffective BSE standards established by the international World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). This proposed action would, if taken, abrogate your agency’s responsibility under the Animal Health Protection Act to protect U.S. livestock and the people of the United States from the introduction into and spread within the United States of animal diseases, particularly from such a pernicious animal disease as BSE that is invariably fatal and that also afflict humans.2 Your Administration must reverse, not perpetuate, the previous Administration’s dangerous policy of preempting sound animal health and human health protections to facilitate trade – a policy that not only has increased domestic health hazards, but also has caused serious economic harm to domestic industries.

USDA’s own risk assessment predicts, with a high level of certainty, that current regulations will cause the introduction and spread of fatal BSE within the United States. 3 The risk assessment further predicts that the people of the United States will be exposed to additional risk for the disease. These regulations, implemented by the prior Administration, defy USDA’s animal health protection mandate while stating, throughout their respective preambles, that the U.S. and Canada, as well as the rules themselves, are in conformity to OIE standards.4 The OIE standards cannot reasonably be expected to protect U.S. livestock and the people of the United States from the introduction and spread of BSE as required by the Animal Health Protection Act.

The OIE standards are not deemed credible. They have not been followed by any of the United States’ major export customers with which the United States maintains a positive trade balance. This situation has not changed in the past six years.5 Current trade policy is losing support, in large part, because food and product safety standards are negated by government

The Honorable Tom Vilsack November 17, 2009 Page 2

efforts to facilitate cross-border trade at all costs. The trade-trumping-safety policy problem includes, but also goes beyond, cattle and beef. Because of USDA’s past and current persistence in adopting unproven and inapt international standards – rather than continuing pre-BSE disease standards proven to protect consumers of U.S. beef and U.S. citizens, including U.S. cattle producers and their livestock – the U.S. cattle industry is unnecessarily burdened by a flood of unsafe imports. The result is a large trade deficit in cattle and beef that is forcing thousands upon thousands of independent cattle producers out of business each year.

The only countries that have scientifically demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of BSE are those that continue to require more BSE testing, stricter feed bans, and more stringent specified risk materials removal practices than the OIE requires.6 Canada, on the other hand, is the only BSE-affected country with multiple cases of BSE detected in animals born after a feed ban that does not require standards far more stringent than those established by the OIE. It is not surprising, therefore, that OIE reports show that Canada is the only BSE-affected country other than Portugal to have experienced an increased incidence of BSE between 2007 and 2008.7

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, Jr., have previously demonstrated their strong opposition to USDA’s final rule that reopened our borders to Canadian cattle and beef after BSE was detected in Canada. Then-Senators Obama and Biden voted in favor of a Senate Resolution of Disapproval declaring that USDA’s rule shall have no force or effect.8 The BSE problem in Canada has grown substantially worse since that Senate Resolution. At the time of their votes, only four cases of BSE had been detected in Canadian-born cattle, and no post-feed ban BSE cases were discovered. Since that time, seventeen (17) cases of BSE have been discovered in Canadian-born cattle. Eleven (11) of these seventeen (17) BSE-infected cattle were born after Canada’s 1997 feed ban. Ten (10) of these eleven (11) infected post-feed ban cattle were eligible, under USDA’s current rules, for export to the United States because they were born after March 1, 1999.9

The proper policy is to bring United States’ BSE regulations in line with past standards, which were more closely aligned to the current standards of our trading partners. Animal health, as well as food and product safety, should be held in higher regard by your Administration than trade facilitation. Public support for such a change is clear. The industry need is clear. Consumer confidence would increase. The United States’ current trade imbalances would become more balanced. Risks to animal and human health would be drastically reduced.

