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
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Canadian Government BSE Coverup?
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: 404624" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>GOOD question Oldtimer, but who's covering up what, and where i.e. USDA et al ;</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>NOW OT, lets crunch some numbers, and list all the figures. remember, the UK was not the only BSE country we imported from ;</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>UK Exports of Live Cattle by Value 1986-96 </strong></p><p> <strong></strong></p><p><strong>USA 697 LIVE CATTLE</strong></p><p> <strong></strong></p><p><strong>CANADA 299 LIVE CATTLE</strong></p><p> <strong></strong></p><p><strong><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk</strong></p><p><strong>countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some</strong></p><p><strong>imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when</strong></p><p><strong>domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of</strong></p><p><strong>the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from</strong></p><p><strong>BSE risk countries.</strong></p><p><strong>EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed</strong></p><p><strong>that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as</strong></p><p><strong>there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very</strong></p><p><strong>unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the</strong></p><p><strong>BSE-agent persistently increases.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>snip...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Conclusions</strong></p><p><strong>The European Food Safety Authority concludes:</strong></p><p><strong>1. The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic</strong></p><p><strong>cattle in the middle of the eighties. This cattle imported in the mid eighties could have</strong></p><p><strong>been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early</strong></p><p><strong>nineties. It is possible that meat and bone meal (MBM) imported into the USA</strong></p><p><strong>reached domestic cattle and lead to an internal challenge in the early nineties.</strong></p><p><strong>2. A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE</strong></p><p><strong>risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together</strong></p><p><strong>with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the</strong></p><p><strong>mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing.</strong></p><p><strong>Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued</strong></p><p><strong>imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.</strong></p><p><strong>3. The current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed</strong></p><p><strong>that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.</strong></p><p><strong>4. This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because</strong></p><p><strong>at that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.</strong></p><p><strong>5. It is also worth noting that the current GBR conclusions are not dependent on the large</strong></p><p><strong>exchange of imports between USA and Canada. External challenge due to exports to</strong></p><p><strong>the USA from European countries varied from moderate to high. These challenges</strong></p><p><strong>indicate that it was likely that BSE infectivity was introduced into the North American</strong></p><p><strong>continent.</strong></p><p><strong>6. EFSA and its Scientific Expert Working group on GBR are concerned that the</strong></p><p><strong>available information was not confirmed by inspection missions as performed by the</strong></p><p><strong>Food and Veterinary office (FVO – DG SANCO) in Member States and other third</strong></p><p><strong>countries. They recommend including, as far as feasible, BSE-related aspects in</strong></p><p><strong>future inspection missions.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong><a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573.Par.0004.File.dat/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/ ... v2_en1.pdf</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>2. EXTERNAL CHALLENGES</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>2.1 Import of cattle from BSE-Risk2 countries</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>An overview of the data on live cattle imports is presented in table 1 and is based on</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>data as provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>as available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>periods are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC July</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>2000 and updated January 2002).</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to the CD, 231 cattle were imported from UK during the years 1980 to</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>1990 and no cattle imports from UK were recorded after 1990.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to Eurostat, altogether 198 cattle have been imported from the UK during</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>the years 1980 to 1990, Additionally 500 were recorded in 1993; this import is</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>1 For the purpose of the GBR assessment the abbreviation "MBM" refers to rendering products, in particular</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>the commodities Meat and Bone Meal as such; Meat Meal; Bone Meal; and Greaves. With regard to imports</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>it refers to the customs code 230110 "flours, meals and pellets, made from meat or offal, not fit for human</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>2 BSE-Risk countries are all countries already assessed as GBR III or IV or with at least one confirmed</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-14 on the Assessment of the</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Geographical BSE Risk of Canada</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>- 3 -</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>mentioned in Eurostat and the updated UK export statistic as male calves, but not</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>mentioned in the original UK export statistics. According to the CD, detailed</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>investigations were carried out and it is very unlikely that the 500 calves have been</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>imported. Therefore, they were not taken into account.