Help Support CattleToday:

Carlos D.

Well-known member
Apr 4, 2005
Reaction score
Southwestern Manitoba, Canada
This is an email I recieved not to long ago.

I'm sure those of you who aren't in the cattle business don't understand the issues here. But to those of us whose living depends on the cattle market, selling cattle, raising the best beef possible... This is frustrating. This will keep us from ever stopping there again, even for a drink.

The original message is from the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association Canadian cattle producers are very passionate about this.

McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in Canada to support their restaurants. Well, we know that is not so. Our opinion is they are looking to save money at our expense. The sad thing of it is that the people of Canada are the ones who made McDonald's successful in the first place, but we are not good enough to provide beef. We personally are no longer eating at McDonald's, which I am sure does
not make an impact, but if we pass this around maybe there will be an impact felt.

Please pass it on. Just to add a note:

All Canadians that sell cattle at a livestock auction barn have to sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cattle any part of another animal. South Americans are not required to do this as of yet.

McDonald's has announced that they are going to start importing much of their beef from South America. The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as Canadian beef producers, and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't. The Canadian public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonald's. Canadian ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the world and this is what Canadians deserve to eat. Not beef from countries where quality is loosely controlled. Therefore, I am proposing a boycott of McDonald's until they see the light.

I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it comes to jeopardizing my family's health, that is where I draw the line.

I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at l east ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers!

I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you? Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on.

Larry Latam
Windsor (519)968-1791
London (519)488-2386 <>
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>


Well-known member
May 5, 2008
Reaction score
Is this legite? The reason I'm asking is that I received a e mail that was just like this except they were against Arby's.
This to me almost seems like a chain letter, but I could be wrong.

Carlos D.

Well-known member
Apr 4, 2005
Reaction score
Southwestern Manitoba, Canada
hmmm ---mabey its not legit-----I sent it to a friend of mine whoes son in law is pretty high up in mcdonalds in ontario--we'll find out ---I don't like being any part of untrue rumors



Well-known member
Dec 31, 2008
Reaction score
It's BS, there was another version claiming to be from the Texas Cattle Feeders, can't beat the internet for peddling crap! :D


Well-known member
Feb 27, 2006
Reaction score
Linda Detwiler, animal health advisor to McDonald’s and former U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA) employee ... s-2008.pdf

DVM Linda A. Detwiler

College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, 116 Baird Road, Millstone Township, NJ 08535, USA
[email protected] ... idual.html

Dr. Linda Detwiler was until recently the senior staff veterinarian in charge of the USDA's BSE surveillance program, and is now retired after 20 years with the agency. In written comments submitted to the USDA, she strongly opposed any attempt to weaken the definition of "downer" to exclude those downed presumably solely from injury. "I urge the USDA to not alter this definition," she wrote, "and to continue to prohibit for human food any bovine which cannot walk to the 'knock box' [slaughter area] regardless of reason."

She and others have noted that because illness may predispose an animal to injury, the underlying cause of the nonambulatory condition may be impossible to ascertain. In other words, a broken leg might just be a symptom of a more serious problem, like BSE. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that at least three out of the six cows diagnosed with mad cow disease in North America have been identified as downers due to injuries, not illness. ... uards.html