The U.S. is the largest beef consuming market in the world and the largest beef producing country in the world. 10 You have inherited the weakest, most ineffective and liberal BSE import policies when compared to every other major beef consuming market in the world. President Obama and Vice President Biden previously objected to the very rules that exist now. We respectfully request that you promulgate BSE rules that restore for U.S. livestock, livestock producers, and the people of the United States the highest possible level of protection against the introduction and spread of animal diseases. Valid science, consumer confidence, and sound economics require the BSE import rules to be tightened according to pre-outbreak norms. This departure from the past Administration’s destructive policies will improve consumer

The Honorable Tom Vilsack November 17, 2009 Page 3

confidence in the beef supply, balance trade flows, remedy the severe financial destruction of the U.S. cattle industry, and substantially decrease the risk of livestock and human disease exposure.

Sincerely,

National Organizations: American Grassfed Association Coalition for a Prosperous America Consumer Federation of America CJD Foundation Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance Food & Water Watch Freedom21, Inc. International Texas Longhorn Association National Association of Farm Animal Welfare National Farmers Union Organic Consumers Association Organization for Competitive Markets R-CALF USA Sovereignty International, Inc. The Cornucopia Institute Western Organization of Resource Councils State, Regional and County Organizations: Buckeye Quality Beef Association (Ohio) Cattle Producers of Washington Citizens for Private Property Rights, Missouri Colorado Independent CattleGrower's Association Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska Independent Beef Association of North Dakota Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming Kansas Cattlemen’s Association Kansas Farmers Union Mississippi Livestock Markets Association Missouri Farmers Union Nebraska Farmers Union Nevada Live Stock Association New England Farmers Union Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc. Ohio Farmers Union Oregon Livestock Producers Association Ozarks Property Rights Congress, Missouri PCC Natural Markets (Puget Consumers Co-op) The Honorable Tom Vilsack November 17, 2009 Page 4 SmallHolders of Massachusetts South Dakota Farmers Union South Dakota Stockgrowers Association Spokane County Cattlemen, Washington Stevens County Cattlemen, Washington For More information or to contact individual organizations, please contact R-CALF USA at 406-252-2516 or r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com.

cc: Members of Congress

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention State Animal Health Officials

1 Defendant’s [USDA’s] Status Report, R-CALF USA et al. vs. USDA, et al., U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Northern Division, CIV-07-1023, Oct. 5, 2009. 2 See 7 U.S.C. § 8301 (1) (“the prevention, detection, control and eradication of diseases and pests of animals are essential to protect . . . animal health [and] the health and welfare of the people of the United States.”); see also 7 U.S.C. § 8303 (a) (1) (The Secretary of Agriculture “may prohibit or restrict . . . the importation or entry of any animal . . . if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into or dissemination within the United States of any pest or disease of livestock.”). 3 See 72 Fed. Reg., 1109, col. 2; 72 Fed. Reg., 53347, col. 1 (USDA’s risk modeling for its over-30-month rule (OTM Rule) predicts the U.S. would import between 19 and 105 BSE-infected cattle from Canada, which would subsequently produce BSE infections in 2 to 75 U.S.-born cattle over a 20-year period). 4 See, e.g., 72 Fed. Reg., 53331, col. 1 (USDA justifies a key decision in its rulemaking by stating it is “entirely consistent with the science and with OIE guidelines.”); see also id., 53341 (“Our proposed changes are consistent with the OIE guidelines for trade in live animals from a controlled risk region.”); see also id., 53342 (For the reasons discussed above, we disagree that this rule is inconsistent with OIE guidelines.”); see also 70 Fed. Reg., 510, col. 3 (“BSE incidence and surveillance in Canada are well within the OIE guidelines for BSE minimal Risk.”); see also id., 464, col. 2 (“our proposed standards for minimal-risk regions were based on the OIE guidelines for BSE minimal-risk regions, using those guidelines as a reference.”); see also, id., 476, col. 3 (“Canada again exceeds OIE guidelines. . .”); see also id., 471, col. 3 (“Although Canada does not precisely meet the OIE guideline for duration of a feed ban, its control measures in other areas (such as surveillance and import restrictions) more than compensate for this.”). 5 See Global Beef Trade: Effects of Animal Health, Sanitary, Food Safety, and Other Measures on U.S. Exports, U.S. International Trade Commission, USITC Publication No. 4033, September 2008, at 4-9 (Japan, with a 37.2% share of U.S. exports in 2003 disallows beef from cattle over 20 months and disallows ground beef; Korea, with a 21.2% share of U.S. exports in 2003 disallows beef from cattle over 30 months of age; Mexico, with a19.6% share of U.S. exports in 2003 disallows beef from cattle over 30 months of age.). 6 See, e.g., Appendix A – APHIS’ consideration of Japan in Light of the World Organization for Animal Health’s (OIE) Guidelines, Analysis of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk to the U.S. Cattle Population from Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, at 5 (“Since October 2001, all cattle slaughtered in Japan undergo an ELISA screening test, followed by a confirmation test. . .”), (Japan prohibits ruminant derived meat-and-bone meal in animal feed and requires separate feed manufacturing production lines used exclusively for cattle feed.); see also id., at 16 (Japan implemented a complete ban on the use of mammalian protein, including blood products); see also Export Requirements for Japan, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, JA-179, Oct. 23, 2009 (Japan requires the removal of the spinal cord and spinal column from animals less than 21 months of age.). 7 See Annual incidence rate of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in OIE Member Countries that have reported cases, excluding the United Kingdom, OIE, downloaded Oct. 28, 2009, available at http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esbincidence.htm. 8 With the help of now President Obama and Vice President Biden, the U.S. Senate in the 109th Congress passed S.J. Res. 4 by a vote of 52 to 46. The Senate Resolution provided for congressional disapproval of USDA’s final rule to The Honorable Tom Vilsack November 17, 2009 Page 5

