Alberta farmer wrote:I often wonder if Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, etc. test for BSE? Did their governments ever allow cattle from the UK to be imported? Do they allow their producers to feed packing house waste to cattle?
Canada imports a fair amount of beef from these countries. Are their safety protocols as stringent as here? Right now a lot of American beef is coming into Canada and yet they don't have the same rules that we have to live with? How does the Canadian producer compete if they have a higher cost for safety concerns?
If the food safety rules for cattle in Canada are meant to protect the consumer then how does the CFIA justify letting beef in that doesn't follow the same rules?
they call it MRR, the _legal_ trading of all strains of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy, GLOBALLY. and that's all that the MRR was about. be nice, the USA covered up 2 cases of mad cow disease just so this stupid policy could get finalized, and 25 years of attempted eradication of this agent got washed down the drain $$$ all we are doing now, is what the UK did when all this BSe first got started, except now, with the MRR, it's simply legal now.
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-2006-0041-0006 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary Sr Views Add Comments How To Comment
snip...
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....
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/C ... tType=msw8http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/c ... -0041-0006http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 64801f3413did anyone ever read the MRR 2 ;
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... 1-1%20.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... 9-2007.pdfyour only fooling yourselves with this stupid ukbsenvcjd only theory, and the BSE mythology of the OIE. most any country that went by those same OIE BSE guidelines all went down with BSE. THE OIE has now shown they are nothing more than a National Trading Brokerage for all strains of animal TSE. AS i said before, OIE should hang up there jock strap now, since it appears they will buckle every time a country makes some political hay about trade protocol, commodities and futures. IF they are not going to be science based, they should do everyone a favor and dissolve there organization. ...
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 0011-1.pdfhttp://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 64801e47e1bottom line, and i say this with full confidence, with the present and past surveillance of BSE/TSE in the USA, and the continued feed violations, in the TONS, no one will ever know the true extent of any strain of mad cow disease in the USA. you don't have to just take my word on it, read the facts. blunder, after blunder, after blunder. they have all been posted here, i would be glad to go over any and or all of them one by one for any that doubts me. i can sum it all up real quick, Canada is looking to find, and the USA has never, EVER, done that. it's been just the opposite for the USA. don't believe me, or the facts, here is what Dr. Paul Brown of the cdc/nih et al ;
CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006
The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade.
The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.
These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.
"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."
Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive.
USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.
"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005 suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end
http://www.upi.com/CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ... Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05, ...
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htmPAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM
"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow issue for some years, and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed critiques and recommendations to both the USDA and the Canadian Food Agency."
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... T=0&P=8125THE bse mrr policy is nothing more than swapping spit. your just accepting what ever disease that country has, and or what ever that country says it has. it's an honor system of sorts. Canada seems to be Honest, and just the opposite has happened here in the USA.
WE did just what the UK did to the globe ;
http://www.mad-cow.org/00/aug00_last_news.html#fffhttp://www.mad-cow.org/00/sep00_news.html#hhhhttp://www.mad-cow.org/00/jul00_dont_eat_sheep.html#hhhhttp://www.mad-cow.org/00/may00_news.html#aaayears later, the bush administration made it legal. the body bag count was acceptable for the _documented_ ones. the elderly are expendable, kids and pets are not, and as long as politics plays a role in dictating science i.e. the UKBSEnvCJD ONLY THEORY, we all loose, and the 85%+ of all the other victims, go unaccounted for...officially, but some of us no different, but yet the ignorance of it all, will continue to spread the TSE agent globally, through a multitude of proven routes and sources i.e. friendly fire i.e. and or the pass it forward mode. ...
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 then Central Bureau............
http://www.oie.int/eng/Session2007/RF2006.pdffull text ;
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2007/ ... a-and.htmlhttp://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/Saturday, June 13, 2009
BSE FEED VIOLATIONS USA UPDATE From 01/01/2009 To 06/10/2009
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... -from.htmlTuesday, August 11, 2009
Characteristics of Established and Proposed Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Variants
http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogsp ... d-and.htmlAustralia
TSE surveillance - a numbers game Rather than taking a random sample, which would require many more animals to give the same degree of confidence, Australia targets animals that have nervous signs consistent with BSE and scrapie in appropriate age groups. In this way we are able to sample a smaller number of animals because our chances of finding BSE or scrapie in these animals would be high if the diseases were present in Australia.
