SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM CATTLE UNDER THE BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) ONGOING SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM FSIS NOTICE 05-10 1/12/10
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE WASHINGTON, DC
FSIS NOTICE
05-10 1/12/10
DISTRIBUTION: Electronic NOTICE EXPIRES: 2/1/11 OPI: OPPD
NOTE: THIS NOTICE REISSUES CONTENT FROM FSIS NOTICE 103-08
SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM CATTLE UNDER THE BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) ONGOING SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
I. PURPOSE This notice provides the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspection program personnel with instructions regarding the collection of brain samples for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) ongoing surveillance plan.
II. DEFINITION OF NEW COLLECTION PROCEDURES
A. Approved Alternative Off-Site Sample Collection
1. APHIS will provide for the collection of brain (obex) samples from an allocated number of cattle 30 months and older condemned for any reason on ante-mortem inspection, and from cattle of any age displaying Central Nervous System (CNS) symptoms, at federally-inspected slaughter establishments that have agreements with APHIS under the approved alternative off-site sample collection program.
2. At such establishments, FSIS inspection program personnel will not collect brain samples. They will provide the following to plant management:
a. condemn tag (Z-tag) numbers (not the Z-tag itself); and
b. disposition information (i.e., the reason for condemnation under 9 CFR Part 309).
B. Brain Sample Collection of Cattle Displaying CNS Symptoms
1. At Federally-inspected establishments not under the approved alternative off-site sample collection program, FSIS Public Health Veterinarians (PHVs):
2
a. will collect appropriate BSE samples from cattle of all ages that display CNS symptoms, or
b. will not collect the samples for BSE testing if the slaughter establishment has made or plans to make arrangements with APHIS, whereby the samples from cattle condemned for CNS symptoms will be collected at a location other than on the official plant premises.
2. Certain Alternative Off-Site Agreements that were in place during Enhanced Surveillance may no longer be in effect and establishments will need to initiate new agreements with APHIS and potential collectors.
III. FSIS PERSONNEL RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Upon receipt of this notice, the FSIS PHV is to hold an awareness meeting with the establishment. At this meeting, the FSIS PHV should ask the management whether:
1. it is under APHIS’ approved alternative off-site sample collection program for collecting allocated samples (paragraph II. A.); and
2. if not, whether:
a. FSIS is to collect brain samples from cattle displaying CNS symptoms (paragraph II. B. 1.a.); or
b. the establishment needs time to engage in making arrangements with APHIS for the off-site brain sample collection of such cattle (paragraph II. B. 1. b.).
B. If during the awareness meeting establishment management states that it plans to work with APHIS to begin off-site sampling, until APHIS approves that arrangement, or until FSIS is advised that an off-site agreement will not be forthcoming, FSIS PHVs are to:
1. identify all CNS animals condemned on ante-mortem with a "U. S. Condemned” tag;
2. contact the APHIS Area Veterinarian-In-Charge (AVIC) so the AVIC can collect the brain sample;
3. ensure that the animals are humanely euthanized, unless APHIS requests otherwise; and
4. not allow them to move off the premise of the establishment, unless APHIS requests otherwise.
C. In a memorandum of interview (MOI), the FSIS PHV is to document who was present at the awareness meeting, the date and time of the meeting, how the
3
establishment plans to proceed based on the choices set out in A. above, and any documents shared with management.
D. If the establishment plans to work with APHIS to begin off-site sampling, the FSIS PHV is to update the MOI as to whether an agreement was reached and in general, what the agreement was.
E. The FSIS PHV is to maintain a copy of the memorandum of interview in the official government file, provide a copy to the plant management, and electronically mail a copy to the APHIS AVIC as changes occur.
IV. FSIS RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO APPROVED ALTERNATIVE OFF-SITE SAMPLE COLLECTION
A. The FSIS PHV is to complete the condemnation form, FSIS Form 6000-13 (Certification of Ante-mortem or Post-mortem Disposition of Tagged Animals) and FSIS Form 6150-1 (Identification Tag – Ante-mortem). The FSIS PHV should pay special attention when providing a full description of the reason for the condemnation on FSIS Form 6000-13 and fill out fully FSIS Form 6150-1.
B. Incoming animal identification, except the Z-tag, should be left on these animals since it will be needed at the approved alternative off-site collection location to fill out collection forms. Z-tags will be removed prior to any carcasses leaving the official establishment.
NOTE: Information supplied to plant management to take to the approved alternative off-site collection sites needs to be complete and accurate. FSIS PHVs need to provide a full description of the reason for the condemnation on FSIS Form 6000-13, APHIS will use this information to triage which condemned animals are sampled.
V. FSIS SAMPLE COLLECTION FOR CATTLE DISPLAYING CNS SYMPTOMS
A. If the establishment does not have an agreement with APHIS for off-site sampling of cattle with CNS symptoms, the FSIS PHV will collect the brain samples from cattle showing signs of CNS symptoms. The FSIS PHV is to make all final disposition decisions regarding whether to condemn cattle in accordance with 9 CFR part 309.
NOTE: FSIS PHVs can also find information regarding BSE sampling (e.g., forms, sampling supply information) at:
//Outlook Public Folders/All PublicFolders/ OPPD/PDD/BSE_Training_Info/
B. The FSIS PHV, or the establishment under the supervision of the FSIS PHV, should promptly remove the head in order to collect the brain sample. If the establishment does not arrange to remove the head, the FSIS PHV may need to collect the brain sample as a priority over other ante-mortem or post-mortem procedures.
C. The FSIS PHV should collect the brain sample either in the inedible area of the establishment or in another area set aside for such collection to prevent the creation of
4
an insanitary condition. Establishment personnel and FSIS inspection program personnel are to take proper sanitary measures before returning to edible areas of the establishment after brain sample collection, in accordance with 9 CFR 416.5.
D. In situations where the FSIS PHV has missed the last FedEx pick-up for the day, or the FSIS PHV collected the sample on a day when FedEx does not pick up, the PHV is to refrigerate the samples until the next available FedEx pick-up day. Remember, the sample is not to pass through or to be stored in areas of the establishment where the establishment produces edible product. The FSIS PHV is to maintain the sample’s chain-of-custody.
E. The FSIS PHV is to verify the collection, documentation, and control of all animal identification associated with cattle condemned during ante-mortem inspection that are to be sampled by FSIS. The FSIS PHV is to attach the “U. S. Condemned” tag to cattle condemned during ante-mortem inspection in accordance with 9 CFR 309.13. This documentation will facilitate traceback in the event that the sample result is positive for BSE. The documentation should include records in accordance with 9 CFR 320.1.
F. The FSIS PHV is to verify that the presence of condemned cattle or parts does not create insanitary conditions (9 CFR part 416). The establishment is responsible for the disposal of the condemned cattle in accordance with 9 CFR part 314. The FSIS PHV also is to verify that the establishment maintains records regarding the disposal of the condemned cattle in accordance with 9 CFR 320.1.
G. Inspection program personnel may inform the establishment that it may choose to hold the carcass and parts until testing results are available. If the establishment chooses to dispose of any carcass or parts before it receives test results, inspection program personnel are to advise the establishment that it must dispose of the carcass in one of the following ways:
1. render it at a facility for non-animal feed use (e.g., biofuel or cement);
2. alkaline digestion;
3. incineration; or
4. lined land fills.
