Subject: Disposing of BSE New regulations designed to help eliminate BSE from Canadian livestock
Date: May 25, 2007 at 9:07 am PST
Disposing of BSE
New regulations designed to help eliminate BSE from Canadian livestock
The Government of Canada is stepping up efforts to eliminate bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, from the national herd by removing cattle tissues that, if infected are capable of transmitting the disease from animal feed, pet food and fertilizer.
Beginning July 12, 2007, there will be new regulations for handling, transporting and disposing of these cattle tissues, known as specified risk material (SRM). The new regulations will impact the way some waste management workers do their job.
Specified risk material include 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.
Under the enhanced regulations, owners or operators of waste management facilities choosing to accept SRM in any form must apply for a permit from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Permits will only be issued after the facility's disposal procedures are assessed by a CFIA inspector and meet all requirements. Disposal procedures must prove to either destroy or permanently contain all SRM waste.
In addition to new disposal regulations, a separate permit is required to transport SRM in any form, including cattle carcasses containing SRM. Slaughterhouses will have to properly identify SRM prior to pickup for waste disposal. Waste management facilities will be advised not to accept cattle parts in any form, from anyone who does not possess a permit.
The duration of the permit depends on the frequency of business. For example, permits for commercial operations who frequently handle SRM may be valid for up to one year. Other permits, for isolated SRM disposal needs, may be valid for periods of 30 or 60 days.
The permit application is available online at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse.
Applications for a permit from the CFIA must be accompanied with:
All relevant municipal and provincial licenses and inspection reports
Detailed site plans
Normal operating procedures and any additional applicable quality assurance programs pertaining to the containment of SRM landfills
The results of any recent analyses or verifications relevant to SRM containment
Submit copies of these documents with the application to the nearest CFIA office.
To order copies of these materials or to locate your local CFIA office, call 1-800-442-2342. Additional information about the enhanced feed ban is available online at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... dece.shtml
HERE in the USA, we still dispose of our BLOOD LACED MBM and other BSE causing banned feed by feeding them to our livestock ;
What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA
OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed
considerably over the past
century. As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the
predominant model for
animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients
ranging from rendered
animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this
article we review current U.S.
animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in
animal feed. Evidence that
current feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also
evaluated.
DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature
regarding animal
feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and human health
effects along with proceedings
from animal feed workshops.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books
identified using
PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug
Administration, and Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention databases.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can
result in the presence
of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins
in feed and animal-based food
products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could
ensue, there are significant
data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks
associated with animal feed.
Limited data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the
amounts of specific ingredients
used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to
monitor etiologic agents "from
farm to fork."
CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health
surveillance systems
and increased collaboration among feed professionals, animal producers, and
veterinary and public
health officials is necessary to effectively address these issues.
KEY WORDS: animal feed, animal waste, concentrated animal feeding
operations, fats, human health
effects, nontherapeutic antibiotics, rendered animals, roxarsone, zoonoses.
Environ Health Perspect
115:663–670 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9760 available via http://dx.doi.org/
[Online 8 February 2007]
snip...
U.S. Animal Feed Production
The U.S. animal feed industry is the largest
producer of animal feed in the world (Gill
2004). In 2004, over 120 million tons of primary
animal feed, including mixes of feed
grains, mill by-products, animal proteins, and
microingredient formulations (i.e., vitamins,
minerals, and antibiotics) were produced in
the United States (Gill 2004). In the same
year, the United States exported nearly
$4 billion worth of animal feed ingredients
(International Trade Centre 2004).
snip...
Rendered animal products. In 2003, the
U.S. rendering industry produced > 8 million
metric tons of rendered animal products,
including meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct
meal, blood meal, and feather meal
(National Renderers Association Inc. 2005b).
