Subject: MAD CALF POWDER PACKAGED 9-OZ BOTTLES RECALL finished product BBM cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine MBM
Date: January 31, 2007 at 10:00 am PST
PRODUCT
O-NO-MORE (Formerly ORPHAN-NO-MORE) Calf Claimer Powder, packaged in 9-oz. bottles, For Animal Use Only, Recall # V-011-2007
CODE
A07
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Springer Magrath Co., McCook, NB, by telephone on January 11, 2007 and fax on January 12, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The bovine blood meal which was used to manufacture the finished product was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal, and the finished product is not labeled with the cautionary statement that it should not be fed to ruminants.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
300/9-oz. bottles
DISTRIBUTION
NE
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 31, 2007
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2 ... 00989.html
seems to me the BBM i.e. bovine blood meal would be more of a risk factor for bovine TSE i.e. BASE OR BSE or any other strain, than the MBM i.e. meat and bone meal. considering the recent 4th documented case of transfusion related vCJD, i still think it is absolutely asinine to continue to use bovine blood in feed for any species. i wonder if it's still being used in pet foods??? course, we don't have mad cats FSE here in the USA either ;-)
INEDIBLE RAW BLOOD, BLOOD MEAL, ADHESIVE FOR LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY FEED, PETFOOD, FERTILIZER, GLUES, FOAM FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 008001.pdf
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s168.pdf
Legislative changes and developments in the process post-BSE
Voluntary measures adopted by pet food manufacturers
8.45 In July 1988, Spillers stopped using bovine spleen in its products and replaced it with liver. At the same time, it changed its specification for ground bone to exclude the use of bovine heads and backbones with the intention of eliminating brains and spinal cord.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s168.pdf
8.47 In February 1989, the report of the Southwood Working Party stated that domestic pets could be susceptible to BSE, if the agent were to reach them 'in an adequate dose by an appropriate route'. However, the report also suggested that pets such as cats and dogs might not be able to acquire the infection orally and that the high temperatures used in the canning process might have destroyed any infectious agent present.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ib/ibd1/tab02.pdf
8.48 By March 1989, it was reported that most companies manufacturing pet food were 'avoiding UK cattle nerve tissue, spleen and brains' in favour of sheep or poultry meat.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 006001.pdf
18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7
December 2006 are now available.
snip...
ITEM 9 - ANY OTHER BUSINESS
snip...
64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was
presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more
virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE. ...
http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf
Instead of UK bovine material, it used poultry and porcine material or imported bovine material from outside the UK. Manufacturers had obtained materials from the US, Canada and Australasia,
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s168.pdf
Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform
encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the
prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A
MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.
snip...
http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf
3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse
Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve
University
Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain
discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases
were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of
these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with
Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have
inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain
homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half
of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time
of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to
be infected after more than 2 years.
***These results indicate that BASE is transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than
classical BSE in humans.***
6:30 Close of Day One
http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp
3.2.6 The Possibility That BSE-Infected Cattle Carry Infectivity in Their Blood
The base case assumes that cattle infected with BSE do not carry infectivity in their blood
(although emboli formation may result in blood contamination). We consider the possibility that
0.016% of the infectivity in an animal with BSE is carried in the blood, a value that is consistent
with the assumption that its concentration is at the level of detection in an animal with a fullblown
case of BSE (SSC, 2000a).
snip...
3.3.3 Domestic Scrapie
The transmission of scrapie from sheep to cattle is one of the primary hypotheses for the
origin of BSE (Horn et al., 2001). Moreover, scrapie is present in the United States. Although
no North American strain of scrapie has been successfully transmitted to cattle exposed orally to
the agent (Cutlip et al., 2001), we evaluate the impact of assuming that such transmission is
possible. In particular, if such transmission is possible, we estimate that the rendering of scrapieinfected
sheep could expose the U.S. cattle population to 1 cattle oral ID50 in feed each month.
