USDA vs. FDA

[Oldtimer]

Who's on first in battle against BSE?


Friday, October 12, 2007 11:25 AM MDT




Our Views

In the old Superman comics there is an alternative world, an alternate reality, where things are topsy-turvy, or opposite. This alternate reality place was called “Bizarro world.” One might make the case we are experiencing our own “Bizarro world” given what's taking place in regards to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and how two U.S. government agencies are handling the situation.

One might think that since BSE involves cattle, the agency most concerned about keeping the disease out of the U.S. would be the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but that's not the case.

Last month the USDA published a final rule to allow older Canadian cattle into this country. The rule allows for the importation of Canadian cattle and bison for any use born on or after March 1, 1999 - the date determined by USDA to be the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada. The ruling also lifts a delay on meat and meat products from bovines older than 30 months of age that was imposed in March 2005.

What's disconcerting about that decision is that although USDA's Chief Veterinary Officer Dr. John Clifford said the likelihood of BSE becoming established in the U.S. cattle population by allowing additional commodities from Canada is negligible, he went on to say that his agency's risk assessment acknowledged the presence of BSE in Canada and that there likely would be additional cases identified in the future.

Given the number of cases of BSE that have been found in Canada, and the fact USDA admits additional cases of BSE in Canada are likely to be found, we questioned the wisdom of this action.





So, here we have a government agency whose responsibility it is to look out for the welfare of the agriculture industry, making a decision that, if it errs, errs on the side of optimism - that BSE won't enter into the U.S. cattle.

Now, contrast that with the action of another U.S. government agency - the Food and Drug Administration.

This agency is so afraid of BSE that it has imposed a ban on sperm from all European countries with exposure to BSE (mad cow disease). In May of 2005, FDA effectively blocked donors from Denmark to the United Kingdom. So for American parents looking for donor sperm to produce blond, blue-eyed Scandinavian babies - well, that just got a little tougher.



Scientists have said concerned doctors could always screen potential donors to see if they might be at high-risk for BSE.

Hmmm. Very interesting.

Let's get this straight - even though there's no evidence that mad cow disease can be transmitted in human semen, the FDA has imposed a ban that doesn't allow donor sperm from persons located in a country where mad cow was found in cattle for fear BSE could somehow be transmitted to other humans and, somewhere down the line, the U.S. cattle indsutry.

On the other hand, the USDA is going to allow cattle, from which BSE can be transmitted, to be imported from a country where BSE has been found and will likely be found again, according to their own assessment.

It makes one wonder who is looking out for the best interests of agriculture, and who is looking out for the welfare of the population.

Welcome to Bizarro world.

http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/ ... ters10.txt

 

[SSAP]

OT can you explain to all of us why you underlined the part that; fears human sperm will transmit BSE to the U.S cattle industry?

 

[Oldtimer]

OT can you explain to all of us why you underlined the part that; fears human sperm will transmit BSE to the U.S cattle industry?

Because its part of the totally conflicting policies taken by too US government agencies who's primary responsiblity over the products they oversee is supposed to be consumer safety....

 

[SSAP]

Are you not the least bit curious to know if this was 'just the opinion ' (exaggeration) of the author -added- to imply that it was part of the FDA ban?

Since you replied that it is "part of the totally conflicting policies", please post the FDA policy that supports the fear that human sperm will transmit BSE to the US cattle industry.

 

[frenchie]

In the old Superman comics there is an alternative world, an alternate reality, where things are topsy-turvy, or opposite

Welcome to Ots alternate reality SSAP :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[flounder]

the reason they are concerned about sperm or embryo's so much, even though there is no definitive proof yet, are the recent 4 cases of blood transfussion nvCJD cases. the fact blood can transmit the TSE agent, means that it could be in urine and or sperm.




Dr. Charles A. Sims, Medical Director of California Cryobank, Inc.,
requested that FDA consider more specific risk based criteria for human
sperm and egg donors than those currently in the FDA guidelines.


Dr. Paul Brown, speaking for Nordic Cryobank, stated that sperm from
European donors does not pose a risk of vCJD transmission and that its
exclusion from use in the U.S. should be reconsidered by the FDA.

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/ac/06/ ... pdated.pdf



vCJD and Blood Components – Clinical Information
January 2007
1
VARIANT CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE (vCJD) and BLOOD
COMPONENTS
CLINICAL INFORMATION – January 2007
This document contains information relating to patients identified as ‘at
risk
of vCJD for public health purposes’ due to receipt of blood transfusion from
a
donor who was later found to have vCJD. We hope it will provide answers to
queries these individuals may raise with their healthcare staff.


snip...


9.2 Future donation of blood, tissue and organs:
Patients who are considered to be ‘at-risk’ of vCJD are asked not to donate
organs, tissues or blood.
There is no evidence that vCJD can be sexually transmitted or transmitted
from parent to child. However, as a precautionary measure, men who are
‘atrisk’
of vCJD should be advised not to be sperm donors, and women who are
‘at-risk’ of vCJD should be advised not to donate eggs or breast milk.


http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics ... Info07.pdf




(b) maternal transmission 1st August 1996
Preliminary results of a seven year study to determine whether
the maternal transmission of BSE occurs were announced in the
UK. They showed that, up until the 14th July 1996, 42 of 273
animals born to dams with BSE have developed
histopathologically confirmed BSE, and that 13 of 273 animals
born to animals without BSE have also developed the disease.
This, the report says, puts the risk of maternal transmission at
approximately 10% for this study. BSE would be expected to
occur in both groups since some of the cattle were born before
the ruminant feed ban in 1988.
The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC),
concluded that under field conditions the maternal transmission
rate was of the order of 1%. They came to this conclusion by
extrapolating the fact that the majority of offspring which
developed BSE were born to dams which developed BSE
themselves within 6 months. This indicated that there was an
enhanced risk of maternal transmission in the last six months of
the BSE incubation period. (Average BSE incubation period 60
months.)
The report did not provide any information on the route of
maternal transmission. Embryo transfer experiments were
underway. No infectivity had been detected in the bovine
placenta, milk or blood.


