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!)
FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C.
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: 211461" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p>Subject: FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C.</p><p>Date: April 16, 2006 at 1:24 pm PST</p><p></p><p>Latest Information</p><p>Latest Information (as of April 16, 2006 - 15:00 EST)</p><p>Testing at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg has confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a cow from British Columbia. No part of this animal entered the human food or animal feed systems. </p><p>The CFIA is also conducting a thorough examination of potential sources of infection. Investigators will pay particular attention to the feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life, when cattle are most susceptible to BSE. </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/situatione.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... ione.shtml</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C.</p><p>OTTAWA, April 16, 2006 - Testing at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg has confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a cow from British Columbia. As reported on April 13, 2006, samples from this animal were sent to Winnipeg for additional testing after screening tests produced inconclusive results.</p><p></p><p>This finding does not affect the safety of Canadian beef. Tissues in which BSE is known to concentrate in infected animals are removed from all cattle slaughtered in Canada for domestic and international human consumption. No part of this animal entered the human food or animal feed systems.</p><p></p><p>Preliminary investigations conducted prior to receiving final results identified the animal's exact date of birth and birth farm — two critical elements required to trace other animals of interest, as defined by the World Organization for Animal Health. With the confirmed positive results and this information already in hand, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has immediately undertaken the animal component of its investigation on a priority basis.</p><p></p><p>The CFIA is also conducting a thorough examination of potential sources of infection. Investigators will pay particular attention to the feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life, when cattle are most susceptible to BSE. The CFIA is collecting records of feed purchased by and used on the animal's birth farm. As in previous investigations, the CFIA will also fully consider all other scientific pathways in an attempt to definitively determine how the animal became infected.</p><p></p><p>This animal, a six-year-old dairy cow, developed BSE after the implementation of Canada's feed ban. Similar situations are common to almost all BSE-affected countries that have introduced feed controls. Although the design, implementation and compliance of Canada's feed ban have been rigorously assessed by a number of countries over the past several years, and have been described as robust and effectively enforced, the Government is committed to continuously making improvements where possible. An enhanced feed ban would accelerate the eradication of BSE in Canada. Accordingly, the CFIA has published proposed regulatory amendments, and following extensive consultations, is now in the process of finalizing their content. </p><p></p><p>The feed ban and national surveillance program which identified this animal, contribute to Canada's interlocking BSE controls. While the feed ban continues to limit the spread of BSE, Canada's national surveillance program effectively monitors the health of the Canadian cattle herd. The national surveillance program, which targets cattle most at risk of having BSE, has tested more than 100,000 such animals since 2003. The detection of only five animals within this high-risk population over the past three years and the age of the animals detected supports the conclusion that the level of BSE in Canada is very low and declining.</p><p></p><p>The strong participation of producers to facilitate the detection of any suspect cases at the farm level, as demonstrated once again by this most recent finding, and the close collaboration between the Provinces and Federal Government in the surveillance effort demonstrates the shared commitment which exists to protect animal and human health in Canada.</p><p></p><p>In keeping with its ongoing practice, the CFIA will post to its website updated information as it becomes available.</p><p></p><p>- 30 -</p><p></p><p>For information:</p><p></p><p>Canadian Food Inspection Agency</p><p>Media Relations: (613) 228-6682</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2006/20060416e.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/cor ... 416e.shtml</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>C A N A D I A N F O O D</p><p></p><p>I N S P E C T I O N A G E N C Y</p><p></p><p>F E E D B A N R E V I E W</p><p></p><p>March 2, 2005</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Mammalian-to-ruminant Feed Ban: Refers to the 1997 Health of Animals</p><p></p><p>Regulations that prohibits feeding protein derived from mammals to ruminant animals</p><p></p><p>such as cows, sheep, deer, etc., with the exception of porcine- or equine-derived</p><p></p><p>protein.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Canada's feed ban prohibits feeding most mammalian proteins to ruminant animals,</p><p></p><p>such as cattle, sheep and goats. The ban requires rendering facilities, feed</p><p></p><p>manufacturers, feed retailers and livestock producers to follow and document</p><p></p><p>production and feeding procedures to prevent the inclusion of prohibited materials</p><p></p><p>in feed and feed ingredients intended for ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep and</p><p></p><p>goats.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>1.3 Canada's feed industry</p><p></p><p>The feed ban regulations apply to Canada's feed and livestock industry, which</p><p></p><p>consists of rendering plants, commercial feed mills (that manufacture half of</p><p></p><p>Canada's production), and feed retailers. The regulations also apply to on-farm feed</p><p></p><p>mills and farms that feed cattle and other ruminants.</p><p></p><p>The feed sector is Canada's 16th largest manufacturing industry, with annual</p><p></p><p>production of 15 million metric tonnes. It employs about 9,000 people. The value</p><p></p><p>of production from this sector is $3.5 billion annually. In addition to the feed sold in</p><p></p><p>Canada, feed is exported (primarily to the US), and feed from the US is also</p><p></p><p>distributed and sold in Canada. Swine, dairy and poultry feed accounts for 85% of</p><p></p><p>all feed produced and sold by Canadian feed manufacturers.</p><p></p><p>The chart below depicts a typical feed cycle showing the feed inputs from farms,</p><p></p><p>abattoirs and dead stock that enter the feed manufacturing cycle. The product enters</p><p></p><p>through the rendering process and is passed through to the feed mills and</p><p></p><p>distributors.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Canada's rendering industry</p><p></p><p>It is important to note that only six of the 29 rendering facilities have a permit from</p><p></p><p>the CFIA that authorizes them to handle both prohibited and non-prohibited</p><p></p><p>material.