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, the most effective way to insure this is to create a system that processes cattle that are not exposed to the disease. As a company we take numerous precautions via our strict specifications to help and assure this, however we feel that the force of federal regulation is important to ensure that the risk of exposure in the entire production system is reduced to as close to zero as possible. The exemptions in the current ban as well as in the newly proposed rule make this difficult if not impossible, as there are still legal avenues for ruminants to consume potentially contaminated ruminant protein. In addition, the USDA still has not implemented a system of identification and traceability. It is our opinion that the government can take further action to reduce this risk and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to this very important proposed rule. After the identification of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in indigenous North American cattle, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responded rapidly to implement measures to protect public health in regard to food. Our company recognizes and supports the importance of the current feed ban which went into effect in August 1997. However, given what is known about the epidemiology and characteristically long incubation period of BSE, we urge the FDA to act without further delay and implement additional measures which will reduce the risk of BSE recycling in the US cattle herd. We caution against using the 18 month enhanced surveillance as a justification to relax or impede further actions. While this surveillance indicates an epidemic is not underway, it does not clear the US cattle herd from infection. The positive cases indicate probable exposure prior to the 1997 feed ban, a time when BSE appears to have been circulating in animal feed. BSE cases are most likely clustered in time and location, so while enhanced surveillance provides an 18 month snapshot, it does not negate the fact that US and Canadian cattle were exposed to BSE and that the current feed controls contain “leaks”. We feel that for the FDA to provide a more comprehensive and protective feed ban, specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock must be removed from all animal feed and that legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk) should be discontinued. SRMs, as defined by the USDA, are tissues which, in a BSE infected animal, are known to either harbor BSE infectivity or to be closely associated with infectivity. If SRMs are not removed, they may introduce BSE infectivity and continue to provide a source of animal feed contamination. Rendering will reduce infectivity but it will not totally eliminate it. This is significant, as research in the United Kingdom has shown that a calf may be infected with BSE by the ingestion of as little as .001 gram of untreated brain. The current proposed rule falls short of this and would still leave a potential source of infectivity in the system. In fact by the FDA’s own statement the exempted tissues which are known to have infectivity (such as distal ileum, DRGs, etc) would cumulatively amount to approximately 10% of the infectivity in an infected animal. Leaving approximately 10% of the infectious tissues in the system is not good enough. The proposed rule still allows the possibility for cattle to be exposed to BSE through: 1. Feeding of materials currently subject to legal exemptions from the ban (e.g., poultry litter, plate waste) 2. Cross feeding (the feeding of non-ruminant rations to ruminants) on farms; and 3. Cross contamination of ruminant and non-ruminant feed We are most concerned that the FDA has chosen to include a provision that would allow tissues from deadstock into the feed chain. We do not support the provision to allow the removal of brain and spinal cord from down and deadstock over 30 months of age for several reasons. These are the animals with the highest level of infectivity in tissues which include more than brain and spinal cord. Firstly, there are two issues regarding the complex logistics of this option. We do not feel that it is possible to have adequate removal especially during the warmer months. In addition, we do not feel that there are adequate means to enforce complete removal. Unlike slaughterhouses, there are no government inspectors at rendering plants or deadstock collection points. Most importantly, there is emerging information that at end stage disease (a natural BSE case); infectivity may also be included in additional tissues such as peripheral nerves (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005 – see attached). This published work supports publicly reported studies in Japan where by western blot testing, prions have been found in the peripheral nerves of a naturally infected 94-month-old cow. If this is the case, the amount of infectivity left in the system from an infected bovine would surpass 10% and the full extent is still unknown. McDonald’s has convened it own International Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) as well as co-sponsored a symposium of TSE scientists on the issue of tissue distribution. The consensus of both groups was that the pathogenesis of BSE might not be entirely different from TSEs in other species at the point where the animal is showing signs of the disease. These scientists feel that the studies as reported above have merit. The current studies not only re-enforce the risk of down and deadstock but also appear to provide additional information that these animals may be a potential source of greater levels of infectivity into the feed system. Hence, we suggest that the FDA consult with TSE scientists as well. Leaving the tissues from the highest risk category of cattle in the animal feed chain will effectively nullify the intent of this regulation. This point is illustrated by the 2001 Harvard risk assessment model that demonstrated that eliminating dead and downer, 4D cattle, from the feed stream was a disproportionately effective means of reducing the risk of re-infection. “The disposition of cattle that die on the farm would also have a substantial influence on the spread of BSE if the disease were introduced.” The base case scenario showed that the mean total number of ID50s (i.e., dosage sufficient to infect 50 percent of exposed cattle) from healthy animals at slaughter presented to the food/feed system was 1500. The mean total number of ID50s from adult cattle deadstock presented to the feed system was 37,000. This illustrates the risk of “4D cattle” (i.e., deadstock). From the Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001, Appendix 3A Base Case and Harvard Risk Assessment, 2001 Executive Summary McDonald’s also urges agencies of the US government to work with academia and industry on research in the following areas: • Methods to inactivate TSEs agents which then may allow a product to be used and even fed to animals without risk • Alternative uses for animal byproducts which would maintain some value In July 2004, McDonald’s in cooperation with others sponsored a meeting at Penn State. The purpose of the meeting was to review work conducted by Dr. Bruce Miller looking at the feasibility of using carcasses and animal byproducts as renewable alternatives to fossil fuels in large energy generating boilers. A number of government representatives were also invited to this meeting. We are aware that Dr. Miller continues this work which shows great promise. We suggest that the FDA explore the possibility of this alternative use that may also have a positive impact on the environment. The McDonald’s Corporation will continue to work with the FDA and other government agencies to implement a strong BSE risk control program. We would like to reiterate our opinion that for the FDA to provide a more comprehensive and protective feed ban, specified risk materials (SRMs) and deadstock must be removed from all animal feed and that legal exemptions which allow ruminant protein to be fed back to ruminants (with the exception of milk) should be discontinued. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments to the public record. Respectfully, Dick Crawford Corporate Vice President, Government Relations 630-623-6754 Direct 630-623-3057 Facsimile [email protected] C:\Documents and Settings\mc07605\My Documents\MYDATA\BSE - US\FDA\Final McD's comments to FDA Rule 12-19-05.doc ... 134-02.pdf ... 122205.htm