The derivation of this estimate is based on the assumption that the number of cattle oral ID50s
administered to cattle is equal to the product of 1) the number of scrapie-infected sheep rendered
each year, 2) the number of sheep oral ID50s per infected animal, 3) the inverse of the cattle-sheep
species barrier, and 4) the proportion of infectivity sent to rendering that survives rendering and is
ultimately administered to cattle.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bs ... rttext.pdf
Subject: [CJD-L] BSE? * Scrapie * CJD * TEXAS -- question please
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 16:28:52 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
To: [email protected]
############ Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
#############
Greetings list members, I have tried to send this message to the experts
on the BSE-List, but it seems to be down. So I thought I would just pass
it through this list, as to most of the experts on this list as well.
Thank You,
I would like to ask this question please;
What would the risk of B.S.E. be, if any, if the following risk factors
were to have occurred?
Lets say in the state of Texas, where there have been several
undocumented clusters of CJD, and one documented cluster of CJD victims.
Lets say that this state is in a category of the 'highest' risk of
B.S.E., due to the risk categories based on Scrapie reported and the
ratio of Dairy Concentrates Fed to Sheep MBM Produced.
*The ratio is inversely related to potential risk,
i.e. (F.) is highest risk
**Meat and bone meal from sheep > 1 year.
Texas Risk category -- [1.] Highest
Risk Level [1.] Analysis = Scrapie is reported in the same or adjacent
counties as milk cows having a ratio less than 999.
Texas
Number of Ewes - (A.) 1,321,967
Number of Flocks - (B.) 6,714
'Scrapie' infected Flocks - (C.) 10
Incidence per 100 Flocks - (D.) 0.15
Incidence per 10K Ewes - (E.) 0.08
Number of Cows with Ratio*
20-99 (F.) 4,153
100-999 (G.) 2,572
1,000-9,999 (H.) 36,972
Milk Cow Inventory
(I.) 356,538
F+G+H/I Percent
(J.) 12.3
Thank You,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA
############ http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/cjd-l.html
############
TEJAS MAD COW, THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
####
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
TSS REPORT ON 2ND TEJAS MAD COW Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600 (the one
that did NOT get away, thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong)
SNIP...END...TSS
Date: January 31, 2007 at 10:00 am PST
PRODUCT
O-NO-MORE (Formerly ORPHAN-NO-MORE) Calf Claimer Powder, packaged in 9-oz. bottles, For Animal Use Only, Recall # V-011-2007
CODE
A07
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Springer Magrath Co., McCook, NB, by telephone on January 11, 2007 and fax on January 12, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The bovine blood meal which was used to manufacture the finished product was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal, and the finished product is not labeled with the cautionary statement that it should not be fed to ruminants.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
300/9-oz. bottles
DISTRIBUTION
NE
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 31, 2007
###
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2 ... 00989.html
seems to me the BBM i.e. bovine blood meal would be more of a risk factor for bovine TSE i.e. BASE OR BSE or any other strain, than the MBM i.e. meat and bone meal. considering the recent 4th documented case of transfusion related vCJD, i still think it is absolutely asinine to continue to use bovine blood in feed for any species. i wonder if it's still being used in pet foods??? course, we don't have mad cats FSE here in the USA either ;-)
INEDIBLE RAW BLOOD, BLOOD MEAL, ADHESIVE FOR LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY FEED, PETFOOD, FERTILIZER, GLUES, FOAM FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 008001.pdf
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s168.pdf
Legislative changes and developments in the process post-BSE
Voluntary measures adopted by pet food manufacturers
8.45 In July 1988, Spillers stopped using bovine spleen in its products and replaced it with liver. At the same time, it changed its specification for ground bone to exclude the use of bovine heads and backbones with the intention of eliminating brains and spinal cord.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s168.pdf
8.47 In February 1989, the report of the Southwood Working Party stated that domestic pets could be susceptible to BSE, if the agent were to reach them 'in an adequate dose by an appropriate route'. However, the report also suggested that pets such as cats and dogs might not be able to acquire the infection orally and that the high temperatures used in the canning process might have destroyed any infectious agent present.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ib/ibd1/tab02.pdf
8.48 By March 1989, it was reported that most companies manufacturing pet food were 'avoiding UK cattle nerve tissue, spleen and brains' in favour of sheep or poultry meat.
