Another possible BSE case

MikeC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
7,636
City & State/Province
Alabama
Statement by Dr. John Clifford Regarding Non-Definitive BSE Test Results
7/27/05
Late yesterday, we received non-definitive test results on an animal sampled as part of a voluntary extension of our enhanced BSE surveillance program. USDA is conducting further testing at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames , Iowa , in consultation with experts from the international reference laboratory in Weybridge , England . We are also sending samples from this animal to the Weybridge laboratory for further testing. It is important to note that this animal poses no threat to our food supply because it did not enter the human food or animal feed chains.

The sample was submitted to us by a private veterinarian. As an extension of our enhanced surveillance program, accredited private veterinarians, who often visit farms in remote areas, collect samples when warranted. The sample in question today was taken from a cow that was at least 12 years of age and experienced complications during calving. The veterinarian treated the sample with a preservative, which readies it for testing using the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test - an internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE. Neither the rapid screening test nor the Western blot confirmatory test can be conducted on a sample that has been preserved.

Our laboratory ran the IHC test on the sample and received non-definitive results that suggest the need for further testing. As we have previously experienced, it is possible for an IHC test to yield differing results depending on the “slice” of tissue that is tested. Therefore, scientists at our laboratory and at Weybridge will run the IHC test on additional “slices” of tissue from this animal to determine whether or not it was infected with BSE. We will announce results as soon as they are compiled, which we expect to occur by next week.

I would note that the sample was taken in April, at which time the protocols allowed for a preservative to be used (protocols changed in June 2005). The sample was not submitted to us until last week, because the veterinarian set aside the sample after preserving it and simply forgot to send it in. On that point, I would like to emphasize that while that time lag is not optimal, it has no implications in terms of the risk to human health. The carcass of this animal was destroyed, therefore there is absolutely no risk to human or animal health from this animal.

Regardless of the outcome of the further testing, I want to emphasize that human and animal health in the United States are protected by a system of interlocking safeguards. The most important of these is the ban on specified risk materials from the food supply and the Food and Drug Administration’s feed ban. And by any measure, the incidence of BSE in this country is extremely low. Our enhanced surveillance program is designed to provide information about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States . We are extremely gratified that to date, all sectors of the cattle industry have cooperated in this program by submitting samples from more than 419,000 animals from the highest risk populations. To date, only one animal has tested positive for the disease as part of the surveillance program. These interlocking safeguards continue to protect our food supply.
 
Mike, I sure hope that vet is as ashamed of himself as I am of him. For not just throwing it in the trash instead of sending it in so late. That kind of 'surveillance' doesn't inspire much confidence. Makes the whole deal look like a Micky Mouse circle jerk. The Japanese trade negotiators have got to be laughing their ass off.
 
Remember, tested beef isn't safer beef. The beef in North America is safe as long as the SRM's are removed. The whole idea is to find prevalence of BSE in the native herd. The whole thing is a bit of a non-issue with the consumer anyway so at least we have that going for us.
 
Texan: The Japanese trade negotiators plus the Jap consumers are getting the last laugh now. Might be a long time before we have the confidence of THAT market.

Cattle Rack: Don't know how you can say tested beef isn't safer beef. If it prevented a positive animal from entering the food chain how could it NOT be safer? Especially for consumer confidence.
If SRM removal is a sure fire "cure all" why do so many countries have laws preventing blood from high risk donors?
There is little known known about the spread of prion diseases and I had rather err on the side of caution until it is better understood.
Testing methods have improved dramatically in the last 5-10 years, with the ability to find sub-clinical cases that cannot be detected through IHC (immunohistochemistry) tests. The $4-6 billion we (U.S.) have lost to the Japs would have paid for a lot of tests and maybe gotten us farther into finding the sources of the disease thus saving us grief in the future. JMHO
 
MikeC":34t0vzxt said:
Texan: The Japanese trade negotiators plus the Jap consumers are getting the last laugh now. Might be a long time before we have the confidence of THAT market.

Cattle Rack: Don't know how you can say tested beef isn't safer beef. If it prevented a positive animal from entering the food chain how could it NOT be safer? Especially for consumer confidence.
If SRM removal is a sure fire "cure all" why do so many countries have laws preventing blood from high risk donors?
There is little known known about the spread of prion diseases and I had rather err on the side of caution until it is better understood.
Testing methods have improved dramatically in the last 5-10 years, with the ability to find sub-clinical cases that cannot be detected through IHC (immunohistochemistry) tests. The $4-6 billion we (U.S.) have lost to the Japs would have paid for a lot of tests and maybe gotten us farther into finding the sources of the disease thus saving us grief in the future. JMHO

As you well know from other discussions in other places, although tested meat may be perceived by the public as safer, it is not. The recommended practice of removing SRM's is what makes beef safer, not the testing itself. As far as a tool to open up Japanese markets, I agree it would be useful but again that is a consumer perception issue more than it is a safety issue.
 
Cattle Rack Rancher":1a02pbfv said:
MikeC":1a02pbfv said:
Texan: The Japanese trade negotiators plus the Jap consumers are getting the last laugh now. Might be a long time before we have the confidence of THAT market.

Cattle Rack: Don't know how you can say tested beef isn't safer beef. If it prevented a positive animal from entering the food chain how could it NOT be safer? Especially for consumer confidence.
If SRM removal is a sure fire "cure all" why do so many countries have laws preventing blood from high risk donors?
There is little known known about the spread of prion diseases and I had rather err on the side of caution until it is better understood.
Testing methods have improved dramatically in the last 5-10 years, with the ability to find sub-clinical cases that cannot be detected through IHC (immunohistochemistry) tests. The $4-6 billion we (U.S.) have lost to the Japs would have paid for a lot of tests and maybe gotten us farther into finding the sources of the disease thus saving us grief in the future. JMHO

As you well know from other discussions in other places, although tested meat may be perceived by the public as safer, it is not. The recommended practice of removing SRM's is what makes beef safer, not the testing itself. As far as a tool to open up Japanese markets, I agree it would be useful but again that is a consumer perception issue more than it is a safety issue.

About the OTM Rule Review
The Agency had reviewed the Rule to see whether a ban on sale for consumption of OTM meat was still appropriate in the light of the decline in the BSE epidemic.

It was assisted in the review by two committees:- a joint SEAC/FSA risk assessment group and a core stakeholder group representing a range of stakeholders including the farming and meat industries and consumers.

Following consideration of the review, the Agency's Board at its meeting on 10 July 2003 agreed to recommend to Ministers that it would be acceptable on public health grounds to replace, in two stages, the OTM Rule with BSE testing of cattle older than 30 months.

The above article is from the Food Safety Authority in the EU.
They perceive testing as a food safety measure as opposed to the USDA and CFIA. I happen to agree.
I have my opinion and you have yours. So be it.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
MikeC":1mcthi1i said:
ollie":1mcthi1i said:
The cow doesn't have bse. The board has traded up.

You called it here first Ollie! :idea:

:lol: mikec, that sounds like something one of those presidental election coverages on tv would say...

jt
 
MikeC":cps5dl9n said:
ollie":cps5dl9n said:
The cow doesn't have bse. The board has traded up.

You called it here first Ollie! :idea:
Just have to keep an eye open and a skeptical view point.
The Chicago boys have known of every case (I think) before us.
 
Arnold Ziffle":s8eyn7cw said:
I wonder if old Richard Many Horses got the inside skinny, enabling him to make even bigger profits trading "our" cattle on paper. :lol:

Funny you should mention him AZ. Don't have time to go dig it up right now but it seems like he was all worried about the August markets.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top