</p><p></p><p>Two thirds of the 29 rendering facilities in Canada are owned and operated by large</p><p></p><p>corporations. These corporations include international vertically integrated food</p><p></p><p>companies. Seven rendering facilities are attached to federally registered slaughter</p><p></p><p>plants, which helps to ensure that these companies have very tight control over the</p><p></p><p>rendering and disposition of raw material from their operations.</p><p></p><p>In 2003, Canadian renderers processed approximately 2.2 million tonnes of inedible</p><p></p><p>animal by-products. More than 50% (556,000 tonnes) of the products manufactured</p><p></p><p>by rendering were protein meals (including blood meal). The remaining products</p><p></p><p>were animal fats and fatty acids. In 2003, Canada produced approximately 478,000</p><p></p><p>tonnes of MBM (including cattle, pork, poultry and fish protein meals). In 2003,</p><p></p><p>approximately 535,000 tonnes of animal fats, fatty acids and oils, and 77,600 tonnes</p><p></p><p>of blood and feather protein meals were also produced.</p><p></p><p>All of Canada's rendering plants are members of the Animal Protein Producers</p><p></p><p>Industry Association (APPI), and this association has sponsored the adoption of</p><p></p><p>HACCP-based Quality Assurance Programs. A number of large rendering facilities</p><p></p><p>representing 74 % of the production have implemented these process controls which</p><p></p><p>include an audit by a third party to ensure compliance.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>As a precautionary measure, Canada imposed a partial mammalian-to-ruminant feed</p><p></p><p>ban on August 4, 1997.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>The United States introduced similar regulations at the same time in an effort to</p><p></p><p>institute a North American strategy to prevent BSE from gaining a foothold in the</p><p></p><p>US and Canada. The Canadian and US regulations were harmonized. The provisions</p><p></p><p>were similar in content and the timing of their application in order to maximize the</p><p></p><p>integration of the North American feed system. A notable difference in Canadian</p><p></p><p>regulation was the exclusion of poultry litter and plate waste from feeds.</p><p></p><p>When the ban was introduced, a decision was reached not to recall the feed that was</p><p></p><p>currently in the system, given the perceived low risk. All retailers were given a grace</p><p></p><p>period until September 3, 1997 to use or distribute feed already produced. Feed</p><p></p><p>manufactuerers received a grace period until October 3, 1997 to comply with</p><p></p><p>labelling requirements. Livestock producers were given a grace period until October</p><p></p><p>3, 1997 to use the feed manufactured prior to the feed ban. The US also adopted</p><p></p><p>these measures, given the similar risk profiles of the two countries.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Canada followed a responsive and precautionary approach with respect to</p><p></p><p>developing the 1997 feed ban regulations</p><p></p><p>Canada, along with international partners, had devoted considerable effort to</p><p></p><p>controlling BSE over the decade leading up to the 1997 feed ban. The following is a</p><p></p><p>chronology of events relating to BSE and the control measures Canada put in place</p><p></p><p>to mitigate the spread of the disease:</p><p></p><p> 1978 – Canada banned meat and bone meal (MBM) for livestock feed imported</p><p></p><p>from the United Kingdom (as well as other countries) due to Foot and Mouth</p><p></p><p>Disease.</p><p></p><p> 1982 (to 1990) – Canada imported cattle from the UK.</p><p></p><p> 1986 – BSE was first documented in the UK.</p><p></p><p> 1988 – Importation of meat meal, bone meal, and blood meal were officially</p><p></p><p>banned from all countries except the US</p><p></p><p> 1990 – BSE was designated a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Act.</p><p></p><p> 1990 – Canada prohibited further importation of cattle from the UK (a total of</p><p></p><p>191 animals had been imported from the U.K. during the period1982 - 1990).</p><p></p><p></p><p> 1990 – Canada places UK origin cattle under an animal health monitoring</p><p></p><p>program.</p><p></p><p> 1992 – The National BSE surveillance program was implemented.</p><p></p><p> 1993 – A cow imported from the U.K. that was in the monitoring program</p><p></p><p>initiated in 1990 was confirmed infected with BSE.</p><p></p><p> 1994 – All remaining UK cattle imports were either returned to the UK, or were</p><p></p><p>euthanized. All tested negative for BSE.</p><p></p><p> 1996 – World Health Organization recommended that all countries implement</p><p></p><p>feed bans.</p><p></p><p> 1997 – Canada and the United States implemented their respective mammalian</p><p></p><p>protein feed bans (with some exceptions) as a precautionary measure in response</p><p></p><p>to WHO recommendations. CFIA amended its National Feed Inspection</p><p></p><p>Program to include the mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban regulations, which</p><p></p><p>targeted renderers, feed manufactures, feed retailers and farms in order to verify</p><p></p><p>compliance with the regulations.</p><p></p><p> 2000 – CFIA suspended the importation of all rendered animal protein products,</p><p></p><p>of any species, from any country that Canada did not recognize as free of BSE.</p><p></p><p> 2001 – The creation of a Canadian Cattle Identification Program was instituted</p><p></p><p>for cattle and bison, enhancing our ability to trace individual animals from the</p><p></p><p>herd of origin to slaughter.</p><p></p><p> 2003 – In May, Canada detected the first case of BSE in a cow born and reared</p><p></p><p>in this country.</p><p></p><p> 2003 – In July, Canada amended the Health of Animals Regulations and the Food and</p><p></p><p>Drug Regulations to remove Specified Risk Material (SRM) from the human food</p><p></p><p>supply.</p><p></p><p> 2003 – In December, BSE was confirmed in a cow in Washington State that was</p><p></p><p>imported from Canada.</p><p></p><p> 2004 – In December, Canada proposed strengthening BSE precautionary</p><p></p><p>measures by requiring all Specified Risk Material (SRM) to be removed from all</p><p></p><p>animal feed.</p><p></p><p> 2005 – On January 2 and 11, respectively, two additional cases of BSE were</p><p></p><p>confirmed in indigenous Canadian cattle.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Figure 1 shows that industry compliance, on a plant-by-plant basis, has been in the</p><p></p><p>92-97% range for feed mills and 90-97% range for renderers over the last three fiscal</p><p></p><p>years. Figure 1 also shows major non-compliance items and indicates the low rate of</p><p></p><p>such non-compliance. (Minor items have not been included.) The breakdown</p><p></p><p>between major and minor non-compliance items is presented in Appendix 3. Figure</p><p></p><p>3 in Appendix 3 indicates how including "minor" non-compliance items affects</p><p></p><p>overall compliance rates for feed mills and renderers. As noted above, major items</p><p></p><p>can potentially result in cross-contamination whereas minor non-compliance items</p><p></p><p>relate to administrative items (i.e. paperwork).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Figure 2 illustrates the compliance trends at feed mills and rendering plants for this</p><p></p><p>period for all BSE-related tasks. Overall compliance has been high and it has been</p><p></p><p>improving during the period examined.</p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...see full text 33 pages ;</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/revexa/revexae.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... evexae.