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
CANADA FAR EXCEEDS USA FDA ON MAD COW FEED CONTROLS
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: 235953" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p>CANADA STRENGTHENS FEED CONTROLS</p><p></p><p>OTTAWA, June 26, 2006 (15:00 EST) - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency</p><p>is banning cattle tissues capable of transmitting bovine spongiform</p><p>encephalopathy (BSE) from all animal feeds, pet foods and fertilizers.</p><p>The enhancement will significantly accelerate Canada's progress toward</p><p>eradicating the disease from the national cattle herd by preventing more</p><p>than 99% of any potential BSE infectivity from entering the Canadian</p><p>feed system.</p><p></p><p>The banned tissues, which are collectively known as specified risk</p><p>material (SRM), have been shown in infected cattle to contain</p><p>concentrated levels of the BSE agent. Canada has already applied</p><p>identical protection to the human food system, where SRM are removed</p><p>from all cattle slaughtered for human consumption. This measure is</p><p>internationally recognized as the most effective way to protect the</p><p>safety of food from BSE.</p><p></p><p>"This ban tightens already strong, internationally recognized feed</p><p>controls and shortens the path we must follow to move beyond BSE," said</p><p>the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and</p><p>Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. "Preventing all these materials</p><p>from entering the animal feed chain minimizes risks and demonstrates the</p><p>commitment of Canada's new government to take necessary, science-based</p><p>actions to address BSE."</p><p></p><p>Ongoing surveillance testing continues to indicate that the level of BSE</p><p>in Canada is very low. This is attributable to Canada's current feed</p><p>ban, which has prohibited the use of SRM in feed for cattle and other</p><p>ruminant animals since 1997. Extending SRM controls to all animal feeds</p><p>addresses potential contamination that could occur during feed</p><p>production, transportation, storage and use. Removing SRM from pet food</p><p>and fertilizers is intended to mitigate the risk associated with the</p><p>potential exposure of cattle and other susceptible animals to BSE</p><p>through the misuse of these products.</p><p></p><p>The new outcome-based regulations enter into force on July 12, 2007,</p><p>with additional time provided for small establishments to achieve full</p><p>compliance. In the meantime, an awareness campaign will be undertaken to</p><p>ensure that all regulated parties are fully aware of their</p><p>responsibilities and have adjusted their practices and procedures as</p><p>required. Special emphasis will be placed on working closely and in full</p><p>cooperation with small abattoirs to help them transition to the new</p><p>requirements and facilitate their long-term viability. The Government</p><p>has set aside $80 million to work with the provinces to assist</p><p>industry's implementation of the new feed controls.</p><p></p><p>Enhanced feed controls complete the Government's response to the</p><p>detection of BSE, consistent with the recommendations of the</p><p>international team of experts that reviewed Canada's situation. As a</p><p>priority, Canada first focused on human health protection, which was</p><p>achieved through the removal of SRM from the food system. Attention then</p><p>turned to animal health measures through intensified surveillance</p><p>testing for BSE and increased animal tracing capabilities.</p><p></p><p>SRM are defined as the skull, brain, trigeminal ganglia (nerves attached</p><p>to the brain), eyes, tonsils, spinal cord and dorsal root ganglia</p><p>(nerves attached to the spinal cord) of cattle aged 30 months or older</p><p>and the distal ileum (portion of the small intestine) of cattle of all</p><p>ages.</p><p></p><p> For more information:</p><p> Fact Sheet: Canada's Enhanced Feed Ban </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/enhrene.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... rene.shtml</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>USA FDA</p><p></p><p>FLIP ;</p><p></p><p></p><p>C. Animal Feed Restrictions</p><p></p><p>Specified Risk Materials (SRMs)</p><p> In the ``Feed Restrictions'' section of the report, the IRT</p><p>recommended: ``All SRM should be excluded from all animal feed,</p><p>including pet food.'' [p. 5] FDA has prohibited the use of most</p><p>mammalian proteins in ruminant feed since 1997. The IRT report stated</p><p>that, ``Considering the BSE situation in North America, the [IRT]</p><p>believes the partial (ruminant to ruminant) feed ban that is currently</p><p>in place is insufficient to prevent exposure of cattle to the BSE</p><p>agent.'' [p. 5] The IRT further stated that, ``While science would</p><p>support the feed bans limited to the prohibition of ruminant derived</p><p>[meat and bone meal] MBM in ruminant feed, practical difficulties of</p><p>enforcement demand more pragmatic and effective solutions.'' [p. 6]</p><p>Specifically, the IRT cited epidemiological evidence in the United</p><p>Kingdom that highlight the dangers of cattle infection through the</p><p>consumption of feed that had been contaminated accidentally when</p><p>manufactured in premises that legitimately used mammalian meat and bone</p><p>meal in feed for pigs and poultry. [p. 5] In addition, the IRT report</p><p>cited an ongoing attack rate study at the Veterinary Laboratories</p><p>Agency in the United Kingdom that demonstrates</p><p></p><p>[[Page 42297]]</p><p></p><p>transmission of BSE with 10 mg of infectious brain tissue. [p. 5]</p><p>Although not yet published, more recent results from this study have</p><p>demonstrated transmission with a lower dose of infectious brain tissue.