H. Documentation for Cattle Showing Signs of CNS Symptoms
1. For locations without high-speed internet connections, the FSIS PHV is to forward the completed BSE Surveillance Information System (BSE-SIS) sample collection sheets to the APHIS,VS office by FAX or by e-mail. The follow site lists the VS office FAX numbers and e-mail where available:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/downloads/vsavic.pdf
2. The APHIS AVIC in each area office may assist with sample delivery verification and troubleshooting. The FSIS PHV can get copies of BSE-SIS forms by contacting the local APHIS office.
5
3. The FSIS PHV is to enter the relevant information into the BSE-SIS at locations with high-speed connections and proceed as instructed in the training materials. FSIS PHVs may get the training from AgLearn or may contact the District Office if they need a copy of the BSE Surveillance Information System (BSE-SIS) training CD and for assistance in getting permission to have access to BSE-SIS.
VI. TEST RESULTS FOR FSIS SAMPLING FROM CATTLE SHOWING CNS SYMPTOMS
A. The FSIS PHV will receive, by e-mail, a report from the AVIC on the BSE test results. The AVIC will also send copies of the results to the District Office.
B. If the test is negative (reported as “not detected”), any carcasses and parts the establishment has held may be released for rendering or other disposal in accordance with 9 CFR 314.
C. If the test is inconclusive, the FSIS PHV will receive supervisory instruction on further actions.
D. For any sample confirmed positive for BSE, the FSIS PHV is to verify that the establishment disposes of the carcasses and parts in the proper manner as set out in paragraph V. G.
VII. eADRS PROCEDURES FOR FSIS SAMPLING FROM CATTLE SHOWING CNS SYMPTOMS
A. After sampling cattle showing signs of CNS symptoms, the FSIS PHV (or designee) is to enter the relevant information for each sample into eADRS.
B. The FSIS PHV (or designee) is to enter each ante-mortem condemned animal in eADRS under the applicable pathological condition
C. For each relevant disease condition, in the “Add Daily Totals” window, the FSIS PHV is to select the “Update BSE Details” button if FSIS sampled one or more of the condemned animals for BSE. Selecting this button opens the “Update BSE Details” screen.
D. On the “Update BSE Details” screen, the FSIS PHV is to enter the number of animals sampled and the applicable “U.S. Condemned” Z-tag number for each sampled animal.
E. After entering the relevant information, the FSIS PHV is to click the “Save” button and proceed to the next disease condition.
F. For additional information on entering BSE sample information, refer to Section 7 of the eADRS User Guide.
VIII. RABIES
A. In a rare situation, such as when an animal is condemned by the FSIS PHV on ante-mortem for rabies, the FSIS PHV should contact their District Office, who will advise APHIS. In these cases, APHIS will see that the animal is tested for rabies. APHIS will work with the laboratory to get appropriate samples forwarded for BSE surveillance from rabies negative animals.
B. Rabies booster vaccination for PHVs collecting BSE samples is still highly recommended. PHVs can be reimbursed for rabies vaccinations or boosters. Rabies vaccinations are volunatry. Only PHVs who are actually involved with BSE sample collection will be eligible for reimbursement on the vaccination series. PHVs should make arrangements for the vaccinations with their private physician. PHVs should contact their Front-line supervisor for approval on reimbursement prior to beginning the three shot vaccination series.
Refer questions regarding this notice to the Policy Development Division through askFSIS at http://askfsis.custhelp.com or by telephone at 1-800-233-3935.
Assistant Administrator Office of Policy and Program Development
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/05-10.pdf
REITERATION OF POLICY REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF LINGUAL AND PALATINE TONSILS FROM BEEF TONGUES AND BEEF MARKET HEADS FSIS NOTICE 04-10 1/12/10
FSIS NOTICE
04-10 1/12/10
DISTRIBUTION: Electronic
NOTICE EXPIRES: 2/1/11 OPI: OPPD
NOTE: THIS NOTICE REISSUES CONTENT FROM FSIS NOTICE 99-08
REITERATION OF POLICY REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF LINGUAL AND PALATINE TONSILS FROM BEEF TONGUES AND BEEF MARKET HEADS
This notice reminds inspection program personnel (IPP) that the tonsils from cattle of all ages are among the materials identified as specified risk materials (SRMs) under 9 CFR 310.22(a). Lingual and palatine tonsils must be removed from finished product per FSIS Directive 6100.4. See attachment 1 for related questions and answers.
IPP may review pictures and guidance materials on removal of lingual and palatine tonsils from tongues and beef market heads at the following link:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/About_FSIS/Technical_Service_Center/index.asp#SRM
IPP are to continue to verify that establishments are properly addressing removal of SRMs, including lingual and palatine tonsils, as set out in FSIS Directive 6100.4, Verification Instructions Related to Specified Risk Materials. See attachment 2 of this notice or the above link to access a helpful tool for use when verifying the requirements of 9 CFR 310.22. To verify that the establishment has in place adequate head dressing procedures to remove the designated lingual and palatine tonsils from beef tongues and beef market heads, off-line IPP are to include direct observation of the plant’s tonsil removal procedures and finished product (processed beef tongues and market heads prior to packaging) on a regular and recurring basis whenever HACCP 01 and 02 procedures are scheduled. Off-line inspectors are to effect a regulatory control action in accordance with 9 CFR 500.2 if the establishment is observed not properly removing tonsils. The regulatory control action is to remain in place until the establishment has implemented effective corrective actions.
Refer questions regarding this notice to the Policy Development Division through askFSIS at http://askfsis.custhelp.com or by telephone at 1-800-233-3935.
Assistant Administrator Office of Policy and Program Development
SNIP...SEE FULL TEXT ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/04-10.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
Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006
Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle Still Remain
Our prior report identified a number of inherent problems in identifying and testing high-risk cattle. We reported that the challenges in identifying the universe of high-risk cattle, as well as the need to design procedures to obtain an appropriate representation of samples, was critical to the success of the BSE surveillance program. The surveillance program was designed to target nonambulatory cattle, cattle showing signs of CNS disease (including cattle testing negative for rabies), cattle showing signs not inconsistent with BSE, and dead cattle. Although APHIS designed procedures to ensure FSIS condemned cattle were sampled and made a concerted effort for outreach to obtain targeted samples, industry practices not considered in the design of the surveillance program reduced assurance that targeted animals were tested for BSE.
In our prior report, we recommended that APHIS work with public health and State diagnostic laboratories to develop and test rabies-negative samples for BSE. This target group is important for determining the prevalence of BSE in the United States because rabies cases exhibit clinical signs not inconsistent with BSE; a negative rabies test means the cause of the clinical signs has not been diagnosed.
APHIS agreed with our recommendation and initiated an outreach program with the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, as well as State laboratories. APHIS also agreed to do ongoing monitoring to ensure samples were obtained from this target population.
Although APHIS increased the samples tested from this target group as compared to prior years, we found that conflicting APHIS instructions on the ages of cattle to test resulted in inconsistencies in what samples were submitted for BSE testing. Therefore, some laboratories did not refer their rabies negative samples to APHIS in order to maximize the number tested for this critical target population. In addition, APHIS did not monitor the number of submissions of rabies negative samples for BSE testing from specific laboratories.
snip...
