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!)
Disposing of BSE New regulations Canada
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: 385838" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p>Subject: Disposing of BSE New regulations designed to help eliminate BSE from Canadian livestock</p><p>Date: May 25, 2007 at 9:07 am PST</p><p></p><p>Disposing of BSE</p><p>New regulations designed to help eliminate BSE from Canadian livestock</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The permit application is available online at <a href="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse" target="_blank">http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse</a>.</p><p></p><p>Applications for a permit from the CFIA must be accompanied with:</p><p>All relevant municipal and provincial licenses and inspection reports</p><p>Detailed site plans</p><p>Normal operating procedures and any additional applicable quality assurance programs pertaining to the containment of SRM landfills</p><p>The results of any recent analyses or verifications relevant to SRM containment</p><p>Submit copies of these documents with the application to the nearest CFIA office.</p><p></p><p>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 <a href="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse" target="_blank">http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/enhren/art/wasdece.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... dece.shtml</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>HERE in the USA, we still dispose of our BLOOD LACED MBM and other BSE causing banned feed by feeding them to our livestock ;</p><p></p><p></p><p>What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed</p><p>Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health</p><p></p><p></p><p>Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1</p><p>1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public</p><p>Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for</p><p>Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,</p><p>University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;</p><p>3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA</p><p></p><p></p><p>OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed</p><p>considerably over the past</p><p>century. As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the</p><p>predominant model for</p><p>animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients</p><p>ranging from rendered</p><p>animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this</p><p>article we review current U.S.</p><p>animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in</p><p>animal feed. Evidence that</p><p>current feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also</p><p>evaluated.</p><p></p><p></p><p>DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature</p><p>regarding animal</p><p>feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and human health</p><p>effects along with proceedings</p><p>from animal feed workshops.</p><p></p><p></p><p>DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books</p><p>identified using</p><p>PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug</p><p>Administration, and Centers</p><p>for Disease Control and Prevention databases.</p><p></p><p></p><p>DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can</p><p>result in the presence</p><p>of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins</p><p>in feed and animal-based food</p><p>products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could</p><p>ensue, there are significant</p><p>data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks</p><p>associated with animal feed.</p><p>Limited data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the</p><p>amounts of specific ingredients</p><p>used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to</p><p>monitor etiologic agents "from</p><p>farm to fork."</p><p></p><p></p><p>CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health</p><p>surveillance systems</p><p>and increased collaboration among feed professionals, animal producers, and</p><p>veterinary and public</p><p>health officials is necessary to effectively address these issues.</p><p></p><p></p><p>KEY WORDS: animal feed, animal waste, concentrated animal feeding</p><p>operations, fats, human health</p><p>effects, nontherapeutic antibiotics, rendered animals, roxarsone, zoonoses.</p><p>Environ Health Perspect</p><p>115:663–670 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9760 available via <a href="http://dx.doi.org/" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/</a></p><p>[Online 8 February 2007]</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>U.S. Animal Feed Production</p><p>The U.S. animal feed industry is the largest</p><p>producer of animal feed in the world (Gill</p><p>2004). In 2004, over 120 million tons of primary</p><p>animal feed, including mixes of feed</p><p>grains, mill by-products, animal proteins, and</p><p>microingredient formulations (i.e., vitamins,</p><p>minerals, and antibiotics) were produced in</p><p>the United States (Gill 2004). In the same</p><p>year, the United States exported nearly</p><p>$4 billion worth of animal feed ingredients</p><p>(International Trade Centre 2004).</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Rendered animal products. In 2003, the</p><p>U.S. rendering industry produced > 8 million</p><p>metric tons of rendered animal products,</p><p>including meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct</p><p>meal, blood meal, and feather meal</p><p>(National Renderers Association Inc. 2005b).</p><p>Most of these products were incorporated into</p><p>animal feed. However, data concerning the</p><p>specific amounts of rendered animal protein</p><p>that are used in animal feed are difficult to</p><p>obtain because the information is neither routinely</p><p>collected at the federal or state level nor</p><p>reported by the rendering industry. The latest</p><p>available data, collected by the USDA in 1984,</p><p>estimated that > 4 million metric tons of rendered</p><p>animal products were used as animal</p><p>feed ingredients (USDA 1988). Oftentimes</p><p>these ingredients are listed on animal feed</p><p>labels as "animal protein products." Thus, it is</p><p>difficult to discern precisely which animal protein</p><p>products are included in a particular animal</p><p>feed product (Lefferts et al. 2006).