designate Canada as a minimal-risk country and to allow imports of cattle and beef from cattle that originate in a BSE-affected country, namely Canada. 9 See BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/index.htm. 10 See Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Circular Series April 2009, at 7 (U.S. beef and veal production and U.S. beef and veal consumption far surpass any other country in the world, e.g., the U.S. produced over 12 million metric tons while second place Brazil produced less than 9.1 million metric tons in 2008, and the U.S. consumed over 12 million metric tons while second place EU- 27 consumed less than 8.5 million metric tons during the same year.).

http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/091117-40%20Organizations



Tuesday, November 17, 2009

SEAC EFFECT OF AGE ON THE PATHOGENESIS OF TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES SEAC 103/2 (USDA CERTIFIED DEAD STOCK DOWNER COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM)

http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2009/11/seac-effect-of-age-on-pathogenesis-of.html



Tuesday, November 17, 2009

SEAC NEW RESULTS ON IDIOPATHIC BRAINSTEM NEURONAL CHROMATOLYSIS (IBNC) FROM THE VETERINARY LABORATORIES AGENCY (VLA) SEAC 103/1

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/11/seac-new-results-on-idiopathic.html



2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2006/08/bse-atypical-texas-and-alabama-update.html



Monday, October 19, 2009

Atypical BSE, BSE, and other human and animal TSE in North America Update October 2009

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/10/atypical-bse-bse-and-other-human-and.html



Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Surveillance On the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and rabies in Taiwan and USA

http://usdavskorea.blogspot.com/2009/11/surveillance-on-bovine-spongiform.html



Monday, November 16, 2009

CANADA, USA, specified risk materials (SRMs), Environment, Fertilizer, AND Politics, just more BSe

http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2009/11/canada-usa-specified-risk-materials.html



Thursday, November 05, 2009

Incidence and spectrum of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease variants with mixed phenotype and co-occurrence of PrPSc types: an updated classification

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/11/incidence-and-spectrum-of-sporadic.html



Sunday, August 10, 2008

A New Prionopathy OR more of the same old BSe and sporadic CJD

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-prionopathy-or-more-of-same-old-bse.html