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to the CD, in 1990 all cattle imported from UK and Ireland since 1982</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>were placed in a monitoring program.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• Following the occurrence of the BSE index case in 1993 (imported from UK in 1987</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>at the age of 6 months), an attempt was made to trace all other cattle imported from</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>UK between 1982 and 1990.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• Of the 231 cattle imported from the UK between 1980 and 1990, 108 animals had</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>been slaughtered and 9 had died. From the remaining, 37 were exported, 76 were</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>sent to incineration and one was buried; these were not entering the rendering system</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>and therefore not taken into account.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to the CD, 16 cattle were imported from Ireland (according to Eurostat</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>20), of which 9 were slaughtered, 3 died. The remaining 4 were incinerated and did</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>therefore not enter the rendering system. According to the CD, the 6 animals which</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>were imported in 1990 according to Eurostat, were never imported.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• Moreover 22 cattle have been imported from Japan (through USA), of which 4 were</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>exported (excluded from the table) and 14 were destroyed and therefore not entering</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>the rendering system, 4 were slaughtered.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• Of 28 imported bovines from Denmark, 1 was destroyed and 1 was exported. Of the</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>19 buffalos imported in 2000, 1 was incinerated and the others were ordered to be</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>destroyed.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• Additionally in total 264 cattle according to the CD (276 according to other sources)</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>were imported from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Switzerland.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• The numbers imported according to the CD and Eurostat are very similar. Some</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>discrepancies in the year of import can be explained by an extended quarantine;</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>therefore it is likely that imports according to Eurostat in 1980 and imports</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>according to the CD in 1981 are referring to the same animals.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• Additionally, between 16.000 and 340.000 bovines have annually been imported</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>from US, almost all are steers and heifers. In total, between 1981 and 2003,</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to other sources 1.5 million</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>cattle have been imported.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to the CD, feeder/slaughter cattle represent typically more than 90% of</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>the imported cattle from the USA; therefore, only 10% of the imported cattle have</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>been taken into account.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>snip...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Geographical BSE Risk of Canada</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>2.2 Import of MBM or MBM-containing feedstuffs from BSE-Risk</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>countries</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>An overview of the data on MBM imports is presented in table 2 and is based on data</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports as</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk periods</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC, July</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>2000 and updated January 2002).</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>According to the CD, no imports of MBM took place from UK since 1978 (initially</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>because of FMD regulations).</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to Eurostat data, Canada imported 149 tons MBM from the UK in the</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>period of 1993 to 2001. According to up-dated MBM statistics from UK (August</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>2001) no mammalian MBM was exported to Canada from 1993 – 1996. As it was</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and MBM from UK since</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have included nonmammalian</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>MBM. Therefore, these imports were not taken into account.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to the CD, imports of MBM have taken place from Denmark, Germany,</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>France, Japan and US.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to Eurostat Canada imported MBM from Denmark, Belgium, France and</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Ireland.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• According to the CD further investigations concluded that all imported MBM from</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Denmark consisted of pork and poultry origin and was directly imported for</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>aquaculture, the imported MBM from France was feather meal, the imported MBM</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>from Germany was poultry meal for aquaculture and the imported MBM from</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Belgium was haemoglobin; therefore these imports were not taken into account.