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Questions and Answers</p><p>FEED BAN REVIEW REPORT</p><p>Q1. Why did the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) review the effectiveness of Canada's feed ban? </p><p>A1. Following the confirmation of two cases of BSE in 2005 and at the request of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) undertook a review of the feed ban to verify that this important safeguard has provided an appropriate level of animal health protection since its implementation. </p><p>The specific objectives of the review were to determine if the 1997 feed ban regulations were suitably designed, appropriately implemented and consistently complied with by commercial feed mill and rendering industries.</p><p></p><p>Q2. What was reviewed? </p><p>A2. The review included a study of: </p><p>The process used to design the 1997 Feed Ban regulations. </p><p>The process used by the CFIA to support the implementation of the Feed Ban across the feed mill and rendering industries in Canada </p><p>The inspection strategy that the CFIA uses to ensure that the mills and rendering industries comply with the feed ban regulations. </p><p>The implementation of the feed ban requirements on the part of industries, including the level of their compliance with these requirements. </p><p></p><p>Q3. What were the overall conclusions of the review? </p><p>A3. The CFIA's report concludes that Canada's feed ban is providing an effective barrier that limits the spread of BSE and will lead to the eventual eradication of the disease from the Canadian cattle herd. </p><p>The ban was designed in accordance with international guidelines and drew from the science and most current understanding of BSE available at the time.</p><p></p><p>The CFIA took significant steps to increase awareness of the ban and to help industry integrate the ban's requirements into standard feed production practices.</p><p></p><p>Annual feed ban inspections require feed mills and rendering facilities to obtain a satisfactory rating on numerous BSE-related tasks. These tasks can be categorized as high-risk and low-risk.Low risk tasks are primarily administrative in nature. High-risk tasks, such as flushing procedures, relate to those activities that are most important to prevent the potential cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited material.</p><p></p><p>The review determined that compliance with the feed ban's requirements at rendering facilities and feed mills is high. On average, 95% of feed mills and 93% of rendering facilities have been fully compliant with all high-risk tasks over the past three years.</p><p></p><p>The CFIA requires industry to take immediate corrective action in all cases of non-compliance with high-risk tasks. Non-compliance with low-risk tasks must also be rectified.</p><p></p><p>Q4. What follow-up actions will the CFIA take based on what the review uncovered? </p><p>A4. The review indicated that the Canadian feed ban is effectively reducing BSE risks to animal health. The CFIA, committed to continuously improving Canada's BSE safeguards, will evaluate the findings of both the Canadian and American reviews over the coming months with a view to further elevating compliance levels. As well, the CFIA is now reviewing comments submitted on the proposed removal of specified risk material from the animal feed system. </p><p>Q5. The feed ban review report indicates that there are some compliance problems. How can the feed ban be effectively limiting the spread of BSE if the feed ban is not being fully complied with? </p><p>A5. 100% compliance with the feed ban is not required to produce desired disease control effects. The experiences of countries such as the United Kingdom confirm that, even with less than perfect compliance, feed bans such as Canada's effectively limit the spread of BSE and can be expected to lead to the eventual eradication of the disease. The United States Department of Agriculture's report also acknowledges this fact. </p><p>The number of cases detected in North America indicates that only an extremely low level of BSE is present in this part of the world. Based on this finding, there is only a small possibility that an infected animal could enter the animal feed system. If this were to happen, rendering practices would decrease the level of infectivity. </p><p></p><p>In addition, not all cattle are equally susceptible to developing BSE. </p><p></p><p>Q6. Do most feed mills in Canada run both prohibited and non prohibited material through the same system or do they have separate systems to handle different types of feed ingredients? </p><p>A6. Ninety-four of the 550 feed mills in Canada handle both prohibited and non prohibited material. These mills use common lines to produce various feeds, but are required to use flushing and sequencing practices to limit cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited material. CFIA inspections verify, among other feed ban requirements, that these practices are being appropriately administered. </p><p>Q7. Was non-compliance found in rendering facilities and feed mills that handle both prohibited and non-prohibited material? </p><p>A7. Yes, but the majority of non-compliance issues related to low-risk tasks, such as documentation requirements, that do not necessarily signify increased risks of cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited materials. </p><p>Q8. The report indicates that the feed mill industry has in some instances been very slow to comply with the feed ban. Why does non-compliance take so long to resolve? </p><p>A8. Non-compliance, if observed, is immediately communicated to feed mill or rendering facility management. Management must then submit for CFIA approval an action plan, which details what corrective action will be taken. Depending on the severity of the non-compliance, industry may be permitted up to 60 days to remedy a situation. Once corrective action has been taken, the CFIA follows up to verify that non-compliance has been appropriately addressed. The review showed that the time required to resolve non-compliance appears to be decreasing. </p><p>Q9. How can you explain that compliance levels in feed mills and rendering plants declined in the 2004-2005 period - even after BSE was detected in Canada and created such a crisis? </p><p>A9. The increases in non-compliance observed in 2004-2005 reflect minor fluctuations, which are common within complex systems such as the feed production chain. </p><p>Q10. How did the CFIA conduct an objective assessment of the feed ban? </p><p>A10. The review was lead by the CFIA's Executive Director of Corporate Planning, Reporting and Accountability . The review followed government-wide standards for independent evaluation and incorporated sound audit principles and generally accepted criteria for the design of regulatory programs. </p><p>The USDA's report supports the findings of the CFIA's review. It indicates that the Government and the Canadian feed industry have taken appropriate actions to implement and administer the feed ban. </p><p></p><p>Moreover, the USDA report concluded that Canada's feed ban, which is similar to that of the United States, is effectively limiting the transmission of BSE through feed. </p><p></p><p>Q11. The CFIA's report mentions one serious incident of non-compliance during an inspection in January 2005. What happened? </p><p>A11. The CFIA review identified one serious-or high-risk-compliance problem. This incident involved improper flushing practices between the production of feeds for non-ruminant and ruminant animals. A CFIA investigation determined that the potential cross-contamination of ruminant feed would pose only a very low BSE-related risk. Any prohibited material that could have entered the feed would have come from cattle less than 30 months of age. Typically, such animals are too young to develop infective levels of BSE. Based on a review of other records from this feed mill, the CFIA determined this was an isolated occurrence. The feed mill was required to tighten its operating procedures, and the CFIA is considering enforcement action. </p><p>Q12. Why did the review only focus on feed mills and rendering facilities? </p><p>A12. The feed ban regulations apply to feed retailers, livestock producers and on-farm feed mills as well. However the review focussed on commercial feed mills and rendering plants because they represent a higher risk in terms of potential contamination of non-prohibited material or ruminant feed with prohibited material. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/revexa/revqueste.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... este.shtml</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>CANADIAN FEED POLICY AND BSE</p><p></p><p>Prepared by:</p><p>Frédéric Forge</p><p>Science and Technology Division</p><p>11 July 2005</p><p></p><p>TABLE OF CONTENTS</p><p></p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p></p><p>USE OF ANIMAL PROTEIN IN FEED</p><p></p><p>REGULATIONS COVERING BSE-RELATED FEED CONTROL</p><p></p><p>A. The 1997 Feed Ban</p><p>B. Review of the 1997 Feed Ban</p><p>C. Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Feed Ban</p><p></p><p>FEED IMPORTS</p><p></p><p>A. Import Policy</p><p>B. Import Statistics</p><p></p><p>CONCLUSION: BANNING "CANNIBALISM" IN THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY?</p><p></p><p>APPENDIX 1 – CURRENT AND PREVIOUS BSE IMPORT POLICIES</p><p></p><p>APPENDIX 2 – DATA ON SELECTED CANADIAN IMPORTS, 1995-2003</p><p></p><p></p><p>A. The 1997 Feed Ban</p><p></p><p>In 1997, rendered protein products derived from almost all mammals were</p><p>banned for use in ruminant feed under Part XIV of the Health of Animals</p><p>Regulations. Rendered protein products, including bovine products, can still</p><p>be used in animal feed for non-ruminants such as hogs and poultry that are</p><p>not susceptible to BSE. The United States implemented a similar feed ban the</p><p>same year.</p><p></p><p>Canadian producers may feed their ruminants only approved animal protein</p><p>(products) such as pure porcine, equine, poultry and fish products. Protein</p><p>that includes meat and bone meal from mammals other than pigs and horses is</p><p>prohibited in ruminant feeds. Milk, blood, gelatin, rendered animal fats and</p><p>their products have not been banned.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0506-e.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0506-e.htm</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0506-f.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0506-f.htm</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>PRB 04-12E</p><p>CHRONOLOGY OF BSE-RELATED EVENTS</p><p>AND GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES</p><p></p><p>Prepared by:</p><p>Marc LeBlanc</p><p>Economics Division</p><p>Revised 20 September 2005</p><p>20 May 2003</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0412-e.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0412-e.htm</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0412-f.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0412-f.htm</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>MAD COW DISEASE</p><p>AND CANADA'S CATTLE INDUSTRY</p><p></p><p>Prepared by:</p><p>Frédéric Forge, Science and Technology Division</p><p>Jean-Denis Fréchette, Principal, Economics Division</p><p>Revised 12 July 2005</p><p></p><p>TABLE OF CONTENTS</p><p></p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p></p><p>GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT BSE</p><p></p><p>BSE IN CANADA BEFORE 2003</p><p>A. The 1993 Case</p><p>B. BSE Monitoring</p><p>C. Measures to Prevent the Emergence of the Disease in Canada….</p><p></p><p>MAY 2003: A NEW CASE OF MAD COW DISEASE</p><p>A. Results of the Investigation</p><p>B. Suggested Additional Measures</p><p></p><p>BSE: THE NORTH AMERICAN ISSUE</p><p></p><p>CONSEQUENCES FOR CANADA'S CATTLE INDUSTRY</p><p>A. Resuming Export Trade</p><p>1. The American Border</p><p>2. International Trade Rules: Complying with National Health Measures</p><p>B. Repositioning the Industry</p><p></p><p>CONCLUSION</p><p></p><p>CHRONOLOGY</p><p></p><p>APPENDIX: BEEF PRODUCT EXPORTS</p><p></p><p>see full text;</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0301-e.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0301-e.htm</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0301-f.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0301-f.htm</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR)</p><p>of Canada</p><p>Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)</p><p>[Last updated 08 September 2004]</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_v2_en1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_asse ... v2_en1.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL</p><p>IMPORTS FROM CANADA</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9dOpenDocument&AutoFramed" target="_blank">https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf ... AutoFramed</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>USA AND MEXICO EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical</p><p>BSE-Risk (GBR)</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_v2_en1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_asse ... v2_en1.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_asse ... v2_en1.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Subject: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed</p><p>Rule, Docket No. 2002N-0273 C-534 VOL 45 (PhRMA) and Entered On February 17,</p><p>2006</p><p>Date: March 10, 2006 at 5:23 pm PST</p><p></p><p>Marie A. Vodicka, PhD</p><p></p><p>Assistant Vice President</p><p></p><p>Biologics & Blotechnology</p><p></p><p>Scientlflc & Regulatory Affairs</p><p></p><p>SCIENCE & REG AFFAIRS</p><p></p><p>Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)</p><p></p><p>Food and Drug Administration</p><p></p><p>5630 Fishers Lane, rrn . 1061</p><p></p><p>Rackville, MD 20862</p><p></p><p>Re: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed Rule,</p><p>Docket</p><p></p><p>No. 2002N-0273</p><p></p><p>February 14, 2006</p><p></p><p>Dear Sir or Madam :</p><p></p><p>The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is</p><p>providing</p><p></p><p>comment to the proposed rules issued. ......</p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000534-01-vol45.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... -vol45.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Subject: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances</p><p>Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed PAUL BROWN</p><p>Date: January 20, 2006 at 9:31 am PST</p><p></p><p>December 20,2005</p><p></p><p>Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)</p><p></p><p>Food and Drug Administration</p><p></p><p>5630 Fishers Lane</p><p></p><p>Room 1061</p><p></p><p>Rockville, MD 20852</p><p></p><p>Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)</p><p></p><p>Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed</p><p></p><p>Dear Sir or Madame:</p><p></p><p>As scientists and Irecognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs</p><p>for</p><p></p><p>decades, we are deeply concerned by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE</p><p>infected</p><p></p><p>cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to</p><p>this very.........