</p><p>These levels are significantly lower than the 1 gram infectious dose</p><p>that had been demonstrated in the same study at the time the 1997 BSE</p><p>feed rule was issued. Further, the Harvard-Tuskegee Study showed that</p><p>removing SRMs from all animal feed reduces by 88 percent the potential</p><p>exposure of cattle to the BSE agent when 10 BSE infected cattle are</p><p>introduced into the United States. Accordingly, FDA has tentatively</p><p>concluded that it should propose removing SRMs from all animal feed to</p><p>adequately control the risks associated with cross contamination</p><p>throughout feed manufacture and distribution and with intentional or</p><p>unintentional misfeeding on the farm. FDA is currently working on a</p><p>proposal to accomplish this goal.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-15882.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-15882.htm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05-20196.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05-20196.htm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>III. Significance of Guidance</p><p></p><p> This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good</p><p>guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents</p><p>the agency's current thinking about the manufacture and labeling of raw</p><p>meat foods for companion and captive noncompanion carnivores and</p><p>omnivores. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person</p><p>and will not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach</p><p>may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the</p><p>applicable statutes and regulations.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-11366.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-11366.htm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>FLOP ;</p><p></p><p></p><p>Currently in the U.S. , animal products that are prohibited from cattle feed</p><p>are _acceptable_ for use in pet food. Such products include meat and bone</p><p>meal, for example. However, FDA believes that the safeguards it has put into</p><p>place (i.e. ruminant feed rule) to prevent BSE in the U.S. have also</p><p>protected cats. To date, no case of FSE has been found in the U.S. FDA</p><p>continues to review these safeguards to be sure they are adequate,</p><p>especially in light of the BSE case found in Washington State in December,</p><p>2003. ...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/cvm/petfoods.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/cvm/petfoods.htm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>BSE, BOVINE - USA: FEED RECALL</p><p>*******************************</p><p>A ProMED-mail post</p><p><http://www.promedmail.org></p><p>ProMED-mail is a program of the</p><p>International Society for Infectious Diseases</p><p><http://www.isid.org></p><p></p><p>Date: 21 Jun 2006</p><p>From: Terry Singeltary <flounder9@verizon.net></p><p>Source: Chron.com, 20 Jun 2006 [edited]</p><p><http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/3987413.html></p><p></p><p></p><p>Mad Cow Feed Recall, USA, Albertville, AL, 16 Jun 2006; Feed Recalled</p><p>Over Mad Cow Violation</p><p>-----------------------------------------------</p><p>Livestock feed ingredients shipped to 9 states may have been</p><p>contaminated with cattle remains in violation of a 1997 ban to</p><p>protect against mad cow disease, a manufacturer said Tuesday [20 Jun 2006].</p><p></p><p>H.J. Baker & Bro. Inc. said it was recalling 3 livestock feed</p><p>ingredients, including 2 used to supplement feed given to dairy cows.</p><p>A sample tested by the Food and Drug Administration was positive for</p><p>cattle meat and bone meal, said Mark Hohnbaum, president of the</p><p>Westport, Connecticut-based company's feed products group.</p><p></p><p>"This is very concerning to us. This isn't something that happens to</p><p>us. We are very serious about food safety," Hohnbaum said. Mad cow</p><p>disease is only known to spread when cows eat feed containing brain</p><p>and other nerve tissue from infected cattle. Protein from cattle was</p><p>commonly added to cattle feed to speed growth until the ban largely</p><p>outlawed the practice.</p><p></p><p>Cattle tissue may have contaminated 2 feed ingredients given to dairy</p><p>cows -- Pro-Lak and Pro-Amino II -- made by H.J. Baker between August</p><p>2005 and June 2006. The 3rd of the recalled ingredients, Pro-Pak with</p><p>Porcine Meat and Bone, was mislabeled. It is used in poultry feed.</p><p></p><p>The company announced the recall in the wake of ongoing FDA</p><p>inspections of its Albertville, Alabama plant, Hohnbaum said. The</p><p>inspections have found manufacturing and clerical issues, he added.</p><p></p><p>The company shipped the ingredients to feed manufacturers and dairy</p><p>farms in the following states: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia,</p><p>Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Tennessee. The company</p><p>is notifying its customers of the voluntary recall. It does not know</p><p>how much of the feed ingredients it sold, Hohnbaum said.