An NVSL official stated that APHIS is not concerned with rabies negatives samples from cattle less than 30 months of age. This position, however, is contrary to APHIS’ published target population.
Our prior audit recognized the significant challenge for APHIS to obtain samples from some high-risk populations because of the inherent problems with obtaining voluntary compliance and transporting the carcasses for testing. USDA issued rules to prohibit nonambulatory animals (downers) from entering the food supply at inspected slaughterhouses. OIG recommended, and the International Review Subcommittee33 emphasized, that USDA should take additional steps to assure that facilitated pathways exist for dead and nonambulatory cattle to allow for the collection of samples and proper disposal of carcasses. Between June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005, the APHIS database documents 27,617 samples were collected showing a reason for submission of nonambulatory and 325,225 samples were collected with reason of submission showing "dead."
APHIS made extensive outreach efforts to notify producers and private veterinarians of the need to submit and have tested animals from these target groups. They also entered into financial arrangements with 123 renderers and other collection sites to reimburse them for costs associated with storing, transporting, and collecting samples. However, as shown in exhibit F, APHIS was not always successful in establishing agreements with non-slaughter collection sites in some States. APHIS stated that agreements do not necessarily reflect the entire universe of collection sites and that the presentation in exhibit F was incomplete because there were many collection sites without a payment involved or without a formal agreement. We note that over 90 percent of the samples collected were obtained from the 123 collection sites with agreements and; therefore, we believe agreements offer the best source to increase targeted samples in underrepresented areas.
We found that APHIS did not consider industry practices in the design of its surveillance effort to provide reasonable assurance that cattle exhibiting possible clinical signs consistent with BSE were tested. Slaughter facilities do not always accept all cattle arriving for slaughter because of their business requirements. We found that, in one State visited, slaughter facilities pre-screened and rejected cattle (sick/down/dead/others not meeting business
Downers and Cattle that Died on the Farm standards) before presentation for slaughter in areas immediately adjacent or contiguous to the official slaughter establishment. These animals were not inspected and/or observed by either FSIS or APHIS officials located at the slaughter facilities.
FSIS procedures state that they have no authority to inspect cattle not presented for slaughter. Further, APHIS officials stated they did not believe that they had the authority to go into these sorting and/or screening areas and require that the rejected animals be provided to APHIS for BSE sampling. Neither APHIS nor FSIS had any process to assure that animals left on transport vehicles and/or rejected for slaughter arrived at a collection site for BSE testing. FSIS allows slaughter facilities to designate the area of their establishment where federal inspection is performed; this is designated as the official slaughter establishment.34
We observed animals that were down or dead in pens outside the official premises that were to be picked up by renderers. Animals that were rejected by plant personnel were transported off the premises on the same vehicles that brought them to the plant.35
A policy statement36 regarding BSE sampling of condemned cattle at slaughter plants provided that effective June 1, 2004, FSIS would collect BSE samples for testing: 1) from all cattle regardless of age condemned by FSIS upon ante mortem inspection for CNS impairment, and 2) from all cattle, with the exception of veal calves, condemned by FSIS upon ante mortem inspection for any other reason.
FSIS Notice 28-04, dated May 20, 2004, informed FSIS personnel that, "FSIS will be collecting brain samples from cattle at federally-inspected establishments for the purpose of BSE testing." The notice further states that, "Cattle off-loaded from the transport vehicle onto the premises of the federally-inspected establishment (emphasis added), whether dead or alive, will be sampled by the FSIS Public Health Veterinarian (PHV) for BSE after the cattle have been condemned during ante mortem inspection. In addition, cattle passing ante mortem inspection but later found dead prior to slaughter will be condemned and be sampled by the FSIS PHV."
APHIS has the responsibility for sampling dead cattle off-loaded onto plant-owned property that is adjoining to, but not considered part of, the "official premises.37 FSIS procedures38 provide that "Dead cattle that are off-loaded to facilitate the off-loading of live animals, but that will be re-loaded onto the transport vehicle, are not subject to sampling by FSIS.
While performing our review in one State, we reviewed the circumstances at two slaughter facilities in the State that inspected and rejected unsuitable cattle before the animals entered the official receiving areas of the plants. This pre-screening activity was conducted in areas not designated by the facility as official premises of the establishment and not under the review or supervision of FSIS inspectors. The plant rejected all nonambulatory and dead/dying/sick animals delivered to the establishment. Plant personnel refused to offload any dead or downer animals to facilitate the offloading of ambulatory animals. Plant personnel said that the driver was responsible for ensuring nonambulatory animals were humanely euthanized and disposing of the carcasses of the dead animals. Plant personnel informed us that they did not want to jeopardize contracts with business partners by allowing unsuitable animals on their slaughter premises.
In the second case, one family member owned a slaughter facility while another operated a livestock sale barn adjacent to the slaughter facility. The slaughter facility was under FSIS’ supervision while the sale barn was not. Cattle sometimes arrived at the sale barn that were sick/down/dead or would die or go down while at the sale barn. According to personnel at the sale barn, these animals were left for the renderer to collect. The healthy ambulatory animals that remained were marketed to many buyers including the adjacent slaughter facility. When the slaughter facility was ready to accept the ambulatory animals for processing, the cattle would be moved from the sale barn to the slaughter facility where they were subject to FSIS’ inspection.
We requested the slaughter facilities to estimate the number of cattle rejected on a daily basis (there were no records to confirm the estimates). We visited a renderer in the area and found that the renderer had a contract with APHIS to collect samples for BSE testing. In this case, although we could not obtain assurance that all rejected cattle were sampled, the renderer processed a significant number of animals, as compared to the slaughter plants’ estimates of those rejected. Due to the close proximity (less than 5 miles) of the renderer to the slaughter facilities, and the premium it paid for dead cattle that were in good condition, there was a financial incentive for transport drivers to dispose of their dead animals at this renderer.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 25
In our discussions with APHIS officials in Wisconsin and Iowa, they confirmed that there were plants in their States that also used pre-screening practices. On May 27, 2005, we requested APHIS and FSIS to provide a list of all slaughter facilities that pre-screened cattle for slaughter in locations away from the area designated as the official slaughter facility. Along with this request, we asked for information to demonstrate that either APHIS or FSIS confirmed there was a high likelihood that high-risk animals were sampled at other collection sites.