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>• The main imports of MBM were of US origin, according to the CD around 250.000</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>tons, according to other sources around 310.000 tons between 1988 and 2003.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>snip...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>2.3 Overall assessment of the external challenge</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>The level of the external challenge that has to be met by the BSE/cattle system is</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>estimated according to the guidance given by the SSC in its final opinion on the GBR of</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>July 2000 (as updated in January 2002).</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Live cattle imports:</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>In total the country imported according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>other data 1.5 million live cattle from BSE risk countries, of which 231 (CD)</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>respectively 698 (other sources) came from the UK. The numbers shown in table 1 are</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for the assessment of</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the resulting external challenge is</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the different aspects discussed</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>above that allow to assume that certain imported cattle did not enter the domestic</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>BSE/cattle system, i.e. were not rendered into feed. In the case of Canada, the 500 cattle</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>imported from UK according to Eurostat were not taken into account and it is assumed</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>that all incinerated, buried, exported animals and the animals still alive did not enter the</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>rendering system and were therefore excluded from the external challenge.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>MBM imports:</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>In total the country imported according to the CD around 300.000 tons, according to</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>other sources nearly 360.000 tons of MBM from BSE risk countries, of which 149 tons</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>came from the UK. The majority consisted of MBM imported from the US. The</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>numbers shown in table 2 are the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>the different aspects discussed above that allow to assume that certain imported MBM</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system or did not represent an external challenge</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>for other reasons. As it was illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>MBM from UK since 27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>included non-mammalian MBM. In the case of Canada all imported MBM from UK,</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France was not taken into account.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>snip...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>full text;</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong><a href="http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/563/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_annex_en1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_sci ... ex_en1.pdf</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>oddly enough, this is not accessable for USA figures ;</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Annex</strong></p><p><strong>Details of the assessment are presented in the report as prepared by the EFSA Scientific</strong></p><p><strong>Expert Working Group on GBR:</strong></p><p><strong><a href="http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/574_en.html" target="_blank">http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_sci ... 74_en.html</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>The page cannot be found</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>LETs dig a bit further there OT ;</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>3. CHALLENGES</strong></p><p><strong>3.1 External challenge resulting from importing BSE-infectivity</strong></p><p><strong>3.11 Factor 2: Import of live cattle</strong></p><p><strong>• Between 1980 and 1989, 496 cattle (96 % breeding animals, 4% dairy cattle)</strong></p><p><strong>were imported from the UK (324) and the Republic of Ireland (162) and</strong></p><p><strong>between 1983 and 87 397 breeding cattle were imported from Switzerland,</strong></p><p><strong>France, Germany, Austria, Belgium and Italy.</strong></p><p><strong>• Of the UK-imports 266 cattle were imported before 1988. They represented a</strong></p><p><strong>moderate challenge, as did the 47 directly imported in 1988/89 and the 10</strong></p><p><strong>imported via Canada in 1990-93.</strong></p><p><strong>Country 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Total</strong></p><p><strong>UK 1 23 21 87 48 28 58 25 22 6* 3* 1* 334</strong></p><p><strong>Ireland 70 21 62 9 162</strong></p><p><strong>EU 5 187 73 29 294</strong></p><p><strong>CH 45 41 17 103</strong></p><p><strong>Table 1: Cattle imports from UK, IRE EU and CH between 1980 and 1989, UKimports</strong></p><p><strong>after 1989 via CAN.</strong></p><p><strong>• In addition, between 0.75 Million (1986) and 2.5 Million (1995) cattle per year</strong></p><p><strong>have been imported to the USA mainly from Canada and Mexico, either for</strong></p><p><strong>feeding or for immediate slaughter. These animals were considered to have</strong></p><p><strong>posed a negligible challenge.</strong></p><p><strong>• The large majority of the Irish cattle (153) were imported before 1985. Even if</strong></p><p><strong>the first Irish birth cohort with a BSE-case was 1981 they are regarded as a</strong></p><p><strong>negligible challenge to the US system.</strong></p><p><strong>• The imports from other EU countries and Switzerland that happened before</strong></p><p><strong>1988 also present only a negligible challenge, as do the 40 breeding cattle from</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA July 2000</strong></p><p><strong>- 41 -</strong></p><p><strong>Belgium, Germany, Austria and Italy in 1996 and 1997. However, the latter</strong></p><p><strong>were all identified and will be taken out of the food and feed production chain.