</p><p></p><p>On the Net:</p><p>Food and Drug Administration animal feed information:</p><p><http://www.fda.gov/cvm/animalfeed.htm></p><p></p><p>--</p><p>Terry S. Singeltary Sr.</p><p><flounder9@verizon.net></p><p></p><p>[The company is already notifying its customers. Furthermore, the</p><p>company does not know how much feed was contaminated, so they are</p><p>likely being very cautious and notifying customers, although they may</p><p>not have had animals exposed.</p><p></p><p>It is likely the company does not know how much contamination each</p><p>batch of feed received.</p><p></p><p>Customers should be forewarned that even if an animal consumes some</p><p>of this feed, it does not mean it is sure to come down with Bovine</p><p>Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). It takes a certain amount of</p><p>infective material being consumed as well as certain conditions</p><p>within the animal for BSE to develop.</p><p></p><p>What is intriguing about this event is that, though the FDA will fine</p><p>the feed manufacturer, on-farm mixing of feed that may contain</p><p>prohibited material does not find its way onto the FDA radar screen.</p><p>There have been multiple cases of farm-site feed mixing with</p><p>confirmation of prohibited material being in the feed, and the feed</p><p>being fed to cattle. When this apparent oversight was brought to the</p><p>attention of the FDA, the reply was that they [the FDA] did not</p><p>believe they had jurisdiction over the farm, only the manufacturers.</p><p>Since the FDA could not demonstrate a prion to a court of law, they</p><p>did not see how they could prosecute a case of farm-site feed mixing.</p><p></p><p>Clearly, had the international team that surveyed the situation in</p><p>the US during 2004 known of this approach, their recommendations may</p><p>well have been different.</p><p></p><p>Without adherence to the feeding rules, cases of BSE in the United</p><p>States will likely continue to occur on a sporadic basis. - Mod.TG]</p><p></p><p>[see also:</p><p>2004</p><p>----</p><p>BSE, bovine - USA (WA) (16): new regulations 20040318.0747</p><p>BSE, bovine - USA: APHIS report 20040205.0426</p><p>2003</p><p>----</p><p>BSE, bovine - USA (WA) (09): new regulations 20031230.3172]</p><p>..................tg/msp/mpp</p><p></p><p>*##########################################################*</p><p>************************************************************</p><p>ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that</p><p>are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the</p><p>information, and of any statements or opinions based</p><p>thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in</p><p>using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID</p><p>and its associated service providers shall not be held</p><p>responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any</p><p>damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted</p><p>or archived material.</p><p>************************************************************</p><p>Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at</p><p><http://www.isid.org/ProMEDMail_Premium.shtml></p><p>************************************************************</p><p>Visit ProMED-mail's web site at <http://www.promedmail.org>.</p><p>Send all items for posting to: <a href="mailto:promed@promedmail.org">promed@promedmail.org</a></p><p>(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your</p><p>full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send</p><p>commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,</p><p>etc. to: <a href="mailto:majordomo@promedmail.org">majordomo@promedmail.org</a>. For assistance from a</p><p>human being send mail to: <a href="mailto:owner-promed@promedmail.org">owner-promed@promedmail.org</a>.</p><p>############################################################</p><p>############################################################</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 235953, member: 3519"] CANADA STRENGTHENS FEED CONTROLS OTTAWA, June 26, 2006 (15:00 EST) - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is banning cattle tissues capable of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from all animal feeds, pet foods and fertilizers. The enhancement will significantly accelerate Canada's progress toward eradicating the disease from the national cattle herd by preventing more than 99% of any potential BSE infectivity from entering the Canadian feed system. The banned tissues, which are collectively known as specified risk material (SRM), have been shown in infected cattle to contain concentrated levels of the BSE agent. Canada has already applied identical protection to the human food system, where SRM are removed from all cattle slaughtered for human consumption. This measure is internationally recognized as the most effective way to protect the safety of food from BSE. "This ban tightens already strong, internationally recognized feed controls and shortens the path we must follow to move beyond BSE," said the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. "Preventing all these materials from entering the animal feed chain minimizes risks and demonstrates the commitment of Canada's new government to take necessary, science-based actions to address BSE." Ongoing surveillance testing continues to indicate that the level of BSE in Canada is very low. This is attributable to Canada's current feed ban, which has prohibited the use of SRM in feed for cattle and other ruminant