In response to our request, the APHIS BSE Program Manager stated that APHIS did not have information on slaughter plants that pre-screen or screen their animals for slaughter suitability off their official plant premises. To their knowledge, every company or producer that submits animals for slaughter pre-sorts or screens them for suitability at various locations away from the slaughter facility. For this reason, USDA focused its BSE sample collection efforts at other types of facilities such as renderers, pet food companies, landfills, and dead stock haulers. Further, in a letter to OIG on June 14, 2005, the administrators of APHIS and FSIS noted the following:
"…we believe that no specific actions are necessary or appropriate to obtain reasonable assurance that animals not presented for slaughter are being tested for BSE. There are several reasons for our position. First, we do not believe that the practice is in fact causing us to not test a significant enough number of animals in our enhanced surveillance program to invalidate the overall results. Second, OIG has concluded that because of the geographical proximity and business relationships of the various entities involved in the case investigated, there is reasonable assurance that a majority of the rejected cattle had been sampled. Third, it is also important to remember that the goal of the enhanced surveillance program is to test a sufficient number of animals to allow us to draw conclusions about the level of BSE (if any) in the American herd…We believe that the number we may be not testing because of the "pre-sorting" practice does not rise to a significant level. The number of animals tested to date has far exceeded expectations, so it is reasonable to infer that there are few of the animals in question, or that we are testing them at some other point in the process…APHIS estimated…there were approximately 446,000 high risk cattle…[and APHIS has]…tested over 375,000 animals in less than 1 year. This indicated that we are missing few animals in the high-risk population, including those that might be pre-sorted before entering a slaughter facility’s property."
snip...
APHIS notes that for the current surveillance program, it had established regional goals and APHIS was not trying to meet particular sampling levels in particular States. However, we believe that it would be advantageous for APHIS to monitor collection data and increase outreach when large geographical areas such as the above States do not provide samples in proportion to the numbers and types of cattle in the population.
We also disagree with APHIS/FSIS’ contention that because they have tested over 375,000 of their 446,000 estimate of high risk cattle, few in the high-risk population are being missed, including those that might be pre-screened before entering a slaughter facility’s property. In our prior audit, we reported that APHIS underestimated the high-risk population; we found that this estimate should have been closer to 1 million animals (see Finding 1). We recognize that BSE samples are provided on a voluntary basis; however, APHIS should consider industry practice in any further maintenance surveillance effort. Animals unsuitable for slaughter exhibiting symptoms not inconsistent with BSE should be sampled and their clinical signs recorded. However, this cited industry practice results in rejected animals not being made available to either APHIS or FSIS veterinarians for their observation and identification of clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. Although these animals may be sampled later at other collection sites, the animals are provided post mortem without information as to relevant clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. For these reasons, we believe APHIS needs to
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 27
observe these animals ante mortem when possible to assure the animals from the target population are ultimately sampled and the clinical signs evaluated.
snip...
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 scheduledfor 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
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/cjd-article/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school-lunch-program/641216
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school.html
http://downercattle.blogspot.com/
Office of the United States Attorney District of Arizona
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Information Contact Public Affairs
February 16, 2007 WYN HORNBUCKLE Telephone: (602) 514-7625Cell: (602) 525-2681
CORPORATION AND ITS PRESIDENT PLEAD GUILTY TO DEFRAUDING GOVERNMENT’S MAD COW DISEASESURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
snip...
Evidence uncovered during the government’s investigation established that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee submitted samples from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population. Specifically, FarmFresh Meats and Farabee submitted, or caused to be submitted, obex samples from healthy, USDA inspected cattle, in order to steal government moneys.
Evidence collected also demonstrated that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee failed to maintain cattle carcasses and heads pending test results and falsified corporate books and records to conceal their malfeasance. Such actions, to the extent an obex sample tested positive (fortunately, none did), could have jeopardized the USDA’s ability to identify the diseased animal and pinpoint its place of origin.
snip...
Sentencing is set before Judge Earl H. Carroll on May 14, 2007. The investigation in this case was conducted by Assistant Special Agent in Charge Alejandro Quintero, United States Department ofAgriculture, Office of Inspector General. The prosecutionis being handled by Robert Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District ofArizona, Phoenix.CASE NUMBER: CR-07-00160-PHX-EHC RELEASE NUMBER: 2007-051(Farabee)# # #
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2007/2007-051(Farabee).pdf
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
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
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
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
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
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
C O N F I R M E D
----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:25 PM Subject: [BSE-L] re-FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009 and Recall # V-256-2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/11/re-foia-request-on-feed-recall-product.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
Thursday, March 19, 2009
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/
Sunday, September 6, 2009
MAD COW USA 1997 SECRET VIDEO
SEE ANOTHER VIDEO THAT SHOWED IN CANADA, BUT NOT USA, ABOUT ANOTHER USA TSE COVER-UP MORE BRAINS NOT TESTED PROPERLY, key brain parts missing. ...
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2009/09/mad-cow-usa-1997-video.html
SEE THIS DAMNING VIDEO AT BOTTOM OF ;
Monday, July 27, 2009
U.S.A. HIDING MAD COW DISEASE VICTIMS AS SPORADIC CJD ?
http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/07/usa-hiding-mad-cow-disease-victims-as.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
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 19, 2009
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/10/atypical-bse-bse-and-other-human-and.html
Monday, November 23, 2009
BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS UPDATE NOVEMBER 23, 2009 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND O.I.E.
http://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/2009/11/bse-gbr-risk-assessments-update.html
Monday, May 12, 2008 BSE YOUNGEST AGE STATISTICS UNDER 30 MONTHS
the myth that cattle under 30 months of age are free from BSE/TSE is just that, a myth, and it's a false myth !
Information released on 2 February 2005 Summary of information requested What statistics are available on cattle less than 30 months of age found to have BSE? Information released VLA has recorded approximately 100 cases of BSE in cattle of 30 months of age or under during the entire period of the BSE epidemic (1986 - 2005). The figure is approximate as for 51 of these the age is only estimated. This is because farmers did not have accurate documentation to confirm birth date. This was not a requirement at the time. We can confirm that of the 100 cases, 49 were under 30 months of age, of these the youngest case was 20 months old.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/vla/vla_ati_020205.htm
Youngest confirmed case 20 Months, Oldest confirmed case 22 Years, Data valid to 01 April 2008
http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/science/docs/sci_tse_stats_gen.pdf
BSE Youngest and oldest cases by year of onset - GB 20 months, 21 months, (8) 24 months, see complete list of younger than 30 month ;
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/otmbsestatistics.pdf
BSE Youngest Japan 21 months, 23 months
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ehpm/10/3/130/_pdf
The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the most BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten in Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of that age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet accumulated enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to develop BSE on record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are fast incubators. Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months per year are infected with BSE and enter the food chain currently in Britain. Of these 3-5 could be fast incubators and carrying detectable quantities of prion.
http://www.sare.org/sanet-mg/archives/html-home/28-html/0359.html
FULL TEXT ;
http://flounder068.vox.com/library/post/bse-youngest-age-statistics-under-30-months.html
http://bseyoungestage.blogspot.com/
PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(8): e2969. Published online 2008 August 13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002969. PMCID: PMC2493038
Copyright This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
Prion Infected Meat-and-Bone Meal Is Still Infectious after Biodiesel Production
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493038/
SEE FULL TEXT ;
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
The most recent assessments (and reassessments) were published in June 2005 (Table I; 18), and included the categorisation of Canada, the USA, and Mexico as GBR III. Although only Canada and the USA have reported cases, the historically open system of trade in North America suggests that it is likely that BSE is present also in Mexico.
http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/06heim937950.pdf
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
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Human Prion Diseases in the United States January 1, 2010 ***FINAL***
http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2010/01/human-prion-diseases-in-united-states.html
my comments to PLosone here ;
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F04ce2b24-613d-46e6-9802-4131e2bfa6fd&root=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F04ce2b24-613d-46e6-9802-4131e2bfa6fd
TSS
FSIS NOTICE
05-10 1/12/10
DISTRIBUTION: Electronic NOTICE EXPIRES: 2/1/11 OPI: OPPD
NOTE: THIS NOTICE REISSUES CONTENT FROM FSIS NOTICE 103-08
SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM CATTLE UNDER THE BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) ONGOING SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
I. PURPOSE This notice provides the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspection program personnel with instructions regarding the collection of brain samples for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) ongoing surveillance plan.