</strong></p><p><strong>• The moderate challenge resulting from the importation of cattle from the UK</strong></p><p><strong>was reduced due to the trace-back and elimination of the imported animals.</strong></p><p><strong>Analysis of the data on these traced animals indicates that no more than 126</strong></p><p><strong>animals imported from the UK could have presented a challenge to the system</strong></p><p><strong>with only 15 of these animals imported during 88-93. This total was calculated</strong></p><p><strong>by the US-authorities, starting with the total number of animals imported from</strong></p><p><strong>the UK between 1980 and 1989. From this total those animals that were known</strong></p><p><strong>to have been incinerated or buried were subtracted. From the remaining</strong></p><p><strong>animals those that were known to have reached the age of 6 years or older prior</strong></p><p><strong>to death or slaughter have been subtracted because they were seen to present</strong></p><p><strong>only a reduced risk for BSE – if infected prior to import they would probably</strong></p><p><strong>have shown clinical symptoms of BSE.</strong></p><p><strong>• Fifty-two of the 117 animals known to be alive in 1995 came from herds in the</strong></p><p><strong>UK in which one or more cases of BSE subsequently developed. In 1999, 4 of</strong></p><p><strong>these 117 animals were still alive. 113 had been purchased, diagnostic samples</strong></p><p><strong>taken, and the carcasses were incinerated. All these animals tested negative for</strong></p><p><strong>BSE (histopathology and IHC).</strong></p><p><strong>3.12 Factor 3: Import of MBM or feed containing MBM</strong></p><p><strong>• No import of MBM from Europe occurred between 1990 and 1998, and the</strong></p><p><strong>country experts, although not able to provide exact data, claimed that import</strong></p><p><strong>practices for MBM had not changed since 1980.</strong></p><p><strong>• However, the UK export statistics mention 12 tons of mammalian meals and</strong></p><p><strong>flours,29 in 1981, 10 tons in 84, 2 tons in 85, 20 tons in 89, and 37 tons in 97</strong></p><p><strong>being exported to the USA. However, the import of 20 tons in 89 is questioned</strong></p><p><strong>by the USA Authorities.</strong></p><p><strong>• A realistic assumption is, therefore, that the external challenge through MBM</strong></p><p><strong>imports was negligible.</strong></p><p><strong>3.2 Internal challenge resulting from domestic infected animals</strong></p><p><strong>3.21 Interaction of external challenges and stability</strong></p><p><strong>• In the 80s an extremely unstable system was exposed to a moderate challenge</strong></p><p><strong>resulting from cattle imports mainly from the UK.</strong></p><p><strong>• If this external challenge lead to BSE-infectivity entering the feed chain in the</strong></p><p><strong>USA, domestic cattle would have been exposed to it and the incoming BSEinfectivity</strong></p><p><strong>would have been amplified and the disease propagated. Domestic</strong></p><p><strong>cases would appear about one incubation period after the infected import-cattle</strong></p><p><strong>were slaughtered and infected MBM would have entered the feed chain and</strong></p><p><strong>could have reached domestic cattle.</strong></p><p><strong>• Cattle imported from the UK in 1988/89 carried the highest risk of being</strong></p><p><strong>infected with BSE. Some of these could have entered the feed chain prior 1990,</strong></p><p><strong>while being infected. The highest probability for domestic cases resulting</strong></p><p><strong>29 UK Overseas Trade Statistics are not available specifically for MBM. MBM is included under the</strong></p><p><strong>heading "Flours and meals of meat or offal (including tankage), unfit for human consumption;</strong></p><p><strong>greaves". Since the adoption of Commission Decision 96/239/EC on 27/03/96 it has been illegal to</strong></p><p><strong>export from the UK meat meal, bonemeal, and MBM derived from mammals. The exports shown for</strong></p><p><strong>1996 and 1997 may have included non-mammalian MBM.</strong></p><p><strong>Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA July 2000</strong></p><p><strong>- 42 -</strong></p><p><strong>directly from this challenge to appear as clinical BSE-cases would therefore be</strong></p><p><strong>between 1995 (90+5) and, as a "second generation" 2000 (95+5).</strong></p><p><strong>• Between 1990 and 1995, with the exclusion of the imported animals from</strong></p><p><strong>Europe from the feed chain, the impact of the external challenge was largely</strong></p><p><strong>mastered. The external challenge is therefore considered low after 1990.</strong></p><p><strong>• Given the relative small number of potentially infected cattle that were</strong></p><p><strong>rendered and the negligible size of the potential MBM import, the total number</strong></p><p><strong>of domestic cases is likely to remain small.</strong></p><p><strong>• However, even the small number of theoretically possible domestic cases</strong></p><p><strong>would since 1993 expose the (very) unstable (prior to 1998) or neutrally stable</strong></p><p><strong>(since 1998) system to an internal challenge and circulating BSE-infectivity</strong></p><p><strong>would have been amplified until 1998. Recycling is still possible.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>snip...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS</strong></p><p><strong>4.1 Interaction of stability and challenge</strong></p><p><strong>• In the late 80s, early 90s a moderate external challenges met an extremely or</strong></p><p><strong>very unstable system. This would have quickly amplified any incoming BSEinfectivity</strong></p><p><strong>and propagated the disease.</strong></p><p><strong>• With the exclusion of imported animals from Europe from the feed chain</strong></p><p><strong>between 1990 and 1995 the effect of the external challenge decreased but</strong></p><p><strong>during this period the system was still very unstable.</strong></p><p><strong>Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA July 2000</strong></p><p><strong>- 43 -</strong></p><p><strong>• It cannot be excluded that the initial external challenges lead to some domestic</strong></p><p><strong>infected animals. If this happened an internal challenge started to build-up in</strong></p><p><strong>the early 90s. It grew slowly and kept the overall challenge at low levels even</strong></p><p><strong>after the impact of external challenge ceased at the latest in 1995.