</p><p>Animal waste. Another major animal</p><p>protein–based feed ingredient is animal</p><p>waste, including dried ruminant waste, dried</p><p>poultry litter, and dried swine waste (AAFCO</p><p>2004; Haapapuro et al. 1997). As with rendered</p><p>animal products, there are no national</p><p>data on the total amounts of animal waste</p><p>included in animal feeds, although some</p><p>states have collected limited data concerning</p><p>this practice. In 2003, it was estimated that</p><p>approximately 1 million tons of poultry litter</p><p>were produced annually in Florida, and an</p><p>estimated 350,000 tons of this litter were</p><p>available for use in feed (Dubberly 2003).</p><p>Yet, information concerning the precise</p><p>amount of this "available" poultry litter that</p><p>was actually incorporated into Florida animal</p><p>feed was unavailable.</p><p>Recycling animal waste into animal feed</p><p>has been practiced for > 40 years as a means of</p><p>cutting feed costs. However, the U.S. Food</p><p>and Drug Administration (FDA) does not offi-</p><p>cially endorse the use of animal waste in feed</p><p>and has issued statements voicing the agency's</p><p>concern about the presence of pathogens and</p><p>drug residues in animal waste, particularly</p><p>poultry litter (FDA 1998). In line with these</p><p>concerns, the AAFCO, an organization that</p><p>develops guidelines for the safe use of animal</p><p>feeds, advises that processed animal waste</p><p>should not contain pathogenic microorganisms,</p><p>pesticide residues, or drug residues that could</p><p>harm animals or eventually be detected in animal-</p><p>based food products intended for human</p><p>consumption (AAFCO 2004). Nonetheless,</p><p>these guidelines are not adequately enforced at</p><p>the federal or state level.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p>please see full text ;</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sapkota et al.</p><p>668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf" target="_blank">http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picren ... obtype=pdf</a></p><p></p><p>CVM Update</p><p>May 18, 2007</p><p></p><p>May 2007 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE</p><p></p><p>To help prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform</p><p>Encephalopathy (BSE) through feed in the United States, the Food and Drug</p><p>Administration (FDA) implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most</p><p>mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part</p><p>589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant Feed</p><p>Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.</p><p></p><p>The following is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the</p><p>ruminant feed ban. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has assembled</p><p>data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose final</p><p>inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of</p><p>May 12, 2007. As of May 12, 2007, FDA had received over 53,000 inspection</p><p>reports. The majority of these inspections (around 68%) were conducted by</p><p>State feed safety officials, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.</p><p>Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to</p><p>reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the</p><p>objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are</p><p>reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated</p><p>(VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).</p><p></p><p>An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable</p><p>conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in</p><p>order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation.</p><p>An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of</p><p>manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not</p><p>contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI</p><p>violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions</p><p>to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.</p><p></p><p>A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or</p><p>practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory</p><p>significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of</p><p>findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with</p><p>VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These</p><p>include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions</p><p>involving non-ruminant feeds.</p><p></p><p>An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or</p><p>practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the</p><p>documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.</p><p></p><p>The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in</p><p>total". NOTE – A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a</p><p>result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually</p><p>exclusive.</p><p></p><p>RENDERERS</p><p></p><p>These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal</p><p>proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein</p><p>blenders for use as a feed ingredient.</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –</p><p>269</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant</p><p>feed – 161 (60 % of those active firms inspected)</p><p></p><p>Of the 161 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent</p><p>inspection revealed that:</p><p></p><p>0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI</p><p></p><p>4 firms (2.5 %) were classified as VAI</p><p></p><p>LICENSED FEED MILLS</p><p></p><p>FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The</p><p>license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent</p><p>drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time.</p><p>This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under</p><p>the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required</p><p>to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –</p><p>1,074</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant</p><p>feed – 444 (41 % of those active firms inspected)</p><p></p><p>Of the 444 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent</p><p>inspection revealed that:</p><p></p><p>0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI</p><p></p><p>5 firms (1.1 %) were classified as VAI</p><p></p><p>FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA</p><p></p><p>These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –</p><p>5,183</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant</p><p>feed – 2,391 (46 % of those active firms inspected)</p><p></p><p>Of the 2,391 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent</p><p>inspection revealed that:</p><p></p><p>3 firms (0.1 %) were classified as OAI</p><p></p><p>56 firms (2.3 %) were classified as VAI</p><p></p><p>PROTEIN BLENDERS</p><p></p><p>These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing</p><p>quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –</p><p>386</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant</p><p>feed – 183 (47% of those active firms inspected)</p><p></p><p>Of the 183 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent</p><p>inspection revealed that:</p><p></p><p>1 firm (0.5 %) was classified as OAI</p><p></p><p>7 firms (3.8 %) were classified as VAI</p><p></p><p>RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS MANUFACTURING WITH PROHIBITED</p><p>MATERIAL</p><p></p><p>This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited</p><p>material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.