Monday, October 26, 2009

MAD COW DISEASE, AND U.S. BEEF TRADE

MAD COW DISEASE, CJD, TSE, SOUND SCIENCE, COMMERCE, AND SELLING YOUR SOUL TO THE DEVIL

http://usdameatexport.blogspot.com/2009/10/mad-cow-disease-and-us-beef-trade.html



IN A NUT SHELL ;

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

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

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



Docket APHIS-2006-0026 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Animal Identification and Importation of Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0026-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions, Identification of Ruminants and Processing and Importation of Commodities Public Submission APHIS-2006-0026-0012 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801e47e1



Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0028 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary

Comment 2006-2007 USA AND OIE POISONING GLOBE WITH BSE MRR POLICY

THE USA is in a most unique situation, one of unknown circumstances with human and animal TSE. THE USA has the most documented TSE in different species to date, with substrains growing in those species (BSE/BASE in cattle and CWD in deer and elk, there is evidence here with different strains), and we know that sheep scrapie has over 20 strains of the typical scrapie with atypical scrapie documented and also BSE is very likely to have passed to sheep. all of which have been rendered and fed back to animals for human and animal consumption, a frightening scenario. WE do not know the outcome, and to play with human life around the globe with the very likely TSE tainted products from the USA, in my opinion is like playing Russian roulette, of long duration, with potential long and enduring consequences, of which once done, cannot be undone. These are the facts as I have come to know through daily and extensive research of TSE over 9 years, since 12/14/97. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but i do know to continue to believe in the ukbsenvcjd only theory of transmission to humans of only this one strain from only this one TSE from only this one part of the globe, will only lead to further failures, and needless exposure to humans from all strains of TSE, and possibly many more needless deaths from TSE via a multitude of proven routes and sources via many studies with primates and rodents and other species.

MY personal belief, since you ask, is that not only the Canadian border, but the USA border, and the Mexican border should be sealed up tighter than a drum for exporting there TSE tainted products, until a validated, 100% sensitive test is available, and all animals for human and animal consumption are tested. all we are doing is the exact same thing the UK did with there mad cow poisoning when they exported it all over the globe, all the while knowing what they were doing. this BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to do just exactly what the UK did, thanks to the OIE and GW, it's legal now. and they executed Saddam for poisoning ???

go figure. ...

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f8151



Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0028.1 Public Submission Title Attachment to Singletary comment

January 28, 2007

Greetings APHIS,

I would kindly like to submit the following to ;

BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801f8152&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw8



Subject: Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION

Date: August 24, 2005 at 2:47 pm PST

August 24, 2005

Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 TSS SUBMISSION

Greetings APHIS ET AL,

My name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

I would kindly like to comment on [Docket No. 05-004-1] RIN 0579-AB93 ;

PROPOSED RULES

Exportation and importation of animals and animal products:

Whole cuts of boneless beef from-

Japan,

48494-48500 [05-16422]


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480086ebc&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw6



Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA


https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed



PLEASE SEE FULL TEXT HERE ;

Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/docket-no-03-080-1-usda-issues-proposed.html



Thursday, November 12, 2009

BSE FEED RECALL Misbranding of product by partial label removal to hide original source of materials 2009


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/11/bse-feed-recall-misbranding-of-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



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



http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/



Saturday, October 24, 2009

SaBTO Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs 2nd Public Meeting 27 October 2009

http://seac992007.blogspot.com/2009/10/sabto-advisory-committee-on-safety-of.html



Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Detection of PrPsc in Blood from Sheep Infected with the Scrapie and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Agents


http://vcjdtransfusion.blogspot.com/2009/11/detection-of-prpsc-in-blood-from-sheep.html



HUMAN and ANIMAL TSE Classifications i.e. mad cow disease and the UKBSEnvCJD only theory

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648027c28e&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf




Wednesday, November 18, 2009

BSE RISK USA UPDATE NOVEMBER 2009

http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2009/11/bse-risk-usa-update-november-2009.html