</strong></p><p><strong>Overall Challenge</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>snip...full text ;</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out137_en.pdf" target="_blank">http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out137_en.pdf</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>3. CHALLENGES</strong></p><p><strong>• Before 1987 a "very low" and from 1988 to 1990 a "low" external challenge is</strong></p><p><strong>assumed. It resulted from a very small number of UK-imported cattle (11 that</strong></p><p><strong>carried a risk of being infected) that entered processing. Other external</strong></p><p><strong>challenges, due to import of live cattle or MBM from other countries affected</strong></p><p><strong>by BSE, were regarded as insignificant but still not non-negligible.</strong></p><p><strong>Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of CANADA July 2000</strong></p><p><strong>- 32 -</strong></p><p><strong>• It is unlikely, but cannot be excluded, that some BSE entered the Canadian feed</strong></p><p><strong>chain and resulted in a (small) internal challenge.</strong></p><p><strong>• The overall challenge was therefore first determined by the very low and low</strong></p><p><strong>external challenges. As a reasonable worst case scenario it is assumed that the</strong></p><p><strong>(unlikely) internal challenge, which could have resulted from the interaction of</strong></p><p><strong>the insufficient stability and the external challenges, was just enough to</strong></p><p><strong>maintain a low level of the overall challenge, even after the external challenges</strong></p><p><strong>practically ceased in 1993.</strong></p><p><strong>4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS</strong></p><p><strong>4.1 Interaction of stability and challenges</strong></p><p><strong>• From 1980 to 1992 the extremely unstable system was exposed to "very low"</strong></p><p><strong>(prior to 1988) and to "low" external challenges (1988-1992).</strong></p><p><strong>• The development of an internal challenge is unlikely but cannot be excluded</strong></p><p><strong>because the extremely unstable system would most probably have recycled and</strong></p><p><strong>amplified incoming BSE-infectivity.</strong></p><p><strong>• If at all an internal challenge would have started to develop around 1990 and,</strong></p><p><strong>in that case, could have at least partly compensated the declining external</strong></p><p><strong>challenges that were significantly reduced/stopped with the exclusion of all</strong></p><p><strong>imported cattle from processing in 1993. As a reasonable worst case scenario it</strong></p><p><strong>is assumed that this kept the overall challenge at a constant, low level, after</strong></p><p><strong>1993.</strong></p><p><strong>• After 1992 the stability of the system increased through implementation of a</strong></p><p><strong>good passive surveillance system and the traceback and removal of imported</strong></p><p><strong>cattle. The system became "unstable" in 1994 and "neutrally stable" after 1997.</strong></p><p><strong>It could hence cope better with the low overall challenge that is assumed to</strong></p><p><strong>have been present.</strong></p><p><strong>• Given the fact that the system is still not seen to be able to reduce circulating</strong></p><p><strong>BSE-infectivity, it is unlikely but cannot be excluded that a low (internal)</strong></p><p><strong>challenge is maintained.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out131_en.pdf" target="_blank">http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out131_en.pdf</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>NOW when and where was that first case of BSE detected $$$</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>It is clear that USDA have little information and _no_ regulatory </strong></p><p><strong>responsibility for rendering plants in the US...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>snip...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach</strong></p><p><strong>was to accord it a _very low profile indeed_. Dr. A Thiermann showed</strong></p><p><strong>the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought</strong></p><p><strong>this was a fanatical incident to be _avoided_ in the US _at all costs_...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>snip...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>DISCUSSION</strong></p><p><strong>These findings suggest that TME may result from feeding mink infected cattle and</strong></p><p><strong>we have alerted bovine practitioners that there may exist an as yet unrecognized</strong></p><p><strong>scrapie-like disease of cattle in the United States (Marsh and Hartsough, 1986). A new</strong></p><p><strong>bovine spongiform encephalopathy has recently been reported in England (Wells et al.,</strong></p><p><strong>1987), and investigators are presently studying its transmissibility and possible</strong></p><p><strong>relationship to scrapie. Because this new bovine disease in England is characterized by</strong></p><p><strong>behavioral changes, hyperexcitability, and agressiveness, it is very likely it would be</strong></p><p><strong>confused with rabies in the United Stales and not be diagnosed. Presently, brains from</strong></p><p><strong>cattle in the United States which are suspected of rabies infection are only tested with</strong></p><p><strong>anti-rabies virus antibody and are not examined histopathologically for lesions of</strong></p><p><strong>spongiform encephalopathy.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf</a> </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>TSS</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 404624, member: 3519"] [b] GOOD question Oldtimer, but who's covering up what, and where i.e. USDA et al ; NOW OT, lets crunch some numbers, and list all the figures. remember, the UK was not the only BSE country we imported from ; UK Exports of Live Cattle by Value 1986-96 USA 697 LIVE CATTLE CANADA 299 LIVE CATTLE [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf[/url] 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. snip... Conclusions The European Food Safety Authority concludes: 1. The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. This 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 meat and bone meal (MBM) imported into the USA reached domestic cattle and lead to an internal challenge in the early nineties. 2. 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. 3. The current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. 