II. DEFINITION OF NEW COLLECTION PROCEDURES
A. Approved Alternative Off-Site Sample Collection
1. APHIS will provide for the collection of brain (obex) samples from an allocated number of cattle 30 months and older condemned for any reason on ante-mortem inspection, and from cattle of any age displaying Central Nervous System (CNS) symptoms, at federally-inspected slaughter establishments that have agreements with APHIS under the approved alternative off-site sample collection program.
2. At such establishments, FSIS inspection program personnel will not collect brain samples. They will provide the following to plant management:
a. condemn tag (Z-tag) numbers (not the Z-tag itself); and
b. disposition information (i.e., the reason for condemnation under 9 CFR Part 309).
B. Brain Sample Collection of Cattle Displaying CNS Symptoms
1. At Federally-inspected establishments not under the approved alternative off-site sample collection program, FSIS Public Health Veterinarians (PHVs):
2
a. will collect appropriate BSE samples from cattle of all ages that display CNS symptoms, or
b. will not collect the samples for BSE testing if the slaughter establishment has made or plans to make arrangements with APHIS, whereby the samples from cattle condemned for CNS symptoms will be collected at a location other than on the official plant premises.
2. Certain Alternative Off-Site Agreements that were in place during Enhanced Surveillance may no longer be in effect and establishments will need to initiate new agreements with APHIS and potential collectors.
III. FSIS PERSONNEL RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Upon receipt of this notice, the FSIS PHV is to hold an awareness meeting with the establishment. At this meeting, the FSIS PHV should ask the management whether:
1. it is under APHIS’ approved alternative off-site sample collection program for collecting allocated samples (paragraph II. A.); and
2. if not, whether:
a. FSIS is to collect brain samples from cattle displaying CNS symptoms (paragraph II. B. 1.a.); or
b. the establishment needs time to engage in making arrangements with APHIS for the off-site brain sample collection of such cattle (paragraph II. B. 1. b.).
B. If during the awareness meeting establishment management states that it plans to work with APHIS to begin off-site sampling, until APHIS approves that arrangement, or until FSIS is advised that an off-site agreement will not be forthcoming, FSIS PHVs are to:
1. identify all CNS animals condemned on ante-mortem with a "U. S. Condemned” tag;
2. contact the APHIS Area Veterinarian-In-Charge (AVIC) so the AVIC can collect the brain sample;
3. ensure that the animals are humanely euthanized, unless APHIS requests otherwise; and
4. not allow them to move off the premise of the establishment, unless APHIS requests otherwise.
C. In a memorandum of interview (MOI), the FSIS PHV is to document who was present at the awareness meeting, the date and time of the meeting, how the
3
establishment plans to proceed based on the choices set out in A. above, and any documents shared with management.
D. If the establishment plans to work with APHIS to begin off-site sampling, the FSIS PHV is to update the MOI as to whether an agreement was reached and in general, what the agreement was.
E. The FSIS PHV is to maintain a copy of the memorandum of interview in the official government file, provide a copy to the plant management, and electronically mail a copy to the APHIS AVIC as changes occur.
IV. FSIS RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO APPROVED ALTERNATIVE OFF-SITE SAMPLE COLLECTION
A. The FSIS PHV is to complete the condemnation form, FSIS Form 6000-13 (Certification of Ante-mortem or Post-mortem Disposition of Tagged Animals) and FSIS Form 6150-1 (Identification Tag – Ante-mortem). The FSIS PHV should pay special attention when providing a full description of the reason for the condemnation on FSIS Form 6000-13 and fill out fully FSIS Form 6150-1.
B. Incoming animal identification, except the Z-tag, should be left on these animals since it will be needed at the approved alternative off-site collection location to fill out collection forms. Z-tags will be removed prior to any carcasses leaving the official establishment.
NOTE: Information supplied to plant management to take to the approved alternative off-site collection sites needs to be complete and accurate. FSIS PHVs need to provide a full description of the reason for the condemnation on FSIS Form 6000-13, APHIS will use this information to triage which condemned animals are sampled.
V. FSIS SAMPLE COLLECTION FOR CATTLE DISPLAYING CNS SYMPTOMS
A. If the establishment does not have an agreement with APHIS for off-site sampling of cattle with CNS symptoms, the FSIS PHV will collect the brain samples from cattle showing signs of CNS symptoms. The FSIS PHV is to make all final disposition decisions regarding whether to condemn cattle in accordance with 9 CFR part 309.
NOTE: FSIS PHVs can also find information regarding BSE sampling (e.g., forms, sampling supply information) at:
//Outlook Public Folders/All PublicFolders/ OPPD/PDD/BSE_Training_Info/
B. The FSIS PHV, or the establishment under the supervision of the FSIS PHV, should promptly remove the head in order to collect the brain sample. If the establishment does not arrange to remove the head, the FSIS PHV may need to collect the brain sample as a priority over other ante-mortem or post-mortem procedures.
C. The FSIS PHV should collect the brain sample either in the inedible area of the establishment or in another area set aside for such collection to prevent the creation of
4
an insanitary condition. Establishment personnel and FSIS inspection program personnel are to take proper sanitary measures before returning to edible areas of the establishment after brain sample collection, in accordance with 9 CFR 416.5.
D. In situations where the FSIS PHV has missed the last FedEx pick-up for the day, or the FSIS PHV collected the sample on a day when FedEx does not pick up, the PHV is to refrigerate the samples until the next available FedEx pick-up day. Remember, the sample is not to pass through or to be stored in areas of the establishment where the establishment produces edible product. The FSIS PHV is to maintain the sample’s chain-of-custody.
E. The FSIS PHV is to verify the collection, documentation, and control of all animal identification associated with cattle condemned during ante-mortem inspection that are to be sampled by FSIS. The FSIS PHV is to attach the “U. S. Condemned” tag to cattle condemned during ante-mortem inspection in accordance with 9 CFR 309.13. This documentation will facilitate traceback in the event that the sample result is positive for BSE. The documentation should include records in accordance with 9 CFR 320.1.
F. The FSIS PHV is to verify that the presence of condemned cattle or parts does not create insanitary conditions (9 CFR part 416). The establishment is responsible for the disposal of the condemned cattle in accordance with 9 CFR part 314. The FSIS PHV also is to verify that the establishment maintains records regarding the disposal of the condemned cattle in accordance with 9 CFR 320.1.
G. Inspection program personnel may inform the establishment that it may choose to hold the carcass and parts until testing results are available. If the establishment chooses to dispose of any carcass or parts before it receives test results, inspection program personnel are to advise the establishment that it must dispose of the carcass in one of the following ways:
1. render it at a facility for non-animal feed use (e.g., biofuel or cement);
2. alkaline digestion;
3. incineration; or
4. lined land fills.