</p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p>Given that BSE can be transmitted to cattle via an oral route with just .OO1</p><p>gram of infected tissue, it may not take much</p><p>infectivity to contaminate feed and keep the disease recycling. ........</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... -vol40.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>December 19, 2005</p><p></p><p>Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)</p><p></p><p>Food and Drug Administration</p><p></p><p>5630 Fishers Lane</p><p></p><p>Room 1061</p><p></p><p>Rockville, MD 20852</p><p></p><p>Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273)</p><p></p><p>Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed</p><p></p><p>Dear Sir or Madame:</p><p></p><p>The McDonald's Corporation buys more beef than any other restaurant in the</p><p>United States. It is</p><p></p><p>essential for our customers and our company that the beef has the highest</p><p>level of safety.</p><p></p><p>Concerning BSE, ...........</p><p></p><p>snip.......</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273_emc-000134-02.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... 134-02.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>THE SEVEN 1/2 SCIENTIST REPORT ON BSE/TSE ***</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... tach-1.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>***</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 5IFA-2.pdf</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... 000001.txt</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in</p><p></p><p>Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed</p><p></p><p>Comment Number: EC -10</p><p></p><p>Accepted - Volume 2</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys ... 4be07.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>PART 2</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys ... 4be09.html</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/ ... 1s2_09.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine</p><p></p><p>genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable</p><p></p><p>from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/ ... s1_OPH.htm</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>TSS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 211461, member: 3519"] Subject: FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C. Date: April 16, 2006 at 1:24 pm PST Latest Information Latest Information (as of April 16, 2006 - 15:00 EST) Testing at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg has confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a cow from British Columbia. No part of this animal entered the human food or animal feed systems. The CFIA is also conducting a thorough examination of potential sources of infection. Investigators will pay particular attention to the feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life, when cattle are most susceptible to BSE. [url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/situatione.shtml]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... ione.shtml[/url] FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C. OTTAWA, April 16, 2006 - Testing at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg has confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a cow from British Columbia. As reported on April 13, 2006, samples from this animal were sent to Winnipeg for additional testing after screening tests produced inconclusive results. This finding does not affect the safety of Canadian beef. Tissues in which BSE is known to concentrate in infected animals are removed from all cattle slaughtered in Canada for domestic and international human consumption. No part of this animal entered the human food or animal feed systems. Preliminary investigations conducted prior to receiving final results identified the animal’s exact date of birth and birth farm — two critical elements required to trace other animals of interest, as defined by the World Organization for Animal Health. With the confirmed positive results and this information already in hand, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has immediately undertaken the animal component of its investigation on a priority basis. The CFIA is also conducting a thorough examination of potential sources of infection. Investigators will pay particular attention to the feed to which the animal may have been exposed early in its life, when cattle are most susceptible to BSE. The CFIA is collecting records of feed purchased by and used on the animal’s birth farm. As in previous investigations, the CFIA will also fully consider all other scientific pathways in an attempt to definitively determine how the animal became infected. This animal, a six-year-old dairy cow, developed BSE after the implementation of Canada’s feed ban. Similar situations are common to almost all BSE-affected countries that have introduced feed controls. Although the design, implementation and compliance of Canada’s feed ban have been rigorously assessed by a number of countries over the past several years, and have been described as robust and effectively enforced, the Government is committed to continuously making improvements where possible. An enhanced feed ban would accelerate the eradication of BSE in Canada. Accordingly, the CFIA has published proposed regulatory amendments, and following extensive consultations, is now in the process of finalizing their content. The feed ban and national surveillance program which identified this animal, contribute to Canada's interlocking BSE controls. While the feed ban continues to limit the spread of BSE, Canada's national surveillance program effectively monitors the health of the Canadian cattle herd. The national surveillance program, which targets cattle most at risk of having BSE, has tested more than 100,000 such animals since 2003. The detection of only five animals within this high-risk population over the past three years and the age of the animals detected supports the conclusion that the level of BSE in Canada is very low and declining. The strong participation of producers to facilitate the detection of any suspect cases at the farm level, as demonstrated once again by this most recent finding, and the close collaboration between the Provinces and Federal Government in the surveillance effort demonstrates the shared commitment which exists to protect animal and human health in Canada. In keeping with its ongoing practice, the CFIA will post to its website updated information as it becomes available. - 30 - For information: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Media Relations: (613) 228-6682 [url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2006/20060416e.shtml]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/cor ... 