4. This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because at that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk. 5. It is also worth noting that the current GBR conclusions are not dependent on the large exchange of imports between USA and Canada. External challenge due to exports to the USA from European countries varied from moderate to high. These challenges indicate that it was likely that BSE infectivity was introduced into the North American continent. 6. EFSA and its Scientific Expert Working group on GBR are concerned that the available information was not confirmed by inspection missions as performed by the Food and Veterinary office (FVO – DG SANCO) in Member States and other third countries. They recommend including, as far as feasible, BSE-related aspects in future inspection missions. [url=http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573.Par.0004.File.dat/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf]http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/ ... v2_en1.pdf[/url] 2. EXTERNAL CHALLENGES 2.1 Import of cattle from BSE-Risk2 countries An overview of the data on live cattle imports is presented in table 1 and is based on data as provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports as available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk periods are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC July 2000 and updated January 2002). • According to the CD, 231 cattle were imported from UK during the years 1980 to 1990 and no cattle imports from UK were recorded after 1990. • According to Eurostat, altogether 198 cattle have been imported from the UK during the years 1980 to 1990, Additionally 500 were recorded in 1993; this import is 1 For the purpose of the GBR assessment the abbreviation "MBM" refers to rendering products, in particular the commodities Meat and Bone Meal as such; Meat Meal; Bone Meal; and Greaves. With regard to imports it refers to the customs code 230110 "flours, meals and pellets, made from meat or offal, not fit for human 2 BSE-Risk countries are all countries already assessed as GBR III or IV or with at least one confirmed Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-14 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of Canada - 3 - mentioned in Eurostat and the updated UK export statistic as male calves, but not mentioned in the original UK export statistics. According to the CD, detailed investigations were carried out and it is very unlikely that the 500 calves have been imported. Therefore, they were not taken into account. • According to the CD, in 1990 all cattle imported from UK and Ireland since 1982 were placed in a monitoring program. • Following the occurrence of the BSE index case in 1993 (imported from UK in 1987 at the age of 6 months), an attempt was made to trace all other cattle imported from UK between 1982 and 1990. • Of the 231 cattle imported from the UK between 1980 and 1990, 108 animals had been slaughtered and 9 had died. From the remaining, 37 were exported, 76 were sent to incineration and one was buried; these were not entering the rendering system and therefore not taken into account. • According to the CD, 16 cattle were imported from Ireland (according to Eurostat 20), of which 9 were slaughtered, 3 died. The remaining 4 were incinerated and did therefore not enter the rendering system. According to the CD, the 6 animals which were imported in 1990 according to Eurostat, were never imported. • Moreover 22 cattle have been imported from Japan (through USA), of which 4 were exported (excluded from the table) and 14 were destroyed and therefore not entering the rendering system, 4 were slaughtered. • Of 28 imported bovines from Denmark, 1 was destroyed and 1 was exported. Of the 19 buffalos imported in 2000, 1 was incinerated and the others were ordered to be destroyed. • Additionally in total 264 cattle according to the CD (276 according to other sources) were imported from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and Switzerland. • The numbers imported according to the CD and Eurostat are very similar. Some discrepancies in the year of import can be explained by an extended quarantine; therefore it is likely that imports according to Eurostat in 1980 and imports according to the CD in 1981 are referring to the same animals. • Additionally, between 16.000 and 340.000 bovines have annually been imported from US, almost all are steers and heifers. In total, between 1981 and 2003, according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to other sources 1.5 million cattle have been imported. • According to the CD, feeder/slaughter cattle represent typically more than 90% of the imported cattle from the USA; therefore, only 10% of the imported cattle have been taken into account. snip... Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of Canada 2.2 Import of MBM or MBM-containing feedstuffs from BSE-Risk countries An overview of the data on MBM imports is presented in table 2 and is based on data provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports as available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk periods are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC, July 2000 and updated January 2002). According to the CD, no imports of MBM took place from UK since 1978 (initially because of FMD regulations). • According to Eurostat data, Canada imported 149 tons MBM from the UK in the period of 1993 to 2001. According to up-dated MBM statistics from UK (August 2001) no mammalian MBM was exported to Canada from 1993 – 1996. As it was illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and MBM from UK since 27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have included nonmammalian MBM. Therefore, these imports were not taken into account. • According to the CD, imports of MBM have taken place from Denmark, Germany, France, Japan and US. • According to Eurostat Canada imported MBM from Denmark, Belgium, France and Ireland. • According to the CD further investigations concluded that all imported MBM from Denmark consisted of pork and poultry origin and was directly imported for aquaculture, the imported MBM from France was feather meal, the imported MBM from Germany was poultry meal for aquaculture and the imported MBM from Belgium was haemoglobin; therefore these imports were not taken into account. • The main imports of MBM were of US origin, according to the CD around 250.000 tons, according to other sources around 310.000 tons between 1988 and 2003. snip... 2.3 Overall assessment of the external challenge The level of the external challenge that has to be met by the BSE/cattle