H. Documentation for Cattle Showing Signs of CNS Symptoms
1. For locations without high-speed internet connections, the FSIS PHV is to forward the completed BSE Surveillance Information System (BSE-SIS) sample collection sheets to the APHIS,VS office by FAX or by e-mail. The follow site lists the VS office FAX numbers and e-mail where available:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/downloads/vsavic.pdf
2. The APHIS AVIC in each area office may assist with sample delivery verification and troubleshooting. The FSIS PHV can get copies of BSE-SIS forms by contacting the local APHIS office.
5
3. The FSIS PHV is to enter the relevant information into the BSE-SIS at locations with high-speed connections and proceed as instructed in the training materials. FSIS PHVs may get the training from AgLearn or may contact the District Office if they need a copy of the BSE Surveillance Information System (BSE-SIS) training CD and for assistance in getting permission to have access to BSE-SIS.
VI. TEST RESULTS FOR FSIS SAMPLING FROM CATTLE SHOWING CNS SYMPTOMS
A. The FSIS PHV will receive, by e-mail, a report from the AVIC on the BSE test results. The AVIC will also send copies of the results to the District Office.
B. If the test is negative (reported as “not detected”), any carcasses and parts the establishment has held may be released for rendering or other disposal in accordance with 9 CFR 314.
C. If the test is inconclusive, the FSIS PHV will receive supervisory instruction on further actions.
D. For any sample confirmed positive for BSE, the FSIS PHV is to verify that the establishment disposes of the carcasses and parts in the proper manner as set out in paragraph V. G.
VII. eADRS PROCEDURES FOR FSIS SAMPLING FROM CATTLE SHOWING CNS SYMPTOMS
A. After sampling cattle showing signs of CNS symptoms, the FSIS PHV (or designee) is to enter the relevant information for each sample into eADRS.
B. The FSIS PHV (or designee) is to enter each ante-mortem condemned animal in eADRS under the applicable pathological condition
C. For each relevant disease condition, in the “Add Daily Totals” window, the FSIS PHV is to select the “Update BSE Details” button if FSIS sampled one or more of the condemned animals for BSE. Selecting this button opens the “Update BSE Details” screen.
D. On the “Update BSE Details” screen, the FSIS PHV is to enter the number of animals sampled and the applicable “U.S. Condemned” Z-tag number for each sampled animal.
E. After entering the relevant information, the FSIS PHV is to click the “Save” button and proceed to the next disease condition.
F. For additional information on entering BSE sample information, refer to Section 7 of the eADRS User Guide.
VIII. RABIES
A. In a rare situation, such as when an animal is condemned by the FSIS PHV on ante-mortem for rabies, the FSIS PHV should contact their District Office, who will advise APHIS. In these cases, APHIS will see that the animal is tested for rabies. APHIS will work with the laboratory to get appropriate samples forwarded for BSE surveillance from rabies negative animals.
B. Rabies booster vaccination for PHVs collecting BSE samples is still highly recommended. PHVs can be reimbursed for rabies vaccinations or boosters. Rabies vaccinations are volunatry. Only PHVs who are actually involved with BSE sample collection will be eligible for reimbursement on the vaccination series. PHVs should make arrangements for the vaccinations with their private physician. PHVs should contact their Front-line supervisor for approval on reimbursement prior to beginning the three shot vaccination series.
Refer questions regarding this notice to the Policy Development Division through askFSIS at http://askfsis.custhelp.com or by telephone at 1-800-233-3935.
Assistant Administrator Office of Policy and Program Development
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/05-10.pdf
REITERATION OF POLICY REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF LINGUAL AND PALATINE TONSILS FROM BEEF TONGUES AND BEEF MARKET HEADS FSIS NOTICE 04-10 1/12/10
FSIS NOTICE
04-10 1/12/10
DISTRIBUTION: Electronic
NOTICE EXPIRES: 2/1/11 OPI: OPPD
NOTE: THIS NOTICE REISSUES CONTENT FROM FSIS NOTICE 99-08
REITERATION OF POLICY REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF LINGUAL AND PALATINE TONSILS FROM BEEF TONGUES AND BEEF MARKET HEADS
This notice reminds inspection program personnel (IPP) that the tonsils from cattle of all ages are among the materials identified as specified risk materials (SRMs) under 9 CFR 310.22(a). Lingual and palatine tonsils must be removed from finished product per FSIS Directive 6100.4. See attachment 1 for related questions and answers.
IPP may review pictures and guidance materials on removal of lingual and palatine tonsils from tongues and beef market heads at the following link:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/About_FSIS/Technical_Service_Center/index.asp#SRM
IPP are to continue to verify that establishments are properly addressing removal of SRMs, including lingual and palatine tonsils, as set out in FSIS Directive 6100.4, Verification Instructions Related to Specified Risk Materials. See attachment 2 of this notice or the above link to access a helpful tool for use when verifying the requirements of 9 CFR 310.22. To verify that the establishment has in place adequate head dressing procedures to remove the designated lingual and palatine tonsils from beef tongues and beef market heads, off-line IPP are to include direct observation of the plant’s tonsil removal procedures and finished product (processed beef tongues and market heads prior to packaging) on a regular and recurring basis whenever HACCP 01 and 02 procedures are scheduled. Off-line inspectors are to effect a regulatory control action in accordance with 9 CFR 500.2 if the establishment is observed not properly removing tonsils. The regulatory control action is to remain in place until the establishment has implemented effective corrective actions.
Refer questions regarding this notice to the Policy Development Division through askFSIS at http://askfsis.custhelp.com or by telephone at 1-800-233-3935.
Assistant Administrator Office of Policy and Program Development
SNIP...SEE FULL TEXT ;
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/04-10.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
Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006
Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle Still Remain
Our prior report identified a number of inherent problems in identifying and testing high-risk cattle. We reported that the challenges in identifying the universe of high-risk cattle, as well as the need to design procedures to obtain an appropriate representation of samples, was critical to the success of the BSE surveillance program. The surveillance program was designed to target nonambulatory cattle, cattle showing signs of CNS disease (including cattle testing negative for rabies), cattle showing signs not inconsistent with BSE, and dead cattle. Although APHIS designed procedures to ensure FSIS condemned cattle were sampled and made a concerted effort for outreach to obtain targeted samples, industry practices not considered in the design of the surveillance program reduced assurance that targeted animals were tested for BSE.
In our prior report, we recommended that APHIS work with public health and State diagnostic laboratories to develop and test rabies-negative samples for BSE. This target group is important for determining the prevalence of BSE in the United States because rabies cases exhibit clinical signs not inconsistent with BSE; a negative rabies test means the cause of the clinical signs has not been diagnosed.
APHIS agreed with our recommendation and initiated an outreach program with the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, as well as State laboratories. APHIS also agreed to do ongoing monitoring to ensure samples were obtained from this target population.
Although APHIS increased the samples tested from this target group as compared to prior years, we found that conflicting APHIS instructions on the ages of cattle to test resulted in inconsistencies in what samples were submitted for BSE testing. Therefore, some laboratories did not refer their rabies negative samples to APHIS in order to maximize the number tested for this critical target population. In addition, APHIS did not monitor the number of submissions of rabies negative samples for BSE testing from specific laboratories.
snip...