PAUL BROWN M.D. ... -vol40.pdf

9 December 2005
Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)

James J. Kramer, Ph.D.
Vice President, Corporate Operations ... -vol35.pdf

Embassy of Japan ... -EC240.htm

Terry S. Singeltary ... 5IFA-2.pdf

Dockets Entered on December 22, 2005
2005D-0330, Guidance for Industry and FDA Review Staff on Collection of Platelets by Automated ... EC 203, McDonald's Restaurants Corporation, Vol #:, 34 ... ... 122205.htm

03-025IF 03-025IF-631 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF] Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-631 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8. Page 9. Page 10. Page 11. Page 12. ... IF-631.pdf

03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF] Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8. ... IF-634.pdf

Page 1 of 17 9/13/2005 [PDF]... 2005 6:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA]
FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food ... ... 5IFA-2.pdf

03-025IFA 03-025IFA-6 Jason Frost [PDF]... Zealand Embassy COMMENTS ON FEDERAL REGISTER 9 CFR Parts 309 et al[Docket No. 03-025IF] Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and... ... 5IFA-6.pdf

In its opinion of 7-8 December 2000 (EC 2000), the SSC ... [PDF]Page 1. Linda A. Detwiler, DVM 225 Hwy 35 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 Phone:732-741-2290 Cell: 732-580-9391 Fax: 732-741-7751 June 22, 2005 FSIS Docket Clerk US ... ... IF-589.pdf

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Atypical BSE North America Update February 2009


Considering that Mad Cow disease of all documented phenotypes, either the c-BSE, or the atypical h-BSE and or the l-BSE, ALL of which have been documented in North America, how many more, who knows, but they seem to be throwing all there marbles in the pot now by calling the h-type BSE 'familial'. what happens if we come up with another strain ? kinda like the sporadic FFI, that's not familial, what's that all about ? considering the many different strains of the typical scrapie 20+, and then the atypical Nor-98 Scrapie, which the USA has documented 6 cases the last i heard, and the thought of more than one strain of CWD in deer and elk, where will the next year, 4 years, 8 years, and beyond take us in the world of human and animal Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy and 'sound science' in the USA ? WILL the New Administration see the enfamous enhanced bse surveillance program of 2004 for what it was, a fraud, and have a 'redo' ? WE can hope i suppose. ...TSS

Both of the BSE cases ascertained in the US native-born cattle were atypical cases (H-type), which contributed to the initial ambiguity of the diagnosis. 174, 185 In Canada, there have been 2 atypical BSE cases in addition to the 14 cases of the classic UK strain of BSE2: one was the H-type, and the other was of the L-type.198


source :

Enhanced Abstract Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association January 1, 2009, Vol. 234, No. 1, Pages 59-72

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

Jane L. Harman, DVM, PhD; Christopher J. Silva, PhD ... a.234.1.59

Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:37 PM

"we have found that H-BSE can infect humans."

personal communication with Professor Kong. ...TSS

see full text ; ... pdate.html

Sunday, December 28, 2008
MAD COW DISEASE USA DECEMBER 28, 2008 an 8 year review of a failed and flawed policy ... 008-8.html

Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Mad Cow Disease typical and atypical strains, was there a cover-up ?
August 20, 2008 ... y-mad.html


A New Prionopathy OR more of the same old BSe and sporadic CJD

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogsp ... d-bse.html

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

Latest posts