Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Feedyard Board
BSE, BOVINE - USA (02): FEED RECALL ProMED
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="flounder" data-source="post: 257990" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p>Texan,</p><p></p><p>yawn all you want, but being asleep at the wheel is what got Texas and the rest of the USA into this mad cow mess. </p><p></p><p>history speaks for itself ;</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</p><p>P01-05</p><p>January 30, 2001</p><p> Print Media: 301-827-6242</p><p>Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA </p><p></p><p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p>Note: On Dec. 23, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a cow in Washington state had tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease). As a result, information on this Web page stating that no BSE cases had been found in the United States is now incorrect. However, because other information on this page continues to have value, the page will remain available for viewing.</p><p></p><p>FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT</p><p></p><p></p><p>Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle. </p><p></p><p>FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.</p><p></p><p>It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated.</p><p></p><p>According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE." </p><p></p><p>Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual. </p><p></p><p>FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.</p><p></p><p>This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.</p><p></p><p>FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</p><p>Statement</p><p>May 4, 2004 </p><p> Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242</p><p>Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms </p><p>On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed. </p><p></p><p>FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse. </p><p></p><p>FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA. </p><p></p><p>Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison). </p><p></p><p>FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs. </p><p></p><p>To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle. </p><p></p><p>Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry. </p><p></p><p>FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>USDA Testing Protocols and Quality Assurance Procedures </p><p></p><p>In November 2004, USDA announced that its rapid screening test produced an inconclusive BSE test result. A contract laboratory ran its rapid screening test on a brain sample collected for testing and produced three high positive reactive results. As required, the contract laboratory forwarded the inconclusive sample to APHIS' National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) for confirmation. NVSL repeated the rapid screening test, which again produced three high positive reactive results. Following established protocol, NVSL ran its confirmatory test, an immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, which was interpreted as negative for BSE. </p><p></p><p>Faced with conflicting results between the rapid screening and IHC tests, NVSL scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy but APHIS headquarters officials concluded that no further testing was necessary since testing protocols were followed and the confirmatory test was negative. In our discussions with APHIS officials, they justified their decision to not do additional testing because the IHC test is internationally recognized as the "gold standard" of testing. Also, they believed that </p><p></p><p>USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC/ Page iv </p><p></p><p>conducting additional tests would undermine confidence in USDA's testing protocols. </p><p></p><p>OIG obtained evidence that indicated additional testing was prudent. We came to this conclusion because the rapid screening tests produced six high positive reactive results, the IHC tests conflicted, and various standard operating procedures were not followed. Also, our review of the relevant scientific literature, other countries' protocols, and discussions with experts led us to conclude that additional confirmatory testing should be considered in the event of conflicting test results. </p><p></p><p>To maintain objectivity and independence, we requested that USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) perform the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) Scrapie-Associated Fibrils (SAF) immunoblot test. The additional testing produced positive results. To confirm, the Secretary of Agriculture requested that an internationally recognized BSE laboratory in Weybridge, England (Weybridge) perform additional testing. Weybridge conducted various tests, including their own IHC tests and three Western blot tests. The tests confirmed that the cow was infected with BSE. The Secretary immediately directed USDA scientists to work with international experts to develop new protocols that include performing dual confirmatory tests in the event of an inconclusive BSE screening test. </p><p></p><p>We attribute the failure to identify the BSE positive sample to rigid protocols, as well as the lack of adequate quality assurance controls over its testing program. Details of our concerns are discussed in Findings 3 and 4. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>full text here ;</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> Release No. 0336.05</p><p>Contact:</p><p>USDA Jim Rogers 202-690-4755</p><p>FDA Rae Jones 301-827- 6242</p><p></p><p> Printable version </p><p> Email this page </p><p> </p><p> U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) </p><p> </p><p> Investigation Results of Texas Cow That Tested Positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Aug. 30, 2005 </p><p> </p><p> The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have completed their investigations regarding a cow that tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in June 2005. The agencies conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service. </p><p></p><p>Our results indicate that the positive animal, called the index animal, was born and raised on a ranch (termed the "index farm") in Texas. It was a cream colored Brahma cross approximately 12 years old at the time of its death. It was born prior to the implementation of the 1997 feed ban instituted by FDA to help minimize the risk that a cow might consume feed contaminated with the agent thought to cause BSE. The animal was sold through a livestock sale in November of 2004 and transported to a packing plant. The animal was dead upon arrival at the packing plant and was then shipped to a pet food plant where it was sampled for BSE. The plant did not use the animal in its product, and the carcass was destroyed in November 2004. ...snip...full text;</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/08/0336.xml" target="_blank">http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome ... 8/0336.xml</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Texas BSE Investigation</p><p></p><p>Final Epidemiology Report</p><p></p><p>August 2005</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bs ... report.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>> -------- Original Message --------</p><p>> Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???</p><p>> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600</p><p>> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." </p><p>> To: Carla Everett </p><p>> References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net> </p><p>> <6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.u s></p><p>></p><p>></p><p>></p><p>> Greetings Carla,</p><p>></p><p>></p><p>> still hear a rumor;</p><p>></p><p>> Texas</p><p>></p><p>> single beef cow</p><p>></p><p>> not born in Canada</p><p>></p><p>> no beef entered the food chain?</p><p>></p><p>></p><p>> and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up for</p><p>> something, but they forgot a url for update?</p><p>></p><p>> I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET...</p><p>></p><p>> can you confirm???</p><p>></p><p>> terry</p><p>></p><p>> I RECIEVED NO REPLY.</p><p>></p><p>> This Was my reply from Carla 11/19/04 about the first</p><p>> rumor i heard about this Texas cow;</p><p>></p><p>> Carla Everett wrote:</p><p>></p><p>>> The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all</p><p>>> callers to the USDA web site. We have no information</p><p>>> about the animal being in Texas. Carla</p><p>>></p><p>>></p><p>>></p><p>>> At 09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:</p><p>>></p><p>>>> Greetings Carla,</p><p>>>></p><p>>>> i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow </p><p>>>> is from</p><p>>>> TEXAS. can you comment on this either way please?