system is estimated according to the guidance given by the SSC in its final opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as updated in January 2002). Live cattle imports: In total the country imported according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to other data 1.5 million live cattle from BSE risk countries, of which 231 (CD) respectively 698 (other sources) came from the UK. The numbers shown in table 1 are the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the different aspects discussed above that allow to assume that certain imported cattle did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system, i.e. were not rendered into feed. In the case of Canada, the 500 cattle imported from UK according to Eurostat were not taken into account and it is assumed that all incinerated, buried, exported animals and the animals still alive did not enter the rendering system and were therefore excluded from the external challenge. MBM imports: In total the country imported according to the CD around 300.000 tons, according to other sources nearly 360.000 tons of MBM from BSE risk countries, of which 149 tons came from the UK. The majority consisted of MBM imported from the US. The numbers shown in table 2 are the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the different aspects discussed above that allow to assume that certain imported MBM did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system or did not represent an external challenge for other reasons. As it was illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and MBM from UK since 27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have included non-mammalian MBM. In the case of Canada all imported MBM from UK, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France was not taken into account. snip... full text; [url=http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/563/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_annex_en1.pdf]http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_sci ... ex_en1.pdf[/url] oddly enough, this is not accessable for USA figures ; Annex Details of the assessment are presented in the report as prepared by the EFSA Scientific Expert Working Group on GBR: [url=http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/574_en.html]http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_sci ... 74_en.html[/url] The page cannot be found LETs dig a bit further there OT ; 3. CHALLENGES 3.1 External challenge resulting from importing BSE-infectivity 3.11 Factor 2: Import of live cattle • Between 1980 and 1989, 496 cattle (96 % breeding animals, 4% dairy cattle) were imported from the UK (324) and the Republic of Ireland (162) and between 1983 and 87 397 breeding cattle were imported from Switzerland, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium and Italy. • Of the UK-imports 266 cattle were imported before 1988. They represented a moderate challenge, as did the 47 directly imported in 1988/89 and the 10 imported via Canada in 1990-93. Country 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Total UK 1 23 21 87 48 28 58 25 22 6* 3* 1* 334 Ireland 70 21 62 9 162 EU 5 187 73 29 294 CH 45 41 17 103 Table 1: Cattle imports from UK, IRE EU and CH between 1980 and 1989, UKimports after 1989 via CAN. • In addition, between 0.75 Million (1986) and 2.5 Million (1995) cattle per year have been imported to the USA mainly from Canada and Mexico, either for feeding or for immediate slaughter. These animals were considered to have posed a negligible challenge. • The large majority of the Irish cattle (153) were imported before 1985. Even if the first Irish birth cohort with a BSE-case was 1981 they are regarded as a negligible challenge to the US system. • The imports from other EU countries and Switzerland that happened before 1988 also present only a negligible challenge, as do the 40 breeding cattle from Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA July 2000 - 41 - Belgium, Germany, Austria and Italy in 1996 and 1997. However, the latter were all identified and will be taken out of the food and feed production chain. • The moderate challenge resulting from the importation of cattle from the UK was reduced due to the trace-back and elimination of the imported animals. Analysis of the data on these traced animals indicates that no more than 126 animals imported from the UK could have presented a challenge to the system with only 15 of these animals imported during 88-93. This total was calculated by the US-authorities, starting with the total number of animals imported from the UK between 1980 and 1989. From this total those animals that were known to have been incinerated or buried were subtracted. From the remaining animals those that were known to have reached the age of 6 years or older prior to death or slaughter have been subtracted because they were seen to present only a reduced risk for BSE – if infected prior to import they would probably have shown clinical symptoms of BSE. • Fifty-two of the 117 animals known to be alive in 1995 came from herds in the UK in which one or more cases of BSE subsequently developed. In 1999, 4 of these 117 animals were still alive. 113 had been purchased, diagnostic samples taken, and the carcasses were incinerated. All these animals tested negative for BSE (histopathology and IHC). 3.12 Factor 3: Import of MBM or feed containing MBM • No import of MBM from Europe occurred between 1990 and 1998, and the country experts, although not able to provide exact data, claimed that import practices for MBM had not changed since 1980. • However, the UK export statistics mention 12 tons of mammalian meals and flours,29 in 1981, 10 tons in 84, 2 tons in 85, 20 tons in 89, and 37 tons in 97 being exported to the USA. However, the import of 20 tons in 89 is questioned by the USA Authorities. • A realistic assumption is, therefore, that the external challenge through MBM imports was negligible. 3.2 Internal challenge resulting from domestic infected animals 3.21 Interaction of external challenges and stability • In the 80s an extremely unstable system was exposed to a moderate challenge resulting from cattle imports mainly from the UK. • If this external challenge lead to BSE-infectivity entering the feed chain in the USA, domestic cattle would have been exposed to it and the incoming BSEinfectivity would have been amplified and the disease propagated. Domestic cases would appear about one incubation period after the infected import-cattle were slaughtered and infected MBM would have entered the feed chain and could have reached domestic cattle. • Cattle imported from the UK in 1988/89 carried the highest risk of being infected with BSE. Some of these could have entered the feed chain prior 1990, while being infected. The highest probability for domestic cases resulting 29 UK Overseas Trade Statistics are not available specifically for MBM. MBM is included under the heading “Flours and meals of meat or offal (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves”. Since the adoption of Commission Decision 96/239/EC on 27/03/96 it has been illegal to export from the UK meat meal, bonemeal, and MBM derived from mammals. The exports shown for 1996 and 1997 may have included non-mammalian MBM. Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA July 2000 - 42 - directly from this challenge to appear as clinical BSE-cases would therefore be between 1995 (90+5) and, as a “second generation” 2000 (95+5). • Between 1990 and 1995, with the exclusion of the imported animals from Europe from the feed chain, the impact of the external challenge was largely mastered. The external challenge is therefore considered low after 1990. • Given the relative small number of potentially infected cattle that were rendered and the negligible size of the potential MBM import, the total number of domestic cases is likely to remain small. • However, even the small number of theoretically possible domestic cases would since 1993 expose the (very) unstable (prior to 1998) or neutrally stable (since 1998) system to an internal challenge and circulating BSE-infectivity would have been amplified until 1998. Recycling is still possible. snip... 4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS 4.1 Interaction of stability and challenge • In the late 80s, early 90s a moderate external challenges met an extremely or very unstable system. This would have quickly amplified any incoming BSEinfectivity and propagated the disease. • With the exclusion of imported animals from Europe from the feed chain between 1990 and 1995 the effect of the external challenge decreased but during this period the system was still very unstable. Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of the USA July 2000 - 43 - • It cannot be excluded that the initial external challenges lead to some domestic infected animals. If this happened an internal challenge started to build-up in the early 90s. It grew slowly and kept the overall challenge at low levels even after the impact of external challenge ceased at the latest in 1995. Overall Challenge snip...full text ; [url=http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out137_en.pdf]http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out137_en.pdf[/url] 3. CHALLENGES • Before 1987 a “very low” and from 1988 to 1990 a “low” external challenge is assumed. It resulted from a very small number of UK-imported cattle (11 that carried a risk of being infected) that entered processing. Other external challenges, due to import of live cattle or MBM from other countries affected by BSE, were regarded as insignificant but still not non-negligible. Report on the assessment of the Geographical BSE-risk of CANADA July 2000 - 32 - • It is unlikely, but cannot be excluded, that some BSE entered the Canadian feed chain and resulted in a (small) internal challenge. • The overall challenge was therefore first determined by the very low and low external challenges. As a reasonable worst case scenario it is assumed that the (unlikely) internal challenge, which could have resulted from the interaction of the insufficient stability and the external challenges, was just enough to maintain a low level of the overall challenge, even after the external challenges practically ceased in 1993. 4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS 4.1 Interaction of stability and challenges • From 1980 to 1992 the extremely unstable system was exposed to “very low” (prior to 1988) and to “low” external challenges (1988-1992). • The development of an internal challenge is unlikely but cannot be excluded because the extremely unstable system would most probably have recycled and amplified incoming BSE-infectivity. • If at all an internal challenge would have started to develop around 1990 and, in that case, could have at least partly compensated the declining external challenges that were significantly reduced/stopped with the exclusion of all imported cattle from processing in 1993. As a reasonable worst case scenario it is assumed that this kept the overall challenge at a constant, low level, after 1993. • After 1992 the stability of the system increased through implementation of a good passive surveillance system and the traceback and removal of imported cattle. The system became “unstable” in 1994 and “neutrally stable” after 1997. It could hence cope better with the low overall challenge that is assumed to have been present. • Given the fact that the system is still not seen to be able to reduce circulating BSE-infectivity, it is unlikely but cannot be excluded that a low (internal) challenge is maintained. [url=http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out131_en.pdf]http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out131_en.pdf[/url] NOW when and where was that first case of BSE detected $$$ It is clear that USDA have little information and _no_ regulatory responsibility for rendering plants in the US... snip... 3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach was to accord it a _very low profile indeed_. Dr. A Thiermann showed the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought this was a fanatical incident to be _avoided_ in the US _at all costs_... snip... [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf[/url] DISCUSSION These findings suggest that TME may result from feeding mink infected cattle and we have alerted bovine practitioners that there may exist an as yet unrecognized scrapie-like disease of cattle in the United States (Marsh and Hartsough, 1986). A new bovine spongiform encephalopathy has recently been reported in England (Wells et al., 1987), and investigators are presently studying its transmissibility and possible relationship to scrapie. Because this new bovine disease in England is characterized by behavioral changes, hyperexcitability, and agressiveness, it is very likely it would be confused with rabies in the United Stales and not be diagnosed. Presently, brains from cattle in the United States which are suspected of rabies infection are only tested with anti-rabies virus antibody and are not examined histopathologically for lesions of spongiform encephalopathy. [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf[/url] TSS[/b] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Canadian Government BSE Coverup?
Top