Most of these products were incorporated into
animal feed. However, data concerning the
specific amounts of rendered animal protein
that are used in animal feed are difficult to
obtain because the information is neither routinely
collected at the federal or state level nor
reported by the rendering industry. The latest
available data, collected by the USDA in 1984,
estimated that > 4 million metric tons of rendered
animal products were used as animal
feed ingredients (USDA 1988). Oftentimes
these ingredients are listed on animal feed
labels as "animal protein products." Thus, it is
difficult to discern precisely which animal protein
products are included in a particular animal
feed product (Lefferts et al. 2006).
Animal waste. Another major animal
protein–based feed ingredient is animal
waste, including dried ruminant waste, dried
poultry litter, and dried swine waste (AAFCO
2004; Haapapuro et al. 1997). As with rendered
animal products, there are no national
data on the total amounts of animal waste
included in animal feeds, although some
states have collected limited data concerning
this practice. In 2003, it was estimated that
approximately 1 million tons of poultry litter
were produced annually in Florida, and an
estimated 350,000 tons of this litter were
available for use in feed (Dubberly 2003).
Yet, information concerning the precise
amount of this "available" poultry litter that
was actually incorporated into Florida animal
feed was unavailable.
Recycling animal waste into animal feed
has been practiced for > 40 years as a means of
cutting feed costs. However, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) does not offi-
cially endorse the use of animal waste in feed
and has issued statements voicing the agency's
concern about the presence of pathogens and
drug residues in animal waste, particularly
poultry litter (FDA 1998). In line with these
concerns, the AAFCO, an organization that
develops guidelines for the safe use of animal
feeds, advises that processed animal waste
should not contain pathogenic microorganisms,
pesticide residues, or drug residues that could
harm animals or eventually be detected in animal-
based food products intended for human
consumption (AAFCO 2004). Nonetheless,
these guidelines are not adequately enforced at
the federal or state level.
snip...
please see full text ;
Sapkota et al.
668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picren ... obtype=pdf
CVM Update
May 18, 2007
May 2007 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
To help prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) through feed in the United States, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most
mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part
589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant Feed
Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
The following is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the
ruminant feed ban. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has assembled
data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose final
inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of
May 12, 2007. As of May 12, 2007, FDA had received over 53,000 inspection
reports. The majority of these inspections (around 68%) were conducted by
State feed safety officials, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to
reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the
objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are
reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated
(VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable
conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in
order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation.
An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of
manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not
contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI
violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions
to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or
practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory
significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of
findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with
VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These
include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions
involving non-ruminant feeds.
An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or
practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the
documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in
total". NOTE – A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a
result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually
exclusive.
RENDERERS
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal
proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein
blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
269
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 161 (60 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 161 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI
4 firms (2.5 %) were classified as VAI
LICENSED FEED MILLS
FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The
license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent
drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time.
This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under
the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required
to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
1,074
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 444 (41 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 444 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI
5 firms (1.1 %) were classified as VAI
FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
5,183
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 2,391 (46 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 2,391 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.1 %) were classified as OAI
56 firms (2.3 %) were classified as VAI
PROTEIN BLENDERS
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing
quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
386
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 183 (47% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 183 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
1 firm (0.5 %) was classified as OAI
7 firms (3.8 %) were classified as VAI
RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS MANUFACTURING WITH PROHIBITED
MATERIAL
This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited
material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
Total number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose
initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,604
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with
prohibited materials – 497 (7.5 %)
Of the 497 active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing
with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.4 %) were classified as OAI
24 firms (4.8 %) were classified as VAI
OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food
manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal
feed transporters.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
17,227
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 5,415 (31% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 5,415 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.04 %) were classified as OAI
186 firms (3.4%) were classified as VAI
TOTAL FIRMS
Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category;
therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be
more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
19,705
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 6,146 (31 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 6,146 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.05 %) were classified as OAI
200 firms (3.3 %) were classified as VAI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Issued by:
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Communications Staff, HFV-12
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/BSE0507.htm
FOR an example of just how much banned mad cow feed one firm can put out into commerce, here is a look a a couple of firms ;
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2 ... 00996.html
TSS
Date: May 25, 2007 at 9:07 am PST
Disposing of BSE
New regulations designed to help eliminate BSE from Canadian livestock
The Government of Canada is stepping up efforts to eliminate bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, from the national herd by removing cattle tissues that, if infected are capable of transmitting the disease from animal feed, pet food and fertilizer.