An NVSL official stated that APHIS is not concerned with rabies negatives samples from cattle less than 30 months of age. This position, however, is contrary to APHIS’ published target population.
Our prior audit recognized the significant challenge for APHIS to obtain samples from some high-risk populations because of the inherent problems with obtaining voluntary compliance and transporting the carcasses for testing. USDA issued rules to prohibit nonambulatory animals (downers) from entering the food supply at inspected slaughterhouses. OIG recommended, and the International Review Subcommittee33 emphasized, that USDA should take additional steps to assure that facilitated pathways exist for dead and nonambulatory cattle to allow for the collection of samples and proper disposal of carcasses. Between June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005, the APHIS database documents 27,617 samples were collected showing a reason for submission of nonambulatory and 325,225 samples were collected with reason of submission showing "dead."
APHIS made extensive outreach efforts to notify producers and private veterinarians of the need to submit and have tested animals from these target groups. They also entered into financial arrangements with 123 renderers and other collection sites to reimburse them for costs associated with storing, transporting, and collecting samples. However, as shown in exhibit F, APHIS was not always successful in establishing agreements with non-slaughter collection sites in some States. APHIS stated that agreements do not necessarily reflect the entire universe of collection sites and that the presentation in exhibit F was incomplete because there were many collection sites without a payment involved or without a formal agreement. We note that over 90 percent of the samples collected were obtained from the 123 collection sites with agreements and; therefore, we believe agreements offer the best source to increase targeted samples in underrepresented areas.
We found that APHIS did not consider industry practices in the design of its surveillance effort to provide reasonable assurance that cattle exhibiting possible clinical signs consistent with BSE were tested. Slaughter facilities do not always accept all cattle arriving for slaughter because of their business requirements. We found that, in one State visited, slaughter facilities pre-screened and rejected cattle (sick/down/dead/others not meeting business
Downers and Cattle that Died on the Farm standards) before presentation for slaughter in areas immediately adjacent or contiguous to the official slaughter establishment. These animals were not inspected and/or observed by either FSIS or APHIS officials located at the slaughter facilities.
FSIS procedures state that they have no authority to inspect cattle not presented for slaughter. Further, APHIS officials stated they did not believe that they had the authority to go into these sorting and/or screening areas and require that the rejected animals be provided to APHIS for BSE sampling. Neither APHIS nor FSIS had any process to assure that animals left on transport vehicles and/or rejected for slaughter arrived at a collection site for BSE testing. FSIS allows slaughter facilities to designate the area of their establishment where federal inspection is performed; this is designated as the official slaughter establishment.34
We observed animals that were down or dead in pens outside the official premises that were to be picked up by renderers. Animals that were rejected by plant personnel were transported off the premises on the same vehicles that brought them to the plant.35
A policy statement36 regarding BSE sampling of condemned cattle at slaughter plants provided that effective June 1, 2004, FSIS would collect BSE samples for testing: 1) from all cattle regardless of age condemned by FSIS upon ante mortem inspection for CNS impairment, and 2) from all cattle, with the exception of veal calves, condemned by FSIS upon ante mortem inspection for any other reason.
FSIS Notice 28-04, dated May 20, 2004, informed FSIS personnel that, "FSIS will be collecting brain samples from cattle at federally-inspected establishments for the purpose of BSE testing." The notice further states that, "Cattle off-loaded from the transport vehicle onto the premises of the federally-inspected establishment (emphasis added), whether dead or alive, will be sampled by the FSIS Public Health Veterinarian (PHV) for BSE after the cattle have been condemned during ante mortem inspection. In addition, cattle passing ante mortem inspection but later found dead prior to slaughter will be condemned and be sampled by the FSIS PHV."
APHIS has the responsibility for sampling dead cattle off-loaded onto plant-owned property that is adjoining to, but not considered part of, the "official premises.37 FSIS procedures38 provide that "Dead cattle that are off-loaded to facilitate the off-loading of live animals, but that will be re-loaded onto the transport vehicle, are not subject to sampling by FSIS.
While performing our review in one State, we reviewed the circumstances at two slaughter facilities in the State that inspected and rejected unsuitable cattle before the animals entered the official receiving areas of the plants. This pre-screening activity was conducted in areas not designated by the facility as official premises of the establishment and not under the review or supervision of FSIS inspectors. The plant rejected all nonambulatory and dead/dying/sick animals delivered to the establishment. Plant personnel refused to offload any dead or downer animals to facilitate the offloading of ambulatory animals. Plant personnel said that the driver was responsible for ensuring nonambulatory animals were humanely euthanized and disposing of the carcasses of the dead animals. Plant personnel informed us that they did not want to jeopardize contracts with business partners by allowing unsuitable animals on their slaughter premises.
In the second case, one family member owned a slaughter facility while another operated a livestock sale barn adjacent to the slaughter facility. The slaughter facility was under FSIS’ supervision while the sale barn was not. Cattle sometimes arrived at the sale barn that were sick/down/dead or would die or go down while at the sale barn. According to personnel at the sale barn, these animals were left for the renderer to collect. The healthy ambulatory animals that remained were marketed to many buyers including the adjacent slaughter facility. When the slaughter facility was ready to accept the ambulatory animals for processing, the cattle would be moved from the sale barn to the slaughter facility where they were subject to FSIS’ inspection.
We requested the slaughter facilities to estimate the number of cattle rejected on a daily basis (there were no records to confirm the estimates). We visited a renderer in the area and found that the renderer had a contract with APHIS to collect samples for BSE testing. In this case, although we could not obtain assurance that all rejected cattle were sampled, the renderer processed a significant number of animals, as compared to the slaughter plants’ estimates of those rejected. Due to the close proximity (less than 5 miles) of the renderer to the slaughter facilities, and the premium it paid for dead cattle that were in good condition, there was a financial incentive for transport drivers to dispose of their dead animals at this renderer.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 25
In our discussions with APHIS officials in Wisconsin and Iowa, they confirmed that there were plants in their States that also used pre-screening practices. On May 27, 2005, we requested APHIS and FSIS to provide a list of all slaughter facilities that pre-screened cattle for slaughter in locations away from the area designated as the official slaughter facility. Along with this request, we asked for information to demonstrate that either APHIS or FSIS confirmed there was a high likelihood that high-risk animals were sampled at other collection sites.
In response to our request, the APHIS BSE Program Manager stated that APHIS did not have information on slaughter plants that pre-screen or screen their animals for slaughter suitability off their official plant premises. To their knowledge, every company or producer that submits animals for slaughter pre-sorts or screens them for suitability at various locations away from the slaughter facility. For this reason, USDA focused its BSE sample collection efforts at other types of facilities such as renderers, pet food companies, landfills, and dead stock haulers. Further, in a letter to OIG on June 14, 2005, the administrators of APHIS and FSIS noted the following:
"…we believe that no specific actions are necessary or appropriate to obtain reasonable assurance that animals not presented for slaughter are being tested for BSE. There are several reasons for our position. First, we do not believe that the practice is in fact causing us to not test a significant enough number of animals in our enhanced surveillance program to invalidate the overall results. Second, OIG has concluded that because of the geographical proximity and business relationships of the various entities involved in the case investigated, there is reasonable assurance that a majority of the rejected cattle had been sampled. Third, it is also important to remember that the goal of the enhanced surveillance program is to test a sufficient number of animals to allow us to draw conclusions about the level of BSE (if any) in the American herd…We believe that the number we may be not testing because of the "pre-sorting" practice does not rise to a significant level. The number of animals tested to date has far exceeded expectations, so it is reasonable to infer that there are few of the animals in question, or that we are testing them at some other point in the process…APHIS estimated…there were approximately 446,000 high risk cattle…[and APHIS has]…tested over 375,000 animals in less than 1 year. This indicated that we are missing few animals in the high-risk population, including those that might be pre-sorted before entering a slaughter facility’s property."
snip...