</p><p>>>></p><p>>>> thank you,</p><p>>>> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.</p><p>>>></p><p>></p><p>></p><p>> NOW the BSE data and announcement that was there with</p><p>> no url, has vanished. something fishy smelling here...</p><p></p><p></p><p>flounder...TSS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 257990, member: 3519"] Texan, yawn all you want, but being asleep at the wheel is what got Texas and the rest of the USA into this mad cow mess. history speaks for itself ; FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE P01-05 January 30, 2001 Print Media: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: On Dec. 23, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a cow in Washington state had tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease). As a result, information on this Web page stating that no BSE cases had been found in the United States is now incorrect. However, because other information on this page continues to have value, the page will remain available for viewing. FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle. FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds. It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated. According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE." Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual. FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities. This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely. FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply. [url=http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html]http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html[/url] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement May 4, 2004 Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed. FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse. FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA. Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison). FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs. To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle. Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry. FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger. [url=http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html]http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html[/url] USDA Testing Protocols and Quality Assurance Procedures In November 2004, USDA announced that its rapid screening test produced an inconclusive BSE test result. A contract laboratory ran its rapid screening test on a brain sample collected for testing and produced three high positive reactive results. As required, the contract laboratory forwarded the inconclusive sample to APHIS’ National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) for confirmation. NVSL repeated the rapid screening test, which again produced three high positive reactive results. Following established protocol, NVSL ran its confirmatory test, an immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, which was interpreted as negative for BSE. Faced with conflicting results between the rapid screening and IHC tests, NVSL scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy but APHIS headquarters officials concluded that no further testing was necessary since testing protocols were followed and the confirmatory test was negative. In our discussions with APHIS officials, they justified their decision to not do additional testing because the IHC test is internationally recognized as the "gold standard" of testing. Also, they believed that USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC/ Page iv conducting additional tests would undermine confidence in USDA’s testing protocols. OIG obtained evidence that indicated additional testing was prudent. We came to this conclusion because the rapid screening tests produced six high positive reactive results, the IHC tests conflicted, and various standard operating procedures were not followed. Also, our review of the relevant scientific literature, other countries’ protocols, and discussions with experts led us to conclude that additional confirmatory testing should be considered in the event of conflicting test results. To maintain objectivity and independence, we requested that USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) perform the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) Scrapie-Associated Fibrils (SAF) immunoblot test. The additional testing produced positive results. To confirm, the Secretary of Agriculture requested that an internationally recognized BSE laboratory in Weybridge, England (Weybridge) perform additional testing. Weybridge conducted various tests, including their own IHC tests and three Western blot tests. The tests confirmed that the cow was infected with BSE. The Secretary immediately directed USDA scientists to work with international experts to develop new protocols that include performing dual confirmatory tests in the event of an inconclusive BSE screening test. We attribute the failure to identify the BSE positive sample to rigid protocols, as well as the lack of adequate quality assurance controls over its testing program. Details of our concerns are discussed in Findings 3 and 4. full text here ; [url=http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf]http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf[/url] Release No. 0336.05 Contact: USDA Jim Rogers 202-690-4755 FDA Rae Jones 301-827- 6242 Printable version Email this page U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigation Results of Texas Cow That Tested Positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Aug. 30, 2005 The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have completed their investigations regarding a cow that tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in June 2005. The agencies conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service. Our results indicate that the positive animal, called the index animal, was born and raised on a ranch (termed the "index farm") in Texas. It was a cream colored Brahma cross approximately 12 years old at the time of its death. It was born prior to the implementation of the 1997 feed ban instituted by FDA to help minimize the risk that a cow might consume feed contaminated with the agent thought to cause BSE. The animal was sold through a livestock sale in November of 2004 and transported to a packing plant. The animal was dead upon arrival at the packing plant and was then shipped to a pet food plant where it was sampled for BSE. The plant did not use the animal in its product, and the carcass was destroyed in November 2004. ...snip...full text; [url=http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/08/0336.xml]http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome ... 8/0336.xml[/url] Texas BSE Investigation Final Epidemiology Report August 2005 [url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf]http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bs ... report.pdf[/url] > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ??? > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600 > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." > To: Carla Everett > References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net> > <6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.u s> > > > > Greetings Carla, > > > still hear a rumor; > > Texas > > single beef cow > > not born in Canada > > no beef entered the food chain? > > > and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up for > something, but they forgot a url for update? > > I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET... > > can you confirm??? > > terry > > I RECIEVED NO REPLY. > > This Was my reply from Carla 11/19/04 about the first > rumor i heard about this Texas cow; > > Carla Everett wrote: > >> The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all >> callers to the USDA web site. We have no information >> about the animal being in Texas. Carla >> >> >> >> At 09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote: >> >>> Greetings Carla, >>> >>> i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow >>> is from >>> TEXAS. can you comment on this either way please? >>> >>> thank you, >>> Terry S. Singeltary Sr. >>> > > > NOW the BSE data and announcement that was there with > no url, has vanished. something fishy smelling here... flounder...TSS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Feedyard Board
BSE, BOVINE - USA (02): FEED RECALL ProMED
Top