Beginning July 12, 2007, there will be new regulations for handling, transporting and disposing of these cattle tissues, known as specified risk material (SRM). The new regulations will impact the way some waste management workers do their job.
Specified risk material include 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.
Under the enhanced regulations, owners or operators of waste management facilities choosing to accept SRM in any form must apply for a permit from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Permits will only be issued after the facility's disposal procedures are assessed by a CFIA inspector and meet all requirements. Disposal procedures must prove to either destroy or permanently contain all SRM waste.
In addition to new disposal regulations, a separate permit is required to transport SRM in any form, including cattle carcasses containing SRM. Slaughterhouses will have to properly identify SRM prior to pickup for waste disposal. Waste management facilities will be advised not to accept cattle parts in any form, from anyone who does not possess a permit.
The duration of the permit depends on the frequency of business. For example, permits for commercial operations who frequently handle SRM may be valid for up to one year. Other permits, for isolated SRM disposal needs, may be valid for periods of 30 or 60 days.
The permit application is available online at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse.
Applications for a permit from the CFIA must be accompanied with:
All relevant municipal and provincial licenses and inspection reports
Detailed site plans
Normal operating procedures and any additional applicable quality assurance programs pertaining to the containment of SRM landfills
The results of any recent analyses or verifications relevant to SRM containment
Submit copies of these documents with the application to the nearest CFIA office.
To order copies of these materials or to locate your local CFIA office, call 1-800-442-2342. Additional information about the enhanced feed ban is available online at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... dece.shtml
HERE in the USA, we still dispose of our BLOOD LACED MBM and other BSE causing banned feed by feeding them to our livestock ;
What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA
OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed
considerably over the past
century. As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the
predominant model for
animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients
ranging from rendered
animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this
article we review current U.S.
animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in
animal feed. Evidence that
current feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also
evaluated.
DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature
regarding animal
feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and human health
effects along with proceedings
from animal feed workshops.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books
identified using
PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug
Administration, and Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention databases.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can
result in the presence
of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins
in feed and animal-based food
products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could
ensue, there are significant
data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks
associated with animal feed.
Limited data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the
amounts of specific ingredients
used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to
monitor etiologic agents "from
farm to fork."
CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health
surveillance systems
and increased collaboration among feed professionals, animal producers, and
veterinary and public
health officials is necessary to effectively address these issues.
KEY WORDS: animal feed, animal waste, concentrated animal feeding
operations, fats, human health
effects, nontherapeutic antibiotics, rendered animals, roxarsone, zoonoses.
Environ Health Perspect
115:663–670 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9760 available via http://dx.doi.org/
[Online 8 February 2007]
snip...
U.S. Animal Feed Production
The U.S. animal feed industry is the largest
producer of animal feed in the world (Gill
2004). In 2004, over 120 million tons of primary
animal feed, including mixes of feed
grains, mill by-products, animal proteins, and
microingredient formulations (i.e., vitamins,
minerals, and antibiotics) were produced in
the United States (Gill 2004). In the same
year, the United States exported nearly
$4 billion worth of animal feed ingredients
(International Trade Centre 2004).
snip...
Rendered animal products. In 2003, the
U.S. rendering industry produced > 8 million
metric tons of rendered animal products,
including meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct
meal, blood meal, and feather meal
(National Renderers Association Inc. 2005b).