Sunday, April 12, 2009

BSE MAD COW TESTING USA 2009 FIGURES

Month Number of Tests

Feb 2009 -- 1,891

Jan 2009 -- 4,620

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/surveillance/ongoing_surv_results.shtml

http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/04/bse-mad-cow-testing-usa-2009-figures.html



PLEASE SEE MY FULL COMMENT SUBMISSION IN THE PDF ATTACHMENT, OR GO HERE

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Docket No. FDA2002N0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N0273) RIN 0910AF46 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Final Rule: Proposed


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/04/docket-no-fda2002n0031-formerly-docket.html



http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/r-calf-and-usa-mad-cow-problem-dont.html#comments



Sunday, April 12, 2009 r-calf and the USA mad cow problem, don't look, don't find, and then blame Canada



http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/r-calf-and-usa-mad-cow-problem-dont.html



http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html#comments




MY comments/questions are as follows ; 1. SINCE the first Harvard BSE Risk Assessment was so flawed and fraught with error after the PEER REVIEW assessment assessed this fact, how do you plan on stopping this from happening again, will there be another peer review with top TSE Scientist, an impartial jury so-to-speak, to assess this new and updated Harvard BSE/TSE risk assessment and will this assessment include the Atypical TSE and SRM issues ?


*** Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002 ***


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf


***


http://www.scribd.com/doc/1490709/USDA-200600111


***


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


***


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648027c28e&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf


***


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


***

Response to Public Comments on the Harvard Risk Assessment of ... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM TERRY S. SINGELTARY SR. Comment #1: SINCE the first Harvard BSE Risk Assessment was so flawed and fraught ...


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




TSS

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

SEAC NEW RESULTS ON IDIOPATHIC BRAINSTEM NEURONAL CHROMATOLYSIS (IBNC) FROM THE VETERINARY LABORATORIES AGENCY (VLA)

SEAC 103/1

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Draft minutes of the 102nd meeting held on 4th March 2009 Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR

snip...

ITEM 5 – NEW RESULTS ON IDIOPATHIC BRAINSTEM NEURONAL CHROMATOLYSIS (IBNC) FROM THE VETERINARY LABORATORIES AGENCY (VLA)

14. Dr Martin Jeffrey (Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)) presented an overview of a recent publication on Idiopathic Brainstem Neuronal Chromatolysis (IBNC)4. During the period 1987 to 1992, VLA examined the neuropathology of whole brains from all submissions made under the BSE orders in Scotland to look for possible strain variation or mutation of the existing BSE strain or other prion diseases of cattle. During the course of these investigations a small number of cases of IBNC were identified. Abnormally accumulated prion protein was found in the brains of the IBNC cases. Dr Jeffrey suggested that these findings indicate that the range of prion disease pathology may be wider than thought or that abnormalities of prion protein gene expression might be associated with brain lesions unconnected with classical prion diseases.

15. A member noted that IBNC appears to be a rare disease and the prevalence of IBNC seems not to have increased over time. Dr Jeffrey noted that the detection rate of IBNC is dependent on the design of cattle surveillance and it is possible that cases of IBNC may be missed by current surveillance. Nevertheless, it is likely that IBNC is rare. A member suggested that should transmission


3 Truscott, J.E. and Ferguson, N. M. (2008) Control of scrapie in the UK sheep population. Epidemiology and Infection, 8 August 2008, on-line, doi: 10.1017/S0950268808001064. 4Jeffrey et al. (2008) Idiopathic Brainstem Neuronal Chromatolysis (IBNC): a novel prion protein related disorder of cattle? 4, 38.

experiments using bovinised, ovinised and humanised mice indicate that IBNC is transmissible, the ability of surveillance to detect IBNC should be examined. It would be important to conduct transmission experiments using brains from IBNC cases proven, as far as possible, not to have BSE.