</p><p></p><p>Total number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose</p><p>initial inspection has been reported to FDA – 6,604</p><p></p><p>Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with</p><p>prohibited materials – 497 (7.5 %)</p><p></p><p>Of the 497 active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing</p><p>with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:</p><p></p><p>2 firms (0.4 %) were classified as OAI</p><p></p><p>24 firms (4.8 %) were classified as VAI</p><p></p><p>OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED</p><p></p><p>Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food</p><p>manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal</p><p>feed transporters.</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –</p><p>17,227</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant</p><p>feed – 5,415 (31% of those active firms inspected)</p><p></p><p>Of the 5,415 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent</p><p>inspection revealed that:</p><p></p><p>2 firms (0.04 %) were classified as OAI</p><p></p><p>186 firms (3.4%) were classified as VAI</p><p></p><p>TOTAL FIRMS</p><p></p><p>Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category;</p><p>therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be</p><p>more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA –</p><p>19,705</p><p></p><p>Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant</p><p>feed – 6,146 (31 % of those active firms inspected)</p><p></p><p>Of the 6,146 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent</p><p>inspection revealed that:</p><p></p><p>3 firms (0.05 %) were classified as OAI</p><p></p><p>200 firms (3.3 %) were classified as VAI</p><p></p><p></p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>----</p><p></p><p>Issued by:</p><p>FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,</p><p>Communications Staff, HFV-12</p><p>7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855</p><p>Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115</p><p>Internet Web Site: <a href="http://www.fda.gov/cvm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/cvm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/BSE0507.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/BSE0507.htm</a></p><p></p><p>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 ;</p><p></p><p>10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA</p><p>2007</p><p></p><p>Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST</p><p>RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II</p><p>___________________________________</p><p>PRODUCT</p><p>Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,</p><p>Recall # V-024-2007</p><p>CODE</p><p>Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007</p><p>RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER</p><p>Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.</p><p>Firm initiated recall is ongoing.</p><p>REASON</p><p>Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was</p><p>cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been</p><p>manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE</p><p>statement.</p><p>VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE</p><p>42,090 lbs.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION</p><p>WI</p><p></p><p>___________________________________</p><p>PRODUCT</p><p>Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL</p><p>Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,</p><p>TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY</p><p>Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST</p><p>POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL</p><p>DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK</p><p>CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC</p><p>MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,</p><p>A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007</p><p>CODE</p><p>The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with</p><p>commodity and weights identified.</p><p>RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER</p><p>Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm</p><p>initiated recall is complete.</p><p>REASON</p><p>Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross</p><p>contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not</p><p>bear cautionary BSE statement.</p><p>VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE</p><p>9,997,976 lbs.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION</p><p>ID and NV</p><p></p><p>END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2 ... 00996.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>TSS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 385838, member: 3519"] 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 [url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse[/url]. 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 [url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/bse[/url]. [url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/enhren/art/wasdece.shtml]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... dece.shtml[/url] 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 [url=http://dx.doi.org/]http://dx.doi.org/[/url] [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 [url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picren ... obtype=pdf[/url] 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: [url=http://www.fda.gov/cvm]http://www.fda.gov/cvm[/url] [url=http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/BSE0507.htm]http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/BSE0507.htm[/url] 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 [url=http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html]http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2 ... 00996.html[/url] TSS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Disposing of BSE New regulations Canada
Top