APHIS notes that for the current surveillance program, it had established regional goals and APHIS was not trying to meet particular sampling levels in particular States. However, we believe that it would be advantageous for APHIS to monitor collection data and increase outreach when large geographical areas such as the above States do not provide samples in proportion to the numbers and types of cattle in the population.
We also disagree with APHIS/FSIS’ contention that because they have tested over 375,000 of their 446,000 estimate of high risk cattle, few in the high-risk population are being missed, including those that might be pre-screened before entering a slaughter facility’s property. In our prior audit, we reported that APHIS underestimated the high-risk population; we found that this estimate should have been closer to 1 million animals (see Finding 1). We recognize that BSE samples are provided on a voluntary basis; however, APHIS should consider industry practice in any further maintenance surveillance effort. Animals unsuitable for slaughter exhibiting symptoms not inconsistent with BSE should be sampled and their clinical signs recorded. However, this cited industry practice results in rejected animals not being made available to either APHIS or FSIS veterinarians for their observation and identification of clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. Although these animals may be sampled later at other collection sites, the animals are provided post mortem without information as to relevant clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. For these reasons, we believe APHIS needs to
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 27
observe these animals ante mortem when possible to assure the animals from the target population are ultimately sampled and the clinical signs evaluated.
snip...
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 scheduledfor 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
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/cjd-article/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school-lunch-program/641216
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school.html
http://downercattle.blogspot.com/
Office of the United States Attorney District of Arizona
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Information Contact Public Affairs
February 16, 2007 WYN HORNBUCKLE Telephone: (602) 514-7625Cell: (602) 525-2681
CORPORATION AND ITS PRESIDENT PLEAD GUILTY TO DEFRAUDING GOVERNMENT’S MAD COW DISEASESURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
snip...
Evidence uncovered during the government’s investigation established that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee submitted samples from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population. Specifically, FarmFresh Meats and Farabee submitted, or caused to be submitted, obex samples from healthy, USDA inspected cattle, in order to steal government moneys.
Evidence collected also demonstrated that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee failed to maintain cattle carcasses and heads pending test results and falsified corporate books and records to conceal their malfeasance. Such actions, to the extent an obex sample tested positive (fortunately, none did), could have jeopardized the USDA’s ability to identify the diseased animal and pinpoint its place of origin.
snip...
Sentencing is set before Judge Earl H. Carroll on May 14, 2007. The investigation in this case was conducted by Assistant Special Agent in Charge Alejandro Quintero, United States Department ofAgriculture, Office of Inspector General. The prosecutionis being handled by Robert Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District ofArizona, Phoenix.CASE NUMBER: CR-07-00160-PHX-EHC RELEASE NUMBER: 2007-051(Farabee)# # #
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2007/2007-051(Farabee).pdf
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
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
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
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
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
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
C O N F I R M E D
----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:25 PM Subject: [BSE-L] re-FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009 and Recall # V-256-2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/11/re-foia-request-on-feed-recall-product.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
Thursday, March 19, 2009
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/
Sunday, September 6, 2009
MAD COW USA 1997 SECRET VIDEO
SEE ANOTHER VIDEO THAT SHOWED IN CANADA, BUT NOT USA, ABOUT ANOTHER USA TSE COVER-UP MORE BRAINS NOT TESTED PROPERLY, key brain parts missing. ...
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2009/09/mad-cow-usa-1997-video.html
SEE THIS DAMNING VIDEO AT BOTTOM OF ;
Monday, July 27, 2009
U.S.A. HIDING MAD COW DISEASE VICTIMS AS SPORADIC CJD ?
http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/07/usa-hiding-mad-cow-disease-victims-as.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
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 19, 2009
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/10/atypical-bse-bse-and-other-human-and.html
Monday, November 23, 2009
BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS UPDATE NOVEMBER 23, 2009 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND O.I.E.
http://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/2009/11/bse-gbr-risk-assessments-update.html
Monday, May 12, 2008 BSE YOUNGEST AGE STATISTICS UNDER 30 MONTHS
the myth that cattle under 30 months of age are free from BSE/TSE is just that, a myth, and it's a false myth !
Information released on 2 February 2005 Summary of information requested What statistics are available on cattle less than 30 months of age found to have BSE? Information released VLA has recorded approximately 100 cases of BSE in cattle of 30 months of age or under during the entire period of the BSE epidemic (1986 - 2005). The figure is approximate as for 51 of these the age is only estimated. This is because farmers did not have accurate documentation to confirm birth date. This was not a requirement at the time. We can confirm that of the 100 cases, 49 were under 30 months of age, of these the youngest case was 20 months old.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/vla/vla_ati_020205.htm
Youngest confirmed case 20 Months, Oldest confirmed case 22 Years, Data valid to 01 April 2008
http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/science/docs/sci_tse_stats_gen.pdf
BSE Youngest and oldest cases by year of onset - GB 20 months, 21 months, (8) 24 months, see complete list of younger than 30 month ;
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/otmbsestatistics.pdf
BSE Youngest Japan 21 months, 23 months
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ehpm/10/3/130/_pdf
The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the most BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten in Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of that age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet accumulated enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to develop BSE on record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are fast incubators. Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months per year are infected with BSE and enter the food chain currently in Britain. Of these 3-5 could be fast incubators and carrying detectable quantities of prion.
http://www.sare.org/sanet-mg/archives/html-home/28-html/0359.html
FULL TEXT ;
http://flounder068.vox.com/library/post/bse-youngest-age-statistics-under-30-months.html
http://bseyoungestage.blogspot.com/
PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(8): e2969. Published online 2008 August 13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002969. PMCID: PMC2493038
Copyright This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
Prion Infected Meat-and-Bone Meal Is Still Infectious after Biodiesel Production
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493038/
SEE FULL TEXT ;
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
The most recent assessments (and reassessments) were published in June 2005 (Table I; 18), and included the categorisation of Canada, the USA, and Mexico as GBR III. Although only Canada and the USA have reported cases, the historically open system of trade in North America suggests that it is likely that BSE is present also in Mexico.
http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/06heim937950.pdf
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
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Human Prion Diseases in the United States January 1, 2010 ***FINAL***
http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2010/01/human-prion-diseases-in-united-states.html
my comments to PLosone here ;
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F04ce2b24-613d-46e6-9802-4131e2bfa6fd&root=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F04ce2b24-613d-46e6-9802-4131e2bfa6fd
TSS
Labels: atypical bse, bse, CATTLE HEADS, CNS, mad cow disease, SRM, SURVEILLANCE
posted by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. at
1:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home