Australia's surveillance requirements are much different from those countries that have these diseases. Australia's target is to examine 400 cattle and 450 sheep brains per year. Queensland's sampling target is based on the numbers of sheep and cattle in Australia. The targets are 161 cattle and 22 sheep cases for 2006.
What tests are done on the samples collected? Microscopic examination of brain tissue by trained veterinary pathologists is the primary testing method used in Australia. Pathologists look for spongiform changes in the brains of cattle and sheep displaying the clinical signs previously mentioned. It is the absence of spongiform changes that show these diseases are not present in Australia.
New tests have been developed and their ability to detect BSE and scrapie is much the same as microscopic examination but they have the advantage of being able to be done quickly. Such 'rapid tests' are now used to screen large numbers of animals at slaughter in some countries. Australia has the capability to perform rapid tests and is continually evaluating new tests as they are developed. Their future use in Australia will be governed by international surveillance requirements.
'Rapid tests' are used in Australia, principally to maintain the competency of our testing laboratories. However, these 'rapid test' results are also used to strengthen Australia's case for freedom from BSE and scrapie.
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/health/3557.htmlScientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Australia Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)
Report (0.2Mb)
Summary
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Australia, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Australia. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Australia as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.
In the case of Australia, an extremely or very unstable system was exposed to a very low or negligible challenge through the import of cattle. Under these conditions, it is highly unlikely that any internal challenge occurred. Given the negligible level of external challenge through meat and bone meal (MBM), it is highly unlikely that any internal challenge occurred.
The risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Australia and were, at least partly, rendered for feed, due to imported cattle from BSE-risk countries has been very low to negligible throughout the considered period. Some imports of cattle in the early 80s from the UK and from the mid-80s onwards from USA, Canada and European countries increased the risk of BSE infectivity entering the feed chain. However, the probability that BSE contaminated material entered processing is seen as being very low.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR Australia level is I, i.e., it is highly unlikely that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the possibility of cross-contamination exists and there are no serious changes in rendering, the system will continue to be very unstable. Thus, the possibility of cattle being (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent will remain at a low level.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 594386.htmNew Zealand is recognized as free from scrapie by the European Commission. Scrapie was detected in imported sheep in the 1950s when the disease was eradicated by slaughtering and disposing of all in-contact sheep and resting or destocking pastures. Another incident occurred in the 1970s when the sheep concerned were still held in quarantine. The animals were euthanased and their carcasses burnt.
BSE has never been reported or recorded in NZ.
Since 1952, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has undertaken surveillance for Scrapie.
Since 1990, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has undertaken active surveillance for scrapie, BSE and chronic wasting disease in deer.
Since the mid 1950s, only Australian meat and bone meal that has been heat-treated and accompanied by a valid import permit, has been permitted entry to New Zealand. N.B Australia is also free of BSE and scrapie. This material was not imported for use as feed.
The absence of scrapie, BSE and New Zealand's grass-fed, pasture-based farming systems ensures there is an extremely low likelihood of BSE entering the cattle population, simply because cattle are not feed formulated rations in feed lots. This fact is recognised by the EU Scientific Steering Committee which has categorised New Zealand highly unlikely to have cattle clinically or pre-clinically infected with BSE. .
In addition a voluntary ban was introduced on the feeding of ruminant-derived protein except milk for calves to all ruminants. This was followed by comprehensive legislation banning the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants including spreading of meat and bone meal on pasture as fertilizer, which took effect from 1 Jan 2000.