416e.shtml[/url] C A N A D I A N F O O D I N S P E C T I O N A G E N C Y F E E D B A N R E V I E W March 2, 2005 snip... Mammalian-to-ruminant Feed Ban: Refers to the 1997 Health of Animals Regulations that prohibits feeding protein derived from mammals to ruminant animals such as cows, sheep, deer, etc., with the exception of porcine- or equine-derived protein. snip... Canada’s feed ban prohibits feeding most mammalian proteins to ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep and goats. The ban requires rendering facilities, feed manufacturers, feed retailers and livestock producers to follow and document production and feeding procedures to prevent the inclusion of prohibited materials in feed and feed ingredients intended for ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep and goats. snip... 1.3 Canada’s feed industry The feed ban regulations apply to Canada’s feed and livestock industry, which consists of rendering plants, commercial feed mills (that manufacture half of Canada’s production), and feed retailers. The regulations also apply to on-farm feed mills and farms that feed cattle and other ruminants. The feed sector is Canada’s 16th largest manufacturing industry, with annual production of 15 million metric tonnes. It employs about 9,000 people. The value of production from this sector is $3.5 billion annually. In addition to the feed sold in Canada, feed is exported (primarily to the US), and feed from the US is also distributed and sold in Canada. Swine, dairy and poultry feed accounts for 85% of all feed produced and sold by Canadian feed manufacturers. The chart below depicts a typical feed cycle showing the feed inputs from farms, abattoirs and dead stock that enter the feed manufacturing cycle. The product enters through the rendering process and is passed through to the feed mills and distributors. snip... Canada’s rendering industry It is important to note that only six of the 29 rendering facilities have a permit from the CFIA that authorizes them to handle both prohibited and non-prohibited material. Two thirds of the 29 rendering facilities in Canada are owned and operated by large corporations. These corporations include international vertically integrated food companies. Seven rendering facilities are attached to federally registered slaughter plants, which helps to ensure that these companies have very tight control over the rendering and disposition of raw material from their operations. In 2003, Canadian renderers processed approximately 2.2 million tonnes of inedible animal by-products. More than 50% (556,000 tonnes) of the products manufactured by rendering were protein meals (including blood meal). The remaining products were animal fats and fatty acids. In 2003, Canada produced approximately 478,000 tonnes of MBM (including cattle, pork, poultry and fish protein meals). In 2003, approximately 535,000 tonnes of animal fats, fatty acids and oils, and 77,600 tonnes of blood and feather protein meals were also produced. All of Canada’s rendering plants are members of the Animal Protein Producers Industry Association (APPI), and this association has sponsored the adoption of HACCP-based Quality Assurance Programs. A number of large rendering facilities representing 74 % of the production have implemented these process controls which include an audit by a third party to ensure compliance. snip... As a precautionary measure, Canada imposed a partial mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban on August 4, 1997. snip... The United States introduced similar regulations at the same time in an effort to institute a North American strategy to prevent BSE from gaining a foothold in the US and Canada. The Canadian and US regulations were harmonized. The provisions were similar in content and the timing of their application in order to maximize the integration of the North American feed system. A notable difference in Canadian regulation was the exclusion of poultry litter and plate waste from feeds. When the ban was introduced, a decision was reached not to recall the feed that was currently in the system, given the perceived low risk. All retailers were given a grace period until September 3, 1997 to use or distribute feed already produced. Feed manufactuerers received a grace period until October 3, 1997 to comply with labelling requirements. Livestock producers were given a grace period until October 3, 1997 to use the feed manufactured prior to the feed ban. The US also adopted these measures, given the similar risk profiles of the two countries. snip... Canada followed a responsive and precautionary approach with respect to developing the 1997 feed ban regulations Canada, along with international partners, had devoted considerable effort to controlling BSE over the decade leading up to the 1997 feed ban. The following is a chronology of events relating to BSE and the control measures Canada put in place to mitigate the spread of the disease: 1978 – Canada banned meat and bone meal (MBM) for livestock feed imported from the United Kingdom (as well as other countries) due to Foot and Mouth Disease. 1982 (to 1990) – Canada imported cattle from the UK. 1986 – BSE was first documented in the UK. 1988 – Importation of meat meal, bone meal, and blood meal were officially banned from all countries except the US 1990 – BSE was designated a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Act. 1990 – Canada prohibited further importation of cattle from the UK (a total of 191 animals had been imported from the U.K. during the period1982 - 1990). 1990 – Canada places UK origin cattle under an animal health monitoring program. 1992 – The National BSE surveillance program was implemented. 1993 – A cow imported from the U.K. that was in the monitoring program initiated in 1990 was confirmed infected with BSE. 1994 – All remaining UK cattle imports were either returned to the UK, or were euthanized. All tested negative for BSE. 1996 – World Health Organization recommended that all countries implement feed bans. 1997 – Canada and the United States implemented their respective mammalian protein feed bans (with some exceptions) as a precautionary measure in response to WHO recommendations. CFIA amended its National Feed Inspection Program to include the mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban regulations, which targeted renderers, feed manufactures, feed retailers and farms in order to verify compliance with the regulations. 2000 – CFIA suspended the importation of all rendered animal protein products, of any species, from any country that Canada did not recognize as free of BSE. 2001 – The creation of a Canadian Cattle Identification Program was instituted for cattle and bison, enhancing our ability to trace individual animals from the herd of origin to slaughter. 2003 – In May, Canada detected the first case of BSE in a cow born and reared in this country. 2003 – In July, Canada amended the Health of Animals Regulations and the Food and Drug Regulations to remove Specified Risk Material (SRM) from the human food supply. 2003 – In December, BSE was confirmed in a cow in Washington State that was imported from Canada. 2004 – In December, Canada proposed strengthening BSE precautionary measures by requiring all Specified Risk Material (SRM) to be removed from all animal feed. 2005 – On January 2 and 11, respectively, two additional cases of BSE were confirmed in indigenous Canadian cattle. snip... Figure 1 shows that industry compliance, on a plant-by-plant basis, has been in the 92-97% range for feed mills and 90-97% range for renderers over the last three fiscal years. Figure 1 also shows major non-compliance items and indicates the low rate of such non-compliance. (Minor items have not been included.) The breakdown between major and minor non-compliance items is presented in Appendix 3. Figure 3 in Appendix 3 indicates how including “minor” non-compliance items affects overall compliance rates for feed mills and renderers. As noted above, major items can potentially result in cross-contamination whereas minor non-compliance items relate to administrative items (i.e. paperwork). Figure 2 illustrates the compliance trends at feed mills and rendering plants for this period for all BSE-related tasks. Overall compliance has been high and it has been improving during the period examined. snip...see full text 33 pages ; [url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/revexa/revexae.pdf]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... evexae.pdf[/url] Questions