16. A member asked about whether differential diagnosis was made on BSE suspect cases that subsequently were found not to be BSE. Dr Yvonne Boyd (Defra) noted that currently less than 10% of suspected BSE suspect cases were subsequently confirmed. Defra was funding a research project to examine a number of clinical BSE suspects subsequently found not to be BSE, but routine differential diagnosis was not carried out on all such cases. Dr Jim Hope (VLA) added that such cases were not specifically investigated for the presence of other neurological diseases; only the presence of spongiform change and the properties of the prion protein were assessed. However, obvious differential diagnoses were reported, e.g. meningioencephalitis, if detected.

17. A member noted that even though prion protein accumulation was evident in IBNC cases, the form of prion protein produced was protease sensitive, indicating that IBNC may not be a form of TSE. Dr Jeffrey explained that, from the biochemical studies conducted, an abnormally folded, but protease sensitive, form of prion protein could not be ruled out.

18. A member asked if any of the cases of IBNC examined showed evidence of possible co-infection with classical BSE. Dr Jeffrey replied that as the neuropathological lesions of IBNC and BSE differed, co-infection should be detectable. However, no evidence of co-infection had been detected. A member suggested it may be possible to re-examine archived BSE brains for the possibility of IBNC co-infection to establish whether IBNC is indeed a rare disease. Dr Jeffrey noted that as IBNC predominantly affects older cattle, the age of the cattle brains would be a factor in such an investigation.

19. A member asked if the sequence of the prion protein gene had been studied in the IBNC cases as this can influence the pathogenesis and neuropathology of prion diseases. Dr Jeffrey replied that no detailed studies had been conducted.

20. A member noted that IBNC appeared to be a neurological condition and therefore the specified risk material controls would confer public health protection should IBNC be zoonotic.

21. The Chair summarised the discussion, noting that IBNC appears to pose no immediate high risk to human health. It appears to be a rare disease, although current surveillance may miss cases. It cannot be concluded if IBNC is transmissible, or not. Transmission studies using material from IBNC cases proven not to be BSE, that include transgenic mice lines, are important. Studies to investigate whether IBNC is associated with a normal or abnormal form of prion protein could be informative.

ITEM 6 – UPDATE ON CJD EPIDEMIOLOGY

22. Professor Richard Knight (National CJD Surveillance Unit) updated SEAC on the latest figures for the number of clinical vCJD and sporadic CJD (sCJD) cases. To date there had been 168 definite and probable clinical cases of vCJD in the UK - 165 from dietary infection with BSE and three from vCJD infection via blood transfusion. Four cases are still alive. The number of deaths from vCJD peaked at 28 in 2000 and had since declined with one known death in 2008. The trend in incidence of vCJD deaths fits the quadratic-exponential model. The median age of death is 28 years of age. No individuals born after 1989 have developed vCJD to date. Analysis of vCJD deaths by birth cohort supports the hypothesis that susceptibility to vCJD from dietary exposure to BSE may be age-related with a peak in susceptibility between five and 20 years of age.

23. Professor Knight explained that all the clinical vCJD cases genotyped to date were of the MM genotype with the exception of one case of the MV genotype recently classified as possible vCJD. This patient had died. Although the clinical features in life suggested this was a case of vCJD, it had not been possible to undertake a tonsil biopsy in life or neuropathological examination post mortem so the diagnosis could not be confirmed. The patient was born in 1978, with disease onset in 2007 and death in 2009. The clinical profile of this MV case was consistent with that observed for MM cases suggesting that the neuropathological profile of vCJD in MV and MM cases may be similar.

24. Professor Knight noted that four vCJD patients had been treated with intra-ventricular pentosan polysulphate (PPS) in the UK, in addition to one sCJD, two Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker (GSS) disease and one human growth hormone (hGH) case. There is no evidence of benefit from the use of PPS for the sCJD, GSS and hGH cases. However, it appears PPS may have significantly prolonged the clinical phase of the illness in the vCJD cases treated, although no significant improvement in the clinical condition of these patients had been observed.