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 006001.pdf
18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7
December 2006 are now available.
snip...
ITEM 9 - ANY OTHER BUSINESS
snip...
64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was
presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more
virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE. ...
http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf
Instead of UK bovine material, it used poultry and porcine material or imported bovine material from outside the UK. Manufacturers had obtained materials from the US, Canada and Australasia,
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s168.pdf
Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform
encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the
prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A
MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.
snip...
http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf
3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse
Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve
University
Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain
discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases
were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of
these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with
Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have
inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain
homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half
of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time
of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to
be infected after more than 2 years.
***These results indicate that BASE is transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than
classical BSE in humans.***
6:30 Close of Day One
http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp
3.2.6 The Possibility That BSE-Infected Cattle Carry Infectivity in Their Blood
The base case assumes that cattle infected with BSE do not carry infectivity in their blood
(although emboli formation may result in blood contamination). We consider the possibility that
0.016% of the infectivity in an animal with BSE is carried in the blood, a value that is consistent
with the assumption that its concentration is at the level of detection in an animal with a fullblown
case of BSE (SSC, 2000a).
snip...
3.3.3 Domestic Scrapie
The transmission of scrapie from sheep to cattle is one of the primary hypotheses for the
origin of BSE (Horn et al., 2001). Moreover, scrapie is present in the United States. Although
no North American strain of scrapie has been successfully transmitted to cattle exposed orally to
the agent (Cutlip et al., 2001), we evaluate the impact of assuming that such transmission is
possible. In particular, if such transmission is possible, we estimate that the rendering of scrapieinfected
sheep could expose the U.S. cattle population to 1 cattle oral ID50 in feed each month.
The derivation of this estimate is based on the assumption that the number of cattle oral ID50s
administered to cattle is equal to the product of 1) the number of scrapie-infected sheep rendered
each year, 2) the number of sheep oral ID50s per infected animal, 3) the inverse of the cattle-sheep
species barrier, and 4) the proportion of infectivity sent to rendering that survives rendering and is
ultimately administered to cattle.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bs ... rttext.pdf
Subject: [CJD-L] BSE? * Scrapie * CJD * TEXAS -- question please
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 16:28:52 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
To: [email protected]
############ Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
#############
Greetings list members, I have tried to send this message to the experts
on the BSE-List, but it seems to be down. So I thought I would just pass
it through this list, as to most of the experts on this list as well.
Thank You,
I would like to ask this question please;
What would the risk of B.S.E. be, if any, if the following risk factors
were to have occurred?
Lets say in the state of Texas, where there have been several
undocumented clusters of CJD, and one documented cluster of CJD victims.
Lets say that this state is in a category of the 'highest' risk of
B.S.E., due to the risk categories based on Scrapie reported and the
ratio of Dairy Concentrates Fed to Sheep MBM Produced.
*The ratio is inversely related to potential risk,
i.e. (F.) is highest risk
**Meat and bone meal from sheep > 1 year.
Texas Risk category -- [1.] Highest
Risk Level [1.] Analysis = Scrapie is reported in the same or adjacent
counties as milk cows having a ratio less than 999.
Texas
Number of Ewes - (A.) 1,321,967
Number of Flocks - (B.) 6,714
'Scrapie' infected Flocks - (C.) 10
Incidence per 100 Flocks - (D.) 0.15
Incidence per 10K Ewes - (E.) 0.08
Number of Cows with Ratio*
20-99 (F.) 4,153
100-999 (G.) 2,572
1,000-9,999 (H.) 36,972
Milk Cow Inventory
(I.) 356,538
F+G+H/I Percent
(J.) 12.3
Thank You,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA
############ http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/cjd-l.html
############
TEJAS MAD COW, THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
####
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
TSS REPORT ON 2ND TEJAS MAD COW Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600 (the one
that did NOT get away, thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong)
SNIP...END...TSS