animals since 1997. Extending SRM controls to all animal feeds addresses potential contamination that could occur during feed production, transportation, storage and use. Removing SRM from pet food and fertilizers is intended to mitigate the risk associated with the potential exposure of cattle and other susceptible animals to BSE through the misuse of these products. The new outcome-based regulations enter into force on July 12, 2007, with additional time provided for small establishments to achieve full compliance. In the meantime, an awareness campaign will be undertaken to ensure that all regulated parties are fully aware of their responsibilities and have adjusted their practices and procedures as required. Special emphasis will be placed on working closely and in full cooperation with small abattoirs to help them transition to the new requirements and facilitate their long-term viability. The Government has set aside $80 million to work with the provinces to assist industry's implementation of the new feed controls. Enhanced feed controls complete the Government's response to the detection of BSE, consistent with the recommendations of the international team of experts that reviewed Canada's situation. As a priority, Canada first focused on human health protection, which was achieved through the removal of SRM from the food system. Attention then turned to animal health measures through intensified surveillance testing for BSE and increased animal tracing capabilities. SRM are defined as the skull, brain, trigeminal ganglia (nerves attached to the brain), eyes, tonsils, spinal cord and dorsal root ganglia (nerves attached to the spinal cord) of cattle aged 30 months or older and the distal ileum (portion of the small intestine) of cattle of all ages. For more information: Fact Sheet: Canada's Enhanced Feed Ban [url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/enhrene.shtml]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... rene.shtml[/url] USA FDA FLIP ; C. Animal Feed Restrictions Specified Risk Materials (SRMs) In the ``Feed Restrictions'' section of the report, the IRT recommended: ``All SRM should be excluded from all animal feed, including pet food.'' [p. 5] FDA has prohibited the use of most mammalian proteins in ruminant feed since 1997. The IRT report stated that, ``Considering the BSE situation in North America, the [IRT] believes the partial (ruminant to ruminant) feed ban that is currently in place is insufficient to prevent exposure of cattle to the BSE agent.'' [p. 5] The IRT further stated that, ``While science would support the feed bans limited to the prohibition of ruminant derived [meat and bone meal] MBM in ruminant feed, practical difficulties of enforcement demand more pragmatic and effective solutions.'' [p. 6] Specifically, the IRT cited epidemiological evidence in the United Kingdom that highlight the dangers of cattle infection through the consumption of feed that had been contaminated accidentally when manufactured in premises that legitimately used mammalian meat and bone meal in feed for pigs and poultry. [p. 5] In addition, the IRT report cited an ongoing attack rate study at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in the United Kingdom that demonstrates [[Page 42297]] transmission of BSE with 10 mg of infectious brain tissue. [p. 5] Although not yet published, more recent results from this study have demonstrated transmission with a lower dose of infectious brain tissue. These levels are significantly lower than the 1 gram infectious dose that had been demonstrated in the same study at the time the 1997 BSE feed rule was issued. Further, the Harvard-Tuskegee Study showed that removing SRMs from all animal feed reduces by 88 percent the potential exposure of cattle to the BSE agent when 10 BSE infected cattle are introduced into the United States. Accordingly, FDA has tentatively concluded that it should propose removing SRMs from all animal feed to adequately control the risks associated with cross contamination throughout feed manufacture and distribution and with intentional or unintentional misfeeding on the farm. FDA is currently working on a proposal to accomplish this goal. [url=http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-15882.htm]http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-15882.htm[/url] [url=http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05-20196.htm]http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05-20196.htm[/url] III. Significance of Guidance This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking about the manufacture and labeling of raw meat foods for companion and captive noncompanion carnivores and omnivores. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and will not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. [url=http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-11366.htm]http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-11366.htm[/url] FLOP ; Currently in the U.S. , animal products that are prohibited from cattle feed are _acceptable_ for use in pet food. Such products include meat and bone meal, for example. However, FDA believes that the safeguards it has put into place (i.e. ruminant feed rule) to prevent BSE in the U.S. have also protected cats. To date, no case of FSE has been found in the U.S. FDA continues to review these safeguards to be sure they are adequate, especially in light of the BSE case found in Washington State in December, 2003. ... [url=http://www.fda.gov/cvm/petfoods.htm]http://www.fda.gov/cvm/petfoods.htm[/url] BSE, BOVINE - USA: FEED RECALL ******************************* A ProMED-mail post <http://www.promedmail.org> ProMED-mail is a program of the International Society for Infectious Diseases <http://www.isid.org> Date: 21 Jun 2006 From: Terry Singeltary <flounder9@verizon.net> Source: Chron.com, 20 Jun 2006 [edited] <http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/3987413.html> Mad Cow Feed Recall, USA, Albertville, AL, 16 Jun 2006; Feed Recalled Over Mad Cow Violation ----------------------------------------------- Livestock feed ingredients shipped to 9 states may have been contaminated with cattle remains in violation of a 1997 ban to protect against mad cow disease, a manufacturer said Tuesday [20 Jun 2006]. H.J. Baker & Bro. Inc. said it was recalling 3 livestock feed ingredients, including 2 used to supplement feed given to dairy cows. A sample tested by the Food and Drug Administration was positive for cattle meat and bone meal, said Mark Hohnbaum, president of the Westport, Connecticut-based company's feed products group. "This is very concerning to us. This isn't something that happens to us. We are very serious about food safety," Hohnbaum said. Mad cow disease is only known to spread when cows eat feed containing brain and other nerve tissue from infected cattle. Protein from cattle was commonly added to cattle feed to speed growth until the ban largely outlawed the practice. Cattle tissue may have contaminated 2 feed ingredients given to dairy cows -- Pro-Lak and Pro-Amino II -- made by H.J. Baker between August 2005 and June 2006. The 3rd of the recalled ingredients, Pro-Pak with Porcine Meat and Bone, was mislabeled. It is used in poultry feed. The company announced the recall in the wake of ongoing FDA inspections of its Albertville, Alabama plant, Hohnbaum said. The inspections have found manufacturing and clerical issues, he added. The company shipped the ingredients to feed manufacturers and dairy farms in the following states: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Tennessee. The company is notifying its customers of the voluntary recall. It does not know how much of the feed ingredients it sold, Hohnbaum said. On the Net: Food and Drug Administration animal feed information: <http://www.fda.gov/cvm/animalfeed.htm> -- Terry S. Singeltary Sr. <flounder9@verizon.net> [The company is already notifying its customers. Furthermore, the company does not know how much feed was contaminated, so they are likely being very cautious and notifying customers, although they may not have had animals exposed. It is likely the company does not know how much contamination each batch of feed received. Customers should be forewarned that even if an animal consumes some of this feed, it does not mean it is sure to come down with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). It takes a certain amount of infective material being consumed as well as certain conditions within the animal for BSE to develop. What is intriguing about this event is that, though the FDA will fine the feed manufacturer, on-farm mixing of feed that may contain prohibited material does not find its way onto the FDA radar screen. There have been multiple cases of farm-site feed mixing with confirmation of prohibited material being in the feed, and the feed being fed to cattle. When this apparent oversight was brought to the attention of the FDA, the reply was that they [the FDA] did not believe they had jurisdiction over the farm, only the manufacturers. Since the FDA could not demonstrate a prion to a court of law, they did not see how they could prosecute a case of farm-site feed mixing. Clearly, had the international team that surveyed the situation in the US during 2004 known of this approach, their recommendations may well have been different. Without adherence to the feeding rules, cases of BSE in the United States will likely continue to occur on a sporadic basis. - Mod.TG] [see also: 2004 ---- BSE, bovine - USA (WA) (16): new regulations 20040318.0747 BSE, bovine - USA: APHIS report 20040205.0426 2003 ---- BSE, bovine - USA (WA) (09): new regulations 20031230.3172] ..................tg/msp/mpp *##########################################################* ************************************************************ ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the information, and of any statements or opinions based thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID and its associated service providers shall not be held responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted or archived material. ************************************************************ Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at <http://www.isid.org/ProMEDMail_Premium.shtml> ************************************************************ Visit ProMED-mail's web site at <http://www.promedmail.org>. Send all items for posting to: [email=promed@promedmail.org]promed@promedmail.org[/email] (NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help, etc. to: [email=majordomo@promedmail.org]majordomo@promedmail.org[/email]. For assistance from a human being send mail to: [email=owner-promed@promedmail.org]owner-promed@promedmail.org[/email]. ############################################################ ############################################################ [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Feedyard Board
CANADA FAR EXCEEDS USA FDA ON MAD COW FEED CONTROLS
Top