25. Professor Knight explained that elsewhere in the world 44 clinical vCJD cases had been reported with 23 in France, five in Spain, four in the Republic of Ireland, three in each of the USA and the Netherlands, two in Portugal and single cases in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Japan. Infection was presumed to have occurred in the UK in respect of two Irish and two USA cases, one French case, one Japanese case and one Canadian case. The time of the peak of onset of vCJD was five years later in non-UK countries than in the UK.

26. Professor Knight summarised studies to examine potential bloodborne exposures to vCJD. The Transfusion Medicine Epidemiology Review (TMER) identified 66 patients as recipients of labile blood components from donors whom later developed vCJD. Forty three of those patients had died due to non-vCJD related illnesses but three recipients developed clinical vCJD and one subclinical vCJD infections. The reverse TMER study identified three vCJD cases as receiving blood from vCJD infected donors. A study of plasma donations prepared from 1986 to 1998 plasma had identified 25 units of plasma prepared from donations from 11 individuals who later developed vCJD.

27. Professor Knight summarised data on sCJD cases. From May 1990 to January 2009, 1027 cases of sCJD had been identified in the UK with a mean age at death of 67 years and genotype distribution of 63% MM, 19% MV and 18% VV at codon 129 of the prion protein gene.

28. Members asked in what circumstances an autopsy is legally required. Professor Knight explained that autopsy may be legally required when the cause of death is considered not to be from natural causes or is unknown. However, the wishes of the family of the deceased are also considered.

29. Dr Elaine Gadd (Department of Health (DH)) asked about the clinical state of the vCJD cases treated with PPS. Professor Knight explained that the neurological impairment of the patients when treatment began was so advanced that any subtle changes in clinical state would be difficult to assess objectively. The condition of two patients is considered to have significantly deteriorated, whilst one patient may have improved slightly.

ITEM 7 – COMPARING THE RELATIVE RISK OF vCJD TRANSMISSION VIA SINGLE UNIT AND POOLED PLASMA FROM UK AND NON-UK SOURCES (SEAC 102/3)

30. Mr Stephen Dobra (DH) presented an overview of the risk assessment that had been developed by the Department of Health. He explained that there are three Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP) products in use in the UK: (i) single unit FFP from UK donors given to recipients over 16 years of age, (ii) single unit methylene-blue treated FFP sourced from donors in the United States of America and given to patients under 16 years of age, and (iii) solvent detergent treated FFP (SD FFP) manufactured from pooled plasma currently sourced from countries with no known vCJD cases (although some, such as Germany, have a known BSE risk) given to patients with Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP). As most FFP is sourced from UK donors, there is a potential risk of vCJD transmission from its use. Prion reduction technologies may be available in the future for pooled SD FFP.

31. Mr Dobra explained that the risk assessment had been prepared to support decision making by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) which is considering options for extending the use of imported plasma to all recipients and National Health Service Blood and Transplant which is considering the procurement of plasma from alternative source countries. The risk assessment examines the relative residual risk from use of plasma taking into account the source country, whether it is single unit or pooled, and the method of processing. SEAC was being asked to review the methodology used for the sourcing and pooling elements of the risk assessment. DH will convene an expert group to assess the impact of processing taking into account previous SEAC advice.

32. Members suggested that the presentation of the risk assessment could be improved to provide greater clarity on the reasoning behind some of the assumptions made.

33. A member asked about the estimation of the probability that infectivity would be carried by a plasma product from pooled plasma donations that had been contaminated by a donor infected with vCJD. Mr Dobra suggested that in low infectivity scenarios, infectivity might not be present in all of the plasma product units produced from a contaminated pool as there may be an uneven distribution of infectivity throughout the pool. Members noted that the physico-chemical nature of infectivity in plasma is not known. It may be homogeneously spread within the pool or remain in the form of discrete entities spread unevenly, or something between these two extremes. There may be no low dose threshold for infection.