and Answers FEED BAN REVIEW REPORT Q1. Why did the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) review the effectiveness of Canada’s feed ban? A1. Following the confirmation of two cases of BSE in 2005 and at the request of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) undertook a review of the feed ban to verify that this important safeguard has provided an appropriate level of animal health protection since its implementation. The specific objectives of the review were to determine if the 1997 feed ban regulations were suitably designed, appropriately implemented and consistently complied with by commercial feed mill and rendering industries. Q2. What was reviewed? A2. The review included a study of: The process used to design the 1997 Feed Ban regulations. The process used by the CFIA to support the implementation of the Feed Ban across the feed mill and rendering industries in Canada The inspection strategy that the CFIA uses to ensure that the mills and rendering industries comply with the feed ban regulations. The implementation of the feed ban requirements on the part of industries, including the level of their compliance with these requirements. Q3. What were the overall conclusions of the review? A3. The CFIA’s report concludes that Canada’s feed ban is providing an effective barrier that limits the spread of BSE and will lead to the eventual eradication of the disease from the Canadian cattle herd. The ban was designed in accordance with international guidelines and drew from the science and most current understanding of BSE available at the time. The CFIA took significant steps to increase awareness of the ban and to help industry integrate the ban’s requirements into standard feed production practices. Annual feed ban inspections require feed mills and rendering facilities to obtain a satisfactory rating on numerous BSE-related tasks. These tasks can be categorized as high-risk and low-risk.Low risk tasks are primarily administrative in nature. High-risk tasks, such as flushing procedures, relate to those activities that are most important to prevent the potential cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited material. The review determined that compliance with the feed ban’s requirements at rendering facilities and feed mills is high. On average, 95% of feed mills and 93% of rendering facilities have been fully compliant with all high-risk tasks over the past three years. The CFIA requires industry to take immediate corrective action in all cases of non-compliance with high-risk tasks. Non-compliance with low-risk tasks must also be rectified. Q4. What follow-up actions will the CFIA take based on what the review uncovered? A4. The review indicated that the Canadian feed ban is effectively reducing BSE risks to animal health. The CFIA, committed to continuously improving Canada’s BSE safeguards, will evaluate the findings of both the Canadian and American reviews over the coming months with a view to further elevating compliance levels. As well, the CFIA is now reviewing comments submitted on the proposed removal of specified risk material from the animal feed system. Q5. The feed ban review report indicates that there are some compliance problems. How can the feed ban be effectively limiting the spread of BSE if the feed ban is not being fully complied with? A5. 100% compliance with the feed ban is not required to produce desired disease control effects. The experiences of countries such as the United Kingdom confirm that, even with less than perfect compliance, feed bans such as Canada’s effectively limit the spread of BSE and can be expected to lead to the eventual eradication of the disease. The United States Department of Agriculture’s report also acknowledges this fact. The number of cases detected in North America indicates that only an extremely low level of BSE is present in this part of the world. Based on this finding, there is only a small possibility that an infected animal could enter the animal feed system. If this were to happen, rendering practices would decrease the level of infectivity. In addition, not all cattle are equally susceptible to developing BSE. Q6. Do most feed mills in Canada run both prohibited and non prohibited material through the same system or do they have separate systems to handle different types of feed ingredients? A6. Ninety-four of the 550 feed mills in Canada handle both prohibited and non prohibited material. These mills use common lines to produce various feeds, but are required to use flushing and sequencing practices to limit cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited material. CFIA inspections verify, among other feed ban requirements, that these practices are being appropriately administered. Q7. Was non-compliance found in rendering facilities and feed mills that handle both prohibited and non-prohibited material? A7. Yes, but the majority of non-compliance issues related to low-risk tasks, such as documentation requirements, that do not necessarily signify increased risks of cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited materials. Q8. The report indicates that the feed mill industry has in some instances been very slow to comply with the feed ban. Why does non-compliance take so long to resolve? A8. Non-compliance, if observed, is immediately communicated to feed mill or rendering facility management. Management must then submit for CFIA approval an action plan, which details what corrective action will be taken. Depending on the severity of the non-compliance, industry may be permitted up to 60 days to remedy a situation. Once corrective action has been taken, the CFIA follows up to verify that non-compliance has been appropriately addressed. The review showed that the time required to resolve non-compliance appears to be decreasing. Q9. How can you explain that compliance levels in feed mills and rendering plants declined in the 2004-2005 period - even after BSE was detected in Canada and created such a crisis? A9. The increases in non-compliance observed in 2004-2005 reflect minor fluctuations, which are common within complex systems such as the feed production chain. Q10. How did the CFIA conduct an objective assessment of the feed ban? A10. The review was lead by the CFIA’s Executive Director of Corporate Planning, Reporting and Accountability . The review followed government-wide standards for independent evaluation and incorporated sound audit principles and generally accepted criteria for the design of regulatory programs. The USDA’s report supports the findings of the CFIA’s review. It indicates that the Government and the Canadian feed industry have taken appropriate actions to implement and administer the feed ban. Moreover, the USDA report concluded that Canada’s feed ban, which is similar to that of the United States, is effectively limiting the transmission of BSE through feed. Q11. The CFIA’s report mentions one serious incident of non-compliance during an inspection in January 2005. What happened? A11. The CFIA review identified one serious-or high-risk-compliance problem. This incident involved improper flushing practices between the production of feeds for non-ruminant and ruminant animals. A CFIA investigation determined that the potential cross-contamination of ruminant feed would pose only a very low BSE-related risk. Any prohibited material that could have entered the feed would have come from cattle less than 30 months of age. Typically, such animals are too young to develop infective levels of BSE. Based on a review of other records from this feed mill, the CFIA determined this was an isolated occurrence. The feed mill was required to tighten its operating procedures, and the CFIA is considering enforcement action. Q12. Why did the review only focus on feed mills and rendering facilities? A12. The feed ban regulations apply to feed retailers, livestock producers and on-farm feed mills as well. However the review focussed on commercial feed mills and rendering plants because they represent a higher risk in terms of potential contamination of non-prohibited material or ruminant feed with prohibited material. [url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/rumin/revexa/revqueste.shtml]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... este.shtml[/url] CANADIAN FEED POLICY AND BSE Prepared by: Frédéric Forge Science and Technology Division 11 July 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION USE OF ANIMAL PROTEIN IN FEED REGULATIONS COVERING BSE-RELATED FEED CONTROL A. The 1997 Feed Ban B. Review of the 1997 Feed Ban C. Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Feed Ban FEED IMPORTS A. Import Policy B. Import Statistics CONCLUSION: BANNING “CANNIBALISM” IN THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY? APPENDIX 1 – CURRENT AND PREVIOUS BSE IMPORT POLICIES APPENDIX 2 – DATA ON SELECTED CANADIAN IMPORTS, 1995-2003 A. The 1997 Feed Ban In 1997, rendered protein products derived from almost all mammals were banned for use in ruminant feed under Part XIV of the Health of Animals Regulations. Rendered protein products, including bovine products, can still be used in animal feed for non-ruminants such as hogs and poultry that are not susceptible to BSE. The United States implemented a similar feed ban the same year. Canadian producers may feed their ruminants only approved animal protein (products) such as pure porcine, equine, poultry and fish products. Protein that includes meat and bone meal from mammals other than pigs and horses is prohibited in ruminant feeds. Milk, blood, gelatin, rendered animal fats and their products have not been banned. [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0506-e.htm]http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0506-e.htm[/url] [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0506-f.htm]http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0506-f.htm[/url] PRB 04-12E CHRONOLOGY OF BSE-RELATED EVENTS AND GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES Prepared by: Marc LeBlanc Economics Division Revised 20 September 2005 20 May 2003 [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0412-e.htm]http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0412-e.htm[/url] [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0412-f.htm]http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0412-f.htm[/url] MAD COW DISEASE AND CANADA'S CATTLE INDUSTRY Prepared by: Frédéric Forge, Science and Technology Division Jean-Denis Fréchette, Principal, Economics Division Revised 12 July 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT BSE BSE IN CANADA BEFORE 2003 A. The 1993 Case B. BSE Monitoring C. Measures to Prevent the Emergence of the Disease in Canada…. MAY 2003: A NEW CASE OF MAD COW DISEASE A. Results of the Investigation B. Suggested Additional Measures BSE: THE NORTH AMERICAN ISSUE CONSEQUENCES FOR CANADA’S CATTLE INDUSTRY A. Resuming Export Trade 1. The American Border 2. International Trade Rules: Complying with National Health Measures B. Repositioning the Industry CONCLUSION CHRONOLOGY APPENDIX: BEEF PRODUCT EXPORTS see full text; [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0301-e.htm]http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0301-e.htm[/url] [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0301-f.htm]http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0301-f.htm[/url] EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of Canada Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083) [Last updated 08 September 2004] [url=http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_v2_en1.pdf]http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_asse ... v2_en1.pdf[/url] Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA [url=https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9dOpenDocument&AutoFramed]https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf ... AutoFramed[/url] Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002 [url=http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf]http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf[/url] USA AND MEXICO EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) [url=http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_v2_en1.pdf]http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_asse ... v2_en1.pdf[/url] [url=http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf]http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_asse ... v2_en1.pdf[/url] Subject: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed Rule, Docket No. 2002N-0273 C-534 VOL 45 (PhRMA) and Entered On February 17, 2006 Date: March 10, 2006 at 5:23 pm PST Marie A. Vodicka, PhD Assistant Vice President Biologics & Blotechnology Scientlflc & Regulatory Affairs SCIENCE & REG AFFAIRS Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, rrn . 1061 Rackville, MD 20862 Re: Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, Proposed Rule, Docket No. 2002N-0273 February 14, 2006 Dear Sir or Madam : The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is providing comment to the proposed rules issued. ...... snip... [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000534-01-vol45.pdf]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... -vol45.pdf[/url] Subject: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed PAUL BROWN Date: January 20, 2006 at 9:31 am PST December 20,2005 Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed Dear Sir or Madame: As scientists and Irecognized experts who have worked in the field of TSEs for decades, we are deeply concerned by the recent discoveries of indigenous BSE infected cattle in North America and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very......... snip... Given that BSE can be transmitted to cattle via an oral route with just .OO1 gram of infected tissue, it may not take much infectivity to contaminate feed and keep the disease recycling. ........ [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... -vol40.pdf[/url] December 19, 2005 Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed Dear Sir or Madame: The McDonald’s Corporation buys more beef than any other restaurant in the United States. It is essential for our customers and our company that the beef has the highest level of safety. Concerning BSE, ........... snip....... [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273_emc-000134-02.pdf]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... 134-02.pdf[/url] THE SEVEN 1/2 SCIENTIST REPORT ON BSE/TSE *** [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... tach-1.pdf[/url] *** [url=http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf]http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 5IFA-2.pdf[/url] Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... 000001.txt[/url] Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed Comment Number: EC -10 Accepted - Volume 2 [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys ... 4be07.html[/url] PART 2 [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys ... 4be09.html[/url] [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/ ... 1s2_09.pdf[/url] Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD; [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/ ... s1_OPH.htm[/url] TSS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C.
Top