Most of these products were incorporated into
animal feed. However, data concerning the
specific amounts of rendered animal protein
that are used in animal feed are difficult to
obtain because the information is neither routinely
collected at the federal or state level nor
reported by the rendering industry. The latest
available data, collected by the USDA in 1984,
estimated that > 4 million metric tons of rendered
animal products were used as animal
feed ingredients (USDA 1988). Oftentimes
these ingredients are listed on animal feed
labels as "animal protein products." Thus, it is
difficult to discern precisely which animal protein
products are included in a particular animal
feed product (Lefferts et al. 2006).
Animal waste. Another major animal
protein–based feed ingredient is animal
waste, including dried ruminant waste, dried
poultry litter, and dried swine waste (AAFCO
2004; Haapapuro et al. 1997). As with rendered
animal products, there are no national
data on the total amounts of animal waste
included in animal feeds, although some
states have collected limited data concerning
this practice. In 2003, it was estimated that
approximately 1 million tons of poultry litter
were produced annually in Florida, and an
estimated 350,000 tons of this litter were
available for use in feed (Dubberly 2003).
Yet, information concerning the precise
amount of this "available" poultry litter that
was actually incorporated into Florida animal
feed was unavailable.
Recycling animal waste into animal feed
has been practiced for > 40 years as a means of
cutting feed costs. However, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) does not offi-
cially endorse the use of animal waste in feed
and has issued statements voicing the agency's
concern about the presence of pathogens and
drug residues in animal waste, particularly
poultry litter (FDA 1998). In line with these
concerns, the AAFCO, an organization that
develops guidelines for the safe use of animal
feeds, advises that processed animal waste
should not contain pathogenic microorganisms,
pesticide residues, or drug residues that could
harm animals or eventually be detected in animal-
based food products intended for human
consumption (AAFCO 2004). Nonetheless,
these guidelines are not adequately enforced at
the federal or state level.
snip...
please see full text ;
Sapkota et al.
668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picren ... obtype=pdf
CVM Update
May 18, 2007
May 2007 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
To help prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) through feed in the United States, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most
mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part
589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant Feed
Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
The following is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the
ruminant feed ban. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has assembled
data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose final
inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of
May 12, 2007. As of May 12, 2007, FDA had received over 53,000 inspection
reports. The majority of these inspections (around 68%) were conducted by
State feed safety officials, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to
reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the
objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are
reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated
(VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable
conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in
order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation.
An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of
manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not
contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI
violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions
to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or
practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory
significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of
findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with
VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These
include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions
involving non-ruminant feeds.
An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or
practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the
documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in
total". NOTE – A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a
result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually
exclusive.
RENDERERS
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal
proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein
blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
269
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 161 (60 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 161 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI
4 firms (2.5 %) were classified as VAI
LICENSED FEED MILLS
FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The
license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent
drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time.
This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under
the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required
to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
1,074
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 444 (41 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 444 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI
5 firms (1.1 %) were classified as VAI
FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
5,183
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 2,391 (46 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 2,391 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.1 %) were classified as OAI
56 firms (2.3 %) were classified as VAI
PROTEIN BLENDERS
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing
quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
386
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 183 (47% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 183 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
1 firm (0.5 %) was classified as OAI
7 firms (3.8 %) were classified as VAI
RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS MANUFACTURING WITH PROHIBITED
MATERIAL
This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited
material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
Total number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose
initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,604
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with
prohibited materials – 497 (7.5 %)
Of the 497 active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing
with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.4 %) were classified as OAI
24 firms (4.8 %) were classified as VAI
OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food
manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal
feed transporters.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
17,227
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 5,415 (31% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 5,415 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.04 %) were classified as OAI
186 firms (3.4%) were classified as VAI
TOTAL FIRMS
Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category;
therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be
more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –
19,705
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant
feed – 6,146 (31 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 6,146 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent
inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.05 %) were classified as OAI
200 firms (3.3 %) were classified as VAI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Issued by:
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Communications Staff, HFV-12
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/BSE0507.htm
FOR an example of just how much banned mad cow feed one firm can put out into commerce, here is a look a a couple of firms ;
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2 ... 00996.html
TSS