34. Members asked what confidence there may be in the results from the risk assessment given the large number of variables with large uncertainties. It was noted that as the relative risks (as opposed to absolute risks) posed by plasma products were being estimated, assumptions around the timing, level and distribution of infectivity in blood where there is much uncertainty would not appreciably affect the estimations made. The best way to manage other assumptions where there is large uncertainty, such as around the prevalence of vCJD in the UK and other countries, would be to develop a range of scenarios incorporating reasonable high and low value estimates for such parameters. It was noted that some patients received a large number of transfusions of plasma and plasma products. It may be possible to rule out some scenarios on the basis of observations made on these groups of patients. Members reiterated the importance SEAC placed on obtaining better estimates for the prevalence of subclinical vCJD through a post mortem tissue archive.

35. A member suggested that experiments to examine the infectivity of unused batches of plasma products might provide useful data. It was considered that such experiments may be difficult to conduct as there may be a small number of contaminated batches and they would be difficult to identify.

36. A member asked why prion reduction technologies would only be applied to pooled plasma. Mr Dobra explained that the only proposal of which he was aware had been developed by a manufacturer of pooled plasma and involved filtering a large volume of plasma through a column. The Chair remarked on the lack of independent validation of the efficacy of prion reduction filters to date.

37. A member asked whether the risk assessment could take into account the measures taken in different countries to prevent dietary exposure to BSE and the movement of people from other countries to the UK during the BSE epidemic. Mr Dobra explained that there are no consistent data available to assess differences in dietary exposure to BSE in different European countries. Most countries excluded from donating blood anyone who had visited or been resident in the UK for a significant period of time.

38. A member noted that the risk of vCJD transmission alters depending on the age of the blood donor and asked whether restrictions on the age of donation could be introduced to manage the vCJD transmission risks. Mr Dobra explained that this was possible but would require clear advice from SEAC on the difference in risk and was complicated by the need to ensure sufficient supplies of blood.

39. The Chair summarised the discussion, noting that the committee felt that the best way of handling the uncertainties around key assumptions made in the risk assessment is to use reasonable high and low values for each parameter to derive a range of scenarios. Scenarios could be validated against the number of infections observed in populations that had received large numbers of transfusions of plasma products.

snip...

http://www.seac.gov.uk/papers/103-1.pdf



Saturday, February 28, 2009

NEW RESULTS ON IDIOPATHIC BRAINSTEM NEURONAL CHROMATOLYSIS "All of the 15 cattle tested showed that the brains had abnormally accumulated PrP" 2009

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-results-on-idiopathic-brainstem.html



Wednesday, October 08, 2008 Idiopathic Brainstem Neuronal Chromatolysis (IBNC): a novel prion protein related disorder of cattle?

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/10/idiopathic-brainstem-neuronal.html



2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2006/08/bse-atypical-texas-and-alabama-update.html



Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Surveillance On the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and rabies in Taiwan and USA

http://usdavskorea.blogspot.com/2009/11/surveillance-on-bovine-spongiform.html



Thursday, November 05, 2009

Incidence and spectrum of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease variants with mixed phenotype and co-occurrence of PrPSc types: an updated classification

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/11/incidence-and-spectrum-of-sporadic.html



Sunday, August 10, 2008

A New Prionopathy OR more of the same old BSe and sporadic CJD

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-prionopathy-or-more-of-same-old-bse.html



Tuesday, November 17, 2009

SEAC EFFECT OF AGE ON THE PATHOGENESIS OF TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES SEAC 103/2


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2009/11/seac-effect-of-age-on-pathogenesis-of.html





Wednesday, November 18, 2009



R-CALF: 40 Groups Disagree With USDA's Latest BSE Court Submission



http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/11/r-calf-40-groups-disagree-with-usdas.html





TSS

Labels: , , , ,