The BSE Inquiry / Statement No 156
British Veterinary Association
(scheduled to give evidence Monday 5th October 1998)


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s156.pdf



Placental transmission has been proposed as a likely route for vertical
transmission for scrapie in sheep, although the existence of vertical
transmission of scrapie has been disputed [Ridley and Baker (1995)]; but
placental transmission has not been demonstrated with BSE in cattle. Until
recently, there has been no evidence of maternal transmission in cattle. A
large-scale epidemiological study [Hoinville et al (1995)] should have
brought to light the occurrence of vertical transmission if it occurred,
but it did not, which was strongly suggestive of no significant
occurrence.
Preliminary results from the long-term experimental trials started in
1989,
involving 315 calves born to BSE-infected dams (nearly all born within 13
months and many within 5 months before clinical onset of BSE in the dams)
and 315 controls born of healthy dams, were the subject of a MAFF
announcement and a SEAC report on 1 August 1996 [a paper was submitted for
publication in Nature and was actually quoted as reference 6 in the
Anderson et al paper (1996), but was subsequently withdrawn]. Some 550
animals, having reached their seventh birthdays had already been
slaughtered and their brains histologically examined. BSE occurred in 15%
of the test animals and 5% of the controls [presumed to be due to exposure
to infected meat-and-bonemeal feed in their early years]. SEAC assumed
that this represented 10% risk of maternal transmission in the trials,
and, by assuming further that the risk is negligible in calves born
through the earlier part of the dams' incubation period, estimated a risk
of 1% in the field. However, the latter was unsubstantiated speculation,
based on an unverified assumption.
What the trial showed was a statistically significant association between
BSE-infected dams and occurrence of BSE in the calves, At that time, both
MAFF and SEAC automatically assumed maternal transmission without
considering any other possibility. However, the SEAC Statement of 16 April
1997, and the Report of its Epidemiology Sub-Committee dated 11 April
1997, concerning the evaluation of the results of the completed seven-year
cohort study, and in particular the attempts to use statistical modelling
to assess the respective contributions of maternal transmission and
genetic predisposition coupled with exposure to contaminated feed,
concluded that the latter played a part, and called for research in that
area. For IFST and others who pointed out earlier, and have continued to
point out, that the latter was a possibility to be equally considered, it
is gratifying to note that this is now being taken seriously.


http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/fs ... -98-02.txt


Embryo Transfer in Sheep

7. The NPU have informally reported some disturbing results in experiments
intended to demonstrate that properly washed embryos from scrapie infected
sheep do not transmit infection. Some resulting offspring, which were not
expected to succumb, have in fact done so. These results are open to a
number of possible interpretations, one being that the disease could be
spread through semen.


snip...


IF published it will inevitable cause problems with out continued export of
genetic material from cattle and sheep, in the form of embryos or semen. ...


see full text ;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 002001.pdf


Whereas previously it was considered that trade in bovine embryos presented
only a negligible risk of endangering the health of livestock in Member
STates with respect to bovine spongiform encephalopathy; whereas, however,
recent evidence relating to sheep experimentally infected with scrapie now
suggests that bovine embryos MAY REPRESENT MORE THAN A NEGLIGIBLE RISK;


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/lb/l18/tab22.pdf



Terrestrial Animal Health Code (2007)


http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/MCODE/en_ ... _3.3.3.htm


see page 10 EMBRYO TRANSFER

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 008001.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 002001.pdf


ADVICE TO FARMERS

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 009001.pdf


PLAYING WITH WORDS


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 010001.pdf



Gummer, Embryos, and the Russians

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 005001.pdf


IN CONFIDENCE

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 008001.pdf


TSS

 

[Oldtimer]

Are you not the least bit curious to know if this was 'just the opinion ' (exaggeration) of the author -added- to imply that it was part of the FDA ban?

Since you replied that it is "part of the totally conflicting policies", please post the FDA policy that supports the fear that human sperm will transmit BSE to the US cattle industry.

I'm going to leave the researching the FDA site to you (they are about impossible to manuever)...All I know is that there are several similar articles floating the media this last week-- and it is ironic, how our FDA and USDA could have such conflicting policies.....

Just another example of the unknowns and unscience involved with BSE and how everything is theory made up of the best SWAG--scientific wild assed guess......

Conflicting just like when USDA says the Canadian cattle pose little risk-- while FDA says the Canadian cattle are 26 times the risk..... :roll: :shock:

Conflicting like the USDA that admits the possibility/probability of importing more BSE (positive BSE cases after the 'magic' feed ban date), but is screaming open the border- the US consumer and US herd be damned, allowing economics to override US personal and US herd health-- but FDA appears to be taking the risk much more seriously and making its decisions to error on the side of consumer safety...

USDA is bought and owned lock, stock, and barrel by the multinational Packer monopoly lobbiests....