Since 1990, the Ministry of Agriculture's active surveillance program has included:
In 1988, a retrospective study of fixed adult bovine brain sections held in animal pathology laboratories was under taken for histopathological evidence of BSE. A total of 50 brains was examined and no lesions were found suggestive of BSE. An active education program to inform veterinarians, farmers and others of the clinical signs associated with TSEs A financial credit to those who submit for laboratory examination brains from sheep, goats, cattle or deer exhibiting signs of progressive central nervous system disease. From 1996 to 2000 almost 700 brains have been tested under such a program with no evidence of any TSE being found. Monitoring of the 13 cattle imported from the UK between 1982 and 1988. All are now dead. From January 1990 to December 2002 diagnostic vets screened 6,576 cases presenting clinical signs of nervous disease in cattle. In 1998 an additional 1,009 brains for clinically normal cattle aged 4 years and older were screen for histopathological lesions of BSE. None were found.
http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/node/287 ... xpand=2398Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of New Zealand Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted: 1 May 2005 Summary (0.1Mb)
Report (0.1Mb)
Summary
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in New Zealand, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in New Zealand. This scientific report addresses the GBR of New Zealand as assessed in 2005 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.
Although the system was extremely unstable in New Zealand from the early 1980s until 2003, the occurrence of an internal challenge is considered highly unlikely due to the negligible external challenge over the entire period.
The risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in New Zealand, and were at least partly rendered for feed, due to imported cattle from BSE-risk countries has been negligible throughout the considered period. Also, the probability that BSE contaminated material entered the cattle system is seen as being negligible.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of NEW ZEALAND is I, i.e., it is highly unlikely that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the possibility of cross-contamination exists and there are no serious changes in rendering, the system will continue to be very unstable. Thus, the possibility of cattle being (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent will remain at a low level.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 595988.htmBRAZIL BSE
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/inspections ... 002_en.pdfSEE GAIN REPORT HERE ON BRAZIL BACK IN 2001 ;
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... l=en&gl=ushttp://www.stat-usa.gov/agworld.nsf/505 ... CA1016.PDFScientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Brazil Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted: 1 June 2005 Summary (0.1Mb)
Report (0.1Mb)
Summary of the scientific report
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Brazil, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Brazil. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Brazil as assessed in 2005 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.
A very unstable system between 1980 and 2000 was exposed to a negligible external challenge until 1990, to a low external challenge between 1991 and 1995 and to a negligible external challenge between 1996 and 2000. In 2001 the stability of the system improved to an unstable system exposed to a negligible external challenge for the latest period.
Given the level of the external challenge, it is highly unlikely that an internal challenge occurred until 1990. However, the internal challenge became unlikely but cannot be excluded from 1991 onwards, mainly due to cattle imported from BSE-risk countries in 1991-1995.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of BRAZIL is II, i.e. it is unlikely but can not be excluded that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. If the stability of the system in Brazil remains as low as it is, significant external challenges could lead to an increase in the GBR of the country.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 596126.htmScientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Argentina Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted: 1 June 2005 Summary (0.1Mb)
Report (0.2Mb)
Summary
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Argentina, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Argentina. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Argentina as assessed in 2005 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.
Although the stability of the system was very unstable in Argentina from 1980 until June 2002 and unstable from July 2002 until 2003, the occurrence of an internal challenge is considered highly unlikely due to the negligible external challenge over the entire period.
The risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Argentina, and were at least partly rendered for feed, due to imported cattle from BSE-risk countries has been negligible throughout the considered period. Also the probability that BSE contaminated material entered the cattle system is seen as being negligible.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of ARGENTINA is I i.e., it is highly unlikely that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as no external challenge occurs the GBR will remain low as it is. However, given the stability of the system, any such external challenge could lead to the building up of an internal challenge.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 595629.htmScientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Canada Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)
Report (0.2Mb)
Summary
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Canada, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Canada. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Canada as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.
The BSE agent was probably imported into the country middle of the eighties and could have reached domestic cattle in the early nineties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Canada reached domestic cattle and led to an internal challenge in the early 90s.
A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of Canada is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the system remains unstable, it is expected that the GBR continues to grow, even if no additional external challenges occur.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 594094.htmScientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of the USA Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)
Report (0.2Mb)
Summary
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.
The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.
A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 594180.htmterry
